A profound transformation is underway in the politico-military-industrial complex that has dominated the US defense realm for over seven decades.
As drones, AI, autonomous systems, satellites, robots, and networked platforms reshape the battlefield, Silicon Valley is quietly edging out the US defense market’s big five: Lockheed Martin, RTX, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman.
On October 6, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth tapped SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and Palmer Luckey, the co-founder of defense technology firm Anduril, to lead “Project Meridian: The Future of Warfare,” a new 120-day initiative tasked with identifying the technologies and capabilities required for future military dominance.
“We are witnessing rapid advances in artificial intelligence, autonomy, directed energy, robotics, biotechnology, among other critical high-tech areas. Combined, these new domains, new ways of fighting, and technological developments will profoundly alter the character of warfare,” Hegseth said in his one-page memo while announcing Project Meridian on September 30.
“To maintain global dominance, the United States must anticipate future operational environments and act decisively to develop the tools to dominate in them.”
Defining the scope of the study, Hegseth said: “Project Meridian will study the battlefields of the future, identify which weapons and technologies warfighters will need to harness to dominate in these environments, and propose actionable solutions to start developing, testing, and fielding these capabilities such that America will have overmatch for the 21st century and beyond.”
In his memo, Hegseth hinted that the center of gravity is shifting over who defines and decides the parameters of future defense weapons, technologies, and requirements.
“Project Meridian will leverage critical perspectives from outside the Pentagon, drawing upon a group of top technologists, innovators, business leaders, policymakers, and national security experts.”
Its primary function will be to map the trajectory of future warfare, identify critical capability gaps, and propose actionable solutions, Hegseth said.
The Elon Musk and Palmer Luckey-led panel will therefore discuss not a particular weapons platform, but what American warfare and the battlefield will look like in the future.
What they will discuss and define is not merely a change in weapons technology, but the way the Pentagon sees warfare and organizes the production of military power itself.
The study’s co-directors will “identify the domains that we must conquer, and capabilities we must master,” Hegseth said at Marine Corps Base Quantico on September 30.
“The Project Meridian effort will examine the technologies and operational concepts required to sustain U.S. military advantage across the full spectrum of future warfighting domains across a 10-20 year time horizon,” said a spokesperson for the Department of Defense.
The Musk- and Luckey-led study could therefore shape the Pentagon’s defense procurement decisions for decades.
It’s no accident that while SpaceX’s Musk and Anduril’s Luckey are on the panel, the executives of the Big Five are conspicuously missing.
The US military-industrial complex started taking shape in the 1950s.
While the two World Wars saw large-scale mobilizations and the channeling of industries toward weapons production, the distinctive military-industrial complex emerged in the 1950s.
US President Eisenhower himself later described the “conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry as new in the American experience.”
In April 1950, the top-secret U.S. National Security Council (NSC) policy (NSC-68) concluded that the “only plausible way to deter the Soviet Union was for President Harry Truman to support a massive build-up of both conventional and nuclear weapons.
In other words, the US should maintain elevated defense spending even during peacetime.
U.S. military budget jumped from USD 13 billion to USD 60 billion within a couple of years. Most of these funds went to private contractors, rather than government bodies.
For nearly the next seven decades, military production and weapons procurement in the US followed a set pattern.
The Pentagon defined its requirements, the US Congress approved the budgets, defense production firms, mostly a handful of prime contractors, submitted bids, and the winner developed platforms with lifecycles ranging from a few years to a few decades.
Fighter jets, bombers, submarines, aircraft carriers, missiles, radars, military communication platforms- all these platforms were developed this way.
For decades, they remained industrial objects; however, these platforms gradually became computational systems. The F-35, for instance, has been described as a flying supercomputer.
New-age military platforms, however, are first and foremost computing platforms.
Drones, for example, are all these systems rolled into one.
They are at once a fighter jet and a bomber, equipped with radar seekers, missiles, a network of sensors, a communication system, and a software platform that integrates AI into flight paths and target selection.
Satellite constellations are becoming central to military communication and targeting by drones, as seen in the critical role Starlink is playing in the war in Ukraine. Ukrainian drones use AI to select flight paths that exploit gaps in Russia’s layered air defense network.
Command-and-control software and Battlefield Management Systems (BMS) fuse information from diverse sources, including satellites, drones, ground-based radars, and AWACS, within seconds to create a unified, simplified battlefield picture and propose the most critical sites for targeting.
Underpinning all these systems are software, computing systems, and AI, not just hardware.
In this new warfare, large, expensive defense platforms are often a liability, rather than an asset.
In short, military value is shifting at an unprecedented speed.
Defense platforms costing millions of dollars and once considered invincible could now be targeted by a drone costing just a few thousand dollars.
This shift is also forcing military suppliers to change. Software firms in Silicon Valley that combine artificial intelligence (AI), autonomy, and machine learning (ML) to deliver innovative defense solutions are now at the center of this shift.
In recent years, they have won contracts worth tens of billions of dollars, edging out the Big Five of defense production.
The rise of these new military technology firms marks the biggest shift in the US arms industry over the past five years.
“Companies like SpaceX, Palantir, and Anduril have been tapped for multi-billion-dollar contract awards from the Pentagon for communications, targeting, unpiloted vehicles, anti-drone defenses, and hypersonic weapons. The funds from these awards will flow to the companies over time, which should put them in the top ranks of Pentagon contractors by value of awards within the next several years,” a recent report from the Costs of War project said.
For instance,
has received awards for countering Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) from the Marines (US$642 million); a contract for its Roadrunner UAV interceptor system (US$250 million); and contracts for its Ghost Shark autonomous underwater vehicle as part of the U.S.-UK-Australia AUKUS project, to name a few.
Anduril has also been selected to build the next generation of Army goggles, the Integrated Visual Augmentation System (IVAS), which are “intended to give soldiers everything from night-vision capability to warnings of incoming airborne threats.”
In June this year, the U.S. Air Force awarded engineering, manufacturing development, and production contracts for Collaborative Combat Aircraft Increment 1 to both Anduril (FQ-44) and General Atomics.
However, Anduril’s most lucrative contract could be in border security technologies. The Big Beautiful bill commits over US$6 billion for various border security technologies. However, as Eurasian Times reported earlier, the bill’s conditions mean Anduril is the only firm that qualifies for these border surveillance tenders.
SpaceX is launching most of the U.S. military’s satellites. It is also receiving funding for the military version of its Starlink system.
Separately, the Pentagon is considering investing in SpaceX’s Starship system.
SpaceX and Anduril could also win billion-dollar contracts in the upcoming ‘Golden Dome’ project.
Established tech firms are also challenging the Big Five’s dominance. For example, Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Oracle, and IBM are collectively investing US$10 billion in the Pentagon’s cloud computing program.
“To the extent that the Pentagon moves towards AI-driven weapons systems, including swarms of drones and uncrewed aircraft, ships, and combat vehicles, the dominance of the Big Five firms may be reduced,” the report by the Costs of War Project added.
In fact, a recent essay on the Anduril Industries blog, ‘Rebooting the Arsenal of Democracy,’ dismissed the Big Five defense contractors as ‘remnants of the Cold War’ that need to be supplanted if America is to take the lead in developing and producing the weapons of the future.
“Why can’t the existing defense companies simply do better? The largest defense contractors are staffed with patriots who still lack the software expertise or business model to build the technology we need.
“Tomorrow’s weapons – autonomous systems, cyberweapons and defenses, networked systems, and more – are enabled through software, while these companies specialize in hardware. These companies work slowly, while the best engineers relish working at speed… These companies built the tools that kept us safe in the past, but they are not the future of our defense,” the essay said.
The trend, therefore, has already started.
Project Meridian, which could profoundly impact US defense procurement for decades, will further accelerate this trend.
Musk and Luckey’s appointment to lead this study suggests Silicon Valley tech firms are quietly edging out the US military-industrial complex’s Big Five.
The post No Boeing, Lockheed or Any of the Big Five: Musk & Luckey Co-Lead Project Meridian on America’s Future Warfare appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
Last week, 7 ARAD-7 rifles of Israeli manufacture were seized by the Brazilian Federal Police at a transport company located in Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, while they were being prepared to be sent to drug traffickers of the Terceiro Comando Puro (TCP) organization. These are the same drug traffickers who control a territory called “Complexo de Israel,” which brings together the favelas Cidade Alta, Parada de Lucas, Vigário Geral, Cinco Bocas, and Pica-Pau.
Two years ago, we wrote here at the Strategic Culture Foundation an article about the danger of “narcopentecostalism” – the deep linkage between drug trafficking and neo-Pentecostalism in some favelas – pointing to this new phenomenon as a possible national security threat for Brazil, as well as a potential focus of activities aimed at destabilizing the social fabric and religious persecution. Indeed, in TCP territories, Catholic churches and Afro-Brazilian religious centers are closed and violently attacked.
Nevertheless, at the time we wrote that article, in July 2024, there were not yet enough material elements to incisively affirm the existence of a direct connection between narcopentecostalism and the State of Israel. TCP traffickers exalted the State of Israel, used Israeli patches and uniforms, but all of this was circumstantial and could be explained by mere adherence to evangelical discourse.
Now, however, we have more specific evidence to be able to return to the topic and raise concern about the possible link between Israel and one of Brazil’s main drug trafficking organizations.
After all, to date it is still not known how these modern Israeli rifles reached the logistical branch of an important Brazilian criminal organization, when this specific rifle is still uncommon among Brazilian police forces and nonexistent among the military.
The first objection that could be raised would be about Israel’s “interest” in arming or financing a criminal organization in Brazil. Well, it would not be the first time.
In the 1980s, 500 automatic weapons (including IMI Galil rifles and Uzi submachine guns) and 200,000 rounds of ammunition were found in a warehouse belonging to the Medellín Cartel, one of the largest drug trafficking organizations in Colombia. At the time, “independent investigations” concluded that the person responsible for the operation, the mercenary and retired Israeli military officer Yair Klein, had acted on his own. Klein himself, however, always stated that his activities in Colombia (which involved not only arms sales but also the training of paramilitary groups) had the knowledge and authorization of Israeli authorities.
Klein’s link to the Israeli state apparatus, demonstrating that he was not really an “independent agent,” is confirmed by the fact that when he was arrested in Sierra Leone in 1999 for selling weapons to insurgents of the Revolutionary United Front, the State of Israel intervened to secure his release, as well as refused all extradition requests.
Another interesting and recent piece of news involves Mexico, where authorities declared that 80% of the weapons found with soldiers of the drug cartels were of U.S. origin… and most of the remaining 20% were of Israeli origin. Indeed, Israel officially exported 24,000 automatic weapons between 2006 and 2018 to Mexico’s military and police institutions, and another 18,000 in more recent years. Note, however, that estimates from independent observatories suggest that Mexican cartels as a whole possess an arsenal of several hundred thousand automatic weapons. If something like 15-20% of these weapons are of Israeli origin, then we are talking about any number between 20,000 and 100,000 Israeli-origin weapons in the hands of the cartels. These are numbers that simply do not match the figures of official Israeli arms exports to Mexican security forces.
One last point that may draw attention is the recent attention the U.S. has given to Brazilian criminal organizations, with the PCC and CV groups categorized as terrorist groups by Donald Trump’s government. What draws attention is the fact that the TCP – the 3rd largest criminal organization in Brazil, with a presence in some other countries in the region, operations in several Brazilian states, and at least one verifiable link to an individual connected to Al-Qaeda’s financing network, not to mention an operational alliance with the PCC – was left out of the categorization.
Naturally, it could be a coincidence. But even so, it is an interesting coincidence that the neo-Pentecostal criminal organization apparently armed by Israel is exactly the one that was not categorized as terrorist by the White House.
After claiming it intercepted foreign aircraft on two separate occasions last year, China has made another major claim: a “foreign warship” lost power while pursuing a People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLA-N) Type 055 destroyer, seemingly an indirect reference to the USS Benfold.
Zhang Jun, a captain on the PLA Navy’s Type 055 “Zunyi” destroyer, said a foreign warship lost power while his warship, engaged in a routine training exercise at the time, the Chinese state-owned publication Global Times claimed.
Speaking on China Central Television (CCTV), the officer said the destroyer had multiple encounters with foreign warships and aircraft during the exercise.
“During that mission, we were conducting routine training exercises when a foreign warship began tracking our ship. As we sailed at high speed, the foreign vessel had to match our speed. While we were in a standoff, its power and electricity all suddenly went out, its radar stopped emitting, and its navigation lights went dark,” Zhang said. “This lasted for nearly half an hour. But our equipment and our crew had no problems at all,” he added.
When asked whether the engagement made him nervous, the Chinese officer said, “Why should I be nervous? I was definitely not nervous. As long as you are within range of my missiles, I can definitely destroy you.”
The officer stopped short of providing more details, including the time and place of the encounter and the name of the foreign warship. However, the claims appear aimed at the US Navy warship USS Benfold, which apparently lost power and was stranded in the South China Sea in July 2026, as previously reported by the EurAsian Times.
“On July 24, 2026, while conducting routine operations in the Indo-Pacific, Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Benfold (DDG 65) reported an engineering casualty involving its generators, causing a loss of power,” Navy Cmdr. Matthew Comer, spokesperson for the 7th Fleet, said in a statement to USNI News in August 2026.
“There were no injuries to the crew, who demonstrated resilience, grit, professionalism and unwavering steadiness in their response,” he added.
The incident reportedly occurred while the USS Benfold was engaged in routine operations in the Indo-Pacific as part of the USS George Washington carrier strike group (CSG).
After the power loss, the guided-missile destroyer reportedly drifted for four days and was supplied by other ships in the South China Sea, which China claims as its sovereign territory and where frequent standoffs occur between Beijing and other forces.
The Seventh Fleet spokesperson did not mention a high-speed pursuit of a Chinese vessel or any engagement between the US carrier strike group and PLA Navy warships, although these encounters are not uncommon in the region.
When asked whether China’s claimed scenario is plausible, Indian Navy veteran and commentator Rear Admiral Girish Kumar Garg (retd) told the EurAsian Times, “For an Arleigh Burke-class ship, high-speed propulsion has nothing to do with total power loss. Complete power failure can happen if all onboard power generators fail or the power distribution system malfunctions. Although rare, it is not impossible.”
Further, when probed about potential reasons for the complete power loss, Rear Admiral Garg said, “Can be many reasons- fuel contamination can be a major cause. Power overload due to too many systems operating and loaded on the running generators can also cause them to trip. However, generally, if all onboard power generators are running and connected, then they cater for full ship’s electrical load plus some extra load margin.”
Why Yemen Could be a Graveyard for Turkish & Even Mecca Pact Soldiers: History Has The Answers: OPED
The USS Benfold power loss incident was not the first of its kind. Earlier, the USS Higgins had an “engineering casualty” in its electrical system in May 2026, which caused it to lose power and propulsion for many hours in the Indo-Pacific area. No chase of another vessel had occurred at the time.
Nonetheless, state media and Chinese experts used the opportunity and their purported claims to highlight the enviable capabilities of the PLAN’s Type 055 warships.
Chinese military expert Shi Hong told the Global Times that the Type 055 is considered the world’s best large destroyer in terms of comprehensive capabilities. Meanwhile, Xu Yi, another crew member on the ship that was involved in the purported encounter, said, “We have a powerful offensive and defensive system. In the future, we will definitely conduct operations externally in formation. In fact, we have already begun integrating multiple formations and exploring what makes for the best combination.”
Some pro-PLA observers on social media widely amplified the Chinese claims, aligning with similar previous instances.
However, Beijing deliberately makes specific claims while avoiding direct naming of the foreign assets to avoid a diplomatic response and to eliminate the possibility of a counter-narrative from official sources and a potential bilateral tussle.
In the past few years, China has claimed to have intercepted and expelled unidentified foreign aircraft from the same region on multiple occasions.
Last year, Chinese state media, CCTV, released a video on June 29 showing two J-16 fighter jets—considered the cornerstone of the PLA Air Force’s interception efforts—being dispatched to warn and drive out a “foreign aircraft” that allegedly breached China’s territorial sea boundary.
“The foreign aircraft flew over at a low altitude, not very disciplined, almost at a vertical 90 degrees, breaching our territorial sea line,” air force aviation brigade member Zhang Zhanfang stated on the broadcast at the time.
The Chinese media did not disclose the exact date or location of the incident, making it challenging to identify the foreign aircraft in question.
Later that year, Global Times reported on a documentary shown on CCTV in October 2025, in which a PLA Air Force (PLAAF) pilot from the special mission aircraft formation claimed he could simultaneously lock two foreign stealth fighter jets while flying the J-16 fighter jet and force both jets to withdraw.
“They headed straight toward our two aircraft. Their intention was very clear—it was a provocation. With our backs to the territorial sea line, we had to intercept them,” Li Chao, a pilot from the People’s Liberation Army’s Western Theatre Command, said while recounting the incident that allegedly took place during a coastal training exercise in 2024.
Although the Chinese did not disclose which foreign stealth aircraft it was referring to, only two aircraft fit the description: the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II of the US Air Force (USAF).
Both aircraft are frequently deployed in the Indo-Pacific for training, war exercises, and other operational missions, as the EurAsian Times noted in a detailed report published at the time.
Washington did not acknowledge the claim, but the incident drew a wide debate over whether a 4.5th-generation jet could intercept US fifth-generation stealth fighters.
Separately, US and Chinese ships have had sporadic encounters in international waters, as the US Navy conducts regular FONOPs (Freedom of Navigation Operations) in the region.
Earlier this year, in January 2026, reports noted that a Chinese warship, CNS Taiyuan, encountered a foreign warship during “a long-range training exercise” in undisclosed waters. The report said the foreign ship meant to provoke the Chinese crew, but the crew instead followed orders and drove the vessel away.
Trump’s Big Taiwan Move: Despite $14B Arms Freeze, Permanent U.S. Military Officials May Sit at MND
Similarly, in January 2025, reports noted that China had claimed that its navy “drove away” a “foreign warship that attempted to spy on its Shandong aircraft carrier during a long-distance training mission. At the time, a Chinese sailor attached to the Type 055 destroyer CNS Yan’an crew said a foreign warship attempted to engage in “illegal reconnaissance” and infiltrate a formation led by the carrier during a routine training mission.
In June 2023, a US destroyer, USS Chung-Hoon, had a close encounter with a Chinese warship in the Taiwan Strait. The US Navy alleged that the Chinese ship executed an “unsafe” maneuver, crossed the US ship’s path, and forced it to slow down to avoid a collision.
Another significant incident occurred in 2018 when a Chinese warship came dangerously close to the USS Decatur in the South China Sea. The US Navy described the action as “unsafe and unprofessional.
Despite a thaw in ties between Chinese and US leaders, the fight over Indo-Pacific dominance continues.
The post China Puts USS Benfold Back in Spotlight. Says Foreign Warship Lost Power While Tracking Its Type 055 appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.
O Sicredi foi reconhecido como a Melhor Empresa para Trabalhar no Brasil pelo terceiro ano consecutivo, conquistando o 1º lugar no ranking do Great Place To Work® (GPTW) 2026, na categoria Gigantes. O resultado consolida uma trajetória de excelência em gestão de pessoas e reforça o compromisso da instituição com a construção de um ambiente de trabalho baseado na confiança, no desenvolvimento contínuo e no propósito cooperativista.
A cerimônia de premiação foi realizada na noite desta terça-feira (6), em São Paulo, reunindo algumas das principais organizações do país reconhecidas por suas práticas de gestão de pessoas e pela experiência oferecida aos colaboradores. A conquista mantém o Sicredi na liderança do ranking nacional pelo terceiro ano consecutivo, após alcançar o primeiro lugar também em 2024 e 2025.
O reconhecimento reflete uma estratégia que integra desenvolvimento humano, inovação, bem-estar, escuta ativa e oportunidades concretas de crescimento profissional para mais de 50 mil colaboradores distribuídos em todo o país. Com mais de 10,5 milhões de associados e presença em mais de 2 mil municípios brasileiros, o Sicredi busca reproduzir internamente os mesmos princípios que orientam seu modelo cooperativo de negócios.
A instituição reúne mais de 90 cooperativas de crédito, tendo as pessoas como elemento central tanto na relação com os associados quanto na gestão dos colaboradores. Para Daniele Schmidt, diretora executiva de Pessoas e Cultura do Sicredi, existe uma conexão direta entre a forma como a organização se relaciona com seus associados e com seus colaboradores.
“Existe uma coerência entre o que fazemos externamente e o que praticamos dentro da organização. Nosso propósito é levar a prosperidade para as pessoas, o que cria um ciclo virtuoso: o associado reconhece o trabalho realizado, e o funcionário do Sicredi percebe que contribui para o avanço do associado e o fortalecimento da cooperativa.”, afirma.
Segundo a diretora, o reconhecimento é resultado de uma construção coletiva sustentada pela participação das pessoas e pela evolução constante da cultura organizacional.
“Receber esse reconhecimento pelo terceiro ano consecutivo é motivo de muito orgulho para todos nós. Essa conquista reflete uma cultura construída coletivamente, sustentada pela confiança, pela escuta e pelo compromisso genuíno de colocar as pessoas no centro. Seguimos evoluindo para oferecer uma experiência cada vez mais positiva para as nossas pessoas colaboradoras porque acreditamos que são elas que tornam possível cumprir nosso propósito de construir juntos uma sociedade mais próspera.”
Seguindo esse propósito, em 2025, o Sicredi investiu R$ 409 milhões em projetos sociais, e distribuiu R$ 3,4 bilhões em resultados para os associados. Nos municípios onde a instituição está presente, o Sicredi contribui para um incremento de até 10% no PIB e de 15% na geração de empregos, segundo pesquisa FIPE/OCB de 2024.
Cultura construída com escuta ativa A escuta contínua das pessoas é um dos pilares da estratégia de gestão do Sicredi. Em 2026, a Pesquisa de Clima contou com a participação de 93% dos colaboradores, representando mais de 45 mil respondentes.
Os resultados servem como base para decisões relacionadas à experiência do colaborador, ao desenvolvimento das lideranças e ao fortalecimento da cultura organizacional. Entre as iniciativas implementadas a partir desse processo estão a ampliação da frequência das conversas de desenvolvimento entre lideranças e equipes e o fortalecimento de ações voltadas à construção de ambientes de trabalho cada vez mais colaborativos, inclusivos e orientados ao protagonismo das pessoas.
O desenvolvimento profissional é tratado como uma prioridade estratégica. Em 2025, o Sicredi destinou mais de R$ 68 milhões para iniciativas de educação corporativa, fortalecendo programas de formação técnica, comportamental, liderança e governança. A plataforma Sicredi Aprende é uma das principais ferramentas dessa estratégia. Somente no primeiro semestre de 2026, a plataforma disponibilizou 33 cursos regulatórios, 264 cursos e 124 trilhas de aprendizagem.
Ao todo, foram concluídas mais de 800 mil horas de aprendizagem pelos colaboradores. A valorização das pessoas também se traduz em indicadores de movimentação interna na instituição. Entre setembro de 2025 e agosto de 2026 foram investidos mais de R$ 12 milhões em reconhecimentos salariais. Tecnologia a serviço das pessoas a inovação também tem desempenhado papel importante na evolução da experiência dos colaboradores.
Atualmente, o Sicredi conta com mais de 300 modelos de Inteligência Artificial em produção e cerca de 26 mil colaboradores utilizam diariamente ferramentas de IA para apoiar suas atividades profissionais. As aplicações apoiam processos relacionados à análise de clima organizacional, gestão de talentos, aprendizagem, automação operacional e tomada de decisão.
Na área de Pessoas e Cultura, a tecnologia auxilia na leitura de grandes volumes de dados, acelerando a identificação de tendências e oportunidades de melhoria para a experiência dos colaboradores.
“Acreditamos que a tecnologia deve estar a serviço das pessoas. O maior valor da Inteligência Artificial está em ampliar capacidades, apoiar decisões e liberar tempo para aquilo que é essencialmente humano: o desenvolvimento, a escuta e o cuidado com as pessoas”, destaca Daniele Schmidt. Saúde integral e ambiente inclusivo.
O Sicredi também mantém uma estratégia estruturada de saúde e bem-estar, contemplando iniciativas voltadas à saúde física, emocional, social e financeira. Entre elas estão serviços de telemedicina, apoio psicológico, terapia continuada e programas especializados de suporte ao colaborador.
A construção de um ambiente mais inclusivo também integra a estratégia de gestão de pessoas da instituição. Atualmente, as mulheres representam 60% do quadro funcional e ocupam 47% das posições de liderança, demonstrando avanços consistentes na ampliação da representatividade em diferentes níveis da organização.
O Sicredi mantém iniciativas voltadas à diversidade, inclusão e equidade, incluindo programas de aceleração feminina, ações afirmativas e estruturas de governança dedicadas ao tema. Segundo a pesquisa certificada pelo GPTW, 92% dos colaboradores afirmam que as ações de diversidade e inclusão são evidentes e aplicadas na prática.
Entre as iniciativas de destaque está o Comitê Mulher, que atua no desenvolvimento de lideranças femininas e no fortalecimento do protagonismo das mulheres nas cooperativas e nas comunidades. Somente em 2025, o programa reuniu 5,3 mil participantes e contribuiu para a eleição de 85 integrantes dos conselhos de administração e fiscais das cooperativas.
The post Sicredi é a Melhor Empresa para Trabalhar no Brasil pelo terceiro ano consecutivo appeared first on Diário da Manhã - O Jornal do leitor Inteligente.
O artista plástico Juarez Machado morreu nesta terça-feira (6), aos 85 anos, em Vassouras, no interior do Rio de Janeiro. Ele estava internado desde 29 de setembro para tratar uma pneumonia e sofreu uma parada cardíaca. A informação foi confirmada pelo Instituto Internacional Juarez Machado (IIJM), criado pelo artista em Joinville, sua cidade natal. Machado deixa três filhos.
A Prefeitura de Joinville decretou luto oficial de três dias pela morte do artista. O instituto que leva seu nome permanecerá fechado entre esta quarta-feira (7) e sexta-feira (9).
Nascido em 16 de março de 1941, em Joinville, Juarez Machado construiu uma trajetória que ultrapassou seis décadas e transitou por diferentes linguagens. Pintura, escultura, desenho, caricatura, fotografia e cenografia fizeram parte de sua produção. Ele também atuou como escritor e ator.
A formação artística começou ainda no Sul do país. Machado estudou na Faculdade de Belas Artes de Curitiba e, no início da carreira, trabalhou como cenógrafo na TV Paraná. Em 1962, recebeu o prêmio de melhor escultor do Estado. Dois anos depois, realizou sua primeira exposição individual, na Galeria Cocaco, em Curitiba.
Foi no Rio de Janeiro que sua carreira ganhou novas dimensões. O artista passou a colaborar com importantes veículos de imprensa, entre eles as revistas O Cruzeiro e O Pasquim e o Jornal do Brasil. Nesse período, aproximou-se de alguns dos principais nomes do humor e da imprensa brasileira, como Ziraldo, Jaguar e Millôr Fernandes.
A televisão também teve papel importante em sua trajetória. Em 1973, Juarez Machado passou a integrar a equipe de criação do Fantástico, da TV Globo. No ano seguinte, ganhou espaço no programa com uma apresentação baseada em mímica e interação com os próprios desenhos. Com o rosto pintado de branco, o artista criava uma espécie de diálogo silencioso entre seu corpo e as imagens.
Machado também se destacou na literatura visual. Em 1975, lançou “Ida e Volta”, obra construída exclusivamente com ilustrações e considerada pioneira no desenvolvimento do livro-imagem no Brasil. A publicação consolidou uma característica que acompanharia sua produção: a capacidade de contar histórias sem depender do texto.
Em 1986, Juarez Machado se mudou para Paris e instalou um ateliê em Montmartre, tradicional bairro associado à produção artística francesa. A mudança ampliou sua presença no circuito internacional e marcou uma nova fase de sua carreira.
Seu trabalho também chegou ao cinema. O cineasta francês Jean-Pierre Jeunet conheceu suas pinturas durante uma exposição em Paris e utilizou referências cromáticas do artista na concepção de “O Fabuloso Destino de Amélie Poulain”, lançado em 2001. Duas obras de Machado aparecem na decoração do quarto da personagem principal.
Mesmo com a projeção internacional, Joinville permaneceu como um dos principais pontos de ligação do artista com o Brasil. Entre suas obras na cidade está o mural cerâmico “O Grande Circo”, instalado na entrada do Centreventos Cau Hansen. A composição ocupa 90 metros quadrados e reúne 963 peças pintadas à mão. A obra foi inaugurada em 1998.
Anos depois, Machado criou um espaço dedicado à preservação e à divulgação da produção artística. Em 2014, instalou o Instituto Internacional Juarez Machado no terreno onde ficava a antiga casa de seus pais. O local passou a reunir obras e atividades voltadas à difusão da arte na região.
Com uma obra marcada pela mistura entre humor, desenho, movimento e narrativa visual, Juarez Machado construiu uma trajetória que atravessou fronteiras e diferentes campos da cultura brasileira. Sua produção deixou registros não apenas em museus e galerias, mas também na televisão, na imprensa, na literatura e no cinema.
The post Morre aos 85 anos o artista Juarez Machado, referência brasileira nas artes appeared first on Diário da Manhã - O Jornal do leitor Inteligente.
The US Air Force’s next strategic bomber, the B-21 Raider, is moving from flight test to the flight line, and the industrial base is expanding to match that pace. As part of this effort, the Department of the Air Force and the manufacturer broke ground on a new bomber final assembly line at Plant 42 in Palmdale, California.
“It’s more than construction… we’re moving fast to build B-21s! The Department of the Air Force & @northropgrumman have broken ground in Palmdale, CA, on over 1M sq ft of new facilities that will be the final assembly line at Air Force Plant 42,” Secretary of the Air Force Dr. Troy E. Meink recently wrote in a post on X.
The B-21 Raider is the USAF’s next-generation nuclear- and conventional-capable, long-range penetrating bomber optimized for highly contested environments.
The new assembly line likely supports an agreement signed in February 2026 to increase annual B-21 production capacity by 25% using $4.5 billion in funding from the fiscal year 2025 reconciliation legislation.
Separately, Northrop Grumman is investing approximately $2.5 billion of its own capital over several years in related facilities and capacity. In September 2026, the company also opened the East Gate 3 manufacturing campus in Layton, Utah, to produce key B-21 components.
The construction of an all-new assembly line shows that expansion at the B-21’s production facility has moved from planning and funding to active construction.
This expansion is meant to give the service extra manufacturing capacity as the B-21 advances through flight testing and into initial operational deliveries.
The USAF plans to buy at least 100 B-21 bombers to replace the B-1B Lancer and B-2 Spirit and eventually complement the B-52 Stratofortress.
The B-21 Raider program remains in low-rate initial production, meaning Northrop Grumman is building a small number of aircraft to test and refine the production process before full-rate production begins.
At the same time, senior officials have said the Air Force may need more than the current minimum of 100.
In April, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he believed “a lot more” B-21s were needed. Indo-Pacific Commander Admiral Samuel Paparo had earlier said he would favor a fleet of 200 for nuclear deterrence and penetrating strike.
A Mitchell Institute report has likewise argued that 100 is a raid force, not a campaign force. None of those comments changes the program of record, and the Palmdale construction is tied to the February capacity agreement, not to an approved increase in the buy.
Furthermore, a report by the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies said the USAF’s current plans to purchase “at least” 100 B-21s match one-time operations into hostile airspace but are insufficient to maintain pressure in a larger conflict because they are “a raid force, not a campaign force.”
Meanwhile, the USAF has said the sixth-generation bomber—which currently has no analogs in the world—is “close” to entering service. In fact, it is expected to reach Ellsworth AFB in South Dakota, one of the three bases selected to host the Raider, in 2027.
This bomber project has moved at a breakneck pace, going from the official public unveiling in December 2022 to the maiden flight in November 2023. In fact, an operational test pilot flew alongside a developmental test pilot, sharing the B-21 cockpit for the first time in June this year, underscoring the urgency of fielding the bomber.
The B-21 Raider’s rapid path from first flight to operational ramp at Ellsworth AFB in 2027 marks a striking acceleration in how the US fields a complex new strategic bomber.
Observers have lauded the speed, remarking that it has been unusually compressed for a program of this scale and sensitivity. This speed, however, was made possible because of a more fundamental shift: the B-21 was built virtually before it was ever built in metal.
For decades, major US defense programs followed the process, but aspirational designs fell behind schedule and prototypes revealed problems missed earlier, delaying programs and driving up costs. Northrop claims to be breaking away from this pattern.
Northrop states that it built the B-21 virtually first, using an extensive digital ecosystem and high-fidelity digital twins long before cutting metal. Succinctly put, unlike previous bombers that were primarily analog and later adapted for the digital era, the B-21 was built to function, endure, and evolve in the contemporary environment.
Developing and producing combat aircraft previously involved designing, building a prototype, testing it, discovering problems, and redesigning. However, Northrop essentially inverted this sequence, using a constantly changing digital model for the Raider.
This gave engineers, manufacturers, and operators a common reference point, enabling them to evaluate and implement design changes almost instantly.
This method enabled engineers to model aerodynamic performance, stealth features, structural loads, and systems integration long before components entered production.
This meant that design modifications that once required expensive rework could be assessed and verified virtually, often in a few hours rather than months.
The team simulated and refined structural loads, stealth characteristics, flight dynamics, and systems integration in the virtual environment before committing to physical hardware.
As a result, the physical aircraft that emerged from this approach matched or even outperformed the models’ predictions, according to the manufacturer.
This, in turn, has allowed the program to compress testing timelines, accelerate production, and keep costs under tighter control.
Unsurprisingly, the result was an unusually mature aircraft when the first Raider took flight. Northrop earlier said, “Before the B-21 ever took to the sky, the flying test bed completed more than 200 test sorties totaling more than 1,000 flight hours, testing production hardware, software, and sensors in a dynamic environment and enabling teams to tackle discovery well in advance.”
The speed with which B-21 moved from production to testing and into an operational setting at a USAF airbase was best demonstrated by the approach the manufacturer and the Air Force took during flight testing. A major 180-day test cycle was reportedly completed in just 73 days, as revealed in May 2026.
Officials have even stated that the program is exceeding expectations, as test aircraft are achieving high “code one” rates, which is the rate at which the aircraft is ready to fly again with minimal issues
The Combined Test Force achieved half the originally planned missions in less than half the planned time, while supporting significant contract value.
This compression was not the product of rushed flying, and reflected fewer surprises, higher aircraft availability, real-time data analysis, and the ability to clear multiple test points on single sorties.
The advantage of building the aircraft digitally has reportedly extended to the production lines. “Where the digital environment meets the production floor, this digital technology expedites configuration management, facilitating communication between technicians and engineers during the build, in some areas already reducing manufacturing hours by roughly a third,” according to the Northrop Grumman newsroom.
Nonetheless, the B-21 is not without risk, though experts think careful digital engineering, precise digital twins, and a conscious move away from sequential physical prototypes can break the long-standing pattern of delays.
The post B-21 Raider: Northrop, US Air Force Break Ground on New Palmdale Line. Flight Test Runs Ahead of Schedule appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.
Washington has sent two contradictory signals on Taiwan in the last few days. Whether these signals reflect strategic ambiguity or strategic confusion in the coming days has become a matter of debate among the strategic experts.
On the one hand, Trump is holding back a $14 billion arms package for Taiwan, pre-approved by the U.S. Congress, despite a bipartisan group of senators explicitly urging him to “formally notify . But the U.S. President has described his decision to pause as a “very good negotiating chip” for his talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
Whether that worked in his summit meeting with Xi last week in Washington is not known. But Taiwan’s Defense Minister Wellington Koo confirmed yesterday (October 6) that he has “not heard” of any new sale being cleared, even in smaller chunks.
On the other hand, the Pentagon is seemingly doing the opposite of this pause.
According to reports, the U.S. Department of Defense will station two representatives on a long-term basis inside Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense headquarters in Taipei from 2026 to 2028.
One official will come from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy [OUSD-Policy] — the office that writes U.S. national security and defense strategy. The second will come from the Institute for Defense Analyses [IDA] — a federally funded think tank that does mathematical modeling for war games and combat capability assessment.
The program is called the “Taiwan-US Defense Ministry Joint Cooperation Assessment,” with a total budget of NT$471 million [$14.8 million], including NT$152.5 million this year for personnel, consultancy, travel, data collection, and even interpretation for classified-level meetings.
If confirmed, this will be unprecedented.
This would mark the first time U.S. defense officials are permanently embedded inside Taiwan’s military headquarters, shifting cooperation away from traditional channels managed through the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), Washington’s de facto embassy.
The military relationship between the United States and Taiwan is highly integrated yet formally unofficial. It is governed by the legal framework of the “U.S. Taiwan Relations Act” (TRA), which Congress passed on April 10, 1979.
Congress enacted it immediately after the U.S. formally terminated its previous “Mutual Defense Treaty with the Republic of China (Taiwan)” to officially recognize “the People’s Republic of China (PRC)” in Beijing.
Rather than abandoning Taiwan, Congress designed the TRA as a legal framework to ensure that “robust, unofficial security, commercial, and cultural ties” continue uninterrupted.
In short, the TRA provides a domestic legal workaround for treating Taiwan as a country without formal diplomatic recognition. However, under it, the U.S. is also obligated to maintain Taiwan’s capacity to resist force or coercion in general and the forcible annexation by the PRC in particular.
Over the years, U.S. personnel have served in Taiwan as trainers and advisers. Hundreds of active-duty U.S. military advisors—often colloquially referred to locally as “English teachers” to maintain a low profile—are routinely deployed across Taiwan.
U.S. military observers are present within Taiwan’s annual “Han Kuang live-fire military exercises”. They actively guide Taiwan’s defense strategy toward decentralized command, logistics, and real-world combat readiness.
Taiwanese fighter pilots undergo advanced combat training at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona.
The US remains Taiwan’s primary foreign weapons supplier, with a total backlog of orders nearing $20 billion.
In fact, Taiwan received its first new batch of two advanced Lockheed Martin F-16 Block 70 fighter jets on October 2. This was part of an $8 billion deal approved in 2019 for 66 new-build F-16 Block 70 jets, with the remaining 64 aircraft scheduled for future delivery. out of a 66-aircraft fleet on order.
However, all these coordination efforts between Washington and Taipei are usually routed through the AIT intermediary, as the U.S. adheres to its One China” policy. In that sense, the new proposal to station Pentagon personnel directly inside the Taiwanese Defense Ministry represents a shift from this historical status quo.
The new arrangement puts Americans directly into the core of Taiwan’s defense policymaking, including policy coordination, Han Kuang exercise planning, asymmetric warfare doctrine, and major weapons procurement evaluations, it is said.
Of course, the U.S. routinely sends military and civilian defense officials to work directly inside the defense ministries of partner and allied nations. Established by the Pentagon in 2009, the Ministry of Defense Advisors (MODA) Program specifically trains and deploys high-performing senior U.S. Department of Defense civilians.
These advisors are embedded in partner-nation defense ministries to support institutional capacity building, strategy, financial management, and logistics.
The U.S. also actively deploys specialized defense consultants directly to the defense ministries of nations looking to transition away from historical adversaries such as Ukraine, Moldova, Armenia, and various Balkan nations looking to exit Moscow’s orbit.
The U.S. has a long history of embedding liaison officers in allied countries. For example, it has a Joint Political-Military Group in Israel that embeds officers in missile-defense cooperation for Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and now Iron Beam. But American officials do not operate inside the Kirya (Israel’s defense headquarters).
Similarly, despite 54,000 US personnel stationed in Japan, no U.S. officer sits inside Japan’s Ministry of Defense to assess combat capability.
Perhaps in NATO countries and South Korea, U.S. military officials are believed to sit together often.
There are also “Offices of Defense Cooperation” (ODC), or United States Military Groups, which are technically attached to the local U.S. Embassy for diplomatic protection. These teams provide security assistance and work in routine, day-to-day coordination with host ministry personnel.
However, what makes the proposed U.S. officials sitting directly within Taiwan’s military headquarters unique is that Taiwan is not an ally of America in the strict sense, as the U.S. lacks formal diplomatic recognition of Taiwan, and these officials will bypass the traditional AIT.
Of course, multiple reports in recent years have claimed that U.S. special forces are permanently stationed in Taiwan to assist its 101st Amphibious Reconnaissance Battalion special operations force, though Washington has officially denied it. The same has been the case with the speculations about the coming and going of U.S. military personnel from the Army Special Operations Command base in Taoyuan.
At the time of writing, Beijing had not issued an official reaction, possibly because Taiwanese media outlets only recently brought details of this long-term Pentagon deployment to light. It has not been declared officially.
But it goes without saying that Beijing would be “certain to protest” and could respond “with expanded exercises and intimidation”, according to Zivon Wang, a military analyst at the Chinese Council of Advanced Policy Studies in Taipei.
He expects U.S. personnel not to wear uniforms at the Ministry of National Defense because it could be interpreted as a more formalized US-Taiwan military relationship and might further provoke Beijing.
Incidentally, China has made more air and naval incursions across the median line in the Taiwan Strait since 2022. Although Chinese military aircraft had occasionally crossed the median line (established informally in 1954) in the past, the practice became significantly more frequent from 2022, particularly after Nancy Pelosi (then Speaker of the House of Representatives) visited Taiwan in August that year. What had once been an informal but largely respected buffer increasingly became a zone of routine Chinese military activity.
Therefore, it remains to be seen whether China will respond to the Pentagon’s proposed deployment with loud exercises.
It may also remain silent, as nothing is official yet and Trump has his “negotiating chip” of holding back Taiwan’s military package.
Trump’s admirers often see his unpredictability as useful in negotiations with an adversary, because the other side cannot be sure how far he is willing to go.
But his critics argue that his unpredictability becomes counterproductive when allies cannot distinguish a negotiating threat from a real change in American policy.
It remains to be seen who will prove to be right in the case of Taiwan.
The post Trump’s Big Taiwan Move: Despite $14B Arms Freeze, Permanent U.S. Military Officials May Sit at MND appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.
O Município de Olhão, em parceria com os Agrupamentos de Escolas do concelho e outras entidades parceiras, disponibiliza aos seus munícipes a oferta da Escola a Tempo Inteiro, procurando reforçar a articulação entre a escola, as famílias e a comunidade local e reconhecendo o papel fundamental desta resposta no desenvolvimento pessoal e social das crianças e dos alunos.
No âmbito desta parceria, a Associação Portuguesa para a Inovação e Empreendedorismo Social e Digital (AI9) disponibilizou os “Baús da Brincadeira” às escolas do Município de Olhão, tendo concluído, na passada sexta-feira, a sua entrega em todos os agrupamentos escolares do concelho. A última entrega decorreu na EB1 n.º 4, onde foram disponibilizados os baús destinados ao Agrupamento de Escolas Professor Paula Nogueira.
Cada escola tem agora quatro baús, que disponibilizam um conjunto diversificado de materiais para utilização pelas crianças durante os intervalos.
Os baús incluem materiais criteriosamente selecionados do ponto de vista pedagógico, como jogos de tabuleiro, bolas de diferentes tipos, cordas, arcos, jogos tradicionais e jogos de água, entre outros recursos que estimulam diferentes formas de brincadeira, movimento e interação.
Disponíveis durante os intervalos, estes materiais permitem que as crianças escolham livremente as atividades que querem realizar, explorando os recursos ao seu ritmo e de acordo com os seus interesses, num ambiente de brincadeira espontânea e com a necessária supervisão dos adultos.
Mais do que proporcionar atividades organizadas, a iniciativa pretende valorizar o brincar livre, dando espaço à imaginação, à criatividade, à autonomia e à interação entre pares. O recreio deve ser também um espaço de descoberta, onde as crianças possam experimentar, criar, partilhar e, acima de tudo, ser crianças.
Os “Baús da Brincadeira” constituem, assim, um importante contributo para a criação de recreios mais ativos, inclusivos e estimulantes, reforçando a importância do brincar no desenvolvimento e bem-estar das crianças.
A iniciativa evidencia ainda o valor da parceria entre o Município de Olhão e a AI9, contribuindo para a construção de ambientes educativos mais ricos, participativos e promotores do desenvolvimento integral das crianças.
O Nintendo 64 foi um marco dos anos 90, reunindo clássicos inesquecíveis que marcaram gerações. Títulos como Super Mario 64, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time e GoldenEye 007 ainda são lembrados com carinho. Graças à emulação, hoje é possível reviver essa nostalgia no PC. Aplicativos como o Retrofy permitem jogar esses clássicos no computador. O Retrofy é o aplicativo oficial que reúne mais de 20.000 jogos e 40 consoles emulados, oferecendo acesso vitalício. Nesta retrospectiva, vamos destacar os melhores jogos de N64 e dar dicas práticas de gameplay, estratégias e curiosidades, além de explicar como aproveitar tudo isso via Retrofy sem precisar de hardware antigo.
Lançado em 1996, o N64 introduziu várias inovações técnicas: foi o primeiro console a trazer um analógico (thumbstick) no controle padrão e permitiu até quatro jogadores simultâneos. Com acessórios como o Rumble Pak e Expansion Pak, mostrava gráficos 3D avançados para a época. A máquina vendeu quase 33 milhões de unidades e ficou famosa por sua biblioteca de jogos de alta qualidade. Vários títulos do N64 estão frequentemente em listas dos melhores games de todos os tempos. Por exemplo, Super Mario 64 (11,6 milhões de cópias vendidas) foi eleito o melhor jogo do console, assim como Ocarina of Time e GoldenEye 007. Esses sucessos ajudaram o Nintendo 64 a ganhar o título de “Máquina do Ano” em 1996 pela revista Time. Nesta era de ouro, exploramos mundos tridimensionais e novos gêneros, o que tornou os jogos mais complexos e envolventes. Por isso, jogar esses clássicos é tão especial – e com o Retrofy você não precisa do console original: basta um PC para curtir.
Depois de lembrar desses clássicos, você deve estar pensando: como jogar tudo isso hoje? É aí que entra o Retrofy. O Retrofy é um serviço brasileiro que emula 40 consoles clássicos no PC, incluindo o Nintendo 64. Com um pagamento único você ganha acesso vitalício a mais de 20.000 jogos. No plano básico já estão incluídos os jogos do N64, sem assinaturas mensais. Basta baixar o aplicativo, instalar no Windows, e todos os jogos virão pré-configurados com os emuladores certos. O próprio site oficial diz: “Retrofy é o aplicativo oficial para jogar mais de 20.000 jogos e 40 consoles no PC, com acesso vitalício”.
Instalar é simples: após comprar, você faz o download do Retrofy e dos jogos desejados. O aplicativo faz o resto. Você nem precisa procurar ROMs na internet ou configurar emulador. Se tiver dúvidas, o Retrofy oferece suporte humano via WhatsApp para ajudar na instalação. Em suma, o Retrofy permite revisitar os melhores jogos do N64 sem complicação. Você aproveita as aventuras, corridas e batalhas mencionadas acima no seu PC. E como o acesso é vitalício, pode voltar a qualquer hora. Por exemplo, se quiser jogar Super Mario 64, basta abrir o Retrofy, selecionar o jogo e usar seu controle ou teclado preferido – tudo configurado de fábrica. Este artigo deu várias dicas práticas para cada jogo; com o Retrofy você pode colocá-las em ação agora mesmo.
Esperamos que essas dicas ajudem você a explorar cada cantinho desses clássicos. E você, qual seu jogo favorito do Nintendo 64? Já usou algum emulador ou o Retrofy para jogar no PC? Tem alguma estratégia secreta para compartilhar? Deixe sua opinião nos comentários abaixo e participe da discussão!
O que é o Retrofy? É um aplicativo de emulação brasileiro que reúne milhares de jogos clássicos de dezenas de consoles em um único lugar. Com ele, você paga apenas uma vez e ganha acesso vitalício aos títulos, sem precisar comprar cada jogo ou console original.
Preciso ter um PC potente para emular o N64? Não necessariamente. Como o N64 é um console antigo, qualquer PC razoável roda esses jogos. O Retrofy vem com emuladores otimizados e configurações prontas. Basta instalar, escolher o jogo e jogar.
Como encontro os jogos do Nintendo 64 no Retrofy? No menu de consoles do Retrofy, selecione “Nintendo 64” (incluso no plano básico). A partir daí, verá a lista de jogos disponíveis. Basta clicar no título desejado para baixar e jogar.
Preciso instalar algo extra no console original? Não. Todo o processo é pelo PC. Você não precisa ter o N64 físico nem seus cartuchos. O Retrofy já vem com o emulador e os jogos, tudo pronto para uso.
O Retrofy é seguro e legal? Sim, o Retrofy é um serviço legítimo e conta com mais de uma década de comunidade por trás. Ele oferece garantia de 7 dias para reembolso completo caso você não fique satisfeito. Além disso, há suporte via WhatsApp para dúvidas técnicas, garantindo um uso tranquilo.
The post Os melhores jogos de Nintendo 64 appeared first on Diário da Manhã - O Jornal do leitor Inteligente.
The US has pulled out all its B-1B Lancer bombers from RAF Fairford in the United Kingdom, a key forward operating location used for long-range missions against Iran.
The abrupt move appears to be an attempt by the US to safeguard its long-range strategic bombers from the fate suffered by other military aircraft destroyed by Iranian attacks in the Middle East.
The B-1B bombers arrived at RAF Fairford in March 2026 as part of Operation Epic Fury. Although the US and Iran agreed to a ceasefire in April 2026, the B-1Bs remained stationed at Fairford amid sustained hostilities.
However, the US hastily withdrew all 12 B-1B Lancers from the base on October 4, 2026, amid renewed threats of an Iran-backed plot against the facility. The Pentagon confirmed the bombers have returned to their home bases.
“While operational security precluded us from confirming the movement of our assets and forces in real-time, we can acknowledge now that all US bombers that were deployed to RAF Fairford have re-deployed to their home stations in the United States,” a Pentagon spokesman reportedly said in a statement.
The pullout was extremely unusual since such actions are rarely taken so swiftly from an allied air base thousands of kilometers away from the combat zone. In fact, some of the bombers and their flight crews left RAF Fairford even as aerial refueling aircraft were still being rushed to support the missions to the United States, the New York Times reported.
These claims point towards an uncanny sense of urgency, although the US military has not officially cited a reason for this rushed exodus of bombers from RAF Fairford.
Nonetheless, the move comes days after five British men in their early 20s were arrested near RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire after reports of three suspicious vans approaching the base hosting the US bombers.
They were held on suspicion of Explosives Act offenses and preparing a terrorist act, but were released on police bail with strict conditions the next day. However, a sixth man—identified as a 25-year-old dual UK-Iranian national—was later arrested in London on suspicion of preparing terrorist acts. He was later released on bail.
An investigation into what was believed to be a sabotage operation is now underway. However, both the United States and the United Kingdom have since hinted that Iran has links to the potential attack or sabotage operation.
US President Donald Trump said the suspects had been looking to do “big damage” whereas Secretary of State Marco Rubio said it involved the “hands of a foreign actor,” without directly naming Tehran. Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Andy Burnham said there are “strong indications” that Iran played a role in the security incident at a crucial base that hosts US assets and troops.
Iran dismissed the allegations and has denied any link to the suspected security incident.
“PM Burnham says the UK Government ‘can confirm our belief that we believe Iran to have played a part’ in the RAF Fairford incident,” Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote on X last week. “I can confirm Iran’s belief that releasing supposed terrorists working for foreign states really says it all. You’re barking up the wrong tree.”
The US military has not given any information on the urgent threat, whether it was an imminent strike or a sabotage- or terror-related incident. However, the threats issued by the Islamic Republic and its forces in the past may have influenced the decision to withdraw the bombers.
As the hostilities resumed between the US and Iran in July this year, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) claimed that the US was launching bomber sorties from RAF Fairford to attack Iranian cities, adding that any base used to carry out such strikes would be a legitimate target.
“The American aggressor army, which used to launch cruise missiles from its vessels in the Indian Ocean in its aggression after the official resumption of the war, with the end of the missile reserves of the aforementioned vessels, yesterday switched to using B1 planes flying from Fairford Air Base, England,” Tasnim News Agency quoted the IRGC as saying on July 23. “As the officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs also stated, any base that is used to invade Iran’s territory is our legitimate goal.”
In March 2026, Araghchi told the UK Foreign Secretary, Yvette Cooper, that Iran views the UK’s decision to let the US use British bases as “participation in aggression.” Later, it fired two mid-range ballistic missiles at Diego Garcia, the Indian Ocean military outpost jointly operated by the US and the UK. Although none of the missiles reached their designated targets, the attack was launched after the UK approved the US use of its bases as launchpads for attacks on Iranian sites targeting the Strait of Hormuz.
RAF Fairford, for one, has been a key hub for US heavy bombers—including the B-1B and the B-52—conducting missions against Iranian missile infrastructure. Although Washington could fly long-range bombers to attack Iran from its own soil, using RAF Fairford has been significant because it enables long-range strikes and reduces flight times to Iranian targets by over 50% compared to US-based launches, allowing higher sortie rates.
According to media reports, a proxy sabotage or terror operation by Iran on RAF Fairford remains a major possibility. In the past, the United Kingdom has accused Iran of conducting cyberattacks and employing criminal networks and proxies to strike at its critics and dissidents on British soil for years.
Apart from a terror plot, it is hard to say whether Iran has the capability to strike RAF Fairford, or any other base in the United Kingdom. Iran has long claimed a self-imposed limit of about 2,000 kilometers for its ballistic missiles. However, its March 2026 attempted strike on the US-UK base at Diego Garcia demonstrated a much longer reach, and analysts have said it could potentially strike parts of the United Kingdom.
The US currently has about 45 operational B-1B bombers in its inventory, and many are aging airframes with very low readiness rates.
Therefore, losing even a single bomber would remove a scarce, high-payload platform that cannot be rapidly replaced, particularly while the B-21 Raider remains in the early stages of introduction. Additionally, a successful Iranian strike on a high-value asset at a known forward location would also carry symbolic weight, demonstrating an ability to impose costs far from the primary theater.
Moreover, the US military has already faced a trial by fire in the Middle East during the course of this war and lost several military aircraft, many of them on the ground, a fate that it may not wish to befall its highly potent but limited bomber fleet.
On March 27, 2026, for instance, an Iranian drone struck an E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft during a strike at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia. Photos published after the strike showed that the rear fuselage of E-3 #81-0005 was completely burned out and destroyed, with debris scattered around the aircraft.
On March 2, CENTCOM reported that three F-15Es were shot down and destroyed by friendly fire over Kuwait; all six aircrew ejected safely and were recovered. The fourth F-15E was shot down by Iran during combat operations over Iran on April 5; both aircrew were safely recovered during separate search-and-rescue operations.
On March 14, media reports stated that five additional KC-135s were damaged on the ground at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia during an Iranian strike.
Later, Iran managed to damage an F-35A fighter jet over Iranian airspace. A recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report stated that replacing/repairing the aircraft would cost $120 million, without saying whether it would be written off or repaired.
On April 5, the US forces were forced to destroy two MC-130J Commando II special operations aircraft inside Iran after the planes became stuck and immobilized while supporting combat search-and-rescue efforts for a downed F-15E aircrew. Meanwhile, the US lost an HH-60W Jolly Green II combat search-and-rescue helicopter after it took damage from small-arms fire during the same operation.
In addition to these manned aircraft, the US lost several unmanned aerial vehicles, including MQ-9 Reapers and MQ-1C Tritons. The US has now lost more than 30 Reapers in the conflict with Iran, several destroyed on the ground by Iran across Middle East bases.
If Washington is preparing another round of strikes on Iran, and Tehran answers as it did against US bases in the Middle East, then RAF Fairford could be in the firing line. The IRGC has already called the base a legitimate target. The Pentagon has not said the B-1Bs left because of that threat. Moving all 12 in a day, while tankers were still being scrambled, suggests commanders were not willing to leave a scarce bomber fleet on a base they could no longer treat as safe.
The post Iran Called RAF Fairford a “Legitimate Target.” Now All 12 U.S. B-1B ‘Lancer’ Bombers Have Left the British Base appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.
The recent summit between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping may have projected an image of renewed engagement; however, while two Presidents negotiated above the surface, their navies were preparing for a contest in which nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) could play a decisive role.
The strategic rivalry between Washington and Beijing seems to be moving on a very different track—especially under the waters of the Indo-Pacific.
At the moment, the United States may have a substantial lead in the number of SSNs, technology, and operational experience, but China is rapidly catching up by expanding its undersea capabilities.
In its quest to narrow the gap with the US, China has entered a race for undersea advantage across the Indo-Pacific, which could shape deterrence, sea control, and the strategic balance of power for decades to come.
For maritime domination, both SSNs and SSBNs (nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines) play critical roles.
SSBNs primarily provide nuclear deterrence by ensuring a credible second-strike capability, whereas SSNs are essentially designed to conduct hunter-killer missions, including tracking and, if necessary, engaging adversary SSBNs, as well as escorting carrier strike groups (CSGs) for sea control missions.
As Korean scholar Dongkeun Lee points out, in the context of the Indo-Pacific, SSN operations can be broadly classified into two primary missions: (1) countering SSBN capabilities and (2) escorting CSGs. The former is closely associated with nuclear deterrence, whereas the latter reflects the traditional sea power function of controlling and protecting key sea lines of communication (SLOCs).
Both missions are particularly important in this part of the world as its principal flashpoints, including the East China Sea, the South China Sea, and the Taiwan Strait, are all maritime domains. Maintaining credible naval capabilities, therefore, is essential to advancing both deterrence and broader strategic objectives in the region.
Incidentally, around one-third of global shipping traverses the South China Sea. The maritime gateways here are critical not only for China but also for Taiwan, South Korea and Japan.
American CSGs continue to play a major role in controlling and protecting these critical SLOCs. Consequently, SSNs play an equally crucial role in escorting CSGs. By providing lethal undersea capabilities that can silently target threats across multiple domains, including surface and subsurface targets, SSNs can effectively eliminate threats to aircraft carriers.
The United States permanently deploys an aircraft carrier to the Seventh Fleet, based in Yokosuka, Japan, and it is common for more than one CSG to be present in this region at any given time. SSNs’ presence here serves both to protect US carrier groups and to create the possibility of threatening Chinese nuclear submarines.
Likewise, the PRC is rapidly developing its own CSG capability to counterbalance that of the United States in the South China Sea. China’s Yulin naval base on Hainan Island is an important center for its nuclear submarine forces.
Until recently, the undersea dominance tilted heavily in favor of the US. But the alignments are fast changing.
Though the US Navy still leads with an all-nuclear fleet of 71 active submarines (including 51–53 SSNs/SSGNs), China has now surpassed Russia to command the world’s second-largest nuclear submarine fleet with an estimated 9 to 12 SSNs (such as the Type 093 and Type 093A/093B Shang-class) and 6 SSBNs (Jin-class Type 094), totaling roughly 32 active nuclear submarines across its entire naval forces that operate primarily in the Indo-Pacific region.
In a recent IISS assessment, China launched 10 nuclear-powered submarines between 2021 and 2025, totaling 79,000 tonnes, against America’s 7 boats at 55,000 tonnes. For the first time, China out-built the US in both numbers and tonnage in a five-year window, it is argued.
“Most significantly, this includes the seventh and eighth Type 094 (Jin) nuclear-armed ballistic-missile submarines (SSBNs), which come as part of the emergence of Beijing’s nuclear triad,” the IISS study says.
It noted that commercially available satellite imagery taken in early 2026 showed six Type 094s in total, spread between the Bohai Shipbuilding Heavy Industry Co (BSHIC) shipyard in Huludao, the 1st Submarine Base at Jianggezhuang, the Xiaopingdao test facility and the 2nd Submarine Base at Yalong Bay on Hainan Island.
“Allowing for additional boats either on deterrence patrol or under cover for refit during this period, it is almost certainly the case that China has launched a seventh and eighth Type-094 in 2024 and 2025, respectively,” the IIISS study concludes.
In addition to the Type 094s, Bohai is also producing nuclear-powered guided-missile submarines (SSGN) for the People’s Liberation Army, with the study suggesting that nine Type 093B (Shang III) boats have been launched between 2022 and this year, based on commercial satellite imagery of the facility and US government assessments.
Incidentally, in March this year, the US Navy’s intelligence chief, Rear Admiral Mike Brookes, testified before the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC) that China is undertaking a major shift toward building an all-nuclear submarine fleet as part of a broader effort to strengthen its undersea warfare capabilities and expand blue-water naval power.
According to Brookes, the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN), which operates more than 60 submarines in total, including roughly 50 conventional diesel-electric boats (SSK) and a smaller number of SSNs and SSBNs, is transitioning away from conventional submarines toward a predominantly nuclear construction program to support sustained operations, strategic deterrence and sea-lane interdiction.
Brookes also pointed out that China had expanded submarine production infrastructure across three major shipyards, tripling construction hall capacity and more than doubling production capability to sustain higher output of advanced nuclear boats through the 2030s.
By 2027, China’s submarine force is projected to reach roughly 70 submarines, adding up to six SSGNs, three smaller-class SSNs, and two SSBNs while retiring older Chinese and Russian-built submarines. By 2035, continued expansion could yield up to 80 submarines, with about half nuclear-powered—a major shift in force composition—and projections for the early 2040s include around 20-30 new-class SSGNs and SSBNs.
These platforms will be designed from the keel up for blue-water operations and persistent presence beyond the first island chain, representing an evolution in PLA Navy undersea operational capabilities. China will likely field a more survivable and numerous ballistic missile submarine force equipped with longer-range, more accurate SLBMs, enabling patrols in bastions closer to home waters while holding the US homeland at risk.
Broader deployment of long-range, potentially hypersonic anti-ship and land-attack missiles from undersea platforms is anticipated, along with more sophisticated torpedoes and unmanned vehicles for ISR, mine warfare, and strike missions. Substantial investments in seabed sensors, undersea cables, and unmanned systems will enhance China’s situational awareness while creating vulnerabilities for the US and allies in crisis or conflict.
The Indo-Pacific will remain the PLA Navy’s primary focus, but by 2040 routine submarine deployments to the Indian Ocean, Arctic approaches, and possibly the Atlantic are likely, Brookes cautions.
However, as noted above, the US Navy currently has superior acoustic quieting, combat experience, and highly advanced Virginia-class SSNs. But as the EurAsian Times once explained, the US has a backlog of 12 Virginia-class submarines, in addition to three Columbia-class ballistic submarines.
Its production rate of 1.2 per year falls far short of the required 2.33 per year to meet its own needs and those of its allies (under the AUKUS pact, it is supposed to provide at least three Virginia-class submarines to Australia in the early 2030s).
Only three US shipyards can build nuclear-powered attack submarines (Groton, Connecticut; Quonset Point, Rhode Island; and Newport, Virginia). Only two of them are functional at the moment.
While the US defense industrial base is severely strained, China’s naval shipyards are said to be outperforming. With about 9 older Shang I/II boats plus an estimated 16 Type 093B hulls in service, in trials, or under construction, China is said to have the largest SSN series under construction anywhere.
The 093B reportedly features a vertical launch system for 24 YJ-12/YJ-18 anti-ship cruise missiles and six torpedo tubes, shifting China from torpedo brawls to long-range strike.
In the Indo-Pacific, the undersea race seems to change three fundamentals.
First, the era of uncontested US undersea dominance is over. US SSNs have long hunted Chinese SSBNs inside their bastion, keeping Beijing’s deterrent vulnerable. But now, China can sustain continuous at-sea deterrence patrols from Hainan’s Yalong Bay, protected by surface fleet and seabed sensors. That forces US SSNs to operate closer to Chinese waters, at higher risk, stretching ASW resources thin.
Second, the proliferation of quiet Chinese SSNs with VLS—at least six SSGN hulls launched in the past five years with vertical launch systems that could fire high-speed anti-ship missiles displayed in Beijing—means every US carrier entering the Taiwan Strait or South China Sea now faces a multi-axis underwater missile threat. The carrier’s sanctuary beyond the first island chain, once assumed, is no longer safe.
Third, China’s rapid maritime expansion has fundamentally altered the Indo-Pacific security landscape, prompting Australia and Japan to aggressively build strategic counterweights. Rather than acting in isolation, Canberra and Tokyo have pivoted toward minilateral security alliances, military modernization, and supply chain diversification to offset Beijing’s growing naval dominance.
Australia and Japan, alongside the United States and the Philippines, have formalized a security grouping explicitly designed to counter Beijing’s aggressive maneuvers in the South and East China Seas. This alliance focuses on joint maritime patrols, intelligence sharing, and military interoperability to safeguard freedom of navigation under international law.
Driven by the need to project power across its vast northern approaches, Australia has fundamentally reshaped its defense posture. This is anchored by the AUKUS pact—enabling Australia to acquire conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines—positioning the nation as a formidable southern anchor against Chinese naval projection.
For India, which has no SSNs in service (it previously leased from Russia and now plans indigenous production) and operates only three SSBNs (Arihant, Arighaat, and Aridhaman), the implications are significant.
Against India’s slow naval expansion, Chinese nuclear submarines, including intelligence-gathering vessels, now regularly traverse the Indian Ocean.
Overall, one could say that “the silent service” in the Indo-Pacific is becoming loud.
During the Cold War, the submarine race was primarily fought in the Atlantic. Now, it is shifting to the Indo-Pacific, raising uncertainties over whether it will remain free and open.
The post As Trump & Xi Talk — U.S. and China’s Nuclear Submarines Race For Dominance in the Indo-Pacific appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.
The Pentagon recently announced a whopping US$24.4 billion contract to defense giant Raytheon to speed up the production of “three-in-one” SM-6 missiles.
The Pentagon called the SM-6 “a critical anti-air and anti-surface warfare munition.” It said the five-year agreement, with two additional option years, “will drive faster production, increase manufacturing throughput, and deliver significant cost savings.”
The deal “provides the defense industry with the long-term predictability needed to expand workforce capacity and secure critical supply chains,” the Pentagon added.
The award lands after a year in which interceptor stocks were burned down. The US Defense Department’s inspector general reported last month that acquisition officials said: “the munitions expenditure on Operation Epic Fury has resulted in strategic inventory shortfalls and revealed industrial base bottlenecks for munitions resupply.”
A September 15 Congressional Budget Office assessment said the United States has probably used between one-half and two-thirds of its stocks of certain missile-defense interceptors since June 2025, naming the SM-6 alongside Patriot, THAAD and the SM-3.
Rebuilding those inventories would take at least five years even if production rose, the agency said, and would leave the Pentagon with fewer interceptors for a possible clash with China.
The CBO put the cost of a Patriot or an SM-6 at about $4 million a round, compared with about $12 million for a THAAD interceptor and $28 million for an SM-3. It said the weapons were used in large numbers defending Israel and then during Operation Epic Fury.
Outside estimates run higher: a table compiled by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and carried by the Financial Times in April put the SM-6 at $5.3 million a round, with a pre-war stock of about 1,160 and wartime use of 190 to 370.
The Pentagon has not published an SM-6 round count for the war.
Raytheon confirmed in a statement that its SM-6 “has been successfully fired from various US Navy ship-based platforms and launchers on land,” calling it a “combat-proven weapon.”
The weapons-maker also acknowledged increased efforts to meet demand. “By continuously investing in our operations and facilities, we are removing constraints and boosting capacity to ensure we deliver this critical capability our sailors depend on,” Raytheon President Phil Jasper said.
The SM-6 missile was created for extended-range anti-air warfare (ER-AAW), including defense against UAVs, military aircraft, anti-ship cruise missiles, and terminal ballistic missile defense. It also acts as a high-velocity anti-ship missile.
U.S. Awards F-22 ‘Raptor’ Pilots for Ops Midnight Hammer as Pentagon Sends 3rd Carrier Towards Iran
The SM-6 is based on the earlier SM-2ER Block IV (RIM-156A) missile airframe, with the AIM-120C AMRAAM active radar-homing seeker replacing the former design’s semi-active seeker.
The official designation is RIM-174 Standard Extended Range Active Missile, or ERAM. It is fired from the Mk 41 vertical launching system already fitted on US and allied destroyers and cruisers, so a ship does not need a new launcher to carry it.
What makes the SM-6 different from the older Standard missiles is that it does not have to rely only on the firing ship’s radar. Through Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air, or NIFC-CA, it can take targeting data from an E-2D Hawkeye, another ship, or a fighter such as the F-35, and engage a target beyond the horizon of the ship that launches it.
The active seeker then finishes the intercept on its own. In plain terms, the missile can be cued by a sensor the target cannot see, and still home in the last miles.
Raytheon describes the SM-6 missile as “three missiles in one,” and says it is the only weapon that can perform anti-air warfare, anti-surface warfare, and ballistic missile defense or sea-based terminal missions.
The Block IA and IB updates improve the seeker and guidance against harder, complex targets, while the Block IB adds a larger rocket motor for more range and speed against high-end air threats. Its exact range remains classified, but it is widely believed that it could reach over 200 nautical miles and fly at roughly Mach 3.5.
That spread of roles is also why the missile is expensive, and why magazines matter. A destroyer that fills its cells with SM-6s gains reach, but it burns through a scarce inventory if it uses the same missile for aircraft, cruise missiles, ships, and terminal ballistic shots.
China has reportedly been wary of the missile because of its capabilities. US allies in the region, including Japan, Australia, and South Korea, are lined up to acquire it.
The SM-6 on the Typhon Mid-Range Capability launcher is a ship missile adapted for strikes against land and sea targets. The Army has described the battery as a “strategic” weapon system to be used against higher-value targets such as air defense facilities and command and control centers — an important weapon given the region’s prevailing tensions.
In that ground-launched form, it sits alongside the Tomahawk, giving land forces a strike option that once belonged only to ships.
The US has also developed an air-launched variant of the SM-6, known as the AIM-174B, mounted on a US Navy Super Hornet, which broke cover during RIMPAC 2024. Fired from altitude and speed, it pushes an air-to-air engagement far outside the range of a carrier group’s older missiles.
The post Iran War, China Threat Push U.S. to Accelerate SM-6 Missile Production. Awards $24.4B Contract to Raytheon appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.
Login
