For decades, the US has maintained an unassailable lead in aircraft carriers.

The US currently operates 11 flattops, all of them nuclear-powered. China is a distant second with three aircraft carriers, none of them nuclear-powered.

The US operates roughly half of the world’s true aircraft carriers. However, for years, the security analysts in Washington have been wargaming for a nightmarish scenario.

What if the US’s carrier fleet is not a force multiplier, but a strategic vulnerability? Or, to put it another way, can Beijing sink the US Navy’s aircraft carriers?

These questions have assumed significance ever since China claimed to have developed anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs), the DF‑21D and DF‑26B, also known as “carrier-killers.”

These ASBMs are part of China’s broader A2/AD (Anti-Access and Area Denial) architecture intended to push U.S. carrier strike groups (CSGs) beyond the first island chain.

In the last decade, several wargames, research studies, think‑tank reports, and opinion columns have wondered whether carriers are becoming obsolete, the new battleships – large, complex, and expensive systems – but vulnerable to cheap, long‑range missiles.

But a new Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) research paper has flipped the script: if US carriers are vulnerable, why can’t Washington also hold China’s new carriers at risk?

Are Aircraft Carriers Becoming Obsolete? 

In 2023, the South China Morning Post reported that researchers at North University of China claimed that it took an average of only 24 hypersonic missiles to sink the USS Gerald R. Ford and its five escort ships across 20 simulated battles.

From an economic point of view, that would imply that for every $1 China spends on new classes of low-cost hypersonic missiles, it could destroy $10,858.59 worth of U.S. capital ships.

A British study published in 2024 found that their carriers – the HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales – were similarly at risk.

Not just think tanks, even senior US government figures have expressed similar fears.

US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said in a recent podcast interview: In wargames against China, ‘We lose every time.”

The secretary went further, linking US defeat to the vulnerability of aircraft carriers: “We know what our real capability [is]…If our whole power projection platform is aircraft carriers and the ability to project power that way strategically around the globe . . . and if 15 hypersonic missiles can take out our 10 aircraft carriers in the first 20 minutes of a conflict, what
does that look like?”

But if US carriers are so vulnerable, why can’t Washington bring China’s expanding carrier fleet within its firing range?

China’s Expanding Carrier Fleet

After the US, China has the world’s second-largest carrier fleet.

Beijing currently operates a fleet of three aircraft carriers. China launched its third carrier, Fujian (Type 003), an 80,000‑ton supercarrier capable of launching a mix of over 50 fourth- and fifth-generation fighters, and key enablers such as KJ-600 airborne early warning and control aircraft.

China also launched Sichuan (Type 076), a 40,000‑ton amphibious assault ship also suspected of serving as a drone carrier capable of using an electromagnetic (EM) catapult to launch GJ-11 stealth unmanned combat aircraft.

A fourth carrier (Type 004) is undergoing construction. Satellite imagery suggests that this will likely be China’s largest and first nuclear-powered carrier.

China plans to construct six additional aircraft carriers by 2035, bringing its total carrier force up to nine, according to the Department of War (DOW).

China’s growing carrier fleet is a force multiplier; however, it could also become a strategic vulnerability.

The Vulnerability of the US Aircraft Carriers

China recognized early that the US ability to project force globally rests on its fleet of 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. It also recognized that it would be decades before it could match Washington in carrier fleet strength.

Therefore, China focused its energy on developing weapons systems that could negate the US advantage and developed anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs).

Recent pieces have argued that Chinese hypersonic and ballistic missiles, supported by an increasingly sophisticated space‑ and AI‑enabled “kill web,” could force US and allied carriers so far offshore that their air wings become operationally irrelevant.

For example, the YJ-21 is a Chinese air-launched medium-range ballistic missile specifically designed to strike high-value assets such as carriers. This missile can be launched from fighters and unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) and uses redundant guidance systems that make it difficult to jam; a variant can be fired from Type 055 destroyers, though this may have been the YJ-20.

Combined with older missiles such as the DF-26, colloquially known as “carrier-killers” with a range of up to around 4,000 kilometers (km), and the DF-17, which has a shorter range of up to around 2,500 km but is designed to strike high-value assets and evade US interceptors (e.g., THAAD and Patriot), China has an arsenal of systems capable of hypersonic speeds that can hold carriers at risk up to 2,500 miles away.

However, the current discussion in Washington often frames carriers as unique to the United States and uniquely vulnerable, while underplaying the fact that China is now building its own large-deck, network‑enabled capital ships that are at least as targetable as the U.S. ships China aims to threaten.

How the U.S. Can Make China’s Carriers Vulnerable?

According to the CSIS paper, Washington could follow a five-pronged strategy to make China’s growing carrier fleet vulnerable.

(1) Subsurface ambush operations: China’s Achilles’ heel at sea remains anti‑submarine warfare (ASW).

“Despite various improvements, PLAN surface ASW, fixed‑wing ASW, and undersea sensing are still patchy compared with U.S. and Japanese capabilities, particularly in noisy littorals and chokepoints,” it said.

A cost‑effective way to threaten China’s carriers is through a layered subsurface screen built around the following assets:

■  U.S. nuclear attack submarines (SSNs) operating at range.

■  Allied diesel-electric submarines from Australia, Japan, South Korea, and potentially the Philippines, including submarines equipped with air-independent propulsion where available.

■  Shared undersea sensing networks and common heavyweight torpedoes, enabling coordinated ambush of PLAN carrier groups in transit corridors rather than near the Chinese coast.

■  Shared unmanned undersea vehicles (UUVs) capable of both conducting intelligence collection and limited strike missions against PLAN ships.

The key is to turn the “undersea domain into a continuous threat envelope that forces Beijing to invest heavily in escorts, ASW aviation, and fixed sensors simply to move carriers out of its home waters.”

Further, this approach also leverages existing areas of production and operational excellence from various U.S. allies, making implementation faster and cheaper than more novel approaches.

(2) Land-based maritime strike networks: China’s A2/AD system is, in part, a land‑based missile problem. The United States and its regional partners can mirror that logic by building a distributed, multinational anti‑ship missile network on land from Japan through the Philippines and, where politically feasible, into the South Pacific and even around key maritime terrain globally, including the following:

■  U.S. Marine Corps and Army units fielding Navy-Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System (NMESIS) missile systems, Mid‑Range Capability (i.e., Typhon batteries), and Precision Strike Missiles (PrSMs) adapted to strike ships and a host of information warfare systems (e.g., cyber, space, electronic warfare, and inform/influence activities) stationed as a
littoral rotational force.

■  Australian, Japanese, and potentially Philippine coastal missile batteries (e.g., upgraded Type 12, BrahMos, and naval strike missiles) integrated into common fire control and ISR architectures.

■  Pre‑negotiated access, dispersal sites, and logistics arrangements to ensure these units can survive Chinese Air Force and Rocket Force (PLAAF/PLARF) strikes and continue to generate maritime fires.

Such a network can threaten PLAN carriers during deployment, not just at the point of conflict.

Moreover, “the mere expectation that upon entering the Philippine Sea, carriers such as the Fujian or Sichuan will face dense, land‑based anti‑ship fires backed by allied ISR raises the perceived risk of using them as front‑line tools of coercion.”

(3) Long-range air and space-enabled fires: The United States and its allies can conduct long-range strikes using a mix of bombers, fighters, and maritime patrol aircraft:

■  U.S. Air Force bombers and Navy aircraft armed with anti-ship missiles, such as LRASM and future hypersonic anti-ship weapons, connected to a complex battle network that both supports the attack and degrades enemy sensors.

■  Allied F‑35 fleets (from Australia, Japan, and South Korea) using low‑observable sensors to contribute to the maritime picture and deliver their own long‑range anti‑ship munitions.

■  A mix of kinetic and non-kinetic attack vectors with a conscious emphasis on mission kills, specifically by degrading flight‑deck operations, destroying aviation fuel and ordnance handling, or disabling key escorts and logistics ships supporting the carrier, rather than only aiming for catastrophic hull loss.

This approach is particularly suited to large military powers such as the United States but can be partially adopted by states with smaller budgets by investing in a limited number of fifth‑generation or advanced fourth‑generation aircraft plus modern anti‑ship missiles.

(4) Cyber-electromagnetic disruption: PLAN CSGs are nodes within a broader battle network. Their combat value depends on complex links to off‑board ISR, satellite navigation, command networks, and electromagnetic attack and defense platforms.

By disrupting the carriers’ connections to this broader network, the United States and its allies can deny the PLAN access to the enablers that make its forces more combat-capable.

Rather than treating ships solely as physical targets, U.S. and allied planners should prioritize EM and cyber operations.

(5) Unmanned swarm and port-denial campaigns: The Ukraine war has shown how even a state with a modest navy can use unmanned surface vessels (USVs), unmanned aerial vehicles, and shore‑based missiles to attrite a larger fleet.

Ukraine has successfully forced Russia to pull major units out of Sevastopol and turned the Black Sea into a contested battlespace.

While the terrain of the Pacific is not identical to the Black Sea, a similar logic can be applied to PLAN carriers, especially in the first island chain.

Swarms of relatively low‑cost USVs and loitering munitions can attack ships in port, logistic hubs, and fixed defenses, driving carriers to relocate to more distant, less convenient bases.

The central idea is to make a carrier’s routine employment around Taiwan, the South China Sea, or beyond the first island chain appear prohibitively risky.

By following these steps, the U.S. and its allies could blunt the advantage of China’s growing carrier fleet.

While China has for years invested in AA/AD vectors to make the U.S. carriers vulnerable, Washington could flip the script and make Beijing’s own carriers equally vulnerable.

• Sumit Ahlawat has over a decade of experience in news media. He has worked with Press Trust of India, Times Now, Zee  News, Economic Times, and Microsoft News. He holds a Master’s Degree in International Media and Modern History from the University of Sheffield, UK. 
• He can be reached at ahlawat.sumit85 (at) gmail.com

The post U.S. vs China’s Aircraft Carriers: New Report Shows How America Can Turn the Tables on “World’s Largest” Navy appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

Ukraine is staring down a new and deeply unsettling threat: a possible North Korean missile unit deployment to western Russia amid a lack of anti-ballistic interceptors in its arsenal. 

North Korea is preparing to deploy a missile unit to western Russia, according to a Ukrainian military intelligence official, marking a significant escalation in the conflict.

Andrii Cherniak of Ukraine’s Main Directorate of Intelligence (GUR) told Reuters that the deployment involves Russia’s 112th Guards Missile Brigade and about 90 North Korean personnel based in the Voronezh region, which borders Ukraine.

While the exact composition of missiles will be finalized during senior-level talks next month, Pyongyang has already sent a new batch of 40 KN-23 and KN-24 missiles and personnel ​to Russia, the GUR official claimed.

Further, he noted that the unit could eventually field up to 120 short-range ballistic missiles along with six launchers.

An informed source reportedly told Reuters that the United States was aware of the plan but did not provide further details.

Designed to evade missile defenses by flying on a lower, “depressed” trajectory that reduces radar detection, the KN-23—resembling the Russian Iskander—has a range of 800-900 kilometers.

Previous reports indicated that Moscow had allegedly modified the missile to enhance its accuracy.

Meanwhile, the KN-24 has a comparatively shorter range of about 410 kilometers and employs a quasi-ballistic or depressed trajectory with possible in-flight maneuvers, making it harder to intercept.

GUR’s claims could not be officially verified, and the Pentagon has not made a statement acknowledging any such intelligence reports. Nevertheless, the GUR’s assessment comes days after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced Russia used a North Korean missile for a strike on July 30, which killed five members of a family.

Although Russia has previously used North Korean ballistic missiles, the Ukrainian reports hinted that Moscow might have received a fresh supply.

Earlier, Pyongyang had reportedly delivered more than 100 short-range ballistic missiles (primarily KN-23 and KN-24), millions of artillery shells, over 120 long-range self-propelled artillery systems, and more than 120 multiple rocket launch systems. Additionally, it had deployed an estimated 11,000 troops for the Ukraine war, of whom approximately 2,300 were killed in combat.

While the US and NATO are on the ground in Ukraine, studying the realities of modern warfare and using those lessons to develop the next generation of military technology, North Korea, Iran, and China are also closely observing the conflict to refine their own weapons and military doctrines.

Why is Ukraine Alarmed

Russia has been exploiting gaps in Ukraine’s air defenses to launch frequent ballistic and hypersonic missile strikes.

On August 4, Russia conducted a major overnight attack with drones and ballistic missiles that killed 17 people. Ukrainian forces intercepted 98 of 115 drones but failed to shoot down even a single ballistic missile, as recently reported by the EurAsian Times

Having run out of Patriot interceptors, which are the only reliable defense against ballistic missiles, Ukraine is practically left defenseless.

Ukraine has been pleading with its allies to supply more Patriot batteries and interceptors, which remain among the few weapons capable of countering ballistic missile threats such as North Korea’s KN-23 and KN-24 and Russia’s Iskander.

“Ballistic missile interceptors could have saved the lives of those killed today,” Zelenskyy wrote on social media after the August 4 strike. “It is very important that our partners understand that delays in supplying them, or an unwillingness to provide anti-ballistic systems, lead directly to such horrific casualties and destruction.”

Notably, the US has been sending Patriot missiles to Ukraine, among other weapons and munitions—including through the Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List (PURL), a new system wherein NATO nations pay for the transfer of weapons from the US. However, recent reports suggest that the US has expended a massive chunk of its own Patriot interceptors in the Ukraine war, eroding any space to make fresh deliveries to Kyiv.

Meanwhile, other NATO allies remain wary of aiding Ukraine with Patriots amid heightened security threats and long production timelines.

The Patriot shortage has allowed Moscow to use ballistic missiles with near impunity, creating a dangerous “window of vulnerability” for Ukraine that will only expand with North Korea’s deployment. In fact, experts fear that the situation will get increasingly challenging as winter approaches, which is when Russia intensifies attacks on Ukraine’s power grids.

The expanding Russia-North Korea partnership also carries broader geopolitical implications for Ukraine after nearly five years of war.

“Kyiv is rattled not because North Korean missiles are more advanced than Russia’s Iskander, but because they signal a deeper, more dangerous geopolitical alignment—and their sheer volume and indiscriminate use are overwhelming Ukraine’s already strained defenses. This isn’t just about weapons—it’s about the normalization of new military collaboration and geopolitical alignment. Russia’s use of North Korean missiles also suggests Pyongyang has replenished Moscow’s arsenal, enabling intensified bombardments as Russia seeks to break Ukrainian morale. For Kyiv, each KN-23/24 impact is both a physical and symbolic blow,” Air Marshal G.S. Bedi (retd) told the EurAsian Times.

Notably, North Korea’s short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs) are believed to be less accurate compared to their Russian counterparts. A previous Ukrainian state prosecutor’s report stated that about half of the KN-23s launched by Russia between late December 2023 and late February 2024 veered off course and sometimes exploded midair.

Moreover, strikes launched using these missiles have caused large-scale civilian casualties.

Nonetheless, the deployment of North Korean missiles will give Russia what it needs to overwhelm and batter Ukraine: volume.

This allows Moscow to reserve more precise systems such as the Iskander for high-value targets while using KN-23 and KN-24 missiles against population centers and infrastructure to increase pressure on Kyiv.

Interestingly, during a meeting of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy reportedly announced that his country will destroy Russian missile launchers to reduce attacks on Ukrainian cities.

“Our military knows they must destroy the enemy’s launchers to reduce strikes on Ukraine, its critical infrastructure, and civilians. They are working on this and will continue to do so,” Zelenskyy said.

• Contact the author at sakshi.tiwari13 (at) outlook.com
• Follow EurAsian Times on Google News

The post North Korea’s Missiles Are Moving West — 120 of Them May Head Toward Ukraine Amid Kyiv’s Plea For Help appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

Days after SpaceX’s Flight 13, the company is actively recovering Ship 40, the upper stage of its Starship vehicle, from the Indian Ocean.

SpaceX completed the test flight of its Starship megarocket on July 24, 2026, following an aborted launch attempt the previous week in which several Super Heavy engines failed to ignite. The test flight—Flight 13—achieved several key milestones before concluding with a controlled splashdown of the upper Starship spacecraft in the Indian Ocean.

After splashdown, Ship 40 has remained afloat for days, as confirmed through satellite imagery, including Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR). 

Notably, SpaceX has been working to bring the upper spaceship back for a controlled landing after flight, eventually recovering and quickly reusing the vehicles, which may significantly reduce launch costs. However, for it to be reused, the ship must survive high-speed atmospheric reentry, flip from a belly-first attitude to a vertical landing orientation, and then perform a precise, powered landing burn. Reliable performance of these steps is essential for catching the vehicle with the launch tower’s mechanical arms, which is the planned path to rapid reuse and dramatically lower costs.

Interestingly, SpaceX had no plans to recover Ship 40. The vehicle, however, successfully completed all of the above steps and achieved an unusually soft splashdown.

SpaceX spokesperson Dan Huot stated that Ship 40 demonstrated significant improvement over its predecessors by keeping its engines operating, maintaining control during aggressive reentry, and achieving its softest splashdown to date at the target landing site. Huot described the outcome as a “dream scenario” during the flight livestream.

The landing was soft enough that, unlike earlier prototypes, Ship 40 remained largely intact and afloat rather than sinking or breaking apart. In fact, the post-flight review conducted by SpaceX apparently indicated the landing position and control were precise enough that the tower arms could have theoretically caught it.

New satellite images of Ship 40 just dropped

Story with w/ @ThomasBordeaux7 https://t.co/XvVZz85NLp pic.twitter.com/lcXdgxRJms

— Jackie Wattles (@jackiewattles) August 3, 2026

Initially, a SpaceX recovery ship, named Go Australis, was stationed near the vehicle. However, the effort was joined by two Norwegian tugboats, Normand Ranger and Skimmer Tide, after Musk announced that the company would attempt recovery.

The recovery effort was seen in satellite images from the Colorado-based geospatial intelligence firm Vantor, which showed a small boat positioned near the Starship with a line fastened to its nose, as reported by CNN. MarineTraffic data on August 3 indicated Skimmer Tide and Normand Ranger moving at roughly one knot while broadcasting restricted maneuverability, while Go Australis was en route to Australia on its own.

More recent AIS data as of August 4 confirm that Normand Ranger has Ship 40 under tow (stern-to-aft) with flotation aids fitted near the base to keep the engines clearer of the water, at the time of writing this report.

SpaceX Wants Reusable Upper Spacecraft

SpaceX’s primary ambition for a reusable upper stage is embodied in Starship, the second stage of the Starship/Super Heavy system.

Unlike Falcon 9, where only the first-stage booster is routinely reused and the second stage is expendable, Starship is designed from the outset as a fully reusable orbital vehicle that can serve as a spacecraft for crew, cargo, tanker, and planetary landing roles.

The company’s declared objective is airline-like operations, which should ideally be measured in hours rather than days or weeks. These operations include launch, land, or catch, minimal inspection, refuel, and refly. In fact, Musk has described a long-term vision of flights more than once per hour, with costs potentially falling to a few million dollars, or lower, per flight once rapid full reusability and local propellant production are achieved.

Some of the challenges in achieving this center around a fully reusable orbital heat shield that survives multiple flights with little or no tile replacement, high-cycle engine reliability without significant refurbishment, and precise, reliable Ship catches after orbital reentry.

The company has indicated that solving these problems would enable massive Starlink deployments, large space telescopes, a lunar base, and Mars cargo or crew missions via orbital refueling with tanker Ships. A full reusability of the upper stage or spacecraft is presented as the critical breakthrough for making life multiplanetary.

It is pertinent to note that SpaceX has deliberately flown largely the same suborbital trajectory on successive tests that essentially includes launch from Starbase, hot-stage separation, booster return (initially soft splashdown, later tower-catch attempts), Ship continuing on a high-energy arc, payload or deployment tests, in-space engine relight(s), controlled reentry over the Indian Ocean, and targeted soft splashdown.

This consistent profile allows rapid iteration on the same failure modes and performance envelopes while collecting comparable data.

An important milestone in SpaceX’s efforts to recover and refly every component of the rocket was reached in 2024 when the company successfully guided the Super Heavy rocket booster to a safe landing in the enormous metal arms of its launch tower. However, two Starship spacecraft exploded near islands off the coast of Florida in 2025.

The campaign’s deliberate repetition of the same suborbital path has allowed SpaceX to treat each flight as a focused engineering experiment rather than a one-off demonstration. 

In line with the comprehensive effort, SpaceX has worked hard to examine Ship 40 at every stage of its journey to and from space.

In fact, it went so far as to postpone liftoff to ensure the weather was clear enough to capture high-resolution images of the spacecraft during launch.

SpaceX has been focusing on the vehicle’s heat shield, a layer of hexagon-shaped ceramic tiles intended to protect Starship from the intense heat spacecraft encounter as they reenter Earth’s atmosphere after reaching orbital velocities exceeding 17,500 miles per hour.  For now, while Musk has acknowledged that the heat shield’s performance has improved, SpaceX still faces significant engineering challenges in determining how to preserve the vehicle undamaged and ready for launch quickly.

No rocket currently in service has an upper stage that can be quickly reused. Following Flight 13’s success, Musk indicated that SpaceX may attempt to return a Starship to dry land or catch it with the tower on a future flight, contingent on data review. The date of the next flight has not been announced.

Even after SpaceX masters the recovery of the upper ship, additional challenges lie ahead, including figuring out how to refuel the vehicle while it sits in orbit. But, for now, things seem to be working out for Elon Musk and his reusable launch system program.

• Contact the author at sakshi.tiwari13 (at) outlook.com
• Follow EurAsian Times on Google News

The post Elon Musk’s SpaceX Racing to Recover Intact Ship 40 from Indian Ocean After Softest Splashdown Yet appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

China’s state broadcaster recently released the first footage showing multiple DF-17 hypersonic missiles in a single frame, in what appears to be a deliberate power-projection message. The display comes at a time when hypersonic weapons have proven their lethality and ability to penetrate air defenses in the Ukraine and Iran wars.

On August 3, state-owned CCTV aired video from the PLA documentary series Zhìshèng (“Victory”) featuring at least six DF-17 transporter-erector-launchers (TELs) of the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force (PLARF) together.

Military affairs expert Zhang Junshe told the Global Times that the display indicates the system has been mass-deployed and is reliably placed on combat duty.

Zhang emphasized that the DF-17 is a vital weapon that can alter the rules of modern air defense warfare, as it can precisely hit adversary forward air defense installations and strategic command targets by leveraging its hypersonic penetration advantage.

Typically, hypersonic weapons are very hard to intercept by conventional missile defense systems due to two main reasons: 1) these weapons travel faster than Mach 5, or five times the speed of sound, equivalent to approximately 100 kilometers (60 miles) per minute; 2) these are highly maneuverable weapons that follow an unpredictable trajectory.

Only a few countries have developed and combat-deployed hypersonic weapons, including China, Russia, and sanctioned countries like Iran and North Korea.

Of these, both Russia and Iran have used these weapons in combat with Ukraine and the United States, respectively.

On its part, Ukraine has intercepted some Russian Kinzhal hypersonic missiles with Patriot batteries.

However, these hypersonic missiles have been wreaking havoc on Ukrainian cities in recent weeks, as earlier reported by the EurAsian Times. Moscow purportedly exploits a gap in its air defense coverage and launches Kinzhal and Tsirkon hypersonic missiles to cause devastation in the embattled country. Additionally, Moscow has struck Ukraine with the Oreshnik hypersonic missile, which Ukraine has been unable to shoot down so far.

Meanwhile, Iran claimed to have fired hypersonic missiles (Fattah-class) on Israeli cities and US military bases across the Middle East during the hostilities earlier this year.

However, independent verification of claimed terminal speeds, maneuver performance, and interception rates remains limited. Previous video footage from Tel Aviv and other Israeli cities showed Iranian missiles dodging as many as 10 interceptor missiles and hitting their targets at hypersonic speeds.

Notably, the latest footage comes more than a month after CCTV published footage of a DF-17 hypersonic glide vehicle missile launch in June 2026. At the time, analysts noted that China was sending a deterrence message by emphasizing its strike capability to the United States, particularly amid tensions in the Taiwan Strait, the First Island Chain, and the South China Sea.

The same argument may apply to the latest footage, particularly since the DF-17 is the world’s first medium-range missile to field a hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV).

China has amassed a variety of deadly hypersonic missiles, including the DF-17, DF-27, YJ-21, and YJ-20. These weapons are part of the formidable Chinese A2/AD (Anti-Access/Area Denial) network along its coastline.

Chinese experts believe that even the most advanced missile defenses in the US, including the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Air Defense) and PAC-3 Patriot, are not effective against hypersonic weapons.

“Existing US missile defenses can theoretically intercept some hypersonic weapons in their final stage, but high speed, maneuverability, and stealth make it very difficult,” read a previous Chinese paper titled “Tactical Missile Technology” on the ability of US missile defense systems to intercept hypersonic weapons.

The US and allied forces are developing countermeasures, including improved sensors, the Glide Phase Interceptor, SM-6 variants, and other technologies, but substantial challenges remain in tracking and engaging maneuvering hypersonic vehicles at scale for now.

Chinese experts have noted that the DF-17 is a potent strategic deterrent because it is a conventional, medium-range missile capable of reaching important targets in the first island chain—stretching from the Japanese archipelago through Taiwan to the Philippines—including strategic sites in Japan and other areas.

Chinese experts have previously noted that the missile may reach as far as parts of the Second Island Chain, extending from Japan through Guam, Micronesia, and Palau. They believe that coordinated multi-vehicle salvo launches may play a crucial role in both launch site security and strike effectiveness—compounding the threats faced by the US military forces in the Indo-Pacific region.

DF-17’s Mass Deployment

The DF-17 is China’s first operational road-mobile medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) equipped with a hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV).

With a range of 1,800–2,500 kilometers, it is Beijing’s most operationally mature hypersonic strike system and is widely regarded as capable of penetrating nearly any missile defense network worldwide.

Like ICBMs, hypersonic glide weapons are launched by rockets high into the atmosphere. However, unlike ICBMs, whose warheads rely primarily on gravity once they begin their descent, hypersonic glide weapons dive back toward Earth sooner, then flatten their flight path. They make continuous course corrections to stay on target while traveling at speeds up to 12 times the speed of sound, using onboard navigation systems, making them much harder to detect by the adversary and allowing them to suppress enemy missile defenses at an early stage, clearing the way for follow-on strikes.

The DF-17 made its public debut in October 2019 at a military parade that marked the 70th anniversary of Communist Party rule in China.

In 2021, the PLA conducted its first known hypersonic test involving the DF-17 glide vehicle, rattling the United States. Later, the Pentagon published the China’s Military Power 2022 report, referring to the DF-17 as a critical threat in the Western Pacific.

“The DF-17 passed several tests successfully and is deployed operationally. While the DF-17 is primarily a conventional platform, it may be equipped with nuclear warheads,” the report added.

Zhang pointed out that the DF-17 can avoid adversary targeting and reconnaissance because it does not depend on fixed launch silos.

Moreover, DF-17’s powerful anti-jamming and precision strike capabilities greatly increase its battlefield survivability and make it well-suited for a variety of complex field combat scenarios, as it is difficult for adversary satellites to detect its operational patterns.

“In addition to a longer vehicle body and more wheels [of the TEL], the biggest change in the DF-17 is the shape of the missile itself. Unlike the cone-shaped warhead we are familiar with from past models, the DF-17’s warhead has undergone significant changes and now features four wings and a tail fin,” Gong Chunyu, a training staff officer from the DF-17 conventional missile formation, was quoted as saying by CCTV earlier. 

“This design reflects a more scientific and advanced concept, with the missile capable of flexible and varied flight trajectories and greatly enhanced penetration capabilities,” he added.

It may be noted that China’s public releases of multiple TELs in formation and field launches demonstrate that the system is no longer experimental or small-scale, and it signifies distributed, mobile, ready forces that could hunt US-based targets quickly.

The missile’s range and penetration capability are repeatedly linked to targets in the western Pacific. Analysts interpret this as reinforcing China’s ability to hold at risk U.S. and allied bases, airfields, command nodes, and surface ships in a Taiwan or regional contingency—raising the cost of a US intervention.

• Contact the author at sakshi.tiwari13 (at) outlook.com
• Follow EurAsian Times on Google News

The post China ‘Mass Deploys’ DF-17 Hypersonic Missiles as Iran & Russia Have Shown They’re Hard to Intercept appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

The United States and South Korea have joined hands to locate the wreckage of two World War-era aircraft that crashed into the sea more than seven decades ago, during the height of the Korean War.

The two allies began a combined underwater excavation project on August 3 in waters off South Korea’s eastern coast in an effort to locate the wreckage of American aircraft that went down during the 1950–53 Korean War, Seoul’s Ministry of Defense (MoD) stated.

The effort, which involves the US Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency (DPAA) and the ministry’s Agency for KIA Recovery & Identification, will be carried out in Gangneung and Yangyang in Gangwon until August 28.

The MoD noted that about 40 people would be sent for the project, including members of the Korean Navy’s First Fleet and the Air Force’s 18th Fighter Wing, as well as American underwater planners and divers.

The divers will try locating the wreckage of a US F4U Corsair fighter that reportedly crashed in waters off Yangyang County in February 1952 while escorting another damaged attack aircraft.

Following this, the research team will focus on recovering the wreckage of the Curtiss C-46 Commando, a US military transport aircraft that crashed twice in the Gangneung area in October and November of 1952, as reported by Yonhap News Agency.

In the first instance, the plane crash left 17 people missing, while in the November incident, two people were found dead and seven were reported missing.

It is noteworthy that the F4U Corsair played a major role as a fighter-bomber and close air support (CAS) aircraft for the US Navy and Marine Corps during the Korean War, despite being a piston-engine design in the early jet age. Corsairs scored a modest number of aerial victories—around 10 total credited to Navy and Marine pilots—according to some accounts. However, the Corsairs also unfortunately suffered significant losses, primarily due to intense anti-aircraft fire at low altitude during their CAS role.

According to some sources, a F4U-4B Corsair of the Fighter Squadron 53 crashed into the sea on 21 February, 1952 while escorting a flak-damaged US aircraft toward Sokcho-ri Airfield (K-50). The pilot was purportedly flying through a snowstorm, which caused disorientation, and the aircraft suddenly swerved and crashed into the sea, killing the pilot.

Separately, the Curtiss C-46 Commando—a twin-engine, heavy-lift cargo and troop carrier that had already proven itself in World War II—was extensively used to transport men and materiel during the Korean War.

Although the reports did not identify the exact aircraft the researchers are looking for, some sources note that a C-46D-10-CU (serial 44-77538) crashed into the sea a few kilometers offshore on October 16, 1952, shortly after takeoff from Kangnung (K-18) en route to Pohang. Meanwhile, a second C-46D-15-CU (serial 44-78114) crashed approximately 200 yards past the end of the runway on November 15, 1952, after an engine failure during a courier flight on the same route.

The EurAsian Times, however, could not verify the exact aircraft the US and South Korean teams are searching for or the cause of their crashes.

The combined survey team will use maritime unmanned systems and underwater detection equipment to carry out the search. Once potential sites are identified, divers or remote sensing technology will examine the locations, the Korean media reported.

The initiative to find the old relics is significant but not rare.  Several archaic World War II aircraft, aircraft carriers, and ship wrecks lost in combat have been recovered by US entities, including the US Navy, the DPAA, Project Recover, and private American recovery groups.  These efforts often focus on accounting for missing aircrew, in line with the US military’s motto—“Leave no one behind.”  However, some recoveries are meant for historical preservation or museum restoration. 

Discoveries In Recent Years

Earlier this year, a team of maritime and naval conservation organizations embarked on a quest to recover a World War II torpedo bomber—TBD-1 Devastator— from the sea floor, where it has rested for more than 80 years.

The US Naval History and Heritage Command partnered with the Air and Sea Heritage Foundation to recover the aircraft that ditched off Jaluit Atoll in the Marshall Islands in February 1942 from the USS Yorktown aircraft carrier. 

Similarly, a B-17 Flying Fortress that went down in the Baltic Sea in 1943 during intense fighting against the Nazis was located and recovered by researchers from Texas A&M University near Denmark in February 2026. 

In 2017, Project Recover located the debris of the B-24 bomber that was shot down by anti-aircraft fire in 1944 near Hansa Bay, Papua New Guinea. In 2023, DPAA conducted its deepest underwater recovery mission to date, with elite US Navy divers descending about 200 feet underwater in a pressurized bell. They recovered some remains, dog tags, a bombardier’s ring, and other items, according to reports.

In 2019, researchers managed to locate the final resting place of the USS Hornet, the World War II aircraft carrier sunk in a 1942 battle with the Japanese Navy. The research ship R/V Petrel reportedly discovered the carrier in waters off the Solomon Islands at a depth of about 17,500 feet. The carrier was seen lying upright and almost undamaged on the deep and barren ocean below in overhead sonar photos

In 2018, a search team headed by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen discovered wreckage from the USS Lexington, an aircraft carrier that sank during World War II, in the Coral Sea. The R/V Petrel, the team’s research vessel, discovered the wreckage approximately 800 kilometers off the eastern coast of Australia, at a depth of 3,000 meters.

More recently, the US  managed to find the wreckage of a civilian aircraft, Pan Am “Clipper Endeavor”, which mysteriously crashed in Puerto Rico in 1952, killing 52 people. The operation was led by the Air/Sea Heritage Foundation, in partnership with others, including Discovery Channel’s “Expedition Unknown.” 

It is worth noting that these are just a few of many notable discoveries that the US has made in collaboration with other agencies and partners from sea beds far from its own shores, and do not encapsulate the whole picture of these efforts.

• Contact the author at sakshi.tiwari13 (at) outlook.com
• Follow EurAsian Times on Google News

The post “Leave No One Behind”: U.S. and South Korea Launch Underwater Hunt to Recover Lost American Aircraft appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

 

Ukraine was unable to shoot down any Russian missile during an overnight attack that left 17 people dead in Kyiv and the nearby areas.

The Russian army fired  115 drones and fired 28 missiles, including ballistic missiles, the Ukrainian air force said. President Zelensky urged allies to send more anti-ballistic air defense after the Russian attack.

“Ballistic interceptors are what could have saved the lives of those killed today. It is very important for partners to realize that delays in their deliveries or failure to provide anti-ballistic measures lead to such terrible casualties and destruction,” Zelensky said on social media.

Russia has enormously escalated attacks on Kyiv in recent months, firing salvos of hard-to-intercept ballistic missiles in short blitzes that rock buildings and send booms echoing across the city.

“Ballistic interceptors are what could have saved the lives of those killed today,” Zelensky said, announcing 17 people had been killed. Over 40 people were wounded in the capital and its surrounding areas, local authorities said.

Ukraine shot down 98 of the 115 drones fired by Russia overnight, the air force said. But it was unable to shoot down any of the missiles, preliminary statistics from the air force showed.

Meanwhile, besides urging the US for more Patriot interceptors, Ukraine is now pitching to license-produce Patriot interceptors domestically.

Zelenskyy made the case for the license in an interview with Face the Nation, stating that the US lacks sufficient anti-ballistic missile production capacity, while Russia has been ramping up domestic ballistic missile production.

“I sent a letter to the White House and to the U.S. Congress. I hope they will understand and respond,” the President stated, adding that the slow production could lead to a crisis in different parts of the world.

“60–65 anti-ballistic missiles per month, compared to current challenges, is nothing. It is no secret, and Russia knows this. We need to expand the production. I asked the previous U.S. administration, and I am asking today’s administration to give Ukraine licenses to produce Patriot missiles,” Zelenskyy.

“We can increase the production of Patriot missiles. This will help us. This will help the Middle East and any other country that the United States decides to help. Until we produce a European anti-ballistic system, we will need support from the United States,” he added.

There were about 2,500 Patriot interceptors in the US inventory before Operation Epic Fury was launched, and between 1,060 and 1,430 Patriots were fired during the hostilities, according to a report published by the US-based think tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

However, Trump said the US must be “very careful” about giving Ukraine a license to produce Patriot air defense missiles.

“These weapons are incredible. We have to be very careful about letting somebody build them,” Trump said at the Camp David retreat in response to a question about allowing Ukraine to produce the missiles.

Zelensky met Trump at the White House as Kyiv and Moscow intensify long-range strikes after US-led diplomatic efforts to end the war failed. Zelensky said after the meeting that Trump had agreed to license Patriot production to Ukraine, but the US president only said that “many things were discussed” and “the meeting went very well!”

Meanwhile, the Pentagon signed a landmark seven-year framework agreement with Lockheed Martin earlier this year to more than triple the annual production capacity of PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) interceptors — from roughly 600 per year to 2,000 per year by 2030. In addition, Boeing is reportedly tripling production of the critical active radar seekers for PAC-3 MSE missiles.

However, even increased missile production may not be enough to meet delivery obligations. For instance, the CSIS report posits that the US faces a challenge in delivering Patriots because it needs to replenish its own stockpiles, assist Ukraine in fending off Russian missile attacks, and meet the demands of 17 other nations that have ordered the interceptors.

“Current production of the latest variant—PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE)—is around the baseline rate of 650 interceptors per year, with half the deliveries going to the United States and the rest to allies and partners. The surge annual production rate with existing tooling and facilities is 2,000. Lockheed intends to scale up to this level,” it stated.

The think tank predicts that the US stockpile of Patriot interceptors would return to the pre-war levels only by mid-2029. This may have sparked concern in Ukraine that the depleted stockpiles and less-than-ideal production rate could impact deliveries to the Ukrainian Armed Forces and further embolden Russia.st.

• Contact the author (s) at editor (at) eurasiantimes.com
• Follow EurAsian Times on Google News

 

 

The post Ukraine Fails to Shoot Down Any Russian Missile in Deadly Kyiv Strikes; Zelensky Calls for More Anti-Ballistic Weapons appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

If anything, Indian Defense Minister Rajnath Singh’s call on August 3 for greater “military-civil integration” to create “a robust defense ecosystem to tackle emerging challenges” implies that there is still a structural mismatch between generalist bureaucrats (critically called Babus) and uniformed personnel within the Ministry of Defense (MoD). 

In other words, in India’s higher defense reforms, integration between the military and civil components of the Ministry of Defense (MoD) is being seen as important as greater jointness among the three armed services (army, air force, and navy).

For decades, the relationship between civilian staff and military personnel within the MoD has been described by experts as both a strength and a fault line, particularly at the level of defense management.

Therefore, as India moves toward theatre commands, self-reliance under the “Atmanirbhar Bharat” (Self-reliant India) scheme, and faster procurement of defense components, the question is: how has this synergy worked in retrospect, and what should it look like in the future?

Addressing the 85th Armed Forces Headquarters (AFHQ) Civilian Services Day celebrations in New Delhi on Monday,  Singh emphasised that both the uniformed and civil services cannot proceed along separate paths, adding that, as joint and integrated structures develop, there will be a need for continuity and expertise across all areas – policy, administration, human resource management, financial processes, logistics, and institutional knowledge.

He highlighted the importance of further enhancing structured cross-exposure between civilian and military officers, suggesting joint training programs and developmental assignments for both sides to learn from each other’s experiences.

“Military officers bring operational experience, a command perspective, and an understanding of warfare, while civilian officers contribute through administrative continuity, policy experience, an understanding of government processes, and institutional memory. When these strengths combine, decision-making becomes more informed, balanced, and effective,” stated the Defense Minister.

As things stand today, there are nine major participating groups dealing with India’s defence – three military services, and the non-military six – Department of Defence(DoD), the Department of Military Affairs(DMA), the Department of Defence Production ( DDP), the Department of Defence Research and Development (DDR&D), the Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare (DESW), and Defence Finance.

While these nine groups are — three military services, and the non-military six – inside the MoD, there are three others outside the domain having considerable influence on defense matters – the Ministry of Finance (controlling the defense spending), the Cabinet Secretariat (policy matters that have implications for other ministries) and the Prime Minister’s Office (which can always intervene or arbitrate selectively).

However, we will focus here only on the MoD, particularly on the integration of the military services with the non-military ones.

To begin with, one is reminded of what late Vice Admiral Verghese Koithara had said: each of the major participating groups in Indian defense is known for  “jealously guarding its turf and mistrustful of the others”.

Incidentally, the Admiral was talking of eight groups, because the DMA was a later creation. But the spirit behind his comment remains intact.

It may be noted that the total workforce under the MoD stands at approximately 2.92 million (29.2 lakh) personnel, making it the largest employer in the world. Expenditure on salaries and pensions for both civilian and non-civilian personnel is fully integrated into the official MoD budget.

The total strength encompasses active military personnel, reservists, and defense civilians. Approximately 1.43 million active-duty personnel serving across the Army, Navy, and Air Force are complemented by roughly 1 million reserve personnel.

Approximately 400,000 defense civilians are distributed across administrative services. They come mainly from the Indian Defense Accounts Service, Indian Ordnance Factories Service, Defense Research & Development Organization scientists, and the Armed Forces Headquarters Civil Service, the Defense Accounts Department (DAD), Border Roads Organization (BRO), DRDO, and top bureaucracy.

The apex bureaucratic positions like the Defense Secretary, Secretary (Defense Production), and Secretary (Ex-Servicemen Welfare) are often held by IAS officers.

The last 5 years have seen some important defense reforms in India. For the first time, a serving 4-star General became Secretary in MoD as Chief of Defense Staff. DMA handles procurement, tri-service matters, and jointness. This is said to have broken the wall between the civilian secretariat and the military.

Service HQs have been integrated with the HQ of MoD. Joint Secretaries from the military now sit in the MoD and sign files. This means operational officers are now part of the procurement and policy process.

Before this reform, the MoD was entirely dominated by generalist civilian bureaucrats under the Department of Defense (DoD), led by the Defense Secretary. The Army, Navy, and Air Force headquarters operated merely as “attached offices,” meaning military files had to be routed through junior civilian desk officers for approval.

However, there are still well-documented latent and reported mutual resentment between military and civilian personnel in the MoD, which analysts and scholars refer to as “civil-military dissonance”.

The friction does not stem from opposition to the constitutional principle of political/democratic civilian control, which the military fully accepts. Instead, the resentment focuses on “bureaucratic control,” where career civil servants are perceived to act as a barrier between the uniformed leadership and the political executive.

A primary driver of public friction involves rank parity and protocol equivalence between military officers and civilian cadres. As Admiral Arun Prakash points out, the three Chiefs have been accorded “no locus standi in the structure of the GoI, so much so that the Secretary of the Department of Defense is deemed to represent the three Services in most forums”.

According to the “Government of India Allocation of Business Rules” (AoB Rules) and the “Government of India Transaction of Business Rules” (ToB Rules), the Secretary of DoD (a IAS officer) is allocated the responsibilities of “(a) Defence of India and every part thereof including preparation for defence and all such acts as may be conducive in times of war to its prosecution and after its termination to effective Demobilisation; (b) The Armed Forces of the Union, namely, Army, Navy and Air Force; (c) Integrated Headquarters of the Ministry of Defence comprising of Army Headquarters, Naval Headquarters, Air Headquarters and Defence Staff Headquarters”.

This looks particularly strange as, in terms of protocol, the Defense Secretary ranks at 23 in the order of preference, along with “Army Commanders/ Vice-Chief of the Army Staff or equivalent in other services”. In contrast, a Service Chief of Staff holding the rank of full General or equivalent rank is at number 12.

Even at 16, Officiating Chiefs of Staff holding the rank of Lieutenant General or equivalent rank are higher in protocol than the Defense Secretary.

Similarly, the Military officers are said to have resented the equation of lower-tier civilian administrative posts of Joint Secretary with senior military ranks like Major Generals. It is argued that a Major General has significantly more operational responsibility and seniority (often over 32 years of service) compared to an IAS officer reaching Joint Secretary level in roughly 18 years.

Military officials often point out that allowances, non-functional financial upgrades, and pension structures have favored civilian bureaucracies over the unique hazards of military service. Successive Central Pay Commission awards have frequently triggered military dissatisfaction.

In other words, there is an underlying perception of hierarchical degradation that persists within the armed forces.

Secondly, there are gaps between the military and civilian officials over what is called “Policies vs Operations”. While civilians are accused of lacking operational understanding, the military is accused of not understanding procurement rules. This really leads to delays in equipment purchase.

Perhaps, realizing these deep-seated systemic silos, Defense Minister Singh said on Monday that the military and civilian wings can no longer afford to operate in isolated silos to build an effective national defense ecosystem.

As he underscored, the civilian officials should read  Indian military history, examining it from a civilian perspective, thereby fostering fresh ideas and new perspectives. He called upon the Civilian Services to evolve into the “strategic brain” of India’s defence management architecture by developing a comprehensive understanding of the defence sector, functioning effectively in a joint environment, and continuously enhancing its expertise to face the emerging challenges.

Notably, when one talks of dissonance between the military and civilian officers, it is perhaps more to do with purely civilians like IAS and other central services within the MoD rather than the non-military technical and scientific personnel.

There has been relatively smoother synergy in areas like defense production and infrastructure building. For instance, Defence Public Sector Undertakings like the HAL, BEL, BDL and OFB, which are run with a mix of civilian managers, engineers, scientists and military users, have produced platforms and ammunition like Tejas, Arjun, BrahMos.  succeeded because civilian scientists in DRDO worked with military feedback loops.

Similarly, the BRO, a civilian-led organization with military engineers, has built highly acclaimed critical roads in the country’s northern and north-eastern border (Line of Actual Control) with China.

However, it is with the civilian officials working within the MoD that military officials have some issues, such as policy decisions, pay, and ranks.

But then, it is also to be noted that while services may all agree on their fight against the civilians,  when it comes to “promoting jointness” in military matters, they do not have the same ideas.  There is an intense rivalry amongst them. Although the situation has improved of late,  there are differences over whether the country should have theater commands, and if it will have them, then how those will be operated.

In other words, there are, overall,  challenges in building better “Civil-Military Synergy”. There seem to be merits when some experts argue that National Defense College (NDC) and the College of Defense Management (CDM) could bridge strategic and administrative silos, fostering deeper synergy, mutual understanding, and coordinated policy-making between senior civilian bureaucrats and military leadership.

There are also ideas like extending the DMA model to have military officers in all key procurement and policy wings, and civilian officers in Integrated Theatre Commands. Defense civilians should have tenures in field formations and military officers in  MoD finance and policy.

Another interesting suggestion is to extend the synergy beyond the MoD and involve the private sector, startups, academia and state governments. Of course, in a way this is happening with projects like defence corridors, and through collaboration in the space, cyber and AI  sectors.

Viewed thus, the core challenge to the synergy that the Defense Minister has talked about is removing what is said to be the “Trust Deficit” between the civilian and military wings within the MoD, due to decades of suspicion.

The synergy does not mean the dilution of civilian supremacy at the policy-making level, be it the MoD, or the Union cabinet, or the Parliament.   But it means the military’s voice is heard in policy-making.  The military does not grudge civilian control; it opposes “the bureaucratic control”.

Synergy does not imply that civilians are made into soldiers, or soldiers into ‘babus’. Its goal is to make both into “defense managers”

• Author and veteran journalist Prakash Nanda is Chairman of the Editorial Board of the EurAsian Times and has been commenting on politics, foreign policy, and strategic affairs for nearly three decades. He is a former National Fellow of the Indian Council for Historical Research and a recipient of the Seoul Peace Prize Scholarship.
• CONTACT: prakash.nanda (at) hotmail.com

The post Biggest Weakness Emerges in India’s Military Setup: Rank, Power & Toxic Rift Between “Babus” & Soldiers appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

Her voice is that of a frail, elderly woman, but ousted Bangladesh leader Sheikh Hasina still has the power to incite from exile, vowing to return home despite facing the gallows.

Analysts say her defiance is not a death wish, but a desperate bid to remain politically relevant, claw on to her supporters, and revive an outlawed party which once dominated Bangladesh.

To her enemies, Hasina is evil incarnate — a convicted fugitive sentenced to hang for crimes against humanity over her failed bid to crush the 2024 revolution that toppled her.

The 78-year-old told AFP in July from India that she wanted to return to Bangladesh by the year’s end.

“I may be killed. I may be arrested. I may be sent to prison,” Hasina wrote in an email sent from hiding.

“I am fully aware of my fate. Still, I want to go back because my people are calling me.”

On Wednesday, marking two years since she fled by helicopter to old ally India, she is due to address by telephone a New Delhi event entitled “Sheikh Hasina’s homecoming”.

“Sheikh Hasina’s return is important for the survival of the party — she is still a symbol,” said Mohammad Jalal Uddin Sikder, a political science professor at North South University (NSU) in Dhaka.

One senior member of her Awami League (AL) party said he believed she was genuine in wanting to return.

“She feels obligated because party members are being arrested left and right, despite having no involvement in any crimes,” he said, too fearful himself to speak on record.

“Her return is a way of repaying the party’s loyalty.”

Dhaka’s Prothom Alo newspaper suggested her vow was “part of a strategy to energize party members, build pressure for the lifting of the ban on the party, and reclaim political space”.

But former senior Awami League member Mahmudur Rahman Manna, now a fierce critic of Hasina, dismissed the vow as self-serving.

“There are people in the AL who have some degree of public acceptance. Sheikh Hasina could have given them a little space to help bring the party back after the ban. She didn’t,” he said.

“The idea that she would come back for the sake of the party is absurd.”

Hasina also knows that simply threatening to return will needle Prime Minister Tarique Rahman, who swept February’s elections in which the Awami League was barred, Sikder said.

Political imprisonment has a long history in Bangladesh.

Under Hasina’s rule, Rahman’s mother, former leader Khaleda Zia, spent years in jail in Dhaka on graft charges that her party said were politically motivated.

“The Bangladesh government isn’t ready to accept her, even if she lands in jail directly from India,” Sikder told AFP.

“Her return will create political instability… I doubt the government can handle that.”

‘Ensure Justice’

Not so, says Zahed Ur Rahman, an adviser to Bangladesh’s prime minister.

“We want her back — please return,” he told reporters. “We have written to India. The individual we want to bring back intends to return. We are ready — let her come, and we will ensure justice.”

Hasina refused to attend her trial in Dhaka, where she was found guilty of incitement, ordering killings and failing to prevent atrocities.

Her vow to return comes as Bangladesh and India seek to repair strained ties, with Hasina remaining a persistent point of friction.

Dhaka has repeatedly requested her extradition, while New Delhi has said only that the request is being examined through the legal process.

But relations have improved since Rahman, leader of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, became leader, and India has invited him to a BRICS summit in September.

India’s foreign ministry spokesman Randhir Jaiswal, speaking to reporters on Tuesday, sought to distance New Delhi from Hasina’s “homecoming” speech.

“The government has no involvement whatsoever in it, nor does it endorse any views that may be expressed at the forum,” he said.

But some in Bangladesh see India’s hand in using Hasina’s return threat as leverage.

Mahmudur Rahman, editor of Dhaka’s Amar Desh newspaper, told AFP he saw her threat as part of a power struggle between New Delhi and Dhaka. “Delhi wants to gain the upper hand,” he said.

“India is just playing the ‘Hasina card’ to put pressure on the government.”

By Agence France-Presse

The post The “Hasina Card”: Bangladesh Critics Say India is Using Exiled PM Sheikh Hasina to Pressure Dhaka appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

A month after the collapse of the France–Germany–Spain Future Combat Air System (FCAS) fighter program, the outlook for France’s Rafale F5, the next major upgrade standard of the Dassault Rafale multirole fighter succeeding the F4, has itself grown uncertain.

The French Air and Space Force has indicated it would rather receive additional F4-standard jets sooner than wait for the more advanced F5 variant.

The Chief of Staff of the French Air and Space Force, General Jérôme Bellanger, told senators that his force needs more Rafales well before the fighter’s next standard, the F5, becomes available.

Taking more Rafale F4-standard jets, which Bellanger described as a very capable fighter, would be preferable to waiting for the F5.

While Bellanger did not directly mention the Russia-Ukraine War and fears of the war spreading to Europe and NATO, he did suggest that changed geopolitical circumstances necessitated greater fighter fleet strength sooner.

General Jérôme Bellanger appeared before the Senate foreign affairs, defense and armed forces committee in May, during hearings on the bill updating France’s 2024-2030 military programming law. However, the whole session was held behind closed doors, and transcripts of the meeting were released only in the first week of August.

France’s updated 2024-2030 military programming law, which was adopted by the Senate on July 1, 2026, defers the delivery of 20 Rafale fighter jets from 2031-2032 to 2033-2034, so that the aircraft could be delivered directly to the upgraded F5 standard.

Rafale F5 Standard

France’s planned Rafale F5 standard will be armed with ASN4G hypersonic nuclear missiles and STRATUS RS missiles for suppressing enemy air defenses and for anti-ship warfare, will be powered with a domestically produced, high-thrust T-REX engine, and will feature Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T) with loyal wingman drones, including plans for a stealth combat drone by 2035.

France’s defense procurement agency, the Direction Générale de l’Armement (DGA), notified MBDA on June 2, 2026, about the framework agreement for the implementation and development contract for the ASN4G (Air-Sol Nucléaire de 4ème Génération), the country’s fourth-generation nuclear-armed hypersonic cruise missile.

The DGA has set a target of 2035 for the missile’s induction, adding that it will be carried by the Rafale F5 and integrated into both the French Air and Space Force’s Strategic Air Forces (FAS) and the Navy’s Nuclear Air Force component.

Meanwhile, the M88 T-REX is an advanced higher-thrust military turbofan engine developed in France by Safran Aircraft Engines to power the Dassault Rafale F5 fighter jet. Officially unveiled at the Paris Air Show in June 2025, it provides a 20% power boost over the standard M88 engine.

“F5 variant of Rafale will have more powerful engines, improved survivability and data links, and will be accompanied by an unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) weighing more than 10t,” Dassault Aviation’s chief executive Officer, Eric Trappier, recently said in an interview.

The Rafale F5 standard is targeting initial operational service capability by 2030. However, integration into the French Air Force and Navy could happen around 2033-2034, with integration of ASN4G hypersonic missiles expected only by 2035.

The aircraft combat fleet target, as per the 2024-2030 military programming law, is unchanged at 225 aircraft by 2035: 185 for the French Air and Space Force and 40 for the French Navy.

However, Bellanger told the Senate that he would need the aircraft sooner, even if they’re of the F4 standard.

“I am going to need more aircraft quickly,” Bellanger told the committee. “If we are not in a position to produce the F5 standard before 2033, we will have to choose the F4, which is already a very fine aircraft, unless the operational contracts of the Air and Space Force on the fighter segment are revised.”

Notably, Bellanger is not alone in demanding more F4-standard Rafale jets sooner, instead of waiting for the F5-standard aircraft.

The Senate committee itself has questioned the design to postpone the induction of 20 Rafale jets so that they can be inducted directly in F5-standard.

It cited the tremendous pressure on the Rafale fleet of the French Air Force, the advanced age of the Rafale Marine aircraft, and mounting operational commitments constraining aircraft availability, according to reports.

Warning that the postponement could widen the capability gap at a critical time, the Senate committee said that the decision seems to be motivated more by budgetary considerations than operational choices.

Notably, in June this year, nearly 80% of the French fighter fleet was airborne at the same time for the first time ever.

Bellanger attributed it to Operation Poker, the quarterly Strategic Air Forces nuclear raid exercise, and intensive deployments in the Near and Middle East, where French Rafales were helping defend Gulf countries against Iranian drones and missiles.

French Rafales are also deployed into Eastern Europe as part of the Baltic Air Policing mission.

In June this year, two French Rafales were scrambled from Siauliai Air Base in northern Lithuania and met up with Gripens to jointly intercept a group of six Russian aircraft, including a Su-35.

Lithuania | Interception of 6 aircrafts within the Baltic air space
 
Scramble of two Rafale aircraft of the Baltic Air Policing 71 detachment, based in Šiauliai , in order to escort aircrafts operating in the Baltic responsibility area.
 
  Visual… pic.twitter.com/eDMIBB7xBI

— The Joint Staff – Military operations (@FrenchForces) June 4, 2026

“We are overusing the Rafale,” Bellanger said. “Versatility does not mean ubiquity.”

Another reason for overusing the Rafales is France’s expanding nuclear posture.

Earlier this year, French President Emmanuel Macron unveiled the “forward deterrence” nuclear doctrine, proposing to expand France’s independent nuclear deterrent umbrella across Europe.

However, this “forward deterrence” nuclear doctrine would put additional pressure on the Rafale fleet.

Bellanger said that the larger arsenal announced by President Emmanuel Macron at Île Longue in March would “mechanically” force France to reconsider the number of nuclear-armed Rafale B, the single-seat Rafale C assigned to protect them, and potentially its tanker fleet, which remains capped at 15 A330 MRTTs under the updated law.

This would be a major issue for the next programming law, he said, adding that “many more” aircraft would be needed.

“If we expand the nuclear arsenal, it is not so the weapons can sit in storage,” Bellanger said.

Another issue is the tremendous pressure on Dassault Aviation to deliver on its large Rafale orderbook.

France currently has nearly 165 Rafales in its fleet, 41 in the French Navy, and 124 for the French Air Force.

France has a target of 225 Rafale jets by 2035. So Dassault will have to deliver around 60 more Rafales in the coming years.

However, Dassault also has to deliver 165 Rafales for export customers, including India, Egypt, Qatar, Greece, Croatia, the UAE, Serbia, and Indonesia.

This does not include the 100 aircraft that Ukraine has shown intent to acquire, nor the Indian Air Force’s (IAF) proposal for 114 Rafale aircraft, which is currently under active consideration by India’s Ministry of Defense (MoD). If these two deals go through, the numbers will be even more significant, around 380 for export customers and 60 for France.

For perspective, Dassault delivered 26 Rafale fighter jets in 2025, one more than its target of 25. Of the 26 Rafales, 15 were for export customers and 11 for the French armed forces.

A year ago, the Rafale production rate was 2 aircraft a month (24/year). The same has now been increased to 3 per month (36 per year), with plans to increase to 4 per month (48 per year) to handle a growing backlog of orders.

Meanwhile, France’s existing Rafale fleet is working at full capacity, its Rafale Marine fleet is aging rapidly, and the current geopolitical environment and France’s expanding nuclear posture demand more Rafale aircraft sooner rather than later.

Under these circumstances, Bellanger feels that more F4-standard Rafales sooner is preferable to fewer F5-standard Rafales at a later date.

• Sumit Ahlawat has over a decade of experience in news media. He has worked with Press Trust of India, Times Now, Zee News, Economic Times, and Microsoft News. He holds a Master’s Degree in International Media and Modern History from the University of Sheffield, UK. 
• He can be reached at ahlawat.sumit85 (at) gmail.com

The post Rafale F5 in Doldrums After Collapse of FCAS 6th-Gen Program; French Air Force Pushes for More F4 Jets appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

One of the two US Air Force’s KC-135R Stratotankers that collided mid-air earlier this year during hostilities with Iran is now flying with a replacement vertical stabilizer sourced from another aircraft.

During the height of the clash between the US and Iran, two USAF KC-135 refuellers collided mid-air in friendly airspace in Iraq in a freak accident on March 12, 2026. 

One of these tankers, call sign Zeus 95, was unable to recover from the impact and crashed close to Turaibil on the border between Iraq and Jordan. Meanwhile, the other aircraft managed to steer away and land safely at Ben Gurion Airport in Israel—the hub of USAF’s aerial refueling capability during the conflict—despite sustaining damage to its vertical stabilizer, or tail, as previously reported by the EurAsian Times.

“U.S. Central Command is aware of the loss of a U.S. KC-135 refueling aircraft. The incident occurred in friendly airspace during Operation Epic Fury, and rescue efforts are ongoing. Two aircraft were involved in the incident. One of the aircraft went down in western Iraq, and the second landed safely. This was not due to hostile fire or friendly fire,” the US Central Command (CENTCOM) said in a statement on the day of the tragic accident.

As it turns out, the surviving KC-135 has been repaired by cannibalizing the vertical stabilizer from another aircraft of the type. It was spotted at RAF Mildenhall, UK, during its transit from Israel to the continental US, featuring two distinct serial numbers: although the fuselage itself carried 63-8017, the original serial number, the tail bore 63-8002, as seen in photos shared by UK-based aviation photographer Havoc Aviation.

The U.S. Air Force KC-135 "Stratotanker" that survived the fatal midair collision with another KC-135 over Iraq in March is now en route towards the United Kingdom, likely beginning its return to the United States.

Based on the extensive structural damage sustained in the… pic.twitter.com/1aHcRvPXhg

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) August 2, 2026

According to reports, the donor aircraft had previously served with the 22nd Air Refueling Wing and was last noted at the KC-135 depot at Tinker AFB, Oklahoma, where it appears to have entered retirement or storage. The repair work was apparently carried out at Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport, which recently made headlines for refusing to accommodate additional USAF tankers amid overcrowding.

This repair approach—using a donor component from another airframe—is an established practice for returning heavily damaged aircraft to service.

Earlier, the USAF successfully reassembled two damaged F-35 stealth fighters into one Frankenbird. One of the F-35s was damaged in a catastrophic engine fire at Eglin Air Force Base in 2014, whereas the other was damaged in a nose-gear collapse at Hill Air Force Base in Utah in 2020. The team developed specialized tooling, supports, and other equipment to assemble and connect the aircraft components, as you can read about here.

Similarly, the B-2 Spirit of Georgia, whose wing composite was severely damaged after it suffered a landing-gear collapse at Whiteman AFB in 2021, was later repaired by equipping it with an 8×4-foot donor composite skin panel from Test Article 0998.

Nevertheless, the KC-135 with two different numbers at RAF Mildenhall remains a unique sighting, particularly as the mid-air crash occurred during intense combat and killed six crew members.

Iran’s proxies in Iraq claimed responsibility for the attack as soon as the crash was announced by official channels. 

“In defense of our country’s sovereignty and its airspace violated by the aircraft of the occupation forces, the mujahideen of the Islamic Resistance in Iraq targeted, with appropriate weaponry during the past twenty-four hours, a second aircraft of the KC-135 type belonging to the American occupation in western Iraq. Its crew managed to escape with it after it was hit, and it made an emergency landing at one of the enemy’s airports,” the Islamic Resistance in Iraq (IRI), an umbrella group of Iran-backed Iraqi militias, said in a statement at the time. 

The claim was unsurprisingly amplified by Iranian state media and others, though CENTCOM immediately refuted it. 

USAF Has Lost Many KC-135 Tankers 

The KC-135, introduced nearly 70 years ago, remains the most numerous aerial-refueling aircraft in US service and the backbone of the tanker force. It enables long-range operations by fighters, bombers, and other aircraft of the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and allied nations.

Ben Gurion Airport became a major forward operating location for both KC-135s and newer KC-46 Pegasus tankers before and during Operation Epic Fury. The concentration of refueling and cargo aircraft there grew substantially as the conflict continued past the April ceasefire, at one point reaching 70–75 aircraft and prompting Israeli authorities to press for a drawdown to protect commercial airline operations.

However, for the one KC-135 that the USAF managed to restore, it has lost many others during its high-tempo war with Tehran.

Following the fatal accident on March 12, media sources on March 14 stated that an Iranian missile and drone attack had destroyed five KC-135s while they were on the ground at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia. The refuellers were parked in the open on the apron, making them “sitting ducks” for Iranian missiles and drones, because the base, which is roughly 600 kilometers from Iran, lacked shelters for large planes like the KC-135.

Due to a lack of clear information from CENTCOM, the extent of damage to each tanker remains unknown. 

In fact, the latest arrival of the KC-135 at RAF Mildenhall was the third of a damaged tanker at the British facility, according to reports.

The Mildenhall transit of 63-8017 marks at least the third appearance of a battle-damaged KC-135 at the British base.

On April 12, 2026, KC-135R 59-1444 arrived covered in temporary battle-damage-repair patches before continuing to the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Complex at Tinker AFB. On May 23, 2026, Alaska Air National Guard KC-135R 63-8028 of the 168th Wing arrived with shrapnel repairs on its tail and flaps and without its refueling boom.

The substantial damage to the USAF’s KC-135 aircraft in the Middle East has spurred discussion about the attrition and pressure on the aging tanker fleet during high-tempo operations. As of now, parts cannibalized from boneyard-decommissioned aircraft are essential to the KC-135 fleet.

• Contact the author at sakshi.tiwari13 (at) outlook.com
• Follow EurAsian Times on Google News

The post U.S-Iran War: Freak Mid-Air Crash Survivor KC-135 Stratotanker Flies Back Home with Donor Tail appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

Britain’s far-right, anti-immigration party, Reform UK, has announced that it would stop immigrants from France with the biggest military operation in the English Channel since the Second World War. 

Unveiling the proposal, dubbed “Operation Fortress”, Reform leader Nigel Farage said at a press conference that asylum seekers arriving in small boats from France will be detained and sent back.

“Under a Reform government, within a fortnight, there would be no more boats,” Farage declared, claiming the plan would render Britain’s borders “impenetrable.”

Farage, whose party has recently lost its lead in national opinion polls for the first time in more than a year amid controversies over donations and gifts to senior figures, pointed to the recent migrant surge into the Spanish enclave of Ceuta.

Roughly 60,000 people crossed from Morocco over a few days in late July, with at least 72 deaths from drownings and crushes at the breakwater barriers. “What happened in Ceuta over the weekend shows you just how serious this situation is,” he told reporters.

The Reform UK party has reportedly proposed a joint military command drawing units from the British Army, Royal Navy, Royal Marines, and RAF, supported by a specialized surveillance command to track vessels. The military would stop unauthorized boats, hold those on board, and return them on navy ships. The party said it would introduce emergency legislation “as necessary” to give the command any extra powers required.

“When you think about it, what is the Royal Navy for? If the Royal Navy is not there to protect this country from invasion, then, frankly, I can’t see what its purpose is,” Farage said at the press conference.

Reform UK has said it wants to launch “the largest military operation in the English Channel since World War Two” to stop small boat arrivals.

A Nigel Farage-led government would send the Royal Navy to intercept migrant boats there and return them to France or Belgium.

Labour… pic.twitter.com/TA081Ig5QS

— Channel 4 News (@Channel4News) August 3, 2026

The French Interior Ministry condemned the plan, telling AFP it “would be a violation of French sovereignty as well as a violation of maritime law and international law.”

While the ruling Labor Party vociferously opposed the Reform proposal, Prime Minister Andy Burnham pledged to make “relentless” efforts to halt asylum seekers after new data revealed that over 2,000 people had entered Britain since he took office two weeks ago.

Several former service personnel, particularly ex-Royal Navy officers, have strongly criticized and dismissed Reform UK’s “Operation Fortress” proposal.

The Royal Navy is there to protect this country from invasion and that is what I intend to use it for. pic.twitter.com/jbvTUTEzZR

— Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) August 3, 2026

For example, Retired Royal Navy Commander Tom Sharpe questioned the “substance” of the concept, adding that the navy lacks ships to conduct the operation. “A billion-pound warship that’s configured for anti-air warfare or anti-submarine warfare, which are both threats to the UK, is not best used ferrying people around. You’re better off using an actual ferry,” Sharpe told BBC Radio 4’s Today program.

The concept “sounds magnificent, provided you know nothing about ships, sailors, France, or the law,” said Andrew Fox, a former paratrooper and senior associate fellow at the Henry Jackson Society think tank. He noted that London won’t be able to ​move warships into French territorial waters, seize ​boats, or disembark passengers without French permission.

Ben Obese-Jecty, a Conservative MP and former British army officer, dismissed the proposal as “ridiculous”, adding that Reform had announced this ridiculous idea before. Additionally, he pointed out in a post on X that Reform UK’s “Operation Fortress” poster uses the image of HMS Ocean, which was sold to Brazil in 2018.

Meanwhile, Former Royal Navy officer John Foreman CBE dismissed the plan bluntly as “a crock of shit,” in a post on X.

Undeterred by the criticism, Farage justified his proposal, saying, ”humanitarian missions do not violate maritime or international law,” and the party defiantly vowed to “stand up for British interests,” whether French President Emmanuel Macron “likes it or not.”

While experts from both the military and legal domains believe that the proposal is unfeasible, Farage’s call for “the largest military operation” after World War II has created quite a stir and brought back memories of the actual biggest military operations in the channel that changed the face of the WW2 and reversed Germany’s fortunes.

The Largest Operation In The English Channel 

The English Channel saw intense, sustained naval warfare throughout the Second World War. However, two operations in particular stand out for sheer scale and are the clear historical benchmarks that Farage invoked.

One of these operations came to be known as Operation Dynamo, or Dunkirk Evacuation, which took place between May 26, 1940, and June 4, 1940.

In May 1940, German forces invaded the Low Countries and France using Blitzkrieg tactics. They rapidly advanced, cutting off the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) and large numbers of French and Belgian troops. Thus, the Allies were driven back towards the English Channel and found themselves trapped in a shrinking pocket around the port of Dunkirk, with their backs to the sea and the prospect of annihilation or capture.

This necessitated an evacuation. Vice Admiral Bertram Ramsay directed the rescue operation from the tunnels beneath Dover Castle.

The Dunkirk harbor was heavily damaged by Luftwaffe bombing, rendering its inner docks unusable. This meant that larger warships could not approach the shallow beaches stretching roughly ten miles east. So, a plan was hatched: two-thirds of the rescued troops boarded destroyers, minesweepers, and other ships from the East Mole, a 1,400-yard breakwater that extended into deeper water. Meanwhile, the remaining one-third were lifted from the open beaches at Malo-les-Bains, Bray-Dunes, and La Panne by small ships.

Nearly a thousand vessels, including Royal Navy destroyers, minesweepers, and merchant ships, formed the backbone of the effort, while hundreds of civilian “little ships” such as yachts, fishing boats, pleasure craft, and lifeboats, ferried men from the shallow beaches to the larger ships waiting offshore or carried them all the way to England. 

The Luftwaffe subjected the harbor, beaches, and shipping to intense bombing, while the RAF fought to provide air cover at considerable cost.

Planners initially expected to save only about 45,000 men over a couple of days. However, as the operation progressed, roughly 338,000 troops, including around 224,000 British and some 120,000 French and other Allied soldiers, were brought safely across the Channel.

And, by the time the operation ended on 4 June, the bulk of the British Expeditionary Force had been saved.

The second major operation in the Channel was Operation Neptune, the codename for the naval and amphibious assault phase of the Allied invasion of Normandy on 6 June 1944. This operation apparently formed the seaborne component of the larger Operation Overlord, the plan to liberate north-west Europe from German occupation, and remains the largest seaborne invasion in history.

Admiral Sir Bertram Ramsay of the Royal Navy commanded the Allied Naval Expeditionary Force. The fleet was organized into two task forces: the Western Task Force for the American beaches and the Eastern Task Force for the British and Canadian beaches.

Allied forces assembled in ports along the southern coast of England, then crossed the English Channel overnight on 5–6 June 1944 to land on the beaches of Normandy in German-occupied France. The distance varied by route and beach but was typically between about 60 and 100 miles.

The naval armada of nearly 7,000 vessels transported troops, vehicles, and supplies through these waters under the protection of warships and air cover.

The successful execution of Neptune opened the long-awaited second front in Western Europe and marked the beginning of the final campaign against Nazi Germany.

• Contact the author at sakshi.tiwari13 (at) outlook.com
• Follow EurAsian Times on Google News

The post UK-France Row: British Reform Party Pledges Largest Military Operation in English Channel Since World War-2 appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

Japan must reinforce and transform its defense capabilities with a stronger “sense of urgency and crisis” than ever before, Defense Minister Shinjiro Koizumi said Tuesday, as Tokyo released its annual white paper that once again flags risks from China, North Korea and Russia.

In the preface to the 598-page Defense of Japan report, Koizumi wrote that the security environment surrounding the country is now the most severe and complex since the end of World War II.

He pointed to the rapid military build-ups by Beijing and Pyongyang, their expanding cooperation with Moscow, and the new forms of warfare demonstrated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, warning that a serious crisis capable of shaking the postwar order cannot be ruled out in East Asia.

Japan is already accelerating its military modernization. Defense spending has been pushed higher, with the budget for the current fiscal year exceeding 9 trillion yen for the first time, while Tokyo deepens security partnerships across the Indo-Pacific.

Missile launchers are being stationed on remote southwestern islands closer to potential flashpoints, the Self-Defence Forces are moving to field longer-range “counterstrike” weapons that could hit targets beyond Japanese territory, and rules restricting arms exports have been loosened to allow greater transfers of equipment and technology to like-minded partners.

In the Indo-Pacific, “not only are China and North Korea further strengthening their military capabilities, China-Russia and Russia-North Korea are also reinforcing their cooperation,” he also added.

The new white paper said China was “intensifying its activities” in the region around Japan, “extending beyond the so-called first island chain to the second island chain”.

It listed a series of incidents in 2025, including activities by Chinese aircraft carriers and the “unusual close approach” by Chinese aircraft to Japanese planes in two incidents in June and July.

Japanese jets scrambled 595 times in the year to March 31, 2026, including 366 sorties against Chinese aircraft and 214 for Russian planes. This compares to 704 the previous year and was the fewest since at least 2021.

Japan decided in April to lift its self-imposed ban on weapons exports, but the white paper highlighted issues in the country’s production base that could jeopardize procurement and innovation.

Koizumi also said that he and US counterpart Pete Hegseth had “exchanged candid views” on the “unwavering” US-Japan alliance, while also increasing security cooperation with the Philippines, Australia and South Korea to realize a “Free and Open Indo-Pacific”.

“As the security environment becomes increasingly and rapidly severe, what is required now is to strengthen resilience against crises all across the entire Indo-Pacific region,” Koizumi said.

“In order to do so, Japan will build and expand multilayered networks among allies and like-minded countries, and enhance interconnectivity with like-minded countries and others in every area.”

Meanwhile, China has repeatedly voiced concern at what it sees as a return to “new militarism” by Tokyo.

After World War II, Japan adopted a pacifist constitution in 1947, with Article 9 renouncing war as a sovereign right and prohibiting the maintenance of military forces, seeking a peaceful global order.

“Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes. In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized,” reads Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution.

Japan, the only victim of a nuclear attack in history, also adopted the “Three Non-Nuclear Principles” of non-possession, non-production, and non-introduction of atomic weapons. Even though all five victors of the Second World War built their nuclear weapons.

Japan relinquished wars of aggression, militaristic societies, and the production of nuclear weapons. In the post-war era, Tokyo directed the nationalistic impulses of its country toward becoming an economic powerhouse and technology leader.

Japan became the world’s second-largest economy in 1990 after the disintegration of the Soviet Union.

China’s military muscle-flexing in the South China Sea, North Korea’s missile proliferation, and Japan’s strained ties with Russia, especially after the Ukraine invasion, are forcing Japan to shed its post-war inhibitions and adopt a more assertive defense role.

Former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe played a critical role in Japan’s transformation. Abe had raised the prospect of the country hosting US nuclear weapons facilities on Japanese soil, boosted defense spending, and called for a strong foreign and security policy.

Under Abe, Japan passed legislation allowing the Japan Self-Defense Forces to engage in overseas combat missions. Essentially, this bill allows Japan’s armed forces to help defend its allies, like America, even if Japan itself isn’t under attack. The Japanese Constitution, following the devastation from the war, previously limited Japan’s forces to self-defense within its borders.

In December 2024, Japan approved a 9.4% increase in defense spending for FY2025. This marked another record figure for the 11th year in a row for Japan’s national defense budget. Japan, which has historically spent less than 1% of its GDP on defense, has also promised to raise it to 2% of its GDP by 2027.

This defense spending hike was part of the Defense Buildup Program, which outlines US$273 billion in defense spending over the five-year period through FY2027.

Japan is also building alliances with China’s competitors. It has developed and promoted military ties with several countries in and beyond the Indo-Pacific region. It has strengthened security cooperation with Australia and India—both members of Quad alongside Japan and the USA—through high-level dialogues, joint military exercises, intelligence sharing, and mutual access to each other’s military facilities.

In December 2022, Japan announced a joint program with Italy and the United Kingdom to develop a new sixth-generation combat aircraft—the Global Combat Air Program (GCAP).

Japan is developing two hypersonic weapon concepts: the Hypersonic Cruise Missile (HCM) and the Hyper Velocity Gliding Projectile (HVGP), as well as long-range missiles.

Japan’s Ministry of Defense (MOD) also conducted flight tests for its island defense hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV). Four test launches were conducted at a site in California, with one launch in August 2024, two in November 2024, and one in January 2025.

Japan’s new 10kW-class high-power laser electronic warfare (EW) vehicle recently entered service to counter aerial and missile threats, including hostile unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and low-altitude missile systems.

Meanwhile, Tokyo announced on July 30 that it had test-fired a Tomahawk land-attack cruise missile from one of its warships, the Aegis guided-missile destroyer JS Chokai (DDG-176), for the first time.

Additionally, Tokyo fielded the Type 25 Hyper Velocity Gliding Projectile, its first indigenous hypersonic boost-glide weapon, following successful California flight tests and domestic deployment drills that included loading launchers onto ships and aircraft.

In late July, an F-2 fighter conducted the first captive-carry flights of the air-launched Improved Type 12 (Type 25) long-range missile at Gifu Air Base, validating integration ahead of planned service in 2027.

Separately, a 100 kW-class shipboard laser system began sea trials aboard the test ship Asuka in late 2025, targeting drones and projectiles. Japan also conducted its first anti-ship missile live-fire on domestic soil in June 2025, firing a Type 88 from Hokkaido.

These developments highlight Tokyo’s push for stand-off strike and layered defenses amid regional tensions.

Mail us at: editor (at) eurasiantimes.com

The post Japan Vows Major Military Build-Up as Threats from China, North Korea and Russia Surge – Defense Chief appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

Former US Vice President Mike Pence supported continued military operations against Iran and urged the US and Israel to “finish the job.”

In a Fox News interview, he praised Donald Trump for directly attacking Iran and urged the U.S. President to order the military to strike Tehran’s remaining nuclear facilities and eliminate its ability to project power in the Strait of Hormuz and across the region.

“They don’t make peace with the enemy, they make peace with a defeated enemy,” Pence added.

He added that given the Islamic Republic’s positions and denial of negotiations, he is confident that a time will come when Trump will decide that enough is enough. Pence called the joint US-Israeli operation against Iran “historic” and said that now is the time for the military forces of the two countries to complete this mission.

Earlier, Trump said negotiations with Iran were ongoing despite Tehran’s contradictions, and Tehran was facing a “last chance before decapitation.”

Trump, speaking to reporters at the White House, said he agreed to continue to pursue talks with Iran at the request of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and other countries.

Iran’s foreign ministry denied that talks with Washington were taking place, but Trump insisted they were. “We are talking right now,” he said.

“This is a last chance for them to sign a good document,” the US president added. “I want to give them every last chance before decapitation.”

The discussions are focused on reopening the Strait of Hormuz, which Trump said could come “literally by tomorrow,” and the denuclearization of Iran, which he said could “take a little while.”

Washington and Tehran have been at war since February 28, when the United States and Israel launched surprise strikes against Iran, though months of on-and-off diplomacy have led to periods of relative calm.

More than five months later, Iran remains able to fire missiles and drones at US and allied targets in the region and retains its enriched uranium stockpiles.

Early Tuesday, the UK maritime security agency UKMTO said that a cargo vessel was struck by an “unknown projectile” in the Strait of Hormuz off the coast of Oman.

Japan Vows Major Military Build-Up as Threats from China, North Korea and Russia Surge – Defense Chief

The vessel, which was not named, reported being hit and authorities were investigating, UKMTO said, without giving specifics on damage or injuries.

In what has become a routine pattern, Trump last week had threatened to hit Iran “very hard” — potentially with renewed attacks against energy infrastructure — only to pull back on Saturday, saying the “perimeters” of a deal were there.

Iran, for its part, said it is not currently negotiating with the United States.

“Our negotiations are with Oman to secure passage through the Strait of Hormuz,” the critical oil corridor, foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei said.

Hormuz has been a major sticking point in efforts to end the war. Since a ceasefire broke down, Iran has reprised a blockade of the waterway that it first imposed early in the war, obstructing vessels attempting to pass and firing on commercial ships.

Calling Tehran “duplicitous” for “openly and proudly” saying it was not negotiating, Trump wrote on social media: “Whether Iran wants to admit it or not, we are, in fact, talking of a solution to a problem that they have caused, for decades.”

He pointed to the United States’ counter-blockade of Iranian ports, adding: “Nothing gets through to Iran, unless we want it to, and nothing will get through, unless a Deal, or Total Surrender, is accomplished.”

Before the war, there was free passage through Hormuz, but Iran now insists on retaining control and charging fees, something the United States rejects.

Tehran has refused to let ships travel any route other than one that hugs the Iranian coast.

On Sunday, Baqaei told state television that a deal was close on managing Hormuz together with Oman, which sits on the other side of the narrow waterway.

“We are now going to reach an understanding on a route acceptable to both sides — neither the northern route nor the southern route — but one that respects the sovereign rights of both sides and safeguards our national interests and security,” he said.

But he insisted that such an agreement did not mean the reopening of the strait.

The US president said at the start of the conflict that the war was necessary to deal with Iran’s nuclear program and he repeated on Monday that “the denuclearization of Iran has to happen.”

Western nations accuse Iran of seeking a bomb, though Tehran insists the program is entirely civilian in nature.

Speaking to reporters on Air Force One over the weekend, Trump said he had been asked by Iran as well as regional US partners to hold off on further strikes, which he claimed would have been “the biggest attack since World War II.”

Iranian media denied that Tehran had asked Trump not to strike.

A previous ceasefire deal fell through last month. It was supposed to open the Strait of Hormuz to ships carrying vital energy exports from the Gulf to feed the global economy.

By Agence France-Presse

The post “Finish The Job”: Ex-American VP Says It’s Time for U.S. & Israel To Eliminate Iran Once For All: Latest News appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

The US Navy has awarded a historic $76.6 billion contract to build 14 new submarines, as Washington races to maintain its dominance over China in undersea warfare.

The deal includes the construction of five Columbia-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), awarded to General Dynamics Electric Boat (GDEB).

The contracts also provide for the construction of nine Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) during fiscal years 2025–2029. The nine-ship contract was awarded to GDEB and HII-Newport News Shipbuilding (HII-NNS).

Together, these new awards represent a historic investment in maritime modernization and supremacy, with a combined total value of US$76.6B. The award will also strengthen the U.S.’s nuclear triad capacity.

“The awards drive the critical, once-in-a-generation recapitalization of the Navy’s undersea forces and the Nation’s nuclear triad,” according to the U.S. Department of the Navy.

“This historic investment underscores the Department’s continued commitment to undersea superiority and the recapitalization of our nuclear triad,” said Vice Adm. Robert Gaucher, Director, Submarine Programs.

The Columbia-class submarines will replace the Navy’s aging nuclear deterrent fleet, ensuring the continuity of the United States’ sea-based strategic nuclear deterrent.

$29.5B.

Five Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines.

Uncontested deterrence. pic.twitter.com/FdjVsk2B8G

— Acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao (@SECNAV) July 29, 2026

As the most survivable leg of the nuclear triad, the Columbia Class ballistic missile submarine represents a modern platform of national security and remains the Department of War’s number one acquisition priority, the U.S. Navy statement said.

Furthermore, these contract awards support the fielding of enhanced Virginia Class submarines, a platform engineered for unparalleled stealth, heavy payload strike capability, and multi-domain lethality.

The Virginia Class submarine is the premier tactical strike and multi-mission platform, ensuring continuous global undersea dominance, the US Navy said.

“By securing the continuous production of both the Columbia and Virginia classes, we ensure we will continue to deliver the world’s most lethal, survivable and resilient combat platform to our global Combatant Commanders, while providing long-term stability to our shipbuilding industrial base,” Vice Adm. Gaucher said.

The U.S. Navy now has seven Columbia-class submarines under contract, complementing a force of 26 operational Virginia-class submarines with 23 more slated to be built.

U.S. Navy Seeks Revolutionary Submarine-Launched Surface-to-Air Missile

Separately, the U.S. Navy is also seeking a new family of modular surface-to-air missiles, including a version that will arm future variants of the Virginia-class submarine.

The information was provided in a draft request for solutions contracting notice recently posted online.

“The United States Navy (USN) is seeking a new, modular interceptor to serve as the basis for the Naval Modular Missile (NMM) program, a next-generation initiative designed to revolutionize surface naval capabilities through multi-mission utility, enhanced capacity, and a modular open architecture,” according to the recent draft request.

Under this new NNM program, the U.S. Navy seeks to develop at least four distinct surface-to-air missile interceptors.

Though all four NNMs will fall in the broad category of Terminal Stage Interceptors (TSI), the four variants will differ substantially in their role and capabilities.

The four variants are: NNM Multi-Mission Long Range (LR), NMM Extended Range Submarine (ER-S), NMM Dual-Pack Extended Range (DP-ER), NMM Quad-Pack Medium Range (QP-MR).

The NMM ER-S is an extended-range interceptor intended to be launched from future versions of Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarines.

Notably, US submarines do not have an operational dedicated SAM system for engaging aircraft or other aerial threats.

Traditional weapons of US submarines are Tomahawk cruise missiles, Harpoon anti-ship missiles, Torpedoes, and Trident ballistic missiles.

Therefore, the development and operationalization of submarine-launched NMM ER-S would add a critical, all-new capability to the U.S. submarine fleet and would provide protection against airborne threats such as anti-submarine warfare (ASW) aircraft, while also contributing to broader fleet air defense.

This would give US submarines a true anti-aircraft capability for the first time, allowing them to engage planes or drones while remaining submerged or semi-submerged.

Furthermore, given that no country has operationalized a submarine-launched surface-to-air missile capability, this would give the U.S. submarine fleet a critical and exclusive defensive capability that will enhance its survivability in contested waters.

However, Germany is also developing its own submarine-launched SAM.

Germany’s IDAS (Interactive Defense and Attack System for Submarines), based on the IRIS-T missile, is designed for fully submerged launch from standard 533 mm torpedo tubes.

Traditionally, submarines were armed with man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS), and submarines had to surface or expose the conning tower so a crew member could fire them manually. A tube-launched submarine-based SAM would be a revolutionary addition.

The addition of 14 new submarines (Five Columbia-class and nine Virginia-class) and SAM capability on future Virginia-class variants will boost the U.S. Navy’s capabilities as it races to maintain its edge over China in the critical domain of undersea warfare.

U.S. Vs China In Undersea Warfare

China already possesses the world’s largest maritime fighting force, with 234 warships compared to the U.S. Navy’s 219.

However, the U.S. still maintains an edge over China in undersea warfare.

But, according to a Pentagon report on the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), released in December last year, even in submarine fleet strength, Beijing is set to match U.S. capabilities by the end of this decade and might even surpass Washington’s submarine fleet by 2035.

According to the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), the US Navy currently has 71 submarines, all nuclear-powered. However, some latest reports put the strength of the current U.S. submarine fleet at 66.

This list includes 14 Ballistic Missile Submarines (SSBNs), 53 Nuclear-Powered attack submarines (SSNs), and four Guided Missile Submarines (SSGNs).

Similarly, according to the NTI, China has 60 submarines, of which only 12 are nuclear-powered.

China has six Ballistic Missile Submarines (SSBNs), six Nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs), and 48 Diesel-electric attack submarines (SSKs). Of the 48 SSKs, 12 submarines feature Air-independent propulsion (AIP), a technology that makes them quieter and allows them to stay submerged longer.

While China has not yet operationalized a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, Beijing has nearly half a century of experience with nuclear-powered submarines.

China’s first nuclear-powered submarine, which was a loud and slow vessel, entered service in 1974. Since then, Beijing has made considerable progress in improving its nuclear-powered subs. They are now larger, quieter, and faster.

In recent years, China has made particular strides in nuclear-powered submarines, whose greater speed, range, and endurance give its Navy greater reach.

New models under development include the Type 095, which analysts expect to feature vertical launch tubes capable of accommodating cruise missiles.

According to the Institute for National Defense and Security Research, the capabilities of China’s two new nuclear submarines – the Type 095 and Type 096 – match those used by the US and Russia.

Additionally, China is set to add more submarines each year than the US, meaning it will have far greater submarine strength than the US in the future.

According to the US Navy’s long-range shipbuilding and fleet inventory plan 2025, the US submarine strength will drop to 47 by the end of this decade, before hovering in the mid-50s for many years. The fleet isn’t projected to hit 66 until 2054.

On the other hand, China’s submarine strength will rise in the coming years. A 2023 US Department of Defense (DoD) report anticipates that China will grow its submarine force to 80 units by 2035. Nearly 20 of these subs could be nuclear-powered.

According to a 2024 CSIS report, China’s submarine technology is rapidly improving, and its submarine production capacity is growing.

China has added between seven and eight Type 093B submarines in just the past three years, a production rate that exceeds the number of attack submarines China has constructed over the past three decades.

When including conventional submarines, such as the new Type 039C, China’s total submarine fleet launched over the past three years exceeds 15, underscoring China’s impressive submarine-building capacity.

These numbers suggest that in the next decade, China might have nearly 20 more submarines than the US.

However, in qualitative terms, Washington still might have an edge over China. As noted earlier, while all of the US submarines are nuclear-powered, China will have only around 20 nuclear-powered submarines.

The addition of 14 new submarines and a SAM capability are, therefore, key to Washington’s efforts to maintain parity with Beijing in undersea warfare.

• Nitin J Ticku holds a double master’s degree in Journalism and Business Management from the University of Glasgow. He has over 20 years of global experience in MARCOM, Journalism, and Digital Marketing, and has worked & traveled widely across Europe, the Americas, and Asia. Nitin is the Editor of the EurAsian Times.
• He can be reached at editor (at) eurasiantimes.com

The post At $76.6 Billion — U.S. Navy Inks Largest-Ever Submarine Deal as China “Closes the Gap” appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

In June 2025, as Israel and Iran fought a brief 12-day war, Russian President Vladimir Putin was pressed on why Moscow was not providing more direct military support to Tehran.

Rather than answering directly, Putin deftly redirected the question, drawing attention to an often-overlooked reality about Israel: its large Russian-speaking population and the growing political weight of immigrants from the former Soviet Union.

“I want to draw your attention,” Putin said, “to the fact that almost two million people from the former Soviet Union and the Russian Federation reside in Israel. It is almost a Russian-speaking country today. And, undoubtedly, we always take this into account in Russia’s contemporary history.”

As Israel heads into polls in October this year that could close the country’s most difficult period in recent decades, Putin’s words will ring like a warning to Israeli politicians, especially Benjamin Netanyahu, the country’s longest-serving Prime Minister who is facing his toughest poll contest.

Indeed, the votes of Russian-speaking immigrants to Israel, many of whom are also called “Putin Aliyah,” those who migrated to Israel from Russia and former Soviet Union republics during the Putin era, could be the most decisive factor in the upcoming elections.

How Russian-Speakers Became the King-Makers in Israel

In Israel’s peculiar election system, just a few seats could decide the outcome of the country’s upcoming general elections, scheduled for October 27.

Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, has 120 seats, and a party, or a coalition, needs 61 seats to form the government.

However, in the last eight decades, Israel never had a single-party government, and the country has always been ruled by multi-party coalitions.

These 120 Knesset seats are filled by proportional representation and a 3.25% electoral threshold.

The whole country is treated as a single electoral district. Voters do not elect individual candidates or local representatives. Instead, they vote for a party, or a coalition of parties. Seats are distributed roughly in proportion to each list’s share of the national vote, provided the list clears the electoral threshold of 3.5%.

Meaning, all political parties/alliances that receive more than 3.5% of the electoral vote will get seats in the Knesset in proportion to their vote share.

For instance, if a party receives 10% of the total vote share, it will have 12 seats in the 120-seat Knesset.

Given the history of multi-party coalition governments in Israel, and a deeply fractured polity and mandates, 5-10 seats could very well decide the outcome of elections.

In the October elections, Israel’s Russian-speaking population could be the X factor that makes or breaks Netanyahu’s dream of coming back to power for a record seventh time.

Russian-Speaking Population in Israel

According to various estimates, Russian-speaking immigrants constitute 12 to 15% of eligible voters in Israel. However, some reports give a number as high as 17%.

This figure primarily covers immigrants and their descendants from the former Soviet Union/post-Soviet states who arrived mainly in the large 1990s wave.

After Putin launched an invasion of Crimea in 2014, and then attacked Ukraine in 2022, a second large wave of Russian-speaking Jews immigrated from Russia and Ukraine to Israel. These new Russian-speaking immigrants are known as “Putin-Aliyah.” Aliyah is the immigration of Jews from other countries to the Land of Israel.

Russian speakers could number around 1.3 million in the country’s population of 9.6 million.

Russian is described as the third most common native language in Israel after Hebrew and Arabic.

Furthermore, Russian-speakers are known for their high voter turnout and for voting as a bloc.

According to estimates, Russian speakers could influence 14-15 seats in the 120-member Knesset.

Given that in the current Knesset, the largest political party, Netanyahu’s Likud, won 34 seats, whereas the second-largest party, Yesh Atid, won only 24, 15 seats could very well decide who will form the next government.

Furthermore, nearly 125,000 Russian-speakers have migrated to Israel since Putin launched its military offensive in Ukraine in February 2022.

Therefore, in the October 2026 election, the influence of Russian-speaking immigrants in the electorate would be even stronger.

Another 125,000 Russian-speakers had migrated to Israel earlier after the occupation of Crimea by Russia in 2014.

Together, these 250,000 Russian-speaking immigrants, or “Putin-Aliyah,” could influence 5-6 seats in the Israeli Knesset, and the scramble for these votes has already begun.

Voting Preferences of Russian-Speakers in Israeli Elections

“People form norms and habits, and it is very hard to change their minds. Even when reality changes, they adjust their internal priorities to maintain the same voting patterns. For example: ‘Likud is terrible on religion and state issues, but I vote for them out of security considerations.’ That is why the new immigrant community is worth its weight in gold. The vote of this audience in the upcoming elections could set a trend for decades,” political psychologist Dr. Hagay Elkayam-Shalem told Haaretz.

There have been many studies on the voting behavior of these Russian-speaking immigrants. While these studies have reached different conclusions, it is safe to say that the Russian-speakers are not a monolithic bloc.

Elkayam-Shalem’s study of more than 600 Russian-speaking Israeli residents who arrived after 2012 found that 73% described their political views as “moderate” – 25% center-right, 30% centrist, and 18% center-left. Among those who arrived after 2022, more than a quarter identified as left-wing (27%).

The same study also found that in the 2022 elections, 45% of new Russian-speaking immigrants supported today’s opposition, and only 13% chose parties represented in the ruling coalition.

If these trends continue, it would mean that Netanyahu will have a hard time convincing these people to vote for his party.

However, Netanyahu and his Likud party were not always this unpopular among Russian-speaking immigrants.

According to multiple studies done by Prof. Zeev Hanin, a professor with the Department of Political Studies at Bar Ilan University and a lecturer at the Department of Israel in the Middle East and Political Science at Ariel University in Judea and Samaria, the Likud won 26.7% of the immigrant vote in the 2019 election, behind 40.2% of the vote share for Yisrael Beytenu; the Blue and White party won 15.1%; and the Kulanu party won 5.8% of the sector’s vote.

The rest of the votes were divided between the Labor party (2.3%), the New Right (3.2%), and Sephardic Ultra-Orthodox party Shas (1.5%).

So, in 2019, Netanyahu’s Likud won the second-highest share of votes among Russian-speaking immigrants in Israel.

However, together with Yisrael Beytenu, the right-wing parties in Israel got nearly 67% of the vote of Russian-speakers.

Hanin explains this preference for right-wing parties among Russian-speakers as the result of their experience in Russia in the troublesome 1990s.

“Immigrants from the former Soviet Union believe in strong leadership more than they believe in the democratic apparatus,” Remennick said. “The drunken democracy they experienced in the 1990s immediately after the dissolution of the Soviet Union was essentially chaos: there was no law and order, no work, and nothing to eat, which is why [Russian President] Vladimir Putin was able to rise to power and stay there for 20 years. People cling to the order and stability that a strong leader can provide.”

However, the voting preferences of Russian speakers are not static and have evolved over time and with changing circumstances.

For instance, they helped Labor’s success in 1992 and contributed to Netanyahu’s narrow 1996 prime ministerial win. They supported Ehud Barak in 1999 and later Ariel Sharon.

However, in the 2022 election, according to Elkayam-Shalem’s study of more than 600 Russian-speaking Israeli residents who arrived after 2012, only 13% chose parties represented in the ruling coalition, including Netanyahu’s Likud party.

Netanyahu is perhaps already aware of the criticality of this bloc and conscious of his falling support among them.

In April this year, Israel’s Channel 14 announced the acquisition of the Russian-language news site Mignews, one of the oldest Russian-language resources in Israel. Channel 14 is often called Israel’s equivalent of Fox News and is considered a mouthpiece for the Netanyahu camp and far-right views.

Another critical factor could be the October 7, 2023, Hamas terror attacks. The Russian-speaking immigrants have historically adopted a hawkish attitude on the Palestine issue and support a strong security state, a preference they might have carried from the security-focused Russian state.

In this new atmosphere where security issues are set to dominate the election debate, many Russian speakers could again shift to the right, which could benefit Netanyahu. A strong showing among Russian speakers could help Netanyahu balance some of his losses in other sections of Israeli society.

Whether or not Netanyahu is able to win back support among Russian speakers, the bloc is set to play the king-makers in the 2026 elections.

• Sumit Ahlawat has over a decade of experience in news media. He has worked with Press Trust of India, Times Now, Zee News, The Economic Times, and Microsoft News. He holds a Master’s Degree in International Media and Modern History from the University of Sheffield, UK. 
• He can be reached at ahlawat.sumit85 (at) gmail.com

The post Russians “Hold the Key” to Israel’s PM Office: Why Netanyahu’s Fate Hinges on the “Putin Aliyah” appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

The Indian Air Force (IAF) held a week-long counter-drone exercise to strengthen its capabilities against low-cost unmanned aerial systems.

The primary goal of the exercise, dubbed “Rotor Clap-III”, was reportedly to assess and refine operational principles to address emerging aerial threats from unmanned systems. The exercise concluded on August 2.

The Counter-Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) drill was held at the Pokhran Field Firing Range in the Thar Desert.

The site is best known as the location of India’s nuclear tests in 1974 and 1998, but its vast, sparsely populated expanse near the India-Pakistan border supports secure live-fire practice, helicopter operations, and high-intensity training while closely matching the terrain, climate, and conditions of the western theatre.

The drills were also aimed at improving the IAF’s helicopter fleet’s operational capabilities against threats posed by drones.

#IAF Helicopters undertook, Exercise ROTOR CLAP III themed "Counter-UAS" in Rajasthan.

The exercise brought together helicopter units of the #IndianAirForce to validate operational concepts against emerging aerial threats#ExerciseRotorClapIII #CounterUAS@DefenceMinIndia… pic.twitter.com/8nFwAQGm5T

— Indian Air Force (@IAF_MCC) August 1, 2026

Several IAF helicopter units participated in the exercise, conducting tactical missions such as coordinated actions against both aerial and ground-based threats, soldier insertion, reconnaissance, precision attacks, battlefield support, and casualty evacuation.

The drills evaluated integrated helicopter tactics, procedures, and coordination in simulated combat conditions.

Moreover, the aircrew and operational units had the opportunity to test and validate mission planning, inter-unit coordination, quick response, and cooperative operations in near-war scenarios throughout the exercise. According to reports, special emphasis was placed on ensuring smooth coordination among multiple helicopters in the desert terrain.

Notably, helicopters are increasingly being employed worldwide in counter-UAS roles, especially against slower, low-cost loitering munitions and reconnaissance drones. Russia and Ukraine, for example, routinely use military helicopters for this purpose, whereas Gulf countries have recently started deploying their own choppers to down Iranian drones.

In general, helicopters make good counter-UAS platforms because many of them cruise at speeds similar to those of propeller-driven drones such as the Shahed class, enabling them to close the distance, match altitude, and make repeated engagement passes—advantages not available to fast jets, which are limited to a single high-speed pass.

Typically, helicopters can also operate from dispersed or improvised sites, fly low and slow, and loiter over threat areas. Equipped with thermal or electro-optical sensors and night-vision systems, they are effective at detecting and engaging low-flying drones after dark.

Once the helicopter matches the drone’s path, gunners or automated systems use proximity-fuzed rockets or brief bursts of cannon or machine-gun fire to neutralize a drone.

Therefore, these armed helicopters form one mobile layer alongside ground-based guns, electronic warfare, interceptor drones, and high-end surface-to-air missiles (SAM).

Using helicopters as counter-drone platforms is also cost-effective, given that machine guns, cannons, and rockets are far cheaper per engagement than surface-to-air missiles or fighter sorties. In fact, the US has now integrated its Apache helicopters with APWKS laser rockets to further reduce the cost of hunting drones.

The IAF operates a range of different military choppers—AH-64 Apache, the aging Mi-25 and Mi-35 attack helicopters, the LCH Prachand, Chinook Heavy-lift transport helicopter, the Mi-17 Medium utility helicopter, and the ALH Dhruv

Sources said the exercise reaffirmed the IAF’s commitment to high operational readiness and adaptation to new security challenges. It forms part of India’s broader push to strengthen counter-UAS capabilities at a time when inexpensive small drones, loitering munitions, and sophisticated unmanned systems have upended the cost calculus of conflict and changed the face of conventional warfare that India has participated in.

India’s Counter-Drone Effort Inspired By Op Sindoor

India’s heightened focus on counter-drone measures is driven by global trends, persistent cross-border drone activity, and, most significantly, experience gained during Operation Sindoor in May 2025, which it launched against Pakistan-based terror infrastructure.

Pakistan retaliated almost instantly and employed large numbers of drones as a core element of its response codenamed Operation Bunyan al-Marsus.

Indian official briefings stated that Pakistan launched swarms of drones in major coordinated waves. According to the Government of India’s official press briefing, Pakistan launched 400–500 drones in a coordinated reconnaissance and SIGINT (Signal Intelligence) operation. These were intended to clutter Indian radars, force air-defense systems to expend ammunition and attention, probe for gaps, and mask the presence of a smaller number of more capable surveillance or attack drones.

Pakistan has invested heavily in drone manufacture using indigenous capabilities acquired from allies like Turkey and China, as previously explained in detail by the EurAsian Times. During the conflict, it used Turkish Asisguard Songar, Turkish Yiha-III, Bayraktar TB2 drone, and Chinese drones like the CH-4 and Wing Loong II, to name a few.

India stated that the large majority of incoming drones were neutralized by a combination of kinetic systems (anti-aircraft guns, including the L-70, ZU-23, and Schilka, as well as surface-to-air missiles such as Akash), and non-kinetic measures (spoofing and jamming).

While India has significantly expanded its own inventory of drones, many of which were used successfully and decisively against Pakistani targets during the war, the intensity of drone use by the Pakistani military during the four-day intense conflict has accelerated Indian investment in counter-drone programs and tactics.

For example, counter-drone grids are being incorporated into Mission Sudarshan Chakra, a long-term, AI-enabled, multi-layered national air-defense shield announced last year.

In early July 2026, the Defense Acquisition Council granted Acceptance of Necessity for procurement proposals worth approximately ₹52,000 crore. These include the indigenous Akash Tarang anti-UAV electronic-warfare system for the Army, Very Short-Range Air Defense Systems (V-SHORADS) to bolster low-altitude defense against drones, and jet-powered kamikaze drones, underscoring the priority now attached to both unmanned systems and counter-UAS capabilities

A range of new counter-drone systems developed jointly by public- and private-sector entities are at various stages of testing.

Last year, for instance, India’s Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) unveiled the D4 (Drone Detect, Deter, Destroy) anti-drone system, which is now being deployed along key border areas. This integrated counter-drone solution is designed to detect and neutralize rogue unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) with precision.

Earlier this year, the Indian Ministry of Defense (MoD) announced the completion of development trials of the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Launched Precision Guided Missile-V3 (ULPGM-V3) in air-to-ground and air-to-air modes. The ULPGM is designed for UAV integration to destroy soft and hard targets, on the ground and in the air.

Similarly, India-based Zen Technologies launched an enhanced variant of its counter-unmanned aircraft system (C-UAS) that is already in service with the Indian Armed Forces in May 2026. The new variant of the system reportedly has increased detection and jamming ranges and is integrated with AI for improved threat detection.

These are just a few examples of India’s counter-drone effort.

The armed forces are also conducting dedicated counter-drone exercises based on lessons from Operation Sindoor. In October 2025, for instance, India’s largest drone and counter-drone warfare drill, Exercise Cold Start, was conducted in Madhya Pradesh to evaluate the effectiveness of the existing air defense

Therefore, the recently concluded Rotor Clap-III, focused on the IAF’s helicopter fleet, is another step in preparing for operations on a battlefield increasingly dominated by drones.

• Contact the author at sakshi.tiwari13 (at) outlook.com
• Follow EurAsian Times on Google News

The post At India’s Nuclear Testing Site — IAF Helicopters Train as Low-Cost Drone Hunters in Rotor Clap-III Drills appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

Iran’s foreign ministry has said that there were currently no negotiations with the US, but there were talks with Oman over the management of the Strait of Hormuz.

“We are not currently negotiating with the United States. Our negotiations are with Oman to secure passage through the Strait of Hormuz,” said foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei during a weekly press briefing.

Earlier, Donald Trump said that new negotiations with Iran will begin Monday after he paused strikes on the Islamic republic to pursue a deal.

Trump told reporters on Sunday that the talks would cover the Strait of Hormuz — a route for global energy supplies that has become a key sticking point in the conflict—and ultimately, the denuclearization of Iran.

 

For its part, Iran said it was nearing a deal with Oman over a new route through the strait, where a tanker reported an explosion nearby on Sunday, underscoring the continued volatility of the strategic waterway.

Oil prices fell on Monday at the opening of Asian trade after Trump announced the new negotiations, with West Texas Intermediate dropping 4.7 percent to $80.72 per barrel.

Washington and Tehran have been at war since February 28, when the US and Israel launched surprise strikes against Iran, though months of on-off diplomacy have led to periods of relative calm.

Following a return to strikes last month, fears had mounted that the fighting could escalate once again. Trump had threatened to hit Iran “very hard” and was reportedly considering renewed attacks, including against energy infrastructure, with US embassies across the region on alert.

Trump pulled back from that threat Saturday, saying the “perimeters” of a deal were there.

“Now what we’re doing is we’re talking to them in the form of a negotiation. It begins tomorrow afternoon,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday, without providing details of the venue or participants in the talks.

The US president said he had been asked by Iran as well as US partners Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar to hold off on the strikes, which he claimed would have been “the biggest attack since World War II.”

Iranian media denied that Tehran had asked Trump not to strike.

A previous ceasefire deal that included the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz fell through, and Iran has since tightened its control over the waterway.

The US president said at the start of the conflict that the war was necessary to deal with Iran’s nuclear program. Western nations accuse Iran of seeking a bomb, though Tehran insists the program is entirely civilian in nature.

Iranian lawmaker Hassan Ghashghavi, spokesman for the parliament’s national security commission, said on Sunday that mediators were trying to revive the US-Iran memorandum of understanding that was agreed in June.

That agreement was not intended as a final peace deal, but as a stepping stone to negotiations on a comprehensive agreement, though it did include provisions on Hormuz.

“They know that the main issue and, in fact, the key to the matter right now is the issue of the Strait of Hormuz, so yes, there is an exchange of views,” Ghashghavi said.

Posting on X, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said: “We must strive to compel the enemy to remain committed to what it has signed.”

Iran deal with Oman?

Before the war, there was free passage for all vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, but Iran closed the strait during the war and now insists on retaining control and charging tolls, something the US rejects.

That dispute sparked the return to strikes last month, as Tehran refused to let ships travel any route other than one which hugs the Iranian coast.

On Sunday, Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei told state television that a deal was close with Oman, which sits on the other side of the strait, over a new route through it.

“We are now going to reach an understanding on a route acceptable to both sides — neither the northern route nor the southern route — but one that respects the sovereign rights of both sides and safeguards our national interests and security,” he said.

He insisted though that such an agreement did not mean the reopening of the strait.

Maritime trade tracking firm Kpler said Friday that traffic through Hormuz had dropped sharply.

On Sunday, a tanker off the coast of Oman reported hearing an explosion near the vessel, the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) Centre reported, adding that the vessel and crew were all safe.

By Agence France-Presse

The post Iran War Latest News: Tehran Says Currently No Negotiations With USA, Only with Oman over Strait of Hormuz appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

Nearly 50,000 of the 60,000 young Moroccans who had entered  Ceuta, Spain’s 7.5-square-mile enclave on Africa’s coast, on July 29-30, 2026, by swimming around border barriers, may have returned to their country. But the global headlines they were responsible for have had geopolitical impacts on the rest of Europe and the United States. 

Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez of Spain called the event  “a violation of Spain’s territorial integrity”. But then the fact remains that his left-wing government’s series of liberal migration policies, coupled with the Spanish Supreme Court’s ruling last month that migrants arriving by sea could not be summarily returned, prompted such a massive migration, for which the country was perhaps not ready.

Of course, this was not the first surge from Morocco. As many as 10,000 from Morocco were said to have entered Spain in 2021. But the scale on July 29-30 made it the largest not only in Spain but also in the history of the European Union(EU).

After all, Ceuta, the small Spanish exclave on the North African coast, has a permanent population of just 84,000. Obviously, swarms of 60,000 outsiders totally overwhelmed the locals.

The crisis forces 3 questions: What drove it? What does Spain’s approach mean geopolitically? And how does the debate over religion, demography and identity shape it? 

As pointed out above, the influx was possibly triggered by a ruling by Spain’s Supreme Court that a law allowing the prompt handing back of migrants who breach frontier barriers at Ceuta and Melilla, another Spanish exclave, does not apply to those who arrive by sea. (Those who swim, the court reasoned, do not technically breach frontier barriers, since there are none in the water.) Word of this got around on social media in Morocco, prompting the stream of swimmers.

It may be noted that historically, Morocco has contested Spanish sovereignty over Ceuta and Melilla, just 13 to 14 kilometers from its shores through the Strait of Gibraltar. This has led some analysts to believe that  Rabat  “deliberately did little to prevent the crossings”.

They cite the similar opening that was made in 2021. But this is a minority view, given that Morocco has already facilitated the return of 50,000 of its people and is doing so even now.

The 2021 episode was a little different. That time Morocco allowed its people to wade into Ceuta, as an expression of its anger that Spain had allowed the leader of Polisario, a group that has long fought for the independence of Western Sahara, to come to Madrid for medical treatment. Morocco, incidentally, had annexed two-thirds of Western Sahara, a former Spanish colony, in 1975.

However, over the last four years, diplomatic parleys between Madrid and Rabat have stabilized the bilateral ties. Spain now backs Morocco’s autonomy plan for Western Sahara in exchange for Rabat policing the coast and taking back illegal migrants.

In 2024,  Spain started a program to legalize 900,000 undocumented migrants already in Spain (most of them Moroccans)  to bring them into the tax and social security. It decided to issue  “Labor visas”, under which fast-track permits to address Spain’s rapidly falling population.

The Sanchez regime has tried to legalize immigration as much as possible under what it calls a “human rights and labor needs” approach that envisages expanded regularization programs, bilateral cooperation with Rabat, and faster work permits for migrants in agriculture, tourism, and elder care.

Apparently, Spain has become the EU’s largest entry point for irregular migration, overtaking Italy and Greece. The vast majority of arrivals were from Morocco and the likes of Malians and Senegalese, who crossed through  Morocco by sea. So much so that Spain now has the largest Moroccan diaspora in the EU — over 800,000 people of Moroccan origin, as per Spanish data.

Reportedly, the UN projects Spain needs 200,000 net migrants per year to maintain workforce size. And 10 million foreign-born people for the first time in Spain’s history; they now constitute a fifth of the country’s total population, about 50 million.

At 1.1 million, Moroccans happen to be the largest single nationality of all the foreign nationalities. Birth rates among Moroccan-origin residents are said to be higher than those of native Spaniards, but converge to the Spanish average of 1.6 percent by the second generation, per demographic studies.

In other words,  Spain’s population would be shrinking without immigration.

However, the geopolitical reactions to what happened in Spain are quite different, particularly on both sides of the Atlantic.

The incident provided armor to President Donald Trump and all his supporters in their fight against what they say is illegal immigration into the US.

As images spread, Trump posted that the Ceuta scenes “vindicated” his wall and deportation policies, arguing Europe was now facing what the US faced in 2019. US conservative media amplified the Ceuta footage as evidence for border closure.

“I saw Spain yesterday, and I watched the catastrophe that took place,” Trump told a meeting of his cabinet at the presidential Camp David retreat in Maryland. “It looks like an invasion of a country by hundreds of thousands of people, and that same thing’s going to happen to us if the Republicans don’t get elected, except worse, much bigger.”

Tech billionaire Elon Musk also commented on the situation in Spain, writing on X that “Spain’s entire budget will be destroyed by illegal migrants” and arguing that offering benefits to migrants would create a “forcing function” for large-scale migration.

There were similar reactions from right-wing parties and EU centrists across Europe, demanding tougher immigration policies.

Far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) co-leader Alice Weidel claimed in an X post that “Ceuta was left in ruins overnight” by the mass influx from Morocco. She argued that Germany is “likely the destination for most of these migrants”, adding “Germany must prepare itself: borders must be secured and rejections rigorously enforced”.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni described the scenes in Ceuta as evidence that “uncontrolled illegal immigration poses a concrete threat to the security of Europe’s borders,” saying Italy was prepared to take “extraordinary measures” to defend its borders and the safety of its citizens, including the possible suspension of the Schengen Area with Spain.

The right-wing ruling coalition in Finland also called for excluding Spain from the European visa-free zone as a result of the situation. Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis said the Ceuta situation was caused by Spain’s policy of offering hundreds of thousands of migrants already in the country a legal status.

In fact, the weekend incident in Spain is said to have accentuated the political turbulence in Europe and strengthened forces, including even conservatives and liberals, to end what was hitherto a “Liberal Consensus” on a liberal immigration policy.

That explains why on Saturday, Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, and Italian Premier Meloni initiated a letter that got signed by 22 member states, calling for immediate EU action.

“The bloc cannot allow uncontrolled mass crossings, the instrumentalization of migration or other hybrid threats to create the perception that illegal entry into the European Union is possible,” they wrote.

It may be noted here that for years Germany was the face of liberal asylum policy under Chancellor Angela Merkel. Now it has really reversed that under immense political pressure.

The AfD nearly doubled its vote share, especially in eastern Germany, by campaigning on immigration and crime linked to asylum seekers. As a result, the new CDU-SPD coalition started last year the policy of  “Stricter border checks” and a “de facto entry ban” for undocumented migrants,  including asylum seekers.

Even the British leadership labeled the developments in Spain deeply concerning while highlighting that the UK’s own restrictive operational measures are yielding lower overall small-boat crossing numbers compared to prior tracking periods.

Moving away from past perceptions of a liberal framework to stem the rise of populist Reform Party UK,  the ruling Labour Party is now systematically tightening rules through higher salary thresholds, bans on dependents for most students, restrictions on overseas care worker recruitment, and shorter temporary protection grants for refugees.

And still its government is facing intense but growing popular pressure for mass deportations, rigorous enforcement and digital pre-departure checks.

Incidentally, the growing fears in Europe over uncontrolled and illegal immigration seem to have an angle of the fear of “Islamisation”. It may not be the main driver of policy changes, but it is a major factor in the political turbulence around immigration, particularly in Germany, the UK, and France.

There is a growing Muslim population in these countries due to immigration and higher birth rates among the immigrants.

Reportedly,  there are 5.5 to 6.5 million Muslims in France, making it the largest Muslim minority in Western Europe. This group makes up about 8% to 10% of the country’s total population. The majority of them have roots in North Africa (Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia), with smaller groups from Turkey and Sub-Saharan Africa.

Germany’s Muslim population is estimated to be between 5.5 and 7 million, which makes up roughly 6.5% to 8.5% of the country’s total population. The largest group has Turkish heritage, dating back to the guest worker program in the 1960s. Recent growth comes from refugees and migrants arriving from countries like Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

The Muslim population in the United Kingdom is approximately 4 million people, making up about 6.0% to 6.5% of the total population. Islam is the second-largest religion in the country.

The largest share, as much as 66 percent, of British Muslims trace their family roots to the Indian subcontinent, with many arriving in waves during the 1950s and 1960s to fill postwar labor shortages. The rest came mainly from Somalia, Nigeria, Libya, Morocco, Algeria, Afghanistan, Iran, Turkey, and Cyprus.

In these three leading countries, considered to be the engines of Europe, the Muslim immigrants have created what are called economic, cultural, and political concerns over their running parallel societies, sharia law, religious schools, mosques, headscarves, and value clashes over free speech, gender, and LGBTQ issues.

Besides, there are problems relating to issues concerning economics, housing, asylum backlog, crime (the rise of extremism in Islam), and border control.

As it is, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Denmark have already passed laws on face veils, foreign funding of mosques, and “ghetto” laws. Denmark’s Social Democrats explicitly said they wanted “fewer Muslims” to protect their welfare state.

But then, as seen in Spain, these countries also face acute labor shortages, for filling up which most of these Muslims, like others, migrate. In any case, apart from the UK, in no country have Muslims become politically active to endanger the native whites. They do not have high-paying jobs like the skilled and highly educated immigrants, though they are doing very well in the sporting arena.

Therefore, if they are being seen with suspicion, it is because of the changes they have made to mainstream culture.

For many center-right and working-class voters in Europe, that includes concerns about mosques, religious schools, and values. That is why even left-wing parties like UK Labour and German SPD are now tightening controls. They have realized that if one does not address the cultural anxiety, one loses to parties who do or will.

In sum, what the weekend’s episode in Spain seems to have done is raise two questions: whether a liberal-immigration model of Europe will survive by combining open labor markets with credible borders; and whether Europe will still debate culture without dehumanizing people.

• Author and veteran journalist Prakash Nanda is Chairman of the Editorial Board of the EurAsian Times and has been commenting on politics, foreign policy, and strategic affairs for nearly three decades. He is a former National Fellow of the Indian Council for Historical Research and a recipient of the Seoul Peace Prize Scholarship.
• CONTACT: prakash.nanda (at) hotmail.com

The post Trump Calls It “Invasion,” Musk Says Budget “Destroyed”: Moroccan Surge in Spain Rattles U.S. & Europe and Reignites “Islamic Fear” appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

A suicide bomber attacked a busy area near a police station during a protest in northern Pakistan’s Swat district, killing 13 people and wounding 22, police said on Sunday.

The blast took place at a crowded intersection near a police station in Swat during a civil society protest, police said.

“Thirteen people, including eight police officers, were killed in the suicide bombing,” Swat Deputy Inspector General of Police Fida Hussain told AFP.

He added that 22 people had been wounded and another body, suspected to be that of the bomber, had been brought to hospital.

“A suicide bomber attempted to enter the police station located at the chowk (intersection), but was stopped by police at the main gate,” he said.

The attack took place in Pakistan’s northern border province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, where authorities are fighting a growing insurgency by the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).

No group immediately claimed responsibility.

A homemade bomb blast in the provincial capital Peshawar wounded four police officers, the city’s police chief told AFP on Sunday in an attack claimed by the TTP.

A military spokesman said on Friday that militant attacks and ensuing operations had killed 819 security personnel and civilians this year.

Pakistan has previously blamed the violence in border provinces on militant activity emanating from Afghanistan. The Taliban government in Kabul denies Afghan involvement.

The accusations have sparked a bitter rift and even armed conflict between the neighboring countries. Pakistan has carried out deadly air strikes it says target militants on Afghan soil.

The Taliban government and the United Nations said dozens of civilians were killed in the latest Pakistani strikes on eastern Afghanistan in June.

Earlier in the week, terrorists rammed an explosives-laden vehicle into a security checkpoint in northwestern Pakistan, killing 15 people—including soldiers, police officers, and government personnel—according to a military statement.

“Fifteen brave sons of the soil, including twelve military, two policemen and a government official from the Forest Department, rendered the ultimate sacrifice and embraced Shahadat (martyrdom),” the military’s media wing said in a statement on the latest attack in the border province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP).

“The attackers rammed an explosive-laden vehicle into the perimeter wall,” the statement said. “Due to the blast impact, infrastructure at the check post was seriously damaged.”

By Agence France-Presse

The post At-Least 13 Killed in Pakistan Suicide Attack During Protest in Northern Swat District, Over 20 Injured appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

The US has been the world’s largest defense exporter for more than three decades now.

According to SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute), the United States accounted for 42% of global arms exports between 2021 and 2025.

For perspective, during this period, France was the world’s second-largest defense exporter, accounting for only 9.8% of global arms exports.

However, despite its dominant position in global arms exports, the United States has notably been absent from a particular high-value weapon system market that could have generated billions of dollars in additional revenue for its defense firms.

Ironically, Washington has stayed out of this business despite leading the world in this niche technology for over five decades.

On July 6, Canada reportedly selected the winner of the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project (CPSP) deal, expected to cost nearly US$ 30 billion, with Germany’s TKMS outdoing South Korea’s Hanwha.

Similarly, India is in the final stages of signing a major submarine deal with ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) under Project 75(I).

Both Canada and India are strategic partners of the US. One might wonder why the US defense companies were not even in the running for these “big ticket” deals.

This, despite the fact that the US is not only the world’s largest submarine operator, but its submarines are also some of the most advanced in the world. According to the Global Firepower Index 2026, both Russia and the US operate 66 submarines.

However, while Russia operates a mix of diesel-electric and nuclear submarines, all of the US’s submarines are nuclear-powered.

China is fast catching up with 61 submarines; however, China also operates a mix of diesel-electric and nuclear submarines.

However, Russia (and formerly the Soviet Union) has exported submarines to Algeria, Bulgaria, China, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, North Korea, Poland, Romania, Syria, Venezuela, Vietnam and others, and China has exported to Pakistan, Myanmar, Bangladesh and Thailand.

Interestingly, the US, despite its technological lead in the field, has not exported a single submarine to any country in the last 50 years. In fact, the last submarine the US exported was in 1973 to Taiwan.

So, why, despite its dominant position in global arms export and its technological lead in the field, has the US not exported a single submarine to any country in over 50 years?

Trump Calls It “Invasion,” Musk Says Budget “Destroyed”: Moroccan Surge in Spain Rattles U.S. & Europe and Reignites “Islamic Fear”

US Submarine Exports in History

The US was not always averse to exporting submarines. After the Second World War, the US emerged as one of the world’s largest submarine exporters.

During the war, the US constructed over 200 submarines, and by the time the war ended, the US had 232 submarines in commission.

However, within years of the end of the Second World War, a new Cold War began with the Soviet Union, and the US launched a massive modernization campaign for its submarines.

Under the modernization plan, the US decommissioned hundreds of its late-war-era Balao- and Tench-class diesel-electric submarines.

This left the US with dozens of decommissioned submarines.

At the same time, the US was financing a massive reconstruction plan in Europe under the Marshall Plan and building Europe’s military capabilities to create an effective deterrent against the Soviet Union.

For this purpose, the US decided to export these older, decommissioned, diesel-electric submarines to its allies. Between 1950 and 1970, the US exported nearly 50 submarines to its partners, including Turkey, Spain, Italy, Greece, the Netherlands, Canada, Taiwan, and others.

In fact, between 1945 and 1975, the United States accounted for roughly 25% of global exports of diesel-powered submarines.

Most of these were Balao-class diesel-electric submarines built during World War II.

Meanwhile, in 1954, the US launched USS Nautilus (SSN-571), the world’s first nuclear-powered submarine, heralding the era of nuclear-powered submarines.

Nuclear-powered submarines have key advantages, such as unlimited endurance, as they can stay submerged for months, maintain high underwater speeds consistently, and have global reach.

After the launch of USS Nautilus, Washington gradually phased out diesel-electric submarines. After 1954, the US built only three Barbel-class diesel-electric submarines.

By the early 1960s, all new US Navy combat submarines were nuclear-powered. The last diesel-electric attack submarine (USS Blueback) was decommissioned in 1990, leaving Washington with only nuclear-powered submarines.

Why Does the U.S. Not Export Nuclear Submarines?

The US nuclear-powered submarines are considered the best in their class; however, to date, Washington has not exported this technology to any country for various reasons.

Firstly, the U.S. Navy has long opposed even the export of diesel-electric submarines due to concerns about the impact of submarine technology proliferation on the ability of its forces to operate securely in coastal waters worldwide.

Submarines fall under the US Munitions List and are subject to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and the Arms Export Control Act.

When it comes to nuclear propulsion technology, the US Navy is highly sensitive, as it adds extra layers of control under the Atomic Energy Act.

The US nuclear propulsion, quieting technology, sonar, and combat systems are considered among America’s most protected “crown jewels.”

The US has deliberately avoided proliferating this technology to preserve its undersea dominance.

In fact, Washington is so sensitive about submarines’ nuclear propulsion technology that it has refused to share this technology even with its close allies, such as France, Japan, Taiwan, or Canada.

The only two exceptions are the UK and Australia.

The US has a long-standing special nuclear propulsion technology-sharing agreement with the UK, dating back to the 1958 US-UK Mutual Defense Agreement.

The US supplied the reactor for Britain’s first nuclear sub, HMS Dreadnought, and ongoing collaboration allows the UK to design and build its own boats.

However, this is alliance cooperation, not a commercial export.

Similarly, in 2021, the US, the UK, and Australia signed the AUKUS agreement, under which the US has agreed to sell/transfer up to three Virginia-class SSNs to Australia, starting in the early 2030s.

Another issue is US industrial capacity, which is already struggling to meet US Navy demand for Virginia-class submarines.

In its current modernization drive, the U.S. Navy hopes to add two to three Virginia-class attack submarines to its fleet annually until 2043.

In fact, it’s not just the US that is sensitive about exporting nuclear submarines.

Globally, nuclear-powered submarines are operated by only six countries: the US, Russia, China, France, the UK, and India.

The US, Russia (formerly the Soviet Union), and the UK have been operating nuclear submarines for over six decades now.

However, to date, there is only one example of a country exporting/leasing a nuclear-powered submarine to another country.

The Soviet Union first leased a Charlie I-class (K-43) nuclear-powered submarine to India in 1988–1991.

India operated it as INS Chakra.

Further, Russia leased an Akula-class submarine (Nerpa/K-152) to India from 2012 to 2021, which New Delhi operated as INS Chakra II.

The US, the UK, China, France, and India have never exported or leased a nuclear submarine to any country.

In fact, how all countries are highly protective of nuclear-powered submarines can be gauged from the fact that even China refused this technology to its all-weather ally, Pakistan.

Leaked documents revealed that Pakistan formally asked China for nuclear-powered submarine technology and sea-based nuclear second-strike capabilities to counter India.

However, Beijing ultimately refused to provide the technology, citing global non-proliferation commitments and a desire to avoid triggering a regional nuclear arms race.

Instead, China is providing Pakistan with eight Hangor-class diesel-electric attack submarines, under a US$5 billion deal.

However, since the US no longer produces diesel-electric submarines and is reluctant to export nuclear-powered submarines even to its close allies, Washington is effectively out of the global submarine business, which is dominated by countries such as Germany, France, Russia, China, and Spain, and the situation is unlikely to change in the near future.

• Sumit Ahlawat has over a decade of experience in news media. He has worked with Press Trust of India, Times Now, Zee News, Economic Times, and Microsoft News. He holds a Master’s Degree in International Media and Modern History from the University of Sheffield, UK. 
• He can be reached at ahlawat.sumit85 (at) gmail.com

The post America’s $40 Billion Blind Spot: Why World’s Largest Arms Exporter Hasn’t Sold a Single Submarine in 50 Years? appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.