Agrégateur de flux

Les rassemblements contre la hausse des prix qui ont débuté jeudi 1ᵉʳ août, qui ont réuni des milliers de personnes à travers le pays, ont été réprimés par la police.

Deux personnes ont perdu la vie lors des manifestations de liesse après la publication des résultats de l’examen d'État à Kisangani, dans la province de la Tshopo. Une lauréate est décédée ce mardi 6 août dans un accident de circulation, et un jeune homme a été tué par machette lundi soir par un groupe de personnes en colère contre l’échec d’un des leurs.

Une dizaine de lauréats ont été grièvement blessés dans divers incidents.

So a young acquaintance asks what kinds of ships there are in a navy. That’s kind of a basic question. You would think it lends itself to a pithy answer intelligible to nonspecialists.

You would be wrong.

And that’s troublesome. Physicist Richard Feynman, a personal hero, maintained that if you can’t explain something to a sixth grader, you either don’t know the material well enough yourself or you have a problem communicating concepts. Ideas are not that complex. You need to deepen your knowledge, refine your teaching, or both. That’s sage counsel from a Nobel laureate. Let’s heed it.

Or try to.

The obvious way to approach queries about fleet design is by resorting to listmania. In other words, you could run through the litany of ship types found in naval inventories, from hulking aircraft carriers down to tugboats.

Do that and watch your questioner’s eyes glaze over.

There are many ship types, and distinctions between them can be obscure. For example, try explaining the difference between a U.S. Navy guided-missile cruiser and destroyer in a hurry. A cruiser is bigger than a destroyer, right? Well, not necessarily. The latest variant of the venerable Arleigh Burke-class destroyer displaces about as much as the Ticonderoga-class cruisers now leaving service. Burkes and Ticonderogas sport variants of the same combat system, known as Aegis—a combination radar, computer, and fire-control system. And they carry the same types of armaments, albeit cruisers feature substantially more vertical-launch missile siloes and thus more firepower than destroyers.

To further blur the distinction between ship types, the three Zumwalt-class stealth destroyers now being repurposed as surface strike platforms actually outweigh cruisers, and by a hefty margin. And they will pack hypersonic missiles whereas cruisers do not.

Etc. Distinguishing between surface combatants is far from straightforward. Feynman frowns.

Anyone trying to explain fleet design to nonspecialists runs afoul of such intricacies. Meeting the Feynman standard is hard. So rather than try to list all the ship types constituting a fleet, why not classify fighting ships by function? Simplifying is more promising. During the age of sail, in fact, it was downright easy. Ships of war were assigned to “rates” corresponding to the complement of guns they bore. Firepower determined their place in fleet operations. Naval historian extraordinaire Julian Corbett broke down wooden-walled fleets into three broad categories:

-Capital ships. These brawny combatants boasted the armament to mete out heavy gunfire barrages. They also had the defensive staying power—chiefly rugged hull construction—to absorb punishment while dueling rival capital ships. Capital ships constituted the navy’s battle fleet. They were big, specialized, and expensive. For that reason even the most lavishly appointed navy could only afford these apex predators in limited numbers.

-Cruisers. These were relatively inexpensive, less well-armed warships that nonetheless mounted sufficient gun power to police the sea lanes once the battle fleet had either vanquished the enemy fleet or blockaded it in port. Cruisers outgunned whatever remained of the hostile navy, letting them dominate less contested seas. Best of all, they were affordable in bulk. As a result the cruiser contingent had geographic reach that capital ships could never match given their small numbers. Cruisers could fan out, asserting control at many places on the nautical chart.

-Flotilla. This was a swarm of still smaller, more lightly armed, cheaper vessels that discharged the administrative duties all navies must discharge—chiefly in near-shore waters.

Corbett’s taxonomy of fighting ships remains a valuable point of departure for thinking through what various ship types are and do. But the neat lines separating those segments are indistinct nowadays. Even in Corbett’s day—over a century ago—he bewailed the revolution in seaborne weaponry that had overtaken naval warfare. It accompanied the changeover from wooden hulls and sail to steel hulls and steam and diesel propulsion. Even rudimentary submarines and surface patrol craft could now deploy heavy-hitting weapons such as sea mines and torpedoes. They could do heavy damage to cruisers and capital ships. No longer were small combatants an afterthought in naval warfare, as they had been for centuries when they were radically outgunned. This was now a battleworthy contingent.

A superempowered flotilla upended the Corbettian scheme of things—compelling battle fleets to take elaborate precautions to defend themselves when they ventured within reach of subs, torpedo craft, and minelayers. The new flotilla turned naval commanders’ world upside down, and Corbett’s with it. No longer was the age of sail—the chief source of historical data and insight into war at sea—a trustworthy guide to fleet design.

All of that being said, the fundamental naval functions endure. Some segment of a navy denies a foe access to important seaways if unable to defeat it outright. Sea denial is a quintessential flotilla action. Another fights for maritime command when the balance of forces favors it. There’s your battle function. A third exercises command once it’s in hand and the worst threats are at bay. Deny, win, and exploit control. There are your three basic ship types. Many types of hulls make up each contingent.

How would Corbett rate the U.S. Navy as a fighting force? I think he would find fault with it owing to imbalances in fleet design. It yaws overwhelmingly toward the battle fleet at the expense of other worthwhile endeavors such as sea denial. This is an artifact of navy culture. The U.S. Navy has grown accustomed to commanding the sea since 1945, as though command is a birthright. The service sees itself as being perpetually on offense. Thinking in terms of sea denial—by definition a strategy of the weaker pugilist—does not come easy to American naval chieftains.

Accordingly, the flotilla is a backwater in U.S. fleet design. About the only surface combatant that fits neatly into the flotilla category is the littoral combat ship, a vessel designed to operate in coastal waters under reduced threat. And the leadership has soured on the littoral combat ship, retiring youthful hulls at the same time shipyards complete the last few. If American commanders opt for sea denial, accordingly, they will be forced to harness heavier ships such as destroyers and submarines rather than purpose-built flotilla craft. This could change as technology matures. It will be reasonable to classify uncrewed surface and subsurface vessels as part of the flotilla as they join the fleet.

The result would be a hybrid, more balanced fleet. Gee-whiz technology could be salvation in the Western Pacific, where America is unlikely to be the stronger contender on day one of a conflict.

The capital-ship contingent predominates within the U.S. Navy—again, a force constructed with offense rather than defense in mind. Aircraft carriers, cruisers, and destroyers boast that combination of offensive and defensive power needed to fight peer navies for command of the sea. Supporting the battle fleet is a combat logistics fleet made up of tankers, stores ships, and the like. Supply vessels don’t fit ideally into any of the three functions, but they are an indispensable enabler for everything the navy does. No navy prospers without regular supplies of fuel, ammunition, and stores of all kinds. That’s why no carrier or surface action group is complete unless accompanied by one or more of these workhorses.

And exploiting command? The cruiser contingent is no longer made up of cruisers in Corbett’s sense of light combatants fielded in large numbers to control the sea. Frigates and corvettes are the modern counterparts to his cruisers. The U.S. Navy is attempting to add a new frigate to the fleet, known as the Constellation class. A frigate is a lighter combatant than a cruiser or destroyer, with more modest sensors and weapons. It should be adequate for policing the sea against remnants of the hostile navy. But with only twenty Constellation-class hulls on the navy’s wish list, and with the program plagued by construction delays, it’s foreordained that capital ships will pull double duty once they have won maritime command.

Corbett was right: capital ships are too expensive to fit out in large numbers, and the U.S. Navy is top-heavy with them. It will not have enough ships in the inventory to control all vital sea lanes by itself, and to otherwise exploit the blessings of maritime command. It must fill in the force structure with low-cost craft—chiefly unmanned, one supposes—while seeking help from fellow U.S. armed services and allies.

Faster, please.

It's worth noting that Julian Corbett could have added a fourth naval function to the list. Indeed, he should have. He was a full-throated advocate of expeditionary operations, meaning operations that that navies execute to shape events on land, whether by landing troops, projecting force inland from the sea by means of fire support, or some other means. The U.S. Navy’s amphibious fleet—a fleet of transports used to deposit U.S. Marines on foreign shores—constitutes the core of the American naval expeditionary force.

Once the capital-ship fleet has wrested control of sea, sky, and coastal zones from an antagonist, it’s safe enough for amphibious groups to move in close enough to do their work. Some “amphibs” or “gators” bear a strong resemblance to aircraft carriers, featuring long, flat flight decks populated by helicopters and sometimes fixed-wing combat aircraft. Think Top Gun: Maverick. And in fact these “big-deck” amphibious warships are similar in proportion to frontline World War II flattops. Other amphibs look like humble transports. Many such vessels can ballast down, taking on seawater in order to partly submerge. Ballasting down allows landing craft to launch from bays in their sterns or return to the ship.

Corbett insisted that wars are won on land because people live on land. Controlling the sea while radiating power ashore is how the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps contribute to ultimate victory, working alongside the Army and Air Force as well as allies. Winning demands combined effort.

So there’s my rough guide to ship types. Does it meet the Richard Feynman sixth-grader standard? You be the judge.

About the Author: Dr. James Holmes 

James Holmesi s J. C. Wylie Chair of Maritime Strategy at the Naval War College and a Nonresident Fellow at the University of Georgia School of Public and International Affairs. The views voiced here are his alone.

All images are Creative Commons. 

Plus d'une semaine que des émeutes ont lieu à travers le Royaume-Uni, sur fond de racisme et de fake news, suite au meurtre de trois fillettes par un jeune Britannique dont les parents sont originaires du Rwanda. Des événements commentés par la classe politique en France, en particulier par l'extrême droite.

Une quinzaine de partis politiques d’opposition et de mouvements citoyens, réunis ce mardi 6 août à Kinshasa, ont qualifié de « catastrophique » la situation du pays huit mois après les dernières élections.

Ils ont appelé à l’union de toute l’opposition et des mouvements citoyens contre le pouvoir en place.

Summary and Key Points: The Israel Aerospace Industries Kfir ("Lion Cub") is a multi-role fighter developed after Israel's access to the French Mirage 5 was blocked due to an arms embargo. Israel reverse-engineered the Mirage, resulting in the Nesher and later the Kfir, powered by a General Electric J79 engine.

-The Kfir entered service with the Israeli Air Force in 1975 but was soon overshadowed by American F-15s and F-16s.

-It remains in service with several other countries despite its brief prominence in Israel's military.

The Israel Aerospace Industries Kfir (“Lion Cub”) is an all-weather multi-role fighter with a peculiar history. 

Before the development of the Kfir, the Israeli Air Force relied heavily on the Dassault Mirage IIIC, a French delta-winged fighter. In the 1960s, the Israelis and French enjoyed a harmonious relationship. The Mirage IIIC was in fact tailored to the needs of the IAF, and the Israelis found the aircraft satisfactory, at least with respect to air superiority missions. 

But the Mirage IIIC’s limited range meant the jet could not conduct many of the ground-attack missions the Israelis wanted to execute. The Israelis sought a more versatile airframe, so they pushed their French allies to begin developing the Mirage 5.

The Mirage 5

Dassault, the French aerospace manufacturer responsible for the Mirage IIIC, began working on a modified version – an aircraft that would become the Mirage 5. 

Dassault removed the avionics that were located behind the IIIC’s cockpit, allowing for increased fuel capacity and reduced maintenance costs. The result was a fair-weather, ground-attack version of the Mirage IIIC. 

By 1968, Dassault had built 50 Mirage 5s – all intended for Israel, which had paid for the airframes. But geopolitical circumstances changed swiftly. Newly inaugurated French President Charles de Gaulle made efforts to repair relations between France and the Arab world. De Gaulle retracted the French claim on Algeria, and he cut ties with Israel. 

The French government imposed an arms embargo against Israel, which would never receive the Mirage 5s they had already paid for. Israel did not sit idly by – it could not afford to lose its air superiority advantage to adversaries who were being equipped with increasingly sophisticated Soviet fighters. 

Industrial Espionage

The Israelis used spies to gather the technical specifications for the Mirage 5 airframe and engine. With the stolen tech specs, Israel was able to reverse-engineer the Mirage 5, resulting in the IAI Nesher. The Nesher itself was upgraded, resulting in the Kfir.

The Kfir used a Bedek-built General Electric J79 engine, which provided 11,900 pounds of thrust dry, and 17,900 pounds of thrust with afterburners. The engine allowed for a maximum speed of 1,520 miles per hour and a combat range of 477 miles. The Kfir’s service ceiling was 58,010 feet, with a rate of climb measuring 45,900 feet per minute.

For armament, the Kfir carried two Rafael-built 30mm DEFA 553 cannons with 140 rounds of ammunition each; a variety of unguided air-to-ground rockets; missiles including the AIM-9 Sidewinder, Shafrir Aam, Shrike Anti-Radiation Missile, and AGM-65 Maverick; plus, plenty of bombs. In all, the Kfir could carry a payload exceeding six tons.  

Entering Service With the IAF

The Kfir entered service with the Israeli Air Force in 1975. Two years later, the aircraft entered combat for the first time, striking a training camp in Lebanon. In 1979, the Kfir earned its only air-to-air victory when it shot down a Syrian MiG-21. Despite the lengths to which the Israelis went to obtain and develop the Kfir, the jet was not the IAF’s primary fighter for very long. By the time Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, it relied on the U.S. for air power, and the IAF imported the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon for air superiority roles. The Kfir was relegated to secondary status, conducting unescorted strike missions. By the 1990s, the Israelis began retiring the Kfir. 

The Kfir is still in service today in air forces that rely on outdated airframes, including Colombia, Ecuador, and Sri Lanka. 

The Kfir is curious for its notable development. Its less remarkable operational history is somewhat anticlimactic. 

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. 

L'Académie nationale des sciences, des arts et des lettres du Burkina Faso (ANSAL/BF), dans une déclaration rendue publique, ce 6 août 2024, réitère son soutien à l'équipe de Target Malaria. Elle demande également à la population d'en faire autant en faisant confiance aux travaux de Target Malaria.

Summary and Key Points: The B-2 Spirit bomber, crucial for deep-penetration nuclear strikes, is limited by its small fleet of about 20 aircraft, making them too valuable to risk in large numbers.

-With the rise of advanced anti-aircraft systems from adversaries like China and Russia, the need for a more capable bomber, the B-21 Raider, has become critical.

-However, budgetary constraints threaten the production of sufficient B-21s to maintain credible deterrence, repeating the same mistake made with the B-2 fleet.

-The Pentagon's push for more B-21s faces significant challenges.

The Great B-21 Numbers Game 

The B-2 Bomber is the only bomber in the US Air Force’s inventory that is capable of penetrating deep into an enemy’s territory, delivering a nuclear payload, and surviving. Its stealth technology has made it a prized asset in the US military’s arsenal. Yet, there are only about 20 of these beauties. Having first entered service in 1997, even as enemy anti-aircraft/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities have become significant threats to America’s ability to project power globally, the United States Congress has not authorized anymore to be built. 

This means that the B-2s are far too valuable to risk in any large numbers. Despite the advantages its stealth technology gives, nations like China and Russia have steadily developed increasingly sophisticated ways to detect and threaten the safety of US stealth planes—notably older models, such as the B-2.

For the B-2 to be a reliable strategic asset in today’s highly contested world order, the Pentagon needed significantly more units than a mere 20. Today, there is a newer, more advanced, stealth plane on the rise: the B-21 “Raider.” This warplane is like the B-2, only better. Yet, there is a debate raging in defense circles as to how many the Pentagon could afford and reliably build, given its budgetary constraints and its other commitments. 

Basically, the Pentagon is doing to the B-21 what it did to the B-2 for the last 30 years: short-changing it. Therefore, Washington’s bureaucracy is undercutting America’s strategic advantages. 

The US Defense Budget: Constrained, Drained, and Broken

Even though the US defense budget is just a couple hundred billion shy of $1 trillion, the US military is more constrained than it has ever been. At a time when the United States is more threatened by near-peer rivals than it has been in decades. Weapons systems like the B-21 “Raider” are essential for the US military, if it is to maintain its deterrence against enemies like China and rivals, like Russia. 

Part of the problem is that the costs for the weapons systems that the Pentagon needs to maintain credible deterrence are onerous on the taxpayer. Having fallen behind China and Russia in key new defense technologies, like lasers or hypersonic weapons, the ability for America to threaten its rivals falls on existing technologies, like the B-21. But the B-21, despite being easier and cheaper to build than an entirely new technology, remains an expensive system.

And that’s why the Pentagon is receiving pushback on its request for 300 B-21s. They’ll be lucky at this point if they can get 20. These are insufficient numbers to maintain credible deterrence. If either China or Russia no longer believe America’s deterrence is reliable, they will seek to exponentially expand their challenge to the United States. It will provoke the very war that America’s strategy of deterrence and denial has been designed to prevent. 

Like the B-2, the B-21 is one of America’s only surefire ways that it can threaten targets belonging to China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea, that are hardened by A2/AD defenses as never before. America allowed for the impressive B-2 bomber to languish in its arsenal for decades by only building a handful of these marvels. The B-21 is more relevant today than the B-2 will ever be. What’s more, B-21 is one of the few systems that can actually wreak havoc on enemy countries, if—and when—the next great power war erupts. 

America's Defenses are In a Bad Place

The Pentagon must be given the funds it needs to build at least 300 B-21s—and it must be done quickly before the next great power war commences (even if it means cutting other programs that the Air Force favors to meet this increased demand for the B-21). 

About the Author

Brandon J. Weichert is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, as well as at American Greatness and the Asia Times. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower (Republic Book Publishers), Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Une enquête menée par Médecins sans frontières (MSF), dédiée à l’épidémiologie et la recherche médicale, auprès de personnes déplacées dans quatre camps autour de Goma (Nord-Kivu) révèle des niveaux alarmants de violences, en particulier sexuelles, qui perdurent dans et autour des camps.

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Air Force's B-21 Raider stealth bomber program is progressing as planned, with prototypes undergoing successful flight and technology testing. Developed by Northrop Grumman, the B-21 is designed with advanced stealth capabilities, long-range efficiency, and high maintainability.

-It's expected to be operational within the decade and will play a crucial role in penetrating advanced air defenses, such as those of China.

-The Air Force plans to acquire at least 100 of these strategic bombers, which will complement the existing B-52 fleet.

The Vital B-21 Raider Stealth Bomber: A Must Have for USAF

The program to deliver the U.S. military’s most advanced strategic bomber is on schedule, according to senior U.S. officials. The Air Force expects the B-21 Raider strategic stealth bomber to be operational within the decade. 

The B-21 Raider is on Track 

“The B-21 Raider program is on track and continues flight testing at Northrop Grumman’s manufacturing facility on Edwards Air Force Base, Calif,” the Air Force said in a press release. 

“The B-21 will have an open architecture to integrate new technologies and respond to future threats across the spectrum of operations, greatly enhancing mission effectiveness and joint interoperability in advanced threat environments, strengthening U.S. deterrence and strategic advantage.”

A senior Air Force official recently said much the same during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

“We are in the flight test program, the flight test program is proceeding well,” Andrew Hunter, assistant secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, said. “It is doing what flight test programs are designed to do, which is helping us learn about the unique characteristics of this platform, but in a very, very effective way.”

The B-21 Raider is a sixth-generation strategic stealth bomber under development by Northrop Grumman. Prototypes are undergoing intense flight and technology testing. Meanwhile, the Department of Defense has cleared the aircraft for full-scale production. 

The B-21 Raider and Its Capabilities 

As one of the most technologically advanced aircraft in the U.S. military, the B-21 Raider carries highly sensitive tech. As such, little is known about the aircraft’s specific capabilities. The U.S. military has instead provided a broad overview of what the B-21 Raider should achieve. 

“Let's talk about the B-21's range. No other long-range bomber can match its efficiency. It won't need to be based in-theater. It won't need logistical support to hold any target at risk,” Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said during the B-21’s unveiling ceremony in December 2022. 

“Let's talk about the B-21's stealth. Fifty years of advances in low-observable technology have gone into this aircraft,” Austin added at the time. “And even the most sophisticated air-defense systems will struggle to detect a B-21 in the sky. Let's talk about the B-21's durability. You know, we really don't have a capability unless we can maintain it. And the B-21 is carefully designed to be the most maintainable bomber ever built.”  

Current estimates put the cost for a single B-21 Raider at around $750 million, although the Air Force is trying to lower that figure. But the aircraft promises to endow the U.S. military with capabilities that are absolutely necessary in future combat. For example, in a potential conflict with China, this jet could penetrate Beijing’s Anti-Access/Area Denial umbrella and deliver conventional and nuclear munitions to targets deep within Chinese air defenses. 

The Air Force has made plans to purchase at least 100 B-21 strategic stealth bombers. It wants to pair the high-tech strategic bomber with the venerable B-52 Stratofortress. 

About the Author

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Les conseillers communaux ont exprimé leurs desiderata au président de l’Assemblée nationale, Vital Kamerhe, lors d’une rencontre d’échanges ce mardi 6 août, dans la salle de banquet du Palais du peuple.

Depuis leur installation il y a six mois, les conseils communaux n'ont reçu aucun financement pour leur mise en place, et 95% d'entre eux ne disposent d'aucune infrastructure pour fonctionner. L’objectif de cette rencontre était de discuter de ces questions.

Après Kaylia Nemour et Imane Khelif, Djamel Sedjati demeure l’autre espoir algérien pour une médaille aux Jeux Olympiques Paris-2024. Qualifié pour la demi-finale du 800m, […]

L’article Djamel Sedjati, l’autre espoir algérien pour une médaille aux JO Paris 2024 est apparu en premier sur .

Summary and Key Points: The United States Air Force's fleet includes some of the world's most advanced aircraft, essential for maintaining air superiority. The F-22 Raptor, F-35 Lightning II, B-2 Spirit, B-21 Raider, and B-52 Stratofortress are key platforms.

-Each offers unique capabilities, from the F-22's unmatched stealth and maneuverability to the B-52's long-range nuclear delivery.

-As global threats evolve, these aircraft continue to be central to U.S. defense, with future advancements in the B-21 and continued reliance on the B-52 highlighting the ongoing need for air dominance.

5 Most Powerful Warplanes: Inside the U.S. Air Force's Most Advanced Aircraft Fleet

As a core pillar of any Western air force, gaining and maintaining air superiority has regularly been prioritized in America’s military doctrine.

The Pentagon has invested billions of dollars into developing advanced airframes across each service and the U.S. has benefitted from having air superiority over its adversaries for decades.

Although nations including China and Russia, have modernized their own aerial capabilities in recent years, certain U.S. platforms flown by the Air Force and Navy represent some of the world’s best aircraft across the globe. 

The F-22 Raptor

As the world’s first fifth-generation fighter to ever fly the skies, the F-22 Raptor is largely touted as the most advanced platform in service today.

The Raptor was the first operational fighter to combine stealth, supermaneuverability, supercruise, and sensor fusion in a single platform. Back in 1997, the Air Force’s infamous jet took its first flight with the service and continues to wow aviation buffs more than two decades later.

The Raptor’s smaller radar cross-section and twin thrust-vectoring F119 turbofan engines are perhaps the fighter’s greatest assets. Its thrust-vectoring capacity allows the Raptor to outperform any other jet in a dogfight since it can redirect the flow of energy that enables the airframe to do the remarkable acrobatics it is known for. 

Ordnance-wise, the F-22 can sport two AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles in its twin internal side weapon bays in addition to six AIM-120 AMRAAM radar-guided air-to-air missiles or 2 AIM-120 AMRAAM and two GBU-32 JDAM munitions in its central weapons bay.   

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

America’s newest fifth-generation fighter, the F-35 Lightning II, is undoubtedly the most coveted tactical jet worldwide.

Foreign militaries are hankering to get their hands on the formidable and stealthy fighter that essentially embodies the functions of three planes in a single platform.

The “Joint Strike Fighter” was initially designed to replace the U.S. Marine Corps’ F/A-18 and AV-8B Harrier, the U.S. Navy’s F/A-18, and the U.S. Air Force’s A-10 and F-16 airframes. Depending on the variant, the highly versatile fighter can do it all, including conventional takeoff and landing and aircraft carrier landings. 

The Lightning II is best known for its “beast mode” capabilities. Essentially, the fighter can load up on munitions on its external weapons pylons and turn the craft into a “bomb truck.” Beast mode does, however, compromise the stealth ability of the airframe.

While in stealth mode, the F-35 is limited to the weapons it can carry internally, protected by a radar-evading fuselage. In beast mode, however, the F-35 can sport nearly four times more ordinance by using its external mounts, which carry upwards of 22,000 pounds of weaponry. Although the Lightning II is a relatively new fighter, over 900 airframes have been exported, indicating the jet’s remarkable popularity across the globe. 

The B-2 Spirit

While the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit stealth bomber is over 30 years old, the strategic platform remains a powerhouse in the sky. The aging airframe will eventually be replaced by the newer and more advanced B-21 Raider, however, the aircraft represents the most lethal bomber across the globe today.

Since its introduction into service during the Cold War, the B-2 has proved itself in numerous combat operations in locales ranging from Libya and Kosovo to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Spirit was designed to penetrate anti-aircraft defenses and remains the only acknowledged platform that can sport large air-to-surface standoff weapons in a stealth configuration.

According to the Air Force, the blending of the Spirit’s low-observable technologies with high aerodynamic efficiency and greater payload gives the airframe a significant advantage over near-peer bombers. “The B-2's low observability is derived from a combination of reduced infrared, acoustic, electromagnetic, visual, and radar signatures.

These signatures make it difficult for the sophisticated defensive systems to detect, track and engage the B-2. Many aspects of the low-observability process remain classified; however, the B-2's composite materials, special coatings and flying-wing design all contribute to its stealthiness."

The B-21 Raider

As the first component of the U.S. nuclear deterrent’s $1 trillion overhaul, the Raider is expected to single-handedly elevate the U.S. military’s aerial dominance. The Northrop Grumman-designed platform will carry both conventional and nuclear arms, giving it an “edge that will last for decades,” according to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.

Similar to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Raider will operate like an “airborne data hub.” Many of the details surrounding the B-21 Raider remain classified.

The B-52 Stratofortress

Although the U.S. Air Force’s fleet of B-52 airframes has been in service for almost 70 years, the formidable platform continues to represent the mainstay of the service’s bomber fleet. Even with the eventual addition of the B-21 Raider into the mix, the Stratofortress will continue to serve as a significant deterrent to China and other U.S. adversaries.

The bomber has an honorable track record, operating during the Vietnam War, Operation Desert Storm, the Second Gulf War, and Afghanistan. The current B-52 can fly nearly 9,000 miles before needing to refuel. Along with its nuclear delivery capabilities, the platform can launch stand-off cruise missiles.

This very old platform is expected to fly the skies into the 2050s. 

As tensions continue to soar between the U.S. and China, prospects for a future kinetic conflict increase. American airframes possess a range of sophisticated and unique capabilities; however, Beijing has been rapidly modernizing its Air Force over the last decade. The U.S. isn’t the only producer of fifth-generation airframes anymore, making its next generation of planes even more vital.

Expert Biography

Maya Carlin, a Senior Editor for 19FortyFive, is an analyst with the Center for Security Policy and a former Anna Sobol Levy Fellow at IDC Herzliya in Israel. She has by-lines in many publications, including The National Interest, Jerusalem Post, and Times of Israel.

All images are Creative Commons. 

Le bâtonnier du Kwilu, Laurent Kalengi, est jugé en tant que prévenu dans le cadre du procès des éléments des Forces du progrès de l'UDPS. Le ministère public l'accuse d'avoir été en contact avec les membres de cette structure du parti présidentiel lors de l'opération de déguerpissement des occupants d'un immeuble situé sur l'avenue Uvira.

Summary and Key Points: The Royal Navy's Vanguard-class nuclear submarines serve as the UK's strategic nuclear deterrent, carrying Trident II D5 missiles. Introduced in 1994, the four Vanguard-class subs are the largest built in the UK and the third-largest vessels in the Royal Navy. Their only mission is to fire a vast amount of nuclear weapons at any targets - if ever called upon to do so. 

-These subs will eventually be replaced by the Dreadnought-class.

-The Vanguard-class also features advanced sonar systems and torpedoes for anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare. Despite aging, they remain crucial to the UK's defense strategy.

Vanguard-Class Submarines: UK's Nuclear Deterrent Powerhouses

The Royal Navy’s four Vanguard-class nuclear-powered submarines (SSBNs) currently form the UK’s strategic nuclear deterrent force. Each of the boats is armed with Trident II D5 nuclear missiles. They are also the largest submarines ever constructed in the UK and are the third-largest type of vessel in the Royal Navy.

The Vanguard-class was introduced in 1994 as part of the British military’s Trident nuclear program and includes just four boats: Vanguard (S28), Victorious (S29), Vigilant (S30), and Vengeance (S31). The submarines were constructed between 1986 and 1999 at Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria by the former Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering (now BAE Systems Marine).

All four of the submarines are based at HM Naval Base Clyde, west of Glasgow, Scotland. The Vanguard-class boats were originally intended for a service life of twenty-five years, and will be replaced as the new Dreadnaught-class of ballistic missile submarines is set to enter service.

Each submarine is powered by a Rolls-Royce PWR2 nuclear reactor, with two GEC turbines; and has a single shaft and a single pump-jet propulsor and two WH Allen turbo generators.

Vanguard-Class: Largest Subs in the Royal Navy

At nearly 150 meters in length and more than 16,000 metric tons, the Vanguard-class remains the largest submarine type ever constructed in the UK, and it has remained the third-largest type of combat vessel in service with Royal Navy. The submarines have twice the displacement of the Polaris submarines of the Resolution-class. Due to the size of the boats, a special production facility had to be built to handle the construction of the Vanguard and her sister submarines.

The increased size of the subs was necessary to accommodate the Trident D5 missile, yet the complement of the class is small at just 132 officers and sailors, compared to the Polaris boats, which required a crew of 149. The 16-tube missile compartment on the new Trident submarines is based on the 24-tube system utilized on the United States Navy’s Ohio-class Trident submarines. Missile maintenance occurs in the United States, while the UK Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston was responsible for all the design, construction and installation, as well as maintenance of the warheads.

The Trident nuclear missiles can be fired at targets up to 4,000 miles away and at their maximum speed travels at more than 13,000 miles an hour.

The Vanguard-class was also designed with several significant improvements, which included a new design of the nuclear propulsion system as well as a new tactical weapon system or self-defense purposes, both before and after a missile launch. Under “normal” conditions, the submarines are equipped with one to three warheads depending on mission, yet each Vanguard-class submarine is capable of carrying 192 warheads.

In September 2009, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown told the UN General Assembly that the UK was ready to reduce its Vanguard-class submarine force by one. Brown had said that the offer was being made to encourage other nuclear-powered countries to move towards a nuclear-weapons-free world. However, such a move never came to pass.

Missiles and Torpedoes

While designed to serve as a nuclear deterrent, the Vanguard-class boats are also equipped with four 21-inch (533mm) torpedo tubes and can carry up to 16 Spearfish heavyweight torpedoes, which can be guided by copper wire or by autonomous active or pass sonar.

At full speed, the Spearfish can attack a target up to 14 miles away, while at low speed the range is increased to more than 30 miles. The torpedoes can deliver a 660 pound explosive charge, and that provides the boats with both anti-submarine (ASW) and anti-surface warfare (ASuW) capabilities.

The boats are also fitted with what the Royal Navy calls “world-beating sonar,” which is reportedly so sensitive that it can “hear” vessels more than 50 miles away. That can help ensure that the Vanguard-class can live up to its moniker and remain the foremost part of an advancing naval force.

About the Author

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He regularly writes about military hardware, and is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes.

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The UK’s Vanguard-class submarines, introduced in the 1990s, are the backbone of the Royal Navy's nuclear deterrent force.

-These submarines carry the UGM-133 Trident II missiles and were developed to replace the older Resolution-class vessels.

-Each Vanguard can carry up to 16 Trident II missiles, with a limited load of 48 nuclear warheads.

The submarines are powered by nuclear propulsion, allowing them to operate for extended periods.

-The Vanguard-class will be replaced by the Dreadnought-class submarines in the early 2030s.

The Enduring Power of the UK’s Vanguard-Class Submarines

The United Kingdom’s Vanguard-class submarines may be aging, yet these nuclear-powered vessels remain the backbone of the Royal Navy. Sometime in the next decade, the UK’s upcoming Dreadnought-class submarines are expected to replace their Vanguard predecessors. However, the Trident missile system incorporated on the Vanguards will be carried over to the new class.

A brief history of the Vanguard-class:

During the Cold War, the UK’s leading submarines were four Resolution-class ships. Each of these vessels was fitted with the UGM-27 Polaris missile, a solid-fueled, nuclear-armed weapon designed originally for the U.S. Navy.

Since the Polaris was launched underwater from a moving platform, it was basically impossible for enemy ships to intercept and take out. As part of the 1963 Polaris Sales Agreement, the UK was able to incorporate this invaluable weapon missile system. While the Resolution ships (and the Polaris missile) were considered top-of-the-line for many years, a subsequent series of submarines and accompanying missiles were conceptualized by the early 1980s.

Ultimately, then-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher officially requested to purchase the American-made Trident I missiles in 1980. However, the introduction of an enhanced Trident II variant altered this request. In 1982, an agreement between the UK and the U.S. culminated in the delivery of the UGM-133 Trident II.

The Vanguard-class submarines were designed to launch this formidable weapon, developed by Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering at BAE Systems Maritime-Submarines.

In 1994, the Vanguard-class was officially introduced, including Vanguard (S28), Victorious (S29), Vigilant (S30) and Vengeance (S31). When the class was introduced, all four ships were intended to live out service lives of twenty-five years. Each ship is based at HM Naval Base Clyde, west of Glasgow, Scotland.

Their mission is to ensure nuclear deterrence and, if called upon, fire their warheads at nearly any target on Earth. 

The four Vanguard ships are powered by nuclear propulsion, which allows them to sail for periods stretching up to two months without needing to refuel. Although the Vanguard submarines were built bigger to accommodate the Trident missile, a smaller crew of just 132 sailors and officers can fit on board.

The Vanguard submarines can pack a punch:

Each Vanguard can carry up to 16 Trident II missiles, which can sport up to 12 MIRVs. However, the START I treaty agreements limit this number to eight.

As detailed by Naval Technology, the Vanguard ships can technically sport 192 nuclear warheads, but the Royal Navy has limited this number to 48 missiles. “Trident II is a three-stage solid propellant missile with supersonic speed. Weight is 59,000kg.

The US Navy gives the range of the D5 as ‘greater than 7,360km’ but this could be up to 12,000km, depending on the payload mix. The accuracy of strike on the target is given by the Circle of Equal Probability (CEP) value, which is the radius of the circle within which half the strikes will impact.” The Vanguard ships additionally feature sophisticated sensors, including the Thales Underwater Systems Type 2054 composite sonar system. This upgraded system is reportedly so sensitive that it can detect other ships positioned more than 50 miles away.  

While the Vanguard ships remain a critical component of the Royal Navy, three Dreadnought successors are already under construction and will likely commission sometime in the early 2030’s.

About the Author: Maya Carlin 

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

Main Image: Creative Commons

Während in Europa hitzig über die Konsequenzen einer möglichen Wiederwahl Donald Trumps debattiert wird, offenbaren die Diskussionen in Australien, Japan und Südkorea größeres Vertrauen in Washingtons Sicherheitsversprechen. Dort ist die Angst, dass die USA ihre erweiterte nukleare Abschreckung beenden könnten, deutlich weniger ausgeprägt als in Europa. Diese Zuversicht scheint in erster Linie auf dem parteiübergreifenden Konsens in Washington zu beruhen, dass die USA China eindämmen müssen und dafür zuverlässige Verbündete im Pazifikraum brauchen. Gleichzeitig wollen diese US-Verbündeten die existierende regionale Ord­nung beibehalten und sind bereit, Washington tatkräftig zu unterstützen. Trumps potentielle Wiederkehr ändert daran wenig. Stattdessen fürchten die pazifischen Bündnispartner ordnungspolitische Herausforderungen in Ostasien, die auch für Europas Sicherheit und Wohlstand von großer Bedeutung sind.

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Air Force's "elephant walks," where aircraft taxi in close formation before takeoff, have become symbolic demonstrations of military readiness.

-A notable example occurred in January 2020 at Hill Air Force Base with 52 F-35 Lightning II fighters. This exercise showcased the unit's combat readiness, with each F-35 costing $44,000 per flight hour.

-The exercise not only tested operational capabilities but also sent a powerful message about the U.S. military's air power to adversaries like China and Russia.

F-35 Stealth Fighter Flex: The Elephant Walk of Elephant Walks 

In recent years, the United States Air Force has conducted a number of very high-profile "elephant walks," the term for taxiing a number of aircraft before takeoff. In addition to the close formation on the ground, it can involve a minimum interval takeoff.

The first elephant walks occurred during the Second World War when large fleets of allied bombers massed for attacks – and observers on the ground noted that as the aircraft lined up, it resembled the nose-to-tail formations of elephants walking to a watering hole. Today, the U.S. Air Force employs elephant walks to show the capability of a unit as well as the teamwork that is required to conduct such an operation.

It also can help pilots prepare for the launching of fully armed aircraft in a mass event if needed.

The Walk of the F-35 Lightning IIs

While during World War II, dozens and even hundreds of bombers could be lined up, recent elephant walks are far smaller but no less impressive, especially considering the capabilities of modern aircraft.

Such was the case in January 2020, when the United States Air Force's Active Duty 388th and Reserve 419th Fighter Wings conducted the Combat Power Exercise at Hill Air Force Base (AFB), Utah with 52 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II 35As – the conventional takeoff and landing variant of the U.S. military's Joint Strike Fighter.

The elephant walk of the F-35 Lightning IIs was employed to demonstrate the "ability to employ a large force of F-35As" as well as to test the air wing's readiness for personnel accountability, aircraft generation, ground operations, flight operations, and combat capability, according to a Hill statement from the time.

Elephant Walk Photo Worth a Few Million Dollars

Though the U.S. Air Force's press photos may have looked to many like little more than a number of aircraft lined up, the exercise had actually been planned for months. As TheDrive.com reported, "The amount of hardware on the runway in terms of billions of dollars is staggering."

As previously reported, the elephant walk was quite costly to pull off, as the F-35 Lightning II costs $44,000 per hour to fly.

If each of the 52 F-35 fighters in the elephant walk flew for just a single hour, it was still a $2 million-plus exercise. If the jets flew for two hours, the cost likely exceeded about $4 million.

Yet, it could be described as priceless.

The ability to launch 52 of the fifth-generation F-35 stealth fighters was as much to send a message to detractors of the program within the United States as it was to reaffirm the capabilities of the U.S. Air Force to near-peer adversaries such as China and Russia.

It highlighted the improved readiness rate of the F-35 fleet at the time, which had been lagging for years when the elephant walk was conducted in 2020.

The service had only just reached a mission-capable rate of 75 percent the prior October, up from just 66 percent a year earlier.

No doubt an adversary would have loved to have the chance to take out the Lightning IIs on the ground – which is about the time that the aircraft can be described as truly vulnerable.

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. Email the Author: Editor@nationalinterest.org. 

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Der zwischenstaatliche Ausschuss für Klimaänderungen (IPCC) ist zu seiner 61. Plenarsitzung zusammengekommen. Es konnte jedoch keine Einigung über den Zeitplan für die nächsten Berichte erzielt werden.

(Ouagadougou, 07 août 2024). Le Président de la République de Sierra Leone, Julius Maada BIO est arrivé, ce mercredi matin à Ouagadougou, pour une visite de travail et d'amitié.

Il a été accueilli à sa descente d'avion par le Président du Faso, le Capitaine Ibrahim TRAORE. Après les honneurs militaires et un tête-à-tête entre les deux Hommes d'Etat au salon d'honneur de l'aéroport international de Ouagadougou, le cortège a mis le cap sur le palais présidentiel de Koulouba.

Les deux Chefs d'Etat auront une séance de travail élargie à leurs délégations, suivie d'un huis-clos entre les Présidents TRAORE et BIO. Ils passeront en revue plusieurs questions d'intérêt commun liées à l'unité africaine et à la situation internationale.

La visite sera aussi une occasion pour les deux Chefs d'Etat d'échanger autour des axes de coopération bilatérale entre le Burkina Faso et la République de Sierra Leone.

Direction de la Communication de la Présidence du Faso