#global defense market growth

[amrutmnm]

Anti-Aircraft Warfare Market Trends and Predictions for 2023 to 2028

Table of Contents

What is Anti-Aircraft Warfare?

How Does Anti-Aircraft Warfare Work?

Anti-Aircraft Warfare Industry Growth Drivers

Market Opportunities in Anti-Aircraft Warfare

Key Players in the Anti-Aircraft Warfare Company

Recent Developments in Anti-Aircraft Warfare

FAQs on Anti-Aircraft Warfare Market

Key Takeaways

What is Anti-Aircraft Warfare?

Anti-aircraft warfare involves the strategies, systems, and technologies used to defend against airborne threats, including aircraft, missiles, and drones. As military aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) become more advanced, the need for effective air defense solutions intensifies. These systems are designed to detect, track, and neutralize airborne threats to protect strategic infrastructure, military assets, and civilian areas.

How Does Anti-Aircraft Warfare Work?

Anti-aircraft warfare relies on sophisticated technologies like radar systems, missile systems, and electronic warfare capabilities to detect and destroy incoming aerial threats. Key components include:

Radar Systems: Used for early detection and tracking of aerial threats over long distances.

Missile Defense Systems: Include surface-to-air missiles and interceptors capable of neutralizing enemy aircraft and missiles.

Electronic Warfare: Encompasses systems that disrupt enemy communications, radars, and navigation.

Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs): Utilize lasers or microwaves to destroy or disable targets, offering rapid response times and precision.

These technologies work in unison to create a layered defense, ensuring early threat detection, tracking, and interception to minimize potential damages.

You Can Download PDF Brochure: https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/pdfdownloadNew.asp?id=29678979

Anti-Aircraft Warfare Market Growth Drivers

The Anti-Aircraft Warfare Market is estimated to grow from USD 20.9 billion in 2023 to USD 28.6 billion by 2028, at a CAGR of 6.5%. Several key factors contribute to this growth:

Increased Air-Based Threats As air-based threats become more sophisticated, defense organizations worldwide are investing in cutting-edge air defense systems. Recent developments in hypersonic missile systems are pushing the boundaries of traditional air defense capabilities, driving innovation.

Development of Indigenous Defense Systems Countries like Russia, India, and China are heavily investing in indigenous air defense technologies to bolster their military capabilities. Examples include Russia’s S-500 missile defense system and China’s HQ-9B surface-to-air missile systems.

Government Support for Military Modernization Governments are channeling funds into research and development to enhance their defensive and offensive air capabilities. In the United States, for instance, the Department of Defense is spending nearly USD 1 billion annually on developing directed energy weapons for air defense.

Market Opportunities in Anti-Aircraft Warfare

The Anti-Aircraft Warfare Market presents various opportunities, including:

Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs) As DEW technology advances, militaries are looking to integrate these systems into their arsenals. DEWs offer rapid response times and cost-effective solutions for disabling threats with minimal collateral damage.

Counter-Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (C-UAV) Systems With the increasing use of UAVs, there is a growing demand for systems that can detect, track, and neutralize drone threats. The need for reliable C-UAV systems is critical to preventing unauthorized UAV access to restricted areas.

Advancements in Missile Systems The development of advanced missile systems capable of intercepting hypersonic missiles is a major opportunity for the market. Companies are investing heavily in missile technology to create faster, more accurate, and longer-range defense solutions.

Naval Air Defense Solutions As geopolitical tensions rise in regions with significant naval activity, demand for anti-aircraft systems on naval platforms has surged. Naval vessels equipped with advanced air defense systems are becoming essential for countries with significant maritime interests.

Ask for Sample Report: https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/requestsampleNew.asp?id=29678979

Key Players in the Anti-Aircraft Warfare Market

The Anti-Aircraft Warfare Market is dominated by a few well-established players with extensive product portfolios and global influence. These companies are at the forefront of innovation and have strong financial stability, enabling them to invest heavily in research and development. The key players include:

Lockheed Martin Corporation (US): A leader in missile defense systems, Lockheed Martin specializes in advanced technologies like the Phased Array Tracking Radar to intercept hypersonic missiles.

Raytheon Technologies Corporation (US): Known for its integrated air defense systems, Raytheon combines radars, command, control, and interceptors to create multi-layered defense solutions.

BAE Systems (UK): This company focuses on radar and electronic warfare systems, offering advanced solutions for both land and naval platforms.

Thales Group (France): Provides high-performance radar and missile systems, with a strong presence in the naval defense sector.

These companies actively pursue mergers, acquisitions, and strategic partnerships to expand their market share and enhance their technological capabilities.

Recent Developments in Anti-Aircraft Warfare

The Anti-Aircraft Warfare Market has seen significant advancements and collaborations in recent years. Notable developments include:

Lockheed Martin: Awarded a USD 2.45 billion contract in April 2023 for the production of advanced missile intercept systems, including upgrades to the PATRIOT missile.

Raytheon: In June 2023, Raytheon integrated multiple air defense components to create a comprehensive shield against air-based threats.

Thales Group: Signed an agreement in July 2023 with the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration for the delivery of SMART-L Multi Mission Fixed (MM/F) radars, bolstering Sweden’s long-range detection capabilities.

BAE Systems: Received a USD 14 million contract from DARPA in August 2022 to develop smaller, more powerful electronic warfare systems for use on unmanned platforms.

FAQs on Anti-Aircraft Warfare Market

What is the Anti-Aircraft Warfare Market size? The Anti-Aircraft Warfare Market is projected to grow from USD 20.9 billion in 2023 to USD 28.6 billion by 2028, with a CAGR of 6.5%.

What factors are driving market growth? Rising investments in hypersonic missile defense systems, the development of indigenous air defense solutions, and advancements in radar technology are the primary growth drivers.

Which region dominates the Anti-Aircraft Warfare Market? North America, led by the United States, holds the largest market share due to substantial defense spending and advanced technology development.

Who are the leading players in the market? The key players include Lockheed Martin Corporation, Raytheon Technologies Corporation, BAE Systems, and Thales Group, among others.

What challenges does the market face? Stringent regulations on arms transfer and technical challenges related to counter-UAV systems are some of the significant hurdles.

To Gain Deeper Insights Into This Dynamic Market, Speak to Our Analyst Here: https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/speaktoanalystNew.asp?id=29678979

Key Takeaways

Robust Growth: The Anti-Aircraft Warfare Market is set to experience substantial growth, driven by advancements in missile and radar technology.

Opportunities in DEWs and C-UAVs: Directed Energy Weapons and Counter-Unmanned Aerial Vehicle systems offer new growth avenues.

Regional Dominance: North America leads the market, but emerging economies are increasing their investments in indigenous air defense systems.

Technological Innovation: Companies are heavily investing in research and development, pushing the boundaries of existing technologies to counter new threats.

Strategic Partnerships: Leading companies are entering partnerships and joint ventures to enhance their product portfolios and expand market reach.

The Anti-Aircraft Warfare Market is evolving rapidly, driven by the need for advanced air defense solutions and the rise of hypersonic missile systems. With robust growth expected over the next five years, key players are investing heavily in technology to stay ahead. Despite challenges, the market offers substantial opportunities in DEWs, C-UAVs, and indigenous defense systems. As global defense spending rises, the market is poised to see significant advancements and continued innovation, shaping the future of air defense.

[aerospace-and-defence]

As per Markets and Markets, the global defense spending was $1.7 trillion in 2022. In terms of GDP, it grew from 2.3% to 2.4% of global GDP from 2022 to 2023. The US, China, Russia, India, and Saudi Arabia contribute 63% of this figure, highlighting the growing focus on national security amidst a complex geopolitical landscape.

[medicaldevicesindustrynews]

Liquid Category Is Expected To Lead Camouflage Coatings Market

The term “camouflage coatings” refers to coatings used on textiles, different defense or aerospace equipment, and automobiles to make them less visible or observable. The majority of these coatings are non-reflective and give the things they are applied to concealment. These coatings are perfect for hunting and sports equipment in addition to defense and aerospace equipment and vehicles. By…

[infofeasting]

Military Aviation Sensors & Switches Market Growth in Global Industry: Overview, Size and Share 2022-2030

In the global military aviation sensors & switches report, key players, market shares, market sizes, growth drivers, and company profiles are analyzed in-depth, alongside market trends, demand, and recent changes.

The global military aviation market is well-stocked with high-performance sensors and switches, used to detect and measure pressure, temperature, and other variables. These key elements have become essential components of any aircraft or aerospace system – be it commercial, military, or civilian – due to their reliability and cost efficiency. From analog models to digital devices, there are countless varieties of aviation sensors and switches now available that can perfectly meet the demands of today's dynamic environment.

As major players in the global market increase their investments into defense, the military aviation sensors and switches market is set to experience a surge in demand. This is driven by a combination of growing macroeconomic factors such as changing demographics, increased consumer spending behavior, and higher GDPs. In addition, developing infrastructure and encouraged reform of laws and regulations are expected to have a positive effect on the market.

In this report, we provide in-depth information on the leading players in the global market for military aviation sensors & switches in the coming years. Companies operating within the military aviation sensors and switches market have implemented various strategies to gain market dominance. These tactics can be studied in order to understand the ways in which these companies remain dominant and increase their customer bases, thus holding a major share of the overall global military aviation sensors & switches market.

In the military aviation sensors & switches market, major players include:

Honeywell International, GE Aviation, Ametek Inc., Safran Electronics & Defence, United Technologies Corporation, Thales SA, Curtiss Wright Corporation, TE Connectivity, Meggit PLC, Raytheon Company. 

Request Sample Report: https://www.nextmsc.com/military-aviation-sensors-switches-market/request-sample

The novel coronavirus pandemic has had a negative impact on the Military Aviation Sensors and Switches market, in both developed and developing nations across the world. Despite this initial drop in market growth due to the difficulties imposed by the pandemic, there is still great potential for expansion that could occur once the worst of it is over.

The report also provides historical, current, and future sizes of the market. An in-depth analysis of the military aviation sensors & switches market and a geographic forecast are included in the same.

By type, the global military aviation sensors & switches market can be divided into:

Proximity Sensors

Position Sensors

Pressure Sensors

Temperature Sensors

Angle Of Attack Sensors

Speed Sensors

Field Switches

The global military aviation sensors & switches market can be segmented on the basis of applications into:

Fighter Aircraft

Training Aircraft

Transport Aircraft

UAV

Helicopter

Space

The global military aviation sensors & switches market is segmented according to region as follows:

North America

U.S.

Canada

Mexico

Europe

UK

Germany

France

Italy

Rest of Europe

Asia-Pacific

China

India

Japan

Australia

Rest of Asia-Pacific

RoW

UAE

Saudi Arabia

South Africa

Brazil

Rest of RoW

In the latest study, all of the critical features of the global military aviation sensors & switches industry have been thoroughly investigated. It covers everything from a macro-level market overview to a micro-level analysis of market size, competition, development trends, niche markets, important market drivers and challenges, SWOT analysis, Porter's five force analysis, value chain analysis, etc.

Looking for data and insights surrounding the military aviation sensors & switches market? This comprehensive report will provide you key stakeholders with all the necessary information to create plans that support business growth. The report carefully covers all of the major geographic regions, from North America to Asia-Pacific, Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa. Additionally, global market dynamics are studied on a global scale in this comprehensive military aviation sensors & switches report.

About Us:

Next Move Strategy Consulting is an independent and trusted third-platform market intelligence provider, committed to deliver high quality, market research reports that help multinational companies to triumph over their competitions and increase industry footprint by capturing greater market share. Our research model is a unique collaboration of primary research, secondary research, data mining and data analytics.

We have been servicing over 1000 customers globally that includes 90% of the Fortune 500 companies over a decade. Our analysts are constantly tracking various high growth markets and identifying hidden opportunities in each sector or the industry. We provide one of the industry’s best quality syndicates as well as custom research reports across 10 different industry verticals. We are committed to deliver high quality research solutions in accordance to your business needs. Our industry standard delivery solution that ranges from the pre consultation to after-sales services, provide an excellent client experience and ensure right strategic decision making for businesses.

For more insights, please visit, https://www.nextmsc.com

[imr1234]

Missile Defense Systems Market Size 2022 Global Industry Investigation by Share, Trends, Growth Factors, and Forecast till 2028

Global Missile Defense System Market was valued at USD 23.72 billion in 2021 and is expected to reach USD 32.28 billion by the year 2028, at a CAGR of 4.5%.

Missile defense systems are land and maritime technology that defense forces use to defend against a variety of missiles, including cruise and ballistic missiles. The need for missile defense systems has increased significantly as a result of increased hostilities and warlike conditions in many regions of the world. Missile defense systems keep national assets and people safe from missile attacks. Missile defense systems are a type of missile defense that protects a country from incoming missiles, such as intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and other ballistic missiles. All missile defense systems have been developed by the United States, Russia, India, France, Israel, Italy, the United Kingdom, and China.

The latest research on the Global Missile Defense System Market provides a comprehensive overview of the market for the years 2022 to 2028. It gives a comprehensive picture of the global Missile Defence System industry considering all significant industry trends, market dynamics, and competitive landscape. In addition, the analysis includes critical information on the Missile Defense    System Market status of the main market players, major trends, and future market development opportunities. These research papers arbusinessesed to help readers find information and make decisions that will help them grow their business. The study is written with a specific goal in mind: to give business insights and consultancy to help customers make smart business decisions and achieve long-term success in their particular market areas.

[khalid-albeshri]

Key sectors in KSA manufacturing market:

Here’s a concise overview of the key sectors in Saudi Arabia's manufacturing market:

1. Petrochemicals

- Central to Saudi Arabia's manufacturing, leveraging vast oil and gas reserves to produce chemicals like ethylene and polypropylene.

- Major players include SABIC and Saudi Aramco.

2. Pharmaceuticals

- Rapidly expanding with a focus on local production of generics, vaccines, and biotech products.

- Supported by government initiatives to reduce import dependency.

3. Food and Beverage

- Vital for food security and economic growth, focusing on dairy, processed foods, beverages, and halal products.

- Expanding into regional and international markets.

4. Automotive

- Developing sector with a focus on assembling vehicles, manufacturing parts, and electric vehicles (EVs).

- Growing interest from global manufacturers.

5. Construction Materials

- Driven by mega-projects, producing cement, steel, aluminum, and sustainable materials.

- Key to supporting infrastructure development.

6. Metals and Mining

- Emerging sector with significant resources like gold, phosphate, and bauxite.

- Focus on extraction, processing, and downstream industries like aluminum smelting.

7. Textiles and Apparel

- Small but growing, with potential in high-quality textiles and traditional clothing.

- Opportunities in fashion and design.

8. Renewable Energy Equipment

- Focused on producing solar panels, wind turbines, and related components to support renewable energy projects.

- Significant growth potential aligned with sustainability goals.

9. Packaging

- Expanding due to growth in food, pharmaceuticals, and e-commerce.

- Innovation in sustainable packaging solutions is on the rise.

10. Defense and Aerospace

- Strategic priority with efforts to localize military equipment production.

- Supported by GAMI, focusing on parts manufacturing and maintenance services.

These sectors highlight Saudi Arabia's drive toward economic diversification, with strong government support and strategic investments fostering growth across the manufacturing industry.

#KhalidAlbeshri #خالدالبشري

[mariacallous]

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforces the nation’s antitrust and consumer protection laws. We focus primarily on domestic markets and the U.S. economy. Through this work, we get a ground-level view of how markets are structured in America—and of how the extent of competition or consolidation drives outcomes that affect us all.

Like many across government, the FTC is watching closely as the release of sophisticated AI tools creates both opportunities and risks. Our work is already tackling the day-to-day harms these tools can turbocharge, from voice-cloning scams to commercial surveillance.

But beyond these immediate challenges, we face a more fundamental question of power and governance. Will this be a moment of opening up markets to free and fair competition, unleashing the full potential of emerging technologies? Or will a handful of dominant firms concentrate control over key tools, locking us into a future of their choosing?

The stakes of how we answer this question are enormously high. Technological breakthroughs can disrupt markets, spur economic growth, and change the nature of war and geopolitics. Whether we opt for a national policy of consolidation or of competition will have huge consequences for decades to come.

As in prior moments of contestation, we are starting to hear the argument that America must protect its domestic monopolies to ensure we stay ahead on the global stage. Rather than double down on promoting free and fair competition, this “national champions” argument holds that coddling our dominant firms is the path to maintaining global dominance.

We should be extraordinarily skeptical of this argument and instead recognize that monopoly power in America today is a major threat to America’s national interests and global leadership. History and experience show that lumbering monopolies mired in red tape and bureaucratic inertia cannot deliver the breakthrough technological advancements that hungry start-ups tend to create. It is precisely these breakthroughs that have allowed America to harness cutting-edge technologies and have made our economy the envy of the world. To stay ahead globally, we don’t need to protect our monopolies from innovation—we need to protect innovation from our monopolies. And one of the clearest illustrations of how consolidation threatens our national interests is the risk monopolization poses to our common defense.

In 2021, an errant spark in an explosives factory in Louisiana destroyed the only plant in the United States that makes black powder, a highly combustible product that is used to make mortar shells, artillery rounds, and Tomahawk missiles. There is no substitute for black powder, and it has hundreds of military applications. So when that factory blew up, and we didn’t have any backup plants, it destroyed the only black powder production in all of North America. There’s a simple lesson here: Don’t put all your eggs in one basket.

This is but one of many examples of how consolidation threatens our national interests. We know that monopolies and consolidated markets can result in higher prices and lower output. But monopolies also foster systemic vulnerabilities, since concentrating production also concentrates risk. Someone could probably argue it was more efficient to put all black powder production in one plant in Louisiana. And maybe it was—until it wasn’t.

Defense officials now identify the problem of monopoly in our country as a strategic weakness. The Pentagon has been warning about vulnerabilities in our national security supply chain for years. One top official recently noted that our increased reliance on a small number of contractors for critical capabilities impacts our ability to ramp up production.

One early victory in my tenure as FTC chair was blocking the proposed merger between Lockheed and Aerojet. Aerojet is the last independent U.S. supplier of key missile inputs, and our investigation showed that the deal would have allowed Lockheed to cut off rivals’ access to this key input and jack up the price that our government, and ultimately the public, has to pay. It was the first time in decades that our government sued to halt consolidation in the defense industrial base.

It’s not just our defense industrial base where we have a problem. The pandemic exposed fragilities across our supply chains, with shortages in everything from semiconductors to personal protective equipment. And it’s not just a once-in-a-century pandemic. Even more routine disruptions like plant contaminations or hurricanes have revealed how, in a concentrated system, a single shock can have cascading effects, yielding shortages in products ranging from baby formula to IV bags.

Consolidation causes problems beyond supply chains. For years, successive administrations have sought to strengthen our cybersecurity defenses against a catastrophic attack. A few weeks ago, one of the main medical benefit claims networks in America, Change Healthcare, was taken down for weeks due to a cyberattack, depriving hospitals and medical providers of the ability to bill for their services—and wreaking havoc across our health care system. That network is owned by UnitedHealth Group, which was allowed to buy Change despite a Department of Justice lawsuit seeking to block the deal. Quite simply, we have a resiliency problem in America. Consolidation and monopolization have left us more vulnerable and less resilient in the face of shocks.

But what about AI and the innovation economy? Black powder and baby formula shortages are one thing, but the corporations that run big data centers and large language models are highly technical operations, with tens of billions of dollars of capital to deploy, trillions in market capitalization, and some of the most highly skilled professionals.

Again, we should be guided by history. In the 1970s, Walter Wriston, the CEO of Citibank and a key leader on Wall Street, asked why antitrust enforcers were filing suits against high-tech American darlings like IBM and AT&T: “What is the public good of knocking IBM off?” he said. “The conclusion to all this nonsense is that people cry, ‘Let’s break up the Yankees—because they are so successful.’” By contrast, Europe and Japan were protecting their national champions to win in the international arena.

We chose to promote competition, and that choice to bring antitrust lawsuits against IBM and AT&T ended up fostering waves of innovation—including the personal computer, the telecommunications revolution, and the logic chip. The national champions protected by Japan and Europe, meanwhile, fell behind and are long forgotten. In the United States, we bet on competition, and that made all the difference.

Imagine a different world, where today’s giants never had a chance to get their start and innovate, because policymakers decided that it was more important to protect IBM and AT&T from competition and allowed them to maintain their monopolies. Even when monopolies do innovate, they will often prioritize protecting their existing market position. Famously, an engineer at Kodak invented the first portable digital camera in the ’70s—but Kodak didn’t rush it to market in part because it didn’t want to cannibalize its existing sales. More generally, significant research shows that while monopolies may help deliver marginal innovations, breakthrough and paradigm-shifting innovations have historically come from disruptive outsiders. It is our commitment to free and fair competition that has allowed America to harness the talents of its citizens, reap breakthrough innovations, and lead as an economic powerhouse. But what about those times when we have accepted the national champions argument? One prominent example serves as a cautionary tale.

In the 1990s, a White House advisor noted that there was one very high-tech firm that was “de facto national champion,” so important that “you can be an out-and-out advocate for it” in government. And we did support it, provide it with government contracts, and allow it to consolidate the industry. That national champion was Boeing, whose trajectory illustrates why this strategy can be catastrophic.

In 1997, Boeing became the only commercial aerospace maker in the United States. It came to enjoy this status after buying up McDonnell Douglas, the only other domestic producer of commercial airplanes—a merger reviewed by the FTC. Boeing is the clearest example of a purposeful decision to bet on national champions on behalf of American interests. Policymakers wanted a national champion, and they got it.

Three things happened after Boeing eliminated its domestic competition. First, according to commenters such as United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby, the merger allowed Boeing to slow innovation and to reduce product quality. Boeing’s R&D budget is consistently lower than that of its only rival, Airbus. Worse quality is one of the harms that most economists expect from monopolization, because firms that face little competition have limited incentive to improve their products.

Second, reporting suggests that Boeing executives began to view their knowledgeable workforce as a cost, not an asset, with tragic outcomes. As one consultant put it in 2000, “Boeing has always been less a business than an association of engineers devoted to building amazing flying machines.” This corporation’s engineers designed the B-52 in a single weekend. But the new post-merger Boeing decimated its workforce, offshored production, and demanded wage concessions.

Third is the risk that Boeing effectively became too big to fail and a point of leverage for countries seeking to influence U.S. policymaking.

Relying on a national champion creates supply chain weaknesses and taxpayer liabilities, but it also creates geopolitical vulnerabilities that can be exploited both by global partners and rivals. As it was buying McDonnell Douglas, Boeing held a board meeting in Beijing and lobbied Congress to end the annual review of China’s trading rights so that it could sell more planes. The Chinese government would order Boeing planes contingent upon certain U.S. policies, like whether the U.S. held off on sending warships into the Strait of Taiwan, or whether the U.S. lifted bans on the export of certain technologies.

National champions are still corporations first. They have earnings calls, shareholders, and quarterly profit targets. When policymakers in Washington decide to back a single monopoly, their objectives are but one concern among many for that corporation’s senior executives. As then-Exxon CEO Lee Raymond said, “I’m not a U.S. company and I don’t make decisions based on what’s good for the U.S.”

These days, the national champions argument often gets made in the context of our dominant tech firms. We often hear that pursuing antitrust cases against or regulating these firms will weaken American innovation and cede the global stage to China. These conversations often assume a Cold War-like arms race, with each country’s firms in a zero-sum quest for dominance.

The reality today is that some of these same tech firms are fairly integrated in China and are seeking greater access to the Chinese market. While there is nothing intrinsically improper about these ties, we should be clear-eyed about how they shape business incentives. Various incidents in recent years have highlighted how when U.S. corporations are economically dependent on China, it can spur them to act in ways that are contrary to our national interests.

Even if America’s dominant firms are not prioritizing America’s national interests, what should we make of the idea that they can keep America in the lead, if only they are left alone? This, too, is an argument we should treat with great skepticism.

We need to choose competition over national champions, and there are steps we are taking to put that into practice.

In 2021, the FTC sued to block Nvidia’s $40 billion acquisition of Arm, what would have been the largest semiconductor chip merger in history. Our investigation found that the merger would’ve allowed a major chip provider to control key computing technologies that rival firms depend on to develop their own competing chips. Our lawsuit alleged the deal would have risked stifling the innovation pipeline for next-generation technologies, affecting everything from data centers to self-driving cars. Two years on, Nvidia has continued to provide innovative products at a lower cost than we estimated they would have charged businesses after completing the acquisition of Arm. Arm itself is thriving, with its stock price doubling since it went public last year.

This is but the latest example of antitrust laws in action. The FTC was created in part to protect the innovative boons of open markets by ensuring that market outcomes—who wins and who loses—are determined by fair competition rather than by private gatekeepers. Protecting open and competitive markets means that the best ideas win. It means that businesses get ahead by competing on the merits of their skill, not by exploiting special privileges or bowing down to incumbent monopolists.

One final argument against protecting monopolies over competition is that it can leave our democracy more brittle.

Over the last couple of years, I’ve had the chance to hear from thousands of people across America—from nurses, farmers, and grocery store workers to tech founders, hotel franchisees, and writers in Hollywood. A recurring theme across their stories is a sense of fear, anxiety, and powerlessness. People from strikingly different walks of life have shared accounts of how markets monopolized by dominant middlemen enable coercive tactics—of how they feel their ability to make a decent living or thrive in their craft is, too often, not a function of their talents or diligence but instead is dictated by the arbitrary whims of distant giants.

A basic tenet of the American experiment is that real liberty means freedom from economic coercion and from the arbitrary, unaccountable power that comes with economic domination. Our antitrust laws were passed as a way to safeguard against undue concentration of power in our economic sphere, just as the Constitution creates checks and balances to safeguard against concentrated power in our political sphere.

Recommitting to robust antitrust enforcement and competition policy is good for America because it will make us safer, our technologies more innovative, and our economy more prosperous—but also because it is essential for safeguarding real opportunity for Americans and for ensuring that people in their day-to-day dealings experience liberty rather than coercion. When people believe that government has stopped fighting on their behalf, it can become a strategic weakness that outsiders are only too happy to exploit.

Thankfully, over the last few years we have seen significant progress across government in ensuring that we are centering everyday Americans in our policy decisions. From trade to industrial policy to competition, this administration has learned from past experiences and adopted new paradigms. A common throughline across these approaches is a commitment to revisiting old assumptions and updating our thinking in light of real-life experience and evidence.

Fighting back against the challenges we face is about more than enforcing the antitrust laws. But by promoting fair competition, by showing the American people that we will fight for their right to enjoy free, meaningful lives outside the grip of monopolists, we can help rebuild not just people’s confidence in the economy, but also a belief in American government, and its leadership both at home and abroad.

[amrutmnm]

The World Defense Budget Analysis Market size is estimated to be USD 2,004.7 billion in 2023 and is expected to reach USD 2,546.9 billion by 2028 at a CAGR of 4.90% from 2023 to 2028. The world defense budget has experienced substantial growth over the years, reflecting the global focus on national security, military modernization, and the evolving nature of security threats. Factors driving the growth of the defense budget include geopolitical tensions, regional conflicts, and the need to address emerging challenges such as cyber warfare and terrorism. Technological advancements and the race for military superiority have also fueled increased defense spending.

Governments across the globe are investing in advanced weaponry, modernizing their armed forces, and adopting cutting-edge technologies like artificial intelligence, unmanned systems, and cyber capabilities. Furthermore, economic growth in certain regions has given governments the financial capacity to allocate more resources to defense. Rising defense budgets are also attributed to the desire to maintain military readiness, support global military operations, and safeguard national interests. However, challenges such as budget constraints, competing domestic priorities, and public scrutiny over defense spending remain. Nevertheless, the growth of the World Defense Budget Analysis Industry is expected to continue as nations navigate the evolving security landscape and strive to ensure their defense capabilities are robust, agile, and well-equipped to address both conventional and unconventional threats.

[aerospace-and-defence]

In 2023, global defense spending surged by 18.5%, marking a significant increase that underscores the ongoing expansion in military expenditure amidst rising concerns over new security challenges fueled by persistent conflicts and geopolitical tensions. The defense market is swiftly adapting to the growing demands for advanced capabilities across various domains, including air, land, sea, and space. Key areas such as hypersonic missile defense, artificial intelligence (AI), electric vehicles (EVs), space forces, autonomous systems, digital transformation, and space situational awareness stand at the forefront of these market developments.

[dailyanarchistposts]

1

This is an encouragement for local, anti-authoritarian secessionist activity aimed at acquiring land bases. This push for different ways of living would be characterized by new ecological insights and awareness, an inspiration from primal ways, and a desire for autonomy, both individual and collective.

Secessionist action is not aimed at establishing new, smaller nation-states, but toward the creation of stateless zones. The actions aim for a decisive break from a world that damages and stunts us. Secessionists secede not only from nation states but ideology as well. This type of rupture is based in a desire for new relationships, between each other, within ourselves and with the world that surrounds us.

This is about notions of regeneration and renewal, a call to look to the time after the death and darkness of civilization as one when life will return and growth will begin anew. It is an appeal for a persistent, global May Day, to ideas and actions inspired by the midpoint between the spring equinox and the summer solstice, the time when the sun is set free to bring the pleasurable warmth of summer back to earth once again.

Numerous ancient cultures were suffused with anarchic qualities. Sexuality and fertility were viewed as joyous expressions of wild nature, of creation. Ecstatic community dances rejoicing in the many cherished wonders of life were common. Let our rebellions aim for planetary rejuvenation, let them signal a time to celebrate abundance and fecundity, let them be yearnings for new life and blissful days in the pleasing heat of our new season.

Humans are at a juncture. We can continue to be conned, obedient citizens who venerate the market and respect the institutions of capitalist civilization or we can try to put into practice new ways of living, ways that implicitly acknowledge the rich potential that comes with freely-chosen communalism, that honor earth wisdom and continued renewal. The techno-utopian argument remains wholly unconvincing. Who wouldn’t rather have clean rivers flowing with abundance, intact mountains and healthy forests, teeming with wildlife and purifying our air, than polluted rivers supporting only a few contaminated fish, mountains cleaved in half for coal and minerals and forests reduced to monoculture or scraped into clearcuts?

These attempts would be highlighted by the widespread sharing of skills, resources, and burdens now carried by individuals and families locked into their private lives. They would also involve the creation of common lands, gardens and gathering spaces, collective child rearing and collective responsibility for shelters. Subsistence activities would be explored and practiced. Secessionists would consciously aim at permanently freeing their territory, their habitat, from political power.

In the beginning, openness for intimacy with others, with strangers will be essential, because we have all become strangers to each other. Ultimately, these local movements aim for true kinship, authentic community, genuine inter-relationships that allow each individual to be all that she can be yet part of a whole. These expressions of collective will would involve measures of offense and defense, for there are those who cannot accept community autonomy, who fear individual freedom or who have an interest in maintaining control from the top.

[usafphantom2]

The Rise, Fall & Rise Of F-15 Fighters: How Eagles Continue Their Relevance Even After Decades In Service

Sakshi TiwariSeptember 10, 2023

Boeing Aerospace announced on September 7 that Poland was actively interested in buying the F-15EX Eagle II fighters. The announcement was made at the press conference at the annual MSPO defense trade exhibition without divulging specific details.

Tim Flood, Boeing’s senior director of Global Business Development for Europe and Americas, said in a statement: “Poland’s interest in the F-15EX confirms its dedication to the preparedness and effectiveness of its military forces.

The F-15EX offers superior interoperability, supportability, and affordability and a robust industry plan to support Poland’s goal of developing independent defense capabilities.”

Rob Novotny, the F-15 program’s head of commercial development, refused to discuss the “price and delivery schedule” of the American company’s proposal to Warsaw.

Additionally, he stated that “there are no negotiations and no contract talks, only some conversations with the Polish Air Force.”

So far, the US Air Force (USAF) is the only customer of the Eagle II and has already acquired two of these fighters and is preparing to purchase 104 of them.

Although the aircraft is being aggressively pitched for export to some countries, no formal agreement has been signed to sell this fighter outside the United States.

The F-15EX, the most modern iteration of the F-15, has several new features and capabilities over earlier Eagles, including a powerful active electronically-scanned array (AESA) radar and a sophisticated electronic warfare suite.

Boeing frequently highlights the jet’s impressive combat range and cargo capacity compared to other American and international fighters on the market.

F-15EX Eagle II Fighter Jet

“The F-15EX is the world’s most advanced fighter with unmatched capability, lethality, and survivability and is the right fit to strengthen Poland’s security needs,” said Novotny.

“Through enhanced interoperability with US and NATO forces, capacity for technology growth, and a 20,000+ hour economic, operational airframe life, Poland can expect the F-15EX to win in existing and future threat environments.”

The journey of US F-15s, from when they entered service with the United States to when they were upgraded to a new role as Eagle IIs, has been spectacular. As Boeing eyes new customers for an aircraft that is an updated variant of its best dogfighter, EurAsian Times dives deep into the rise and fall and another peak in F-15’s popularity.

What Makes The F-15 Stand Out?

The F-15 Eagle is an American twin-engine, all-weather tactical fighter aircraft that is incredibly maneuverable and was developed to permit the Air Force to establish and maintain air superiority over the battlefield.

During the Cold War years, the USAF stressed the necessity for an aircraft that could avoid detection as air defense systems continued to advance, which led to the creation of the F-15.

The Eagle has been exported to numerous countries, including Israel, Japan, and Saudi Arabia. It is still in service with several countries, with upgraded variant production continuing.

With a recorded record of 104 combat wins and zero losses, the Eagle has earned its reputation as the king of the skies over multiple conflicts and under various Air Forces.

The F-15’s air superiority versions and the A/B/C/D models have suffered no losses in combat despite contrary claims that could never be verified.

Emerging as one of the best dogfighters in the world, the aircraft also earned the reputation of a “MiG killer.”

As previously observed by the EurAsian Times, the F-15s emerged as MiG Killers as they established air superiority in the Gulf War from the outset.

At the time, the F-15s shot down many MiGs, contributing to its spectacular combat record and global recognition as one of the best combat jets in history. In June 1979, an Israeli Air Force F-15A shot down a Syrian MiG-21, marking the first air-to-air victory for this cutting-edge aircraft.

File Image: A USAF F-15C fired an AIM-7 Sparrow in 2005. (Wikimedia Commons)

A former USAF lieutenant, Cesar Rodriguez, has shot down more MiGs than any other pilot since the Vietnam War.

During the first Gulf War in 1991, Rodriguez’s first two kills were against a Mikoyan MiG-29 and a Mikoyan MiG-23 of the Iraqi Air Force. He achieved his third kill on a MiG-29 of the Yugoslav air force in the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.

Captain Jeff “Claw” Hwang accomplished a stunning feat of aerial battle in March 1999 while flying his F-15C, with tail number 86-0156, and downing two MiG-29 planes.

The incident occurred during NATO’s engagement in the Kosovo conflict when the alliance launched several airstrikes against Serbian forces backing Kosovo Albanians seeking independence.

The platform’s capabilities have since been demonstrated, leading to the development of the F-15E Strike Eagle, a modified version designed to excel in air-to-ground combat, and the F-15EX Eagle II, an updated version of the classic F-15 Eagle.

F-15E Strike Eagle – Wikipedia

Because of its adaptability, a better all-weather strike derivative known as the F-15E Strike Eagle was also eventually developed. It entered service in 1989 and has since been exported to other countries.

The F-15E was created in the 1980s to conduct long-range, high-speed interdiction missions without the aid of escorting or electronic warfare aircraft. The Strike Eagle has been used in high-end combat operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya.

During these operations, the strike fighter has conducted combat air patrols, deep strikes on high-value targets, and close air support for coalition forces.

Additionally, it has been exported to several nations, including Israel and Saudi Arabia. However, the largest user of the aircraft continues to be the United States.

The F-15 Never Lost Its Sheen!

As the US started to focus on fifth-generation fighter jets with stealth technology, like the F-22s, the older F-15 Eagles somewhat took a backseat. By the 2010s, the USAF intended to replace all its F-15 air superiority aircraft with the Lockheed Martin F-22. Still, due to the highly constrained F-22 procurement, the USAF was compelled to continue using the F-15C/D into the 2020s.

It was revealed in June that the proposed House’s fiscal 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) would approve the Air Force’s request to retire 57 F-15C and F-15D aircraft, some of which are approaching the end of their service lives and are over 40 years old.

Diminished in utility by their age, the F-15C/D Eagle aircraft were based at the Kadena Air Base in Japan. This was the only unit of these fighters located outside the United States. The US Air Force’s Eagles first landed at Kadena in September 1979, and the model has been continuously stationed there.

The withdrawal was essentially informed by the need to modernize the air presence in the region against the backdrop of exacerbated regional military threats. The aircraft has since been replaced by the F-22 Raptors, as was planned in the original scheme of things by the USAF.

While the F-15s returned to their base, the 3rd Wing at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, sent roughly a dozen F-22 Raptors to Okinawa on November 4 to start a six-month rotation.

According to the Air Force, the Raptors are being used as “backfill” for the departing F-15s, as the strategy calls for fighters with more advanced capabilities than the F-15C and D.

Although the F-15C/D is slowly being pulled out to free up resources, the USAF expects to use the F-15E Strike Eagle well into the 2030s. Earlier this year, the US Central Military Command (CENTCOM) sent out its most dependable and battle-tested fighter, the F-15E, to launch retaliation strikes after an Iranian drone purportedly targeted a military base housing US personnel.

The F-15E is somehow still attracting customers. Among potential buyers of this aircraft are countries like Egypt and Thailand. A US deal to sell F-15s to the Egyptian Air Force was announced in March last year. However, a contract needs to be finalized after the price and delivery date are determined and agreed to by both sides.

As for Thailand, the US offered to sell an older generation of fighters, including the F-15 or the F-16s, after turning down the Royal Thai Air Force (RTAF)’s request to purchase the F-35A aircraft. Even though the aircraft is expected to be replaced by more capable F-15EX Eagle II aircraft, it hasn’t lost its sheen.

Re-Emergence Of F-15

As could be deciphered by the latest Boeing announcement for a potential sale of F-15EX to Poland, the newest iteration of this combat-hardened aircraft is looking for export customers, with the manufacturer hopeful of sealing a contract.

Besides Poland, Israel is also looking to buy Boeing’s F-15EX Eagle II fighters. Israel has officially requested the all-new F-15EX fighters by sending a Letter of Request (LOR) for the warplanes to the US government. Tel Aviv is reportedly looking to purchase at least 25. No final contract has been signed.

Boeing is also offering the Eagle II to two countries in the Asian continent. The Republic of Indonesia inked a memorandum of understanding with Boeing to acquire up to 24 F-15EX fighters recently. However, even that deal hasn’t been finalized, and there has been no information on the financial aspects of the agreement.

Earlier, Boeing had pitched the Eagle II to the Indian Air Force as well. At the time, EurAsian Times had noted that the new fighter, which uses the frame of the classic F-15 and bears a resemblance to the Su-30 MKI in terms of its size, can fulfill a host of missions that include homeland and airbase defense, no-fly zone enforcement against limited or no air defense systems, and deploying standoff munitions.

F-15EX Fighter jet

However, with the IAF now invested in choosing a multi-role fighter jet under the MMRCA contract, the F-21 on offer by Lockheed Martin has somehow caught more attention. As of now, the United States Air Force is the only customer of the aircraft. However, with countries expressing interest, customers are expected to line up.

According to Fox News, the F-15E aircraft’s improvements will let it carry out the same bomber duties at a third of the F-35’s operational cost. After two years of experimental testing, the USAF reportedly found that the new F-15EX performed better than anticipated in terms of the quantity and weight of ammunition.

Moreover, according to previous research, the F-15EX may be more capable and less expensive to buy and operate than the F-35 for operations that do not primarily rely on stealth. To top it all, the F-15EX can carry up to 13.6 tons of weapons, more than any other F-15 variant.

The American Eagle aircraft, thus, are far from done.

Contact the author at sakshi.tiwari9555 (at) gmail.com