#US Indo-Pacific Command

[rhk111sblog]

Rodrigo Duterte has been proven right again as the United States (US) just announced that they are now asking the Philippines to give them more Military Bases on top of the nine that they have already been given

[milkboydotnet]

Robert Reid | Chairperson FFPS

On February 6, a US military-contracted plane crashed in Mindanao, Philippines, killing four Americans: one US military service member and three defense contractors, unequivocally exposing the active role of the US in the “counterinsurgency” war against the Filipino people and highlighting the involvement of US military personnel and equipments in the war effort.

According to the US Indo-Pacific Command Public Affairs (INDOPACOM), “The aircraft was providing intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance support at the request of our Philippine allies. The incident occurred during a routine mission in support of US-Philippine security cooperation activities.” But there is nothing ‘routine’ about a US military-contracted plane conducting operations in the Philippines. The mere presence of US military forces in the Philippines—especially their involvement in military operations—blatantly violates the Filipino people’s independence, and should be condemned as acts of US imperialist aggression, military intervention and war in the Philippines. 

The crash of a US military-contracted plane in the south of the Philippines, further concretizes and proves the indispensable role of the US in the design and implementation of the ongoing “counterinsurgency” war. It underlines the evidence presented to the International People’s Tribunal of 2024 on war crimes in the Philippines, which highlighted the complicity of the US in International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and human rights violations committed against the Filipino people, such as the use of indiscriminate bombings of rural communities, enforced disappearances, extra-judicial killings and many other war crimes.

Throughout his presidency, the US-backed Marcos Jr. administration has proven to be an agent to US imperialism, expanding U.S. military presence in the Philippines. This includes reaffirming the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty, expanding the number of U.S. military bases under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) to nine confirmed sites, increasing joint military exercises and “security collaboration,” as well as boosting military aid—an additional $500 million in 2024 and a proposed $2.5 billion in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) to modernize the AFP over five years. This also includes the secret deployment of US Typhon missile systems to an undisclosed location within the country.

While many of these military cooperations are disguised as supposedly efforts to ‘counter’ aggression by China, their real target is the crushing of the Philippine revolutionary movement, ensuring that the Philippines remains a tool in US imperialism’s pursuit of dominance in the Asia-Pacific region. It is the Philippine revolution that forms the main stumbling block to the US fully using the Philippines as its pawn—which is why they seek to destroy it.

The continued and expanded presence and operations of US military forces in the Philippines, and their support and direction to the Marcos Jr. administration and the AFP, and the“counterinsurgency” war, must be condemned and opposed as clear acts of US imperialist aggression, military intervention and war. The US, the AFP, and the GRP are the most fervent enemies of a just and lasting peace in the Philippines.

Internationally, we must expose the ongoing US imperialist war in the Philippines and counter it with all our might.

We call on the international community to join us in demanding an end to US aggression and war in the Philippines. This includes calling for:

The withdrawal of all US military forces.

A stop to all arms sales and military aid to the US-Marcos Government.

An immediate end to the bombings by the US-Marcos regime.

Supporting the Filipino people’s struggle for national liberation

This February marks the 126th anniversary of the Philippine-American war and the start of US imperialist domination in the Philippines.

This month, we call on all members and allies to hold rallies and other protest actions at US embassies, US government buildings and other institutions of US imperialism. Hold fora and community gatherings exposing the role of US imperialism and war in the Philippines. Call on the support of allies to expose to local government officials the Marcos Jr. subservience to US imperialism and demand to support the ending of arms sales and military aid to the Philippines.

[mariacallous]

In the five weeks since the Trump administration stepped up attacks on the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen, a few big problems have become apparent, underscoring just how hard it is for U.S. President Donald Trump to turn muscular rhetoric into real-world results.

The operation, famously debated in a Signal chat that mistakenly included a journalist, has failed so far to achieve either of its two stated goals: restoring freedom of navigation in the Red Sea and reestablishing deterrence. 

Shipping through the Red Sea and the adjacent Suez Canal remains as depressed as ever despite a more than $1 billion U.S. onslaught against the Houthis. And the militants remain as defiant as ever, warning over the weekend that Trump has waded into a “quagmire” and intensifying their own attacks on Israel and U.S. warships in the region.

There has also been a glaring lack of transparency about the operation, the biggest exercise of U.S. military power in Trump’s second term. The Defense Department does not hold briefings on the ongoing war, and U.S. Central Command, which oversees operations in the Middle East, merely posts snazzy videos of flight-deck operations on social media, accompanied by the hashtag “#HouthisAreTerrorists.”

More alarmingly, the tempo of U.S. operations, including around-the-clock strikes by two entire U.S. aircraft carrier strike groups, is burning through finite precision munitions that many defense experts say would be best husbanded for any future conflict with China. That’s especially important when it comes to the limited stock of stand-off, air-launched missiles that would be critical to any fight over Taiwan.

“If this is about freedom of navigation, it isn’t working,” said Alessio Patalano, a naval expert at King’s College London. He added: “How can you support the idea that the Indo-Pacific is the priority, and yet absolutely critical components to the Indo-Pacific fight are being pulled for operations in the Middle East?”

The good news, such as it is, is that there is less urgency now to reopen the Red Sea and the Suez Canal to commercial shipping than at any time since the Houthis essentially closed it in November 2023 with a wave of missile and drone attacks on commercial vessels, nominally done in support of Palestinians under Israeli assault. Trump’s trade war has so depressed the outlook for global shipping that rates for container ships are plummeting, and there is little reason for shippers to worry about rerouting their goods the long way around the bottom of Africa. 

When the Houthis first opted to use their strategic position on the shores of one of the world’s critical chokepoints, the Bab el-Mandeb strait, to bring pressure on Israel and the West, the West responded. The United States and the United Kingdom sent naval forces to hammer the Houthis, while the European Union sent its own naval task force to help shepherd commercial ships through what was quickly becoming a no-go zone.

Though the U.S.-U.K. and European missions had slightly different aims—the Anglo-Americans sought to “degrade” Houthi capabilities on land to interdict commercial traffic, while Europe’s operation hewed closer to a traditional freedom-of-navigation operation—both were of little avail. Insurance rates remained sky-high, and traffic through the Suez Canal plunged. 

Enter the new Trump administration, determined to prevail where the outgoing Biden administration had failed. 

“This [is] not about the Houthis,” embattled U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hesgeth wrote in the now-infamous Signal chat he and his colleagues shared with a journalist in the days and hours before and during the March attacks on the Houthis. “I see it as two things: 1) Restoring Freedom of Navigation, a core national interest; and 2) Reestablish deterrence, which [President Joe] Biden cratered,” Hesgeth wrote.

The idea that freedom of navigation was a core U.S. national interest got pushback from Vice President J.D. Vance during the Signal conversation. And everybody on the Trump national security team wanted to ensure that Europe would somehow pay for the unrequested U.S. military adventure. Centcom certainly believes that it is all about the Houthis. 

But the underlying contradictions in U.S. policies and priorities shone through the clumsy text messages. Most especially: What happened to the pivot to Asia?

“The United States Navy is very good at striking targets ashore. But the operational and tactical success cannot hide the fact that the strategic effect remains elusive, if not ill-defined altogether,” Patalano said. “If this is meant to deter the Chinese leadership vis-à-vis Taiwan, I am not sure it is doing it.”

The United States since the days of Thomas Jefferson has fought for freedom of navigation, sometimes in waters not far from the current fight. What is hard to understand right now is why it is spending treasure in a futile attempt to open a sea lane that doesn’t need opening, when there are other, more pressing challenges. Worse yet, the misapplication of sea power could rebound badly—it takes a lot of time and effort to convince democracies to pay vast sums for advanced warships that are needed and that do have great utility, just not this one.

“What I find most troubling is that they are undermining the ultimate utility of sea power,” Patalano said. “In the future, when people say, ‘Why do we need a Navy? We did nothing against the Houthis.’ And they will be right.”

[southernprideyall2]

It’s wrong when communists use lethal force to reunite their union, it’s perfectly fine when Lincoln did it.

[usafphantom2]

Stealth bombers land precision strike against Houthi militia

Nov. 22, 2024

240909-F-SZ986-1384

A U.S. Air Force B-2 Spirit stealth bomber conducts a touch and go maneuver after a Bomber Task Force mission at Royal Australian Air Force Base Amberley, Australia, Sept. 6, 2024. Bomber missions enhance readiness to respond to any potential crisis or challenge in the Indo-Pacific. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Anthony Hetlage)

Photo Details / Download Hi-Res

BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, La. --

On Oct. 16, B-2 Spirit long-range bombers from Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, conducted precision strikes against five hardened underground weapons storage locations in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen.

The use of the B-2s showcased the U.S.'s global strike capabilities and ability to take action against these targets anytime, anywhere.

“As the warfighting component to U.S. Strategic Command, our Airmen and aircraft are ready to respond anytime, anywhere,” said Maj. Gen. Jason R. Armagost, 8th Air Force and Joint-Global Strike Operations Center (J-GSOC) commander.

Every B-2 mission is a total force mission, and the air strike conducted on October 16 was no exception. The 509th Bomb Wing, 131st BW, and the J-GSOC played a significant role during the strikes.

At Whiteman AFB, Total Force Airmen comprising Air National Guard and active-duty Airmen worked side-by-side in all facets of operations, maintenance, planning, logistics and support to put the world’s only stealth bombers in the air and bring them home safely.

"This mission was the result of hard work, long hours, and dedication by many across the installation,” said Col. Keith J. Butler, 509th BW commander. “Once again Team Whiteman answered the nation's call with precision, professionalism and outstanding performance.”

Meanwhile in the J-GSOC, planners went to work to develop courses of action incorporating all aspects of the long-range strike mission, including a vast array of support and intelligence requirements and coordination across six combatant commands. According to J-GSOC planners, CONUS-based strike operations like this are among the most complex in the air-planning repertoire, requiring precise command and control, airlift, aerial refueling, logistics and airspace deconfliction, all while maintaining strict operational security across multiple organizations."

“I couldn’t be more proud of the dedication, professionalism and hard work the men and women of the Joint-Global Strike Operations Center displayed to support strike operations on October 16,” said Armagost. “Whether we are called upon to conduct indefinite strategic deterrence operations or execute decisive global strikes, the J-GSOC will remain agile and ready.”

The active-duty and Guard partnership is integral to a combined ability to deliver credible deterrence to adversaries, and global strike capability in support of national objectives.

In addition to loading and launching aircraft and tactical planning and execution by 131st maintenance and operations Airmen at Whiteman AFB, at Jefferson Barracks Air National Guard Station in St. Louis, the 157th Air Operations Group provided worldwide support to the development and delivery of multi-domain effects for the operation, as the 257th Combat Operations Flight leveraged its global strike capabilities to ensure lethal and survivable implementation of presidential directed operations.

“This was a team effort in all aspects of the mission and our Missouri Guard Airmen contributed every step of the way,” said Col. Jared Kennish, 131st BW commander. “The total force relationships the 131st BW has built with our active-duty counterparts proved decisive for a successful mission."

The strike demonstrated the B-2's combined capability of long range, large payload, low-observability, and advanced precision weapons, proving that it is one of the most advanced airframes in the world.

"We continue to stay ready and on October 16th we showed the world a peek of what Team Whiteman can do," Butler expounded to the members of Whiteman AFB. “Team Whiteman is an elite, highly disciplined team, consisting of Active Duty, Guard, Reserve, civilians and contractors working in unison to deliver global strike… anytime, anywhere.”

@Whiteman.AF.Mil

[beardedmrbean]

North Korea has issued a fresh nuclear warning to the U.S. over its activities on the Korean Peninsula, interpreting them as rehearsals for an armed conflict.

The statement, issued by Pyongyang's Foreign Ministry, was in response to ongoing bilateral military exercises involving South Korea and the U.S.

On Monday, state-run news agency KNCA released a statement from the North Korean Foreign Ministry taking aim at exercise "Ulchi Freedom Shield," which it called "large-scale provocative joint military exercises."

"The current exercises, including a drill simulating a nuclear confrontation with the DPRK, bring to light clearer the provocative nature of Ulji Freedom Shield as a prelude to a nuclear war," the ministry said.

Newsweek has contacted the United States Indo-Pacific Command for comment on North Korea's claims.

On Monday, the US began its annual joint military drills with South Korea, with this year's exercises focused on improving their capabilities to deal with growing threats posed by North Korea.

The drills, set to continue through August 29, will involve over 40 types of field exercises, as well as drills intended to simulate missile attacks, GPS jamming and cyberattacks.

According to a spokesperson for South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff, quoted by Reuters, the alliance's bilateral exercises will also "further strengthen its capability and posture to deter and defend against weapons of mass destruction."

However, Pyongyang said that these defensive exercises resemble the historical behavior of countries preparing for conflict, and accused the two states of rehearsing a "beheading operation" against the Kim Jong Un regime.

"It is clearly recorded in the world history of wars that in preparation for a war, aggressor states followed a series of procedures, including adoption of war policy and military operation plan for its execution, advance deployment of forces, ceaseless simulated and actual war drills and war provocation," the ministry's statement read.

These annual drills have consistently drawn the ire of Pyongyang, as has the increasing presence and activity of the U.S. in the Indo-Pacific.

North Korea responded to last year's Freedom Shield drills by carrying out tests of a strategic cruise missile, overseen by Kim Jong Un, according to KNCA.

In June, following the conclusion of the first "multi-domain" trilateral exercises involving the U.S., South Korea and Japan, Pyongyang condemned the three countries' "reckless and provocative" actions, and warned that these would be met with "fatal consequences."

In its Monday statement, North Korea's Foreign Ministry also criticized America's "nuclear confrontation policy against the DPRK," which it said was evidenced by the creation of the U.S.-South Korean "Nuclear Consultative Group" in April 2023.

According to a joint statement from Joe Biden and South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol in July, after the pair signed their first guidelines on nuclear deterrence on the Korean Peninsula, this group has "directly strengthened U.S.-ROK cooperation on extended deterrence, and managed the threat to the nonproliferation regime posed by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea."

Since the consultative group was launched in 2023, U.S. nuclear ballistic missile submarines have been sent to South Korean waters, which North Korea has warned "may fall under the conditions of the use of nuclear weapons."

[argumate]

Last year, the former chief of US Indo-Pacific Command, Philip Davidson, said war over Taiwan was possible by 2027. Xi Jinping reportedly has told his own military leadership to be ready for combat by the same deadline.

As Xi was finishing his tour of rice paddies and preparing for “extreme scenarios”, the chair of the East Asia Summit brought proceedings to a close with a plea to all the leaders present to ease regional tensions: “I can guarantee you,” said Indonesian President Joko Widodo, “that if we are not able to manage differences, we will be destroyed.”

Neither Xi Jinping nor Joe Biden was there to hear him.

[lboogie1906]

General Charles Quinton Brown Jr. (born March 2, 1962) is a USAF four-star general who currently serves as the 22nd chief of staff of the Air Force. He is the first African-American to be appointed as chief of staff and the first African-American to lead any branch of the US Armed Forces. He assumed office from Gen. David L. Goldfein who served as chief of staff since 2016 in a ceremony at Joint Base Andrews on 6 August 2020.

He served as commander of the Pacific Air Forces, air component commander for the US Indo-Pacific Command, and executive director of the Pacific Air Combat Operations Staff. He served as the deputy commander of US Central Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida. Before serving as the deputy commander of CENTCOM, he was the Commander of Air Forces Central. As the air component commander for CENTCOM, he was responsible for developing contingency plans and conducting air operations in a 20-nation area of responsibility covering Central and Southwest Asia. He took over Pacific Air Forces from acting commander Jerry Martínez on July 26, 2018. On June 9, 2020, he was confirmed as the first African American Chief of Staff of the USAF.

He was a distinguished graduate of the Air Force Reserve Officers Training Corps with a BS in Civil Engineering from Texas Tech University. He is a brother of the Eta Upsilon Chapter of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Incorporated.

In 1994, he earned an MS in Aeronautical Science from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. #africanhistory365 #africanexcellence #alphaphialpha

[cogitoergofun]

The Pentagon this week released footage and images of some of the nearly 200 incidents of what the U.S. has called reckless and aggressive behavior from Chinese aircraft in the past two years.

Defense Department officials said that since the fall of 2021, Chinese jets and planes have engaged in 180 “coercive and risky” maneuvers around U.S. aircraft in the South China Sea and the Indo-Pacific region.

Adding in incidents between U.S. allies and Chinese aircraft, the number goes up to about 300, according to the Pentagon.

On Tuesday, the Department of Defense (DOD) released photos and videos of 15 such incidents since January 2022.

Ely Ratner, assistant secretary of defense for Indo-Pacific security affairs, said China’s military, known as the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), has engaged in a frequent pattern of coercive and risky behavior that puts lives at risk.

China “seeks to intimidate and coerce members of the international community to giving up their rights under international law,” Ratner said at a Tuesday briefing. “All of these examples we released today underscore the coercive intent of the PLA.”

The behavior is increasingly worrying Washington because it could lead to an unintended clash that could spark a war.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has raised the issue with his counterparts in the past, according to the DOD.

Some of the incidents have already been previously reported on, including a Chinese jet intercepting a U.S. spy plane in May 2023 and another Chinese warplane moving within 20 feet of an American aircraft in December 2022.

The batch of videos and images released by the Pentagon shows several reckless maneuvers and close approaches to U.S. aircraft at high speeds, while other Chinese aircraft have also released flares or other objects and projectiles.

The U.S. says all of the incidents have occurred while American aircraft were conducting lawful operations in international airspace.

In May 2022, one PLA fighter jet moved to just within 10 feet below a U.S. aircraft in the East China Sea.

In June 2022, another fighter jet harassed an American plane and flashed weapons from about 40 feet away in the South China Sea, the Pentagon said. A Chinese pilot responded with an expletive when the U.S. pilot tried to contact the person.

Navy Adm. John C. Aquilino, commander of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, said Tuesday that American forces are highly trained and professional but expressed concern about the “potential for accidents” that could “lead to miscalculation.”

[awesome-casuallyfamouscollector]

If a foreign power attacked Hawaii – say the US Navy’s base at Pearl Harbor or the headquarters of the Indo-Pacific Command northwest of Honolulu – the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would not be obligated to rise to the Aloha State’s defense.

“It’s the weirdest thing,” says David Santoro, president of the Pacific Forum think tank in Honolulu, who added that even most Hawaii residents have no idea their state is technically adrift of the alliance(..)

P.S. Wow! It's an interesting and unexpected turn...! I really did not know such a nuance of the NATO agreement...! Interesting, very interesting!?

[nicklloydnow]

“Because, you see, a sociopath can help a psychopath.”*

“As a presidential candidate, Trump has threatened to quit NATO unless European allies contribute more, and should he carry it out Europe may decide to go it alone on defense, the game suggests. "A US policy of frustrating NATO has the potential to cause the alliance to collapse, with the EU as a candidate for eventually replacing NATO's ultimate function — defending Europe from Russia," wrote Finley Grimble, the British defense expert who designed and ran the game.

The US doesn't have to withdraw from NATO to imperil the 75-year-old alliance. Technically, the US is barred from leaving NATO after Congress voted in 2023 to prohibit withdrawal without congressional approval.

But the game showed how Trump — the presumptive Republican presidential nominee who said on the campaign trail that he'd encourage Russia to "do whatever the hell they want" with NATO allies who spend too little on their militaries — could undermine NATO simply by doing as little as possible to support the alliance. "What Donald Trump can do is just really hollow out what NATO does," Grimble told Business Insider. "He doesn't need to leave NATO to ruin it. He can ruin it from within."

Grimble, who has conducted wargames for the British government, conceived of this game after claims by former US National Security Adviser John Bolton that he talked then-President Trump out of withdrawing from NATO in 2018. He designed a tabletop simulation where the players — mostly British specialists in defense, intelligence and foreign policy — assumed the role of leaders of the 32 NATO nations, plus Ukraine and Russia; China was played by the umpires. The US was played by an American who "was trying to enter into the psyche of Trump, which was no easy task," Grimble recalled.

(…)

It is the first domino to fall. Trump then drastically reduces US participation in NATO, including redeployment of 50 percent of American military assets in Europe, where more than 100,000 US troops are based, to the Indo-Pacific theater. The Trump administration also institutes a new policy called "dormancy." This includes a variety of go-slow tactics, such as less US participation in NATO exercises. A particularly damaging move is to bar the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) — the second-highest military position in NATO, and always a US officer — from acting without prior consultation with Washington.

"Ultimately, SACEUR is answerable to the president of the United States," said Grimble. "So he [SACEUR] can start slowing things down, or prevent things from happening. The US can just take the funding from NATO programs and they will collapse."

(…)

NATO was created four years after the end of World War II in an attempt to avoid the failures of the interwar years. American security guarantees have precluded European powers from re-arming in exchange for the greater expenses borne by the US. But with this US security umbrella suddenly diminishing in the game, France and Germany call for the European Union to take over from NATO. This angers Poland, which saw this as an attempt by the French to kick the US out and to have France become the top military power in Europe.

(…)

Meanwhile, with its campaign in Ukraine stalemated, Russia mulls invading the Baltic States — which are NATO members — to take advantage of NATO disunity and perhaps split the alliance over willingness to risk war with Moscow. But the Russian player ultimately decides that Russia doesn't have the resources to fight Ukraine and occupy the Baltics — and invading NATO territory just might bring America back into the alliance.

However, fictional Moscow does launch new offensives in Ukraine. Bereft of US support — which Europe is unable to compensate for — Ukraine feels compelled to sign a peace that cedes eastern Ukraine to Russia and installs a pro-Russian government in Kyiv. Europe faces another problem: fear that Russia might attack NATO is scaring off domestic and international investors, causing European economies to stumble.

By the end of the game, the effects of a US pullback from NATO are global. China realizes that the US has really shifted its focus from Europe to the Pacific, which deters Beijing from invading Taiwan. Yet this doesn't reassure Japan, Australia and South Korea — US allies whose forces and bases are essential to efforts to counter China — which worry that Trump might change his mind and abandon them too. Iran becomes emboldened to assert its power in the Middle East, which spurs an arms race with Saudi Arabia.

All of which left the British frustrated. The UK has traditionally backed a transatlantic, America-Europe alliance rather than a purely European defense bloc. Yet in the game, it could neither persuade Trump to ease his demands, nor the European NATO members to spend more on defense. "The British felt, 'for God's sakes, Trump, give the Europeans some time,'" Grimble said. "But also, 'Europeans, please do something. Let's all come to an accord and keep NATO alive.'"

Wargaming experts always caution that games shouldn't be treated as predictors of the future, but only as experiments to explore possibilities. Nonetheless, this wargame seemed to confirm the worst fears of critics who believe Trump could destroy NATO and make Europe vulnerable to attack.

"The US had reduced its resourcing of the NATO deterrence and defense missions, meaning NATO did not have credible warfighting plans ready to deal with a Russian invasion," said Grimble. "The whole thing had become dysfunctional. It certainly wasn't in any position to coherently defend against Russia at the end of the game."

Yet at the same time, there was a genuine desire to keep NATO alive. "Many NATO members — except for France mainly — thought post-Trump it could be salvageable," Grimble said. "So it was necessary to keep the US in, keep it together, and rebuild later."”

“Last month, NATO, the world’s most successful military alliance, celebrated its 75th anniversary. Some fear that it may have been its last anniversary with the United States playing a leading role. Former U.S. President Donald Trump still views the alliance as obsolete. If reelected, he says he would encourage Russian leaders to do “whatever the hell they want” to member states that do not pay what he considers to be enough for defense. A second Trump presidency could have dire implications for European security.

Trump’s defenders argue that he is bluffing to pressure Europe into spending more on defense. But former U.S. officials who worked closely with Trump on NATO during his tenure, including one of us (Hooker), are convinced he will withdraw from the alliance if he is reelected. Trump hugely resents the more moderate advisers who kept him in check during his first term. If he reaches the White House in 2025, the guardrails will be off.

The U.S. Congress is concerned, too. It recently enacted legislation to prohibit a president from withdrawing from NATO unless Congress approves, either by a two-thirds vote in the Senate or an act of both houses of Congress. But Trump could circumvent this prohibition. He has already raised doubts about his willingness to honor NATO’s Article 5 mutual defense clause. By withholding funding, recalling U.S. troops and commanders from Europe, and blocking important decisions in the North Atlantic Council (NATO’s top deliberative body), Trump could dramatically weaken the alliance without formally leaving it. Even if he does not withdraw American support completely, Trump’s current position on NATO and his disinterest in supporting Ukraine, if adopted as national policy, would shatter European confidence in American leadership and military resolve.

EUROPE, ABANDONED

If Trump is reelected and follows through on his anti-NATO instincts, the first casualty would be Ukraine. Trump has opposed additional military aid to Kyiv and continues to fawn over Russian President Vladimir Putin. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg is already trying to Trump-proof aid to Ukraine by coordinating it under the aegis of the alliance rather than the U.S.-led Ukraine Defense Contact Group. Should the United States weaken or terminate its defense commitment to Europe under Trump, European countries would feel more vulnerable and may become increasingly reluctant to send Ukraine their own vital military supplies. With dramatic aid cuts, Kyiv could be forced to negotiate an unfavorable agreement with Moscow that would leave Ukraine a rump state militarily and economically vulnerable to Russia. Should Ukraine’s defenses collapse altogether, brutal repression and forced Russification await some 38 million people.

The disastrous consequences would only start there. A deflated NATO would struggle to mount an effective conventional deterrent against further Russian aggression. Russia is now on a war footing, spending six percent of its GDP on defense, and its authoritarian leader is committed to an ultranationalistic mission to consolidate his rule over what he calls the “Russian world,” an unspecified geographic space that extends well beyond his country’s internationally recognized borders. Moscow could reconstitute its armed forces relatively quickly. After subjugating all of Ukraine, Putin would probably focus on the Baltic states—NATO members covered by the alliance’s security umbrella but claimed as historic Russian lands by Putin. Should NATO’s conventional deterrence be weakened by the withdrawal of U.S. support, Russia would only be tempted to act more brazenly.

(…)

Should the United States abandon NATO, the erosion of nuclear deterrence would severely compound Europe’s conventional deterrence problem. Nuclear weapons underpin the United States’ commitment to defend its allies and its nuclear capabilities form the bedrock of NATO’s capacity for deterrence. Should Trump close the American nuclear umbrella, Europe would have to rely on less than 600 British and French strategic nuclear warheads, a fraction of Russia’s total force of over 5,000 strategic and tactical nuclear warheads. Since Europe has no tactical nuclear weapons, it can hope to deter a Russian tactical nuclear attack only by threatening escalation to the strategic level, a move that Moscow may not find credible. In an attempt to scare Europeans away from backing Ukraine, Russia has on many occasions hinted it might use tactical nuclear weapons. Unlike the United States, France and the United Kingdom have not extended their nuclear deterrent to protect their allies. Should Washington leave Europe to fend for itself, Moscow might calculate that it could successfully resort to nuclear blackmail to capture the territory of NATO member states.

Without U.S. leadership in NATO, cohesion and unity among members would be difficult to maintain. It often requires a strong American voice to bring disparate member states to a consensus. Since NATO’s founding, a U.S. general officer has led the organization’s command structure, overseeing the military activities of all NATO member states. It is doubtful that any other country in the alliance could play this role.

NATO without the United States might limp along, but it is more likely that the alliance would collapse altogether. The European Union is not in a position to take NATO’s place any time soon, as its military capabilities are limited and more capable of managing regional crises than fighting major wars. Even if a rump NATO survives without strong American involvement, the challenges of divided leadership, inadequate deterrence capabilities, and an assertive adversary would heighten the risk of war with Russia, a major power bent on overturning the liberal international order.

THE FALLOUT

The damage would not be limited to Europe. If Trump wants to withdraw from NATO to punish allies for their inadequate defense spending, why would the United States maintain its commitments to its Asian allies, many of whom currently spend even less than NATO countries? For now, the defense ties between the United States and its allies in Asia, such as Australia, Japan, and South Korea, are growing stronger in the face of Chinese provocations. But a lack of confidence in U.S. commitments may well lead some of these countries to pursue nuclear weapons to offset China’s and North Korea’s nuclear advantages, undercutting the fragile stability that has prevailed in the region for decades. The withering of U.S. global leadership would also have profoundly negative consequences in the Middle East, where U.S. forces and U.S.-led coalitions are needed to deal with terrorist threats.

The United States’ economy might also suffer. Should a breakdown of deterrence trigger a general war with Russia or China, the economic costs would be staggering. Just a few Houthi fighters in Yemen have been able to disrupt global shipping through their attacks in the Red Sea. Imagine the consequences of a war among major powers. Moreover, trade ties often follow security ties. Last year, two-way transatlantic trade in goods topped $1.2 trillion. The United States has about $4 trillion invested in European industry. Some five million Americans work in European-owned industries. The United States has a huge economic stake in maintaining a peaceful Europe.

The United States has been here before. Before both world wars, Washington sought neutrality. Neither effort at isolationism worked and only prevented the United States from being able to help deter the aggressors in those wars. Eventually, the United States was pulled into both conflicts. After World War II, having learned the dangers of isolationism, the United States remained engaged and paved the way for the founding of NATO and 75 years of relative peace in Europe. The United States must not forget the painful lessons of the last century. To do so would risk undercutting U.S. global leadership, undermining the Washington-built international order, and making the world safer for authoritarian rule.”

“'I'm not saying for certain that Trump will pull us out of NATO, but it's just too high a risk for Europe not to be prepared, because right now they're relying on America,' Harley Lippman, a foreign affairs analyst, told MailOnline.

(…)

Lippman, who has been re-appointed to a US commission under Trump, said: 'Europe has to go forward not counting on America staying in NATO. Europe has to have its own NATO.'

He added that even France has alluded to Europe's need for its own defence alliance and that Europe had to be prepared in case Trump followed through on his threat to leave NATO.

International affairs expert Lippman recently met MP Tobias Ellwood as well as former senior NATO Commander Sir Richard Shirreff in the House of Commons to discuss the dangers of American isolationism.

During the meeting organised the Henry Jackson Society think tank, Lippman warned attendees that Europe couldn't count on continued US support for NATO if Trump is re-elected.

He said that the attendees at the meeting in parliament agreed that a likely scenario would be Trump making a deal with Russia.

Lippman told MailOnline: 'Russia would get more of Ukraine than Ukraine wants and then, in another three years, Putin would come after Moldova and Georgia. He also certainly has his sights set on the Baltic Republics and Poland.

'And the problem with that is that no dictator in history who has successfully conquered a neighbour and then just stopped.

'If Putin defeats Ukraine, he is going to be so emboldened that he is going to go after other countries in Europe, almost all of which are NATO.'

Lippman said this could have devastating consequences: 'An attack on one NATO country is an attack on all NATO countries, which would be WW3.

'To avoid WW3, you have to defeat Russia in Ukraine, and Europe cannot count on America to [have its back].'

Lippman, who has been repeatedly appointed to the US Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad by the last four presidents, also echoed Trump's calls for European nations to invest more in their defence.

He said: 'People need to understand the need to defend Europe from Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. These four nations are united together to undermine the West and ultimately to defeat the West.

'They are all playing to win and the only way we're going to preserve peace is if we are determined to defend democracies.'

(…)

Under the Biden administration, the US has sent more than $100billion (£79.5 billion) in military aid to Ukraine - EU nations have given the same.

NATO members have agreed on a long-term support package for Ukraine last month, which will see alliance members commit $100billion over five years to ensure long-term support, even amid a Trump presidency.

The proposals, led by outgoing NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, will give the security bloc a more direct role in coordinating the supply of arms, ammunition and equipment to Ukraine as it fights Russia's invasion, diplomats say.

(…)

Under the new plans, NATO will be granted control of the US-led ad-hoc coalition known as the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, which coordinates the sourcing and supply of lethal weapons and military kit to Kyiv.

The move is designed in part to guard against any cut in US support if Trump returns to the White House, with Stoltenberg saying it would 'shield the mechanism (of providing aid to Ukraine) against the winds of political change'.

(…)

'It goes some way to protecting in case of Trump. But it is impossible to create something Trump-proof,' one diplomat said.”

*as quoted in ‘American Conspiracy: The Octopus Murders’ (2024)

[freehawaii]

KE AUPUNI UPDATE - DECEMBER 2023

Another Pearl Harbor? Yesterday, December 7, was the 82nd anniversary of Japanʻs devastating attack on the US military bases on Oʻahu. Remember, it was not an attack on Hawaiʻi or the Hawaiian people. It was an attack on the US military bases. The attack plunged America into World War II and Hawaiʻi served as the forward staging platform for the military operations of US and its allies throughout the Pacific and Asia — fighting WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia War and the Cold War. Hawaiʻi is America’s sugar-coated fortress; the HQ for the Indo-Pacific Command projecting US might and will over half the globe. The US militarization of Hawaiʻi started in the late 1800s with the US Department of War greedily eyeing Puʻuloa (Pearl Harbor) for a US naval base to expand American enterprise and power in the Pacific. But the Hawaiian Kingdom was a sovereign, neutral country, and King Kalākaua refused to let a foreign navy operate a base at Puʻuloa. Queen Liliʻuokalani likewise refused.  A Conspiracy On January 16, 1893, a company of fully armed US troops landed in Honolulu to support 13 greedy, disgruntled, white businessmen, to overthrow Liliʻuokalani and the Hawaiian Kingdom government. For its pivotal role as the muscle in the coup, the US Navy got the use of Pearl Harbor. Then, three years later, under cover of the Spanish-American war, and claiming “military necessity” (but driven by Manifest Destiny, a.k.a. US white supremacy), the conspirators execute a quasi-annexation of the Hawaiian Islands, the US takes possession, then launches a sixty-year pro-America indoctrination campaign, culminating in 1959 with Hawaiʻi becoming the the 50th State of the United States. The Awakening Hawaiʻi’s cultural revival of the 1960s gave rise in the 1970s to serious questions concerning the US military’s presence in Hawaiʻi: Why was so much of our ancestral lands controlled by the US military, and off-limits to Hawaiians? Why were they still bombing, shelling and strafing Kahoʻolawe? Why were they still conducting live-fire training on our ʻāina? Why is the US military allowed to destroy, contaminate and poison our land and water, stockpile vast amounts of weapons of mass destruction and occupy some of our best lands with impunity? Because it could. Very few questioned or opposed the United States’ presence in Hawaiʻi, including its military presence. After all, the US was here to protect us. This allowed America to do what it wanted to do, regardless of the harm it caused to the people and the lands. The US militaryʻs obligatory “public notices”, “briefings”, “community input” and “consultations” were a complete sham. The Biggest Threat Today, because of the US militaryʻs reckless presence in our islands, our very lives are in danger. Fortunately, the most urgent, immediate threat — the contamination of Oʻahuʻs drinking water by the US Navy’s giant leaking fuel tanks in Kapukaki (Red Hill) — due to public outcry and massive political pressure — is being remedied. Itʻs a good start. But, the other far more serious threat is another “Pearl Harbor”. Only this time, it would entail nuclear missile attacks on all the US military installations spread across the island. The devastation from such an attack will make all of Oʻahu look like Pearl Harbor on December 8th. Or like Lāhainā after the fire, but with almost no one of the nearly million people who live on Oahu surviving. The US Military in Hawaii does not make us safe, it puts us in harm’s way, at risk of annihilation. To the US, Hawaii and its people are expendable collateral damage. This is why it is urgent to do all we can to Free Hawaii and remove this clear and present danger before it is too late.  

“Love of country is deep-seated in the breast of every Hawaiian, whatever his station.” — Queen Liliʻuokalani ---------- Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono. The sovereignty of the land is perpetuated in righteousness.

------ For the latest news and developments about our progress at the United Nations in both New York and Geneva, tune in to Free Hawaii News at 6 PM the first Friday of each month on ʻŌlelo Television, Channel 53. 

------ "And remember, for the latest updates and information about the Hawaiian Kingdom check out the twice-a-month Ke Aupuni Updates published online on Facebook and other social media." PLEASE KŌKUA… Your kōkua, large or small, is vital to this effort... To contribute, go to:  

• GoFundMe – CAMPAIGN TO FREE HAWAII • PayPal – use account email: info@HawaiianKingdom.net • Other – To contribute in other ways (airline miles, travel vouchers, volunteer services, etc...) email us at: info@HawaiianKingdom.net  “FREE HAWAII” T-SHIRTS - etc. Check out the great FREE HAWAII products you can purchase at... http://www.robkajiwara.com/store/c8/free_hawaii_products All proceeds are used to help the cause. MAHALO! Malama Pono,

Leon Siu

Hawaiian National

[ncisfranchise-source]

Three episodes into NCIS: Sydney, and AFP forensic scientist Bluebird “Blue” Gleeson (Mavournee Hazel) has become a permanent member of the team!

But first, Blue’s planning her own farewell party after taking a call from the forensic scientist she’s been filling in for; sadly, no one bites during her initial request. NCIS Special Agent Michelle Mackey (Olivia Swann) remarks to AFP Sergeant Jim “JD” Dempsey (Todd Lasance) that she loves Blue’s initiative and quirkiness, but her people skills aren’t the best. “This is NCIS, not a refuge for misfits with personality disorders,” she argues, but as JD asks, “You sure about that?” (And let’s be fair: The franchise has shown before that it is a “refuge for misfits.”)

Blue tries to talk to AFP Forensic Pathologist Dr. Roy Penrose (William McInnes) about her farewell party — “You’re leaving?” he asks — and while Mackey, the first time, focuses on the case, she does later tell her she’s impressed and is the one to get on JD’s case as Blue’s packing her stuff: “You didn’t tell her, did you?”

NCIS Special Agent DeShawn Jackson (Sean Sagar) is the one who finally has enough. “I can’t do this anymore. You Aussies, you’re cruel,” he says and wheels out a Welcome Aboard cake for her. “As Supervisory Special Agent of NCIS Sydney, having discussed it with the Indo-Pacific chain of command —” Mackey begins before handing over the NCIS hat. (“With a great cap comes great responsibility,” she says.) The others want Blue to be a permanent team member; JD had left the other forensic scientist a message that the position had been filled. With that, they take a team selfie.

“We had a lot of fun writing that episode, and Blue was so great,” showrunner Morgan O’Neill tells TV Insider. “I’m biased, totally, but I find she’s so watchable on screen, and I love her character from the moment she walks in. But Episode 3 is that classic case of office miscommunication, and she’s not confident enough to actually put her foot down and say, ‘Hey, guys, I’m going away. I know I’m going away. I’m having a party. I’m having to organize it myself. Can you just tell me if you’re coming or not?’ And everyone’s so busy that they don’t really get the chance to explain exactly what has happened, which is that they’ve all decided that she’s amazing and that they want her on the team. They’ve just never got around to talk. And maybe the Australians have had a little bit of fun by not telling her as promptly as they should have.”

He continues that the response he got from someone else who watched the episode was “kind of telling and pretty exciting. They were really moved by the fact that the team had embraced Blue in this way, and they were surprised at how we were able to garner that level of emotional connection from an audience’s perspective in such a short period of time. And that’s a testimony to how great Blue is, but it really made me excited because part of the thrill of this show is that you come for the crime, but you stay for the characters. And if people are already rooting for this team to get together and stay together by the end of Episode 3, then we’re on a good trajectory there.”

Something else worth noting from this episode is that fans should keep the case — the discovery of a severed arm with a US Navy dive computer on it leads them to investigate a group of former Navy divers — in mind. “It’s not entirely wrapped up with a neat bow,” O’Neill notes. “We get the guys that we think have perpetrated the crime, but there seems to be more to it than what we wrap up, and we will work out exactly what the relationship is between the mystery of Episode 1 and the mystery of Episode 3, and then the second half of the first season will kind of bring those two strands together in a way that hopefully is surprising, but should definitely be climactic.”

In the series premiere, a boat was rigged to explode so the guys couldn’t be interrogated, and there was a woman still in the wind. “We will be trying to unpack exactly what happened at the end of Episode 1 across multiple episodes in the first season, and it will actually culminate in the climax to the first season,” O’Neill explained. “It’s an absolutely cracking climax to the first season. And it definitely involves unpacking what happened in that first episode, where that blonde woman ended up, who she is, maybe who she’s working for.”

So keep paying attention to cases: Even ones you don’t realize are connected very well might be!

[mariacallous]

Former Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen emphasized the importance of U.S. support for Ukraine during the Halifax International Security Forum on Nov. 23, urging Washington to prioritize helping Kyiv despite the rising threat of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

"They should do whatever they can to help the Ukrainians," Tsai said, according to a Politico report. "We [Taiwan] still have time."

Tsai’s comments came after U.S. Indo-Pacific Command chief Adm. Samuel Paparo acknowledged that aiding Ukraine has begun to strain the U.S. military’s capacity to prepare for potential conflict in Asia. Paparo highlighted the depletion of critical weapon stockpiles, including Patriots and air-to-air missiles.

During her Halifax appearance, Tsai argued that Ukraine's success against Russian aggression would serve as a global deterrent.

"A Ukrainian victory will serve as the most effective deterrent to future aggression," she said.

Taiwan has increased its defense spending by 80% over the past eight years, reaching $19 billion in 2024. However, Tsai dismissed calls for Taiwan to raise its defense budget to 10% of GDP, a suggestion made by U.S. President-elect Donald Trump. "We would have some difficulty accepting an arbitrary figure," she said, according to Politico.

While the Biden administration has consistently defended its ability to balance support for Ukraine and preparations for a conflict with China, Trump allies argue otherwise. Tsai remained cautious about Taiwan's defense strategy under Trump’s presidency, declining to comment on potential major arms purchases in early 2025.

[rainytimetravelfart]

10 Essential Navy Current Affairs for 2025

The maritime world is witnessing unprecedented changes, driven by rapid technological advancements, geopolitical realignments, and global security challenges. In 2025, naval forces across the globe are redefining their operational frameworks, embracing innovation while maintaining strategic dominance at sea. Here are the 10 essential navy current affairs for 2025 that every defense enthusiast, strategist, and security professional should be aware of.

1. Autonomous Naval Vessels Enter Active Service

Unmanned ships and autonomous submarines are no longer prototypes—they are fully operational. Major navies, including the U.S. Navy and Royal Navy, have deployed AI-powered vessels capable of executing missions without human intervention. These systems enhance surveillance, reduce risks, and cut operational costs, setting a new benchmark in naval warfare.

2. Green Fleet Initiatives Gain Momentum

Climate change concerns have propelled global navies toward eco-friendly solutions. Countries like the UK, India, and Australia are investing in hybrid and electric propulsion systems, reducing carbon footprints while maintaining operational efficiency. This green transformation signals a future where sustainability meets strength at sea.

3. Strategic Naval Alliances in Indo-Pacific

The Indo-Pacific remains a strategic hotspot in 2025, with enhanced collaborations like QUAD (India, US, Japan, Australia) and AUKUS (Australia, UK, US) reinforcing security frameworks. Joint naval exercises and interoperability programs aim to ensure a free and open maritime domain amid rising regional tensions.

4. Hypersonic Missiles: A Game-Changer

The integration of hypersonic missile technology into naval platforms has revolutionized strike capabilities. Nations like China, Russia, and the US have operationalized these high-speed weapons, reducing enemy response times and reshaping maritime deterrence strategies.

5. Artificial Intelligence in Naval Command Systems

AI is now central to decision-making processes within naval command structures. Predictive analytics, real-time threat assessment, and autonomous combat strategies are making naval operations faster, smarter, and more efficient.

6. Expansion of Aircraft Carrier Fleets

Aircraft carriers remain the cornerstone of naval dominance. In 2025, India launched its second indigenous carrier, while China continues its push to become a dominant naval power with multiple carriers under construction. These developments underscore the significance of carrier strike groups in power projection.

7. Underwater Drone Warfare

The silent battlefield beneath the waves is evolving with underwater drones. Equipped with advanced sonar, surveillance tech, and even offensive capabilities, these drones enable nations to monitor enemy submarines, safeguard trade routes, and conduct covert missions without risk to human life.

8. Cybersecurity: The New Naval Battlefield

Cyberattacks targeting naval command systems have increased exponentially. In 2025, navies are investing heavily in cybersecurity measures, establishing specialized cyber fleets to protect sensitive data and prevent digital sabotage.

9. Arctic Naval Deployments

Melting Arctic ice has opened new maritime routes and strategic opportunities. Russia, the US, and NATO allies are enhancing their Arctic naval presence to secure trade corridors and access untapped resources, signaling a new era of polar geopolitics.

10. Humanitarian and Disaster Relief Missions

Naval forces are playing an increasing role in humanitarian assistance and disaster response. From delivering aid during natural calamities to evacuating civilians in crisis zones, navies are extending their role beyond warfare to global peacekeeping and relief operations.

Why These Affairs Matter

The navy current affairs 2025 highlight a future driven by technology, sustainability, and global cooperation, while also warning of emerging security threats. For professionals in defense, maritime strategy, and policy-making, staying informed about these trends is not just essential—it’s imperative.

Final Thoughts

The naval landscape of 2025 is marked by both opportunities and challenges. With rapid technological adoption, strategic alliances, and an increased emphasis on green and cyber domains, navies worldwide are preparing for a complex and interconnected future. As the maritime domain continues to shape global power dynamics, these ten updates will define naval operations for years to come.

[usafphantom2]

Boeing Is Evaluating The F-15EX As Successor Of The EA-18G Growler

The new “Wild Weasel” variant of the F-15EX would make use of both existing capabilities of the aircraft, as well as new ones integrated from the Growler.

Stefano D'Urso

F-15EX Growler

An F-15EX Eagle II prepares to taxi for a training mission at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, Nov. 15, 2023. An upgraded version of the F-15 fourth-generation fighter jet, the F-15EX boasts a new electronic warfare system and an open mission systems architecture with advanced battle management systems. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Elizabeth Tan)

As the production line of the F/A-18 is about to close, Boeing is studying whether the F-15EX Eagle II can be equipped to become the successor of the EA-18G Growler. The new “Wild Weasel” variant of the F-15EX would make use of both existing capabilities of the aircraft, as well as new ones integrated from the Growler.

“We are evaluating the technical feasibility of combining EA-18G-like capabilities with the F-15EX platform,” said Rob Novotny, Boeing’s executive director for Fighters Business Development. Novotny added that the study is still in the initial stage, but the company is already eyeing opportunities both for NATO members and the Indo-Pacific.

The move is due to the planned stop to the production of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in 2027, which in turn means the production of the EA-18G Growler will also end. On the other hand, the production of the Advanced Eagle is expected to continue for many years and leaves the door open to a new specialized variant for Electronic Warfare (EW).

“Modern aerial combat requires command of the electromagnetic spectrum, and this platform would lead the way into the next decade or two,” Novotny said. He also pointed out that the Eagle II offers several design advantages, including the aircraft’s range, speed, computing power and payload capacity.

F-15EX Growler

An F-15EX assigned to the 85th Test and Evaluation Squadron. (U.S. Air Force photo by 2nd Lt. Mary Begy)

One could argue that a low-observable, or stealth, aircraft like the F-35 could be better suited for the job, however Novotny mentioned that stealth shouldn’t be understood strictly in terms of low-observable coatings. In fact, similarly to the Growler, such capabilities could be also replicated by using advanced EW functions.

“Stealth means, to me, I can go to a place where the enemy doesn’t want me to go, and I can operate in their environment, achieve my objective, and not be targeted,” said Novotny.

The F-15EX is already equipped with advanced EW capabilities thanks to the Eagle Passive Active Warning Survivability System (EPAWSS), but it also has the ability to carry the AGM-88 High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARMs). In addition to these, Boeing is exploring also the possibility to integrate the AGM-88G Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile-Extended Range (AARGM-ER) and the Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) pods. Still, there’s no naval variant of the Eagle II, therefore, it looks like such a successor of the EA-18G could not operate from the flight deck of an aircraft carrier unlike the Growler.

U.S. Navy EA-18G Growlers assigned to the Electronic Attack Squadron 138 (VAQ-138) fly in formation over the Pacific Ocean, June 24, 2024. The EA-18G’s vast array of sensors and weapons provides the warfighter with a lethal and survivable weapon system to counter current and emerging threats. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Tylir Meyer)

The F-15EX and the existing EW capabilities

The new F-15EX, developed from the F-15QA that was the most advanced Eagle variant, comes from a series of needs mainly emerged after the National Defense Strategy directed the U.S. armed services to adapt to the new threats from China and Russia. The aircraft, while extremely similar to the QA variant, features some US-only capabilities like the new AN/ALQ-250 Eagle Passive Active Warning Survivability System (EPAWSS) electronic warfare and electronic surveillance system and Open Mission Systems (OMS) architecture.

The F-15EX’s systems are powered by the Advanced Display Core Processor II, reportedly the fastest mission computer ever installed on a fighter jet, and the Operational Flight Program Suite 9.1X, a customized variant of the Suite 9 used on the F-15C and F-15E, designed to ensure full interoperability of the new aircraft with the “legacy Eagles”.

The F-15EX is equipped with the AN/APG-82(V)1 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, developed from the APG-63(V)3 AESA radar of the F-15C and the APG-79 AESA radar of the F/A-18E/F. This radar allows the Eagle II to simultaneously detect, identify and track multiple air and surface targets at longer ranges compared to mechanical radars, facilitating persistent target observation and information sharing for a better decision-making process.

EPAWSS, an US-only system that will be retrofitted also to the F-15E, provides full-spectrum EW capabilities, including radar warning, geolocation, situational awareness, and self-protection to the F-15. Because of this, the system enables freedom of maneuver and deeper penetration into battlespaces protected by modern integrated air defense systems.

F-15EX Growler

U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Richard Turner, 40th Flight Test Squadron commander flies 40 FLTS Senior Enlisted Leader, MSgt Tristan McIntire during a test sortie in the F-15EX Eagle II over the Gulf of Mexico on Jun. 14, 2022. Assigned to the 96th Test Wing at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., the F-15EX Eagle II is the Air Force’s newest 4th generation fighter being tested at the 40 FLTS. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. John McRell)

EPAWSS is fully integrated with radar warning, geo-location and increased chaff and flare capability to detect and defeat surface and airborne threats in signal-dense and highly contested environments. The system is currently not integrated with the AN/AAR-57A(V) Common Missile Warning System (CMWS) designed to detect infrared threats, even if the F-15EX features the same mounting points used for these sensors on the F-15QA and F-15SA.

Chaff and flares capacity has been increased by 50%, with four more dispensers added in the EPAWSS fairings behind the tail fins (two for each fairing), for a total of 12 dispenser housing 360 cartridges. This improvement is important as in modern scenarios chaff and flares are often released preemptively to counter MANPADS (Man Portable Air Defense System), meaning that now the Eagle will have more countermeasures available for a better protection.

EPAWSS also integrates cognitive electronic warfare to better discriminate the signals received by the system. This capability was demonstrated during the Northern Edge 2023 large force exercise test event, which tested EPAWSS’ ability to rapidly respond to previously unencountered electromagnetic threats. The tests challenged the system’s ability to process in-mission sensor data, create exquisite techniques, and optimize waveforms in real time.

As for the kinetic capabilities, the F-15EX can carry the AGM-88 HARM on outboard wing stations 1 and 9. This capability is reportedly a product of the fly-by-wire upgrade funded by the Royal Saudi Air Force during the development of the F-15SA.

An F-15EX Eagle II from the 85th Test and Evaluation Squadron, 53rd Wing, takes flight out of Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, April 11, 2024, with U.S. Air Force Chief Master Sgt. David Wolfe, command chief of Air Combat Command, and Maj. Scott Addy, 85th Test and Evaluation Squadron, F-15 division chief. The F-15EX is the first Air Force aircraft to be tested and fielded from beginning to end, through combined developmental and operational tests. (U.S. Air Force photo by Capt. Lindsey Brewer)

The EA-18G and the capabilities it could pass to the F-15EX

Based off of the F/A-18F, the Growler is a highly specialized Electronic Attack variant of the Super Hornet. The most noticeable difference with the baseline SH is the presence of the wingtip pods housing the ALQ-218 signals receiver suite, which helps to detect and geolocate emitters and signals.

The AN/ALQ-218 is a high performance RWR/ESM/ELINT system that allows the aircraft collect data about sources of radio frequency (RF) emissions: with this sensor, the EA-18G can “sniff” hostile radio signals to update the EOB (Electronic Order of Battle) of the combat theater where the aircraft is employed.

The EA-18G is equipped with an airborne electronic attack (AEA) avionics suite that has evolved from the EA-6B’s Improved Capability III (ICAP III) AEA system. In the future, with the Block II Growler upgrade and the NGJ (Next Generation Jamming) pods, the Growlers will also have Cyber Attack capabilities that will allow the EA-18Gs to “hack” or inject malware into enemy network.

The NGJ program aims to give the EA-18G fleet advanced airborne electronic attack capabilities through three frequency-focused increments – high-band, mid-band and low-band: in other words, the Growlers will replace the TJS pods operating in the 509 MHz to 18 GHz waveband, using three different pods, designated NGJ-LB (also known as Block/Increment 2), NGJ-MB (Capability Block/Increment 1), and NGJ-HB (Block/Increment 3) and directed specifically against the low- (100 MHz to 2 GHz waveband), mid- (2 GHz to 6 GHz), and high-band (6 GHz to 18 GHz) sections of the overall threat spectrum.

NGJ-MB is a high-capacity and power airborne electronic attack weapon system designed for the EA-18G electronic attack aircraft that was designed to carry out the usual job of denying, degrading and disrupting threat radars and communication devices, from an extended range and with enhanced ability than the previous AN/ALQ-99 tactical jamming pods, developed for the EA-6B Prowler.

The NGJ-MB, also known as the AN/ALQ-249(V)1 pod, uses directional emitters and AESA (active electronically scanned array) technology and an all-digital back end. It also has digital and software-based tech embedded in the design, which increases the ability to jam and allows for rapid beam steering and advanced jammer modulation.

While the NGJ-MB pod will “cover the majority of critical threats”, NGJ-LB will be extremely important to provide cover to stealth aircraft, threatened by the emerging counter-stealth Low Band radars, engaging enemy threats from increased stand-off distances and employing increased capacity (number of jamming assignments).

Loaded with external fuel tanks [and NGJ pods, ndr], an EA-18G Growler attached to the U.S. Navy’s Air Test and Evaluation Squadron Nine (VX-9) — the Vampires — goes airborne at Naval Base Ventura County Point Mugu in Southern California on Aug. 10, 2023, on its way to the adjacent Point Mugu Sea Range for a training exercise. The Growler is a two-seat variant of the carrier-based F/A-18 Super Hornet that is designed for electronic warfare. (U.S. Navy photo by Eric Parsons/Released)

NGJ-MB will replace one of high-band ALQ-99 pods that Growlers carry under each wing, while the NGJ-LB will replace the low-band pod that the aircraft carry on the centerline store position under the fuselage (the third one, a high-band pod, being developed as part of the so-called Increment III, will be carried on the left wing).

The Growler is also capable of carrying the HARM (High speed Anti-Radiation Missile) and AARGM (Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile); these weapons are designed to seek out threat weapons systems and emitters, guiding on their energy, and destroy them. However, the EA-18G is expected to integrate also the new AARGM-ER.

The AARGM-ER is the evolution of the latest variant of the AGM-88 HARM (High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile), the AGM-88E AARGM, a medium-range air-to-ground missile employed for Suppression and/or Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD/DEAD). The AGM-88E is the result of a cooperative program with the Italian Air Force started in 2005 and developed as an upgrade and compliment to the AGM-88B/C. The AARGM program designed and produced a new Guidance Section and modified the existing Control Section, which are coupled with the legacy HARM Rocket Motor and Warhead Section, wings and fins.

The new Guidance Section features a passive anti-radiation homing receiver, satellite and inertial navigation system and a millimeter wave radar for terminal guidance, with the added ability to send images of the target via a satellite link before impact. The purpose of these new Guidance Section is to improve the effectiveness of the legacy HARM, especially against enemy radar and communications sites that would shut down to confuse incoming anti-radiation missiles (counter-shutdown capability) or pop-up threats.

As stated by the U.S. Navy, AARGM baseline capabilities include an expanded target set, counter-shutdown capability, advanced signals processing for improved detection and locating, geographic specificity providing aircrew the opportunity to define missile-impact zones and impact-avoidance zones, and a weapon impact-assessment broadcast capability providing for battle damage assessment cueing.

The AARGM-ER builds up on these capabilities to obtain an even more advanced weapon that is being integrated on the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler and it is compatible for a future integration on all the variants of the F-35 Lightning II. The AARGM-ER combines the Guidance Section and Control Section of the AGM-88E with a new, larger rocket motor and a new warhead. The control surfaces have been redesigned too, obtaining aerodynamic strakes along the sides for increased lift and low-drag tail surfaces. The missile will reportedly have roughly double the range and speed of the AGM-88E.

About Stefano D'Urso

Stefano D'Urso is a freelance journalist and contributor to TheAviationist based in Lecce, Italy. A graduate in Industral Engineering he's also studying to achieve a Master Degree in Aerospace Engineering. Electronic Warfare, Loitering Munitions and OSINT techniques applied to the world of military operations and current conflicts are among his areas of expertise.

@TheAviationist.com