Feed aggregator

Ce jeudi 22 août, l’appel de la militante de 82 ans a été jugé irrecevable. Mais la Franco-Vietnamienne continuera la lutte contre les fabricants états-uniens de la dioxine, aussi appelée agent orange, laquelle est responsable de millions de morts en Asie du Sud-Est.

Cycle autour de la Palestine, fable écologiste, documentaire sur les violences sexuelles, mais aussi stand-up… le chapiteau des arts vivants et du cinéma accueille, durant les trois jours de la Fête, une foule d’événements autour de ces thématiques.

Pour la « journée des oubliés des vacances », l’association a permis à 3 500 enfants de la région parisienne de découvrir la plage de Deauville, le 21 août. Au programme : baignade, jeux et pique-nique sur le sable.

Un mois après les législatives anticipées, alors que les représentants des différentes forces politiques seront reçus par Emmanuel Macron vendredi et lundi prochains, le chef de l'État - qui doit désormais nommer un nouveau Premier ministre - a fait valoir qu'il se positionnait "du côté des Français, garant de l'expression de leur vote". 

Constantine, le 22 août 2024 – Cinq individus ont été déférés devant la justice à Constantine pour « atteinte aux biens de l’État, construction sans […]

L’article Tentative de suicide collectif à Constantine : les autorités apportent des précisions est apparu en premier sur .

Civil society groups and academics have criticised European Commissioner Thierry Breton's recent letter to Elon Musk, the owner of the social media platform X, arguing that it misinterprets the Digital Services Act and threatens free expression.

Imane khelif fait taire J.K Rowling. La romancière a supprimé plusieurs tweents ayant porté atteinte à la jeune boxeuse algérienne. Victime d’un acharnement féroce et […]

L’article Imane Khelif force J.K Rowling à supprimer des tweets est apparu en premier sur .

The Paris Olympic Games caused overall business activity in the eurozone to surge above analysts' expectations in August despite a continued slump in manufacturing, according to a closely-watched survey published on Thursday (22 August).

Problems: The Russian Su-57 "Felon," touted as a fifth-generation stealth fighter, has faced significant challenges in its development and production, leading many to question its effectiveness.

Secret Problem: Despite being promoted for its advanced stealth and capabilities, Western experts argue that the Su-57's radar cross-section and overall design fall short of true fifth-generation standards, making it less stealthy than the U.S. F-35. Additionally, Russia's inability to produce the aircraft in large numbers has limited its impact.

Bottomline: The Su-57's limited deployment in Ukraine suggests that even Moscow lacks confidence in the fighter's supposed stealth capabilities.

Su-57 Felon: Russia's Struggling Stealth Fighter

A short video from Russian aviation manufacturer Sukhoi has been shared on social media back in March of last year.

Essentially a "sizzle reel" for its Su-57 (NATO reporting name "Felon"), the video highlights how the aircraft is pushing the limits of aviation design. 

The fifth-generation fighter has long been touted by Russian officials for its "advanced" stealth technology that makes broad use of composite materials.

As previously reported, the Kremlin has further claimed the Su-57 can reach a supersonic cruising speed while destroying all types of air, ground, and naval targets.

Su-57: All Hype?

Even as Russia continues to tout the aircraft, Western aviation experts have suggested the Su-57 is all hype – and that Moscow lacks the manufacturing capabilities even to produce the aircraft in significant numbers.

That is noted by the fact that the Su-57 first flew in January 2010 but didn't enter service until December 2020. 

A decade can be an eternity for "advanced" military platforms – a fact that explains why the United States Air Force is already seeking to phase out its first fifth-generation air superiority fighter, the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor.

Time won't be kind to the Su-57, even if it was as advanced as Russian experts may have claimed. In fact, the Su-57 shouldn't be noted for its capabilities but rather for its troubled development program.

Problems were reportedly revealed with its initial airframe, which required a redesign of the prototypes.

What Stealth?

Aviation expert Chris Bolton even noted on social media last year, "Russia's Su-57 'stealth' fighter has a radar cross-section comparable to clean F/A-18 Super Hornet, and around a thousand times bigger than F-35.

Russia's fleet of Felons consists of 12 hand-made prototypes with varying degrees of finish and just two production jets…"

Other experts have also questioned whether the Felon should truly be described as a stealth aircraft and suggested in a head-to-head fight, the Su-57 would be hopelessly outclassed when going up against the Lockheed Martin F-35. The Russian fighter has a design that is much closer to an advanced fourth-generation fighter than a true fifth-generation aircraft. 

It may be less detectable than an F-15 Eagle or F-16 Fighting Falcon, but the Su-57 simply has a poor cross-section compared to its main fifth-generation rivals.

Not Used in Ukraine

Those facts explain why the Kremlin hasn't deployed it over the skies of Ukraine.

Instead, at least according to most reports, its combat role has been primarily to fire weapons from within the safety of Russian airspace.

Clearly, Russian officials don't believe its stealth is good enough to send over enemy territory.

Moving past those issues, the other factor remains the numbers. Russia simply can't reach serial production and has built fewer than two dozen.

Even if it were to live up to the hype, there aren't enough Felons to make it the game-changer Moscow has claimed to be.

Simply put, the United States likely would have canceled the project several times over, but the Kremlin has seemingly dug such a deep hole its only choice now is to keep going and hope to come out on the other end.

Author Experience and Expertise

 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.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The AbramsX is the latest iteration of the U.S. Army's iconic M1 Abrams main battle tank, a symbol of American military strength since its debut in the 1980s.

-While the Abrams was originally designed for Cold War scenarios in Europe, the AbramsX incorporates advanced Chobham armor, a powerful 120mm smoothbore gun, and a 1,500-horsepower gas turbine engine, making it highly mobile and well-protected.

-It also features modern digital systems and countermeasures. Despite its impressive capabilities, some critics argue that the AbramsX, like U.S. aircraft carriers, may be more suited to past conflicts than future warfare.

AbramsX: The Next Evolution of America's Legendary Battle Tank

In recent years, the main battle tank has come in for a lot of criticism – especially the more advanced versions of the weapons system. 

In the Iraq War, MBTs were next to useless as the insurgency got underway. In Ukraine now, the Russians are so afraid of risking their advanced T-14 Armata tanks that they are relying on the old Soviet-era T-72 MBT to do the heavy lifting. (These systems are easy to produce and relatively cheap.) 

Nevertheless, the Americans are moving ahead with another iteration of the Abrams, the tank that did so much to help the U.S. win during Operation Desert Storm and which remains the pinnacle of active MBTs – at least until the T-14 shows what it can do. 

The coming version is known as the AbramsX.

The Abrams Tank Gets a Second Wind

Named after U.S. Army General Creighton Abrams, the Abrams is a third-generation MBT originally designed by Chrysler Defense, which is now known as General Dynamics Land Systems. 

The original M1 Abrams first entered service in the 1980s and was designed to do one thing: stop the Red Army from breaching Western Europe via the Fulda Gap in Germany. That conflict never materialized, so the Abrams was put to work in other areas, most notably during Operation Desert Storm. 

Sadly, the conflict in Europe that the Abrams was designed to fight appears to be upon us yet again in the killing fields of Ukraine. As a result, the Americans have promised 31 older M1 Abrams tanks to Kyiv. But Ukraine has resisted deploying these assets, because they are older and are too heavy for the soft ground of Ukraine. 

Geography is important in war, who knew?

Some Technical Specifications for the AbramsX

Still, the new AbramsX is on its way. One of its notable features is its advanced Chobham armor. This composite armor, developed in the United Kingdom in the 1960s, provides superior protection against a wide range of threats, including kinetic energy penetrators and high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) rounds. 

The new Abrams is also armed to the teeth. It’s equipped with a 120mm smoothbore gun, the mainstay gun of Western main battle tanks for decades. This gun can fire a variety of ammunition types, including Armor-Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot rounds and high-explosive HEAT rounds.

But the AbramsX isn’t just about firepower and protection. It’s also about mobility. The tank is powered by a gas turbine engine that provides a whopping 1,500 horsepower. This allows the AbramsX to reach speeds of up to 45 miles per hour on roads, making it one of the fastest tanks in the world.

The AbramsX features other advanced technologies. Its digital command and control system allows the crew to share information and coordinate their actions more effectively. It also has a laser warning receiver system, which can detect when the tank is being targeted by laser-guided weapons and automatically deploy countermeasures. 

Is the New AbramsX Really Worth It?

America’s newest AbramsX MBT is a modern marvel of engineering – like, for example, America’s vaunted fleet of aircraft carriers. The new Abrams combines advanced armor, firepower, mobility, and technology to create a tank that’s a force to be reckoned with on the battlefield. Much like the U.S. Navy’s flattops, though, the AbramsX, while advanced, might be designed to fight yesteryear’s wars.

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 General Dynamics. 

Les experts de la santé ont prévenu qu'une distribution réussie des vaccins était essentielle pour enrayer la propagation en Afrique et au-delà.

Greece has recently made a strong push for transport in the new European legislature. The Greek government now aims to secure the transport portfolio in the upcoming EU Commission, according to sources in Athens and Brussels.

Summary and Everything You Need to Know in 30 Seconds: The SR-71 Blackbird, the fastest plane ever built, flew at speeds exceeding Mach 3.0 during the Cold War. Despite its unmatched speed, it was locked onto by a Swedish Saab JA-37 Viggen, a fighter jet with a top speed of Mach 2.1.

-The successful lock-on was possible due to the predictable routes of the Blackbird and the skill of the Swedish pilots.

-In 1987, Viggens also helped escort a Blackbird to safety after it suffered an engine explosion, highlighting the cooperation between the U.S. and Sweden during the Cold War.

Cold War Close Call: Swedish Jet Locks Onto SR-71 Blackbird

The fastest plane to ever fly retired from service decades ago. When the American-made SR-71 Blackbird was introduced during the Cold War, its innovative technologies, electronics, and avionics pushed it to feats never before seen. 

Even considering the development of modern fighter jets like the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II, the Mach 3.0-capable Blackbird’s legacy remains unmatched. Only one aircraft ever scored a missile lock on a Blackbird, and that aircraft merits a mention of its own: the Swedish Saab JA-37 jet. 

How a Swedish Aircraft Nearly Caught Up With a Blackbird

SR-71s during the Cold War were tasked with flying the same repeated pattern over the Baltic Sea, a route referred to as the “Baltic Express.” 

The Swedish Air Force at the time was equipped with the Saab J-35F Draken platform. This older airframe was in no way able to keep up with a Blackbird. But its successor, the Saab J-37 Viggen, had more advanced avionics that enabled it to get close to a Blackbird in flight. 

Compared to the SR-71’s Mach-3.0 top speed, the Viggen was still relatively slow, topping out at Mach 2.1. Despite this gap in capability, the routine nature of Blackbird flights coupled with superb mission planning and pilot skills resulted in one of the Swedish fighters “locking on” to a Blackbird. 

As detailed by former Swedish Air Force JA-37 pilot Per-Olof Eldh, “In total I have five hot intercepts against the SR-71 to my credit. All can be described as successful. I was visual three times; on a couple of occasions the SR-71 was contrailing, which was very useful because you could do a visual check to ensure you ended up in the right spot!” 

Once Eldh was able to lock on, he of course did not fire. The two planes merely crossed paths and gained visual contact with one another.

Saab 37 Viggens Also Rescued a Blackbird in Trouble

While this incident proved to be the first ever successful interception and “lock” on a Blackbird, it is important to note that the American pilots were not trying to avoid the Viggens, which were friendly airframes. Regardless, the Swedish pilot’s skill and acumen were impressive. 

The Viggen-Blackbird combination made headlines again in 1987, when an SR-71 suffered an engine explosion and had to be escorted safely to the ground. The Swedish Air Force immediately directed two of its Viggens to aid the SR-71, which would have been more vulnerable to a Soviet attack while flying at such a low altitude. Ultimately, the Blackbird landed safely in West Germany with help from the Swedish airframes.

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 or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: In November 2012, two Iranian Su-25s attempted to shoot down a U.S. MQ-1 Predator drone in international airspace, but failed due to their aircraft's limitations.

-A year later, unaware of new U.S. escort policies, Iran deployed F-4 Phantoms to engage another MQ-1.

-However, the F-4s were surprised by an F-22 Raptor stealth fighter, which had been silently escorting the drone. The Raptor pilot, undetected by the Iranians, calmly revealed his presence, advising the F-4s to retreat, which they did.

-The incident highlights ongoing tensions between the U.S. and Iran, particularly amid nuclear negotiations.

How a Stealthy F-22 Raptor Outmaneuvered Iranian F-4s

In November 2012, two Iranian Air Force Sukhoi Su-25s tried to down a U.S. Air Force MQ-1 Predator drone. At the time, the MQ-1 was flying in international air space, 16 miles from the Iranian border; the drone flight was legal, but understandably instigatory. Iran scrambled the two Su-25s, which quickly closed on the drone. But the Su-25 was designed for close air support, not air superiority, and it struggled impotently with its cannons to shoot down the MQ-1.

The American drone escaped the interaction unscathed, having filmed the entire sequence with on-board cameras. In response to the incident, the U.S. modified its procedures to better protect its vulnerable drone fleet. It began providing drones with a fighter escort.

One year later, in 2013, the Iranians – apparently unaware of this new U.S. drone-escort policy – engaged another MQ-1. This time, the Iranians sent a jet with some air-to-air game, the F-4 Phantom – an aircraft the U.S. exported to Iran in the 1970s, back when the two countries were allies. Unlike the Su-25, the F-4 was entirely capable of bringing down the MQ-1. But when the Iranian F-4s moved to engage the MQ-1, they discovered they were not alone.

Escorting the MQ-1, lurking silently, was a Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor – a fifth-generation stealth fighter. As the Iranian pilots learned that day, the F-22 “is equipped with stealth technology that enables it to operate virtually undetected by radar.”

Iran, F-4 and Those Stealth F-22 Raptors

Indeed, the Iranians were oblivious to its presence as the F-22 stalked them from below.

This aircraft is packed with enviable, cutting-edge technology. “The F-22 Raptor is a technological marvel,” I noted previously.

“The world’s first operational fifth-generation fighter, the F-22 was designed with a bevy of novel features – stealth technology, supercruise, supermaneuverability, and sensor fusion – all combined to create the preeminent air superiority fighter.”

The Iranians flying in Vietnam War-era F-4 Phantoms were ill-equipped to match an F-22. Granted, the F-4 was a capable airframe – the most produced American supersonic military aircraft ever – but it first flew in 1958. The F-22, on the other hand, was an up-to-date, 21st century marvel.

“The F-22’s software is advanced and impressive. Using sensor fusion, data from multiple onboard sensor systems are synthesized to create a more comprehensive tactical picture,” I explained a few years back.

Besides, the F-4 was not built for dogfighting. “The Phantom was not particularly maneuverable,” I explained in a previous article on the F-4. “Enemy MiGs could typically outturn the F-4, which wasn’t designed for dogfighting and suffered from adverse yaw in tight turns. Instead, the F-4 was intended to fire radar-guided missiles from beyond visual range, not engage in air combat maneuvering.”

Well, the F-22 was comfortably within visual range: It was directly below the Iranians.

The F-22’s pilot, operating undetected, had sidled right in. “He flew under their aircraft to check out their weapons load without them knowing that he was there,” then-Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said. Having determined the F-4’s payloads, the Raptor pilot finally alerted the Iranians to his presence.

He “pulled up on their left-wing and then called them and said ‘you really ought to go home,’” Welsh said. The F-4s complied and bugged out.

The incident is indicative of the friction that has underscored the U.S.-Iranian relationship since the late 1970s. Currently, the two sides are working toward a deal on Iran’s nuclear program, which is reportedly nearing break-out capacity and has made Iran an international pariah. The world is watching closely as the negotiations unfold. In the meantime, hopefully the two rival nations can avoid any further dogfighting incidents.

Author Biography: Harrison Kass 

Harrison Kass is a senior defense editor with over 1,000 published articles. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, he joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison has degrees from Lake Forest College, the University of Oregon School of Law, and New York University’s Graduate School of Arts & Sciences. He lives in Oregon and regularly listens to Dokken. Email the Author: Editor@nationalinterest.org. 

Image Credit: Shutterstock and Creative Commons. 

Summary and Top 4 Points You Need to Know: The USS United States (CVA-58), envisioned as a revolutionary supercarrier after World War II, was a radical design that ultimately proved impractical.

-Approved by President Truman in 1948, it featured a flush deck for launching heavy bombers, but its design lacked key elements like an island for command and control, creating significant operational challenges.

-The project was canceled just five days after the keel was laid due to concerns about its redundancy with the Air Force's capabilities and high costs.

-The program's cancellation paved the way for more practical supercarrier designs like the Forrestal-class.

The Radical Design of USS United States: A Step Too Far for the U.S. Navy

Since the founding of the United States Navy on October 13, 1775, there has been only a single vessel named USS United States – it was one of the original six frigates that served as the core of the U.S. Navy in the first half of the 19th century. Three other vessels were to bear the name, and that included a Lexington-class battlecruiser that was canceled due to the Washington Treaty when just slightly over 10 percent complete.

Much more recently, the U.S. Navy's ninth nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and the eighth in the Nimitz-class was to be named USS United States – but her name was changed to honor President Harry S. Truman in February 1995 at the direction of then-Secretary of the Navy John H. Dalton.

President Truman it should be noted had approved the construction of five new "supercarriers" in July 1948 and the proposed class was to be for the United States. It was never to be, and that's likely for the best.

USS United States: An Overly Ambitious Carrier Program

The USS United States (CVA-58) was meant to be the lead ship of a new class of supercarriers developed after the Second World War. It remains unclear why it had the CVA designation, but it was either for attack or atomic.

Its design was seen as ambitious and even cutting edge but was likely entirely impractical and as a result just five days after her keel was laid down, the program was canceled.

Truman approved the construction of the new class of carriers after funds had been provided in the Naval Appropriations Act of 1949. The design was quite the radical departure from the World War II-era flattops and in some ways evoked the "streamline modern" of the Art Deco architecture and design movement that became common with post-war automobiles and aircraft.

It truly was a flattop in the literal sense, as the proposed 65,000-ton carrier (83,000 tons fully loaded) would feature a flush deck that was designed to launch and recover large aircraft of 100,000 pounds, which in turn could carry the nuclear weapons of the era that weighed as much as five tons.

The chief proponent for the proposed supercarrier was Admiral Marc Mitscher, who saw the need for the warship to be able to handle the latest and most effective aircraft of the day.

A Floating Airbase for Bombers

The vessel was to be 1,000 feet long, without an island, and equipped with four aircraft elevators and four catapults, while the flight deck was axial, not angled.

That flush deck was meant to provide more space for large bombers – such as the B-29 Superfortress or its successor – although those aircraft would have to be secured to the flight deck as it would have been impossible to move them up or down in an elevator to the hangar. In addition, a small hanger was to have been provided for the fighter escort. As the design evolved, additional space was given for those escorts.

It was planned that the vessel's air wing would be made up of about a dozen bombers as well as nearly fifty fighters.

Whereas the primary mission was to carry long-range bomber aircraft, the United States-class was also intended to provide tactical air support for the air and amphibious forces, as well as to conduct sea control operations.

A Floating Island Without an Island

The lack of an island on the flight deck presented a number of issues that the designers had to deal with. 

First, it meant the ship lacked a position for radar, but also other command and control capabilities. A small tower-like platform could help direct movement on the flight deck, but radar, navigation, war planning, and other operations would have been relegated to a specially outfitted command ship cruiser.

As a result, instead of being the flagship of a strike group, the USS United States and the other carriers of the class would have been floating airfields or arsenal ships.

The U.S. Navy's bombers would have had to remain on the flight deck during an entire voyage. That would have been a serious concern for the carrier during high winds – a fact noted in July 2022 when a F/A-18 Super Hornet flew off the deck of the USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) while the carrier was deployed to the Mediterranean.

Then there was the issue of how the smoke from the power plants and how it would be diverted away from the flight deck had to be resolved.

The Imperial Japanese Navy's light carrier Ryūjō had proved that a flush flight deck presented such problems and it addressed the smoke by moving the funnels higher up the side of the hull and curved them downward. The Japanese warship was noted for not being particularly stable in rough seas, however.

Massive Size That Would Have Massive Costs

Designed as a conventional carrier, as nuclear technology was still in its infancy, the USS United States would have required eight Foster-Wheeler boilers and four Westinghouse turbines, which could produce 280,000 hp while four screws could allow the massive vessel to reach speeds in excess of 33 knots.

Construction costs were estimated to be around $190 million ($2.4 billion in 2023 dollars), while the cost of the task force to accompany the massive warship would have driven the total price tag to more than $1.265 billion in 1948 dollar – more than $16 billion in 2023 dollars.

The Program Ended Just After It Began

As noted, the USS United States was canceled just five days after the keel was laid down – in no small part due to pressure from the United States Air Force, which had viewed the carrier as an embodiment of the U.S. Navy's nuclear aspirations. The Joint Chief of Staff and then Secretary of Defense Louis A. Johnson seemed to agree that such an aircraft carrier's main function would only serve to duplicate the role of the Air Force.

After the program was scuttled, then Secretary of the Navy John Sullivan immediately resigned, while the subsequent "Revolt of the Admirals" resulted in Admiral Louis Denfeld being relieved of his position as Chief of Naval Operations.

USS United States and the Birth of the Modern Supercarrier

The cancelation of the USS United States didn't mark the end for the supercarrier. Instead, just five years later the U.S. Navy moved forward with the more conventionally figured USS Forrestal-class.

As nuclear weapons shrank in size it was also determined that a massive warship designed to accommodate bombers wasn't actually required. In fact, during the 1950s, nuclear weapons were sent to sea on the USS Franklin D. Roosevelt – a carrier far smaller than the planned USS United States.

Though some look back on the USS United States as a missed opportunity, it should be seen that the U.S. Navy really dodged a torpedo-sized bullet. The flush flight deck carrier wasn't a step forward.

 Art Deco was fine for cars and architecture – it was simply wrong for a carrier.

Author Experience and Expertise

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.

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Dans une lettre aux Français, le Nouveau Front populaire (NFP) et leur candidate à Matignon, Lucie Castets, ont dénoncé jeudi "l'inaction grave et délétère" du président Emmanuel Macron et se sont dits "prêts" à gouverner. Le document a été publié la veille de leur rencontre à l'Élysée en vue de la nomination d'un Premier ministre.

Summary and Key Points You Need to Know: The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) operates six Collins-class diesel-electric submarines, originally set to retire by 2026 but now receiving upgrades to extend their service into the 2040s.

-These submarines, the first domestically produced by Australia, were developed in the 1980s under the SEA 1114 project to replace aging Oberon-class subs.

-The Collins-class, designed for the Australasian region with advanced combat systems, faced issues like engine breakdowns and excessive noise, impacting their reputation. Debate on these subs has now raged for decades. 

-Despite these flaws, modifications will allow them to continue serving, though they may not be frontline assets in conflicts with advanced adversaries.

Collins-Class Submarines: Australia's First Homegrown Naval Power

The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) currently operates six Collins-class diesel-electric submarines based at HMAS Stirling. These ships were expected to retire by 2026, but new modifications will extend their service lives well into the 2040s. 

The Collins class introduced the first domestically produced submarines to the RAN fleet. When they began service, the submarines exemplified Australia’s growing industrial capabilities.

The History of the Collins-Class from Australia 

The RAN first outlined the need to replace its aging Oberon-class ships in the late 1970s. Around this time, the navy’s director of submarine policy proposed that the country’s next SSN should be homegrown, and more than six should be produced. Since Australia’s shipbuilding capacity was sorely lacking in the early 1980s, officials doubted such a big project was possible. However, the proposal was ultimately accepted, and the project commenced under the designation of SEA 1114.

As part of the proposal, the RAN listed four requirements for the new submarine class. 

First, each ship had to feature a combat system sophisticated enough to last over a long service life. Second, Australia’s industrial capacity needed to grow to adequately provide such advanced ships. Third, the new submarines would be specifically modified to operate in the Australasian region. Finally, the submarines needed to be designed for a hunter-killer role. 

The RAN originally desired a fleet of ten new submarines but later settled on procuring just six.

Specs & Capabilities

While the Collins-class ships were largely built in Australia, a variety of international subcontractors were also used. In fact, construction work was delegated to more than 400 companies from 12 different countries. 

Each submarine measured just over 77 meters in length, with a 7.8-meter beam. Three Garden Island-Hedemora HV V18b/15UB (VB210) 18-cylinder diesel motors power the boats, in addition to three Jeumont-Schneider generators capable of producing 7,200 horsepower. With this system in place, the Collins submarines can sail at speeds in excess of twenty knots when submerged.

Each Collins-class ship can carry up to twenty-two missiles and torpedoes and up to forty-four mines without torpedoes. The submarine can launch the Boeing Sub Harpoon anti-ship missile, which carries a warhead of 227 kilograms. The Collins submarines carry the Gould MK48 Mod 4 torpedo.

The Collins-class submarines certainly featured remarkable capabilities from the outset, but the new class had its shortcomings. Not only did the engine tend to break down, but the submarines also produced excessive noise, which is a big faux pas for any SSN. To make matters worse, disagreements on how to fix these problems stymied progress. While some issues were fixed down the line, the Collins ships still don’t have the best reputation. The Collins submarines probably would not serve on the frontlines of any future conflict with an advanced rival such as Beijing.

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. 

Image: Creative Commons. 

Summary and What You Need to Know: The 1980s, a tense period in the Cold War, saw numerous close calls, including a near-nuclear incident involving the USS Kitty Hawk and a Soviet Victor-class submarine, Petropavlovsk.

-In 1984, during joint naval exercises near South Korea, the Kitty Hawk collided with the Soviet sub, raising concerns about potential nuclear fallout.

-The incident, declassified in 2017, highlights the dangers of unintended escalation in a highly charged international environment.

-The era’s strained U.S.-Soviet relations mirror today’s multipolar competition between the U.S., China, and Russia, where similar incidents could lead to more severe consequences.

Cold War Close Call: USS Kitty Hawk's Near-Nuclear Collision with Soviet Submarine

The 1980s was one of the most decisive decades in recent history. The Cold War was in its fourth decade and, according to some historians, that struggle was at its most tense. The world existed on a nuclear hair-trigger, and the two superpowers tested each other as they never had before.

From nuclear near-misses to tense standoffs at sea and in the air, the Cold War was very hot. The pop culture of the era was chock full of end of world-type scenarios. Great power conflict was on the mind.

Close calls and near-misses with advanced military platforms defined the decade.

A Near-Nuclear Incident

One such incident occurred in 1984. It involved the USS Kitty Hawk, one of America’s supercarriers, and a Soviet Victor-class attack submarine known as Petropavlovsk. The incident took place about 150 miles east of South Korea, during joint naval exercises with South Korean forces. Kitty Hawk was accompanied by eight escorts when, suddenly, the great carrier “ran over the stern of the submarine as it was surfacing,” according to a UPI report from the time.  

Given the kind of naval exercises occurring between the U.S. and South Korean navies, it is likely Petropavlovsk was shadowing the warships in order to gather intelligence on U.S. naval capabilities. 

Reports from the time indicate Kitty Hawk’s crew was aware of the threat of a Soviet submarine shadowing their flotilla. The crew claimed they were traveling in the Sea of Japan at 15 knots “with navigation lights on.” In other words, they were following the agreed-upon international rules governing safe seamanship on the high seas.

The Soviet sub crew, meanwhile, was intent on playing a game of “cat and mouse” with the American flotilla. Specifically, with Kitty Hawk. The U.S. Navy concluded that the Soviets were trying to test U.S. antisubmarine devices. When Petropavlovsk surfaced, it gouged the side of Kitty Hawk. Yet, Kitty Hawk’s crew was apparently more concerned about the safety of the Soviet submarine that crashed into them.

That’s because Petropavlovsk was a nuclear-powered submarine and there were some real concerns among the American side that the sub’s nuclear reactor had been compromised by the collision. The official U.S. Navy report details how Kitty Hawk attempted to contact the Soviet sub but their hails were ignored. The Americans assumed that the Soviet sub was seaworthy, though, because it continued along on its way. 

This incident, which happened way back in 1984, was only declassified in 2017. 

At the time, there were systems in place meant to mitigate the threat of unintended nuclear escalation. Today, the United States faces a tripolar competition between itself, the People’s Republic of China, and the Russian Federation. 

Today’s Context

Today’s international environment is replete with opportunities for unwarranted escalation and unintended consequences. The systems that helped curb the risk of nuclear conflict in the Cold War have eroded or simply don’t exist anymore, making the prospect of war as a result of an incident such as the one that occurred between Petropavlovsk and Kitty Hawk in 1984 more likely. 

Kitty Hawk was no stranger to near-misses during its service. In fact, in 2007, the Kitty Hawk was humiliated by a Chinese Song-class diesel-electric submarine that had gotten within firing range of the carrier while Kitty Hawk was on maneuvers. Once it was in firing range, the sub surfaced, and its crew appeared to mock the Americans.

One can anticipate more experiences like this on the increasingly crowded and contested high seas as America sails into this dynamic, multipolar threat environment. 

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?)

Summary and Key Points You Need to Know: Russia's only aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, was originally designed as a hybrid "heavy missile and aviation cruiser," equipped with powerful anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles that could challenge enemy fleets without relying heavily on its aircraft.

The ship featured a "missile farm" with P-700 Granit missiles capable of carrying nuclear, conventional, or thermobaric warheads, and a variety of surface-to-air missiles and close-in weapon systems for defense.

However, the Kuznetsov has faced numerous mechanical failures and accidents, leaving it in drydock for years and limiting Russia's naval power projection.

Admiral Kuznetsov: Russia's Hybrid Aircraft Carrier and Missile Cruiser

Russia’s only aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, was originally designed to deploy a “missile farm” that was more powerful than the airplanes it launched from its deck.

The downsides of the Kuznetsov have been chronicled substantially .

It will be under repair until 2024 (but likely longer) and has endured numerous mechanical and construction problems.

The Kuznetsov, however, had it seen battle, could likely have held its own with its array of carrier-killing missiles.

It had numerous bays and tubes for launching weapons that could support a carrier battle group with several ships that also had deadly missiles. Let’s take a look at how the Russian navy armed this carrier.

Not Your Normal Aircraft Carrier

The Kuznetsov could be seen as a “heavy missile and aviation cruiser” that could also carry airplanes rather than just a normal aircraft carrier. Tyler Rogoway, chief editor for The Warzone, described the following armaments that the Kuznetsov featured. There were 24 rotating launch tubes onboard for the Gauntlet surface-to-air missile. The Kuznetsov had 192 of these missiles.

Heavy Anti-Aircraft Defenses

For last-ditch air defenses, Rogoway wrote that the carrier boasted close-in weapon systems for the enemy airplanes and incoming missiles that made it past the SAMs. In this department, the carrier used six AK-630 cannons and eight Kashtan close-in weapons systems.

Enemy submarines would have noticed that the Russian carrier was equipped with UDAV-1 sub-killing rockets that could also be utilized against torpedoes.

Admiral Kuznetsov: This Thing Was a Missile Truck

Kuznetsov served as a missile truck for more munitions that could destroy enemy targets on sea. P-700 Granit “Shipwreck” missiles adorned the carrier. The Granit can be configured for triple use for nuclear, conventional, and thermobaric warheads. The Granit has a high explosive conventional payload of 1,600 pounds.

Lead Launcher for a Swarm of Missiles

The idea for the Kuznetsov missile farm approach was that it could challenge an American carrier battle group by staying out of range of enemy ships and airplanes and launch the sea skimming anti-ship missiles from 350 miles away. It could then fight without even using its own airplanes launched from the carrier.

These missiles could swarm and overwhelm a ship’s defenses by sheer numbers.

This Was the Leader of a Multi-ship Contingent

Remember, the Kuznetsov would be sailing in its own battle group which means other Soviet destroyers, frigates, cruisers, and submarines would also be sending offensive anti-ship missiles that could overwhelm American ships.

Not A Large Aircraft Force

The ship’s aircraft group was made up of 12 Su-33 or MiG-29K. There was room for a large number of helicopters including two Ka-27S, 18 Ka-27PLO, and four Ka-31 rotary wing aircraft. The fighters launched from a 12-degree ski jump at the bow instead of catapults.

Because of this limitation, the fighters could not carry heavy loads of ordnance. No electronic warfare airplanes were on board. Airborne early warning was done by helicopter which reduced the range of aerial attacks that could jam enemy radar.

Disaster After Disaster

Thankfully for the United States and NATO, the Kuznetsov was cursed. It had a floating dock accident when a 70-foot crane fell on the deck in 2018. One worker died and four were injured. This left a 20-foot hole above the water line. And then the ship suffered a fire in 2019 from a welding accident. The blaze was not contained until a day later—after it killed two and wounded 14. And it recently just suffered another fire as 2022 came to a close. 

How Do We Classify It?

So, was the Kuznetsov a carrier or a large missile cruiser that happened to have aircraft?

It should be seen as a hybrid ship for supporting a contingent of other surface vessels and submarines. The Soviet and later the Russian navy envisioned a stand-off role for the missile farm, knowing that its airborne combat role from fighters was going to be limited in offensive capability. Now with it in drydock for an extended period, the Russians are without a carrier and not able to project power by sea. This makes the Russian navy limited in scope. But at one time, the Kuznetsov could have done much damage with its ship-killing missiles.

The U.S. Navy and surface fleets from various NATO allies breathed a sigh of relief that it never had to go up against a carrier battle group from the Russian or Soviet navy in its heyday.

Expert Biography

Dr. Brent M. Eastwood is the author of Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare. He is an Emerging Threats expert and former U.S. Army Infantry officer. You can follow him on Twitter @BMEastwood. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science and Foreign Policy/ International Relations.

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?)

In 2014, the “Little Green Men”—Russian soldiers wearing unmarked uniforms—played a significant role in the Kremlin’s annexation of Crimea. The soldiers were armed with the same weapons as the Russian military, employed much of the same equipment, and were noted for speaking with Russian accents. Many wore masks to conceal their identities.

The Kremlin initially dismissed the allegations that the soldiers were even Russian, and claimed instead that they were “local self-defense groups.” It was only in the late spring of 2014 that Russian president Vladimir Putin acknowledged that the troops in Crimea had been Russia all along—but the world already knew as much.

The Little Green Men, a term coined by the residents in Crimea, were also spotted in the eastern Donbas region, operating alongside separatist forces before Moscow launched its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Since that time the illusion has been dropped, yet NATO officials have expressed concerns that such units could be employed in the Baltic States to attempt to undermine the pro-Western governments.

However, this week, it wasn’t the Little Green Men that were suddenly in the spotlight—it was Russia’s so-called “Space Troops,” which were rushed to help defend the border region of Kursk, which Ukrainian forces invaded earlier this month and as of this week control 1,150 square kilometers (444 square miles) of territory.

The independent investigative Russian news outlet Important Stories reported on the deployment of the Space Troops.

What Exactly Are Space Troops?

The Russian news outlet confirmed that a Motorized Rifle Regiment of the Aerospace Force was among the troops sent to the front, and according to the report, it isn’t exactly elite Special Forces. Rather, it is made up of engineers, mechanics, and other servicemen from a Russian spaceport.

In other words, less Star Wars-style “stormtroopers” with blasters or the Sardaukar, the elite military force from Frank Herbert’s Dune series, and more ground personnel that aren’t trained for frontline combat.

The deployment of the Space Troops to Kursk has caught some Russian propagandists off guard—much like the Kremlin was caught off guard when Kyiv invaded the region, marking the first invasion into Russia since World War II.

“I have no idea why they call themselves motorized riflemen, if there is no sign of any motorized rifles there,” the Fighterbomber Telegram channel posted this week, according to Newsweek. The regiment has been known to “beg other units for anything more serious than a Kalashnikov.”

Similar to the U.S. Space Force?

Though described as Space Troops, and certainly not a frontline combat unit, the regiment could be seen as comparable to the United States Space Force, the sixth and newest branch of the U.S. military—in that the personnel oversees space operations.

Yet, it was just last week that the Department of the Air Force announced that U.S. airmen and Guardians (the term for Space Force uniformed personnel) would resume weapons practice with M4 carbines. It remains unlikely that the Space Force Guardians would be deployed into combat like the Russian Space Troops, but that may just highlight how serious the situation is for the Kremlin in Kursk at the moment.

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.

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.