Feed aggregator

AI-Code is a three-year interdisciplinary project established to harness the power of artificial intelligence and future-proof technological solutions in ways that meet immediate real-world needs.

Mardi 23 juillet, Meta a présenté Llama 3.1, le modèle d’intelligence artificielle (IA) en open source le plus performant à ce jour, et peut-être la dernière solution de ce genre disponible par l'entreprise pour les utilisateurs de l’UE.

Dernière ligne droite avant l’élection présidentielle vénézuélienne. Le 28 juillet prochain, les vénézuéliens sont appelés aux urnes pour élire leur nouveau président. Dans un contexte de crise sociale, politique et économique très élevé, l’élection du nouveau président vénézuélien constitue un enjeu majeur pour la région et pour les relations avec les États-Unis. Les craintes de fraudes ou de non reconnaissance des résultats de l’élection sont également élevées, d’autant plus que le mano à mano entre Nicolas Maduro et Edmundo González se poursuit dans les sondages. Quels sont les éléments importants à retenir dans cette fin de campagne vénézuélienne ? Quels sont les enjeux régionaux et internationaux de cette élection ? Christophe Ventura, directeur de recherche à l’IRIS et responsable du Programme Amérique latine/Caraïbe, analyse le contexte politique et électoral au Venezuela quelques jours avant l’élection présidentielle.

The Israeli leader defended the war in Gaza, but his visit was overshadowed by U.S. politics.

Summary and Key Points: The conflict in Ukraine is straining both sides, with Ukraine and Russia stretching their resources to continue the fight. Ukrainian Commander Col. Gen. Oleksandr Syrskyi noted that Russia has significantly increased its troop numbers, now committing around 520,000 soldiers, with plans to reach 700,000.

-Daily Russian losses exceed 1,000, highlighting issues such as inadequate training. Meanwhile, Ukraine's volunteer force faces manpower shortages, leading to an older average age of infantrymen on the frontlines, estimated between 40 and 45 years.

-Despite the prolonged conflict, Ukraine has avoided a mandatory draft to preserve its younger population for post-war rebuilding.

The Unending Ukraine War 

The fighting in Ukraine is pushing both sides to their limits. Ukraine and Russia are scraping the barrel to find men and weapons to fight the war. 

Balance of Power in the Ukraine War 

In a recent interview, Ukrainian Commander Col. Gen. Oleksandr Syrskyi discussed the balance of power between the two sides. He acknowledged the Russian military has significantly increased its count of troops and the resources dedicated to Ukraine over the past 29 months of warfare. 

According to his estimates, the Russian military and pro-Russian separatist forces are currently committing approximately 520,000 troops to the fighting. He also warned that intelligence indicates the Kremlin is seeking to increase that number to almost 700,000 by the end of the year. 

Based on the daily casualty rates, those numbers seem very accurate indeed. Russian forces have been taking more than 1,000 losses daily for several weeks now. In May and June alone, Moscow lost around 70,000 troops. 

“Russia's ability to continue gradually expanding the amount of manpower and materiel it has committed to Ukraine faces significant constraints in the medium to long term,” the Institute for the Study of War assessed in its latest operational update on the war. 

Syrskyi pointed out that Russian commanders continue to use their troops for short-term tactical gains regardless of losses. This assessment highlights the biggest shortcoming in the Russian military: lack of training. Moscow has troops to use as cannon fodder, but it doesn’t have time to train them for something more. As a result, it throws men and resources against Ukrainian defenses, racking up the death bill. 

“The Russian military has extensively relied on refurbishing stocks of Soviet-era weapons and military equipment to sustain the tempo of its offensive operations in Ukraine in order to avoid fully mobilizing the Russian economy and society to a war-time footing, and Ukrainian authorities have noted that Russia is currently not producing enough to cover its current equipment losses in Ukraine,” the Institute for the Study of War added. 

Ukrainian Reservations 

“Syrskyi's statement is not indicative of a sudden increase in the Russian military's presence in Ukraine and is instead representative of the manpower and material disadvantage that Ukrainian forces have faced for over two years,” the Institute for the Study of War stated.

Despite fighting an existential conflict for almost 900 days, the Ukrainian government hasn’t issued a mandatory draft for all males. Its military remains a largely volunteer force. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his government have stretched the age limits for military volunteers, but Kyiv has not imposed stricter measures. The reason is simple: They want to have young people alive once the war ends to rebuild the country and mend its wounds. 

However, the lack of troops is forcing the Ukrainian military to fight with older men. A recent intelligence report by the British Military Intelligence estimated that the average age of a Ukrainian infantryman on the frontlines today is between 40 and 45 years old. That is a lot, and the rigors of combat remain the same as in previous conflicts despite technological advances. 

About the Author

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

/ France, Élections, Extrême droite - Politique / France, Élections, Extrême droite - Politique

The European Union (EU) has long aspired to be a global leader in climate change governance, a vision encapsulated by its ambitious European Green Deal and its goal to become the first climate-neutral continent by 2050. However, the internal complexity of the EU, characterised by its multi-level governance and diverse member states, often poses challenges to presenting a unified stance on global climate strategies. My research investigates the pivotal role of the European Commission in unifying the EU’s voice in global climate policy, particularly under the leadership of the von der Leyen Commission (2019-2024).

 

The European Commission as a Policy Entrepreneur

At the heart of the EU’s climate strategy lies the European Commission, often acting as a policy entrepreneur. This role involves not only drafting and proposing climate policies but also navigating the intricate landscape of inter-institutional relations within the EU. The Commission’s ability to act as a policy entrepreneur is essential in driving forward the EU’s climate agenda, especially in the face of diverse and sometimes conflicting interests among member states.

One of the key theoretical frameworks employed in my study is constructivist role theory, which emphasises the social constructs, norms, and identities that shape the behaviour and interactions of actors within international relations. This approach allows us to understand how the Commission perceives its role and how it strategically navigates its interactions with the European Parliament and the Council to achieve a cohesive climate strategy.

 

Navigating the Joint Decision Trap

A significant challenge in EU policymaking is the ‘Joint Decision Trap’ (JDT), a situation where the need for consensus among member states leads to sub-optimal policy outcomes. The JDT often results in decisions that reflect the lowest common denominator, limiting the ambition and effectiveness of EU policies. My research explores how the Commission can overcome or mitigate the effects of the JDT through strategic coalition-building and informal negotiations.

For instance, the Global Methane Pledge, co-launched by the EU and the United States at COP26, demonstrates the Commission’s ability to align diverse interests within the EU and present a united front on the global stage. This initiative, aiming to reduce global methane emissions by 30% from 2020 levels by 2030, required the Commission to engage in extensive internal consensus-building and external diplomacy.

 

Inter-Institutional Dynamics

The interplay between the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the Council is crucial in shaping the EU’s climate policies. The Parliament, often regarded as the ‘greenest’ institution due to its strong environmental advocacy, plays a vital role in pushing for ambitious climate measures. However, the level of support from the Parliament can vary, influenced by its internal political dynamics and the broader societal discourse on environmental issues.

My research highlights instances where the Commission successfully leveraged the Parliament’s support to advance its climate agenda, as well as cases where it had to navigate fluctuating levels of support. The dynamic relationship between these institutions underscores the complexity of EU climate policymaking and the Commission’s strategic role in aligning their positions.

 

Provisional Findings

Based on the initial interviews conducted:

1. Commission’s Self-Perception as Policy Entrepreneur
   • European Commission officials consistently view themselves as policy entrepreneurs, expressing optimism about their capacity to lead future climate initiatives. This self-perception reinforces the Commission’s proactive stance in driving EU climate policy.
     • Interview References: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
2. Equal Weight of Member States
   • Coordination among member states is less varied than anticipated. Despite differences in size, each member state is given equal weight during internal negotiations, which facilitates a more balanced and inclusive decision-making process.
     • Interview References: 3, 5
3. Stability vs. Fluctuation in Parliamentary Support
   • The European Parliament’s support for the Commission’s climate initiatives is not constant, influenced by its electoral nature. In contrast, the stability of the Commission is seen as an advantage that can be leveraged to achieve sustained policy outcomes.
     • Quote: “The Commission should use its stability as a tool to achieve something.”
     • Interview Reference: 5

 

Conclusions

The European Commission’s role in unifying the EU’s stance on global climate strategies is both complex and pivotal. By acting as a policy entrepreneur and strategically navigating inter-institutional relations, the Commission can effectively drive forward the EU’s ambitious climate agenda. Understanding these dynamics is essential for appreciating the EU’s approach to global climate governance and its efforts to maintain its leadership role in this critical area.

As we move forward, the lessons learned from the von der Leyen Commission’s tenure will be invaluable in shaping future climate policies and ensuring that the EU continues to lead by example on the global stage.

The post The EU’s Unified Climate Voice: An Analysis of the European Commission’s Role appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Des Balkans à l'Italie il n'y a qu'un pas (ou presque). Découvrez l'histoire de Linea d'Ombra, de la Piazza della Libertà de Trieste et de Pacha, jeune afghan ayant pris la Route des Balkans pour s'installer en Italie.

- Balkans Rhapsodie • Le blog de Basile Hiegel / Blogs - Diaporama, Grand Bazar - Diaporama

Re-elected European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s political guidelines addressed calls for huge artificial intelligence (AI) research investments under the “CERN for AI” banner, but proponents and critics say the plan is lacking crucial details.

Summary and Key Points: Russia's newest strategic bomber, the Tupolev PAK DA "Poslannik," aims to replace the aging Tu-95 Bear. This long-range, stealth aircraft emphasizes stealth over speed, with a range of 12,000 km and a payload capacity of 30 tons, including nuclear and hypersonic missiles.

-However, the PAK DA faces significant delays, primarily due to engine issues and resource diversion to the Ukraine War. Initially set to be demonstrated in 2023, the plane's readiness has been pushed to 2027.

-This delay creates a strategic gap for Russia, especially as the U.S. and China advance their own stealth bomber technologies.

Russia's PAK DA Bomber: Stealth Over Speed for Future Warfare

Codenamed “Poslannik,” (which means “envoy” or “messenger” in Russian), Russia’s Tupolev PAK DA bomber is the Russian Aerospace Forces’ newest toy. It is a long-range, stealth strategic bomber that is intended to ultimately replace the aging Tu-95 Bear bomber. The Poslannik has a projected range of 12,000 km (7,500 miles) and can stay airborne for 30 hours while carrying a nuclear payload. 

Russia’s new warbird is a bit of a slowpoke. It cannot reach supersonic speeds. But, according to the designers of the Tu PAK DA, their emphasis was less on speed and more on stealth capabilities. 

In fact, the plane’s designers have argued that the plane’s slower speed allows it to carry a larger payload package that not only includes nuclear weapons, but Russia’s innovative hypersonic missiles. The Poslannik bomber is rumored to have a payload capacity of 30 tons, which exceeds the US Air Force’s B-2 stealth bomber maximum payload capacity. In fact, the PAK DA bomber has elements that stealth plane geeks would recognize from America’s B-2 stealth bomber plane. 

Like American stealth bombers, the Russian Tu-PAK DA is commanded by a powerful suite of sophisticated computers that do everything from maintaining flight control to monitoring enemy movements. 

The PAK DA Looks Like a Marvel Comic Book Villain’s Plane

The Tupolev designers believe that the PAK DA’s superior stealth technology coupled with its ability to launch hypersonic payloads negates the need to outrun enemy air defenses. Although, it should be noted that a persistent problem in Russian bomber design has been its engines. When Tupolev designed the Tu-95, for example, they opted to make the long-range nuclear-capable bomber a turbo-prop-driven plane rather than a turbojet-driven plane, as the American B-52 Stratofortress is. 

It is possible that the Russians are again having issues with their engines for this new, fifth-generation stealth bomber and they are simply opting out of acquiring more powerful engines altogether.

Looking like something that a Marvel Comic book villain would fly, the Tupolev PAK DA is probably Russia’s best attempt at employing stealth technology. I say “probably” because the warbird has yet to take flight. Russian sources report that Moscow plans to deploy the Tu-PAK DA Poslannik in service at some pointbetween now and 2027, with most acknowledging that it’ll be closer to 2027. The issue at hand for Russia is the longer the stealth bomber’s deployment is delayed, the greater the capabilities gap exists in Russia’s offensive air capabilities.

In the meantime, the Russians have upgraded their Tu-160 “White Swan” bombers to continue fulfilling mission critical roles. Although, these planes are not of the fifth-generation series and, therefore, Moscow wants to ultimately place the Tu-PAK DA’s as their lead bomber in today’s age of anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) warfare. This has led to some speculation in the West that the Tu-PAK DA Poslannik will never fly. 

After all, it has been in development since 2007. 

Faced with delays for 17 years (and still counting), whatever progress has been made on the planes, now that the Ukraine War has erupted and is diverting considerable Russian resources away from such projects, like the Tu-PAK DA bomber, one can anticipate more delays.

The PAK DA is Not Ready for Showtime

The Russians have been lying for a few years about how far along they are with the Tu-PAK DA’s development. After all, the Russians were supposed to have a demonstration plane ready for use by 2023. Now, Russia’s defense ministry says it won’t be until next year, two years after it was originally supposed to be ready for use, that a demonstration Tu-PAK DA will be available.

And the longer the delay lasts for the deployment of the Tu-PAK DA, the greater the capabilities gap is for Russia’s air force. Not only have the Americans outpaced the Russians with the recent successful demonstration of the B-21 bomber, but the Chinese have gotten their own long-range stealth bomber, the H-20, which Beijing claims can “out-bomb” US Air Force facilities in the Indo-Pacific.

One thing that is working in Russia’s favor is the fact that the Ukraine War has forced its manufacturing sector to go on a war-footing—where it will likely remain for some time to come. 

Will Russia Be Able to Keep Up with Stealth Planes?

Still, Russian aerospace firms are having difficulty meeting increased demand for their products. This has especially been felt in the Su-35 series, a “fourth-generation ++” warplane. Nevertheless, the Russians have remained in the fight. What’s more, as I have noted previously, the Russians are winning and are likely to defeat Ukraine (and their NATO backers) simply through attrition. 

Inevitably, the Russians will have to prioritize the creation of their Tu-PAK DA bomber. 

Otherwise, they will have left a significant strategic gap for the Americans to fly through with their B-21. 

As an American, I hope this remains the case. Although, after two years of the Ukraine War, the Americans should learn never to underestimate the Russians. Theirs is a society that is compelled by necessity, the kind of necessity that total war brings. At some point, they’ll get the Tu-PAK DA right.

About the Author

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Donald Trumps Wahlkampfversprechen, hohe Zölle auf chinesische Waren zu erheben, könnte der europäischen Wirtschaft zugutekommen. Nazak Nikakhtar, eine ehemalige hochrangige US-Handelsbeamtin, glaubt, dass dies den EU-Entscheidungsträgern diplomatischen Rückenwind für ähnliche Handelsschutzmaßnahmen geben könnte.

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. is lagging behind China and Russia in developing hypersonic weapons, which are advanced systems capable of evading most current defenses due to their high speed and maneuverability. Despite having the lead time and resources, the U.S. did not prioritize these technologies, allowing its rivals to gain a strategic advantage.

-Russia has deployed hypersonic weapons operationally, and China has made significant strides, including building the world's largest hypersonic wind tunnel and conducting successful tests.

-This technological gap poses a serious concern for U.S. defense policymakers, suggesting a need for focused investment similar to a "Manhattan Project" for hypersonic weapons.

America Remains Behind China and Russia in Hypersonic Capabilities 

The U.S. is finding out the hard way what happens when a country fails to innovate their way of war in a dynamic threat environment. 

Hypersonic weapons are not new technologies. They’ve been with us since the Cold War. Over the last 10 years, however, there has been a surge in the development and production of these systems. Traveling at eye-popping speeds, these weapons are capable of maneuvering in unpredictable ways that make tracking and shooting them down very difficult. 

Despite enjoying considerable lead time to develop such systems during America’s so-called unipolar moment, the U.S. military failed to prioritize these systems. America’s rising rivals China and Russia sought to build these systems, and they did. 

We’re Number Three

Today, the United States is behind in the race for viable hypersonic weapons. Not only is China ahead of the U.S., but so is the Russian military, which fields both a cruise missile version of a hypersonic weapon and a longer-range platform that can reach deep within the United States. Unlike conventional ballistic missiles, the hypersonic weapons the U.S. is faced with today can evade most of America’s homeland defenses, giving America’s foes real strategic advantages. 

Some reading this will likely argue that the Americans are making progress on the development of their own system. Indeed, the Americans are making headway. But they find themselves in an unenviable third place. This should be of grave concern to Washington’s policymakers. 

In the case of Russia, Moscow has proven that it is able to both build and deploy their hypersonic weapons in combat. Indeed, recent news indicates that the Russian flotilla that was sent to Cuba had with it a naval platform capable of firing the Russian hypersonic weapons. This was an implied threat to the United States that Russian forces, regardless of the retaliatory capabilities of the Americans, could come within striking range of America’s East Coast, and launch hypersonic cruise missiles against which the U.S. currently lacks adequate defenses.

 

The guardians of conventional thinking insist that the Russian systems are all hype. This is a ridiculous notion not borne out by the facts. 

China’s Capabilities

They say similar things about the Chinese systems. Again, the Chinese have developed far more sophisticated hypersonic capabilities than the Americans. 

Back in 2023, China announced the opening of the world’s largest hypersonic wind tunnel, a key piece for testing hypersonic technology. China again shocked the world when it tested a long-range hypersonic weapon that circumnavigated the world repeatedly before coming down within 20 miles of its intended target deep inside the Gobi Desert. 

What’s more, thanks to their real-world tests, China’s scientists are figuring out how to maintain control over their hypersonic systems even as they re-enter the atmosphere and are encased in superheated plasma, by using a combination of 6G internet and lasers to beam signals that can penetrate the plasma field.

America Behind 

America is behind. Dangerously. For all the money that is spent on defense, it is only recently that any real concentration has been given to developing America’s own hypersonic capabilities. And there are setbacks in the U.S. program. 

Meanwhile, Russia expands its arsenal and China, with their impressive mass production abilities, stand poised to outstrip everyone. An imbalance of forces exists in the hypersonic domain. 

Rather than blowing money on a sixth-generation warplane or another aircraft carrier, perhaps the Pentagon should have a Manhattan Project for hypersonic weapons. 

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. Main image is from a fire aboard USS John F. Kennedy in 1968.

From the Vault

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

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

Summary and Key Points: During the RIMPAC 2024 exercise, a U.S. Air Force B-2 Spirit bomber successfully sank the ex-USS Dubuque using GPS-guided bombs, demonstrating the bomber's capability to engage maritime targets. This SINKEX event, part of a larger live-fire exercise involving multiple nations, showcased the effectiveness of coordinated attacks and various weapon systems.

-A second SINKEX saw the sinking of the ex-USS Tarawa, highlighting the use of the Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM).

-These exercises provided valuable data on weapon effectiveness against large warships and underscored the importance of joint force flexibility in neutralizing maritime threats.

An American B-2 Spirit Bomber Just Sank a Warship

During the Second World War, the United States Navy's SBD Douglas SBD Dauntless dive bombers destroyed four Imperial Japanese Navy aircraft carriers at the Battle of Midway on June 4, 1942. However, since the Second World War long-range strategic bombers have largely been employed against targets on land not at sea.

That is until this month when a United States Air Force B-2 Spirit aided in the sinking of a warship while employing relatively inexpensive GPS-guided bombs. Of course, it wasn't an enemy vessel, but rather the ex-USS Dubuque (LPD-8) – an Austin-class amphibious transport dock – that was sunk as part of a carefully coordinated SINKEX during the ongoing Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2024 exercise.

"SINKEX, short for 'sink at-sea live-fire training exercises', is a program run by the United States Navy that arranges for decommissioned Naval warships to be used in live-fire training. This gives Navy personnel the opportunity to use real ammunition on practical targets and apply what they learn to future conflict, practicing gunnery, missile drills, torpedo accuracy, and even special warfare operations," explained the U.S. Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration (MARAD).

The United States Navy noted that "SINKEXs are conducted only after the area has been surveyed for the presence of people, marine vessels, aircraft, and marine species. SINKEXs are fully compliant with the National Environmental Policy Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, and a general permit under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act."

Double SINKEX

This year's RIMPAC actually saw two SINKEX events. In addition to the sinking of LPD-8 on July 11, the U.S. Navy also sunk the decommissioned USS Tarawa (LHA-1) eight days later on July 19. Both of the former U.S. Navy warships were sunk in waters more than 15,000 feet deep, and more than 50 nautical miles off the northern coast of Hawaii's Kauai.

"The sinking of the ex-Tarawa included the employment of a Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) from a U.S. Navy F/A-18F Super Hornet. As a precise, stealthy, and survivable cruise missile, LRASM provides multi-service, multi-platform, and multi-mission capabilities for offensive anti-surface warfare," the U.S. Navy said in a statement announcing the successful SINKEX during RIMPAC 2024. "During the SINKEXs, participating units from Australia, Malaysia, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, and the U.S. Air Force, Army and Navy gained proficiency in tactics, targeting and live firing against surface ships at sea."

This recent SINKEX was conducted to offer an opportunity to gather data on the effectiveness of various weapons on a large warship, but it will also provide the U.S. Navy with insight into how its flattops can handle an attack.

"Sinking exercises give us a chance to sharpen our skills, learn from one another, and get real-world experience," said U.S. Navy Vice Adm. John Wade, RIMPAC 2024 Combined Task Force Commander. "Using advanced weapons and seeing the professionalism of our teams during these drills shows our commitment to keeping the Indo-Pacific region safe and open."

According to a recent report from TheWarZone, the U.S. Navy had been preparing to employ the ex-LHA-1 in the SINKEX since at least 2022, while her sister ship, the ex-USS Peleliu (LHA-5) could also be used as a future floating target. The ex-USS Belleau Wood (LHA-3) was sunk in 2006, while five of the seven Wasp-class amphibious assault ships – which preceded the Tarawa class – were also sunk in past RIMPAC SINKEXs, per TheWarZone.

B-2 Bomber in a SINKEX

As noted, the use of an Air Force bomber in a SINKEX was unique, but it proved that low-cost, air-delivered ordnance could defeat a surface vessel through a "QUICKSINK" demonstration.

"The QUICKSINK experiment is funded by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and aims to provide options to neutralize surface maritime threats while demonstrating the inherent flexibility of the joint force. This capability is an answer to an urgent need to quickly neutralize maritime threats over massive expanses of ocean around the world at minimal costs," the Navy's statement added.

While it would likely be smaller stealth aircraft like the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II that would be employed against a near-peer adversary's aircraft carrier, the U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force showed that in addition to being able to work together, America's bombers can quickly send a warship to the bottom of the ocean!

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.

Si Kamala Harris remporte la course au poste suprême de la Maison Blanche, elle sera la première femme présidente des États-Unis et le premier président d'origine indienne et jamaïcaine. Voici un aperçu de la position de la vice-présidente sur les questions de politique étrangère et de son expérience internationale.

Summary and Key Points: Russia's only aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, is currently unusable due to numerous issues, including outdated technology and damage from a 2019 fire. Despite Russia's advancements in nuclear technology, they lack a modern nuclear-powered carrier. The Soviet-era project Ulyanovsk, intended to be a formidable nuclear supercarrier, was never completed due to the USSR's collapse.

-Though there are claims from Russian Navy officials about developing a new carrier, the timeline and feasibility remain uncertain, especially given Russia's recent military and economic challenges.

The Soviet Supercarrier That Never Was: Ulyanovsk's Unfinished Legacy

Russia’s so-called “special military operation” in Ukraine has sparked a renewed round of interest in the country’s military technologies and weapons systems, though admittedly a lot of that interest stems from morbid curiosity on account of their poor performance.

Among the questions being raised is why Russia’s lone aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, isn’t being employed in the ongoing conflict.

Well, it turns out that the Kuznetsov is beset with a whole host of maladies, from reliance on an ultra-thick, tarry black substance called Mazut as its power source, to a 2019 onboard fire that cost 300-350 million rubles in damages.

This in turn begs an additional question: Why doesn’t Russia have a more modern nuclear-powered carrier?

Wherefore Art Thou, Russian Nuclear Aircraft Carrier?

Given Moscow’s developments in other facets of nuclear technology, from land-based nuclear refineries to nuclear submarines-such as the titanic Typhoon class – to nuclear ICBMs such as the new “Sarmat” – why haven’t they also been able to apply that industrial engineering knowhow to aircraft carriers?

Well, as it turns out, the Russkies’ lack of a nuke-powered carrier certainly wasn’t due to a lack of effort or desire.

Back in the mid-1980s, the then-Soviet government conceived a supercarrier project known as Ulyanovsk, named after Vladimir Lenin’s hometown. As noted by columnist Paul Richard Huard explained, “Had she ever sailed, the Soviet supercarrier Ulyanovsk would have been a naval behemoth more than 1,000 feet long, with an 85,000-ton displacement and enough storage to carry an air group of up to 70 fixed and rotary-wing aircraft.”  For the basis of comparison, the U.S. Navy’s USS George H.W. Bush — the most modern and advanced flat-top of the improved Nimitz-class supercarriers — is roughly 1,100 feet long, with a displacement of 102,000 tons fully laden with ammunition and supplies, and a normal carrying capacity of 56 aircraft. The Russian carrier also boasted an impressive arsenal, including P-700 missiles and onboard surface-to-air missile systems.

The Ulyanovsk’s keel was laid in 1988, during which time the Soviet economy was already in dire straits, and three years before the collapse of the Soviet Empire. Even if the USSR hadn’t collapsed, this giant ship was such a large project that builders wouldn’t have finished her until the mid-1990s. Ironically enough, construction took place at the Black Sea Shipyard, aka Nikolayev South Shipyard 444, in Ukraine.

As a bit of gee-whiz historical trivia for you film buffs out there, that is the same shipyard from whence the famous Russian battleship Potemkin — scene of the famous 1905 naval mutiny and the subject of Sergei Eisenstein’s classic film — was launched.

But, of course, the USSR did indeed collapse, and with it went the funding to complete the construction of the Ulyanovsk. As Professor James R. Holmes, holder of the J.C. Wylie Chair of Maritime Strategy at the Naval War College, elaborates, “The Soviets weren’t dumb. They wouldn’t spend themselves into oblivion to keep up with the Joneses, and as a great land power, they had enormous claims on their resources to fund the army and air force. There was only so much to go around for ‘luxury fleet’ projects. Bottom line, if you can’t afford to keep the existing fleet at sea, where are you going to get the money to complete your first nuclear-powered supercarrier, a vessel that will demand even more manpower that you can’t afford?”

Resurrecting the Russian Nuke Carrier?

Fast-forward to the present day, and in the intervening years, Vladimir Putin has done much to modernize Russia’s armed forces in the intervening years since Boris Yeltsin replaced Mikhail S. Gorbachev at the end of the Cold War. Whilst Putin’s modernization program certainly included the Russian Navy, aircraft carriers still simply haven’t been a priority.

However, that may change soon, as Russian Navy Chief Admiral Viktor Chirkov recently went on public record proclaiming “The navy will have an aircraft carrier. The research companies are working on it.” Admiral Chirkov did not specify the size or capabilities of this new carrier, nor did he give an estimated timeframe for its keel-laying or its completion.

Given the Russians’ recent failures to meet certain other military timeframes, especially pertaining to their “special military operation in Ukraine,” we probably shouldn’t be holding our collective breaths anytime soon.

About the Author 

Christian D. Orr is a former Air Force officer, Federal law enforcement officer, and private military contractor (with assignments worked in Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kosovo, Japan, Germany, and the Pentagon).  Chris holds a B.A. in International Relations from the University of Southern California (USC) and an M.A. in Intelligence Studies (concentration in Terrorism Studies) from American Military University (AMU).  He has also been published in The Daily Torch and The Journal of Intelligence and Cyber Security.

Image Credit: Shutterstock and/or Creative Commons.

Summary and Key Points: Russia's ambition to produce the Su-75 "Checkmate," a competitive and cost-effective fifth-generation fighter, has been hindered by the ongoing war in Ukraine. Money problems could be the plane's biggest foe. 

-The conflict has diverted resources and focus towards immediate military needs, slowing the development of advanced systems like the Su-75. The aircraft, designed to be partially stealthy and affordable compared to American models, faces challenges including a lack of foreign buyers, with the UAE withdrawing interest due to geopolitical tensions.

-If Russia overcomes these hurdles, the Su-75 could significantly impact the global fighter aircraft market, but current circumstances make this unlikely.

War in Ukraine Stalls Russia's Su-75 'Checkmate' Fighter Jet Development

Russia is a great power. Unlike other great powers, such as the United States, it favors function over form and often the Russian philosophy is to simply produce systems that are “good enough” for challenging their rivals. This is why the Russian military, despite the headaches they’ve encountered in their illegal war against Ukraine, is defeating their Ukrainian neighbors—even as Russia is forced to increasingly rely on older, less sophisticated, and cheaper-to-produce systems. 

Nevertheless, Russia continues investing in developing next-generation weapons platforms for their military. Moscow has been interested in developing fifth-generation warplanes that not only can compete with those of both the United States and China, but Russian leaders envision making technologically competitive fifth-generation warplanes that are cheaper than their American and Chinese competitors. 

Despite their commitment to building competitive fifth-generation warplanes, Russia has struggled to bring their bold concepts to fruition. The War in Ukraine has not helped them, as Russia’s defense industrial base has had to focus on mass-producing weapons and platforms that are easy to build and can be quickly deployed to the frontline. 

That has forced Russia’s design bureaus to slow down on producing newer, more advanced warbirds, as these systems require greater attention in their development phase than what the Russian defense industrial base wants to dedicate to it.

In previous posts, I have detailed the problems that the Sukhoi Design Bureau, one of Russia’s premier defense contractors, has encountered in mass producing their much-ballyhooed fifth-generation warplane, the Su-57. 

But there is another warbird that is struggling to take flight. This one belonging to another Russian defense firm, Rostec, a subsidiary of Sukhoi Design Bureau. That’s the Su-75 “Checkmate.”

Russia Too Focused on Ukraine to Build the Su-75

Here again, Russia’s vision for a future bird has outstripped its capacity to produce them. As I have written before, do not underestimate the Russians. Especially as their defense industrial base and war economy are turbocharged by the Ukraine War at a time when America’s and Europe’s defense industrial bases are being drained by that same conflict. 

The Su-75 is an interesting plane, though. And if the Russians ever did figure out how to make it as affordably as they want to, the Russians would have a clear advantage over their American rivals. Sure, the Americans are already talking about retiring their older fifth-generation warplanes and are well into developing a sixth-generation bird. 

But who among us can say that, with the exception of the F-22A Raptor (which is the plane that the Air Force is trying to retire), America’s fifth-generation birds have been anything other than unnecessary? 

Or that a costly, hard-to-produce sixth-generation bird is worth the investment?

And it’s clear that the world remains steadfastly committed to the fifth-generation warplane, hence the reason behind every major country either seeking to purchase a fifth-generation warplane or to build one of their own. As with all complex systems, the matter is one of cost and time. The Russian Su-75 could remove the biggest barrier of all—cost—if their defense industrial base has the time to work out the kinks. 

The Su-75 Specifications 

The Su-75 Checkmate is a lower-cost fifth-generation warplane because it is only partly truly stealthy. Whereas America’s F-22A Raptor and F-35 Lightning II are totally stealth, the proposed Su-75 has much of its stealthiness located in the front half of the bird. 

Described as a “light tactical fighter,” the Su-75 Checkmate will have five internal weapons bays (to enhance its stealthy appearance). It will carry both guided and unguided weapons into battle. The RVV-MD short-range missile and the RVV-SD long-range missile make up its guided munitions. Checkmate’s ground-attack capabilities will include precision-guided munitions, such as the X-31PD missile, as well as the KH-35UE.

The Su-75’s designers claim the bird can be flown in tandem with unmanned aerial vehicles, enhancing its lethality.

A single NPO Saturn AL-51F-1 engine powers this warbird. It produces around 18,000 kilogram force (KGF) thrust, with a total thrust of around 36,000 kgf. So, this bird is packing a potent engine. The Checkmate can cruise at a maximum speed of around Mach 1.8, with a range of about 1,900 miles. 

Losing Foreign Buyers

At $30 million per unit, this bird would be appealing to countries seeking access to fifth-generation warplanes but at a lower cost than what the American F-35 is going for. Too bad for Russia, its one foreign buyer, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) appears to have backed out in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and is now purchasing a block of F-35s from the United States.

Still, if the Russians were ever able to take this bird off the drawing board, especially if they can end the Ukraine War soon—and keep the costs down—the Su-75 could be a real boon for Russia. Until then, this is a bird with nowhere to fly to. Russia is seeking foreign buyers because Moscow understands that it cannot produce such planes only for its military and expect costs to remain low. 

Yet, without significant foreign interest—which is greatly lacking—the Su-75 won't ever fly. 

About the Author

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

Main image is from Shutterstock. All other images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The Zumwalt-class destroyers, initially designed to provide artillery support with advanced 155-mm guns, have been a costly disappointment for the U.S. Navy. With only three of the planned 32 ships built, the Zumwalt-class has faced numerous issues, including exorbitant costs and the removal of its main artillery due to functionality problems.

-The Navy now plans to repurpose these ships as hypersonic missile carriers, despite doubts about their reliability and effectiveness.

-Critics argue that these destroyers are more liability than asset and suggest focusing on more practical solutions like launching hypersonic weapons from submarines or unmanned underwater vehicles.

Zumwalt-Class Destroyers: A Costly Blunder for the U.S. Navy?

The US Navy’s Zumwalt-class destroyer is, along with the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), probably the Navy’s worst investment ever.

Costing Navy around $22 billion in research and development, it had stealth features, and was designed to provide artillery support with a 155-mm Advanced Gun System (AGS).

This warship was the reason behind the Chief of Naval Operation in 2006 authorizing the termination of the ammunition supply chains for America’s semi-retired Iowa-class battleships. An addendum inserted by Congress to the National Defense Authorization Act of 1996 instructed the Navy to maintain America’s legendary battleships until the Navy could prove they had a viable, modern replacement for it. 

The Navy assumed the Zumwalt was the answer they’d been looking for. 

America’s Navy was wrong. The Zumwalt-class ended up being a giant boondoggle that almost everyone hates. The inability of the Zumwalts to perform their intended mission has not only made it a waste of money and resources. This failure to achieve its basic mission has meant that a critical capability gap has formed in the US Navy. 

Specifically, the destroyer was meant to provide artillery cover for friendly forces fighting ashore. But things have gotten so bad for the Zumwalt-class that the Navy removed the ship’s 155-mm cannon, effectively castrating the unlucky warship.

Instead, the Pentagon is now looking at making the Zumwalt-class a floating hypersonic missile carrier. Last year, the Navy awarded a $154.8 million contract to Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) to implement the upgrade. Mind you, the Navy could not get the 155-mm Advanced Gun System (AGS) onboard the Zumwalt-class to work. 

The geniuses behind the Zumwalt initially planned for the Navy to order 32 units of these bizarre looking stealth warships. Due to cost overruns and overall inefficiency of the defense industrial base, the Navy ended up with only three.

And this impacts the development of the 155-mm AGS because, as it turned out, the ship’s designers failed to make the new gun system interoperable with the US Army and NATO’s standard 155-mm Howitzer artillery shells. Because there were only three units of the Zumwalt-class as opposed to the original 32 planned, the costs of the artillery pieces that were compatible with the AGS cost a staggering $800,000 per round.

Now the Navy is trying to justify their investment. With the rise in importance of hypersonic weapons, the Navy is clearly to merge the necessary with the utterly unnecessary, in order to justify their sunk cost into the Zumwalt-class destroyer. In fact, the Zumwalt has an assortment of other weaknesses that few other warships have—especially warships that bear the same cost and claim to be as advanced as the Zumwalt-class is. 

For example, in 2018, the second Zumwalt-class USS Michael Monsoor (DDG-1001) apparently suffered a blown turbine on its shakedown cruise resulting in it being sent back to the San Diego shipyard, where even more tax dollars will be spent repairing it. These warships are flimsy, their systems are needlessly complex, and these vessels are more of a liability to the United States than they are advantages, whatever stealth capabilities the designers of these boats say they possess.

The entire weapons launch capabilities of the Zumwalt-class will need to be rebuilt to accommodate hypersonic weapons. That’s to say nothing of the fact that the Common Hypersonic Glide Bodies (C-HGB) that the Navy is developing jointly with the US Army are highly experimental. Therefore, the idea that they will be readily available in the next year or so is somewhat laughable. 

Even if the C-HGBs are ready on time and work as promised (big ifs), the probability that the easily damaged Zumwalt-class destroyers will be reliable launching platforms in combat. Consider this: the Chinese have arrayed what is probably the world’s most advanced anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) network in the Indo-Pacific. 

While the Zumwalt’s designers will likely argue that the stealth features of the Zumwalt would negate whatever advantages China’s A2/AD systems enjoy over other conventional US surface warships, the fact is that these boats are untested. 

What’s more, they’re designer for operating dangerously close to enemy shorelines. When one is fighting a terrorist organization or a third world rogue state, there is less of a risk to the Zumwalt from shore (although even this is changing, as the Houthis are showing). 

On the face of it, the Navy should be applauded for trying to turn a failure into a success story. The only problem is that the Zumwalt is such a bad system—and it’s old now—that the Navy would be better off either adapting an existing platform, like perhaps a submarine, to launch the C-HGB. 

The Navy has wasted billions of three warships that are floating disasters. They’re as embarrassing (or they should be) for America’s national prestige as the Admiral Kuznetsov is for Russia’s.

Turn the Zumwalt-class into scrap. Build the hypersonic weapons. And make them launchable from submarines. Or, better yet, make them compatible for launch with DARPA’s newest unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV), the Manta Ray. That’s the only way that the US Navy will have the firepower and access to burst those Chinese A2/AD bubbles. 

About the Author 

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Die Verhaftung eines Umweltaktivisten in Dänemark hat unter den Mitgliedern des EU-Parlaments und der französischen Nationalversammlung für Aufsehen gesorgt. Insgesamt achtundsechzig Abgeordnete fordern in einem Schreiben an die dänische Ministerpräsidentin die Freilassung des Aktivisten.

Summary and Key Points: The USS Franklin (CV-13), an Essex-class aircraft carrier, was one of the most decorated ships in U.S. Navy history. Commissioned in January 1944, it participated in numerous World War II Pacific campaigns. The carrier endured severe attacks, including kamikaze strikes and bomb hits, causing significant casualties.

-Despite being heavily damaged and nearly abandoned, the ship's crew heroically saved it, earning the nickname "The Ship That Wouldn't Die."

-The Franklin's crew received numerous awards, including two Medals of Honor. After the war, the ship was decommissioned and never returned to active service, marking a notable chapter in naval history.

The Indomitable USS Franklin: The Ship That Wouldn't Die

Twenty-four Essex-class aircraft carriers were built for the U.S. Navy during World War II, and only two did not continue their service during the Cold War. One of those was the USS Franklin (CV-13). The ship received numerous awards, including four battle stars for service. Meanwhile its sailors become one of the most decorated crews in Navy history.

What makes this all the more notable is that the Essex-class carrier was only commissioned on January 31, 1944. Deployed to the Pacific, CV-13 took part in the Mariana Islands Campaign, providing air support during amphibious landings on the Bonin Islands, Guam, and the Palau Islands, among others. The carrier took part in the Battle of Leyte Gulf and on October 30, 1944, was attacked by Japanese kamikazes, which struck the flight deck. 

Back to Action 

After being repaired at the Puget Sound Navy Yard in Bremerton, Washington, the USS Franklin – nicknamed "Big Ben" by her crew – returned to service and joined Task Force 58 in March 1945. The carrier was supporting air attacks on the Japanese home islands in support of the landings on Okinawa when on March 19, she came under attack from a Japanese bomber that closed on the flattop and dropped two 550-pound semi-armor-piercing bombs. The first bomb struck the flight deck, exploding on impact and tragically killing nearly all the crewmembers located at the forward part of the hangar deck.

A second bomb also struck the flight deck, igniting a series of fires that engulfed the warship and its aircraft. At the time the bombs were dropped, the carrier had 31 armed and fueled aircraft warming up on her flight deck, while the hangar deck contained an additional 22 planes – with 16 also fueled, and five armed. The bombs set off a series of explosions of ordnance, setting off general purpose bombs, "Tiny Tim" rockets, and aviation fuel. Just two crewmen in the hangar deck survived.

That wasn't the last of it. The initial attack was followed up by seemingly relentless waves of Japanese aircraft that included a reported five more bombers, 14 torpedo planes, and a dozen fighters. Big Ben was clearly a big prize for the Imperial Japanese Navy. The ship was essentially dead in the water just 50 miles off the coast of Japan. It listed as much as 13 degrees to starboard.

The "Lucky 13"

The ship lost all radio communications. Much of her crew – those that weren't blown overboard, killed, or wounded – continued valiantly to save the warship. Though Captain Leslie E. Gehres, commanding officer of the USS Franklin, was advised to issue an abandon ship order, he did not – Gehres believed the ship could be saved. Despite the relentless attacks, CV-13 proved to have luck on her side and survived, earning a reputation as "The Ship That Wouldn't Die."

However, the ship’s survival came at a tragically high price, with 796 killed and 265 wounded. Combined with those killed on October 30, 1944, during the kamikaze attack, the USS Franklin had 924 of its crew killed – the highest count of any U.S. ship in the Second World War except for the USS Arizona (BB-39), which was sunk at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

Lieutenant Commander Joseph T. O'Callahan, the ship's Catholic chaplain, and Lieutenant Donald A. Gary, were each awarded the Medal of Honor for their heroic efforts in attending to the wounded and saving numerous lives, while an additional 19 Navy Crosses, 22 Silver Stars, 116 Bronze Stars, and 235 Letters of Commendation were issued to the crew. In total, the U.S. Navy awarded 808 posthumous Purple Hearts, along with 347 Purple Hearts to the survivors.

As noted, the crew of the USS Franklin was the most decorated in U.S. Navy history, and they truly earned their awards.

The carrier was undergoing repairs when the war ended, and she was sent to the Atlantic Reserve Fleet. Though redesignated an attack aircraft carrier (CVA-13), an antisubmarine warfare support carrier (CVS-13), and finally an aircraft transport (AVT-8), she never returned to active service. 

Along with the USS Bunker Hill (CVN-17), also damaged in a kamikaze attack, the USS Franklin was just one of two U.S. Navy Essex-class carriers never to return to action. It could be said the warship earned her retirement, and proved the Essex class was essentially unsinkable. 

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.

The main image is of the USS Franklin. All others are images of Essex-Class Aircraft Carriers. All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The French Navy's Charles de Gaulle (CDG) is the only nuclear-powered aircraft carrier outside the U.S. Navy's fleet. While smaller than the U.S. Nimitz and Ford classes, the CDG remains a formidable warship, equipped with a steam catapult system and an air wing comprising Dassault Rafael M strike fighters, E-2C Hawkeye early warning aircraft, and helicopters.

-Despite initial design and funding challenges, the carrier has undergone significant refits and upgrades, enhancing its capabilities.

-The CDG has actively participated in various operations, including Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria, solidifying its role as the French Navy's flagship.

Meet Charles de Gaulle: The French Navy's Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carrier

The Second World War saw the advent of aircraft carriers as the premier warship of the seas. Since then, the U.S. Navy has established itself as the undeniable carrier powerhouse, with 11 nuclear-powered supercarriers in its fleets.

Other navies, however, have not neglected this important component of naval warfare. In particular, the French Navy is the only other navy in the world to field a nuclear-powered carrier, the Charles de Gaulle (CDG). 

Though not as big as the Nimitz or Ford classes of the U.S. Navy, the CDG is still a formidable warship. She boasts a steam catapult system only slightly smaller than those found on U.S. carriers which is still capable of launching F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets and C-2 Greyhounds. 

Her air wing consists of Dassault Rafael M strike fighters, E-2C Hawkeye airborne early warning aircraft, and numerous helicopters. She has carried these aircraft on numerous deployments and in combat operations in Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria.

Aircraft Carrier Charles de Gaulle - Specs & capabilities:

The Charles de Gaulle has its roots in the 1980s. France had completed two carriers in the 1960s, the Clemenceau and Foch, and was looking ahead at their replacements. The resultant design was a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier with an angled deck and steam catapults. This was still a relatively novel configuration, which allowed for simultaneous launching and recovery of larger and heavier aircraft and increased the safety of carrier air operations.

Following several years of design, during which politicians squabbled over her name - she was to be called the Richelieu - construction began in the Brest shipyard in 1987. An early 1990’s recession only worsened funding prospects, and completion was delayed.

Work was stopped no fewer than four times during this period due to funding issues. Construction was finally completed in the late 1990s and the ship was put to sea for sea trials by the end of the decade. Tests found that her flight deck was too short to accommodate the proposed air wing, specifically the E-2C Hawkeye. Upon revelation to the public, this news caused an outcry as it was a near exact repeat of the process undergone on the previous two carriers.

Refits and upgrades:

Since her completion, the carrier has undergone two major periods of refits and upgrades, in 2007 and 2017. Each time involved a refueling of the nuclear reactor as well as upgrading the support and communications systems for the embarked air wing. The 2007 overhaul replaced her propellers - she had been using spares from the older Clemenceau since her launch due to one of the brand-new propellers breaking. 

Operational history for Charles de Gaulle:

Following her commissioning, the Charles de Gaulle has participated in numerous operations and deployments. In 2001 and 2002, she supported U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan from the Indian Ocean. She was involved in the no-fly zone over Libya in 2011 and was an integral part of the campaign to defeat the Islamic State in 2015. Through it all, the CDG has proven to be a capable aircraft carrier and deserves to be the flagship of the French fleet.

About the Author: Maya Carlin

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

All images are Creative Commons.