Agrégateur de flux

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part of the Backbone of the Surface Fleet

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Obvious Differences

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

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

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

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

Differences in the Air

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About the Author: Harrison Kass 

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

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Impressive Array of Weaponry

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

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

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

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

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

Stealth Capabilities

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

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

About the Author: Harrison Kass, Defense Expert 

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons/Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The Yak-41 (Yak-141) was a Soviet attempt at creating a supersonic VTOL (vertical takeoff and landing) aircraft, developed in the 1980s but ultimately shelved after the Soviet Union collapsed. Despite rumors, there is little evidence to suggest that the Yak-41 directly influenced the development of the F-35B, the VTOL variant of the U.S. military's Joint Strike Fighter.

-While Lockheed Martin did partner with Yakovlev in the early 1990s, the connection is more likely coincidental than foundational.

-The Yak-41 remains a footnote in aviation history, while the F-35B is a significant leap in modern military aviation.

Did the F-35B Benefit From the Soviet Yak-141?

Some rumors/conspiracy theories die hard – Walt Disney isn't preserved at his theme park, and NASA didn't fake the moon landing (nor is the earth flat), but try convincing those who believe such wild stories. This is also true in the world of military hardware.

It is a KNOWN FACT that Chinese hackers stole U.S. military technology, including details about Lockheed Martin's F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II stealth fighters, and Beijing likely used the knowledge in the development of its Chengdu J-20 "Mighty Dragon" multirole fighter.

However, there remains just a rumor – and not a believable one at that – of how a largely forgotten Soviet aircraft contributed to the development of the F-35B – the vertical/short takeoff and landing (VSTOL) variant of the Joint Strike Fighter.

This would be the Yak-41 (aka Yak-141), an aircraft that is really little more than a footnote today, and for good reason. It never really moved past the early prototype stage.

The Yak-38 is the Starting Point

To understand anything about the Yak-41/Yak-141 requires a bit of explanation about the YAK-38, the Soviet's attempt to develop a fixed-wing aircraft that could take off and land vertically.

Since the Second World War, military planners have considered the advantages of VSTOL aircraft, which could take off and land vertically or on short runways, and the British military led the effort with the development of the AV-8B Harrier from lessons learned in the Korean War. By the late 1960s, it emerged as the only truly successful VSTOL design of the Cold War era.

The Soviets weren't deterred and moved forward with its own aircraft.

The A.S. Yakovlev Design Bureau JSC was charged with developing a Soviet VSTOL, yet whereas the Harrier had begun essentially as a clean slate, the Yak-38 was developed from the land-based experimental demonstrator Yakovlev Yak-36. In the end, the two shared little in common – yet, it is evident that the Soviets were forced to make numerous compromises.

The redesigned Yak-38 was outfitted with a pair of R-27 turbojets with intakes squashed together in an open nose, with the rear nozzles capable of rotating to provide vectored thrust. Compressed air thrusters on the tail, on the tips of its undersized wings, and at the end of its unicorn-like nose boom provided directional maneuvering.

In total, it took five years of testing to get the Yak-38 to the point where it could transition between vertical liftoff and horizontal flight. The two dedicated lift jets behind the cockpit in addition to a single RD-27 vector thrust engine resulted in higher fuel consumption, limiting range to around two hundred miles at best, and less if it performed a vertical takeoff.

Though some 230 were produced, its service history was underwhelming – and it was considered a difficult aircraft to control.

The Yak-41 Was Born

Despite the lack of success with the Yak-38, the Soviets pressed on with the Yak-41 (NATO reporting name "Freestyle"), which was developed in the 1980s. According to Army Recognition, the Yak-41 was "the pinnacle of the Yakovlev Design Bureau's VTOL aircraft development" becoming "the world's first supersonic VTOL aircraft, achieving speeds up to Mach 1.7," and was developed for use on the "Soviet Navy's Kiev-class carriers."

It was designed around a tri-engine configuration that included its main RD-41 after-burning turbofan engine, with a pair of RD-38 lift engines that provided the transition between vertical and horizontal flight. In addition to its advanced engine, the Yak-41 was outfitted with multi-tracking radar that could engage multiple targets, while its armament was to have consisted of a variety of ordnance including air-to-air missiles, guided bombs, and an internal cannon.

The aircraft took its maiden flight on March 9, 1987, and it soon set around a dozen world records. It was arguably leaps and bounds more advanced than the Yak-38, and may have even been comparable in capabilities to the Harrier. It might have been just the aircraft the Soviet Navy needed for its aircraft cruisers.

That is until one of the two prototypes was lost in an accident while landing on the aircraft cruiser Admiral Groshev in September 1991. That put the program on hold.

Then the Soviet Union broke up just months later, and in the years that followed Russia was in no position to move forward with the aircraft.

The F-35 Connection

So was the F-35B actually based on Soviet technology? That probably depends on who you ask and what you want to believe. With the end of the Cold War, and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Yakovlev entered into a partnership with that little American firm known as Lockheed Martin.

As a Task & Purpose report from April 2018 outlined, "The two companies allegedly signed an agreement in 1991 (but not revealed until 1995) that outlined funding for additional Yak-141 prototypes, including a plan to fly the remaining operational prototype the Farnborough Airshow in September 1992."

Perhaps Lockheed Martin garnered some insight from the Yak-41, but the Soviet-designed aircraft was hardly a success at that point. Yet, the rumors continue to circulate to the contrary. Some of it may be Russian propaganda efforts – not that Russians would ever engage in such activities. But some of it may just be from aviation buffs who can't see that similar aircraft can be developed independently.

Finally, interest was renewed in the largely forgotten Yak-41/Yak-141 until last year, when it was announced the Soviet aircraft would be introduced in the popular online multiplayer game War Thunder – the same title that has earned notoriety for its fans constantly leaking classified secrets on gaming forums. That has only further served to reignite the rumor that the F-35 was based on Soviet tech.

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.

Les représentants algériens dans les compétitions africaines sont confrontés au problème de domiciliation. Ils ont fini par opter pour le stade Mustapha Tchaker, qui a […]

L’article Compétitions africaines : le MCA, le CRB et l’USMA sans stade, que faire ? est apparu en premier sur .

Summary and Key Points: The Su-34 Fullback is a versatile fighter-bomber used by the Russian Aerospace Forces. It combines bombing and air-to-air combat capabilities in one platform.

-Equipped with advanced electronic warfare countermeasures and a wide array of munitions, the Su-34 is designed to perform multiple mission sets, including tactical bombing and air superiority roles. However, the Su-34 has suffered significant losses in the Ukraine conflict, highlighting its vulnerabilities despite its robust design.

-The aircraft's effectiveness is maximized with adequate air and ground support, but it remains exposed to threats without such protection.

Su-34 Fullback: Russia’s Dual-Purpose Fighter-Bomber in the Spotlight

The Russian Aerospace Forces operate a large fleet with several different types of aircraft. One of the most interesting jets in that fleet is the Su-34 Fullback. 

A bomber and fighter jet in one, the Su-34 is the go-to choice for Russian commanders for taking out hard targets on the ground. But the aircraft has been taking heavy attrition in the war in Ukraine, showing its weak points. 

Su-34 Fullback: Two Aircraft in One 

Designated as “Fullback” by NATO, the Su-34 is a twin-engine fighter-bomber jet with a crew of two – a pilot and a weapons officer. The aircraft can operate in all weather conditions and conduct attack, bombing, and fighter missions.

 The Russian Aerospace Forces have been using the Su-34 Fullback mainly in a tactical bombing role. With this requirement in mind, Sukhoi designers gave the Fullback an enhanced cockpit with additional armor to withstand anti-aircraft ground fire. Moreover, the fighter-bomber sports advanced electronic warfare countermeasures to jam or defeat enemy anti-aircraft missiles. 

The Su-34 Fullback can hit speeds of around Mach 2 (about 1,500 miles per hour) and has an operational range of 2,500 miles without any refueling. It is designed to sustain heavy pressure (up to 9 Gs) and has a pressurized cabin. 

But where the Su-34 Fullback really shines is in the weapons department. The aircraft can carry up to 18,000 lbs of munitions in 12 hardpoints, including R-77 active radar-homing beyond-visual-range air-to-air missiles; R-73 heat-seeking air-to-air missiles; R-27 radar-homing air-to-air missiles; Kh-59, Kh-58, Kh-38, Kh-29, and Kh-25 air-to-surface missiles; and Kh-65 and Kh-36 cruise missiles. The fighter-bomber can also carry Kh-35 and Kh-31 anti-ship missiles and an extensive selection of conventional bombs. In addition, the Su-34 carries a 30 mm Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-30-1 cannon with 120 rounds for ground attack and dogfighting. 

With these munitions, the Su-34 Fullback can strike targets up to 160 miles away, and the Russian Aerospace Forces have used it extensively in operations in Ukraine. However, Su-34 squadrons have taken serious losses in the conflict, losing at least 26 fighter-bombers so far. Overall, the Russian Aerospace Forces operate around 150 of these aircraft, each of which costs about $85 million. 

The concept of incorporating multiple mission sets into one aircraft isn’t new. The U.S. F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter jet, for example, is capable of conducting six mission sets at the same time with the right munitions. The idea behind such aircraft is to streamline mission sets and encourage a more efficient aircraft fleet. The U.S. military envisioned the F-35 Lightning II doing the job of several older aircraft that would eventually be retired.

Overall, the Su-34 is a capable aircraft that can accomplish several mission sets. It is most valuable when it has sufficient air and ground support to pursue its tactical bombing missions without worrying about enemy fighter jets or anti-aircraft systems. In the absence of such support, it is vulnerable. 

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.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

In my previous article, I described how the growth of artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency means that data centers require access to evermore quantities of reliable energy to power them. A quick glance at the electrical generation capacity of North America, much of Europe, and Asia leads you to a simple conclusion: more generation capacity—and cleaner generation capacity at that—is needed.

Currently, 3.5 percent of the world’s carbon emissions are the result of power consumption by data centers. Data centers need a consistent power that solar and wind simply cannot guarantee. A stable 24/7 capacity can only be provided by relying on fossil fuels, hydroelectric and geothermal power, or nuclear energy. Burning more fossil fuels for power generation is not an option. Of the remaining “green” options, geothermal and hydroelectric power are only feasible in a few select geographic regions, leaving us with nuclear power as the only real choice to power the lion’s share of the massive growth expected in data centers around the world, not to mention the general surge in the world’s energy needs.

Politically, nuclear power is a sensitive issue in the West, with many voters’ perceptions of nuclear power shaped by the frightening scenes of the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters. Yet, Western countries continue to push new climate initiatives that require increased electrical generation capacity, whether electric vehicle mandates or fossil fuel heating phaseouts. 

Noticeably missing from these initiatives are realistic plans to address the electricity generation needs of the country. Most experts agree that nuclear power has to be part of a green solution. More troubling is that adversaries of the West are building nuclear power stations at a blinding pace in order to secure their energy future. Yet, in the West, our grid is being overtaxed, and even traditionally secure sources of generation capacity are faltering. For instance, due to climate shifts, Canada’s prized hydroelectric power industry is failing to produce enough electricity, leaving Canada to import electricity from the United States for the first time in a decade. This is a less-than-ideal position for a country with a long history of selling its cheap surplus electricity, and it also raises questions about the ability of non-nuclear green sources to produce the energy needed.

The West is slowly waking up to this reality, with leaders at the COP 28 summit calling nuclear power the only viable option to attain their carbon reduction goals, culminating in an agreement by twenty-five countries, including the United States, to triple nuclear generation capacity by 2050. Development efforts between GE and Hitachi are leading to safer and cheaper reactors, and plans to build them in the West are beginning to gain steam, though few boots and shovels have struck dirt. Perhaps a symptom of general bureaucracy that has come to plague large infrastructure projects, but more likely a sign nuclear power still lacks the general social acceptance for wide-scale expansion.

Uranium price and supply challenges threaten to ground these efforts, further spooking investors away from nuclear reactor construction projects and their prohibitively long payback periods. Yet these challenges have had the upside of aiding fledgling domestic producers in the United States to gain market share. Congress has moved further to secure domestic production with the passage of HR. 1042, uranium imports from Russia, a significant producer of power station-grade enriched uranium, were banned. These steps help secure future energy security for the United States in the same way that our oil and gas production currently does. 

With public acceptance being the largest roadblock to the implementation of nuclear power on the scale needed to meet energy needs, education, and communication need to be paramount for our leaders. For a large majority of the public, there is no understanding of nuclear fission or radiation, seeing it as some type of invisible, dangerous alchemy. As such, the disposal of nuclear waste is highly unnerving to a public that is terrified of nuclear waste due to misconceptions born out of the media’s depictions of radiation and nuclear disasters. With a more informed understanding of the risks and benefits of nuclear power, I believe that public opinion would largely be in favor of nuclear power.

Clean, safe, and reliable nuclear power is not only needed but very attainable if we focus on education and public investment in the technology.    

Adrian Kranz is president of Paratrade Corporation and a contributing writer for the Newport Global Summit.

Image:  Wlad74 / Shutterstock.com.

Summary and Key Points: The Ukrainian military's advance into Russia's Kursk Oblast is forcing the Russian military to redirect forces from Ukraine to defend its territory. Ukrainian ground forces and fighter jets are making significant gains, with airstrikes targeting Russian infrastructure and command centers.

-The Russian military, short on well-trained units, is deploying inadequately prepared formations, such as those from the Russian Aerospace Forces, to counter the Ukrainian offensive.

-This reallocation of personnel highlights Russia's ongoing struggle with high casualty rates and limited capability to effectively respond to the Ukrainian incursion.

Ukraine's Kursk Invasion Has Russia on Edge 

The Ukrainian foray into Russia continues to net significant gains, reshaping the conflict with every passing day.

The Ukrainian military is fighting in Russia’s Kursk Oblast with ground forces and fighter jets. Kyiv’s progress is forcing the Russian military to relocate forces from Ukraine back to Russia to deal with the threat.

Fighting Inside Russia 

Ukrainian units have operated with great impunity within Russia, and Russian military leadership is becoming increasingly anxious about Ukrainian advances in Kursk Oblast. Images circulating online show Russian troops digging trenches around the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant near Kurchatov. The facility is located approximately 50 miles from the border with Ukraine. 

“After initial disarray and disorganization, Russian forces have deployed in greater force to the region, including likely from elsewhere along the contact line. They have also begun to construct additional defensive positions in an effort to prevent Ukrainian advances,” British Military Intelligence assessed last week. 

Meanwhile in the skies, the Ukrainian Air Force flies sorties over Russian territory, striking targets with unusual ease. In an example of this air campaign, a video surfaced showing a Ukrainian MiG-29 Fulcrum dropping a French guided munition with a bunker-busting warhead through the roof of a Russian command and control bunker somewhere close to the frontlines in Kursk. In another instance, a Ukrainian fighter jet uses a pair of U.S. glide munitions to destroy a granary facility held by the Russians. Ukrainian missiles have destroyed several bridges in Kursk in an attempt to trap Russian units and prevent reinforcements from coming in. 

The Russian military is short on capable, well-trained units to deploy. As a result, it is sending newly organized formations that are ill-suited to fight the battle-hardened Ukrainian mechanized brigades spearheading the foray into Kursk. 

The Specialized Motor Rifle Regiment is one example of a unit deployed by the Russian military that is not fit for the task. Formed in May, the unit is comprised of Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) personnel. 

“Reportedly personnel forming the VKS-manned Motor Rifle Regiment include those previously in specialist roles such as early-warning radar operators at Long Range Aviation Heavy Bomber regiments,” British Military Intelligence stated in its latest assessment of the war.

“Diverting personnel from these previously high priority areas likely demonstrates continuing personnel shortages. By employing them in an infantry role, hey are also being misused, which could reduce Russian capability to re-take territory in Kursk Oblast,” British Military Intelligence added. 

This is like the U.S. Air Force sending a battalion of F-22 Raptor maintainers and drone pilots to do the job of a U.S. Marine Corps infantry battalion. 

“Russia continues to develop new units and recruit more personnel to sustain its mass attritional warfare approach against Ukraine,” British Military Intelligence added.

According to the latest estimates released by the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense, the Russian military has lost over 600,000 men, averaging more than 1,000 casualties a day. 

“The high casualty rates that result mean that Russia needs to continuously replenish front line infantry personnel, which will almost certainly continue to limit Russia’s ability to generate higher capability units,” British Military Intelligence concluded. 

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.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

L'ancienne Première ministre Élisabeth Borne a annoncé, mercredi dans un entretien au Parisien, sa candidature à la tête de Renaissance, le parti d'Emmanuel Macron. La députée du Calvados s'est dite prête à "rassembler de façon très large" au sein du parti présidentiel, qui doit tenir un congrès avant le 30 novembre pour renouveler sa direction.

Summary and Key Points: The Imperial Japanese Navy's carrier Shinano was an ill-fated warship, originally intended as a battleship but converted into an aircraft carrier during World War II.

-Despite being the largest aircraft carrier of its time, Shinano was plagued by design compromises and was sunk by a U.S. submarine just seven hours into its maiden voyage.

Bottomline: The ship's flawed concept of serving as a resupply vessel for other carriers, combined with Japan's inadequate anti-submarine warfare strategy, highlighted the weaknesses that contributed to its swift demise. Shinano's failure serves as a cautionary tale in naval warfare design.

Shinano: The Largest Aircraft Carrier That Never Saw Battle

Over the last hundred years, the navies of the world have constructed, operated, and taken to war hundreds of aircraft carriers. Some carriers have been truly outstanding designs, while many more were simply adequate and lost to history. One ship that achieved fame not out of greatness but sheer incompetence was the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) carrier Shinano. Originally constructed as a battleship, she was redesigned to support the air war in the Pacific before being sunk, with considerable irony, by a submarine before she could even see battle.

In May 1940 the Yokosuka Naval Yard laid down the third hull of the Yamato-class battleships. The largest battleships ever built, the Yamato-class featured nine eighteen-inch guns and were considerably larger and more powerful—on paper anyway—than even the U.S. Navy’s Iowa-class battleships. The Yamato and her sister ship Musashi were completed as designed, but work on the third ship, Shinano, halted shortly after the outbreak of hostilities with the Allied powers—principally the United Kingdom and Holland.

By June 1942 Shinano was complete up to her main deck but Japan no longer had use for battleships. A series of reversals at sea, particularly the Battle of Midway, had dealt a serious blow to Japanese carrier aviation. (The Battle of Midway alone saw the loss of four Japanese fleet carriers.) At the same time, it was becoming increasingly clear that aircraft carriers had eclipsed the battleship as the dominant weapon at sea. Japan needed more aircraft carriers, and fast.

The IJN decided to redesign Shinano to help make up Japan’s carrier losses. At 840 feet long at the waterline, Shinano was set to become the world’s largest aircraft carrier, with a huge flight deck to support air operations and a cavernous hangar to store and repair fighters, dive bombers, and torpedo planes. Such a ship could carry well over a hundred fighters, the equal in aircraft to nearly two American carriers.

Unfortunately, an opposing plan emerged that envisioned Shinano not as a true aircraft carrier but new type of vessel, a carrier support ship. Under the new plan Shinano would act as a floating resupply ship for other aircraft carriers, carrying fuel, munitions, fuel, and other supplies. Aircraft from other carriers would land on Shinano, load up on fuel and weapons, and then take off on combat missions. Incredibly, under this scheme Shinano would not have any planes of its own, nor would she have the ability to store any.

After considerable infighting, the Imperial Navy decided on a compromise design. Shinano would be fitted out as a 68,000-ton aircraft carrier similar in construction to the smaller Taiho. The carrier would have a hangar and carry four dozen fighters for self-defense. Her primary mission, however, was to supply new planes to carriers that had sustained combat losses, repair damaged aircraft, and resupply fleet carriers at sea.

The conversion effort began in the summer of 1942 but proceeded very slowly. Inexplicably, work only sped up after the Battle of the Philippine Sea in June 1944, when two more fleet carriers and a light carrier were lost to enemy action. The ship was finally launched in October 1944. As completed, Shinano displaced 62,000 tons, had an overall length of 872 feet, and was up to 119 feet long. She had a crew of 2,400 and carried up to forty-seven fighters for self-defense.

A large target for enemy aircraft, Shinano was well equipped to fend off aircraft and shrug off hits above the waterline. Her anti-air defenses included sixteen 5-inch guns, 145 25-millimeter anti-aircraft guns, and 336 5-inch anti-aircraft rocket launchers. Armor ranged from 15.75 inches at the main belt to just 3.94 inches amidships. Unlike American carriers, she had an armored flight deck, with 2.95 inches of armor protecting the innards of the ship from dive bombs penetrating from above.

Ironically, although well equipped to fend off aerial and surface attacks Shinano was ultimately done in by a subsurface attack. On November 28th, 1944, just seven hours into a voyage from Yokosuka to Matsuyama for fitting out, Shinano was attacked by four torpedoes launched from the submarine USS Archerfish. The ship, undermanned and incomplete, could not affect damage control procedures properly. Watertight doors had been left open and poorly welded segments of the ship gave way to flooding, and the huge ship went down exactly seven hours after coming under torpedo attack.

Much of the criticism of Shinano’s design is predicated not on the ship’s battle history—the carrier participated in only one, lopsided “battle”—but in how the carrier support ship design would have fared given what we know about the Pacific War. As a ship designed to prolong the ability of Japan’s carriers to fight without returning to port, it was designed to support Japan’s tradition of keeping men, ships, and planes on the frontline until they were killed and destroyed. As we know now, this was a major contributor to Japan’s eventual defeat and the U.S. Navy’s opposite policy, of regularly rotating forces off the front line, was a major contributor to America’ victory. Shinano was designed to support a losing strategy.

Shinano’s loss to submarine action highlighted another shortcoming in the design and the larger Imperial Japanese Navy: the lack of a strong anti-submarine warfare doctrine and adequate anti-submarine ships and resources. Despite a highly successful undersea warfare campaign waged by the submarines of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, Japan never built up a strong anti-submarine warfare response comparable to that fielded by the Allies fending off Germany’s U-boat fleet. Although Shinano was well prepared to fight the air and surface battle, she was lost to the one battle she was utterly unprepared for—the subsurface battle.

Built as a compromise ship by an indecisive navy, Shinano was perhaps the worst designed carrier ever built—a mistake made exponentially worse by the dire wartime situation Japan found itself in. It is worth noting that Shinano was the first and last carrier support ship ever designed, as other naval powers have avoided the class. Shinano was a somber lesson to future naval powers: there is no middle ground in carrier construction, and weakness in one of the realms of naval warfare will haunt major powers in wartime, claiming even the largest warships.

About the Author: Kyle Mizokami, Defense Expert 

Kyle Mizokami is a writer based in San Francisco who has appeared in The Diplomat, Foreign Policy, War is Boring and The Daily Beast. In 2009 he cofounded the defense and security blog Japan Security Watch. 

Summary and Key Points You Need To Know: The A-10 Thunderbolt II, known as the Warthog, is equipped with the GAU-8 Avenger, a 30mm rotary cannon capable of firing 4,200 rounds per minute, making it a devastating force against enemy tanks and armored vehicles.

-Developed in the 1970s to counter Soviet tanks, the Avenger underwent extensive testing and improvements before proving its effectiveness in Operation Desert Storm, where it destroyed hundreds of Iraqi tanks and vehicles.

-Despite its battlefield success, the A-10's future is uncertain, with debates on whether newer technologies might replace it. However, the power and fear induced by the Avenger gun remain undeniable.

The A-10 Warthog's GAU-8 Avenger: A Tank's Worst Nightmare

If you are operating an enemy tank, the deep, buzzing belch of cannon fire from an A-10 Thunderbolt II may be the last thing you ever hear.

The A-10, better known as the Warthog, has a rotary cannon called the GAU-8 Avenger that can sustain 600 revolutions and fire 4,200 rounds per minute. The gun can make short work of armored vehicles.

Let’s take a look at the awesome power of this gun.

Looking for the Perfect Weapon

In the early 1970s, the U.S. Air Force analyzed various wars between Israel and Arab countries that featured tank-on-tank warfare. The service branch came away from that research looking for an airplane and a gun that could buzz enemy tanks and plink them into oblivion. They reckoned such a platform could help defeat the Soviet army’s thousands of tanks. 

General Electric won the bid for a 30mm ultra-fast cannon. The gun would fire armor-piercing and high-explosive rounds that were a match for any tank, armored vehicle, and artillery piece. Enemy bunkers were also on the list of installations the gun could destroy. Each bullet had the length of a pint bottle. 

Working Through the Avenger’s Issues

By 1974, the GAU-8 Avenger was ready for testing. The seven-barrel, gatling-style gun fired from as high as 25,000 feet and as low as 100 feet. It underwent 60 test flights and shot 39,000 rounds in various maneuvers and stunts at up to 5-Gs. Hydraulic motors spun the rifled barrels. 

However, the gun had some issues. Flashes from the firing kept the pilot from seeing where he was flying. The gas dirtied the windshield, too. Gas could also reach the airplane’s engines, causing the power plants to suffocate. Engineers spent 10 years addressing and fixing those problems.

The huge gun weighs 620 pounds, but once you add the feed system and drum, it weighs 4,029 pounds. The Avenger has a full load of 1,150 rounds of ammunition in the drum. The entire apparatus is nearly 21 feet long, and its range is 4,101 feet.

Desert Storm Dandy

It was during Operation Desert Storm that the A-10 and its gun shone brighest. The gun fired 783,514 rounds during 8,077 combat sorties. It eliminated 900 Iraqi tanks, at least 2,000 other armored vehicles, and around 1,200 artillery pieces.

A-10 pilot John Marks was interviewed by Smithsonian Magazine about shooting the Avenger during the First Gulf War. “The thing shook the airplane when you pulled the trigger. You could smell the spent casings even with the oxygen mask on. The sound is muffled with all the gear we wear, but you still hear it. The high rate of fire and typical range mean the rounds hit just before or about the time you release the trigger,” Marks recalled.

The GAU-8 is mounted laterally off-center because the recoil could move it off target during a strafing run. But the barrel is “underneath the airplane’s center of gravity,” according to Matt Snape of Hotcars.com. “This centers the recoil forces, preventing changes in aircraft pitch or yaw when fired,” Snape wrote.

Despite the power of the gun and the A-10’s combat-proven effectiveness, the Air Force tried to retire the airplane in 2015, 2016, and 2017 budget cycles, and it wanted to trim the numbers ASAP. 

The A-10 and the Future

The Air Force and the Congressional Research Service will be investigating lessons learned from the war in Ukraine. Russia has lost hundreds of tanks and armored personnel carriers to anti-tank guided missiles, artillery, and drones.

Could the Air Force do away with the A-10 and focus instead on these systems and tactics during an armored fight?

Or is it better to depend on that amazing gun to eliminate even more enemy tanks and infantry fighting vehicles? These are difficult questions to answer, but one thing we know for sure is that the Avenger gun is a force on the battlefield. It puts fear into the enemy.

About the Author: Dr. Brent M. Eastwood 

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

It was back to the future on Tuesday night as Michelle and Barack Obama spoke at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. The former was the clear winner over the latter in the speech sweepstakes, but she made no move to wrest the nomination from her longtime friend, Vice President Kamala Harris. Instead, she focused on pillorying Donald Trump as the scion of “the affirmative action of generational wealth.” Her husband evocatively likened Trump to the “neighbor who keeps running his leaf blower outside your window every minute of every day.”

Absent some of the more fevered conspiracy theories on the right actually occurring—Joe Biden seizing back the nomination, Michelle Obama tossing her hat in the ring—the convention in Chicago has been drained of much of its suspense. Even the much-ballyhooed protests against the Gaza war seem to have fizzled out, if not turned into sheer farce, now that Vice President Kamala Harris has captured the hearts and minds of the Democratic party.

As the convention focused on denouncing Trump as a threat to American freedoms—democracy is apparently now passe—a fresh reminder of the foreign policy stakes arrived with the disclosure that the Biden administration has approved a secret strategy called “Nuclear Employment Guidance” that aims to deter a simultaneous attack from China, North Korea, and Russia.

How much either Tim Walz or Harris will focus on foreign affairs in their speeches is an open question. But the geopolitical context that any new president will confront is rapidly shifting, and not always in good ways. Perhaps the coordination between Russia, China, and North Korea that foreign policy realists were wont to warn about was likely to occur, but American foreign policy does not seem to have done much to forestall the prospect. Instead, the state of belligerence towards China may, in some measure, have become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Absent a crisis abroad—an attack on Taiwan or war with Iran—it is economics that remains at the forefront of the Harris campaign. If her own campaign is anything to go by, she has a firm mastery of the importance of finances. She reported a whopping $220 million at the close of July in cash on hand in contrast to the $151 million that the Trump campaign disclosed. This reversal of fortune is allowing Harris to hammer home her anti-corporate, pro-labor message in a variety of swing states. Meanwhile, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s finances appear to be in dire straits as he commands a mere $3.9 million with $3.5 million in debts. Small wonder that his campaign is openly flirting with endorsing Trump as long as the former president is willing to promise, for whatever that promise is worth, a post (Secretary of Health and Human Services?) in a new administration to Kennedy. The most likely prospect is that Kennedy, who has not rated a mention at the convention, will drift into insignificance. It’s an amazing testament to the fall of the once-proud Kennedy family.

If there is a star of the convention, it appears to be the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025. Trump has sought to disown it, but Democrats are highlighting its proposals as a foundation for a new Trump administration. An oversized copy of the “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise”  is being held up by several speakers, including Pennsylvania state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta who deemed the document a “radical plan to drag us backwards, bankrupt the middle class and raise prices on working families like yours and mine.” The term “radical,” once the province of the Left, seems to be vying with “weird” as the favorite Democratic term of obloquy for Trump.

As Harris and her running mate Tim Walz prepare to make their respective big speeches tonight and tomorrow, it would not be surprising to see them flag Project 2025 as a danger to the republic. On July 23, Harris stated in Milwaukee that Trump and “his extreme Project 2025 agenda will weaken the middle class. Like, we know we got to take this seriously, and can you believe they put that thing in writing?” Most book authors could only dream of such publicity, but Trump and Co. appear to be running away from Project 2025 as quickly as they can.

About the Author: Editor of the National Interest, Jacob Heilbrunn

Jacob Heilbrunn is editor of The National Interest and is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center. He has written on both foreign and domestic issues for numerous publications, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Foreign Affairs, Reuters, Washington Monthly, and The Weekly Standard. He has also written for German publications such as Cicero, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, and Der Tagesspiegel. In 2008, his book They Knew They Were Right: the Rise of the Neocons was published by Doubleday. It was named one of the one hundred notable books of the year by The New York Times. He is the author of America Last: The Right’s Century-Long Romance with Foreign Dictators.

Image Credit: Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The D-21 was America’s first foray into drone technology, developed by Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works in the 1960s in response to growing Soviet anti-aircraft defenses.

-This supersonic surveillance drone, capable of flying at Mach 3.2, was initially launched from the SR-71 Blackbird before transitioning to the B-52H bomber.

-The D-21's primary mission was to gather intelligence on China’s nuclear program, but the project ultimately failed, with all four missions (1969-71) unsuccessful.

-Despite this, the D-21 significantly influenced future U.S. drone technology, and China's later WZ-8 drone bore a strong resemblance to the D-21.

The D-21 was America’s First Attempt at Drones

When one thinks of unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, the MQ-1 Predator or the MQ-9 Reaper probably come to mind. 

But America’s drones have a much longer operational history.

Way back in the 1960s, Lockheed Martin designed the D-21 supersonic surveillance drone at their Skunk Works facility. Created in response to the downing of Gary Powers and his U-2 spy plane, the D-21 was the U.S. military and intelligence community’s solution to the rapidly advancing Soviet anti-aircraft defenses ringing the Communist bloc states.  

The D-21 Specs

Designed to fly at an astonishing Mach 3.2, or 2,455 miles per hour, the D-21 employed a ramjet engine. This insanely fast early drone would be launched from an SR-71 Blackbird and continue to its target at supersonic speeds. 

If it were shot down, no one would be lost, and the Americans would have a degree of deniability. 

Because of the D-21’s unique design, though, launching from an equally radical airframe such as the SR-71 Blackbird proved to be a problem. So the Pentagon switched to a B-52H bomber. A rocket booster would launch the drone from the wing of the Stratofortress. 

China’s Nuclear Weapons Program

When the D-21 went active, the People’s Republic of China was rapidly developing an illicit nuclear weapons program. At this time, China was very similar to how we might today view North Korea: It was a backward and isolated land ruled by a vicious cult of personality. 

But China wanted nukes, and the Americans were rightly concerned about this prospect, especially given China’s close alliance at that time with the Soviet Union. 

China’s main nuclear test site was at a place called Lop Nur. To get a better read on what was occurring there, the Americans deployed their D-21 surveillance drone. Four major intelligence collection missions were launched against this target over the course of two years (1969-71). 

A Failure?

The program failed. According to Maya Carlin, two of the four drones were lost somewhere over China, while the other two malfunctioned and delivered no usable intelligence.

The Pentagon canceled the program in 1971. Unsurprisingly, the Chinese down the line unveiled their own supersonic drone, the WZ-8, which looked suspiciously like the D-21. 

The Chinese had captured one or both of the D-21s that were lost over the Middle Kingdom and reverse-engineered them. This, of course, was a portent of things to come.

Lockheed Martin’s design for the D-21 would go on to significantly influence future drone technology for the U.S. military. Even modern drones have been inspired by the lessons learned from the D-21. While the missions technically ended in failure, the program was not a complete waste of time. 

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock.

From the Vault

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

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

Humans could be at risk following the discovery of contaminated maize batches, health minister says.

Profitant des rayons de soleil de l’été, le festival du film francophone d’Angoulême, célèbrera sa 17ᵉ édition du 27 août au 1ᵉʳ septembre en France. […]

L’article Festival du film francophone d’Angoulême : le long-métrage algérien « L’Effacement » en lice est apparu en premier sur .

Hungary responded to Brussels' request for an explanation over its easing of entry requirements for Russian and Belarusian nationals on Wednesday (21 August), dismissing concerns about potential security risks to the bloc's Schengen border-free travel zone.

Summary and Key Points You Need to Know: Submarines are among the most potent assets in a nation's arsenal, capable of lurking in the ocean's depths to strike enemy targets with precision. The U.S. Navy, boasting the world's most formidable submarine fleet, is set to enhance its capabilities with the new SSN New Jersey, a Virginia-class fast-attack submarine.

-Designed to find and sink enemy warships, the SSN New Jersey, officially SSN 796, will join the Navy's fleet as the 23rd Virginia-class sub. With a $3.5 billion price tag and powered by nuclear energy, these submarines can operate for years without refueling, and the Navy plans to keep them in service well into the 2070s.

-Virginia-class subs, introduced in 2004, are equipped with an impressive arsenal, including Tomahawk cruise missiles and Mk48 torpedoes, making them a crucial component of U.S. naval power.

What Makes the Virginia-Class Submarine So Special? 

Submarines are some of the most powerful weapon systems in a country’s arsenal. They lurk in the depths of the ocean, ready to pounce on enemy shipping and deliver high-precision missiles, including nuclear weapons, to enemy targets thousands of miles away. 

The U.S. Navy has the most powerful submarine fleet in the world, with scores of vessels. And in a few weeks, the Navy will accept its newest submarine.

The SSN New Jersey 

On April 6, the Navy delivered the SSN New Jersey at the U.S. Naval Weapons Station. 

As a fast-attack submarine of the Virginia class, the SSN New Jersey will have a simple mission in the event of a conflict: find and sink enemy warships. 

Officially named SSN 796 New Jersey, the nuclear-powered submarine will join the most populous class of submarines in the U.S. Navy. The Navy currently operates three classes of fast-attack submarines (Los Angeles, Seawolf, and Virginia) for a total fleet of approximately 50 submarines. 

The Navy is planning to purchase a total of 66 Virginia-class submarines. As of February, 22 subs are in service, with the USS New Jersey soon to be the 23rd. In addition, 11 other submarines of the class are under construction, and four more are authorized by Congress.

The submarine has been years in the making. Its keel was laid in March 2019, and it comes with a price tag of approximately $3.5 billion. The new submarine will be the third warship to be named after the state of New Jersey. 

Powered by nuclear energy, the Virginia-class submarines can stay afloat for years without the need for refueling and are mainly limited by their victuals.

The Navy plans to operate the class well into the 2070s.

The Virginia-class Submarines 

Introduced with the SSN 774 Virginia in 2004, the Virginia class is the latest class of fast-attack submarines in the U.S. Navy. Built by General Dynamics Electric Boat Division and Huntington Ingalls Industries, the Virginia class is a powerful weapon system. 

At almost 380 feet long, the class has a beam of 34 feet and a displacement of approximately 7,800 tons submerged. The submarine can operate at depths of over 800 ft (about 250 meters). It can reach speeds of more than 25 nautical knots (over 28 miles per hour), and it relies on one nuclear reactor with one shaft for its propulsion. In terms of manpower, Virginia-class submarines have a crew of 132, with 15 officers and 117 enlisted personnel. 

But where the Virginia class shines is in its armament. There are five blocks, or modifications, with different combinations of weapons. Submarines carrying the Block I through IV weapons modifications have 12 Vertical Launching Tubes for Tomahawk cruise missiles and four 21-inch torpedo tubes that can fire Mk48 torpedoes or UGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles.

Considering the restrictions imposed by the limited space, the Virginia-class can pack a healthy 25 torpedoes/anti-ship missiles and over a dozen cruise missiles. Block V will add more missiles through the Virginia Payload Module.

About the Author  

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

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Alger, le 20 août 2024 – Une nouvelle ère s’ouvre pour le transport routier en Algérie. En effet, la société Holcim El Djazaïr vient de […]

L’article Le premier camion 100 % électrique fait son entrée sur le marché algérien est apparu en premier sur .