Agrégateur de flux

Summary and Top Points You Need to Know: Russia’s sole aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, is widely regarded as a national embarrassment, plagued by technical issues, accidents, and frequent breakdowns. Originally commissioned in 1991, the carrier was meant to project Soviet naval power, but it has since become a symbol of Russia's declining military capabilities.

-Despite its numerous problems, Russia continues to invest in the carrier, likely due to national pride and a desire to maintain carrier operational capabilities.

-However, many analysts believe that the ship is beyond saving and that Russia would be better off investing in a new generation of carriers.

Why Russia Clings to Its Problematic Aircraft Carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov

Russia’s only aircraft carrier, the smoke-spewing, broken down Admiral Kuznetsov, is described by the Russian Navy as a “heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser.” While that might sound impressive, it is not. Admiral Kuznetsov is a continuing embarrassment for the proud Russian military.

The only reason one can assume that the Russians want to keep this national embarrassment around is to train crews for the future, supposedly better, aircraft carrier fleet that Moscow has been planning to build since 2017. 

Still, the carrier is a smoldering embarrassment that any other nation would have scrapped years ago. Indeed, Admiral Kuznetsov was more of an experiment than anything else – one undertaken at a time when the Soviet government was on its way to history’s dustbin. 

A Brief History of the Admiral Kuznetsov

Originally laid down in 1982 and commissioned in 1991, the same year that the USSR collapsed, Admiral Kuznetsov was a product of the Soviet Union’s ambitions for a greater navy. The carrier was intended to project Soviet air power and provide a strategic advantage in any potential conflict.

Even at the start of this project, though, Moscow had to make compromises – if not for budgetary constraints or technological limitations, then for strategic disinformation purposes. For instance, its qualification of being a, “heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser” was done expressly to skirt international rules. Russia is a mostly landlocked nation. It has just four warm-water ports, with possibly its most important one, the naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea, existing along the Black Sea. Since Turkey controls the entry point to the Black Sea for Russia, Moscow must adhere to Turkish rules.

One of Turkey’s rules has been to deny access to aircraft carriers in the Black Sea under the Montreux Convention. With a displacement of nearly 62,000 tons, Admiral Kuznetsov is the largest warship ever built by Russia. But it can also transit the Turkish Strait, because it comes just under the requirements of the Montreux Convention. 

Admiral Kuznetsov has a sloped ski-jump flight deck, which enables conventional takeoffs and landings of its naval aircraft, including Su-33 and MiG-29K fighters. Of course, the ski-jump is highly limiting, which is why the United States prefers to use catapults to fling its aircraft into the air. The Soviets and later the Russians simply did not have the technical skills or funding to install such capabilities on this model of carrier. 

The carrier itself has been plagued by technical issues, accidents, and maintenance problems throughout its more than 30 years in service to Russia. These problems have severely limited the carrier’s usefulness to Russia and has ensured Admiral Kuznetsov is little more than a sunk cost for Russia’s navy.

Russia’s Love Affair with a Failed Aircraft Carrier

Russia’s decision to maintain the aging Kuznetsov can be attributed to national pride as well as a fear of a capabilities gap. Russia already is behind the Americans, and now the Chinese, when it comes to carrier operations. Should Moscow let the decrepit Admiral Kuznetsov be retired, it could mean a lost generation of carrier capabilities for their navy. 

Then again, the wayward carrier spends most of its time in the shipyard, begging the question of whether those capabilities are already lost to Russia. Money might be better spent actually building a new generation of decent carriers.

As if unable to let go, Moscow is apparently investing to extend the service life of this failed carrier by another 25 years. The modernization efforts will include upgrades to the carrier’s air defense systems, propulsion, and flight deck, among other investments.

Despite their insistence that the carrier will be modernized, though, there is much evidence to suggest that the carrier is dead and cannot be modernized anymore. Regardless of what speculation exists on the internet and among analysts, Admiral Kuznetsov is an objectively awful flattop that should have been scrapped 30 years ago.

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. All photos are of various submarine styles. 

From the Vault

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

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

The UK's Competition and Markets Authority closed its investigation into Google and Apple app stores on 21 August, but new laws that would give it more power to control the dominance of big tech companies could ensure that scrutiny continues.

Summary and Key Points You Need to Know: The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long viewed Taiwan as a breakaway province, despite never having governed the self-ruling island. Recent reports suggest that China's People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) may employ a strategy involving three aircraft carriers in an anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) approach to deter foreign intervention during a potential invasion of Taiwan.

-These carriers, supported by long-range missiles, would be positioned east of Taiwan in the Philippine Sea, out of range of Taiwan's anti-ship missiles.

-However, analysts argue that despite PLAN's growing capabilities, a successful invasion of Taiwan remains highly challenging.

-Taiwan's defenses, combined with potential U.S. and allied intervention, could severely complicate China's plans, making a quick victory unlikely and sustainable resupply for China's forces difficult.

Three Aircraft Carriers to Conquer Taiwan? 

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has never actually controlled Taiwan, which is a self-ruling island that was under Japanese occupation until the end of the Second World War when it was then returned to Nationalist Chinese control. Yet, Beijing maintains that it is a breakaway province that will be returned to mainland rule and by force if necessary.

Taking the island, which has a mountainous jungle interior that not even the occupying Japanese never fully subjugated during World War II. Needless to say, it would be difficult, as the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) would have to mount numerous amphibious landings – crossing the Taiwan Straits.

It is now speculated that Beijing's efforts to build aircraft carriers while countering the U.S. Navy's fleet of flattops would be key to such a plan.

According to a new report from the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC), cited by the Taipei Times on Tuesday, China's "Taiwan Strategy" may call for the use of three carriers, which would engage in a strategy of anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) around the island.

"In the quarterly report, the council cited declassified documents from the Ministry of National Defense that categorized China's carriers as a threat if used for A2/AD, and said that China might coordinate its naval, air force, and rocket force capabilities to operate beyond the first island chain and deter foreign forces from getting involved in a conflict involving Taiwan," the Taipei Times news piece laid out.

Three Carrier Strategy

The PLAN is currently conducting sea tests on its third – and second domestically-built – aircraft carrier, the Type 003 Fujian, while efforts have been made to further improve the Type 001 Liaoning and Type 002 Shandong. According to the MAC report, the carriers wouldn't be employed in the invasion and instead could be positioned in the Philippine Sea, well outside of Taiwan's Xiangfeng missiles, which have a range of 200km to 250km.

The carriers would support PLAN forces east of the self-ruling island to serve as a deterrent to foreign aid. The carriers and other warships would be supported by China's so-called "carrier killer" DF-21D and DF-26B anti-ship missiles that could be positioned to strike any approaching U.S. fleet.

"The Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force would deploy medium and long-range conventional ground-attack and anti-ship ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles to foreign forces in the area between the first and second island chains," the report added.

A War of Attrition

While the report warned what Taiwan might face, Institute for National Defense and Security Research fellow Su Tzu-yun highlighted that even as the PLAN is being transformed into a "blue water navy," it may not be enough for it to successfully invade Taiwan and establish a beachhead that could lead to control of the island.

Taipei has anti-ship missiles that could be employed against an approaching armada, while the Taiwanese Navy would need to rely on submarines to counter the PLAN's carriers – further emphasizing the need for the self-ruling island nation to continue the development and production of its domestically-built submarines.

Su further noted that any attempt to employ an A2/AD strategy would require that the carriers would be "sandwiched" between Taiwan and a U.S. fleet from Hawaii and Guam.

"Thoughts to the contrary are simply wishful thinking on the part of the Chinese," the Taiwanese analyst added.

The PLAN would need to see quick success, as its carriers and other warships would need supplies within just a week or two.

"Since the passage of supply ships through the Bashi Channel or Miyako Strait would be too dangerous, and China has no overseas bases, supplying the carriers would be impossible," explained Su. "Any advantage brought by the carriers would be quickly lost."

It is also unclear if the MAC report lays out what role South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and Australia – not to mention India – might react if Beijing were to mount an attack on Taiwan. It is unlikely that some of Taipei's allies and regional partners would simply sit by, while other regional rivals of Beijing might see it as an opportunity to gain an upper hand in the South China Sea and far beyond.

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. 

C’était l’une des maladies les plus redoutées du XXe siècle et elle a causé environ 500 millions de morts. Mais grâce à une campagne de santé, le monde a réussi à l’éradiquer.

Bartłomiej Ciączyński has resigned from his post as Polish deputy justice minister after it emerged that he used an official car for a private holiday in Slovenia and fuelled it with public money.

Here Comes the Light Fighter? The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, a fifth-generation air superiority fighter, remains unmatched in its capabilities, yet it was developed during an era when the U.S. military's focus shifted away from near-peer conflicts.

-As global threats evolve, particularly with the rise of China and the resurgence of Russia, the U.S. Air Force is looking towards the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program to replace the F-22. However, the NGAD faces significant challenges, including its high cost, which could limit fleet size and affect long-term viability.

-There is a growing emphasis on adaptability and modularity in future aircraft designs, potentially leading to a "light fighter" concept that could be more cost-effective and flexible in addressing future threats.

NGAD Becomes Light Fighter? 

The United States Air Force remains the sole operator of the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, which despite no air-to-air kills against a manned aircraft has been described as the world's top air superiority fighter. The aircraft, developed at the tail end of the Cold War and entered production following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, could be described as the right fighter just at the wrong time. It wasn't what the U.S. military needed as it became engaged in the Global War on Terror (GWoT) and it seemed that the days of conflict with a near-peer adversary were a thing of the past.

How the times have changed.

The GWoT wasn't ever won and arguably continues as elements like ISIS-K continue to operate – including an alleged planned attack earlier this month on a Taylor Swift concert in Vienna. Yet, even before Russia mounted its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine more than two-and-a-half years ago, it seemed that the "Evil Empire" – the term the late great Ronald Reagan (got it right this time) used to describe the Soviet Union – was returning, or at least in the mind of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

At the same time, China increasingly rattles sabers as it seeks to take its (self-perceived) rightful place on the world stage. To the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership in Beijing, this was to be China's century.

Perhaps the F-22 is what is needed now, except we must remember that it was developed back when Reagan was still eating jellybeans in the Oval Office. This brings us to today, when the Air Force has been exploring a replacement for the Raptor.

Enter the NGAD

The Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program has sought to develop a systems of systems, including a manned sixth-generation fighter supported by unmanned "loyal wingmen." It would seem exactly what is needed for a potential – yet unthinkable – conflict with a near-peer adversary such as China or Russia, and more importantly serve as a deterrent to ensure that such a conflict doesn't start.

The issue is the cost.

Each NGAD manned fighter could cost upwards of as much as three times that of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, bringing the total price tag to around $300 million per aircraft. That has led to concerns that the air service would have to reduce the number of aircraft in its fleet, which in turn means that losing any in accidents would be devastating, while critics have warned that combat losses would impact the Air Force's ability to effectively fight future wars.

Damned if You Do, Damned if You Don't

Another concern is that the aircraft developed today may not be the aircraft needed tomorrow. The F-22 Raptor was born out of the Air Force's Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program, which began in 1981! In other words, many of the pilots flying the Raptor today weren't even born when fighters were being designed.

To push that point home, cable TV was still a new thing and VHS was "cutting edge" technology to watch movies in the home. Given the leap forward in technology in recent years, Pentagon officials are right to express concerns that an expensive fighter will be viable in decades to come.

Department of the Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall warned earlier this year that efforts are underway to streamline the NGAD fighter's design, and that could include a "less complex" aircraft equipped with a potentially "smaller engine" that could lower future costs.

"The family of systems concept of Next Generation Air Dominance is alive and well," Kendall told Defense News in an interview. "I can tell you that we are looking at the NGAD platform design concept to see if it's the right concept or not. … We're looking at whether we can do something that's less expensive and do some trade-offs there."

NGAD as a Light Fighter

The NGAD likely will continue, but as noted by Harrison Kass for The National Interest, the evolution of the aircraft could be to a "light fighter." Kass based his analysis on comments made by U.S. Air Force General David Allvin at the Global Air and Space Chiefs' Conference hosted by the UK's Air and Space Power Association in London late in July – where Allvin suggested there needs to be a shift away from a "built to last" philosophy that was commonplace in the Cold War to a "built to adapt" philosophy of today.

"On paper such a shift makes sense. Technology is improving at exponential rates. Modularity is becoming an expectation, allowing airframes to upgrade incrementally with new software and new avionics as technology becomes available. Making rigid technological commitments to a multi-billion-dollar platform that could become outdated in years rather than decades seems foolhardy. An emphasis on adaptability would ensure any new airframe could stick around for a little while," wrote Kass.

The details of such a light fighter are vague, to say the least, and certainly not written in stone. Yet, it should be stressed that Allvin holds an Astronautical Engineering degree from the U.S. Air Force Academy as well as a Master of Science, and Master of Airpower Art and Science degrees.

Given his insight, it may be possible to glean some insight into what the future light fighter could resemble.

"The Light Fighter would be built on adaptability, not ruggedness," wrote Kass. "Allvin envisioned a jet that would rely on open systems architecture, modular design, digital engineering, and 3d-printing/additive manufacturing – techniques and concepts to improve an airframe repeatedly over time."

So could we see a sixth-generation light fighter in the future? Time will tell, of course, but it is also as likely that the NGAD could go another direction – focused more on an entirely unmanned system controlled remotely. Perhaps the days of pilots in the cockpits of fighter planes will be a relic of the past… much like those old VHS players that were the rage when the F-22 was still on the drawing board.

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. 

Après une première flambée épidémique en 2022, la Mpox, aussi appelée « variole du singe », sévit à nouveau, obligeant l’OMS à déclencher une urgence de santé publique de portée internationale de manière à coordonner une coopération internationale. Qu’est-ce que la Mpox et quel est son potentiel épidémique ? Que nous dit la multiplication des zoonoses de nos pratiques ? Le point avec le Dr Anne Sénéquier, co-directrice de l’Observatoire de la santé mondiale de l’IRIS, pour qui la Mpox doit nous faire repenser notre approche sanitaire en la poussant sur une approche intégrée et transversale, propre au concept « One Health/Une santé ».

Qu’est-ce que la Mpox ?

Zoonose émergente, la Moox est provoquée par un virus à ADN du genre orthopoxvirus.   Son identification à Copenhague au Danemark en 1958 au sein d’un groupe de singe lui a valu son nom de « variole du singe », une appellation porteuse de fausses informations et à haut risque de stigmatisation, qui a poussé l’Organisation mondiale de la santé (OMS) à en changer le nom pour « MPox » en 2022. Une nécessité d’autant plus pertinente que l’hôte naturel du virus MPox est en fait un rongeur de l’Afrique équatoriale : le rat de Gambie ou écureuils de forêt. À ce jour, le réservoir animal n’est pas encore formellement identifié, mais une analyse de l’ADN du virus a plutôt révélé des passages multiples chez différents animaux forestiers.

La Mpox provoque fièvre, éruptions cutanées au niveau du visage, mains, pieds, corps et régions génitales, ainsi que des maux de tête, des douleurs musculaires, le tout accompagné d’une fatigue importante. Bénigne dans la majorité des cas, on peut voir apparaitre des complications comme des surinfections cutanées ou des septicémies chez les personnes vulnérables (les personnes immunodéprimées, les femmes enceintes et les jeunes enfants).

La maladie peut se transmettre par voie cutanée, le peau à peau (par l’intermédiaire des pustules et croûtes), par voie sexuelle, et de manière indirecte via le contact de literie et/ou linges contaminés. La transmission aéroportée via les gouttelettes respiratoires d’une personne infectée est également possible.

Il existe deux types de virus Mpox : le clade 1 provenant du bassin du fleuve Congo en Afrique centrale est associé à des symptômes plus sévères (taux de mortalité pouvant aller jusqu’à 10%) et au mode de transmissions interhumaines plus efficace ; le clade 2 provenant d’Afrique de l’Ouest, avec un taux de mortalité plus faible (inférieur à 1%) et à la transmission interhumaine moins efficace.

Quel est le potentiel épidémique de la Mpox ?

En 2022, la flambée épidémique était portée par le clade 2b (un variant du clade 2), ce qui a permis, malgré la forte diffusion du virus, de maintenir un taux de létalité inférieur à 1%. Une épidémie qui avait déclenché une urgence de santé publique de portée internationale (USPPI) devant l’émergence de la pathologie dans 110 pays à travers le monde.

Cette année, cependant, le déclenchement de l’urgence de santé publique de portée internationale (USPPI) porte bien sur la Mpox, mais sur un variant du clade 1 baptisé « Clade 1b ». Il est donc porteur d’une mortalité (5 à 10%) et d’une contagiosité supérieure à l’épidémie de 2022.

Détectée pour la première fois en 1970 chez l’humain, la Mpox est endémique (présente de manière constante) en République démocratique du Congo depuis une dizaine d’années. Depuis, le nombre de cas ne cesse d’augmenter chaque année. 2024 a marqué une augmentation de +160% par rapport à 2023, alors que nous ne sommes qu’en milieu d’année avec 15 600 cas et 537 décès.

Le Clade 1b est apparu en septembre 2023 au nord-Est de la RDC près de Goma, une région de gangrenée par les conflits depuis le milieu des années 90. On y trouve de nombreux camps de déplacés dans lequel le virus circule déjà.

Au mois de juillet, 90 cas de « Mpox clade 1b » ont été identifiés dans les 4 pays voisins : le Burundi, le Kenya, le Rwanda et l’Ouganda, tout en sachant que de nombreux autres cas sont probablement passés sous les radars de la détection épidémiologique. L’OMS a en conséquence déclenché l’urgence de santé publique de portée internationale (USPPI) le 14 août dernier.

La déclaration de l’état d’urgence de santé publique de portée internationale (USPPI), permet de coordonner une coopération internationale afin de limiter l’étendue de l’épidémie le plus rapidement possible. Elle a pour objectif de rassembler les différents acteurs et partenaires (Gavi, Unicef, etc.) pour amplifier la réponse vaccinale, en facilitant administrativement et logistiquement le processus de mobilisation des stocks de vaccination. La vaccination contre la Mpox se fait aujourd’hui avec les stocks de vaccination contre la variole humaine, mais également avec un vaccin spécifique à la Mpox approuvé récemment. Une riposte dont le coût initial est estimé à 15 millions d’US$ par l’OMS.

Des cas viennent d’apparaître sur d’autres continents : un en Suède, un autre au Pakistan. Avec une période d’incubation de 5 à 21 jours, il est fort probable de voir apparaitre d’autres cas dans les jours et semaines à venir.

L’appartenance de la Mpox à la famille des orthopoxvirus est à la fois une chance et une difficulté supplémentaire.

Une chance parce que c’est un virus apparenté à l’« orthopoxvirus variola » (la variole) éradiqué en 1980 par une campagne mondiale de vaccination mené par l’OMS. Par conséquent les personnes ayant été vaccinées dans leur enfance contre la variole sont protégées. Ils bénéficient de ce que l’on appelle une immunité croisée : la vaccination contre la variole protège à 85% contre la Mpox, tout en maintenant un taux de reproduction inférieur à 1, ce qui a permis d’éviter jusqu’en 2022 une épidémie à grande échelle.

Mais c’est également une difficulté parce qu’on ne vaccine plus contre la variole depuis les années 1980 (au moment de son éradication). De fait, les personnes de moins de 40-50 ans ne sont pas vaccinées, ce qui entrave de manière évidente l’immunité collective des populations. Nous nous retrouvons au niveau mondial avec une immunité collective diminuée impliquant un potentiel épidémique augmenté.

C’est ce qui explique, entre autres, le nombre croissant de cas annuels en RDC ces dernières années.

Comment lutter contre la Mpox ? Pourquoi observe-t-on autant de zoonoses ces dernières années ? 

La fréquence des épidémies et leur impact dans les populations ne cessent d’augmenter ces dernières années. La Mpox a quitté la lisière des forêts tropicales pour s’étendre d’abord localement, puis jusqu’aux zones urbaines, d’où elles se sont catapultées dans le monde entier.

Depuis 2018, la Mpox s’est exportée depuis le Nigéria (plus grand foyer de population africain) vers le Royaume-Uni, Israël, les États-Unis et Singapour sans être en mesure de donner lieu à des clusters.

En 2022, une première épidémie mondiale avait nécessité de tirer la sonnette d’alarme : déclenchant une USPPI. Entre début 2022 et mi 2023 (fin de l’USPPI), quasi 90 000 cas ont été rapportés dont 147 décès. Nous voilà en 2024 avec un variant plus transmissible et plus virulent, jeté dans notre mondialisation devenue pathogène.

La Mpox est une zoonose, une maladie de la faune sauvage qui a su, à la faveur de l’augmentation des interactions avec l’homme, sauter la barrière de l’espèce.

Cette rencontre du monde sauvage et de notre humanité s’explique par la déforestation massive et la destruction de ces habitats. Un phénomène qui entraîne une perte de biodiversité déstructurant les dynamiques des communautés animales. Le changement d’usage des terres (agriculture dans les forêts à la recherche de terre fertile), l’urbanisation croissante et les conflits aggravent encore les risques de passage de virus de l’animal à l’humain.

Dans le cas de la Mpox, il nous faut superposer à cette dégradation des écosystèmes due aux activités humaines, une diminution de l’immunité croisée par l’arrêt de la vaccination contre la variole suite à son éradication.

On constate ainsi que se protéger des épidémies n’est pas qu’affaire de vaccination et déclaration d’USPPI. Quatre ans seulement après la première pandémie du 21e siècle, la menace que représente la Mpox doit nous faire repenser notre approche sanitaire en la poussant sur une approche intégrée et transversale, propre au concept « One Health/Une santé ».  Celui-ci met en évidence les liens qui unissent la santé humaine, la santé animale et la santé planétaire. Nous ne pouvons pas maintenir une bonne santé publique dans un monde aux écosystèmes dégradés.

Pour véritablement nous protéger des zoonoses (sujet récurrent du 21e siècle), il nous faut donc prendre soin de nos écosystèmes : limiter de la déforestation et de l’agriculture intensive en bordure de forêts ; changement d’usage des terres ; stopper l’urbanisation galopante en zone forestière ; limiter les conflits… vœux pieux mais n’oublions pas qu’ils permettent l’émergence et/ou recrudescence de pathologie (Polio, cholera, Mpox, etc.)

Il faut donc changer notre manière de faire, et veiller à ce que cela soit accompagné d’un changement de comportement/consommation qui sous-tend cette dégradation des écosystèmes. Un challenge qui peut paraître insurmontable, mais a-t-on vraiment le choix ?

À la manière du changement climatique qui s’impose à notre devoir de faire, la protection de nos écosystèmes devient tout aussi urgente.

L’urgence de santé publique de portée internationale (USPPI) a été créée en 2005. Déclenchée pour la première fois en 2009, elle a été déclenchée 8 fois en 14 ans, avec une petite tendance à être de plus en plus fréquente : Grippe H1N, avril 2009 (continuant en 2010) ; poliovirus, mai 2014 (encore en cours) ; épidémie d’Ebola en Afrique de l’Ouest, août 2014 ; Zika, février 2016 ; épidémie d’Ebola en Kivu (RDC), juillet 2019 ; Covid-19, janvier 2020 ; Mpox (variole du singe), juillet 2022 ; nouvelle déclaration du Mpox, août 2024…

 

La fin de la saison estivale prend une tournure inattendue chez Algérie Ferries. Depuis plusieurs semaines, les pannes de navires et les perturbations persistent, laissant […]

L’article Algérie Ferries : les contrôles se multiplient, deux navires de nouveau retenus en Espagne est apparu en premier sur .

Summary and Key Points: The Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules is one of the most iconic and versatile aircraft in the U.S. Air Force's fleet. Developed in response to the Air Force's need for a heavy-lift transport plane capable of operating in the challenging environments of Asia, the C-130 has proven its value in a variety of roles.

-From transporting cargo and troops to medical evacuations, reconnaissance, and even serving as the AC-130 gunship, the C-130 has been indispensable. Its ability to take off and land on short, unprepared runways and its long-range capabilities make it a critical asset.

-The latest variant, the C-130J Super Hercules, features advanced systems and continues to serve not only the U.S. but also the militaries of many allied nations.

The Legendary C-130

The Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules is probably the most iconic long-serving transportation plane in the U.S. Air Force’s fleet. 

The quadruple-propeller-driven C-130 was a direct response to a critical Air Force need in the mid-20th century. Namely, the Air Force needed a heavy-lift capacity that could reliably operate in the austere environments of Asia. 

The Rise of the C-130

Two major wars in Asia defined the Cold War era – the Korean War and the Vietnam War. 

The geography of Asia is very taxing on technology and military equipment. A key feature of the C-130 Hercules is its reliable capability to land and take off from short, unprepared runways in the thick jungle environments of Asia. 

Indeed, the C-130 was a direct result of lessons the Air Force learned from fighting in Korea. These lessons would be applied to the Vietnam War, where the C-130 acquitted itself with honor.

The Air Force needed a tactical airlifter that could operate near the frontline, too. The C-130 “Herc” performed this vital task. C-130 has a high wing for cargo loading, a rear-loading ramp, and turboprop engines for efficiency and power. Using the turboprop rather than a jet engine made better sense, given the environments where the C-130 would operate. 

Throughout its long service to the Air Force, the C-130 has performed countless mission sets. These birds have been used to transport cargo for the Air Force into combat zones. They have been used for medical evacuations. Paratroopers jump out of these birds, search and rescue operations are undertaken, and reconnaissance missions are part of its repertoire. 

There’s even a similarly iconic gunship variant of the C-130, the AC-130 Specter Gunship. (It’s basically a flying battleship.) Oh, and the C-130 is often used for aerial firefighting missions.

Talk about an impressive list of missions. 

U.S. Special Operations Forces relies on another variant of this bird known as the MC-130. It’s specially built to provide covert insertion/extraction and resupply missions. 

Going the Distance 

C-130s are not just powerful. They can also fly immense distances. With midair refueling as an option, a C-130 Herc can travel 2,361 miles. 

The C-130 is the backbone of U.S. military operations because of the logistical advantages it provides. The Air Force has judiciously upgraded these important planes to keep up with the changing global threat environment. Currently, the Air Force is on the C-130J Super Hercules variant of its fleet. These planes have advanced navigational systems, greater fuel efficiency, and digitized cockpits, to name just a few advances. 

Even more important for the Air Force is the fact that their C-130 is used by the militaries of multiple allied states. Its simpler design and turboprop engines mean it will remain in use for many years to come. The C-130 is one of the most important planes the Air Force has ever used.

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?)

« Cette voix, ma voix, vous racontera les faits vécus par celle qui est sortie du même ventre que vous. Donnez-moi du thé pour me réchauffer la langue, fermez la porte pour que mes paroles ne sortent pas d'ici. » Fatima parle à ses sœurs. Elle raconte comment, quand on décide de partir au loin, qu'on (...) / Immigrés, Maroc - 2023/07

Spanish prosecutors are stepping up investigations into hate crimes on social media after the country's two main far-right parties - SALF and VOX - stepped up their bashing of African migrants following the murder of an 11-year-old boy over the weekend, although police later identified the perpetrator as Spanish.

Alger, le 21 août 2024 – La Méditerranée, depuis des siècles, a été un carrefour de civilisations et un lieu d’échanges. Aujourd’hui, elle est malheureusement […]

L’article Tragédie évitée de justesse : Un méthanier algérien sauve 30 migrants au large de la Sardaigne est apparu en premier sur .

Il ne s'agit pas d'histoires tirées d'un roman d'espionnage des années 1960, mais d'événements réels survenus en Allemagne cette année.

L’acharnement médiatique contre Imane Khelif a provoqué le licenciement d’une célèbre journaliste américaine de la chaine sportive ESPN. En attendant que d’autres têtes tombent suite […]

L’article L’acharnement contre Imane Khelif provoque le licenciement d’une célèbre journaliste américaine est apparu en premier sur .

Summary and Top Points You Need to Know: Fighter jets are iconic symbols of military aviation, representing cutting-edge technology and air superiority. While many fighters have become legendary, aviation history also includes several poorly designed and underperforming jets. This roundup highlights five of the worst fighter jets: the Yakovlev Yak-38, Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23, Convair F-102 Delta Dagger, Heinkel He 162, and Vought F7U Cutlass.

-These aircraft suffered from issues ranging from poor handling and stability to inadequate power and reliability. Despite their flaws, these jets are a reminder that innovation in aviation is often accompanied by trial and error.

Five of the Worst Fighter Jets in Aviation History: From the Yak-38 to the Gutless Cutlass

The fighter jet might be the most iconic aircraft type in the annals of aviation. When your average civilian thinks of an aircraft, the fighter jet is often the image that appears, with its sleek silhouette, roaring engines, and relative instability.

Fighters have progressed since their introduction over 100 years ago. From the simple biplanes of World War One to supersonic, super-cruising, ultra-maneuverable, stealth-capable fifth-generation fighters, the fighter jet is a constantly evolving concept. It is far more than an aviation icon. It is a foundational weapon, integral to war planning and military force structure. Militaries around the world spend vast percentages of their overall budget on fighter design and development. Indeed, the most expensive weapons system in world history is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Fighter platforms are worth the praise and the military investment, especially top airframes like the F-15 Eagle or the F/A-18 Hornet. But aviation history is littered with botched fighter projects. Let’s consider five of the worst fighters of all time. 

Yakovlev Yak-38

The Soviet Union spent the Cold War competing with the West to develop the most capable military technology. When the British unveiled the Harrier GR.1 in 1967 – a “jump jet” capable of vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) – the Soviets scrambled to counter. Their answer was the Yakovlev Yak-38, a VTOL aircraft that performed relatively well. But the integration of the Yak-38’s rear thrust engine and two lift turbofans made the jet deathly difficult to handle. If either of the lift fans failed, the Yak-38 would spin out of control. And because the lift fans were sensitive to dirt and dust (like the kind found in Afghanistan), the lift fans were prone to failure. 

The Yak-38 was also a tactical failure, with just four hardpoints and an operational range limited to just 320 kilometers. When the Soviet Union fell, the Yak-38 was abandoned, whereas the Harrier is still in service today.

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23

Soviet/Russian aerospace manufacturer Mikoyan-Gurevich has a long history of design accomplishments. The company abbreviation, “MiG,” is synonymous in the West with “enemy aircraft,” and for good reason. But MiG has also produced its fair share of duds.

The MiG-23 was supposed to be another feather in MiG’s cap, like the MiG-15 or the MiG-21 before it. But the sweep-wing MiG-23 proved to be a nightmare, with poor handling, poor stability, and an engine that overheated often and died early.

The MiG-23’s maintenance costs were much higher than expected, and the jet’s combat record much poorer. Deployed in Syria and Iraq, the MiG-23 suffered in encounters against F-4s, F-14s, and F-15s. Even the MiG-21, which the MiG-23 had been designed to replace, bested the MiG-23 in combat. The MiG-23 was unceremoniously retired (except in Syria and North Korea) in favor of the MiG-27.

Convair F-102 Delta Dagger

The Convair F-102 Delta Dagger, part of the “Century Series,” was America’s first all-weather supersonic jet fighter, and the first American fighter to feature a delta wing. Entering service in 1956, problems arose immediately.

The F-102, designed to be a high-speed aircraft, failed to reach Mach 1 – the fuselage had to be redesigned to cope with transonic wave drag. After the redesign, the jet was capable of reaching Mach 1.22, but other issues cropped up, requiring a variety of fixes. The Air Force did not apply uniform fixes to the F-102 fleet, so different F-102s had different capabilities.

The F-102’s biggest problem, however, was its safety rating. Out of the 1,000 F-102s produced, 259 were lost to accidents, resulting in the death of 70 pilots. 

Heinkel He 162

Nazi Germany deserves credit for debuting jet technology with the Messerschmitt Me 262. Late in the war (and late in the regime), the Nazis experimented with a death-gasp effort to produce more fighter jets. The result was the Heinkel He 162, aka the “Volksjager,” or People’s Fighter.

The He 162, like the Volkswagen car, was designed to be built as cheaply as possible, and with semi-skilled labor. Why? Because by the end of the war, the Nazis were struggling to keep their war economy humming; they were essentially depleted. Accordingly, the He 162 was built largely from wood, as metal alloys were unavailable. The design was completed in about two months, and as you might assume, the jet flew poorly. Three-hundred He 162s were rushed into action, but it was far too late. Nazi Germany collapsed and the He 162 faded into obscurity without having made an impact on the war. 

Vought F7U Cutlass

The Vought F7U Cutlass was visually distinct. This was a design from the dawn of the jet age, when designs were not standardized and there was room for experimentation. The F7U was a result of said experimentation: It was tailless, with swept wings.

In my opinion, the F7U is very cool looking, and it marked the first time the Americans had built an aircraft with swept wings and an afterburner. The unusual design offered extraordinary ability and agility, but it suffered from a variety of problems. The engine was underpowered, earning the F7U the nickname “Gutless Cutlass.” Similarly, many of the systems were novel and proved unreliable. A poor safety record inspired pilots to stay away, and the jet was retired in 1959.

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.

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points You Need to Know: The Mark 48 torpedo, developed by the Naval Sea Systems Command, is one of the most advanced and lethal undersea weapons in the U.S. Navy's arsenal. Introduced during the Cold War, it was designed to counter Soviet submarines and surface ships, featuring wire guidance, advanced sonar homing, and a high-speed electric motor that allows it to travel at over 55 knots with a range of up to 40 miles.

-The Mark 48 has undergone several upgrades, including the Advanced Capability (ADCAP) variant in the 1980s and the latest Mod 7, which addresses modern submarine defenses.

-Despite its effectiveness, the Mark 48 faces challenges from advancements in anti-torpedo systems and the rise of unmanned undersea vehicles (UUVs). Nevertheless, it remains a critical deterrent in the U.S. Navy’s submarine fleet.

The Navy’s Incredible Mark 48 Torpedo

The Undersea Warfare Center Division in Newport, Rhode Island, now the Naval Sea Systems Command, has a remarkable assignment: to develop effective weapons to further US national security interests undersea and protect existing US Navy assets from attack. This is the vibrant brain of the US submarine force on land. It is where some of the niftiest weapons and concepts for underwater combat are developed. 

One such weapon this unit developed during the Cold War was the Mark 48 torpedo. Indeed, it is likely the most ubiquitous and formidable weapon ever developed for warfare in the Deep Blue by the United States Navy. Designed for a time of the Cold War when the threat of submarine warfare was at its apogee, the Navy needed a weapon that could attack Soviet subs while simultaneously devastating surface ships if the Cold War ever turned hot.

The Navy developed the Mark 48 with greater range, speed, and enhanced guidance systems when compared to some of its predecessors, such as the Mark 37 or the Mark 45 torpedoes. 

Some Unique Advances 

Some of its excellent capabilities, such as the inclusion of wire guidance, are of note. Wire guidance allows for the launching submersible to have direct, real-time command over the torpedo after it is launched. The incorporation of advanced sonar homing furthered this weapon’s lethality by allowing for the Mark 48 to autonomously track and engage targets. 

Its propulsion system employs a reliable, high-speed electric motor. The motor allows for the torpedo to travel at speeds surpassing fifty-five knots (sixty-three miles per hour) when launched. A Mark 48 enjoys a range of up to forty miles. Some analysts suggest that the Mk 48 is one of the longest-range torpedoes that has ever served. 

The Mark 48’s electric motor provides both speed and protection, as it reduces the torpedo’s electric signature. Thus, one could claim that the Mark 48 is America’s first attempt at a “stealth torpedo.” 

Although, it is not entirely undetectable. Indeed, one submarine sonar operator reports that, when launched, the Mk 48 “starts at 160 [decibels underwater] and jumps to 230 db when enabled.” So, experienced sonar operators can hear these things underwater, when they’re launched.

There have been multiple variants of this successful weapon. One of the more recent ones came from the 1980s when the Reagan administration was intent on outpacing the Soviet Union militarily in the Cold War. Indeed, the Reagan administration was successful in this aim. One of the technologies to come out of this freewheeling era for the US defense community was the Mk 48 ADCAP (Advanced Capability). This variant of the Mk 48 included an even better range than its earlier models, greater guidance, and more sophisticated warhead capabilities.

The most recent adaptation of the Mk 48 torpedo, the Mod 7, includes systems meant to counteract advances in modern submarine defenses. 

Credible Undersea Deterrence

Enemies of the United States rightly fear the Mk 48. Therefore, its presence in the US submarine fleet has a deterrent effect on enemy navies. Sure, it might not stop a war with China from erupting. 

But China must always fear this system, it is one reason why Beijing is so committed to developing surveillance systems that can detect submarines; even when they are running deep beneath the waves and targeting them with advanced anti-submarine weapons. 

However, the Mk 48 is getting old, regardless of what advancements the Navy makes to the platform. Anti-torpedo systems have advanced remarkably in the last decade alone. So, the Mk 48 risks being made obsolete, no matter what counter-countermeasures the Navy develops to help keep the lethality of the Mk 48 where it needs to be. 

How UUVs Will Impact the Mk 48

Further, the Mk 48 is a complex system requiring tons of maintenance and updating. Then there’s the additional development in the rise of unmanned undersea vehicles (UUV).

These platforms, while still in their infancy, will evolve significantly over the coming decade. They will fundamentally transform the face of undersea warfare as much as their unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) cousins have transformed air warfare in the preceding twenty years. The Mk 48 will have significant challenges to overcome that these UUV systems will inevitably present.

Nevertheless, the Mk 48 is a testament to the brilliance of the Navy’s war planners. They were conceived in an age where nuclear world war was always one hair-trigger alert away. And they continue to define the arsenal of the US Navy’s submarine force today. Whatever the future may hold for these systems, they should not be underestimated. Nor should they be dismissed. 

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. 

China has initiated an anti-subsidy probe into dairy products imported from the European Union, once again placing the bloc’s agri-food sector at the forefront of trade tensions between Beijing and Brussels.

Summary and Key Points: Seventeen B-1B Lancer bombers from Ellsworth Air Force Base (AFB) in South Dakota may temporarily relocate to Grand Forks AFB in North Dakota next year as Ellsworth prepares to host the first B-21 Raider bombers.

-This move is expected to last about ten months, during which time Ellsworth will undergo significant construction projects, including a complete runway rebuild.

-The relocation would mark the return of bombers to Grand Forks for the first time since 1994. Approximately 800 airmen would accompany the B-1Bs, and the mission of the bombers would remain unchanged during the move.

B-1B Lancer Could Head to New Temporary Home Base Next Year Thanks to B-21 Raider Program

Seventeen of the United States Air Forces Rockwell B-1B Lancer bombers could be heading to a new, albeit temporary home next year. The bombers are likely to be relocated a bit further north – as in moving from Ellsworth Air Force Base (AFB), South Dakota, to Grand Forks AFB, North Dakota.

The bombers could be at their new home for ten months, during which time Ellsworth AFB will prepare for the arrival of the first Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider long-range strategic bombers.

Ellsworth is home to the twenty-eighth Bomb Wing (BW), which is assigned to the Global Strike Command's Eight Air Force, and is one of the two B-1B Lander wings. It has hosted the B-1B Lancers since 1986, which replaced the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress fleet. It currently operates twenty-seven Lancers.

Big Changes for Ellsworth

Ellsworth will be the first Main Operating Base and formal training unit for the B-21 Raider, while Whiteman AFB, Missouri, and Dyess AFB, Texas, are the preferred locations for the remaining home bases – and could receive aircraft as soon as they become available. Whiteman is home to the air service's fleet of Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit bombers, while Dyess is home to another B-1B bomb wing, the seventh BW. 

Construction projects for the bomber hangers and other facilities are well underway at Ellsworth. Construction on the base's 95,000-square-foot Low Observable Restoration Facility began in 2022, and it and other facilities are on track to be completed by the end of this year. The current plan also calls for a complete rebuild of the runway to accommodate the B-21 Raiders, with that work to be completed by October 2025.

The base, which is located near Rapid City, is already one of the largest employers in the state and according to a 2017 estimate it had an annual economic impact of over $350 million. Ellsworth AFB faced the possibility of closure in 2005, and it was even briefly on the Pentagon’s list of military bases that should be closed or relocated.

Bombers Back at Grand Forks

The deployment of the B-1Bs to Grand Forks would be the first since 1994, "when the last of the B-1Bs assigned to the former 319th Bomb Wing (since redesignated the 319th Reconnaissance Wing) left the base," The Jamestown Sun reported. "The Ellsworth B-1Bs do not carry nuclear weapons, and Grand Forks Air Force Base no longer has nuclear weapons storage capacity."

According to Air & Space Forces magazine, any final decision on the relocation will be based on the ongoing environmental review, which includes the impact of moving not only the aircraft but the personnel from Ellsworth to Grand Forks. In total, around 800 airmen from the twenty-eighth Operations Group would accompany the B-1B bombers. The bomber's mission would be unchanged during the relocation.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and 4 Points You Need to Know: The B-21 Raider, currently in low-rate initial production and undergoing flight testing, is exempt from a law that typically requires a waiver for purchasing untested weapons systems in large quantities.

-This exemption, meant to avoid conflicts of interest due to Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall's past ties with Northrop Grumman, raises concerns about the Air Force potentially rushing to procure the B-21 without adequate testing.

-Critics argue this approach violates best acquisition practices and could lead to costly design flaws, citing historical examples like the Navy's T-45 trainer program.

-The Air Force, heavily reliant on the B-21 as it phases out older bombers, faces significant risks if the Raider fails to meet expectations.

B-21 Raider's Exemption from Testing Laws Sparks Concerns of Rushed Procurement

The B-21 Raider, a stealth bomber in low-rate initial production and currently undergoing flight testing, is exempt from a law that requires a waiver for the purchase of certain quantities of untested weapons systems. That exemption raises worries that the U.S. Air Force might be rushing to purchase an unvetted aircraft. 

Specifically, the B-21 “is exempt from a Title 10 requirement that a defense secretary seek a waiver for a low-rate initial production (LRIP) buy of more than 10 percent of total production for a Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP),” according to Defense Daily. 

The exemption stems from the need to avoid a conflict of interests. The Air Force’s Rapid Capabilities Office manages the B-21 project, and the Office reports to the Air Force Secretary. Because Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall used to consult for B-21 designer Northrop Grumman, he is recused from all decisions relating to the B-21.

“The B-21 is managed as a highly sensitive classified program per 10 USC 2430, and is not a traditional Major Defense Acquisition Program,” the Department of Defense told Defense Daily. 

Fly Before You Buy

Title 10 is meant to limit the purchase of weapons like the B-21 that are yet to be properly vetted. As Sen. David Pryor explained on the Senate floor in 1994, “Fly Before You Buy is not a new concept. It was first promoted in the wake of the Vietnam War after thousands of American soldiers lost their lives because of weapons that failed to perform as expected.” The senator continued, “operational testing is of little or no use if it is conducted after the weapon system has been purchased. We simply cannot afford to buy now and fix later. Time and time again, DoD has purchased weapons before operational testing has shown that they work.”

The Navy’s T-45 trainer is one example of a system that was purchased before being tested. The Navy purchased over one-third of their T-45 needs before Boeing performed operational testing on the jet. Of course, the original T-45 was no good. The thing needed new wings and a new engine, and the already purchased T-45s needed to be refitted. Obviously, the military, like any customer, prefers that product design flaws are discovered before an item is shipped and accepted.

Some observers worry the Air Force is making a similar procurement mistake with the B-21.

“The Air Force is violating best acquisition practice in the case of the B-21 program,” said a senior fellow at the Stimson Center in an email to Defense Daily. “The first test flights of the program have only just begun, so it is too early to be talking about production in any quantity.” 

The fellow advocated for Northrop Grumman to build a few test aircraft, perform operational tests, and ship the B-21 to the Air Force only once the bomber performs as promised. “Buying aircraft in any significant quantity before testing is complete creates a huge amount of risk because the early aircraft will almost certainly include a large number of design flaws that will only be revealed through testing.”

Obviously, the Air Force has a lot riding on the B-21. Two of the service’s existing three bomber classes, the B-1 and the B-2, are being phased out to make room for the upcoming Raider. The B-21 needs to perform, otherwise the Air Force could find itself with a gap in bomber capabilities. 

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.