Diplomacy & Crisis News

Horreur Le 17 mars 2023, au lendemain de manifestations spontanées contre l'usage de l'article 49-3, LeFigaro.fr prend une sérieuse option sur l'attribution du prochain prix Pulitzer avec ce reportage : « Une chaussée nettoyée dans le 2e arrondissement de Paris, des commerçants sous le choc. Dans la (...) / France, Médias, Presse, Mouvement de contestation, Retraites - 2023/04

Des penseurs révolutionnaires comme Friedrich Engels ou Rosa Luxemburg se sont interrogés sur les divergences possibles entre les revendications nationalistes et les impératifs de la lutte des classes. Confrontés à la même question, Lénine ou Léon Trotsky subordonneront les intérêts nationaux à ceux du (...) / Idées, Autodétermination des peuples, Socialisme, Marxisme - 2023/04

Concilier soutien populaire et relative faiblesse des forces mobilisées sur le terrain : tel est le défi qu'affrontent les militants syndicaux. Ils le relèvent avec plus ou moins de bonheur, comptant sur le temps long. / Travail, Mouvement de contestation, Retraites, Syndicalisme, Société civile - (...) / Travail, Mouvement de contestation, Retraites, Syndicalisme, Société civile - 2023/04

How Trump’s unpredictability could hurt his foreign policy.

Outside actors must put the country’s needs above their narrow interests.

Topic: Security Blog Brand: The Buzz Region: Americas Tags: F-16 Fighting Falcon, F-16XL, Military, Security, and U.S. Air Force The Little-Known F-16XL Fighter Was Stacked to the Brim with Weapons January 24, 2025 By: Harrison Kass Share

• Share this link on Facebook
• Share this page on X (Twitter)
• Share this link on LinkedIn
• Email a link to this page

Only two F-16XLs were ever made. They entered the Air Force’s Enhanced Tactical Fighter competition to select a replacement for the F-111 Aardvark.

Aviation enthusiasts tend to recognize the F-16 Fighting Falcon on sight. The jet cuts a distinctive figure with compact proportions, a bubble-canopy, and one engine—with the air intake located dead center and horizontal stabilizers forming a symmetrical angle. The airframe’s ubiquity helps, too, with over 4,600 F-16s produced since the 1970s and over 2,600 still in service today (by comparison only 187 F-22 Raptors were produced).

But there was one F-16 variant, a little-known experiment, that few would recognize: the F-16XL.

Introducing the F-16XL

Only two F-16XLs were ever made. In 1981, the fighter entered the Air Force’s Enhanced Tactical Fighter (ETF) competition to select a replacement for the F-111 Aardvark. The F-16XL lost the bid, which is why you’ve probably never heard of the thing (the F-15 Eagle, which you probably have heard of, ultimately won the ETF competition, joined the U.S. Air Force, and has since been mass-produced).

The F-16XL looks similar to the standard F-16, like some sort of cousin, perhaps, with designers using the standard model as a baseline for the XL-variant. The two airframes are different, of course, most notably in regard to wing shape; the F-16XL features a delta design. The most expert observers might catch another subtle difference between the two F-16s; the F-16XL was 56 inches longer—thanks to two sections added to the joints of the main fuselage sub-assemblies. Also, the F-16XL’s tail was angled 3.16 degrees upward and the ventral fins were removed.

Why the modifications?

The original F-16 was relatively new and had performed admirably, so it may seem odd that the airframe was modified so drastically. But the delta wing design improved the lift-to-drag ratio during supersonic flight by 25 percent relative to the standard F-16. Test pilots reported that the F-16XL handled quite well at both low and high speeds.

Also, the larger, longer F-16XL was able to carry more fuel and more weapons. The enlarged wing allowed for the new F-16 to store 65 percent more fuel, which resulted in a 50 percent further range. And the massive delta-wing allowed for more external hardpoints and hence larger weapons payloads. The result was a jet that could deploy more weapons than its predecessors and could go further to deploy said weapons. And that marks a significant practical improvement over the F-16.

For research

The F-16XL was originally a part of the General Dynamics experimental program known as SCAMP, or Supersonic Cruise and Maneuver Prototype. SCAMP tested a variety of wing types to find their desired characteristics. Ultimately, the delta-wing design was selected thanks to the aforementioned lift-to-drag ratio.

When the Air Force selected the F-15 as winner of the ETF competition, General Dynamics donated the two existing F-16XLs to NASA, which put the delta-winged jets to good use; the F-16XLs were flown, for research purposes, until 2009—nearly thirty years after first flying.

After being retired, the F-16XLs were transferred to Edwards Air Force Base, where they were stored, and where they have mostly faded into the annals of aviation mythology.

About the Author: Harrison Kass

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

Image: Shutterstock.

The post The Little-Known F-16XL Fighter Was Stacked to the Brim with Weapons appeared first on The National Interest.

Topic: Security Blog Brand: The Buzz Region: Middle East Tags: F-15I Ra’am, Israel, Israeli Air Force, Military, and Security Israel Set to Receive 25 F-15I Fighters by 2031 January 24, 2025 By: Maya Carlin Share

• Share this link on Facebook
• Share this page on X (Twitter)
• Share this link on LinkedIn
• Email a link to this page

Israel’s initial procurement of the F-15I fighter occurred in the late 1990s, following lessons learned from the Gulf War.

With the Israeli-Hamas ceasefire in place, Iran’s regional proxy groups are allegedly following suit with the aim to deescalate. The Yemen-based Houthi rebels signaled this week that they will direct future attacks to only Israeli-affiliated vessels in the Red Sea. For over two years, the Iranian-backed militant group has increased its barrages in this critical waterway, nearly halving all commercial traffic through this region. The Houthis’ ability to disrupt the global economy on such a large scale is perhaps the group’s greatest asset. However, if the Yemen-based group continues to target Israeli ships, retaliatory strikes will undoubtedly follow. Considering the strength and formidability of the Israeli Air Force (IAF), Houthi military sites and other assets in Yemen will make relatively easy targets. In fact, Israel’s aerial might will only improve as the Jewish state recently penned a whopping $5 billion deal to acquire an additional twenty-five F-15 fighters beginning in 2031.

The deal, signed by Israel’s Defense Ministry, includes twenty-five Boeing F-15IA fighter jets with options for an additional twenty-five. As Israel’s specialized variant of the advanced F-15EX, these “Ra’am” fighters are often overshadowed by the fifth-generation F-35I Adir. Although the F-15I does not possess the F-35’s stealth, the platform offers greater range which makes it essential for long-range strikes and air superiority missions. “Boeing takes pride in its longstanding partnership with Israel, a relationship that dates back to our nation’s establishment,” president of Boeing Israel maj. gen. (ret.) Ido Nehushtan noted. “The company will continue working with the U.S. and Israeli governments to deliver the advanced F-15IA aircraft through standard military procurement channels.”

Israel’s initial procurement of the F-15I fighter occurred in the late 1990s, following lessons learned from the Gulf War. Israel’s ability to carry out long-range strike operations became apparent at this time, as many of the SCUD ballistic missiles that were launched by Iraq toward Israel were not intercepted. The Ra’am, equipped with specially modified features, was designed to suit the unique security needs of Israel. Specifically, the IAF version possesses more advanced weapons, avionics, communication capabilities, and electronic warfare systems than the original Eagle which was crafted to function as a pure air-to-air fighter.

What makes the F-15I special?

Since the F-15I is directly linked to the Strike Eagle, the Ra’am platform fighters appear nearly identical to their American counterparts. Similarly, the two crew members sit in tandem, and the twin-engine arrangement is side-by-side. Additionally, the wing mainplanes have swept-lines along their leading edges and vertical planes are used for ground running. The F-15I’s two Pratt & Whitney F100-PW series afterburning turbofan engines enable the jet to fly at speeds greater than Mach 2.

Based on these specs and capabilities and the Ra’am’s stellar service history within the IAF, Israel’s desire to procure additional fighters makes sense. In October, the IAF launched airstrikes in Iran targeting military assets in retaliation for the barrage of ballistic missiles fired upon Israel previously. Two months later, the IAF struck Houthi sites in Yemen in Sanaa and Hodeida. As the Houthis continue to launch frequent barrages targeting Israel, the IAF’s F-15 fleet will certainly be put to good use.

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. Carlin has over 1,000 articles published over the last several years on various defense issues.

The post Israel Set to Receive 25 F-15I Fighters by 2031 appeared first on The National Interest.

Topic: Security Blog Brand: The Buzz Region: Middle East Tags: Gulf Of Aden, Houthis, Iran, Red Sea, Security, and Yemen A New Airstrip Has Been Spotted on a Yemeni Island January 23, 2025 By: Harrison Kass Share

• Share this link on Facebook
• Share this page on X (Twitter)
• Share this link on LinkedIn
• Email a link to this page

The airstrip is positioned on Abd al-Kuri Island which sits on a key waterway in the Gulf of Aden.

Images depicting a nearly completed airstrip on a remote island in Yemen have analysts worried. While the runway is likely built by the United Arab Emirates, the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels are active in the country and could exploit the new construction. As detailed by The Associated Press, the airstrip is positioned on Abd al-Kuri Island which sits on a key waterway. Due to its location, the airstrip could be used as a landing zone for military operations in the waterway or for commercial shipping purposes. Since the Houthis have ramped up their attacks targeting international vessels in the Red Sea, commercial and energy shipments in the region have halved. Although Abd al-Kuri sits within Houthi drone and missile range, the island’s distance from the mainland is large enough that the rebel group won’t be able to take control of it.

What we know about the airstrip

Israel and Hamas have recently entered a ceasefire in a war that has raged on since the Gaza-based terror group launched its October 7, 2023, massacre. Although fighting has quieted down in the enclave, the Houthis may not adhere to a cessation in their frequent barrages targeting vessels in the Red Sea. The rebel group typically carried out missile, rocket, and unmanned aerial vehicle attacks against ships transiting the Bab el-Mandeb Strait in the Red Sea. This strait represents a critical maritime chokepoint that links the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden. While the group has claimed it only targets vessels affiliated with Israel and the United States due to those countries’ war against Hamas in Gaza, they have been indiscriminate in the ships they strike.

An overview of Iran’s activity in the Red Sea

Tehran’s interest in Yemen dates back several decades, however, the regime’s involvement in the country really took hold in the mid-2000s. As Yemen became embroiled in domestic turmoil at this time, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps exploited the crisis to grow its influence. Similar to how Iran has entrenched itself in Lebanon and Gaza via proxy groups, the regime fully supports the Houthi rebels. In fact, this Yemen-based group receives training, funds and support directly from Tehran.

Since Tehran exploited the power vacuum in Yemen caused by the civil war, its contributions to these Yemen-based militants grew steadily to include the transfer of weapons. As detailed by War on the Rocks, “They assemble these parts into working weapons with technical assistance from Hezbollah and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps advisers. This approach has allowed the Houthis to now field short and long-range drones and an increasingly diversified fleet of missiles capable of striking deep inside Saudi Arabia.”

The Red Sea functions as an important smuggling route for Iran and the Houthis, making the construction of a new airstrip on the island even more noteworthy. The U.S. military has taken action to prevent these types of weapons transfers in the past. Last year, U.S. Navy SEALs took part in a seizure off the coast of Abd al-Kuri involving a traditional dhow vessel involved in illegal smuggling operations.

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. Carlin has over 1,000 articles published over the last several years on various defense issues.

Image: David G40 / Shutterstock.com

The post A New Airstrip Has Been Spotted on a Yemeni Island appeared first on The National Interest.

Topic: Security Blog Brand: The Buzz Region: Americas Tags: Donald Trump, National Guard, Security, Southern Border, and U.S. Military Trump Sends U.S. Military Troops to Reinforce Southern Border January 23, 2025 By: Harrison Kass Share

• Share this link on Facebook
• Share this page on X (Twitter)
• Share this link on LinkedIn
• Email a link to this page

The troops are likely to provide a simple influx of manpower in an effort that has suffered to keep pace with a massive influx of migrants.

Active-duty U.S. troops are being sent to the U.S. border with Mexico, a move consistent with President Donald Trump’s promises to beef up the U.S. military presence along the southern border. The newly mobilized troops will join the 2,200 active-duty troops and 4,500 National Guardsmen who are already stationed along the southern border.

Campaign Promises

When Trump first entered the political fray, declaring his candidacy for the presidency in 2015, ahead of the 2016 election, he did so with an emphasis on immigration-related grievances. The grievances resonated and Trump was elected. So, unsurprisingly, Trump leaned into similar immigration-related grievances and vowed to crack down on illegal immigration if elected. Now, having been reelected, in part, to uphold stricter immigration policies, Trump is making immediate moves.

The deployment is understood to just be the first wave. “Even more active duty troops are expected to be deployed to the border in the coming weeks and months,” CNN reported, “with the first wave laying the groundwork for a larger military footprint.”

Whether the troops will be armed remains unclear. But what is clear is that the troops do not have the authority to assist in law enforcement efforts, i.e., make arrests or seize drugs; the troops cannot engage with the migrants for any other purpose than transportation. The reason: an old law known as “posse comitatus,” which restricts U.S. troops from providing domestic law enforcement without authorization. So, without the authorization, what exactly will the troops be doing?

Symbolic or Functional?

The troops currently on the southern border are based out of El Paso, Texas, and support the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s work “performing mostly logistical and bureaucratic tasks like data entry, detection and monitoring, and vehicle maintenance.” Expect the fresh batch of troops to perform in a very similar capacity.

“They will be helping to maintain operational readiness for Border Patrol, assisting in command-and-control centers, and providing more intelligence specialists to assess threats and migrant flows,” CNN reported. “The troops are also expected to augment air assets and help with air operations.”

Generally, the troops are likely to provide a simple influx of manpower in an effort that has suffered to keep pace with a massive influx of migrants. The boost in manpower along the southern border could free up Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, who have been bogged down in operations along the border, to shift their efforts toward making arrests of undocumented immigrants already inside the country.

Back to Basics

The deployment of U.S. troops within the domestic United States is unusual. But the primary function of the military is to protect territorial integrity and security interests more broadly. Defending a border is, traditionally, an inherent part of military application. However, the United States enjoys such providential geography—including weak hemispheric neighbors, plus sprawling oceans on both the western and eastern borders—that U.S. territorial integrity is taken for granted, seemingly left on autopilot. The result is a military force that has the bandwidth to be used overseas, on less existential matters. So, while the deployment of U.S. troops to the southern border may seem unorthodox, it is very much a return to the basic principles of military application.

About the Author: Harrison Kass 

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

Image: Christopher G. Kerr / Shutterstock.com

The post Trump Sends U.S. Military Troops to Reinforce Southern Border appeared first on The National Interest.

Topic: Security Blog Brand: The Buzz Region: Europe Tags: Berlin Wall, Cold War, Security, Soviet Union, and U.S. Military LTC Arthur D. Nicholson was America’s Final Cold War Casualty January 23, 2025 By: Christian D. Orr Share

• Share this link on Facebook
• Share this page on X (Twitter)
• Share this link on LinkedIn
• Email a link to this page

U.S. Army investigators determined that Nicholson’s death was “officially condoned, if not directly ordered” by the Soviet leadership.

The Cold War never turned into a “hot war,” i.e., full-blown World War III between the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact on one side and the United States and its NATO allies on the other. But that doesn’t mean that the two sides didn’t kill their fair share of each other’s personnel during that timeframe.

For example, during the Korean War, it was an open secret that Soviet fighter pilots were flying missions under the guise of North Korean fighter pilots, in the process killing and being killed by their American jet jock adversaries. Meanwhile, in March 1953, two Soviet MiG-15s shot down an unarmed British Avro 694 Lincoln airplane that strayed into East German airspace whilst on a routine training mission in March 1953, killing all seven Royal Air Force crewmen—with two of those crewmen strafed in cold blood as they were parachuting to safety.

And thirty-two years after the Avro Lincoln shootdown, there was the story of U.S. Army lieutenant colonel Arthur D. Nicholson, murdered by a Soviet sentry in East Germany. Nicholson is considered to be America’s last Cold War casualty.

Profile of the Victim: LTC Arthur D. Nicholson Jr., United States Army

Arthur Donald “Nick” Nicholson, Jr. was born on June 7, 1947, in Mount Vernon, Washington, the son of a career Navy officer. A 1965 graduate of Joel Barlow High School in Redding, Connecticut, Nick earned a bachelor’s degree from Transylvania University of Lexington, Kentucky, in 1969 before joining the U.S. Army in 1970.

He was commissioned as a military intelligence officer (Military Occupation Specialist code 35A). Fast-forward ten years, and then-Captain Nicholson became a Foreign Area Officer, and the law of unintended consequences would set him up for his eventual tragic fate. In 1980, he earned a master’s degree in Soviet and East European studies from the Naval Postgraduate School and also attended a two-year course in the Russian language at the Defense Language Institute. During this same two-year span, Nick attended the U.S. Army’s Russian Institute in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany.

As a reward for these impressive academic achievements, Nicholson was assigned to the U.S. Military Liaison Mission (USMLM) to the commander-in-chief of the Group of Soviet Forces Germany, and was promoted to major in 1983.

The Incident

The tragedy unfolded on March 24, 1985 (which means that this year will be the fortieth anniversary of the incident). As a member of USMLM, Nicholson was one of fourteen American officers assigned to East Germany along with support staff as part of a 1947 agreement that basically licensed the two sides to spy on each other up to a point; all parties of the occupation were allowed to maintain communications and exchange intelligence in the occupied zones of East and West Germany, thus providing all sides with a convenient venue for keeping tabs on each other. The Soviets indeed had their own liaison mission which operated on the same principles inside the American, British, and French sectors.

Accordingly, Nick and his driver, SSG Jessie Schatz, were unarmed, in uniform, and in a jeep clearly marked with USMLM plates when they conducted a routine patrol at an area in Ludwigslust, East Germany, following a convoy of Soviet tanks returning from target practice. However, on this fateful day, as Ruth Quinn wrote back in March 2013 on the official U.S. Army info page:

“[S]omething went terribly wrong … At some point, the two Americans left the convoy and headed for a tank shed off the main road. Seeing no guards, they drove to within 200 yards of the shed. Major Nicholson left the vehicle to take some photos, leaving SSG Schatz with the vehicle to provide security. After a few minutes, Nicholson got back in and they drove closer, this time to within 10 yards. With the driver watching, he got back out and approached the shed to look in a window. That was when Schatz noticed a young Soviet sentry emerging from the woods. Nicholson was turning to get back in his vehicle when the first shot rang out, narrowly missing his driver’s head. The Soviet sentry, a young sergeant named Aleksandr Ryabtsev, aimed again and fired two more shots … One of them hit the major and dropped him. Rising to an elbow, he shouted: “Jessie, I’ve been shot!” Then he collapsed. Schatz reached for his first aid kit, showing the Red Cross emblem to the sentry, and attempted to assist his teammate. The sentry kept the AK-47 trained on Schatz, however, trapping him in the vehicle for over an hour. By the time anyone bothered to check for a pulse, Major Nicholson didn’t have one.”

Aftermath

To add insult to injury, the Soviets refused to accept any responsibility, repeatedly changing their story and contradicting themselves. U.S. Army investigators determined that Nick’s death was “officially condoned, if not directly ordered” by the Soviet leadership. Ryabkov, as far as I have been able to ascertain, was never held accountable by his chain of command.

The incident took place barely two weeks after Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev became the Soviet leader, thus presenting Tovarish (“comrade”) Gorbachev with his first major crisis, one that threatened to derail his ambitions for closer ties with the West. U.S. officials were understandably outraged, with then-Vice President George H.W. Bush stating “This sort of brutal international behavior jeopardizes directly the improvements in relations.”

Nick’s body was eventually released, and he was laid to rest with full military honors in Section 7A Site 171 of Arlington National Cemetery, buried near his father, Arthur Donald Nicholson Sr. (CDR, USN, ret.), with all thirteen of his USMLM team members present at his funeral. Major Arthur D. Nicholson was posthumously awarded the Legion of Merit, the Purple Heart, and—at the behest of then-President Ronald Reagan—promoted to LTC. For good measure, LTC Nicholson was inducted into the MI Hall of Fame in June 1991.

Meanwhile, in 1988, the Soviet government finally officially expressed “regret” over Nicholson’s death.

About the Author: Christian D. Orr

Christian D. Orr is a Senior Defense Editor for National Security Journal (NSJ). He is a former Air Force Security Forces 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, The Journal of Intelligence and Cyber Security, and Simple Flying. Last but not least, he is a Companion of the Order of the Naval Order of the United States (NOUS). If you’d like to pick his brain further, you can ofttimes find him at the Old Virginia Tobacco Company (OVTC) lounge in Manassas, Virginia, partaking of fine stogies and good quality human camaraderie.

Image: Shutterstock.

The post LTC Arthur D. Nicholson was America’s Final Cold War Casualty appeared first on The National Interest.

Topic: Security Blog Brand: The Buzz Region: Americas Tags: F-117, Military, Security, Stealth Fighters, and U.S. Air Force Formally Retired in 2007, the F-117 Still Flies for the Air Force January 23, 2025 By: Harrison Kass Share

• Share this link on Facebook
• Share this page on X (Twitter)
• Share this link on LinkedIn
• Email a link to this page

As an aggressor aircraft, the F-117 can teach pilots how to detect and engage with a low-radar cross-section jet.

The F-117 will forever hold a place in aviation lore as the first stealth aircraft ever flown. But despite ushering in the stealth era of military aviation, the F-117’s stealth technology became obsolete rather quickly. And once the F-22 Raptor debuted, many of the F-117’s features and functions became redundant. As a result, the Air Force, mindful of budgetary constraints, retired the F-117 in 2007—kind of.

Secret Service

While the Air Force formally retired the F-117 in 2007, about forty-five of the stealth jets remain in service—and will continue until about 2034. And yes, keeping a jet in service for twenty-six years after retiring is unorthodox. Why do such a thing?

“A portion of the remaining F-117A fleet, flown by Air Force test pilots, has been very actively used for research and development, test and evaluation, and training purposes in recent years,” The War Zonewrote. “This has included using the jets as ‘red air’ aggressors and as surrogates for stealthy cruise missiles during large-scale exercises.”

The F-117’s continued use is an example of Air Force resourcefulness. Indeed, the F-117 still has benefit in a training and/or research context. While the F-117’s stealth technology may not be best suited for evading detection behind the lines of a sophisticated adversary, the stealth is adequate for teaching purposes; as an aggressor aircraft, the F-117 can teach pilots how to detect and engage with a low-radar cross-section jet. The F-117 can also be used as a stand-in for a cruise missile. In all, despite being a generation old, the F-117 can “still offer important benefits when used in these roles given that their radar, infrared, and other signature profiles are likely to be extremely dissimilar to what pilots and air defense system operators are used to encountering in these contexts,” The War Zonereported. 

Worth Keeping the F-117 Around

The main perk of keeping the F-117 in service is likely the research and development angle; the F-117 is often used as a control variable for the testing of new stealth coatings and technology. The jet can also serve as a control when developing the technology that will be used to detect adversary stealth aircraft, like the Chinese Chengdu J-20 or the Russian Sukhoi Su-57. The F-117 could even be used to help develop forthcoming American aircraft, like the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) sixth-generation fighter, which is expected to replace the F-22 sometime in the 2030s.

But the F-117 is on its way out. Production was halted in 1990; there are no new jets coming off the assembly line. Parts are certainly getting harder to come by. The Air Force is already divesting some of the remaining F-117s, all of which fly out of the Tonopah Test Range in Nevada, to museums.

For the next decade or so, however, the F-117 will fly under the cloak of relative secrecy, in the deserts of Nevada, which is quite similar to how the F-117 debuted back in the 1980s.

About the author: Harrison Kass

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

Image: Peter Barrett / Shutterstock.com

The post Formally Retired in 2007, the F-117 Still Flies for the Air Force appeared first on The National Interest.

Topic: Security Blog Brand: The Buzz Region: Americas Tags: Bombers, Curtis SB2C Helldiver, Douglas SBD Dauntless, Security, and World War II Head-to-head: The Douglas SBD Dauntless vs. Curtiss SB2C Helldiver Bomber January 23, 2025 By: Christian D. Orr Share

• Share this link on Facebook
• Share this page on X (Twitter)
• Share this link on LinkedIn
• Email a link to this page

What can be said about these iconic warbirds that hasn’t already been said? Let us tell you.

As was the case with torpedo bombers, the heyday of the dive bomber did not last beyond World War II. But during its comparatively brief moment in the (literal and figurative) sun, the dive bomber concept blasted its way into the pages of military history in a big way.

On the Axis side of the ledger, there was the infamous Nazi German Junkers Ju-87 Stuka and Imperial Japanese Aichi D3A “Val.” On the Allied side, there was the Soviet Union’s Petlyakov Pe-2 “Peshka,” Great Britain’s Blackburn B-24 Skua, and America’s Douglas SBD Dauntless and Curtiss SB2C Helldiver. Yes, the United States was lucky to have not just one but two highly successful dive bombers. So that raises the question: between the Dauntless and the Helldiver, which was the better warbird?

The Case for the Douglas SBD Dauntless

What can be said about this iconic warbird that hasn’t already been said?

The Dauntless made its maiden flight on May 1, 1940, and entered into official operational service with the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps later that year. Two years later, it cemented its place in history as the game changer of the WWII Pacific Theatre.

The SBD turned the tide of that campaign by sinking the Imperial Japanese Navy’s (IJN) four aircraft carriers during the Battle of Midway, one of the most decisive naval battles in history. The “slow but deadly” warbird sank more Japanese shipping than any other Allied aircraft.

As if that wasn’t amazing enough, the Dauntless stands out as the only WWII bomber with a positive kill ratio against enemy aircraft, 138:43.

Out of 5,936 built, Fewer than thirty Dauntlesses survive today, and only one of those survivors is from the Battle of Midway. It is on display at the National Naval Aviation Museum in Pensacola, Florida (I toured it back in 2002 and can therefore personally vouch for it). Six of those surviving airframes are airworthy, and thanks to Commemorative Air Force Airbase Georgia Chapter, you can take a ride in one—an SBD-5 variant—for either $1,195, $1,650, or $2,195 (those dollar amounts cover the twenty-, thirty-, and forty-minute rides, respectively).

The Case for the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver

As beautifully as the SBD performed during WWII, its critics point out that it was already obsolescent by the start of the war, and the Navy brass concurred; the Helldiver completely supplanted the Dauntless on aircraft carrier flight decks by the Battle of Leyte Gulf in October 1944 (the Battle of the Philippine Sea was the Dauntless’s swan song in USN service, though it would remain in USMC service until the end of the war).

The Helldiver, which made its maiden flight on December 18, 1940, and officially went operational in December 1942, was indeed superior on paper to the Dauntless in terms of speed and armament: the SB2C was 40 mph (64.37 km/h) faster; packed a payload of 2,500 lbs. (1,020 kg) worth of bombs; and wielded two 20mm cannons, four Browning M2 “Ma Deuce” .50 caliber (12.7mm) machine guns, two M1919 .30 caliber machine guns, and eight 5-inch (127mm) High Velocity Aircraft Rockets. The Dauntless had a comparatively modest 2,250-lb. (1,020-kg) bomb load, two Ma Deuces, and two .30 cals.

In actual combat performance, the Helldiver made its mark by its contribution to the sinking of the IJN’s biggest battleships, the Yamato and the Musashi, scoring six bomb hits on the former battlewagon and thirteen on the latter.

Nine Helldivers survive today out of 7,140 airframes built; only one is airworthy (though a couple of others are currently in the restoration process), courtesy of the Commemorative Air Force West Texas Wing in Houston.

And the Winner Is…?

Journalistic ideals of impartiality and objectivity notwithstanding, the SBD is my favorite WWII warplane and my second favorite warbird of all time (second only to the B-52 “BUFF”); this has been the case ever since I was eleven years old when I (1) built a plastic model of one and (2) read about the plane’s Battle of Midway exploits in Gordon W. Prange’s excellent bestselling book Miracle at Midway. Accordingly, I’ve had a personal bias against the Helldiver for that same amount of time.

But putting aside personal biases, the numbers don’t lie. Yes, the Helldiver had its fair share of successes, including those aforementioned contributions to the killing of the IJN’s super-battleships, but even then, those weren’t solo performances. The Helldiver shared kill credit with the Grumman TBF Avenger torpedo bombers, and if anything, the Avengers probably contributed a greater portion to those battleships’ deaths proportionately speaking: nineteen torpedo hits on Musashi and eleven torpedo hits on Yamato, which caused major flooding far greater than that caused by the SB2Cs’ bomb strikes.

Moreover, whilst the Dauntless was beloved by the men who flew her, the Helldiver absolutely was hated. As noted by the Smithsonian’s info page:

“Some SB2Cs experienced structural failures that included the loss of wings in steep dives or tails breaking off mid-air or at landing … As a result, crews came up with new names for the Helldiver. They nicknamed it the ‘Beast’ due to its size and handling qualities. Irreverent naval aviators and air crewmen also called it an ‘S.O.B. 2nd Class,’ which was a profane play on the official Navy designation ‘SB2C’ and the Navy’s enlisted personnel ratings.”

Just how bad were the reliability issues of the so-called “S.O.B. 2nd Class?” It’s summed up in the title of a video from the Rex’s Hangar YouTube channel: “A Bomber So Bad It Took 800+ Changes To Fix.” Indeed, the narrator points out that the plane was “often considered the trigger-point for the downfall of Curtiss as an aircraft manufacturer.” That’s a pretty damning implication when you consider what an excellent reputation Curtiss-Wright had previously garnered thanks to the P-40 fighter plane that was immortalized by the Flying Tigers!

By contrast, you hear no such reliable horror stories about the Dauntless.

Winner: Dauntless!

About the Author: Christian D. Orr

Christian D. Orr is a Senior Defense Editor for National Security Journal (NSJ). He is a former Air Force Security Forces 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, The Journal of Intelligence and Cyber Security, and Simple Flying. Last but not least, he is a Companion of the Order of the Naval Order of the United States (NOUS). If you’d like to pick his brain further, you can ofttimes find him at the Old Virginia Tobacco Company (OVTC) lounge in Manassas, Virginia, partaking of fine stogies and good quality human camaraderie.

Image: Angel DiBilio / Shutterstock.com

The post Head-to-head: The Douglas SBD Dauntless vs. Curtiss SB2C Helldiver Bomber appeared first on The National Interest.

Topic: Politics Blog Brand: The Buzz Region: Americas Tags: COVID-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Donald Trump, Politics, and U.S. Military Trump to Reinstate Servicemembers Expelled for Not Taking COVID Vaccine January 23, 2025 By: Harrison Kass Share

• Share this link on Facebook
• Share this page on X (Twitter)
• Share this link on LinkedIn
• Email a link to this page

The Department of Defense mandated a COVID-19 vaccine requirement for all members of the U.S. military from August 2021 to January 2023.

President Donald Trump was inaugurated for his second term on Monday, becoming just the second president in history to serve non-consecutive terms. Trump’s inauguration speech, delivered from inside the Capitol building, began on an optimistic note before pivoting to a list of grievances—and ultimately, a slew of policy proposals. Many of the policy proposals have driven the news, like immigration reforms, energy reforms, and the withdrawal from the World Health Organization. But one promise, made explicitly during his inauguration speech, and pertaining directly to U.S. military personnel, has received less media attention: the vow to reinstate troops who were dismissed from military service for refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine—with full backpay.

“I will reinstate any service members who were unjustly expelled from our military for objecting to the COVID vaccine mandate with full back pay,” Trump said. “And I will sign an order to stop our warriors from being subjected to radical political theories and social experiments while on duty.”

The exact “radical political theories and social experiments” to which Trump was referring are unclear but can be assumed to be the same DEI/”woke” initiatives that incoming defense secretary nominee Pete Hegseth derided during his confirmation hearing. Hegseth, for his part, also promised to bring back servicemembers dismissed for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine, stating that “tens of thousands of service members were kicked out because of an experimental vaccine” before promising that those servicemembers would be “apologized to” and reinstated in the military.

Refusing the vaccine

The Department of Defense mandated a COVID-19 vaccine requirement for all members of the U.S. military from August 2021 to January 2023. During the seventeen-month mandate, roughly 8,000 troops refused to comply and were expelled from service.

“In the years since the mandate was lifted, conservative lawmakers have accused Defense Department officials of severely impacting force readiness with the dismissals, and called for those individuals to be allowed to return to the ranks,” Military Timesreported. “Pentagon leaders,” meanwhile, “have said the dismissals did not hurt readiness or morale.” Nevertheless, the Pentagon did allow dismissed troops to reapply for military service after the vaccine mandate was ended.

The vast majority of U.S. military personnel voluntarily accepted the COVID-19 vaccine. And indeed, service in the U.S. military is predicated upon the receipt of more than a dozen vaccines. But the COVID-19 vaccine sparked controversy and raised concerns that the vaccine hadn’t been properly vetted. Of course, the vaccine and the larger COVID-19 pandemic were flashpoints in the most politically polarized moment since the Vietnam War. Neither COVID nor the vaccine were singularly responsible for the polarization—but each amplified tensions that were at a generational peak, on account of the pandemic, racial tensions, and ideological fissures. Now, years after the vaccine mandate went into effect, Trump’s promises are serving as something of a last word on the issue, and a vindication to many who were skeptical of the government’s COVID response.

About the author: Harrison Kass

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

Image: Shutterstock.

The post Trump to Reinstate Servicemembers Expelled for Not Taking COVID Vaccine appeared first on The National Interest.

/ Histoire, Migrations, Judaïsme - Migrations et réfugiés / Histoire, Migrations, Judaïsme - Migrations et réfugiés

Topic: Drones Blog Brand: Techland Region: Americas Tags: Aircraft, Drones, Hysteria, New Jersey, Panic, and U.S. Military Drones on the Homefront January 23, 2025 By: Brandon Valeriano, Steven Ochoa, Maximillian Otto, and Qing Leasure Share

• Share this link on Facebook
• Share this page on X (Twitter)
• Share this link on LinkedIn
• Email a link to this page

The reality is drones are here, they are common, and they are now a fact of daily life. 

It starts with the distant buzz and hum, the sense that something is above. The realization quickly comes: It is not a bee or a plane; rather, it is a drone hovering above. This is the modern reality of war, and it also comes to the homefront. Our lives are irrevocably altered by unmanned vehicles, and our general inability to process this development has led to mass hysteria over drones in New Jersey.    

Now that the excitement has died down, it’s time to reflect on drones over New Jersey. The news cycle has moved on with most focusing on the fires in Los Angeles and the inauguration. Incoming President Donald Trump himself still doubts conventional wisdom that nothing nefarious is afoot, stating, “I’m going to give you a report on drones about one day into the administration. Because I think it’s ridiculous that they are not telling you about what is going on with the drones.”  

President Trump will find nothing to report. Drones are commonly available at the corner store. As of October 2024, there are a total of 791,597 registered drones in the U.S., with 396,746 of those registered for recreational use with more going unregistered. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires that drones over 250g be registered and imposes strict penalties on those who operate unregistered drones over this weight. A substantial portion of recreational drones available for purchase are below 250g, with some being specifically marketed as 249g.   

Drones are easily accessible through retail stores and Amazon and available at cheaper prices on China’s e-commerce platform, Temu. They are usually simple machines made of plastic, a battery, and basic computer components but modifications are often made by hobbyists. These devices are extremely easy to operate, either through a smartphone or a remote control.   

With rudimentary technical knowledge, drones can be modified to have controllable LED lights with sound systems and be made to be controlled in a group or “swarm.” No shortage of YouTube tutorials describing the straightforward process of making these modifications, as well as how to source necessary components in bulk and as cheaply as possible. In short, anyone with the time and money can purchase and modify several drones putting them up in the night sky, in and out of warzones.     

Mass Hysteria

The U.S. government’s response before Trump’s recent inauguration and addressing the situation, has been bar none. One Congressmember states confidently it’s Iranian drones launched from a mothership hovering off the coast of New Jersey, seemingly cloaked to the entire world. Others confidently point to the sky, noting drones when they are just seeing common astrological constellations. 

The lack of trust in institutions has led us here. It is common to reject government responses stoked by the fires of partisanship. Now local municipalities want the capabilities to track and shoot down common drones, no matter that targeting these devices with physical or electronic countermeasures can have cascading effects from blinding pilots to disrupting important communications.   

Mass hysteria has started. One drone in the sky leads to others sending up their drones to investigate, including law enforcement. With everyone having access to drones, the knock-on impact begins. The United States itself is very familiar with mass hysteria events throughout its history, with examples being the Salem Witch trials, the two Red Scares, and even evil clowns.   

It is a familiar story, with the most famous example being the French dancing plague of 1518, where an estimated 400 people danced until exhaustion, and even death, for weeks. Some have attributed this event to supernatural phenomena such as the devil, just like in the modern instance of blame falling on aliens or Iranians. Sadly, the French example was more likely caused by a unique combination of social unrest, famine, and possible hallucinogenic mold.  

A modern example of a similar event in the U.S. that caused conspiracy and mass hysteria is the controversial Havana Syndrome, a mysterious condition that affected U.S. diplomats and intelligence operatives beginning in 2016. There are many theories regarding this sickness, including conspiracies that it was caused by devices that emit sonic or microwaves. Havana Syndrome has been investigated by several intelligence agencies as well as physicians, and it is “highly unlikely” that any device caused any symptoms. It is much more likely that the media inflated the phenomenon with novel fictitious ideas, inserting mass hysteria into the situation, just as it has done now with the New Jersey story. 

Drones in War and for Entertainment

Drones have become a common part of entertainment. The drone light show market size has grown to $5 billion as of 2023 and is projected to grow to about $12.5 billion by 2028. These light shows consist of the usage of drone swarms. The swarms work together towards a common goal with the guidance of algorithms, and they can be controlled in multiple ways. 

For example, a centralized control scheme involves a single control point that processes information and issues commands to each drone, a decentralized control scheme allows the drones to manage themselves through a distributed decision-making process, and a distributed control scheme sends the information to the drones but allows them to share it to collaborate and make decisions that will help accomplish their goal.   

In September 2012, the world’s first large-scale and outdoor formation drone flight was conducted over the Danube River in Linz, Austria, as part of the Klangwolke music festival. Since then, the illumination of the sky captivated millions around the world. The drone swarms used to produce these light shows have been incorporated into high-profile events such as the 2017 Super Bowl Halftime Show, the 2018 Winter Olympics, the 2023 Coachella Festival, and the 2024 Walt Disney World “Dreams that Soar” show with over 800 drones.   

Drones are also obviously used for war, having an assumed critical impact on the Russian Ukrainian War. The United States had become a chief pioneer of this during its counterterrorism efforts within Iraq and Afghanistan. Through the principle of swarm intelligence, using them for espionage collection purposes or lethal force on enemy targets. 

To this day, we see the ubiquity of drones in ongoing conflicts. Volunteer networks, including patriotic citizens for both sides, have played an important role in creating self-made drones used to perform Kamikaze attacks, which has caused both sides in the Russo-Ukraine War to also experiment with counter-drone capabilities such as electronic warfare and wire net barriers, even carrying shotguns to battle now.   

The motivation for the continuous usage of these drones is that they are cheap, abundant, and can be a substitute for an actual combatant. The reality is drones are here, they are common, and they are now a fact of daily life. Americans must wake up to this reality without freaking out at aliens, Iranians, or mysterious government programs.   

The simplest explanation is that the use of unmanned systems and the inability of general civilians to distinguish items in the night sky has led to new forms of mass hysteria. Overreacting will only enable greater government control of our lives and skies, forcing civilian police squads to monitor local air traffic, exactly the thing most people fear in the first place. 

Learn to accept our new drone overlords.   

About the Authors

Brandon Valeriano is an Assistant Professor at Seton Hall University. He directs the DiploLab, the School of Diplomacy’s student research arm, which includes Steven Ochoa, Maximillian Otto, and Qingan Leasure.   

Steven Ochoa is a graduate student at Seton Hall University’s School of Diplomacy and International Relations, where he specializes in International Security and Global Negotiation.

Maximillian Otto is an undergraduate studying International Economics and International Relations at Seton Hall University and co-founder of Zero Chains Initiative, an organization devoted to advocating for victims of human trafficking. 

Qing Leasure is a sophomore student in Seton Hall’s School of Diplomacy and part of the DiploLab, the Undergraduate research arm of the School. 

Image: Shutterstock.

The post Drones on the Homefront appeared first on The National Interest.

It’s never pleasant for anyone to be caught in the middle between two friends who don’t get along and frequently argue with each other. It’s uncomfortable when you’re a child, it’s awkward when you’re an adult, and it becomes even more problematic when you’re a country that must protect its citizens from the threats of neighboring states. Recently, Azerbaijan found itself caught in the middle between two of its most important allies—Turkey and Israel.

Turkey is Azerbaijan’s long-standing and closest ally; both nations see themselves as part of the same people living in two countries. On the other hand, Israel is also a close partner of Azerbaijan, with extensive trade relations in fields such as oil, weapons, and even mobile telecommunications (Israeli companies were responsible for founding the first mobile networks in Azerbaijan). But how did Azerbaijan end up in a position where it has to mediate between its two closest allies? Has Azerbaijan gained anything positive from this situation?

Let’s begin with some background. About a month and a half ago, the event that shook the Middle East was the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, nearly 25 years after he succeeded his father as president and almost 15 years after the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War. The group that took control in Syria is the Sunni Islamist rebel organization Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, led by Abu Mohammed al-Julani, whose real name is Ahmed al-Sharaa. This group is a successor of Jabhat al-Nusra, which split from ISIS and was considered the official branch of Al-Qaeda in Syria.

According to the group, they have moderated their stance; they no longer participate in the actions of Al-Qaeda or ISIS and only want to rebuild Syria. Despite their political statements, the new regime in Syria still raises concerns among regional countries and among Syrians who do not support Islamism and jihadism—except for one country: Turkey. Under Erdogan’s leadership, Turkey has supported the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham group and other opposition Islamist groups against Assad since the beginning of the civil war. Erdogan’s decision to help these groups came from a geopolitical conflict with Assad, so Turkey’s interest was in having Assad removed from power. Now that Erdogan’s allies have finally taken control, the West expects the new Syrian regime to be completely pro-Turkish.

One of the countries most concerned about the rising Turkish influence on the new Islamist-jihadist regime in Syria is Israel, who has strained relations with the Erdogan government. However, it greatly pains Azerbaijan whenever Israel and Turkey do not get along, as they are a brother nation of Turkey, despite their close friendship with Israel. They would rather see the rising Turkish influence in the region be utilized to create a strategic front against Iran rather than used to harm Israel.

What should Azerbaijan do to ease the tensions between its two major allies? After all, both of these countries, Turkey and Israel, have supported Azerbaijan in recent years in several areas, particularly in defense and weaponry during the Second Karabakh War. The cooperation between these two countries strengthens Azerbaijan both internationally and regionally and enhances its position in the eyes of its southern enemy—Iran. A conflict between Azerbaijan’s two closest allies, not to mention a military one, would harm Azerbaijan directly.

Given this, Azerbaijan seeks to utilize all the diplomatic means at its disposal to mediate between the two conflicting nations. Such a move is important not only for Azerbaijan’s future security but also to position the country from the Caucasus in a much stronger strategic and geopolitical position. From a country relying on its allies, it will transform into a country that advises, mediates, and resolves conflicts in the Middle East, with surrounding countries viewing its status as higher than before. Moreover, mediating between Turkey and Israel will not only strengthen Azerbaijan’s security but also that of Israel and Turkey, and will boost stability in the entire region. Azerbaijan cannot miss this opportunity, because if it succeeds in its mediation, it will gain much, but if it fails, it stands to lose a great deal. But the question remains, can Azerbaijan mend Turkish-Israeli relations?

/ Israël, Migrations, Judaïsme, Religion - Migrations et réfugiés / Israël, Migrations, Judaïsme, Religion - Migrations et réfugiés

/ Monde, Minorité nationale, Judaïsme - Minorités / Monde, Minorité nationale, Judaïsme - Minorités

Institutions under assault will not deliver for Americans.

Russia seeks to change, not end, the conflict in Ukraine.