As EurAsian Times recently reported, the U.S. Air Force crew denied Indian officials cockpit access to its F-35 stealth fighter during the recent Tarang Shakti exercise, Indian Air Force Chief Air Marshal AP Singh said. Interestingly, the IAF did something similar with its cutting-edge Su-30 MKIs in 2008.

Speaking at a press conference alongside U.S. Pacific Air Forces Commander General Kevin Schneider, Air Chief Marshal Singh said the U.S. had made no formal offer to sell the F-35 to India, despite all the media buzz and speculation.

“Your people don’t even let us go near the aircraft, and you are talking about selling it to us,” Singh said when asked about any official offer for F-35s.

He added that Indian personnel were not shown the cockpit.

“The US did not show us the cockpit, but allowed us to fly in close formation,” Singh said. He later described his remarks as a joke that should not be taken too seriously and noted that countries protect sensitive technologies, including systems India does not share with the United States.

General Schneider said he did not make decisions on information sharing for programs such as the F-35. “There are program-level security classification guides that determine what we can share, when we share it, as well as how we protect it,” Schneider said.

USAF had deployed six F-35 stealth jets for Tarang Shakti. This was the first time U.S. stealth jets trained against Indian jets and operated from the indian soil. This was a rare opportunity for the Indian military to study and evaluate a stealth fighter using Indian ground radars.

Experts like Air Marshal Anil Chopra, writing for the EurAsian Times, believe it would be a good opportunity for the IAF to prepare for a potential J-20 scenario operated by China.

Chopra wrote: “The F-35A is the only fifth-gen fighter in the exercise. In mock drills, it is much better than China’s J-20, with stealth, low observability, sensor fusion, and first-look, first-shot tactics, and it will better simulate the J-20. That does not mean the IAF will see the F-35’s classified technologies; however, it does mean that the IAF can practice studying a stealth jet from an Indian base—to understand the Chinese J-20 better.”

Prelude to Saudi-Houthi War: When 9-Nation Coalition Led by Saudi Arabia Bombed Yemen With U.S. Support

Parallel from Red Flag 2008

In 2008, India sent its most advanced Su-30 MKI fighters to the US for the Red Flag exercise at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada.

To protect the Flankers’ classified NIIP N011M Bars passive electronically scanned array (PESA) radar, the Indian Ministry of Defense directed pilots not to use the radar in full operational mode.

IAF stated at the time that “the radar frequencies are top secret, as they can be used to block vital functions of the fighter” and that “while we have a good equation with the USA, we have to be careful about the future.”

The Bars radar was operated only in a limited “training mode” that restricted its range and capabilities, preventing detailed mapping of its frequencies by host forces.

Other limitations during Red Flag 2008 included restrictions on data-links, chaff, flares, and simulation of the R-77 BVR missile. Indian pilots operated without a full cockpit data picture to protect its sensitive technology.

While Indian crew had limited exposure to the F-35s at Tarang Shakti 2026, with the jets kept in a segregated area, the USAF has previously been given noteworthy access to the MKIs.

During the familiarisation phase ahead of Red Flag 2008, Su-30MKI crews exchanged rides with their American counterparts, allowing U.S. pilots to fly in the Flanker’s rear seat, according to reports.

During Exercise Cope India 2023 at Kalaikunda, then-PACAF Commander General Kenneth S. Wilsbach flew a training mission in the rear seat of an IAF Su-30MKI alongside an Indian pilot—an engagement the IAF publicly confirmed.

Earlier Cope India iterations also saw USAF pilots fly in Su-30 trainer variants.

During the just-concluded Tarang Shakti, F-35s operated extensively alongside Su-30MKIs, Rafales, and Tejas in joint tactical missions, large-force engagements, and mixed formations, giving the USAF tremendous exposure to the Flanker’s performance envelope, radar behavior, and tactics in a realistic environment.

U.S. F-117 Nighthawk “The Overachiever” Makes Final Comeback at Smithsonian’s Udvar-Hazy Center

Su-30 MKI vs. F-15 at Red Flag

After the 2008 exercise, a video of a private briefing by USAF Colonel Terrence Fornof, an F-15 pilot and director of requirements and testing at the Air Force Warfare Center at Nellis, circulated online.

Fornof was addressing a group of retired military pilots.

Fornof claimed F-15 pilots “dominated” the Su-30 MKI in one-versus-one engagements. He described Indian pilots as “amazed” and “floored,” saying they didn’t want more one-versus-one fights after the first few days.

He claimed the F-15 exploited a vulnerability in the Su-30’s thrust-vectoring by waiting for the aircraft to enter post-stall maneuvering, after which it “starts falling out of the sky,” allowing the F-15 to close and engage with guns.

Fornof also claimed the Su-30 MKI’s engines were highly susceptible to foreign object damage, leading Indian pilots to request one-minute spacing between takeoffs, and he noted concerns about engine reliability.

He claimed Indian pilots had a high rate of fratricide and that, on paper, the Su-30 had superior radar, thrust, thrust vectoring, and weapons range. He added that once Indian pilots fully mastered the aircraft, they could regularly defeat F-15s and F-16s, but the Su-30 was “nowhere near” the F-22.

USAF later said Fornof’s comments were his personal opinion and that he did not intend to offend allies.

Indian accounts and subsequent reporting rejected Fornof’s points. They claimed that the Sukhois held their own against top USAF pilots and maintained a high serviceability rate throughout the exercise.

“Our pilots were functioning on a stand-alone basis while the USAF pilots were part of a network and were getting inputs on navigation, target information and enemy details. We were getting all our inputs manually and were fighting fit even against all these odds,” a top IAF officer had said at that time.

Other Indian accounts claimed that no Su-30 MKI was shot down in the approximately 10 one-versus-one engagements, and that the IAF was credited with most kills.

All engagements were recorded on ACMI systems. Thrust-vectoring performance differed from Fornof’s account, and U.S. aircrew said they appreciated the IAF’s maneuvers.

Fratricides occurred on both sides. Indian sources attributed theirs largely to periods when AWACS support was unavailable and to poor ground control by U.S. controllers (acknowledged in debriefs), noting that the IAF lacked Link-16 and advanced IFF while the U.S. side had them.

Putin’s 2022 Plan to Seize Kyiv Failed — Now Trump Wants a New President & Moscow Offers One Day Solace

Serviceability was reported above 90 percent, with no confirmed foreign object damage incidents of the type described; a tire burst was quickly repaired. Engines were NPO Saturn (not Tumansky, as Fornof said). The one-minute takeoff spacing was a deliberate safety measure because damaged engines had to be returned to Russia for repair, with no local replacements available.

IAF reported a mission achievement rate above 90 percent and said they performed well in large-force engagements despite operating far from home and under restrictions.

In conclusion, the F-35 access limits and the 2008 Su-30 MKI restrictions highlight standard practice among air forces seeking to protect classified tech during wargames.

• Mail the author at: editor (at) eurasiantimes.com
• Connect with us on X at: EurAsian Times

The post Just Like F-35 — When IAF ‘Restricted’ USAF From Su-30 MKIs. Then Fought F-15 Fighter Jets at Red Flag 2008 appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

Unlike the F-35, India has received a formal offer from Russia for the Sukhoi Su-57 fifth-generation fighter but has not yet decided whether to evaluate it, the head of the Indian Air Force said.

Air Chief Marshal A.P. Singh told reporters on the sidelines of the Exercise Tarang Shakti in Jodhpur that the Indian Air Force was aware of Moscow’s proposal.

“As far as the Su-57 is concerned, we have received information that an offer has been made, but no decision has been taken on whether to evaluate it,” he said.

“Once a decision is made, we will assess how well it meets our requirements.”

Russia has repeatedly pitched the Su-57 to India.

Earlier, as EurAsian Times reported, Russian President Vladimir Putin personally renewed the Su-57 offer to India.

Speaking on the sidelines of the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, Putin reaffirmed Russia’s readiness to cooperate with India on the Su-57, including exporting and jointly producing the aircraft.

“It’s fifth-generation technology — I think it’s the best in the world as of now,” the Russian President said at the forum.

President Putin recalled Indo-Russian 5th-gen aircraft collaboration and said: “As far as the Su-57 goes, at one point we proposed to our Indian friends to work together on this technology. “But back then, our Indian friends said: ‘Go ahead on your own, and then we will see – maybe we’ll join’…The aircraft could have been our joint project. We built it independently, but we are ready to work with India in this field – to supply this aircraft and to keep developing it,” the Russian President told the reporters. “We don’t have any issues with it or any limitations. The same goes for air defense systems,” he added.

The Su-57 is a supersonic, twin-engine fifth-generation aircraft designed to destroy air, ground, and naval targets. Developed to compete with the F-22 and F-35, the ‘Felon’ jet features enhanced stealth through composite materials and can cruise supersonically.

It is a multi-role fighter jet capable of air superiority missions, ground attacks, reconnaissance, and electronic warfare. Russia is integrating a range of lethal weapon systems on the Su-57 platform, including the long-range R-37M missile and hypersonic missiles, as reported by the EurAsian Times.

Additionally, the aircraft is being integrated with Artificial Intelligence (AI) to enhance threat detection, decision-making, and pilot support. However, these features have failed to attract buyers, especially India.

If India proceeds with the Su-57 deal and Moscow meets all Indian prerequisites, including technology transfer, it could inject billions into Russia’s sanctions-hit economy. India would also get an interim fifth-gen fighter till the indigenous AMCA arrives.

Russia’s defense exports have historically benefited through high-profile deals with India. An excellent example is the Su-30MKI, India’s customized variant of the Su-30.

India’s acquisition of the Su-30MKI in the early 2000s influenced other nations, such as Malaysia, which modeled its Su-30MKM on the Indian version. Its versatility—including thrust-vectoring engines, canards, and integrated avionics from multiple countries—made it a flagship for Russian technology.

Another bigger success story is the BrahMos supersonic missile.

India’s DRDO and Russia’s NPO Mashinostroyeniya launched the joint venture in 1998 to develop and produce the BrahMos, one of the world’s fastest supersonic cruise missiles.

The Philippines was the first customer of the BrahMos, signing a contract worth approximately $375 million with BrahMos Aerospace in January 2022 for three shore-based anti-ship missile batteries.

The package, intended for the Philippine Marine Corps, includes mobile launchers, missiles, operator and maintainer training, and integrated logistics support. Deliveries began in April 2024 with the first battery and continued through 2025 and into 2026, with the third and final battery nearing completion.

Philippine Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro has indicated interest in further adapting or expanding the capability to suit the country’s geography and operational needs.

The two countries also reached an agreement on air-to-air missile cooperation that “enhances technology collaboration and defense capabilities”, he said.

Indian PM Modi hailed the “growing trust” between Jakarta and New Delhi after meeting Prabowo, which he said underpinned cooperation in “defense, security and maritime affairs”.

“Today, we reached an agreement to enhance defense exchanges, disaster management, and industrial cooperation,” Modi told reporters.

Earlier, Indonesia’s Ministry of Defense (MoD) spokesperson, Rico Ricardo Sirait, told Reuters on March 9 that Jakarta has agreed to buy the BrahMos missile system from India.

The Indian Navy inducted its first BrahMos system in 2005 aboard INS Rajput. The Indian Army followed in 2007 with its own regiments, and the Air Force later introduced an air-launched version from the Su-30MKI in 2019.

The BrahMos missile saw combat use during Operation Sindoor in May 2025, when Indian forces employed air-launched variants from the Su-30MKI. IAF reportedly fired 15-19 BrahMos missiles.

The Indo-Russian missile could have more export customers.

India sketched a list of “friendly nations” it deemed potential buyers, including the Philippines, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and South Africa. The list has since changed, with several countries dropping interest and others queuing up to assess the combat-tested missile system.

India reportedly started talks with Vietnam to sell off the supersonic cruise missile in 2023. An official with BrahMos Aerospace Ltd told the EurAsian Times at the time: “Vietnam had shown interest in the system. But the negotiations have just started.”

Further evidence of BrahMos’s widespread appeal in Southeast Asia is Malaysia’s sustained interest in the missile system, particularly the air-launched variant, which could be integrated with the Royal Malaysian Air Force’s Su-30MKM fighter jets.

By 2025, Malaysia appeared in lists of countries “queuing up” or actively negotiating for BrahMos. In fact, in August that year, reports suggested Malaysia had begun preliminary negotiations with Russia and India for the missile, aiming to revolutionize its Indo-Pacific airpower projection.

Besides Southeast Asia, the Middle East could be a potential market for the BrahMos missile.

Alexander Maksichev, Co-Director of BrahMos Aerospace, explicitly emphasized the UAE as a potential customer. Additionally, India has repeatedly listed the UAE among “friendly nations” eligible for BrahMos exports.

Other countries that have reportedly shown interest in the missile include Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, and Egypt. BrahMos has also gained traction in South America, with countries such as Brazil, Chile, Argentina, and Venezuela showing interest.

The Indo-Russian BrahMos is a major export success, and Putin may want to replicate that success with the Su-57, using Russian tech and Indian co-production and marketing.

Whether India will bite the bullet remains to be seen.

• Contact us at editor (at) eurasiantimes.com
• Follow EurAsian Times on Google News

The post Su-57 Under Review, IAF Boss Says. Can India & Russia Replicate BrahMos Success Story with Felons? appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

France and Germany have rejected reports that their Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) project has collapsed, asserting their joint program to develop a next-generation battle tank remains on track.

On Thursday, France’s armed forces chief Fabien Mandon told parliament that Germany had decided to leave the battle tank program.

On Friday, French Defense Minister Catherine Vautrin said the MGCS project was still on course, speaking during German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier’s visit to the country.

“We would like to tell you, together with my colleague Minister Boris Pistorius, that MGCS remains a current and active project,” Vautrin said alongside the German defense minister in Le Haillan outside the southwestern French city of Bordeaux.

Pistorius said that he “fully” agreed.

“The MGCS project is not finished. It has not been abandoned. Nobody has stopped it. On the contrary, it is a flagship project of Franco-German cooperation.”

On Thursday, Mandon told French lawmakers the two armies had spent several years “to define what a future battle tank should be”. “The outcome is not good,” Mandon told lawmakers.

“We had hoped to build a future tank in cooperation with the Germans, but unfortunately we have to acknowledge that the Germans have decided to leave the project.”

Later on Thursday, he issued a statement softening his remarks, saying: “Although delayed, the program is continuing and remains highly relevant.”

Main Ground Combat System (MGCS)

Launched jointly by France and Germany in 2017, the Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) aims to develop a next-generation battle tank to replace France’s Leclerc and Germany’s Leopard 2 tanks.

It is a “system of systems” project that includes a main battle tank and a network of other combat systems, such as artificial intelligence (AI) for decision-making, advanced sensors, robotics, and onboard unmanned aerial vehicles.

Earlier this June, Rheinmetall’s CEO warned that France may pull out of the MGCS project. “There is always a risk, but nothing has been decided yet,” Armin Papperger told Welt am Sonntag, adding that Paris is planning to drastically cut funding for the project.

A German government spokesperson later questioned the MGCS project, saying it was doubtful a joint tank would be built and that the project would likely focus on “platform-independent” technologies.

Meanwhile, Jean-Paul Alary, CEO of KNDS, the Franco-German company developing the tank, had said at the Eurosatory show in France that, although he could not comment on the MGCS’s current state because it is a political matter, it would be “very bad news” for Europe if the project failed.

The MGCS has remained embroiled in crises and beset by delays, much like the now-abandoned FCAS. Disagreements over the tank’s design, technology, and industrial responsibilities have plagued the MGCS for years.

In short, Berlin wants a stronger, better-armed tank for a potential battle with Russia, while Paris prefers a lighter tank for worldwide deployment. Political and budgetary tensions also persist over which country’s industry should lead.

The project was initially intended to be led by the Franco-German joint venture KNDS, comprising Germany’s Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and France’s Nexter. However, Germany allegedly leveraged its considerable political support to push for Rheinmetall’s involvement. Tensions have since grown between the KNDS and Rheinmetall over leadership of program “pillars,” production shares, and contracts.

From a French perspective, Rheinmetall’s involvement has altered the project’s delicate power dynamics, creating discontent and increasing frustration.

Moreover, the project has reportedly been starved of funding. As Rheinmetall CEO Papperger recently noted, the shareholding companies have received only €25 million ($29 million) since the project’s inception.

Meanwhile, France has grown uneasy with Germany’s increasing assertiveness and its emergence as Europe’s preeminent economic and, increasingly, military player, as veteran journalist Prakash Nanda of EurAsian Times noted.

“They are constantly fighting against the mismatched temperaments of their leaders, their orthogonal domestic politics, and the irreconcilably diverging strategic cultures at the heart of their deep states,” Carnegie Europe’s Strategic Europe wrote in a blog last month.

A core divergence lies in strategic outlook: France consistently advocates for greater European strategic autonomy, while Germany remains more committed to robust transatlantic ties with the United States. Meanwhile, economic and trade policies add another layer of friction, with the two powers often diverging on EU-level decisions regarding fiscal rules, industrial strategy, and market access.

France and Germany have struggled to rein in their powerful defense companies, leaving three major European projects — the Eurodrone, the FCAS fighter program, and the MGCS tank program — in serious difficulty. The FCAS has already collapsed, while the other two now risk failure.

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

The post France & Germany Say MGCS Tank Project is Not Dead—Hours After Their Top General Said Berlin Had Left appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

France has started preparations to train Ukrainian pilots to fly Rafale fighter jets ahead of delivery, Benjamin Haddad, France’s Minister Delegate for European Affairs, said. The question is: Will France-supplied Rafale jets end up like Russian Su-57s?

“We are currently discussing with the Ukrainians the issue of deploying Rafale fighter jets, piloted not by French but by Ukrainian pilots, in Ukrainian airspace. That is why we have also begun work on training these pilots,” said Haddad.

Earlier, French President Emmanuel Macron told reporters on July 13 that France and Ukraine agreed on a roadmap that will enable Ukraine to acquire 16 Rafale aircraft, besides other weapons.

“Earlier this afternoon, President (Volodymyr) Zelenskyy and I agreed on a roadmap between our two countries, implementing what had been agreed in principle last November regarding our bilateral defense cooperation,” Macron said at a news conference, referring to the Letter of Intent (LoI) signed between the two leaders for Kyiv’s procurement of the SAMP/T next-generation air defense system and up to 100 Rafale jet fighters.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had acknowledged that the training for Ukrainian pilots and mechanics will begin in France this year. Once training is complete, Zelensky said the first four Rafale jets will be delivered to Kyiv.

“The first aircraft should be flying in Ukrainian skies in 2028-2029. There will also be additional radars and additional missiles,” the French President said.

Ukrainian pilots are highly experienced on Soviet-era warplanes and have mastered flying F-16 and Mirage-2000 jets, but moving to the cutting-edge Rafales could still be a formidable task and could take 12–18 months for experienced pilots to reach combat-ready status.

Ukraine already operates the Mirage 2000-5F delivered by France last year.

Since the Rafales are not expected to arrive in Ukraine for at least the next few years, Ukraine will bet on Mirage 2000-5 and F-16 jets amid Russia’s attacks on the country. But nearly 50% of F-16s and ground-attack aircraft could be out of action by year-end because of maintenance issues, EurAsian Times reported yesterday.

The omnirole Rafale can perform air superiority, ground attack, reconnaissance, and even nuclear deterrence missions. It can switch between missions with ease, unlike single-role planes, making it versatile across evolving battlefields. Rafale also provides sensor fusion, a digital architecture, Link 16 data links, and networked operations.

The Rafale features an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, which enables it to identify and track targets at up to 200 kilometers, and the sophisticated SPECTRA electronic warfare system, which provides 360-degree threat detection.

These features will boost the Ukrainian Air Force’s situational awareness, survivability in contested airspace, and the ability to operate effectively against Russian air defenses and jets. The aircraft can carry SCALP-EG cruise missiles, AASM Hammer precision-guided bombs, and a heavy payload across 14 hardpoints while retaining air-to-air weapons such as Meteor and MICA.

“Meteor missiles that destroy targets at distances exceeding 200 kilometers will help us push Russian jets away so that they can’t use glide bombs en masse anymore,” Zelensky earlier wrote in a post on X.

F-35 For India “Quite Possible” But “Avoid” — Veteran Air Marshal Says as U.S. Stealth Jets Roar Over Jodhpur

Su-57 vs Rafale

Russia has only a few dozen Su-57s in service. They are expensive and slow to replace, especially under tight Western sanctions, while Moscow works aggressively to export them and generate much-needed revenue.

India remains Moscow’s No. 1 client state for arms, and Putin has pitched the aircraft to New Delhi himself. India is believed to be evaluating the 5th-gen jet, despite reports of the IAF not looking for more Sukhoi variants.

Losing one over Ukraine would be a military and political blow for the Kremlin.

It would not only hand Western analysts the wreckage of arguably Russia’s most advanced fighter jet, but the aircraft falling into enemy hands could also seriously hurt its Russian export potential.

Ukrainian and Western reporting describes Su-57s firing Kh-59 and Kh-69 cruise missiles from well inside Russian airspace—often hundreds of kilometers behind the front lines. They have also been tasked with long-range shots at drones and cruise missiles heading for Russian territory, sometimes with short-range missiles carried externally.

Russia has claimed air-to-air kills with Su-57s (of drones and not fighter jets), but it has received little attention in the global media. However, Ukraine’s drones reportedly damaged Su-57s on the ground at Akhtubinsk in 2024 and deeper inside Russia in 2026, which were better reported.

There was no confirmation from Moscow, but things could have been very different had Ukraine flaunted the Su-57 wreckage.

Taiwan’s Brand New F-16 Vipers Land at Chihhang AFB. Analyst Says Its Radar May Detect China’s J-20 Stealth Jet

Ukraine is doing something similar with its fighter jets. F-16s and the Mirage 2000-5 fleet spend most of their sorties on air defense—intercepting cruise missiles and attack drones. They also launch glide bombs and AASM Hammers from Ukrainian-controlled airspace.

The Ukrainian Air Force has credited F-16s with thousands of drone and missile kills and hundreds of standoff strikes, plus at least one Su-35 shot down in 2026. They still stay away from flying deep and closer to  Russian S-400 coverage.

A Rafale deployment might follow the same logic: a July 2026 roadmap for an initial 16 aircraft (out of 100 per the letter of intent), with the first four transferable only after Ukrainian pilots and mechanics finish training, and operational use in Ukrainian skies discussed for 2028–2029.

Haddad’s point—Ukrainian pilots, not French ones—matches that.

Those jets would be most useful doing what the F-16s already do, only with longer-range tools: Meteor and MICA for cruise-missile and fighter defense, AASM Hammer for standoff strikes, all launched from behind Ukraine’s own air defenses.

“Indian Pilot Crashes UAE Jet Full of Israelis” — The Headline That Would Have Run, Had Machchhar Not Fought Back: OPED

Using them for deep penetration could endanger them, the same way Russia has refused to burn its Su-57s. Both Ukraine and Russia face the same constraint: a handful of cutting-edge fighters that must be protected at all costs.

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

The post Rafale Jets to Face Su-57-like Limits in Ukraine War. Too Few, Too Costly and Too Valuable To Use Freely appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

On 30 September, a Flydubai flight from Dubai to Tel Aviv with 174 people on board, the majority of them Israeli, encountered a dangerous “incident”. Mid-flight, the co-pilot allegedly stabbed the captain, Indian national Smit Machchhar, and may have tried to either crash or hijack the aircraft.

The aircraft plunged thousands of feet in seconds. As per reports, badly wounded Machchhar fought back and physically unlocked the cockpit door. The action has been called heroic, as Israeli passengers and an Emirati crew managed to enter the cockpit and take control of the plane and co-pilot, reportedly from Oman.

Relief pilots on board helped land the plane safely in Tabuk, Saudi Arabia.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was among the first to name Machchhar: “My salute to the Indian pilot Captain Smit Machchhar for his extraordinary bravery. Despite being stabbed and seriously injured, he fought back, resisted, opened the cockpit door, and enabled passengers and crew to overpower the attacker — preventing a catastrophic mid-air disaster. He saved the lives of 174 people, including Israeli citizens and other nationals. I wish Captain Machchhar a speedy and full recovery. He is a true hero.”

Israel’s Foreign Ministry went further, explicitly listing the three nationalities: “This man is a hero. Captain Smit Machchhar, the Indian captain of flydubai Flight 1073, fought back after being stabbed in the cockpit. Despite being severely injured, he managed to unlock the cockpit door — allowing Israeli passengers and the Emirati crew to intervene and save all the passengers. Together, their extraordinary courage saved 174 lives. Indian. Israeli. Emirati. Different nationalities. One extraordinary act of courage. We wish Captain Machchhar a full and speedy recovery.”

Israel’s ambassador to India, Reuven Azar, wrote: “Together with Israeli, Indian and UAE nations, I pray for the life of Captain Smit Machchhar, the experienced and gifted hero Indian pilot of flydubai flight FZ1073. His courage & the courage of other Israeli & Emirati passengers & crew members saved the lives of 180 souls. United against terrorism!”

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi replied in kind: “Captain Smit Machchhar is a HERO. In the face of the gravest danger and despite being seriously injured, he showed immense courage and an unwavering resolve to protect the lives of others. His valour helped save hundreds of lives and avert a great tragedy. India is proud of Captain Machchhar. Praying for his speedy recovery, renewed strength and good health.”

The Embassy of India in Israel added: “A resounding salute to Captain Smit Machchhar, the brave Indian pilot of flight FZ1073! Despite sustaining injuries in an extraordinary and challenging situation, Captain Machchhar displayed remarkable courage, composure and devotion to duty, helping ensure the safety of everyone on board.”

Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan, UAE Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, called his Israeli counterpart Gideon Sa’ar, inquired about the passengers’ safety, expressed wishes for their well-being, and discussed strengthening bilateral relations. Saar later said the two had expressed “mutual determination… to strengthen relations between the countries on all levels and to collaborate against extremist elements seeking to harm security and undermine stability in the region.”

Flydubai described an “altercation” on the flight deck, said on-duty crew traveling as passengers secured the aircraft, and urged against “premature speculation” while investigations continue. The UAE’s General Civil Aviation Authority called it a “security incident.”

US President Donald Trump, after speaking with Netanyahu, called Machchhar a hero who was “in very bad shape” yet managed to open the door and called for help.

Passengers who rushed the cockpit shared firsthand information. Yaniv Hayoun, who later met Netanyahu still wearing a blood-stained shirt, said: “When I went in, I saw the terrorist on the controls, between the two seats. There were no pilots in the seats. I grabbed the terrorist, put him in a hold, and first of all pulled him outside.” He added that he then took the controls: “I watch Air Crash Investigation, Mr Prime Minister.”

Zvika Manes described tying the attacker “with his own zip ties and with the multimedia headphones” and said, “I’m covered in blood. It was insane.” Others spoke of “terrible screams,” a plane that “was simply diving and spinning like crazy,” and the feeling that “September 11 is happening again.” Several credited “miracles” and the Indian captain’s last effort to open the door.

Interestingly, the day before the flight, Netanyahu said Israel had “indications that, ahead of the elections, our enemies will try to attack us,” without naming anyone.

Opposition leader Yair Lapid, after a security briefing that night, said there was “no reason to put the public in a panic” and that security threats should not be used in election messaging.

Security officials told Hebrew media they knew of no specific attack threat.

After Flydubai FZ1073 diverted, Lapid wrote: “Nothing even resembling this morning’s plane incident appeared in the security briefing with the prime minister last night. Nothing similar, nothing reminiscent of it, not even a hint.”

He later called the airport reception “cheap politics” and accused government-aligned voices of hitching “a pathetic ride on heroic Israelis.”

Netanyahu told CNN the warning was “not specifically” about this flight. Asked about Iran, he said it was too early to say and that Israel would join the probe.

Jackson Hinkle, who has about 3.8 million followers, posted the version that drew the widest reach: “Netanyahu expected to lose election. He’s still facing 7 criminal charges. He takes a trip to the UAE this week. He returns to Israel after 6 hour meeting. He warns of terror plot before elections. Iranians respond saying they are not planning attack & Netanyahu is just trying to cancel the elections. 24 hours later flight FZ1073 takes off from UAE to Israel. Attempted hijacking & 9/11-style terrorist attack on flight. Israeli special ops on board thwart attack. Netanyahu immediately convenes security cabinet meeting. All too predictable…”

Max Blumenthal, editor of The Grayzone, wrote: “When Benjamin Netanyahu and his Likud ally and Defense Minister Israel Katz instantly blamed jihadist terror for the FlyDubai incident, they drowned out an initial assessment by IDF Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir and his top commanders that ruled out hijacking as the motive behind the altercation… Even Donald Trump is entertaining doubt, proclaiming that the stabber was ‘perhaps a terrorist or a wack job.’ ‘This is the story that I heard. I don’t know if it’s true,’ Trump added… The FlyDubai incident was absolutely fortuitous for Netanyahu… In the midst of his most consequential and likely final campaign for re-election, Netanyahu is essentially taking credit for an Entebbe sequel.”

George Galloway, former British MP, titled a monologue “A false, false flag day” and wrote: “Iran is going to be blamed for what didn’t happen at Fairford and what didn’t become the new 9/11… And bye bye Fly Dubai.” The post pairs the flight with a separate UK incident and treats both as blame aimed at Iran.

James Li, an independent journalist, said: “Jihad terror or false flag? Sticking to just the facts of the FlyDubai attempted hijacking, the biggest red flag that Israel must answer for is how a pilot who has no authorization to fly that airplane was able to thwart multiple layers of security, and bring an axe to boot?”

Kim Iversen: “I’m NOT buying it.”

Daily Iran News, on the passenger who said he learned recovery from a TV series: “If you believe this story, you better get a shrink.”

Fox News posted Netanyahu’s Hannity interview without endorsing a conspiracy reading. Trump’s own line, widely reposted, was: “I don’t know if it’s true, but that’s the story I got from Bibi.”

No one has been able to stop conspiracy theorists and their wild imaginations.

The Flydubai posts began within about an hour of the emergency signal, before Saudi investigators questioned the co-pilot, before the airline described anything beyond an “altercation,” and before the Indian embassy confirmed that Captain Machchhar was in a Tabuk hospital.

Hinkle’s timeline, Iversen’s “I’m NOT buying it,” Galloway’s “false, false flag day,” and thousands of smaller posts did not wait for investigations; they used the election date and Netanyahu’s warning the day before.

Within hours of the 11 September 2001 attacks, posts and later films claimed the US had staged or allowed the hijackings, with many even blaming Israel.

The 2008 Mumbai attacks were called a false flag in parts of the Pakistani press and on social media, despite the gunmen’s admission and the subsequent trial.

The 2019 Pulwama (Kashmir) suicide bombing was described by some Pakistani officials and online accounts as an Indian set-up. After 7 October 2023, a parallel claim held that Israel had known in advance, stood down, or staged the Hamas assault to justify the war in Gaza.

The same pattern followed the 2015 Paris attacks, the 2016 Nice truck attack, and, in India, the 2001 Parliament attack. In each case, the theory arrived before any official report.

It appears a false-flag script is always ready when countries like India or Israel are involved. The UAE sits in the same frame: it is a close partner of both, and the Dubai–Tel Aviv route exists only because of that alignment.

Had the aircraft crashed, the same accounts would have lambasted the pilot and run headlines like “Indian Pilot Crashes Emirati Aircraft Full of Israeli Passengers”, to sow discord among the three allies.

Thank God, all are Safe!

• This is an Opinion Article
• Mail us at: editor (at) eurasiantimes.com

The post “Indian Pilot Crashes UAE Jet Full of Israelis” — The Headline That Would Have Run, Had Machchhar Not Fought Back: OPED appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey recently signed the “Mecca Joint Defense Agreement”. Many analysts believe this trilateral pact is aimed at checking Iranian and Israeli “hegemony” in the tumultuous Middle East region.

Meanwhile, the biggest question running through India’s nearly 1.5 billion people is how this trilateral defense pact will impact India, which has fought multiple wars with Pakistan and maintains a tense relationship with Islamabad.

Despite hogging global media limelight for playing the role of mediator in the ongoing Iran war, Pakistan’s position back home looks scary with relentless terror attacks and a deteriorating security situation.

Pakistan continues to face tremendous domestic pressures. Protests in Pak-controlled Kashmir have intensified since mid-2026, with scores of innocent protesters killed by the security forces.

Islamabad imposed a communication blockade, ordered foreign journalists to leave the region, and limited access to international media outlets, including Al Jazeera’s digital platform.

This is no ordinary region. India claims the Pak-controlled Kashmir as its own and has vowed to integrate it with Jammu and Kashmir. Reportedly, pro-India slogans and flags were seen in the demonstration.

Then, regions like Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) are Pakistan’s Achilles’ heel. Separatism in these two regions appears to have gone beyond the control of the Pakistan Army, and looks as volatile as East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) during 1971. The question is how long Pakistan can hold these two regions, and at what cost.

Dismal economic conditions, disgruntled population, and heightened tensions with neighboring India and Afghanistan have intensified Pakistan’s problems. The question is: does Pakistan have the financial muscle or resources to fight a five-front conflict — Balochistan, KPK, Kashmir, India and Afghanistan, simultaneously?

On top of it, Pakistan has signed a defense pact with Saudi Arabia and Turkey, which means they should be prepared to fight outside the country as well, probably against Houthis in Yemen. That would open a sixth front.

Indian military exposed Pakistan’s defense architecture during Operation Sindoor last year in May. India not only managed to breach Pakistani defenses to hit multiple terror targets in the first wave of attacks, but India also launched precision strikes that impaired critical Pakistani military infrastructure across the country.

Indian military targeted multiple airbases including Nur Khan (Chaklala) near Rawalpindi, Mushaf (Sargodha), Murid, Rafiqui, Rahim Yar Khan, Sukkur, Jacobabad, Bholari, and others—using supersonic BrahMos and other precision munitions.

Satellite imagery confirmed the heavy damage, including destroyed runways, hangars, command-and-control centers, and loss of up to 14 aircraft (as per IAF) and scores of personnel on the ground. Pakistan also claimed downing multiple Indian jets, but it could hardly penetrate the Indian air defense network, led by the S-400.

Operation Sindoor demonstrated that Pakistan’s defenses could be easily penetrated and its Air Force could be crippled even with limited, restrained strikes.

Meanwhile, Turkey is already a member of NATO, arguably the most powerful Islamic country in terms of military. It does not really need Pakistan or Saudi Arabia to defend itself. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, has been battered by Iran and Houthi rebels. But when the US could not completely defend it, what can Pakistan and Turkey do?

In the case of Pakistan, it is the most vulnerable of the three.

The Mecca Joint Defense Agreement, signed on 7 August 2026 by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, assumes utmost importance for Islamabad. The pact’s core clause treats an armed attack on any one party as an attack on all three.

It directly follows the September 2025 Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

For Riyadh, it’s another insurance policy, but for Pakistan—still repairing airbases more than a year later—the pact is aimed at sending a strong deterrence message to India, which has pledged a devastating response to any terror attack on the country.

Collective defense commitments from Riyadh and Ankara are sure to boost Pakistan’s morale, but Turkey (and Saudi Arabia) have been supporting Pakistan since 1947 and have never managed to turn the tide against India.

For instance, during the 1971 war, Turkey provided critical military and diplomatic support to defend Pakistan’s territorial integrity. Operating under the CENTO defense pact, Ankara provided substantial material support to Pakistan by providing aircraft assistance and military hardware, but to little avail.

Even politically, Turkey refused to recognize the newly independent state of Bangladesh for over two years. It only recognized Bangladesh in February 1974 after Pakistan did.

Meanwhile, India has already established strong military ties with Ankara’s adversaries, Greece, Cyprus, and Armenia. India also shares robust military ties with Israel. There might not be a formal agreement on paper, but India-Israel ties go beyond any melodramatic pact.

No doubt, the Mecca pact embeds Pakistan in a broader Islamic-world security architecture at a moment when its conventional defenses have been publicly tested while the country’s biggest province, Balochistan, continues to fight for its liberation, just like East Pakistan (now Bangladesh).

For a country simultaneously battling insurgencies in Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and Pakistan-administered Kashmir while managing tense borders with both Afghanistan and India, the Mecca defense pact is far more valuable to Pakistan than it is to either Saudi Arabia or Turkey.

• 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.
• This is an Opinion Article
• He can be reached at editor (at) eurasiantimes.com

The post Pakistan’s “Six-Front War”: Why Mecca Defense Pact Helps Islamabad More Than Turkey or Saudi Arabia? OPED 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.

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.

China released the teaser footage of the fifth prototype of its sixth-generation fighter jet, the J-36. The big question is: has Beijing leapfrogged the U.S. F-47 aircraft?

China Military Bugle, the official press account of the People’s Liberation Army, published a four-minute video on July 26, marking the 10th anniversary of China’s first heavy transport aircraft, the Y-20, entering service.

In the video’s last scene, one of the Y-20 co-pilots asks his captain: “Who are we refueling today?”

“First the ‘Master Six’, then the ‘Little Six’,” the captain replies.

The final shot clearly shows the now familiar three-engine tailless J-36 flying next to the Y-20.

In Chinese defense circles, “Master Six” is an informal nickname for the H-6 strategic bomber, and “Little Six” is a reference to the sixth-generation fighter.

PLA just hinted at the 6th-gen fighter in the video Y-20's 10th anniversary service!

"Captain, who are we refueling today?"

"First 'Sixth Master' (H-6), then 'Little Six' (6th-gen)."

The final shot clearly shows the unannounced but well-known 6th-gen jet. pic.twitter.com/dmVdErtXmO

— Li Zexin 李泽欣 (@XH_Lee23) June 28, 2026

Notably, while there have been multiple videos and pictures of the J-36, this is the first time that the video of the unusual, three-engine fighter jet has been released in official Chinese media.

This is seen as China’s first official acknowledgment of the existence and flight testing of the next-generation fighter jet.

Online videos and pictures of the J-36 have been circulating since December 2024, when China simultaneously unveiled two next-generation stealth aircraft, dubbed J-36 and J-50, during flight tests near Chengdu, Sichuan.

The J-36’s trijet design, featuring a blended double delta wing structure, was immediately documented. However, those videos were shot from the ground, and China’s government, military officials, or aviation companies did not make any comment on the new fighter jet.

Nearly three months later, in March 2025, the J-36 made a second appearance over Chengdu. This time, it flew solo, and the videos gave clear views of the aircraft’s trijet configuration, dorsal intake, and control surfaces.

Since then, the aircraft has been sighted multiple times flying over Chengdu.

The latest video, featuring the J-36 flying next to the Y-20, also makes it clear that the aircraft is equipped with air-to-air refueling capacity.

Song Zhongping, a military commentator and former PLA instructor, told Hong Kong-based SCMP that the video indicated that the sixth-generation fighter was almost certainly equipped with air-to-air refueling capability.

“And it is highly likely that it has already conducted air-to-air refueling tests during flight testing,” he said.

Air-to-air refueling capacity is crucial to navigate the long distances of the Pacific theatre.

“If a tactical aircraft’s endurance and combat radius approach those of a medium-range strategic bomber, it would be capable of carrying out patrol missions of strategic significance,” Fu Qianshao, a military analyst and former PLA Air Force officer, said.

The latest images appear to show further significant changes to the aircraft’s design and underscore its rapid evolution.

According to experts, this might be the fifth prototype of the J-36.

China’s decision to officially acknowledge the J-36 in the Y-20 anniversary video, while simultaneously flying what appears to be a fifth prototype within just 19 months of the first sightings, marks a significant acceleration in its sixth-generation fighter program.

The aircraft’s large airframe, evolving stealth features, and confirmed aerial-refueling capability suggest Beijing is prioritizing long-range, high-endurance operations across the Pacific. If the current pace of flight testing continues, China could field an operational sixth-generation platform earlier than many Western programs currently project — a development that would reshape the airpower balance in the Indo-Pacific.

Andreas Rupprecht, an aviation analyst and expert on China’s air force, said the structural differences between the earliest and latest examples made it unlikely the sightings simply showed a single aircraft being repeatedly modified.

“It is still difficult to assess this with any certainty,” he said. “But if one takes the reports from reliable sources as a basis, there is indeed some strong evidence to support it.”

According to Rupprecht, the J-36 program appeared to have progressed through at least three distinct configurations since December 2024.

However, he cautioned that faster flight testing of the J-36 might not translate into quicker operationalization of the fighter aircraft into the PLA Air Force (PLAAF).

Rupprecht suggested that he expected China to deliver the first pre-production batch to the PLA Air Force before 2030, with operationalization of the final production model some years later.

He also suggested that the J-36’s unusually large size meant the aircraft was more likely to serve as a heavily armed command platform capable of directing armed loyal wingman drones and other fighter jets, aided by its powerful sensors and long-range weapons.

“I am more convinced that the J-36 is something entirely distinct,” he said, describing it as an “aerial air-defense node” comparable in concept to an Aegis-equipped US warship coordinating a wider combat network.

In Rupprecht’s view, these different roles and designs make J-36’s comparisons with the F-47 misleading. In fact, he suggested that it will be more fruitful to compare the F-47 with J-50.

Regardless of the substantial differences in design and possibly in their roles, it can not be denied that China’s J-36 is progressing much faster than the US’s next-generation fighter jet.

While the J-36’s fifth prototype is flying, there is no publicly available picture of the F-47 flying.

The first flight of the F-47 is expected sometime in 2028.

In fact, according to the latest reports, the F-47 is expected to initially fly with an interim engine, as the US’s Next Generation Adaptive Propulsion (NGAP) program could be ready for integration onto an actual aircraft only by 2030.

This means that at least the F-47 prototype, and possibly the first operational F-47s, will have to fly with a different engine before the NGAP engine is integrated into the F-47 around 2030-2031.

Meanwhile, the GCAP, the UK, Italy, and Japan’s combined tri-nation sixth-generation fighter jet program, is expected to enter operational service around 2035.

The FCAS, Germany, Spain, and France’s sixth-generation fighter jet program has already collapsed.

Fu Qianshao, a military analyst and former PLA Air Force officer, said that China’s program was progressing much faster than comparable efforts in the US, Russia and Europe.

“In my view, China’s fighter development … is now ahead of its competitors,” he said.

These timelines suggest that for the first time in history, China might beat the US and Europe in integrating a next-generation fighter jet in operational service, which could have far-reaching consequences for the balance of power, particularly in the Pacific theatre.

Furthermore, the J-36’s aerial refueling capability, combined with its unusually large size and greater fuel capacity, would give it exceptional range, an advantage that could prove decisive in the contest for air superiority across the Pacific theater.

“The aircraft could potentially operate beyond the western Pacific and, in some cases, reach the Indian Ocean, which would have significant strategic implications,” Fu added.

• 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 J-36 vs F-47: China’s J-36 Pulls Ahead of U.S. F-47 as PLA Becomes First To Release “Teaser” of 6th-Gen Aircraft appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.