Agrégateur de flux

À la veille de la Fête du trône marquant son intronisation il y a 25 ans, le roi du Maroc Mohammed VI a gracié, lundi, des milliers de personnes, dont trois journalistes – Omar Radi, Soulaimane Raissouni et Taoufik Bouachrine – et un intellectuel, l'historien et défenseur des droits humains franco-marocain Maâti Monjib.

Six tirailleurs africains dont quatre Sénégalais, un Ivoirien et un soldat issu de la Haute-Volta (devenu Burkina Faso) viennent officiellement d'être reconnus "morts pour la France à titre posthume". Tous ont été exécutés sur ordre d'officiers de l'armée française au camp de Thiaroye, au Sénégal en la nuit du 1er décembre 1944. Dimanche soir le premier ministre sénégalais, Ousmane Sonko, a réagit. 

July 27 marked the seventy-first anniversary of the Korean Armistice Agreement in 1953. The Korean Peninsula suffered a horrific war from June 25, 1950, instigated by North Korean forces, which resulted in millions of casualties and injuries and displaced up to 8 million people. The devastating war destroyed widespread infrastructure in both North and South Korea, including homes, hospitals, schools, factories, roads, railways, and bridges, pummeling cities [DM1] into ashes.

Therefore, our nation must never forget the horrific history of the Korean War started by Kim Il-sung, the leader of North Korea. Kim Jong-un, his grandson, has identified South Korea as “a state most hostile” to North Korea and boasted that in the event of a war, he would “use all our super power to wipe [our enemies] out.”

Former South Korean president Moon Jae-in and Kim Jong-un agreed to the Panmunjom Declaration in 2018, which established a peace process on the sixty-fifth anniversary of the Armistice Agreement. Moon proposed replacing the Armistice Agreement with a declaration of the end of the war, promoting coexistence between North and South Korea and asserted that the end-of-war declaration would lead to the resolution of the North Korean nuclear issue. This was a misstep that failed to perceive the true ambitions and nature of the North Korean dictatorship, which has been preparing for armed reunification for more than half a century. Relying on the goodwill of a hostile country is a very dangerous idea.

I have experienced all three generations of North Korean leaders, from Kim Il-sung to Kim Jong-il and Kim Jong-un, and have been in close proximity to them to understand their policies of armed reunification with the South for over thirty years. Until Kim Il-sung’s death in 1994, slogans in the offices of the Workers’ Party and the military read, “Let’s unify the country in the leader’s era [Kim Il-sung].” During Kim Jong-il’s reign, the line went, “Let’s unify the country in the general’s [Kim Jong-il’s] era .” Kim Jong-un even openly stated that he would make 2013 the year of a “nationwide patriotic struggle for reunification” and accelerated preparations for war. These are examples that show the direct ambition of the Kim regime to invade South Korea.

Former South Korean presidents Kim Dae-jung, Roh Moo-hyun, and Moon Jae-in held five peace talks with North Korean dictators Kim Jong-il and Kim Jong-un. However, all those peace summits failed. Instead, North Korea received over a billion dollars in food and energy aid from the U.S. (until 2009) and ROK governments, advancing its nuclear missile development, and now threatens South Korea and world peace with nuclear weapons. Signing a peace agreement and coexisting with a hostile country that possesses nuclear weapons is as foolish as inviting a gangster into one’s home and trying to live peacefully with them.

The declaration of the end of the war is literally a declaration that the war is over. It is to confirm the complete end of the war state between the North and South to the 80 million people on the Korean Peninsula and the international community. Therefore, it must be clarified that the end-of-war declaration is different from the current Armistice Agreement system. Any peace must dismantle the demilitarized zone (DMZ), a scar of division and war. The ugly barbed wire fences stretching about 248 km should be removed, and the millions of mines cleared. At the same time, all the numerous military facilities, equipment, and soldiers stationed there should be withdrawn entirely, and the area declared a peace zone.

The North and South are historically one nation. Therefore, if the war is declared over, the land routes and railways crossing the thirty-eighth parallel should be immediately connected and opened, allowing residents of both the North and South to travel freely between Seoul and Pyongyang as they did before 1945. Moreover, peaceful cities and villages should be built together around the former DMZ, complete with “peace parks” and facilities for commerce and tourism.

Moreover, if an end-of-war declaration is made, the closed North Korean regime should open the country and announce a reform policy that guarantees freedom and human rights to its residents. Without such guarantees, residents of both the North and South cannot freely interact, and economic exchanges cannot occur, nor can separated families exchange emails or phone calls. The North Korean regime should also pledge to the international community and the people of both Koreas that it will make denuclearization irreversible. Such prerequisites must be met for a true end-of-war declaration, and it must be agreed upon by the parties involved and the United Nations and announced to the world. Without such binding guarantees, if an end-of-war declaration is made formally, the Kim Jong-un regime could change at any time.

In reality, peace cannot be achieved for free. Genuine peace on the Korean Peninsula can only be guaranteed if the oppressive Kim Jong-un regime falls. This would allow North Korea to open up, guaranteeing economic freedom, rights, and private property to its residents, liberating them from the shackles of slavery. Peace cannot thrive where there is tyranny. Therefore, if the cruel oppression of the North Korean dictatorship continues and the freedom and human rights of North Korean residents are not guaranteed, South Korea cannot even think about peaceful coexistence with the North.

Peace on the Korean Peninsula is not limited to the end-of-war declaration and peace agreements. Due to the ongoing confrontation between communist forces and the free world surrounding the Korean Peninsula, the stability of the peace regime requires the unification of systems between the North and South. In the 1970s, Vietnam also signed a peace agreement, but eventually, North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam and achieved reunification under communist rule. Therefore, peace on the Korean Peninsula will be complete when both the North and South are unified under a free democratic system.

The previous Moon Jae-in administration disingenuously claimed that the end-of-war declaration was not legally binding and merely a political declaration unrelated to the Armistice Agreement, with nothing to do with the dissolution of the UN Command or the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Korea.[AL8] [DM9] 

If the end-of-war declaration lacks international legally binding power, there is a possibility that the North Korean dictator could reverse it at any time, exploiting it continuously. Especially if a declaration is made, the North Korean regime will demand the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Korea and the cessation of U.S.-ROK joint military exercises, inciting protests within South Korea to drive out U.S. forces through candlelight protests. On October 27, 2021, at the Fourth Committee of the UN General Assembly, North Korea’s ambassador to the UN, Kim Song, demanded the dissolution of the UN Command in Korea. This should be seen as the true intention of the North Korean regime regarding the end-of-war declaration.

In 2021, several Democratic legislators, including Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA), proposed the Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act. In response, thirty-five Republican House members sent an open letter to the White House, expressing deep concerns that the end-of-war declaration would seriously threaten security on the Korean Peninsula. Ironically, some Korean Americans have been lobbying for years to pass the legislation. If their families were living like slaves under the most closed and oppressive regime in the world, would they still advocate for a peace agreement with it?

Moreover, some Korea watchers argue that North Korea behaves better when the United States engages with and makes concessions to it. This logic overlooks why North Korean residents live like slaves and why Kim Jong-un pours the state’s resources into developing nuclear weapons. North Korea’s foreign policy has always been based on deception. For example, when the U.S.-North Korea nuclear agreement was signed in Geneva in 1994, Kim Jong-il rejoiced that he had fooled President Bill Clinton. He boasted to senior officials, “We gained time to develop nuclear weapons and received free light-water reactors worth $4.6 billion and 500,000 tons of heavy fuel oil annually until the reactors are completed.” This is what I heard directly from Kim Jong-il’s speech to senior officials in 1998 at the Central Committee of the Workers’ Party.

For the past half-century, the North Korean regime has had no intention of honoring agreements for reconciliation and cooperation with the South or the United States. Yet, some experts criticize Washington and Seoul for not keeping their promises to Pyongyang. Kim Jong-un sees nuclear weapons as a powerful means to ensure his survival and regime protection, a way to maintain a balance of power between the North and South and a tool to unify the South under his rule through nuclear force. North Korean dictators have been attempting to unify South Korea by force for more than half a century. Expecting the North Korean regime to honor the end-of-war declaration and peace agreements without changing the Kim family regime is an unrealistic fantasy.

About the Author

Ri Jong Ho is a former senior North Korean economic official who served under all three leaders of the Kim family regime. His most recent role was based in Dalian, China, where he headed the Korea Daehung Trading Corporation, overseen by the clandestine Office 39 under the direct control of the ruling Kim family. Before his assignment in Dalian, Jong Ho held pivotal positions, including President of the Daehung Shipping Company and Executive Director of the Daehung General Bureau of the North Korean Workers’ Party, a role equivalent to Vice-Minister rank in the North Korean party-state. Subsequently, he was appointed Chairman of the Korea Kumgang Economic Development Group (KKG) under the North Korean Defense Committee by Kim Jong-il. Jong Ho is a recipient of the Hero of Labor Award, the highest civilian honor in North Korea. Following a series of brutal purges by Kim Jong-un, he defected with his family to South Korea in late 2014. Currently, Jong Ho resides in the greater Washington, DC area.

Image: KCNA Screenshot for main image. Intext image is from Shutterstock. 

Nous sommes à Kirkenes, dans l’extrême nord norvégien, une ville frontalière avec la Russie. Depuis la guerre en Ukraine et la dégradation des relations entre l’Europe et la Russie, le quotidien est chamboulé. Dans cette petite ville de 3 500 habitants, on assiste en plein Arctique, au retour du rideau de fer, après 30 ans de cohabitation avec les Russes. La coopération transfrontalière était synonyme d’espoir et de prospérité dans la région, mais depuis février  2022, tout s’est arrêté ou presque. (Rediffusion)

Summary and Key Points: During the Korean War, the U.S. Navy outfitted Iowa-class battleships with nuclear capabilities through Operation Katie, enabling them to fire Mark 23 "Katie" nuclear shells.

-The USS Iowa, USS New Jersey, and USS Wisconsin were equipped to carry these 15-20 kiloton nuclear projectiles, similar in power to the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

-This classified program, which began in 1952, aimed to provide the Navy with unparalleled firepower capable of destroying entire cities or Soviet battle groups. Although the Katie shells were never used in combat, their presence highlighted the extent of nuclear armament strategies during the Cold War.

Could the U.S. Navy's best battleship, the Iowa-class, actually fire nuclear-tipped shells?

With the Korean War in full swing in the early 1950s, the U.S. Navy had its own wants and needs, plus rivalries with other service branches. The Army, Air Force, and submarines with the Navy were armed with nuclear weapons, but no surface ships could fire atomic devices. One plan was to outfit three of the Iowa-class battleships so they could launch a nuclear shell from the vessels’ main 16-inch guns.

“Katie Bar the Door”

Operation Katie was the name of the program. The moniker came from the abbreviation for kilotons (kt). The idea was to take Army tactical nuclear shells and retrofit them for battleship use.

These were called Mark 23 "Katie" nuclear projectiles and fifty were produced beginning in 1952 and the first arrived in 1956.

The Iowa-class Battleship Would Deliver the Nuclear Round

The navy outfitted the USS Iowa, USS New Jersey, and USS Wisconsin with altered magazines on the ships to carry the shells. Each ship would have ten Katie projectiles and nine practice shells.

This would give the navy the biggest and most powerful nuclear artillery in the world – a total of 135–180 kilotons of yield.

Each Katie Nuclear Shell Would Have Ample Power

The Mark 23 was derived from the Army’s Mark 9 – the first nuclear artillery shell. The Navy’s Mark 23 had a 15-20 kiloton nuclear warhead – about the size of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War Two.

So, the Katie would be able to take out a city day or night and in all weather. In a naval battle, it could destroy an entire Soviet battle group. The navy’s nuclear shell was thought to be accurate.

It Took Some Clever Engineering

These shells required careful engineering. “Naval Gazing,” a blog dedicated to the USS Iowa and other battleships, had this to say about nuclear devices fired from artillery.

“An artillery shell is an incredibly difficult environment to put a complicated device like a nuclear warhead. It must withstand normal handling, thousands of Gs of acceleration as it’s fired, and the centrifuge of a shell spinning at 10,000 rpm or more.”

Navy Kept It Classified

It was no surprise that the navy wanted to keep this under wraps, and they never confirmed or denied the presence of nuclear shells on the vessels.

Could the Katie Have Been Used to “Win” a Nuclear War?

But it is plausible that the shells were employed on the battleships. In those days nuclear planners believed the United States could “win” a nuclear war with the Soviets. The Katie shells showed just how far the military was willing to go with nuclear weapons. The nuclear option that would escalate from a conventional war was a real prospect.

The Military Was In the Nuclear Age

Fred Kaplan, writing in his book The Bomb: Presidents, Generals, and the Secret History of Nuclear War summarized the military’s thinking during the era.

“All of these options envision the bomb as a weapon of war, writ large. This vision has been enshrined in the American military’s doctrines, drills, and exercises from the onset of the nuclear era through all its phases.”

Thus, the Katie was part of a larger military strategy. By 1962, the Katie shells were removed and thankfully never used, although the USS Wisconsin may have fired a practice round in 1957. The body of a Mark 23 shell is on display today at a nuclear museum in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

About the Author

Brent M. Eastwood, Ph.D., 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: All Images are Creative Commons. 

Deux enfants ont été tués et onze personnes ont été blessées, dont neuf enfants, dans une attaque au couteau qui a eu lieu lundi 29 juillet en fin de matinée dans une école de danse de Southport, dans le nord-ouest de l'Angleterre, a indiqué la police.

EUHealthGov held its fourth Practitioner Perspective on 11th July 2024. We were delighted to host Gloria Ghéquière, Advisor in the Cabinet of the Belgian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Social Affairs and Public Health, Frank Vandenbroucke, to discuss the work done on health by the Belgian Presidency of the European Council between January and June 2024.

This period has continued to see a wide range of pressures on healthcare systems beyond the perennial challenge of ageing populations and the implications this has for costs and workforce. For example, climate change not only increases the risk of new pandemics, but also raises questions about the location of hospitals and drinking water installations in flood areas. A further consideration is market challenges as illustrated by increased medicine shortages of cheap basic medicines, as well as increasing costs for new innovative treatments. Against this backdrop what becomes clear is that there is a role for the EU to play with regard to health. The Belgian presidency drew overall on a range of policy proposals to develop further the European Health Union and to help keep health high on the agenda following the European Parliament elections and anticipating a new Commission mandate.

A key focus of the Belgian presidency’s work has been medicine shortages, which received most support across the Member States. This is a structural problem, with a twentyfold increase in medicine shortages seen between 2000 and 2018. Whereas Europe produced just over half (53%) of global active pharmaceutical ingredients in 2000, today production is found in Asia which is explained by an economic model of extreme economic cost-cutting and increased risk. Belgium has been instrumental in launching the idea of a Critical Medicines Act, which would allow investment in critical production in Europe, but also to establish international partnerships to stabilise global supply and to diversify supply chains.  Belgium also connected this idea with the solidarity mechanism at EU level which ensures that no patient in the EU should die or experience extreme consequences as a result of medicine shortages.

The Belgian presidency also promoted prevention of non-communicable diseases, by building on pre-existing EU initiatives such as the Beating Cancer Plan, and has recently welcomed the Commission’s recommendations for a Smoke Free Environment. This leads to a range of considerations regarding challenges of implementation, not only in connection with political will, but also how preventive actions may be located in the portfolios of different Directorates-General, and questions of how these do (or do not) work together.

Further topics covered by the Belgian presidency included work on a clinical trial coordination mechanism to be able to carry out publicly and privately-funded clinical trials on a large scale across the EU in a much more efficient way, and finalising negotiations on the European Health Data Space.

More about the Belgian presidency’s work can be found in the Council’s recommendations from June 2024 available here.

The post Summary: Health and the Belgian Presidency: Practitioner Perspective with Gloria Ghéquière appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Summary and Key Points: The Essex-class aircraft carriers, with 24 built and 17 seeing combat in WWII, played a crucial role in U.S. naval dominance from the mid-20th century through the Vietnam War.

-Designed with input from naval personnel, these carriers were built for durability and combat efficiency, with innovations like Special Treatment Steel and advanced propulsion systems.

-They saw action in key battles across the Pacific, proving resilient against kamikaze attacks.

-The final Essex-class carrier, USS Oriskany, notably served in Vietnam. Decommissioned in the 1970s, these carriers leave a legacy of exceptional shipbuilding and naval combat prowess.

Essex-Class Aircraft Carriers: The Backbone of U.S. Naval Power from WWII to Vietnam

If you were a sailor assigned to U.S. Naval aviation during the middle of 1943 and onward, you probably served on one of the Essex-class of aircraft carriers.

Twenty-four were built though the Navy originally wanted 32. This stalwart served through the 1960s and 1970s when the new super aircraft carriers came online. 

These capital ships meant business. They beat back the Japanese and helped face down the Soviets during the Cold War after a sterling record toward the end of World War Two. One of the more famous carriers even served in Vietnam.

This is the story of the worthy Essex-class carrier that won’t leave you disappointed.

Essex-Class Aircraft Carrier: Bend But Not Break

Of the 32 original Essex ships, the Navy cancelled eight while 24 were laid down. Seventeen of the Essex-class carriers saw combat in the Second World War. The Essex ships served at the end of the war in the Pacific starting in 1944, at a time when scads of Japanese kamikaze pilots menaced American vessels. The Essex-class were survivable carriers, some suffered damage from the suicide missions, but no ship was lost.

The Americans Believed the Carriers Had a Promising Future

The Essex-class began in the late 1930s with the rise of Germany and Japan. Congress passed legislation in 1938 to increase the tonnage of ships in a departure from limitations imposed by the Washington Naval Treaty that ended in 1936. Designers wanted the carriers to sail through the Panama Canal, so this put a limit on their size. But engineers and officers who served onboard other carriers envisioned a flat-top that could bring the fight to the enemy and win major naval engagements.

The shipbuilding activity was a team effort from the beginning. In a process that was ahead of its time, feedback and opinions from pilots, catapult and arresting gear personnel, ship drivers, and maintenance technicians were gathered and used to design the Essex-class. 

Punch Out the Enemy 

Curiously, the Navy wanted to employ a concept called the “Sunday Punch.” This meant the flight deck would be capable of handling four squadrons totaling 90 aircraft for a decisive blow against the enemy with a single mission. Aviation chiefs envisioned at least 36 fighters, 37 dive bombers, and 18 torpedo bombers. This made it difficult to build the flight deck big enough to handle all those airplanes. But if the design eliminated some of the guns and allowed the deck to hang over the ship, the arsenal of aircraft would fit. 

The Navy determined that the island could be downsized to enlarge the flight deck too. Putting the folding elevators toward the edge of the ship also conserved space on the rectangular-shaped flight deck. The deck was finally designed to be 872 feet with two catapults and several arrestor cables.

In an innovation for that time, the shipbuilders used Special Treatment Steel (STS), which is a nickel-chromium steel alloy. This enabled many parts of the ship such as the hangar deck and bulkheads to have more protective armor. The ships displaced 34,000 tons.

Then the Building Started All Over the Eastern Seaboard

In those days, the United States had several shipyards in Virginia, Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania. Construction began in 1941. The first of the class, the USS Essex, had its keel laid after Pearl Harbor. By 1942, five other Essex-class carriers were being built. 

Propulsion System Was Top-Notch

Several design improvements were used in the ship's engine rooms. Steam turbines were implemented instead of the turbo-electric designs of Langley and the Lexington-class. There would be four boiler rooms and two engine rooms located at the center of the ship. Each boiler room had two Babcock and Wilcox boilers burning at 850°F. The engines were Westinghouse steam turbines with low-pressure and high-pressure turbines affixed to double-reduction gears. This enabled 15 to 20,000 nautical miles of range with a speed of 15 knots.

The Carriers Had Early Sensors

The Essex-class would have early types of shipborne radar for tracking enemy ships and aircraft. It could carry 1,600 tons of munitions. Armaments included eight five-inch dual-purpose guns, thirty-two 40mm Bofors anti-aircraft guns, and 46 Oerlikon anti-aircraft guns. 

Essex-class Served All Over the Pacific

The Essex-class was busy during the Philippines, Okinawa, and Iwo Jima campaigns. The carriers often launched all their airplanes for attacks to soften the beach landings and to conduct close air support for the marines fighting on the ground. Enemy airplanes, especially the occasional Japanese bomber that made it through the defenses, and the kamikaze pilots, took their toll and caused damage, but no sinkings occurred. 

Sea Stories About the Oriskany: A Personal Story 

The last of the Essex-class was the USS Oriskany made famous by one of its pilots, John McCain, who was shot down and taken prisoner in 1967. The Oriskany made multiple tours in the Vietnam War. My father-in-law Eddie Sanchez served on the Oriskany toward the end of the war as a flight deck crewman. The Oriskany was performing numerous sorties around the clock in those days. I asked Sanchez if he worked on the flight deck for 24 hours and 24-hours off to rest up. He said, “We worked 48 hours straight and only about 10 to 12 hours to rest after each rotation. Then it was back on the flight deck. Countless airplanes landed and took off. I remember constant action.” The duty was dangerous. Sanchez once saw a sailor cut in half with a broken arrestor wire whipped across the deck. Some sailors were lost overboard due to various accidents. 

The End of Duty

The Essex-carriers were decommissioned in the 1970s. USS Lexington became a training carrier in Pensacola, Florida, and was finally taken out of service in 1991. Now USS Lexington and her sister ships USS Yorktown, USS Intrepid, and USS Hornet are preserved as four of the five aircraft carrier museum ships in the United States.

Naval aviation would never have dominated the air without the Essex-class. The carriers served with distinction, from World War Two, until the Vietnam War. The battles were dangerous as the capital ships provided the Japanese with large targets to hit. And the Oriskany proved it could hold its own in battle during Vietnam. The Essex leaves a proud legacy of combat and shipbuilding prowess with innovative design. It would be difficult to imagine today’s industrial base building that many carriers in such a short amount of time. 

Expert Biography: Dr. Brent M. Eastwood

Dr. Brent M. Eastwood 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. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science and Foreign Policy/ International Relations.

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: Lockheed Martin's European F-16 Training Center (EFTC) in Romania has successfully graduated its first class of mission-ready F-16 pilots. Located at the Romanian Air Force 76th Air Base near Fetești, the center, supported by the Netherlands, trained seven Romanian pilots in advanced flight operations and tactics.

-Opened in November, the EFTC aims to enhance NATO's air defense capabilities by providing comprehensive training, including night missions and dissimilar air-to-air exercises.

-U.S. Ambassador Kathleen Kavalec praised the pilots and highlighted future plans to extend training to other regional allies, including Ukraine. Romania continues to modernize its air force with additional F-16 and F-35 acquisitions.

Romania Graduates First Class from Lockheed Martin’s F-16 Training Center

Last summer, aerospace giant Lockheed Martin announced it would establish the European F-16 Training Center (EFTC) in Romania to enhance mission readiness throughout Europe by training Romanian pilots to fly and operate the F-16 Fighting Falcon to hopefully expand and include training for other nations.

The flight training facility, located at the Romanian Air Force 76th Air Base near Fete ti, Romania opened in November. The Netherlands, a fellow NATO member state, supported the EFTC by supplying fourteen F-16s to train Romanian and Ukrainian aviators.

Less than a year after the effort was first unveiled, Lockheed Martin acknowledged that the facility released its first batch of "mission-ready F-16 pilots." just last week.

"This milestone enhances Romania's air defense capabilities and mission readiness with our 21st Century Security training solutions. We appreciate Romania’s trust in us and are committed to supporting their pioneering efforts, including hosting the first European F-16 Training Center, which underscores their strategic importance within NATO and European defense," said OJ Sanchez, vice president and general manager of the Integrated Fighter Group at Lockheed Martin.

According to defense contractors, the EFTC has seen its training capabilities expanded, and the Fighting Falcons have been employed in "night training missions and executing dissimilar air-to-air training exercises with allied NATO air forces." Seven Romanian pilots completed the program, while the second and third classes began in early July and were set for September of this year.

"I want to convey my hearty congratulations to the seven Romanian Air Force pilots who have successfully completed a demanding course of instruction over the past eight months, which included rigorous academics, simulator flights, mission planning, airborne missions, and much more," said U.S. Ambassador to Romania Kathleen Kavalec.

"Throughout this course of instruction, these pilots have learned not only to operate an advanced fighter jet but how to employ it as a team in formations while executing modern air-to-air and air-to-surface tactics," added Kavalec, who also stated, "We look forward to Romania opening up training to other regional allies and partners, especially Ukraine."

Guarding NATO's Southeastern Flank

Romania has looked to bolster its air force capabilities, replacing the Soviet-era MiG-21s with the far more advanced F-35 and F-16 fighters. In 2023, Romania had committed to acquiring thirty-two Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning IIs, with plans to add 16 more to form three full squadrons by the decade's end.

While the fifth-generation aircraft are set to arrive by the end of the decade, Romania will continue to operate refurbished F-16 Fighting Falcons acquired from its great northern NATO ally: Norway. Romania formally requested those second-hand Lockheed Martin-made fighters in 2021 and completed the order in 2023 in a deal worth $418 million.

The first batch of the Fighting Falcons landed in November and joined the seventeen F-16AM/BM fighters the Romanian Air Force already operated – purchased from Portugal. The remainder of the twenty-six fighter jets, along with parts and services, are set to be delivered by 2025.

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. 

Despite Maduro’s claim of victory, there is still a path to democracy.

Huit ans après être entrée dans l'histoire en portant un hijab aux Jeux olympiques, Doaa Elghobashy souhaite inspirer d'autres joueuses à Paris 2024.

Summary and Key Points: Northrop Grumman CEO Kathy Warden announced that the U.S. Navy is expected to select a partner for its F/A-XX sixth-generation fighter program next year.

-Despite budget cuts, Warden is confident in the continuation of the competition. The F/A-XX aims to replace the F/A-18 Super Hornet, featuring advanced capabilities such as manned and unmanned operations, directed energy weapons, and drone control.

-While Northrop Grumman hasn't confirmed its participation, it stands well-positioned after exiting the Air Force's NGAD program. The Navy's decision will be pivotal as it navigates budget constraints while ensuring future air dominance.

Northrop Grumman CEO Predicts Navy's Sixth-Gen Fighter Selection in 2025

Over the course of last week, Northrop Grumman CEO Kathy Warden has announced expectations that the United States Navy will select its partner for the next generation fighter sometime next year. The sea service has kept its cards close to the chest regarding its F/A-XX sixth-generation fighter, but Warden expects that the U.S. Navy will formally announce which company will build the aircraft, even as the funding for the program has been scaled back.

"We have not received any updates that would suggest the Navy is changing their approach. They are in competition now for selection to occur next year," Warden stated during the company's second-quarter 2024 earnings call last Thursday.

The future of the U.S. Navy's Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program – not to be confused with the U.S. Air Force program of the same name – has been in question, since the service announced it will be cutting $1 billion from its Fiscal Year 2025 (FY25) budget proposal. This development was closely followed by calls from Capitol Hill to trim defense spending, this was grim news for the U.S. Navy, as the service already has several big-ticket programs in the works.

"In terms of our overall collection of opportunities, we continue to believe that the Department of Defense will move forward with sixth-generation platforms. The timing is a bit in flux on many of them as they sort out budget priorities, but we are confident that we're well positioned when and if they do move forward," Warden added. With so much funding flying over to these sixth-generation flighters, what can be expected from the U.S. Navy’s latest improvements in aerial capabilities?

The F/A-XX – What We Know

The U.S. Navy's F/A-XX program seeks to develop a replacement for the carrier-based F/A-18 Super Hornet. Similar to the Air Force's NGAD effort, the F/A-XX has reached a pre-Milestone B phase, a point in the federal funding timeline that is just ahead of awarding a contract for engineering and manufacturing development.

"The F/A-XX will be a sixth-generation fighter jet with manned and unmanned capabilities," reported Stavros Atlamazoglu for the National Interest.

"The Navy is looking for an aircraft that would be able to operate from aircraft carriers­it will require a stronger structure and landing gear compared to aircraft designed for conventional operations," Atlamazoglou added. "In terms of capabilities… the Navy is looking for a fighter jet that would have directed energy kinetic capabilities (laser weapons) and the ability to operate with and control drone swarms. As for mission sets, the Navy is looking for an aircraft that would be able to operate in permissive or semi-permissive environments with potent adversary air defense systems and establish air superiority through long-range kill chains."

The timeline isn't yet clear, but it is expected that the F/A-XX could enter service by the mid-2030s. That would line up with the U.S. Navy's current contract for the Super Hornet with aerospace giant Boeing, which will continue to produce the advanced Block III variant of the F/A-18 through 2027.

These developments supplement previous statements made by the United States Department of Defense's (DoD's) Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Bill LaPlante, "I think they’re going to figure it out," LaPlante proclaimed during a speech at Farnborough, the largest aviation event in the United Kingdom. "It's not going to stop. It's going to continue. It's just going to be, well, better informed."

The programs will continue, possibly evolving from the original program’s goals.

Northrop Grumman Flying High

Warden has not confirmed that Northrop Grumman is competing to win the F/A-XX contract, but the company bowed out of the U.S. Air Force's NGAD program last year – leaving Boeing and Lockheed Martin to fight over scraps. As noted, Boeing produces the F/A-18 Super Hornet, while Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor on the F-35 Lightning II, including the F-35C carrier-based variant operated by the U.S. Navy.

Northrop Grumman is the prime contractor on the U.S. Air Force's B-21 Raider, the long-range strategic bomber that will replace the aging Rockwell B-1B Lancer and Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit. In addition, Northrop Grumman manufactures components for both the F/A-18 and F-35.

In its Q2 2024 earning call, the company announced its "sales increased 7% to $10.2 billion, as compared with $9.6 billion in the second quarter of 2023."

Moreover, second-quarter 2024 sales reflected "strong demand" for its products and services, while Northrop Grumman's net earnings totaled $940 million, or $6.36 per diluted share, as compared with $812 million, or $5.34 per diluted share, in the second quarter of 2023.

"The Northrop Grumman team extended our strong performance into the second quarter with continued double-digit earnings growth, fueled in part by a 7 percent sales increase and expanding operating income. Our diverse portfolio includes capabilities in high demand and we have invested to create capacity and drive productivity to deliver differentiated capabilities for our customers," said Warden. "We are laser-focused on performance and continue to expand profitability through the deliberate actions we are taking. With strong support for our programs, growing global orders for our products, and solid execution in our business, we are increasing our revenue and EPS guidance for the year."

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. 

Summary and Key Points: Naval exercises have revealed vulnerabilities in the U.S. Navy’s supercarriers. In 2005, a Swedish Gotland-class submarine successfully "sank" the USS Ronald Reagan during war games, evading an entire carrier strike group's defenses.

-Similarly, in 2001, a German Type 206 submarine breached the USS Enterprise's defenses, while an Australian Collins-class sub captured photos of the USS Abraham Lincoln in 2000.

-These incidents highlight the underestimated threat of diesel-electric submarines, which have outmaneuvered advanced sonar systems and demonstrated their ability to strike powerful carriers, raising questions about the future role and security of supercarriers in modern naval warfare.

Training Lessons: When Submarines 'Sank' USS Enterprise and Abraham Lincoln

Naval exercises are conducted to help ensure that sailors are prepared for the "real deal" – hoping it will never come. It is often said that "We train like we fight;" and valuable lessons are learned from that training. 

The National Interest has previously reported how during a 2005 war game involving the U.S. and Swedish navies, a $100 million Gotland-class submarine successfully foiled an entire American carrier strike group (CSG) that included the $6 billion Nimitz-class nuclear-powered supercarrier USS Ronald Reagan.

As noted by Harrison Kass, "During the war game, the Gotland was tasked with attacking the Ronald Reagan against the entire might of the CSG defending it. The CSG was the heavy favorite, but the Gotland was able to elude the supercarrier's passive sonar defenses and land multiple virtual torpedo strikes. The hypothetical damage inflicted would have been enough to sink the carrier."

That incident served to question the future role of supercarriers – yet, it wasn't exactly news, as the U.S. Navy's nuclear-powered flattops had previously fallen victim to old-school subs.

The German Submarine vs. The Enterprise Aircraft Carrier

In 2001, the German Type 206 diesel-electric submarine U24 – designed to operate in the shallow Baltic Sea and built in the 1960s – was deployed to JTFEX 01-2 naval exercises in the Caribbean Sea and managed to break through all the security around the USS Enterprise (CVN-65). The submarine fired green flares and took photographs of the U.S. Navy's flattop, essentially "sinking it."

"The U-24 could have rammed the aircraft carrier, the boat was that close," a submariner serving on the U-24 told the German outlet T-Online in 2013.

Australia's Collins-class vs. the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Group

Months before the U24 "sank" CVN-65, an Australian Collins-class submarine was also able to penetrate the powerful surface and underwater naval defenses of a carrier strike group and close-in photographs of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) through its periscope during the RIMPAC 2000 naval exercise off Hawaii.

HMAS Waller managed to avoid detection from surface ships, as well as Los Angeles-class nuclear-powered fast attack submarines throughout the RIMPAC exercise. The vessel performed far better than expected in the exercises.

The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) boat performed similarly during the Operation Tandem Thrust wargames in 2001 when she "sank" two USN amphibious assault ships in waters just over 70 meters (230 ft) deep; although the submarine was "destroyed" later in the exercise. Two years later, during a multinational exercise in September 2003, which was attended by HMAS Waller and sister boat HMAS Rankin, Waller successfully "sank" a Los Angeles-class nuclear submarine, prompting claims from the United States Navy that diesel submarines such as the Collins-class remained one of the major threats facing modern navies.

The RAN has a total of six Collins-class submarines in service – the first built in Australia. The submarines, which are enlarged versions of Swedish shipbuilder Kockums' Västergötland-class, were originally referred to as the Type 471 before being named to honor Australian Vice Admiral John Augustine Collins. The boats were constructed between 1990 and 2003 in South Australia by the Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC).

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 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: In a daring operation, Ukraine employed drones to strike a Russian Tu-22M3 bomber at the Olenya military airfield in Murmansk Oblast, deep within the Arctic Circle.

-This marks the first time Kyiv has targeted Russian territory so far north, highlighting the reach of its drone capabilities.

-Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky praised the precision of the attack, which aimed to reduce the Russian air threat. The Kremlin claimed it shot down several drones but has not confirmed damage to the bomber.

-The incident raises questions about Ukraine's drone launch points and Russia's defense vulnerabilities.

Drone On! Ukraine Used UAVs to Strike Russian Bomber in the Arctic Circle

Earlier this month, the Kremlin took much glee in declaring that its Federal Security Service (FSB) "thwarted" an attempt by Ukrainian intelligence to recruit a Russian pilot to hijack and defect with a Tupolev Tu-22M3 (NATO reporting name Blackfire) supersonic strategic bomber. However, this past weekend, Kyiv opted for a different tactic – it employed drones and reportedly flew it more than 1,000 miles to damage, and possibly destroy, at least one of the bombers.

If true, this could be the second Tu-22M3 bomber to have been destroyed on the ground, while another was shot down in April.

Deep in the Heart of Russia

It was just over a year ago that a Ukrainian drone was employed to strike the first Tu-22M3 at the Soltsy-2 air base in Novgorod Oblast. It was noted for being especially daring as it was several hundred miles from Ukraine – but this week, Kyiv's forces struck even deeper.

On Saturday, Ukrainian forces struck the Olenya military airfield in Russia's Murmansk Oblast, more than 1,100 miles from the front. It marked the first time that Kyiv had struck Russian territory within the Arctic Circle – and not far from Severomorsk, home to the Russian Navy's Northern Fleet.

Similar raids were carried out against the Engels airfield in the Saratov Oblast and the Diagilevo air base in the Ryazan Oblast. An oil refinery near the latter air base was also targeted.

"Each destroyed Russian airbase, each destroyed Russian military aircraft – whether on the ground or in the air – means saving Ukrainian lives. Guys, our warriors, I thank you for your precision!," Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said in a statement.

Moscow hasn't confirmed that the Tu-22M3 was damaged in the recent raid, but the Russian Ministry of Defense claimed that it had shot down a dozen "kamikaze drones" in five regions.

Long Flight?

There has been much speculation as to where the drones were launched from on Saturday, and if from Ukraine it meant the unmanned systems were remotely piloted vast distances without being observed. Alternatively, it has been suggested that Ukrainian operatives launched the drones from well within Russia.

The Kremlin may have assumed the region would be safe, as Kyiv is currently prohibited from employing Western-made long-range weapons on targets within Russia out of fear that it could escalate the war. However, Ukraine has employed drones instead, hitting military positions deep inside Russia, oftentimes without claiming direct responsibility.

The Olenya military airfield made for an inviting target.

"Some of the largest wilderness areas in the European part of the country are on the Kola Peninsula, and south of the Murmansk region is Arkhangelsk and Karelia, two sparsely populated large regions mainly covered by forest," The Barents Observer reported.

"It was a question of when, not if, Ukraine was going to strike the base," Associate Professor Lars Peder Haga with the Norwegian Air Force Academy also told The Barents Observer. "Still an impressive feat, with Olenya 1,800 km from the Ukrainian border, with more or less continuous GPS jamming in the region."

Russia has tried to downplay these strikes, and when acknowledging them, has labeled the attacks as acts of terror. 

Tu-22 Blackfire Burning?

The Tu-22 was originally introduced in 1983, and it is in some ways analogous to the United States Air Force's B-1 Lancer.

Yet, whereas the B-1 has greater range and is a true intercontinental bomber, the Backfire is faster but is essentially a "theater" bomber in that it was designed to strike continental Europe and possibly some targets in the Atlantic. It also has far less bomb load capacity. The Federation of American Scientists reported, "Its low-level penetration features make it a much more survivable system than its predecessors."

The bomber saw limited use at the end of the Soviet-Afghan War, and Russia currently maintains a force of more than 100 Tu-22M bombers in all configurations. The Backfire also was used in nearly 100 operational sorties against rebels in Chechnya in the mid-1990s and Georgian forces in the 2008 South Ossetian war. One of the Tu-22Ms was lost in combat, shot down by a Georgian missile in the latter conflict.

The Tu-22M3 is a modernized version, developed in the early 1980s and it officially entered service in 1989. It has an operating range of 7,000 km (4,350 miles) and is capable of carrying nuclear weapons. It was on April 14, 2022, that Tu-22M3s were employed in the conflict in Ukraine for the first time, where the bombers dropped "dumb bombs" as part of the Kremlin's campaign to take the then-besieged city of Mariupol.

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 future of the RAF's F-35 program is uncertain following Labour's victory in the UK general election, as the new government plans a sweeping defense review.

-Labour's focus on the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) could see F-35 orders reduced further.

-Already, the planned acquisition has been cut from 138 to 48, with only 34 delivered. Defense analyst Francis Tusa highlights the F-35's flaws compared to the domestically controlled GCAP.

-While the UK Ministry of Defence reaffirms its commitment, the final decision on the number of F-35s will depend on Labour's prioritization of GCAP and other defense needs.

F-35 in Trouble in UK? 

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II has been in service with the Royal Air Force (RAF) since June 2018, when the first F-35Bs arrived at RAF Marham and formed the reinstituted 617 Squadron "Dambusters." Three years earlier, RAF Lakenheath had been selected as the first U.S. Air Force base in Europe to receive the fifth-generation stealth fighters, and it continues to provide training opportunities with the aircraft in the UK.

However, the future of the F-35 and the RAF has remained very much in question since the Labour Party's massive victory in the general election on July 4. Labour, which returned to power after 14 years, has vowed to carry out a sweeping defense review – and that could result in several programs being scaled back or even canceled outright.

There are already questions as to what it means for the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP), which evolved from the UK's domestic Tempest project to develop a sixth-generation fighter. However, as The Telegraph newspaper reported, GCAP is "underpinned by a treaty with partner nations Japan and Italy," and that could make it "far trickier politically than cutting F-35s."

Domestic Program May Win Out

The United Kingdom and the United States may maintain a special relationship, but it may only go so far when it comes to the former's defense spending. GCAP may be too important for the UK to scale back from – but the same can't be said of the F-35, especially as it isn't under the control of London.

"The F-35 is very much a less capable, flawed platform, with a quite stormy future, full of uncertainty," Francis Tusa, an independent defense analyst told The Telegraph. "Sure, there isn't yet a flying Tempest. But the three partners are in control of their destinies with it – which is not the case with F-35."

BAE Systems has noted that more than 1,000 suppliers are supporting the GCAP program, while 3,500 people work directly on the development of the aircraft, and further supports 16,000 jobs in the UK.

UK's F-35 Orders Likely to be Cut

Already, the British Ministry of Defence has scaled back its F-35 orders, down from a planned acquisition of 138 F-35Bs – the short/vertical takeoff and landing (S/VTOL) variant of the Joint Strike Fighter – to just 48 aircraft. To date 34 have been delivered.

The previous Conservative government had announced earlier this year that it was "in negotiations" for an additional twenty-seven F-35s, which would see the RAF receive the stealth fighter through 2033. The deal, which Tusa said was valued at around £5 billion ($6.2 billion), has yet to be finalized.

Yet, the MoD has reaffirmed its commitment to the program.

"Whether operating from land or onboard our aircraft carriers as a central component of the UK's Carrier strike capability, the F-35B delivers a cutting-edge capability for the UK," a MoD spokesperson told the UK's paper of record. "We are committed to the F-35 programme, and the UK builds approximately 15pc of each aircraft, securing highly skilled jobs and significant economic growth within the UK."

Supporters of the F-35 program have further noted that it has been widely adopted by NATO allies and regional partners in Europe and the Indo-Pacific – allowing for greater interoperability. It was just last week that Greece officially signed onto the program.

Finding the Middle Ground

It could be well over a decade before the GCAP enters service, and that is provided there are no delays with the program. For that reason, Professor Justin Bronk, a senior research fellow for air power and technology at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), suggested that the UK should move to expand its F-35 fleet, albeit cautiously.

"I think the UK should definitely proceed with the follow-on order of 27, to take the fleet to 74," he also told The Telegraph. "That's more or less the functional minimum for the fleet to meet its obligations. Beyond that, I don't see much fiscal room for additional orders in the foreseeable future and, in any case, if there was additional money ... I would put it into weapons and maintenance and spares, to improve the combat capability and availability."

At one point, the UK was on track to be the largest operator of the F-35 in Europe, but it will now be up to Labour to decide not whether the program is scaled back, but by how much.

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. 

Il y a an un les militaires prenaient le pouvoir à Niamey au Niger. Des milliers de personnes ont célébré hier l'anniversaire de Coup d'Etat. Arrivés à pied ou à bord de bus mis à leur disposition, les participants se sont réunis au stade Seyni-Kountché. La "marche vers la souveraineté" est "inexorable", assure le général Tiani. 

The Poniard rocket successfully passed the performance tests of the U.S. Navy and might become the first South Korean weapon system to be exported to the United States. The U.S. DoD (Department of Defense) and [...]

The post South Korea’s Poniard Guided-Rocket Test-Fired From USV, Destroys Target At RIMPAC 2024 appeared first on The Aviationist.

Summary and Key Points: The USS Wisconsin, a heavily armed battleship known as "Big Whiskey," served in World War II, the Korean War, and Operation Desert Storm.

-Renowned for its impressive firepower, it boasted nine 16-inch guns capable of hitting targets 23 miles away and twenty 5-inch guns with a range of nine miles.

-The ship's armor included 12-inch thick protection around the hull and 17-inch around the gun turrets.

-Modernized in the 1980s, it was equipped with Harpoon anti-ship missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles, and Phalanx anti-missile guns.

-Decommissioned in 2006, the USS Wisconsin now serves as a museum ship in Norfolk, Virginia.

USS Wisconsin: The Mighty Battleship with Decades of Service

When the U.S. Navy wanted to take out targets 23 miles away, the battleship USS Wisconsin was the go-to ship for awe-inspiring naval gunfire. Battleship Wisconsin was one of the most heavily-armed warship ever built.

It was also relatively fast for a battleship with a top speed of 30 knots. Battleships were normally associated with World War Two, but Wisconsin even served in Operation Desert Storm. This ship was in reserve as late as the late 1990s, and in 2006 it was finally retired and assigned to be a museum vessel in Norfolk, Virginia.

Nicknamed the “Big Whiskey,” Wisconsin served in World War Two, the Korean War, and the first Gulf War. In World War Two, it fought in the Philippines, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and even shelled Japan.

USS Wisconsin Had Mighty Firepower from the Beginning

Its suite of arms was impressive. No enemy ship wanted to mess with Wisconsin’s firepower. She had nine 16-inch guns in three-gun turrets, which could send 2,700-pound armor-piercing shells some 23 miles. Wisconsin was also armed with twenty 5-inch guns mounted in twin-gun turrets, which could eliminate targets up to nine miles away.

When fired, the guns recoiled around four feet which made it look like the ship was going sideways.

Displacing a massive 45,000 tons, it had a crew of 1,900 sailors. The battleship's armor consisted of 12-inches of a combination of nickel and iron around the hull with 17-inches of protection around the gun turrets.

Wisconsin returned to combat in 1951, after deactivation at the end of World War Two. The battleship destroyed numerous ground targets in North Korea and these actions resulted in Wisconsin winning its sixth battle star.

Packed with New Weapons in the Late 1980s

The Reagan administration wanted Wisconsin to take a major role toward the end of the Cold War as it became a missile-launching battleship. By 1988, the ship came back to life bustling with modern weapons. It was modernized and armed with a launcher for Harpoon anti-ship missiles, 32 Tomahawk cruise missiles, and four Phalanx anti-missile Gatling-type guns to protect against enemy missiles.

Large Role in Operation Desert Storm

During the “shock and awe” bombing phase at the beginning of Operation Desert Storm in 1991, Wisconsin helped initiate the campaign by firing 24 Tomahawk missiles at targets in Iraq. Then it destroyed various enemy, artillery batteries, command posts, and infantry bunkers during 36 fire missions.

But here mission did not stop there. Wisconsin wasn’t just a battlewagon, it also delivered cargo and mail to the soldiers, airmen, and Marines who were fighting Saddam Hussein’s hordes. Plus, it took part in the deception campaign that demonstrated a fake amphibious landing to mislead the Iraqis.

But the age of the battleship was over decades prior, and the Navy decided it was time to retire this warship once and for all. Finally, in 2006, the Big Whiskey was decommissioned for good. But what a colorful history.

It had a feature role in three wars. It ever showed that World War Two-era battleships could still have a part to play in modern warfare. And Wisconsin convinced the navy that well-built ships could survive for decades.

Now that is some serious naval history.

About the Author 

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.

All images are creative commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy's Fiscal Year 2025 budget proposal includes cuts to the Virginia-class submarine program, reducing the planned acquisition from two to one submarine.

-This move has raised concerns among House Armed Services Committee members, who argue it could destabilize the defense supply chain and undermine U.S. undersea dominance.

-The reduction comes as the Navy faces delays in submarine deliveries, with boats arriving an average of 30 months late.

-The focus has shifted towards current operations and innovative technologies, with the potential threat from China looming large. The budget cuts highlight a strategic shift, prioritizing immediate readiness over long-term capabilities.

The U.S. Navy's Virginia-Class Submarine Drama Show

The United States Navy's nuclear-powered Virginia-class cruise missile fast-attack submarines are noted for incorporating the latest in stealth, intelligence gathering, and weapons systems. The boats which were designed for a broad spectrum of open-ocean and littoral missions, including anti-submarine warfare and intelligence-gathering operations are scheduled to replace the older Los Angeles-class submarines.

The sea service already has 23 of a planned 66 in service, and the submarines will be acquired through at least 2043 and will remain in service with the U.S. Navy through at least 2060 – while the final boats built could operate into the 2070s and beyond.

However, the U.S. Navy's Fiscal Year 2025 (FY25) budget request called for numerous cuts, including to the Virginia-class program. According to reports, the latest budget proposal includes money for only one Virginia -class attack submarine instead of the planned two. Even worse is the fact that while the U.S. Navy has been purchasing the fast attack submarines at a rate of two per year for the past four years, only an average of 1.2 submarines has been delivered annually.

The further reduction has sparked concern among House Armed Services Committee members, who have argued that such a move introduces instability into the defense supply chain and undermines the United States' undersea dominance.

"Simply put, now is not the time to insert instability in the supply chain with uncertainty in procurement rates,"House Armed Services Committee lawmakers argued in the letter to the Biden administration this past January. "The FY2025 budget will come at a pivotal time for the Virginia-class submarine program and sustaining our unmatched edge in the undersea domain. Any deviation from the planned cadence of the construction and procurement of two submarines per year will reverberate both at home and abroad, with allies and competitors alike."

The boats set to be delivered this year have been arriving on average 30 months late, and the U.S. Navy has delayed several major shipbuilding and modernization efforts. In that context, the sea service opted to save around $4 billion in the FY25 spending plan by nixing the second Virginia-class sub.

"We did reduce the funding to one Virginia-class submarine in FY25. But we maintain the funding for nine out of the planned 10 Virginia class [during the five-year FYDP]," Under Secretary Erik Raven told reporters.

The Focus on Now – Not Later for Virginia Submarines

The U.S. Navy's FY25 budget request has highlighted a strategic shift towards prioritizing current operations, personnel, and innovative technologies like unmanned systems – as these could yield faster results for the fleet.

The service is thus focused on the near-term, and considers the 2020s a decade of concern, with the potential for China to invade Taiwan before 2030.

As Brandon J. Weichert reported for The National Interest, it isn't just fewer Virginia-class submarines that will be coming soon. The Navy's SSN(X) program has also been pushed back – with the service focused on the coming decade rather than a platform that won't be in service until the 2040s.

Wiechert suggested that the U.S. Navy should go even further and focus on the Block V version of the Virginia-class to maintain its technological edge over China's submarines. Moreover, any potential conflict is likely to erupt much closer to the littoral waters of the Western Pacific rather than the deep blue sea, where the U.S. Navy still dominates.

The question is whether the U.S. has enough SSNs in the fleet, and the likely answer is that it doesn't. As Wiechert further suggested, it "will be the current crop of US submarines, not some fantastical prototype, that will decide the outcome of the undersea war."

If a war is real possibly – and fortunately that's still a very big IF – the United States doesn't have enough of anything, including submarines, surface combatants like aircraft carriers, and guided-missile destroyers, nor does it have enough aircraft. In a war, there will be losses, likely lots of losses. As noted, it could take years to replace any submarines lost as only about one is being delivered annually.

Even as China is out-producing the U.S., it can't replace its losses much faster. The hope is that cooler heads prevail with military thinkers seeing that such a war is unwinnable given the costs and risks that it wouldn't escalate into an even deadlier conflict.

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 or contact us: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Après les sabotages de lignes TGV la semaine dernière, puis ceux de fibres optiques survenus dans la nuit de dimanche à lundi, les premiers éléments de l'enquête convergent vers une opération d'ultragauche. Mais le gouvernement s'interroge aussi sur une manipulation venue de l'étranger.