Feed aggregator

Tous, ou presque, en thérapie ? C'est à coup sûr le pays qui compte le plus de « psys », la « patrie symbolique » de Jacques Lacan. Les liens historiques entre Argentine et Europe ne suffisent pas à expliquer une longue hégémonie… aujourd'hui remise en cause par d'autres formes de traitement de la (...) / Argentine, Psychanalyse, Santé, Société - 2024/08

Summary and Key Points: The USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) is on its way to the Red Sea to relieve the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) as part of the U.S. Navy's ongoing carrier rotations in the Middle East.

-This comes amid increased tensions in the region following Israel's actions against Hamas and Hezbollah leaders, as well as the Houthis, who have been firing missiles.

-The carrier rotation highlights the U.S. Navy's struggle to maintain a consistent presence with its nuclear-powered supercarriers, which are stretched thin across multiple global hotspots. With the deployment of CVN-72, the Navy continues to juggle its limited carrier resources, emphasizing the challenges of sustaining long-term operations.

Aircraft Carrier Swap – USS Abraham Lincoln is on the Way to the Red Sea

The United States Navy's West Coast-based Nimitz-class nuclear-powered supercarrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) is now on her way from the Pacific to the Red Sea, where she will relieve her sister carrier, the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71). It was just weeks ago that CVN-71 arrived in the 5th Fleet area of operation, taking over for another Nimitz-class carrier, USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69).

"To maintain a carrier strike group presence in the Middle East, the Secretary has ordered the Lincoln Carrier Strike Group to replace the Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group, currently on deployment in the Central Command area of responsibility," the U.S. Department of Defense said in a statement, adding that Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, "has ordered additional ballistic missile defense-capable cruisers and destroyers to the U.S. European Command and U.S. Central Command regions. The Department is also taking steps to increase our readiness to deploy additional land-based ballistic missile defense."

Exactly when the transition between the two carrier strike groups will occur, but US Naval Institute (USNI) News reported that it will likely take CVN-72 about two weeks to cross the Pacific and Indian Oceans. It also isn't fully clear how long the West Coast-based carrier will remain in the waters of the Middle East, but already, the U.S. Navy is preparing to send USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) to the region after she completes pre-deployment training.

The rotation of carriers serves to highlight how stretched thin the United States is right now. USS Dwight D. Eisenhower had seen her deployment extended twice, and the decision was made to send USS Theodore Roosevelt to the region to prevent a third extension. However, CVN-71 has also been deployed since January 11, 2024, and is due to return home soon.

Houthis and More: Regional Tinderbox in Red Sea

There has been the presence of a U.S. Navy CSG in the Middle East since last fall after the Hamas terrorist attack on southern Israel last October as well as missile attacks from the Houthis. The USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) was sent to the Eastern Mediterranean in response, and the lead vessel of the U.S. Navy's new class of supercarriers saw her deployments also extended twice.

The Pentagon is preparing a "multiple forthcoming force posture," which comes in response to Israel's assassination of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders in Tehran and Beirut respectively.

Officials from Hamas, and Hezbollah, as well as those from the Islamic Jihad and Yemeni-based Houthi rebels – also backed by Tehran – met on Thursday with top Iranian government officials. There are now fears that the Iran-back militant groups, as well as the Islamic Republic, could respond by launching additional attacks, possibly escalating the ongoing Gaza conflict into a full-blown regional war.

"The Secretary of Defense has reiterated that the United States will protect our personnel and interests in the region, including our ironclad commitment to the defense of Israel," the Pentagon added.

The Aircraft Carrier Gap

The deployment of CVN-71 to the Middle East has left in the Indo-Pacific and served to highlight the U.S. Navy's "Achilles Heel" – namely that there simply aren't enough warships to go around. As noted, the U.S. Navy extended the deployment of CVN-69 multiple times and the warship and her crew were pushed hard as a result.

Exactly how stretched thin the U.S. Navy's carrier fleet has only come into focus as the sea service must deal with multiple threats at the same time. Even as CVN-69 has returned home from the Red Sea, CVN-71 will remain in the region for a few more weeks, with CVN-72 acting as a stopgap until USS Harry S. Truman finally arrives in the region.

The United States Navy is now forced to play an increasingly complex game of musical chairs with its operational carriers. It may technically operate eleven nuclear-powered supercarriers – ten Nimitz class and one Gerald R. Ford class – but rarely are more than five or six at sea at any given time.

Long deployments mean longer time undergoing maintenance, and the problem is made worse by the state of the U.S. carrier industrial base, which builds and maintains the vessels, including the lack of shipyards. Nuclear-powered carriers are also taking longer to build, are costly to maintain, and then costly and complex to retire. Worst of all, there may not be enough of them in service!

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

Condamnations « rapides », envoi de policiers spécialisés, le Premier ministre britannique Keir Starmer a promis ce lundi 5 août une réponse ferme pour mettre un coup d'arrêt aux violences d'extrême droite qui se sont propagées à travers le Royaume-Uni pendant le week-end. 

Une version révisée des règles de l’UE sur les émissions industrielles est entrée en vigueur dimanche 4 août, s’appliquant à un plus grand nombre d’exploitations d’élevage que la législation précédente.

Mark Twain is often credited with saying that history does not repeat itself, but it does often rhyme. He might well have been talking about the stock market’s repeated tendency to ignore deteriorating economic and political fundamentals. When it finally wakes up to this reality, it’s too late.

Something like this occurred in 2008 in the run-up to the 2008–2009 Great Economic Recession. And now, something similar seems to be occurring in the wake of last week’s disappointing U.S. employment report and the Bank of Japan’s surprise decision to raise interest rates. That latter rise has caused a spike in the Japanese yen that has caught many hedge funds off guard. Those hedge funds had been funding their large-scale purchases of U.S. tech companies with, up until now, cheap Japanese yen loans.

During the first half of 2008, the stock market experienced only a moderate decline. This was despite the clearest signs that the largest housing bubble in the country’s history had burst, the emergence of serious problems in the subprime market, and Bear Stearns’ failure in March 2008.

It was only after the Lehman bankruptcy in September 2008 that the market realized how complacent it had been about the housing and sub-prime credit market stresses that were in plain sight. When it did so, it lost around 50 percent in its value by March 2009.

Fast forward to today. This year, we have seen a stock market boom despite the fact that over the past two years, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates at the fastest pace in over a decade and despite the many signs of economic and political trouble at both home and abroad. One indication of that boom is the fact that the major stock market indices repeatedly scaled new heights, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average Index blowing past 40,000 and the S&P 500 Index blowing past 5,500. Another indication is the fact the stock market’s total capitalization reached the nosebleed level of almost 200 percent of GDP. That is around two standard deviations above its historical trend line.

If, in early 2008, the U.S. stock market was overly sanguine in the face of a domestic housing and sub-prime credit market problem, up until last week, it seems to have been overly optimistic about a host of economic and political problems both at home and abroad.

One of the problems to which the markets have turned a blind eye is the slow-motion train wreck that is now well underway in the U.S. commercial property market as more people work at least part of the time at home. Never mind that this problem has the potential of triggering another round of the regional bank crisis. Meanwhile, the market has chosen to ignore a substantial souring in the international economic outlook. Never mind that the Chinese economy, the world’s second-largest, is struggling with the bursting of an epic-sized housing and credit market bubble. Until very recently, Japan was battling the collapse of its currency, and a heavily indebted France now seems to be drifting towards political ungovernability, which could precipitate another round of the European sovereign debt crisis.

As if these economic problems were not reason enough for markets to have been more cautious, there are a number of political landmines in plain sight that could deal a significant blow to the U.S. and world economies. The Israel-Hamas war seems to be spreading to Iran, which could disrupt the world oil market. Meanwhile, at home, Donald Trump is threatening to introduce Smoot-Hawley-type import tariffs if he is re-elected, which could trigger a world trade war. 

We have to hope that the Federal Reserve realizes that today’s stock market weakness is unlikely to be a passing fad given the poor underlying world economic and political fundamentals. Maybe then the Fed will do the right thing and start cutting interest rates aggressively to provide long-overdue support to a weakening U.S. economy.

About the Author: Desmond Lachman 

Desmond Lachman is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and was a deputy director in the International Monetary Fund’s Policy Development and Review Department, and the chief emerging-market economic strategist at Salomon Smith Barney.

Image: Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Air Force faces a growing capability gap as it retires aging warplanes without sufficient replacements. With the B-21 Raider delayed and current stealth bombers in short supply, reviving the F-117A Nighthawk could be a cost-effective solution.

-Despite being officially retired in 2008, the Nighthawk has continued to serve in classified testing, highlighting its enduring value.

-Instead of pursuing costly next-generation platforms, the Air Force could modify the F-117A for modern combat, potentially filling critical roles until new aircraft are ready.

-Given current geopolitical instability, restoring the Nighthawk to full operational capability may be a strategic necessity.

It’s Time to Bring Back the F-117A Nighthawk

The U.S. Air Force has a significant problem on its hands. America’s air branch has invested gobs of tax dollars on equipment and systems that are complex and expensive. Their current warplanes are being retired or rendered obsolete by new technologies at such alarming rates that the Air Force cannot replace them. 

It’s Not (Quite) Over for the F-117A Nighthawk

One of the Air Force’s most important advantages is that its warplanes possess stealth capabilities that many of America’s rivals still can’t match. Indeed, for decades, the Air Force has proudly operated multiple versions of stealth bombers and warplanes such as the B-2 Spirit and the F-117 Nighthawk. But their cost and age have prompted the Air Force to begin retiring these planes. 

Yet the Nighthawk, which was officially retired from service way back in 2008, just won’t stay down.

Since its official retirement, the Air Force has pulled the Nighthawk back into service on various occasions. No, it wasn’t sent to fight in any of America’s ongoing wars, but it was used for classified testing purposes. One can only assume that the various systems the Air Force has been developing to enhance the stealth capabilities of its newest platforms or sensors that can detect stealth planes were being tested against the F-117.

In 2017, Congress permitted the Air Force to begin disposing of its F-117 Nighthawk fleet to the tune of four airframes per year. Per Congressional mandate, the Air Force could either send these airframes to the scrapyard or to museums. 

By 2022, however, the Air Force altered its decommissioning plan for the Nighthawk fleet. They took it down from four to two, maybe three disposals per year. The War Zone reports that the “exact status of the Air Force’s current remaining F-117A inventory, including how many are still flying, is unclear. As of 2019, the service said it still has 51 jets in its possession and then said the following year that at least 12 had been specifically set aside to go to various museums.”

But for these platforms to make their way for public viewing at museums, a rigorous, time-consuming process of modification must be undertaken to remove the classified systems embedded within the aircraft. 

If Nighthawks are still so advanced that they must be rigorously decommissioned, should they really be retired? 

Would America’s air warfare capabilities be better served by simply modifying these birds to better withstand the evolving and complex nature of modern warfare? 

The F-117 Nighthawk is Still Ready for War

Given that the Air Force has been warning of a severe gap forming in their capabilities as planes are retired, might it be necessary to restore the Nighthawk to fighting prowess, at least until newer systems are available in sufficient numbers? 

That should probably be considered, given the strategic liabilities taking shape. 

For example, the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber’s replacement, the B-21 Raider, is unlikely to be available in the necessary numbers anytime soon. B-2s are already far too few in number. If retired as planned, they will leave a gaping hole in the Air Force’s capabilities. Without a long-range stealth bomber at the ready, critical functions of the Air Force’s arsenal will be degraded to the point of being combat-ineffective.

And in the current unstable geopolitical environment, that’s the last thing any country should want for its air force.

Bring the F-117A Nighthawk Back to Full Operational Capability 

The Air Force has been very coy about why they have kept some 40 Nighthawks around, 16 years after they were officially retired. 

Rather than spending gobs of money on fanciful next-generation warplanes, such as the Air Force’s egregiously expensive Next Generation Air Dominance (or NGAD), why not simply spend a fraction of that money augmenting the F-117 Nighthawk? Make it into a stealthy drone-ferrying warbird, just as the Air Force wants to do with its proposed sixth-generation warplane. 

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock.

From the Vault

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

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

L’ancien président catalan, Carles Puigdemont, a déclaré qu’il prévoyait de retourner en Espagne pour l'investiture du nouveau président régional, le socialiste Salvador Illa, bien qu’il risque d’être arrêté dans un contexte de tensions politiques accrues.

Summary and Key Points: The Ukrainian Air Force has officially begun operating F-16 Fighting Falcons, marking a significant milestone in its transition to Western combat aviation. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky confirmed the jets are now in use, as Kyiv is set to receive 79 aircraft from NATO allies.

-While the F-16s offer advanced capabilities, including intercepting cruise missiles and drones, analysts caution they may not be game changers in the ongoing conflict. The U.S. has approved the transfer but won't provide its own jets, focusing instead on supplying ordnance.

-The arrival of the F-16s enhances Ukraine’s air defense but may not decisively shift the war’s outcome.

The F-16 is Now in Service With the Ukrainian Air Force

2024 has been a year of milestones for the F-16 Fighting Falcon, including the 50th anniversary of its first flight, and the transformation to a testbed for autonomous flight. On Sunday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky also confirmed that the Ukrainian pilots have been operating the U.S.-made multirole fighter within the war-torn country.

"F-16s are in Ukraine. We did it. I am proud of our guys who are mastering these jets and have already started using them for our country," Zelensky said from an undisclosed location while being flanked by a pair of Fighting Falcons as two more soared overhead.

"This is the new stage of development of the air force of Ukraine's armed forces," Zelensky added. "We did a lot for Ukrainian forces to transition to a new aviation standard, the Western combat aviation."

The official announcement that the F-16s are now in Ukraine comes days after images of the fighters in the skies near Kharkiv appeared on social media. Kyiv is on track to receive a total of 79 of the jets – donated by Belgium, Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands. Though an older variant, the F-16s are seen as being more capable than the vintage Soviet-era aircraft operated by the Ukrainian Air Force.

Though Washington gave the green light for the transfer of the aircraft, the United States hasn't committed to supplying any Fighting Falcons. The U.S. has pledged to provide some ordnance that could be employed from the aircraft – notably the AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM), AIM-9X missile, AGM-88 HARM anti-radiation missiles, and JDAM Extended-Range and Small-Diameter Bombs.

F-16: Capable Warbird and High-Value Target for Russia 

According to a report from Reuters, Ukrainian officials had worked "24/7" to ensure that the fighters would be properly secured, as the Kremlin has vowed to destroy the Fighting Falcons and has already been targeting potential bases that could house the fighters.

For those reasons, the F-16s provided to Ukraine by NATO members should be considered among the most valuable targets in the country, perhaps after Zelensky.

Won't be a Game Changer

Though more advanced than the current fleet of Ukrainian combat aircraft, the F-16 likely won't be a serious game changer. It may help protect Ukraine's cities, but it won't be enough to turn the tide of war.

Analysts have suggested that the effectiveness of the F-16 is being constrained as Washington and other Western allies won't allow Ukraine to use the fighters to strike inside Russian territory. Likewise, 79 aircraft – not all of which have arrived or likely will be operational by the end of the year – will be significant enough in number to make a huge difference. Kyiv's pilots also haven't been put through the years of training that Fighting Falcon jockeys normally go through.

Yet, the F-16s will have the ability to intercept cruise missiles and drones in flight. In other words, for the rest of 2024 and perhaps into 2025 should the war continue, the Fighting Falcon will be employed as a much-needed defensive platform.

Perhaps that is what Kyiv needs most right now, and that could allow Ukraine to carry on the fight.

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.

Der ehemalige katalanische Präsident Charles Puigdemont will nach Spanien zurückkehren. Allerdings droht ihm inmitten der verschärften politischen Spannungen eine Verhaftung.

Summary and Key Points: The T-14 Armata, Russia's advanced main battle tank, boasts impressive specs like a 125 mm smoothbore gun, modular armor, and a 55 mph top speed. Despite its power, Russia has only produced about 20 units due to the tank's complexity and high cost.

-In contrast, Russia is focusing on simpler, more cost-effective tanks like the T-72 and T-90, which are easier to produce and maintain.

-While the T-14 was field-tested in Syria and briefly deployed in Ukraine, it was quickly pulled back, highlighting the challenges of using complex systems in modern warfare, where function often trumps form.

The T-14 Armata: A Powerful Tank That Russia Won’t Mass Produce

One of the strangest phenomena in modern warfare is the gap between the expensive, complex systems the world’s advanced militaries procure versus the actual needs of those militaries once in combat. 

The Americans experienced this painful reality in the Middle East during wars defined by the improvised explosive device and the unmanned aerial vehicle. 

The Russians are experiencing the same with their tanks in Ukraine. 

The Specifications on the T-14 Armata 

The T-14 Armata is one of the most powerful, fearsome tanks in the world – at least on paper. This latest-generation main battle tank has an unmanned turret sporting a 125 mm 2A82-1M smoothbore gun fed by an autoloader. 

According to Army Technology, that turret “carries a total of 45 rounds of ammunition, including ready-to-use ammunition. The main gun can also fire laser-guided missiles.” A more sophisticated 2A83 152 mm gun can also be equipped. So can secondary weapons such as a Kord 12.7 mm machine gun and a PKTM 7.62 mm machine gun. 

The hull of the T-14 Armata looks otherworldly. It has a modular armor system composed of ceramics, steel, and composite material. This tank sports a low silhouette, thereby reducing the vulnerability of the machinery to enemy fire and favoring the survivability of the tank crew. The crew is also protected from unwanted explosions of the tank’s autoloader and ammunition stores. This was a problem for many previous Soviet-era tanks. 

The T-14 has reactive armor in the front and bar armor out back, which enhances protection against anti-tank weapons. Russia’s T-14 is powered by an A-85-3A turbocharged diesel engine, producing up to 1,200 horsepower. It has a 12-speed automatic transmission, too. An Armata has a standard range of 310 miles and a top cruising speed of about 55 miles per hour. 

Russia wanted a whopping 2,300 units of these tanks. 

Needless to say, that lofty goal was scaled back both because of the complexity of the systems involved and the obscenely high cost. Russia has about 20 of these systems, and it has no intention, or even capability at this point, to mass-produce more of them. 

The T-14’s Service Record (So Far)

The T-14 was field tested in the killing fields of Syria. It performed adequately, although there was little evidence the T-14s did anything more than a T-90M would have done. Meanwhile, in the Ukraine War, Russia’s greatest conflict since the Soviet-Afghan War, the T-14s have been pulled back from the fighting. 

While they were initially deployed and are believed to have been involved in a smattering of engagements, they were used mostly in support functions. They were quickly and quietly pulled back from the fighting and returned to Russia. It is not believed they will ever be deployed to Ukraine again.

Russia’s industrial base has not only survived the Western sanctions lobbed against it at the outset of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but it is likely stronger today than it has been in decades. 

Yet the Russians are not prioritizing the mass production of these advanced, costly systems. Instead, Russia is fixated on purchasing more variants of the T-90 MBT. Come to think of it, Russia is even more interested in mass-producing the Soviet-era T-72 MBT than they are in the Armata. 

The Cult of the Complex

Function beats form every time in modern warfare. It is a timeless lesson. Cost is always a significant factor, and simplicity should always be preferred over complexity. The Russians are doing just fine with their old T-72s and the slightly more sophisticated T-90s. 

These systems are far cheaper, easier to produce, better to maintain, and less complex to operate than the T-14s. Russia is smart not to waste its money on building more T-14 Armatas. 

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock.

From the Vault

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

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

La Commission européenne a annoncé lundi 5 août la mise en œuvre de mesures contraignantes à l’encontre de TikTok, qui ne peut plus lancer de programme de récompenses pour ses utilisateurs européens.

Des plages de sable blanc immaculé où se prélassent les touristes. Des lagons aux eaux turquoise. Ce décor de carte postale ferait presque oublier l'amoncellement de problèmes auquel font face les îles Cook, petit État du Pacifique sud : le changement climatique qui dégrade la vie quotidienne, la (...) / Îles Cook, Nouvelle-Zélande, Matières premières, Géopolitique - 2024/08

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy’s Virginia-class submarines are advanced and versatile, but they may not match the speed of the legendary Seawolf-class.

-Powered by a Westinghouse S6W nuclear reactor, the Seawolf-class can achieve top speeds of 35 miles per hour (25 knots), making it the fastest attack submarine in the world.

-While the Virginia-class submarines, powered by a GE S9G reactor, are newer and more adaptable with increased firepower and interoperability, they likely fall short in terms of speed and depth. The Seawolf-class’s superior speed and stealth, despite its limited numbers, still give it an edge in submarine performance.

The Virginia-class Submarines are Fast, But the Seawolf-class is Faster

The United States Navy’s Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarine has been described by many experts as the most advanced attack sub in the world. Despite this, little details are known about key aspects of this newer submarine. One question pervades many discussions about this submarine’s capabilities, how fast can this boat travel?

Compared to another highly advanced attack submarine in the Navy’s fleet, the legendary Seawolf-class, we know that that class is widely considered to be the fastest attack submarine in the world. 

As I have written in these pages, the Seawolf-class can achieve top cruising speeds of thirty-five miles per hour (twenty-five knots). However, the Virginia-class is newer and was chosen by the Navy to be the replacement for the long-serving Los Angeles-class attack submarine over the Seawolf-class submarine because, according to the Navy’s leadership, the Virginia class was even more advanced than the Seawolf class.

Understanding the Mechanics 

Well, whenever one talks about speed on any kind of craft, it’s always important to look at the engine powering the machine. For example, when speaking about the M1 Abrams tank, it’s important to note the fact that they are powered by a literal jet engine, which explains their power and speed.

Similarly, the Seawolf-class submarine retains the record of the fastest submarine in the world and is powered by a single Westinghouse S6W nuclear reactor, “driving two steam turbines, to a total of 52,000 shaft horsepower,” according to Kyle Mizokami.

The Virginia-class attack submarines, meanwhile, are the General Electric (GE)-provided pressure water reactor S9G which is “designed to last as long as the submarine, two turbine engines with one shaft and a United Defense pump jet propulsor.” Surprisingly, despite its capabilities, there is some debate as to whether even the newer Virginia-class attack submarines are better than the Seawolf-class subs when it comes to speed.

An Argument Between Submariners

There was a fiery debate on one defense forum among former US Navy submariners about which platform was truly better. The consensus was that, despite being more numerous and newer than the Seawolf-class, the Virginia-class was not superior to the older Seawolf-class submarine. In my own reporting, I have proven that the only reason the Seawolf-class was not scaled beyond only three boats was due to their high cost as well as the dissolution of the Soviet Union. 

According to many submariners, the Seawolf-class subs can dive deeper and run faster than the Virginia-class submarines. 

Let’s take a look at the believed flank speed of the Virginia-class. It is believed that the Virginia-class has a flank speed—or top cruising speed—of around twenty-five knots, the same as the Seawolf-class. So why are so many former submariners online arguing that the Seawolf-class is better and faster? 

That’s because in terms of diving and flank speed, or at least sustaining flank speed, the Seawolf-class is better than the Virginia-class. Where the Seawolf-class likely loses to the Virginia-class is in firepower and interoperability. 

The Virginia-class is More Versatile

For instance, in 2021, H.I. Sutton at Naval News reported that the Virginia-class subs were slated to get “seventy-six percent more firepower” than what they already had. The Virginia-class in general terms is easier to modify and can be used in a variety of offensive ways that the Seawolf might not be able to be used. 

Again, the Seawolf has some incredible covert capabilities. 

Speed and maneuverability as well as stealth are primary components to making a good modern submarine. Both the Seawolf-class and Virginia-class possess these features but in different admixtures. 

And, it is likely that the Seawolf-class is simply faster than the Virginia-class but that the Virginia-class may be a more well-rounded (certainly cheaper) submarine than the Seawolf-class submarines. 

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock.

From the Vault

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

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

Den Einbruch der Aktienmärkte an den weltweiten Börsen kommentiert DIW-Präsident Marcel Fratzscher wie folgt:

Die Korrekturen an den Börsen sind notwendig und richtig. Die Börsen sind trotz Pandemie, Energiekrise und einer schwachen Weltwirtschaft in den vergangenen Jahren stark gestiegen und haben sich deutlich von der Entwicklung der Wirtschaft abgekoppelt. Was wir nun sehen, ist eine Korrektur der Überbewertungen vieler Unternehmen an den Aktienmärkten. Vor allem der Hype um Künstliche Intelligenz hatte in den vergangenen Monaten die Börsenpreise getrieben; mit dem Platzen der Blase kommt es nun zu dieser Korrektur. Ich erwarte auch in den kommenden Jahren größere Korrekturen an den Aktienmärkten, da viele Unternehmen nach wie vor überbewertet sind und viele Investoren mit ihren Spekulationen zu einer Blase beigetragen haben. Es ist schwierig Überbewertungen und Blasen akkurat zu messen, die Diskrepanz bei den Bewertungen ist jedoch signifikant und auch das Risikoverhalten nimmt nun wieder ab. 

Die Zentralbanken werden nicht auf die Korrekturen der Aktienmärkte reagieren, da diese sich weder negativ auf die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung noch auf die Finanzstabilität auswirken werden. Zudem unterstützt die Geldpolitik der US-Notenbank und der EZB die Aktienmärkte, weil sie nun am Anfang eines Zyklus von Zinssenkungen stehen. So hat die EZB bereits seine erste Zinssenkung unternommen, und die US-Notenbank Federal Reserve dürfte im September folgen. Dies macht es Regierungen und Unternehmen auch leichter, künftige Schulden zu finanzieren.

Droite et gauche font monter la pression sur Emmanuel Macron pour qu'il nomme rapidement un Premier ministre à l'issue des Jeux olympiques dimanche, en suggérant des noms de personnalités pour Matignon susceptibles aussi de bâtir un budget.

Additive manufacturing makes the Mako a scalable, cost-effective hypersonic weapon that allows for salvo fires, unlike weapons such as the Russian Kh-47M2 Kinzhal or the US’s AGM-183 ARRW. The hallmarks of Lockheed Martin’s Mako hypersonic [...]

The post Lockheed’s Mako Missile Is A Mass-Producible, Salvo Fire-Capable Hypersonic Menace appeared first on The Aviationist.

Am Sonntag (4. Juli) ist eine überarbeitete Fassung der EU-Vorschriften für Industrie- und Viehzuchtemissionen in Kraft getreten. Sie gilt für mehr Tierhaltungsbetriebe als die bisherige Regelung.

Looking like a holdover from the First World War, this flimsy, antiquated, and slow biplane was all Great Britain had to throw against the mighty German Battleship in one of the greatest sea chases of [...]

The post The Fairey Swordfish: an Unsung Hero of the Hunt for the Battleship Bismarck appeared first on The Aviationist.

TikTok darf keine Belohnungsprogramme mehr für seine Nutzer in der EU anbieten. Die Europäische Kommission hat am Montag (5. August) verbindliche Maßnahmen angekündigt.

Le ministre suédois des Affaires étrangères, Tobias Billström, a émis l'idée de nouvelles sanctions européennes contre les entreprises chinoises, accusées de contourner les sanctions de l’UE à l’encontre de la Russie, pour y exporter des marchandises via des pays tiers.