Thursday, August 14, 2025
All
Home Blog Page 3

Iran tests a missile with a two-ton warhead, showcasing improved long-range strike capabilities

By
Hammad Saeed
-
0

In a striking demonstration of its growing strategic strike capabilities, Iran has successfully executed a high-impact missile test featuring a domestically produced two-tonne warhead. This development could potentially alter regional deterrence dynamics and create waves throughout global defense establishments.

The announcement was made by Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Aziz Nasirzadeh, who informed reporters in Tehran that this test represents a significant advancement in the Islamic Republic’s indigenous missile development initiatives. “We have made substantial progress in defense matters,” Nasirzadeh remarked, emphasizing that Iran’s armed forces are fully prepared and possess the advantage in any possible military engagement.

The minister also cautioned that any act of aggression from the United States would elicit a rapid and severe response, reinforcing Iran’s readiness to inflict considerable losses on American forces present in the region. During a cabinet meeting, Nasirzadeh reiterated, “Iran’s armed forces are fully prepared and have the advantage in any conflict,” further asserting that Tehran’s deterrent stance is stronger than ever.

He also dismissed recent provocative remarks from U.S. military officials, stating, “Occasionally, it is suggested that if negotiations fail, it will result in conflict. On behalf of the Iranian nation, I assert that if a conflict is forced upon us, we will target our designated objectives, the enemy will incur heavy losses, and America must withdraw from the region.” The successful missile test, which involved the use of a two-tonne warhead, showcases Iran’s proficiency in various advanced military technologies, including sophisticated propulsion, aerodynamics, and structural engineering—essential elements for long-range, high-payload missile systems.

The test underscores the evolution of Iran’s missile strategy, which increasingly emphasizes precision-strike capabilities that can penetrate fortified military structures and surpass regional missile defense systems.

Abbas Kharabaf, a defense and aerospace specialist who has been closely observing Iran’s missile advancements, informed the Tehran Times that “ensuring structural integrity while carrying a 2-ton payload at hypersonic speeds necessitates advancements in materials science, aerodynamics, and propulsion.”

He further stated that this achievement indicates a developing Iranian aerospace industry, highlighting that the heavy warhead can be utilized on Iran’s operational medium- and long-range ballistic missile systems, including the Khorramshahr and Emad platforms. Both systems have operational ranges that extend to Israel, U.S. military installations in the Gulf, and potentially parts of southern Europe, making the two-ton payload capability a significant strategic advantage.

Kharabaf disclosed that the newly tested warhead incorporates a triconic (three-cone) aerodynamic configuration, which greatly diminishes radar cross-section and improves survivability against advanced missile defense systems like THAAD and the Israeli Arrow system. He also pointed out the warhead’s incorporation of advanced thermal shielding, allowing it to withstand hypersonic atmospheric reentry, while its maneuverable reentry vehicle (MaRV) capability enables trajectory adjustments during the terminal phase, enhancing strike precision and complicating interception efforts.

These technological features imply that the warhead is intended for counterforce operations, capable of targeting fortified military assets such as underground command-and-control centers, aircraft shelters, ballistic missile silos, fuel storage facilities, and reinforced airbases.

“The strategic importance is rooted in the blend of speed, accuracy, and payload,” Kharabaf stated, further noting, “This advancement is not merely about a single weapon—it signifies Iran’s intent to position itself as a formidable entity in the realm of advanced missile technology.”

The timing of this announcement is especially crucial as the area experiences increased geopolitical tensions, highlighted by ongoing Israeli operations in Syria, renewed conflicts in the Strait of Hormuz, and a firmer U.S. approach towards Iranian influence in the region. The missile test may also act as a strategic signal to the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) nations, particularly Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which have recently bolstered military collaboration with Israel and the United States under the security framework of the Abraham Accords.

Iran’s advancements in missile technology, including its recent test of a two-tonne warhead, demonstrate a persistent effort to transition from asymmetrical retaliation tactics to a credible, high-impact deterrent strategy centered on strategic-range precision firepower. While Western nations continue to express concerns regarding Iran’s missile initiatives, Tehran perceives these tests as vital for maintaining its sovereignty in a region increasingly influenced by foreign military presence and complex missile defense systems.

With this achievement, Iran becomes part of a select group of countries capable of deploying heavy-payload maneuverable reentry vehicles, a capability that significantly complicates adversary air defense strategies and introduces a new layer to Tehran’s military deterrence strategy. As discussions surrounding the nuclear agreement remain at a standstill and tensions rise across various flashpoints from Syria to the Gulf, the latest test highlights Iran’s determination to cultivate an independent, technologically sophisticated, and regionally dominant missile capability.

The recent successful test of a missile equipped with a two-tonne warhead, as reported by Iran, has raised considerable concern among global defense analysts. Experts caution that such a payload has the potential to inflict devastating kinetic and strategic impacts on contemporary battlefields.

A missile with a 2,000 kg warhead is capable of destroying hardened military installations, fortified airbases, and underground command centers. It serves not only as a weapon but also as a message of deterrence, escalation, and deep-strike capability. In military parlance, a conventional high-explosive warhead of this size can generate a blast radius sufficient to collapse reinforced concrete structures within a 30 to 50-meter range, with significant secondary damage extending well beyond 100 meters, contingent on the altitude and angle of detonation.

The destructive capacity is particularly pertinent against deeply buried targets such as aircraft shelters, fuel depots, ammunition bunkers, and subterranean military headquarters, many of which are engineered to withstand standard munitions. When combined with a long-range ballistic or hypersonic missile, such a warhead evolves into a strategic asset, enabling the launching nation to incapacitate critical enemy infrastructure far beyond its own borders.

In addition to physical destruction, the psychological and operational shockwave is equally formidable. Military leaders must now face the unsettling truth that no facility—regardless of how deeply buried or heavily fortified—is immune to a two-tonne payload delivered at hypersonic velocities. This capability compels adversaries to fundamentally reassess their deployment strategies, fortification measures, and the overall survivability of their high-value assets.

Furthermore, if the warhead features maneuverable reentry vehicle (MaRV) capabilities, as claimed by Iranian experts, it becomes significantly harder to intercept using current-generation air defence systems such as THAAD, Patriot PAC-3, or Israel’s Arrow-3.
This not only weakens the effectiveness of layered missile defence but also increases the cost of maintaining credible deterrence against such threats.
From a geostrategic standpoint, the ability to deliver such a high-mass warhead across continental distances shifts the regional power balance.
Missiles equipped with two-tonne warheads—especially when deployed on platforms like Iran’s Khorramshahr or Emad—can reach targets across the Middle East, South Asia, and even parts of Europe.
If nuclear warhead miniaturization is considered—a capability well within the carrying capacity of a two-tonne payload—the implications spiral into global arms control territory, triggering concerns of escalation and potential arms races among rival powers.
Military analysts point to the classic formula: speed + precision + payload = strategic impact—a combination that such missiles now offer to their operators.
Whether designed as a bunker-busting strike weapon or a psychological deterrent, a missile equipped with a two-tonne warhead signifies more than mere brute force; it embodies long-range precision dominance in contemporary warfare.
As tensions persist in areas such as the Gulf, Levant, and South Asia, the deployment or even testing of these systems will inevitably attract significant scrutiny from both adversaries and international arms control organizations.
In the changing landscape of high-intensity warfare, the two-tonne warhead has transcended its status as a Cold War artifact—it has become a pivotal tool for power projection.

Australia hopes the U.S. will move forward with the Biden administration’s submarine agreement after its review

By
Hammad Saeed
-
0
Australian Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Richard Marles

On Thursday, Australia‘s Defence Minister Richard Marles expressed his confidence that the AUKUS submarine agreement with the U.S. and Britain would move forward, stating that his government would collaborate closely with the U.S. during the formal review conducted by the Trump administration.

In 2023, Australia pledged to invest A$368 billion ($239 billion) over thirty years in AUKUS, marking the nation’s largest defence initiative with the United States and Britain to develop and acquire nuclear-powered submarines.

A Pentagon representative indicated that the administration was assessing AUKUS to ensure it aligns with the President’s America First policy, just before anticipated discussions between President Donald Trump and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

In an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Marles noted that AUKUS serves the strategic interests of all three nations and that the new review of the agreement established in 2021 under President Joe Biden was expected. “I am very confident this is going to happen,” he remarked regarding AUKUS, which would provide Australia with nuclear-powered submarines. “This is a multi-decade plan. There will be governments that come and go, and I believe that whenever a new government is in place, a review of this nature will be conducted,” Marles stated during the ABC interview.

Albanese is anticipated to meet Trump for the first time next week during the G7 meeting in Canada, where security allies will deliberate on a request from Washington for Australia to raise its defence spending from 2% to 3.5% of its gross domestic product. Albanese has indicated that defence spending would increase to 2.3% but has refrained from committing to the U.S. target. On Thursday, the opposition Liberal party urged Albanese to enhance defence spending.

Under AUKUS, Australia was set to make a $2 billion payment in 2025 to the U.S. to assist in bolstering its submarine shipyards and accelerating the lagging production rates of Virginia-class submarines, facilitating the sale of up to three U.S. submarines to Australia starting in 2032. The initial $500 million payment was made when Marles met with his U.S. counterpart Pete Hegseth in February.

The Pentagon’s leading policy adviser, Elbridge Colby, who has previously voiced concerns about the U.S. potentially losing submarines to Australia at a crucial time for military deterrence against China, will play a significant role in the review, assessing the production rate of Virginia-class submarines, according to Marles.

“It is crucial that those production and sustainment rates are enhanced,” he remarked. AUKUS is expected to expand the U.S. and Australian defence industries and create thousands of manufacturing jobs, Marles stated in a press release.

John Lee, an Australian Indo-Pacific specialist at Washington’s conservative Hudson Institute think tank, remarked that the Pentagon review was “primarily an audit of American capability” and whether it can afford to sell up to five nuclear-powered submarines while failing to meet its own production targets.

“In relation to this, Lee mentioned that Australia’s low defence spending and the uncertainty regarding its role in a Taiwan contingency are contributing factors. John Hamre, president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and a former senior Pentagon official, stated during a Lowy Institute seminar in Sydney on Thursday that there is a belief in Washington that ‘the Albanese government has been supportive of AUKUS but not fully committed to it,’ with defence spending being a significant aspect of this.

According to the multi-stage agreement, four U.S.-commanded Virginia submarines are set to be stationed at a Western Australian navy base on the Indian Ocean starting in 2027, which a senior U.S. Navy commander informed Congress in April provides the U.S. with a ‘direct route to the South China Sea.’ Albanese aims to acquire three Virginia submarines from 2032 to ensure that Australia’s submarine force is under its own command.

Additionally, Britain and Australia will collaborate to construct a new AUKUS-class submarine, anticipated to enter service by 2040. Following a recent defence review, Britain announced plans to increase its spending on the attack submarine fleet as part of AUKUS.

Former Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who negotiated the AUKUS agreement with Biden, remarked on Thursday that Australia should ‘reassert its case’ for the treaty. AUKUS aims to enhance submarine production among the three partners and is ‘primarily focused on reinforcing collective deterrence, especially in the Indo-Pacific against potential threats,’ he noted on LinkedIn.

U.S. is withdrawing some diplomats and military families from the Middle East amid escalating tensions with Iran

By
Asif Shahid
-
0
3rd Khordad air defence system, Iran

On Wednesday, the US State and Defense departments took steps to facilitate the exit of non-essential personnel from various locations in the Middle East, as reported by US officials and sources familiar with the situation.

The reason behind this abrupt shift in stance remains unclear; however, a defense official indicated that US Central Command is keeping an eye on the “developing tension in the Middle East.” President Donald Trump informed reporters on Wednesday, upon his arrival at a Kennedy Center event, that “They are being moved out because it could be a dangerous place, and we’ll see what happens. But they have been or we’ve given notice to move out, and we’ll see what happens.”

Although the specific causes for the increased security concerns in the region are not fully understood, the planned evacuations coincide with rising tensions between Iran and Israel, as the Trump administration continues its efforts to negotiate a new nuclear agreement with Iran.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has permitted the voluntary departure of military dependents from various locations in the Middle East, according to the official statement. “The safety and security of our service members and their families remains our highest priority, and U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) is monitoring the developing tension in the Middle East,” the official stated. Additionally, Gen. Michael Kurilla, the CENTCOM commander, has delayed his scheduled testimony before a Senate committee on Thursday due to the escalating tensions, as noted by a defense official.

The State Department is preparing to mandate the departure of non-essential personnel from US embassies in Iraq, Bahrain, and Kuwait due to heightened security risks in the area, as reported by a separate US official and another source familiar with the situation. Additionally, a departure order for non-essential personnel will be issued for the US consulate in Erbil, located in Iraqi Kurdistan, according to the sources.

An official from the Iraqi government stated that these personnel movements are unrelated to the security situation in his country. “President Trump is dedicated to ensuring the safety of Americans, both domestically and internationally. In line with this commitment, we continuously evaluate the appropriate personnel presence at all our embassies. Following our most recent assessment, we have decided to scale back our Mission in Iraq,” a State Department official remarked when questioned about the change in posture.

Later on Wednesday, the department revised its travel advisory to indicate that the departure of non-emergency US government personnel “due to increased regional tensions” had been mandated. Trump has expressed growing doubts about the possibility of reaching a deal with Iran to limit the country’s nuclear ambitions, stating in a recent interview that Tehran might be “delaying” the agreement. “I’m becoming increasingly less confident about it. They appear to be stalling, which is unfortunate, but my confidence has diminished compared to a couple of months ago,” Trump mentioned in an interview with a New York Post podcast released earlier on Wednesday. “Something has changed for them, and I am significantly less confident that a deal will be reached,” he continued, attributing his feelings to his “instincts” suggesting that a deal is becoming less attainable.

CNN reported on Wednesday that Trump advised Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to refrain from discussing a potential attack on Iran, as per a source familiar with their conversation. The two leaders had a phone call on Monday, after which Trump remarked that the discussion went “very well, very smooth.”

Last month, CNN disclosed that the US had acquired new intelligence indicating that Israel was preparing to target Iranian nuclear facilities, according to several US officials acquainted with the latest information. Two intelligence sources noted that the US had detected signs of Israeli military activity, including the movement of air munitions and the conclusion of an air exercise.

However, officials warned that it remains uncertain whether Israeli leaders have reached a final decision, and there is significant disagreement within the US government regarding the probability of Israel taking action.

Iran’s defense minister cautioned on Wednesday that if the nuclear negotiations with the US collapse and conflict ensues, the US would be “compelled to exit the region.” Brigadier General Aziz Nasirzadeh stated that in such a scenario, “the adversary will undoubtedly incur greater casualties,” although he did not clarify whether the “adversary” referred to the US, Israel, or both.

In remarks published by Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency, the defense minister indicated that some officials from the opposing side had “issued threatening statements, warning of possible conflict if no agreement is achieved” in the US-Iran discussions. “In that event, the US will have no alternative but to depart the region, as all of its bases are within the reach of Iranian military forces, and they will not hesitate to target all of them in their host nations,” Nasirzadeh stated.

U.S. warns against joining the UN conference on the Israel-Palestinian two-state solution

By
Asif Shahid
-
0
A general view of the site of an Israeli strike on a house, in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza.

The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump is advising governments globally against participating in a United Nations conference scheduled for next week in New York, which will discuss a potential two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians.

A cable dispatched on June 10 indicates that nations engaging in “anti-Israel actions” following the conference will be perceived as acting contrary to U.S. foreign policy interests and may encounter diplomatic repercussions from the U.S. Furthermore, it states that Washington would oppose any measures that would unilaterally acknowledge a hypothetical Palestinian state.

The U.S. State Department has not yet responded to a request for comment.

Mark Rutte warned Western nations to significantly boost defense spending

By
Asif Shahid
-
0

In a stark address at Chatham House in London, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte delivered a serious warning to the Western world, urging the United States and its allies to significantly increase defense spending to address a swiftly worsening global security situation.

Speaking just weeks ahead of a crucial NATO summit in The Hague, Rutte depicted a bleak future where Russia might be ready to challenge the alliance militarily within five years, a threat he emphasized with a pointed remark directed at Britain: failing to enhance defense budgets could result in needing to “speak Russian.”

The speech, presented to a full audience of policymakers, analysts, and journalists, outlined a vision for a “stronger, fairer, and more lethal” NATO, proposing a defense spending goal of 5% of GDP for member nations, a considerable rise from the existing 2% standard. Rutte’s comments come at a moment when the transatlantic alliance is confronted with unprecedented challenges, including Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine and escalating tensions with China, Iran, and North Korea.

His demand for a 400% increase in air and missile defense capabilities, along with a push for enhanced military production, indicates a shift towards preparing NATO for a possible large-scale conflict. The secretary general’s forthright language, especially his remark about the repercussions of underfunding defense, resonated deeply, reflecting concerns about the West’s preparedness to deter aggression. While Rutte underscored that NATO is fundamentally a defensive alliance, he highlighted that the stakes have never been higher, with hostile actions such as cyberattacks, sabotage, and assassination attempts already targeting member states.

The urgency of Rutte’s message was heightened by his mention of Russia’s military buildup. He pointed out that Russia’s defense spending is anticipated to reach 7-8% of its GDP by 2025, a level not witnessed since the Cold War, with its defense sector producing tanks, armored vehicles, and ammunition at an astonishing rate, bolstered by Chinese technology, Iranian drones, and North Korean troops. Rutte contended that this escalation necessitates a strong response from NATO, especially from the United States, which currently represents over 60% of the alliance’s defense spending. “We are not prepared for what is approaching in four to five years,” Rutte cautioned in a speech earlier this year, a sentiment he reiterated in London to emphasize the urgency for immediate action.

Rutte’s proposal for a 5% GDP defense spending target encompasses 3.5% for essential military requirements, such as weapons, personnel, and training, along with an additional 1.5% for security-related investments like military mobility and infrastructure resilience. This ambitious initiative, which he hopes allies will formalize at the forthcoming summit on June 24-25, has ignited discussion throughout the alliance. In the United States, where defense spending is projected at 3.19% of GDP in 2024, down from 3.68% a decade ago, the proposal aligns with President Donald Trump’s longstanding call for allies to contribute more to collective security. Rutte recognized this pressure, acknowledging that Trump’s demand for fair burden-sharing is legitimate and that European nations and Canada must rise to the occasion.

The emphasis on air and missile defense is a fundamental aspect of Rutte’s strategy, highlighting the changing dynamics of contemporary warfare. He advocated for a 400% enhancement in these capabilities, pointing out the necessity to counter sophisticated missile systems utilized by opponents.

To provide context, NATO’s existing air defense systems feature the U.S.-designed Patriot system, an advanced platform adept at intercepting ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and aircraft.

The Patriot, equipped with its AN/MPQ-53 radar and PAC-3 missiles, can target threats at distances of up to 160 kilometers and altitudes of 24 kilometers, delivering strong protection against dangers such as Russia’s Iskander ballistic missiles, which have a range of 500 kilometers and can carry either conventional or nuclear warheads. In contrast, Russia’s S-400 system, a vital element of its air defense framework, offers a greater range of up to 400 kilometers and can engage targets at higher altitudes, presenting a considerable challenge to NATO’s existing capabilities.

Rutte’s initiative for improved air defenses also encompasses investments in next-generation systems, including the U.S. Army’s Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System [IBCS], which consolidates various sensors and interceptors for enhanced coordination.

Beyond air defenses, Rutte stressed the importance of NATO enhancing its defense industrial base to keep up with adversaries. He pointed out the alliance’s delay in manufacturing essential equipment, ranging from fighter jets to tanks, in comparison to Russia and China. For instance, Russia’s T-90M tank, an upgraded variant of its Soviet-era T-72, is equipped with advanced reactive armor and a 125mm smoothbore gun, with production rates reportedly reaching hundreds annually. Conversely, the U.S. M1 Abrams, armed with a 120mm gun and sophisticated electronics, is produced at a slower rate due to budget limitations and supply chain challenges. Likewise, China’s Type 99 tank, featuring laser defense systems and high mobility, highlights the urgent need for NATO to modernize its ground forces.

Rutte’s appeal for heightened production is in line with recent European initiatives, including Germany’s commitment to bolster its military by adding hundreds of thousands of troops and investing half a trillion dollars in defense. This strategy may lead to the procurement of more Leopard 2 tanks, recognized for their accuracy and robustness. The historical backdrop of NATO’s defense spending discussions amplifies Rutte’s sense of urgency. Since the alliance was established in 1949, the United States has borne the majority of its military responsibilities, a situation that became contentious following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. At that point, only three NATO countries met the 2% GDP spending benchmark, which led to a commitment to enhance their contributions.

By 2024, 22 member nations had achieved or surpassed this target, with Poland at the forefront, exceeding 4%, motivated by its geographical closeness to Russia and Ukraine. However, Rutte’s new 5% goal significantly overshadows these efforts, indicating the magnitude of the perceived threat. The last instance of defense spending reaching similar heights was during the Cold War, when the U.S. and its allies heavily invested to counter the military strength of the Soviet Union. Rutte’s address also highlighted the wider geopolitical context, stressing that Russia is not NATO’s sole concern.

He pointed out China’s military expansion, which includes its growing navy and advanced hypersonic missile technology, alongside Iran’s drone capabilities and North Korea’s ballistic missile initiatives. These dangers, coupled with Russia’s hybrid warfare strategies—such as cyberattacks on essential infrastructure and sabotage operations in Europe—necessitate a thorough response.

In recent years, NATO has encountered incidents like the 2021 cyberattack on the Colonial Pipeline in the U.S., linked to Russian hackers, and the 2023 explosion at a Czech ammunition depot, suspected to be an act of Russian sabotage. These events highlight the urgent need for investments in cyber defenses and resilience, which Rutte incorporated into his 1.5% security-related spending proposal.

The ramifications of Rutte’s strategy for the United States are considerable. Although the U.S. continues to serve as the cornerstone of NATO, investing over $800 billion each year in defense, the suggested 5% target would necessitate an extra $200 billion or more, contingent on economic growth.

This could put pressure on domestic budgets, especially as the U.S. faces competing demands such as infrastructure and healthcare. Nevertheless, Rutte’s focus on equitable burden-sharing seeks to ease this strain by motivating European allies to increase their contributions. Nations like Germany, which has recently declared intentions to bolster its military, and Poland, which is heavily investing in U.S.-produced HIMARS rocket systems, are already progressing in this direction.

Rutte’s previous comments in Warsaw underscored Poland’s leadership, highlighting its prudent financial strategies as a benchmark for others. The forthcoming summit in The Hague, scheduled for June 24-25, will serve as a crucial evaluation of NATO’s cohesion. Rutte has been collaborating closely with leaders such as President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to define the agenda, which will encompass ongoing support for Ukraine.

Zelenskyy’s invitation to the summit, confirmed by sources affiliated with NATO, reflects the alliance’s dedication to Kyiv despite U.S. hesitations during the Trump administration. Rutte has emphasized that a robust Ukraine is vital for Euro-Atlantic security, a message he reiterated at a recent summit in Vilnius. The NATO-Ukraine Council, set to convene during the summit, will concentrate on coordinating military assistance and ensuring Ukraine’s role at any future negotiation table.

Rutte’s vision for a “more lethal” NATO also includes modernizing the alliance’s capabilities to tackle emerging threats. This encompasses investments in drones, which have proven to be transformative in contemporary warfare. The recent drone strikes by Ukraine on Russian air bases, resulting in the destruction of numerous aircraft, underscore the effectiveness of unmanned systems. NATO’s own drone capabilities, such as the U.S. MQ-9 Reaper, boasting a range of 1,850 kilometers and precision strike capabilities, are being enhanced to address similar threats.

Rutte’s call for a “quantum leap” in collective defense, articulated during his speech in London, highlights the necessity for NATO to remain at the forefront of technological advancements. Public response to Rutte’s proposal has been varied, with some commending his straightforwardness while others question the practicality of such ambitious spending goals.

In the U.S., where defense budgets are already considerable, there is skepticism regarding the need for further increases, especially among those who prioritize domestic issues. Critics contend that diplomacy, rather than militarization, should take precedence in resolving global tensions. Conversely, supporters view Rutte’s plan as an essential reaction to a world where authoritarian regimes are becoming increasingly assertive. This debate reflects historical tensions within NATO, reminiscent of the 1980s when the U.S. advocated for greater European contributions to counter Soviet expansion.

As the summit nears, Rutte’s leadership will be closely examined. His background as a former Dutch prime minister, adept at navigating coalition politics and international crises, provides him with a unique perspective on uniting diverse allies. His previous remarks at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Dayton, Ohio, stressed the importance of parliamentarians in fostering public support for increased defense budgets, a task he characterized as vital yet challenging.

The alliance’s capacity to reach consensus on the 5% target and execute it without compromising unity will hinge on intricate negotiations, especially with countries like Canada and Italy, which have fallen short of the 2% objective.

The implications for the United States are evident: a more robust NATO could alleviate the financial burden on American taxpayers while promoting global stability. However, the journey ahead is laden with obstacles, ranging from economic limitations to political rifts.

Rutte’s caution in London acts as a crucial reminder, highlighting to Americans that their security is closely linked to that of their allies.

As the global community observes the developments in The Hague, one pressing question remains: can NATO adapt swiftly enough to confront the challenges of the future, or will the alliance be outstripped by adversaries ready to take advantage of its vulnerabilities?

Almost all 31 M1A1 Abrams tanks in Ukraine have been destroyed by drones, says an American military analyst

By
Asif Shahid
-
0
M1A1 Abrams tank

In a CNN television interview, the American military analyst conveyed the view that nearly all of the 31 American M1A1 Abrams tanks sent to Ukraine have been destroyed by Russian drones. “At the onset of the war, we supplied the Ukrainians with 31 Abrams. Almost all of them have now been obliterated by Russian kamikaze drones. This indicates that the age of mechanized warfare, which commenced during the First World War, is nearing its conclusion,” Kirchhoff stated during the broadcast on June 9.

Christopher Kirchhoff is a military strategist and defense expert from the United States. He possesses expertise in evaluating military technologies and strategies, particularly in the context of contemporary conflicts and advancements in warfare. Kirchhoff has served as an analyst and consultant on national security matters, collaborating with organizations such as the U.S. Department of Defense. He is recognized for his insights on the progression of military technologies, especially concerning unmanned systems and their influence on conventional warfare methods.

The assessment by military strategist Christopher Kirchhoff that the age of mechanized warfare, which began in the First World War, is drawing to a close is strongly supported by the developments in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. The war has demonstrated that conventional armored vehicles, like the Abrams tanks, encounter unprecedented challenges that raise doubts about their effectiveness.

On the Ukrainian battlefield, drones, particularly low-cost kamikaze drones, have emerged as a crucial element. These small, agile, and affordable devices facilitate accurate strikes on heavy equipment, frequently circumventing the defenses of tanks that are built to endure traditional threats such as artillery or anti-tank missiles.

This situation is exacerbated by the function of satellite reconnaissance, which offers the combatants immediate insights into the movements of enemy troops. In Ukraine, satellite imagery, frequently paired with aerial surveillance, facilitates the swift identification of targets, including armored units that would have otherwise remained concealed. This clarity on the battlefield renders large, heavy vehicles easy targets, as they cannot evade the omnipresent gaze of contemporary technologies. Furthermore, modern electronic countermeasures, such as electronic warfare systems, add to the complexity of the scenario.

In Ukraine, there is a significant deployment of communication and control system jamming technologies, which hampers the coordination of mechanized units, making them even more susceptible. The conflict in Ukraine, which commenced with the Russian invasion in February 2022, has evolved into one of the most intense military confrontations in recent history, serving as a unique platform for testing cutting-edge military technologies, including the American main battle tank M1A1 Abrams.

The U.S. supplied 31 M1A1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine in September 2023 as part of military assistance to combat Russian forces. These vehicles, recognized for their resilience and sophisticated technology, were introduced into combat with high hopes, but reports of their losses began to surface shortly thereafter. The first verified instance of a destroyed M1A1 Abrams tank was documented on February 26, 2024, near Berdychi, northwest of Avdiivka, a crucial city in Donbas that was recently vacated by Ukrainian forces following intense combat. According to an article by Military Watch Magazine, the tank was struck by a kamikaze drone and subsequently hit again by a portable anti-tank grenade launcher.

Aerial footage reveals that the engine compartment and ammunition of the tank were completely destroyed, making it inoperable. This incident represents the first recorded loss of an Abrams tank in Ukraine, occurring just three days following the initial confirmed sightings of its deployment on the frontline on February 23, 2024.

In March 2024, Russian sources, including military Telegram channels, reported the destruction of additional Abrams tanks in the same area. On March 7, 2024, a post on the social media platform X indicated that three M1A1 Abrams tanks had been destroyed within a week, likely due to anti-tank guided missiles. Two days later, on March 10, another user shared information about a fourth confirmed destroyed Abrams, mentioning that a total of six tanks and two associated engineering vehicles had been either damaged or destroyed.

Although these reports have not been verified by independent sources, they were accompanied by video evidence showing burning or abandoned vehicles, indicating fierce combat in the region. In April 2024, The New York Times, referencing Ukrainian officials, reported that five out of 31 Abrams tanks had been lost over two months of active fighting, with three others suffering non-critical damage. This situation prompted a temporary withdrawal of the tanks from the front lines, as Russian drones and anti-tank weaponry demonstrated significant effectiveness against them.

According to the Associated Press on April 26, 2024, Ukrainian forces pulled back Abrams tanks from the Avdiivka region due to the extensive use of reconnaissance and strike drones, which rendered heavy armored vehicles susceptible. Despite their withdrawal, losses continued to escalate after their redeployment in the summer of 2024.

By June 2024, Russian sources reported that 26 out of 31 Abrams tanks had been destroyed since February 2024. Additionally, it was mentioned that one Abrams tank was left abandoned east of Ukraine due to running out of fuel and was later captured by Russian forces. Other reports, including one from Military Watch Magazine on December 30, 2024, indicated that at least one Abrams tank had been seized by Russian forces and sent to the Uralvagonzavod plant for examination.

This incident followed the withdrawal of the Ukrainian 47th Mechanized Brigade from the Kursk region in March 2025, during which a damaged tank was left behind. Western sources, including The National Interest on January 5, 2025, observed that the rate of Abrams tank losses had markedly risen since September 2024, with more than 20 of the 31 tanks either destroyed, damaged, or captured. This increase can be attributed to several factors: the tank’s large size makes it an easy target for drones, and its complicated maintenance and high fuel demands limit its operational effectiveness on the Ukrainian battlefield.

Furthermore, as reported by Newsweek, drones that cost as little as $10,000 have demonstrated the ability to destroy tanks valued in the millions, underscoring the evolving nature of warfare. Despite the substantial losses, some experts cited by Forbes on February 27, 2024, remarked that the losses of Abrams tanks are not unexpected in active combat scenarios, where all armored vehicles, whether Western or Soviet, face vulnerability. For context, German Leopard 2 and British Challenger 2 tanks have also experienced considerable losses in Ukraine, with the first Leopard 2 being destroyed in the spring of 2023 and the first Challenger 2 in September 2023.

In summary, the information regarding the destroyed M1A1 Abrams tanks in Ukraine corroborates Kirchhoff’s assertion, indicating that by June 2025, most of the originally supplied 31 tanks had either been destroyed, damaged, or captured. The primary factors contributing to these losses include Russian kamikaze drones, anti-tank missiles, and artillery fire. While the precise loss figures differ among sources, Russian reports of 26 destroyed tanks and Western assessments of over 20 seem to align closely with the actual situation.

Nevertheless, an important detail must not be ignored—numerous sources assert that the American M1A1 Abrams tanks sent to Ukraine in September 2023 underwent substantial modifications to comply with export standards. A significant alteration involved the elimination of the depleted uranium armor that characterizes the versions utilized by the U.S. Army. This modification, although influenced by strategic and political factors, likely impacted the tanks’ combat effectiveness in the context of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, while also illustrating the broader U.S. policy regarding the transfer of sensitive military technologies.

The depleted uranium armor, which was first introduced in the M1A1HA (Heavy Armor) variant in 1988, is a crucial component of the protection system for Abrams tanks operated by the U.S. Army. This armor, made up of uranium plates layered with steel and frequently coated with graphite, offers outstanding resistance to armor-piercing and shaped-charge projectiles. Military analysis indicates that the protective capability of this armor can reach up to 960 mm against armor-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot rounds and up to 1600 mm against shaped-charge munitions, significantly exceeding the performance of standard composite armor.

Nevertheless, for the tanks designated for Ukraine, the uranium plates have been substituted with more traditional composite armor, likely utilizing ceramics and steel, akin to that found in earlier models such as the baseline M1. This alteration was driven by U.S. policy aimed at safeguarding classified technologies, as depleted uranium is regarded as a sensitive material whose spread could expose manufacturing secrets or create risks if tanks are seized by enemy forces.

This choice carries significant consequences for various reasons. Firstly, the diminished protection renders the tanks more susceptible to contemporary anti-tank weaponry prevalent on the Ukrainian battlefield. Russian forces deploy a diverse range of weapons, including sophisticated anti-tank missiles like the Kornet and drones equipped with shaped-charge warheads, which can breach standard armor more effectively than uranium-based defenses.

Secondly, the lack of uranium plates results in a lesser increase in the tank’s weight, which aids logistics but fails to offset the reduction in protective capability. This is especially vital in scenarios where tanks face intense assaults from both air and ground, as seen in regions like Donbas. Furthermore, the elimination of sensitive technologies such as advanced fire control systems or encrypted communications may have constrained the tanks’ capacity to seamlessly integrate into intricate combat networks, which is essential for coordination with other Ukrainian units.

The significance of these changes goes beyond mere technical considerations. Politically, the U.S. decision to supply tanks without uranium armor signifies a cautious strategy in delivering its most advanced weaponry to prevent escalation or potential technology leaks to adversaries. For instance, the capture of a tank featuring uranium armor could enable Russia to analyze the material and devise countermeasures, thereby threatening U.S. technological dominance.

At the same time, this decision places Ukrainian crews in a more precarious situation, as they handle equipment that lacks the full capabilities of its American equivalent. This highlights the fragile balance between aiding allies and safeguarding national interests, which is fundamental to military assistance to Ukraine. Military strategist Christopher Kirchhoff’s remarks during a CNN interview, where he referred to the $10 million M1A1 Abrams tank as “the most advanced battle tank in the world,” ignited significant debate, as such assertions are not only contentious but also seem out of touch with the realities of contemporary warfare, especially regarding the conflict in Ukraine.

This assertion could foster unrealistic expectations among nations depending on this tank and may downplay advancements in other armored vehicles that exhibit similar or even superior features. A review of specific tanks utilized in Ukraine and globally indicates that while the M1A1 is formidable, it faces competition, with certain models excelling in critical areas such as firepower, protection, or adaptability to modern combat scenarios.

In the context of the Ukrainian conflict, the Russian T-90M “Proryv” emerges as a notable rival to the M1A1. The T-90M, an upgraded version of the Soviet T-90, is equipped with advanced “Relikt” explosive reactive armor, offering defense against contemporary anti-tank missiles frequently encountered on the Ukrainian front. Its “Kalina” fire control system allows for high precision when firing on the move, and the 2A46M-5 gun can discharge modern armor-piercing rounds and guided missiles, providing it with an edge in confrontations against Western tanks.

In contrast to the M1A1, which necessitates intricate logistics because of its gas turbine engine, the T-90M is simpler to maintain under field conditions, a crucial factor during extended battles in Donbas. Furthermore, the T-90M comes with the “Arena-M” active protection systems capable of neutralizing incoming projectiles, a feature absent in the export variants of the M1A1 sent to Ukraine.

On the Ukrainian front, the upgraded T-84 “Oplot,” although deployed in limited quantities, demonstrates certain advantages over the M1A1. The T-84 is fitted with the “Zaslon” active protection system, which can effectively counter anti-tank missiles and drones, which are becoming increasingly prevalent in the conflict. Its 125-mm gun is on par with the M1A1’s 120-mm gun in terms of power, yet the Ukrainian tank is lighter and more agile, making it more suitable for the muddy and rugged landscapes of eastern Ukraine.

Despite the limited production of the T-84 due to logistical and financial constraints, its adaptability to local conditions enhances its effectiveness in specific scenarios compared to the heavier and more logistically demanding M1A1. On a global scale, the German Leopard 2A7+ and the South Korean K2 Black Panther emerge as tanks that excel beyond the M1A1 in various respects.

The Leopard 2A7+, utilized by multiple European armies, boasts modular armor that can be tailored to different threats and sophisticated electronics, including network-centric warfare systems that facilitate improved coordination with other units. Its 120-mm L55 gun offers superior range and penetration capabilities compared to the M1A1’s weaponry. The K2 Black Panther incorporates cutting-edge technologies such as autoloading, which reduces the crew size to three, and hydropneumatic suspension, enhancing mobility. Its active protection system and sensors designed for detecting laser guidance equip it to better handle modern threats, such as laser-guided missiles, in contrast to the export M1A1.

Kirchhoff’s assertion that the M1A1 is “the most advanced” tank fails to withstand examination when alternative options are taken into account. It poses a risk of perpetuating misunderstandings regarding the tank’s actual capabilities, particularly in wartime scenarios where elements such as adaptability, maintenance, and defense against new threats are critically important. Such claims could adversely affect the strategic expectations of nations like Ukraine, which depend on these vehicles in a highly intricate combat landscape.

India’s External Affairs Minister Visits France to Repair Ties Strained by Alleged Rafale “Performance” Issues ??

By
Anjum Nadeem
-
0
Rafale fighter

India’s External Affairs Minister, S. Jaishankar, is set to embark on a significant diplomatic mission in France this week, a strategic visit that astute defense analysts view as an urgent effort to recalibrate a crucial partnership that has recently been strained by contentious allegations regarding the advanced French-made Rafale fighter jet.

This high-stakes diplomatic endeavor highlights growing geopolitical concerns and the rapid reassessment of global military technology, especially in the increasingly unstable Indo-Pacific region. In addition to the formal meetings at the Élysée Palace, the Indian foreign minister’s European agenda includes important stops in Belgium and Germany, indicating a broader, coordinated effort to strengthen New Delhi’s relationships with key European capitals amid rising regional and global uncertainties.

A recent statement from the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, while framed in typical diplomatic niceties, provided a subtle insight into the underlying tensions: “Our relationship with France is founded on deep trust and strong commitment, where both nations collaborate closely across all areas of strategic and current significance, in addition to sharing similar perspectives on various regional and global matters.”

Nevertheless, this facade of diplomatic friendliness conceals a significant and rapidly expanding rift that directly arises from the intense India-Pakistan aerial confrontations of early May 2025, during which Islamabad boldly asserted that its Chinese-made Chengdu J-10C multi-role fighter jets successfully engaged and downed six Indian Air Force (IAF) aircraft, including an astonishing three Rafale fighters.

If these extraordinary claims by Pakistan are definitively verified, it would represent a pivotal and unprecedented moment in modern air combat, marking the first alleged combat losses of the highly acclaimed Rafale platform, a jet that has been extensively promoted for its superior multi-role capabilities and combat history.

Importantly, these contentious assertions from Pakistan were allegedly supported by intelligence evaluations from both American and French sources, which adds a troubling level of credibility to the claims, despite New Delhi’s steadfast denial. India’s persistent refusal to recognize any losses of Rafale aircraft, even amidst growing external validation and increasing analyses of satellite imagery, has sparked allegations of a calculated “cover-up” concerning the operational effectiveness of its esteemed French-manufactured combat jets.

The escalating debate has inevitably infiltrated India’s strong domestic political landscape, with a notable state minister and former Indian Air Force pilot, N. Uttam Reddy, openly urging Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s central government to demonstrate greater transparency about the purported shoot-downs, especially those related to the sensitive Rafale aircraft. Reddy, who holds the position of Minister of Irrigation and Public Supply in Telangana state, sharply criticized the Modi administration’s perceived lack of clarity, asserting: “We celebrate the safe return of Indian Air Force pilots after they successfully completed their missions.” He went on to deliver a significant political critique, stating, “However, the central government must clarify the reports suggesting that one of the country’s fighter jets was downed.” Reddy, a prominent member of India’s powerful opposition Congress party, further insisted at a prominent press conference in New Delhi, “The government must also reveal the number of Pakistani fighter jets that were successfully brought down.

Adding another layer of unsettling complexity to India’s meticulously curated narrative, General Anil Chauhan, the Chief of Defence Staff of India, recently made an unprecedented acknowledgment during an interview with Bloomberg in Singapore. He confirmed that the Indian Air Force (IAF) had indeed experienced aircraft losses in the recent aerial conflict with Pakistan, although he notably avoided disclosing the precise number or types of aircraft involved. This represented the first public admission of aerial combat losses by a senior Indian military official since the Pulwama incident.

However, the intentional omission of specific details continues to incite intense speculation and global scrutiny. General Chauhan, addressing the esteemed Shangri-La Dialogue, strategically shifted focus from the immediate combat results to a broader, more significant strategic issue, stating: “What is important is not whether the fighter jet went down, but why it went down.” While this remark may have been aimed at diverting attention from the reported losses, it inadvertently heightened existing concerns regarding the operational performance of the Rafale and the overall combat readiness of the IAF.

The already fragile strategic relationship between New Delhi and Paris is believed to have significantly worsened following ongoing reports that India allegedly declined a crucial request from Dassault Aviation, the esteemed manufacturer of the Rafale, to send an independent audit team to evaluate IAF Rafale aircraft in light of the post-conflict allegations. This unprecedented refusal by the Indian government to allow Dassault’s audit team has created palpable waves of concern throughout the global defense community, raising serious questions about transparency, accountability, and the fundamental trust dynamics within essential bilateral defense partnerships.

Intelligence assessments from a coalition of global sources, thoroughly validated by comprehensive open-source defense evaluations, consistently suggest that Dassault Aviation had indeed dispatched a specialized technical team to India with the clear and urgent aim of probing potential systemic weaknesses in the Rafale platform that could have led to the reported asset losses. Nevertheless, India is said to have denied this specialized team full access to the IAF’s frontline Rafale squadrons, sparking intense speculation among international defense circles that New Delhi is actively trying to conceal deeper, more systemic internal issues related to operational readiness, maintenance practices, and overall pilot competency standards.

The perceived reluctance arises from India’s supposed fear that Dassault Aviation might, during its assessment, link any identified Rafale performance issues not to the aircraft’s fundamental design or manufacturing, but instead to significant systemic failures within the IAF itself, including urgent concerns such as ongoing pilot shortages and chronic, long-standing maintenance delays. These underlying fears are indeed justified: a critical audit report by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), submitted to the Parliamentary Defence Committee months before the recent conflict, meticulously highlighted a severe deficit of 596 pilots within the IAF, a troubling figure that marks a notable increase from 486 in 2015. Efforts to train an anticipated 222 new pilots each year between 2016 and 2021 reportedly fell drastically short, worsening a serious human resource shortfall within India’s intricate air defense system and threatening future operational readiness.

Compounding this complex crisis, the IAF’s essential foundation for basic pilot training, the Swiss-manufactured Pilatus PC-7 Mk-II aircraft, has suffered from significant and recurring serviceability problems for several years, further hindering the steady and effective training of new aviators.

Additionally, the contentious Agnipath recruitment initiative, aimed at modernizing India’s armed forces, has brought about new uncertainties concerning the long-term retention of seasoned personnel and the development of combat-ready aviators, which could worsen the existing pilot shortage.

At the exact moment the conflict began, India had only 31 active fighter squadrons, which is critically below the minimum of 42 squadrons considered absolutely necessary by its own defense doctrine for a credible two-front deterrence strategy against both China and Pakistan. French officials are understandably expressing significant concern over the evolving situation, believing that the highly capable Rafale is being unfairly blamed for what they see as India’s broader, underlying structural military deficiencies, especially given the aircraft’s clearly demonstrated combat effectiveness in other challenging environments, including those in the Middle East and Libya, when properly integrated, meticulously maintained, and expertly operated. Nevertheless, this strategic deadlock is clearly not a one-sided issue; India, having long felt the strategic strain, has consistently raised public complaints regarding Dassault’s unwavering reluctance to grant full, unrestricted access to the Rafale’s highly sensitive avionics system source code – a deeply contentious matter that has lingered since the landmark US$8.7 billion purchase agreement was concluded in 2016.

Without this absolutely essential source code, Indian defense engineers are fundamentally unable to independently update software, seamlessly integrate indigenous weapon systems, or perform deep-level maintenance and future upgrades on the aircraft’s vital mission-critical systems. This situation severely impacts the nation’s strategic and operational sovereignty in real-time combat scenarios. This long-standing technical deadlock has now clearly escalated into a significant, geopolitically sensitive strategic liability, starkly highlighting the inherent limitations of external defense procurement without a comprehensive, reciprocal framework for genuine technology transfer and indigenous control.

Indian defense analysts, spanning the political spectrum, are increasingly viewing this as a clear, unmistakable sign that Western defense manufacturers prioritize the stringent protection of their intellectual property and proprietary technologies over ensuring the long-term combat capabilities and strategic autonomy of even their most crucial clients, such as India. Meanwhile, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has not hesitated to opportunistically exploit this perceived vulnerability, using it as a powerful propaganda tool to undermine India’s strategic standing and challenge the perceived superiority of Western military hardware. Following credible reports of India’s recovery of a relatively intact PL-15 missile, allegedly launched by a Pakistani fighter during the recent aerial engagements, China’s assertive “wolf warrior” diplomats took to prominent social media platforms, publicly mocking India’s defense capabilities and emphasizing its technological dependencies.

“India spent US$288 million for each Rafale, but they do not have access to the source code,” a Chinese official provocatively stated on Platform X, highlighting the deep-seated proprietary limitations.

The official further issued a sharp taunt: “They also assert their ability to ‘extract software’ from the remnants of the PL-15, despite their own inability to access the core system of their Rafale jets,” which highlights a perceived hypocrisy in India’s technological aspirations. While undeniably provocative and crafted for maximum rhetorical effect, these pointed remarks from China reveal a growing, uncomfortable truth: Chinese-made weapon systems, especially the advanced PL-15 beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile (BVRAAM), are not just competitive but are demonstrating exceptional capabilities, potentially surpassing certain established Western systems in real combat situations. The PL-15, which is believed to have played a role in the alleged downing of Indian Rafale jets, features a miniaturized active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar seeker and employs a dual-pulsed solid-fuel rocket motor, enabling it to reach impressive speeds nearing Mach 5 and engage targets at distances greater than 200 kilometers (although the export variant, PL-15E, sold to Pakistan, reportedly has a range of 145 km). When effectively integrated with the advanced Chengdu J-10C multi-role platform, the PL-15 arguably provides the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) with a crucial “first-shot” advantage and superior kinematics over IAF aircraft, many of which still depend on older, less effective beyond-visual-range missiles like the MICA and early Meteor variants. For India, the deeply embarrassing possibility that its high-priced, top-tier Western Rafale jets could be outperformed by a Chinese-Pakistani system not only causes significant damage to its prestige but also fundamentally undermines its long-standing regional security doctrine and strategic procurement strategies.

For many years, India’s defense acquisition strategy has been firmly rooted in the belief that Western military systems offer a distinct technological advantage over adversaries primarily using Chinese or Russian-origin equipment. However, this deeply held strategic belief is now facing its most challenging, public, and potentially damaging real-world test, with significant implications for future global arms markets and the structure of strategic alliances. Although the alleged Rafale losses remain officially unverified by New Delhi, India’s ongoing, unequivocal refusal to allow an independent, third-party audit by Dassault raises critical questions regarding transparency, the validity of combat claims, and the trust dynamics between a major defense buyer and its long-term supplier. This ongoing issue has moved beyond the traditional boundaries of the military-industrial complex, escalating into a major, politically charged debate within India, as opposition parties revive longstanding accusations of financial misconduct in the Rafale acquisition and call for a thorough, independent performance audit of the aircraft in combat. The Indian Ministry of Defence is now under significant, sustained pressure to fundamentally reevaluate its future defense procurement strategy, carefully considering the tactical advantages of acquiring advanced foreign platforms against the pressing need for true strategic autonomy through strong indigenous production capabilities and genuine, comprehensive technology transfer. On the international stage, the geopolitical consequences are undeniably significant and intricate. For Pakistan, the combat effectiveness clearly demonstrated by its J-10C aircraft, equipped with the powerful PL-15, represents a notable strategic milestone in its ongoing effort to rebalance regional air power dynamics.

For China, the purported success of the PL-15 in combat acts as a significant, real-world endorsement of its swiftly evolving, integrated, and increasingly reliable arms export model, which is particularly attractive to developing countries in search of advanced military capabilities, often without the geopolitical stipulations that are commonly linked to Western systems.

On the other hand, established Western defense manufacturers such as Dassault Aviation are experiencing noticeable reputational harm, which may be exceptionally challenging to address in the long run; the Rafale, once celebrated as an almost unbeatable, top-tier multi-role platform, is now under uncomfortable examination not only from its geopolitical competitors but, more importantly, from its own discerning and increasingly skeptical clients.

Russia initiates one of the most extensive aerial assaults of the war on Kyiv

By
Hammad Saeed
-
0
Firefighters work at the site of a Russian missile strike, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, in central Sumy, Ukraine.

Russia executed one of its most significant air strikes on Kyiv in over three years of conflict, targeting a maternity ward in the southern city of Odesa, resulting in the deaths of at least three individuals, officials reported on Tuesday. These overnight strikes came after Russia‘s largest drone attack of the war on Ukraine on Monday and were part of a series of intensified bombings that Moscow claims are in retaliation for Ukrainian assaults on Russia.

The Russian offensive also caused damage to Saint Sophia Cathedral, a UNESCO world heritage site situated in the historic center of Kyiv, according to Ukrainian Culture Minister Mykola Tochytskyi. “The enemy has once again struck at the very core of our identity,” Tochytskyi stated on Facebook regarding the site he referred to as “the soul of all Ukraine.”

Loud explosions reverberated through Kyiv, and blasts and fires illuminated the sky in the early hours of Tuesday morning, leaving thick smoke hovering over the city, as reported by Reuters. Authorities dispatched two firefighting helicopters to extinguish the flames. One individual was reported dead in the attack on Kyiv, according to city authorities. At least four others received hospital treatment after seven of the capital’s ten districts were impacted, city officials indicated.

“Today marked one of the largest assaults on Kyiv,” stated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. “Russian missile and Shahed (drone) strikes overshadow the efforts of the United States and other nations worldwide to compel Russia towards peace.”

In Kyiv, Kateryna Zaitseva, 38, and her 14-year-old son surveyed the debris in their apartment, which was directly hit by a drone. The explosion obliterated one room, damaged another, and forced open the bathroom door where they had taken refuge. “We began to move blindly towards the entrance door. I heard the voice of an emergency worker… I called out that there were two of us, that we were unharmed, and he assisted us,” recounted Zaitseva, a laboratory technician.

In the southern port city of Odesa, an overnight drone strike targeted an emergency medical facility, a maternity ward, and residential buildings, as reported by regional governor Oleh Kiper on Telegram. The attack resulted in the deaths of two men, but patients and staff were successfully evacuated from the maternity hospital, he stated.

Iryna Britkaru, 23, who gave birth to a girl on June 6, recounted that projectiles began striking the building in Odesa just as she and other patients were hurried to the basement by hospital personnel. “The third (impact) was already very loud, and shrapnel flew… (it) rained down in the corridor,” she told Reuters.

Natalia Kovalenko, 34, who also welcomed a girl five days prior, expressed her hope for an end to the war. “If we don’t have hope, then no one will be giving birth,” she remarked. Both parties deny targeting civilians, yet thousands of civilians have lost their lives in Europe’s most severe conflict since World War Two, with the vast majority being Ukrainian.

Russia’s defense ministry confirmed that its forces had struck military targets in Kyiv using high-precision weapons and drones overnight, as reported by Russia’s TASS state news agency.

Air raid alerts in Kyiv and most regions of Ukraine persisted for five hours, lasting until around 5 a.m. (0200 GMT), according to military information. “A difficult night for all of us,” Timur Tkachenko, head of Kyiv’s city military administration, stated on Telegram.

Ukraine’s air force reported that Russia had launched 315 drones across the nation, of which 277 were intercepted. All seven missiles fired by Russia were also shot down, it noted. Moscow has escalated its assaults on Ukraine following Kyiv’s strikes on strategic bombers at air bases within Russia on June 1.

Moscow further accused Kyiv of being responsible for bridge explosions on the same day that resulted in seven fatalities and numerous injuries. Over the past week, Russia has deployed 1,451 drones and 78 missiles in its attacks on Ukraine, according to data from the Ukrainian air force.

Russia has temporarily suspended flights overnight at four airports serving Moscow, at St Petersburg’s Pulkovo Airport, and at airports in nine other cities following the defence ministry’s announcement that Ukraine had launched additional drones at Russia, according to officials. Most flights were resumed later on Tuesday, and no damage was reported. Zelenskiy has called on Ukraine’s allies to take measures to compel Russia towards peace, while Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha has urged for immediate new sanctions and air defence systems. Despite Moscow and Kyiv having conducted two rounds of direct peace negotiations in recent weeks, the only significant outcome has been an agreement on prisoner of war exchanges, with Russia continuing its advance along the eastern Ukraine front line. Both Moscow and Kyiv hold each other responsible for the stagnation in efforts to end the war, which has persisted since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022. U.S. President Donald Trump has voiced his frustration with both parties.

Russia outlines harsh conditions during peace negotiations with Ukraine

By
Hammad Saeed
-
0
Ukrainian service members of the 25th Sicheslav Airborne Brigade fire a BM-21 Grad multiple rocket launch system towards Russian troops near the frontline town of Pokrovsk, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, in Donetsk region, Ukraine.

During peace talks on Monday, Russia informed Ukraine that it would only agree to conclude the war if Kyiv relinquishes significant new territories and accepts restrictions on the size of its military, as reported in a memorandum by Russian media. The conditions, formally presented during negotiations in Istanbul, underscored Moscow’s unwillingness to compromise on its long-standing war objectives, despite U.S. President Donald Trump’s calls to end the “bloodbath” in Ukraine.

Ukraine has consistently dismissed the Russian demands as equivalent to capitulation. Delegations from both sides convened for just under an hour, marking only the second round of negotiations since March 2022. They reached an agreement to exchange additional prisoners of war, prioritizing the youngest and most critically injured, and to return the remains of 12,000 deceased soldiers.

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan characterized the meeting as significant and expressed hope of facilitating a meeting between Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskiy in Turkey alongside Trump.

However, no progress was made on a proposed ceasefire, which Ukraine, its European allies, and Washington have all urged Russia to accept. Moscow claims it is pursuing a long-term resolution rather than a mere pause in hostilities; Kyiv contends that Putin is not genuinely interested in peace. Trump has indicated that the United States is prepared to withdraw from its mediation efforts unless both parties show tangible progress towards an agreement.

Ukrainian Defence Minister Rustem Umerov, who led Kyiv’s delegation, stated that Kyiv – which has developed its own peace plan – would assess the Russian proposal, although he did not provide immediate feedback on it.

Ukraine has suggested conducting additional discussions before the end of June; however, it believes that only a meeting between Zelenskiy and Putin can address the numerous contentious issues, according to Umerov. Zelenskiy mentioned that Ukraine has submitted a list of 400 children it claims have been taken to Russia, yet the Russian delegation has only agreed to work on the return of 10 of them. Russia contends that the children were relocated from conflict zones for their protection.

Russian demands

The Russian memorandum, released by the Interfax news agency, stated that resolving the war would necessitate international acknowledgment of Crimea – a peninsula annexed by Russia in 2014 – along with four other regions of Ukraine that Moscow asserts as its territory. Ukraine would need to withdraw its military from all these areas.

It reiterated Moscow’s demands for Ukraine to become a neutral state – excluding NATO membership – and to safeguard the rights of Russian speakers, establish Russian as an official language, and implement a legal prohibition on the glorification of Nazism.

Ukraine dismisses the Nazi accusation as ludicrous and denies any discrimination against Russian speakers. Additionally, Russia has formalized its conditions for any ceasefire leading to a peace agreement, offering two options that both seem unacceptable to Ukraine.

The first option, as outlined in the text, involved Ukraine initiating a complete military withdrawal from the Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions. Among these, Russia has total control over the first region but only occupies approximately 70% of the others.

The second option presented a package that would necessitate Ukraine to halt military redeployments and agree to a suspension of foreign military aid, satellite communications, and intelligence support. Additionally, Kyiv would be required to lift martial law and conduct presidential and parliamentary elections within a 100-day timeframe.

Vladimir Medinsky, the head of the Russian delegation, indicated that Moscow had also proposed a “specific ceasefire lasting two to three days in certain areas of the front” to facilitate the retrieval of deceased soldiers.

According to a roadmap proposed by Ukraine, Kyiv seeks to impose no limitations on its military capabilities following any peace agreement, no international acknowledgment of Russian sovereignty over territories in Ukraine occupied by Russian forces, and reparations.

Ukraine targeted Russian airfields

The conflict is escalating, with Russia initiating its largest drone assaults of the war and making its quickest advances on the battlefield in May in six months. On Sunday, Ukraine reported that it deployed 117 drones in an operation named “Spider’s Web” aimed at targeting Russian nuclear-capable long-range bombers at airfields in Siberia and the northern regions of the country.

Satellite images indicated that the attacks inflicted significant damage, although both sides provided differing accounts regarding the extent of the damage. Western military analysts characterized the strikes, occurring thousands of miles from the front lines, as one of the most daring Ukrainian operations during the war.

Russia’s strategic bomber fleet is part of the “triad” of forces—alongside ground-launched missiles and submarine-launched missiles—that constitute the nation’s nuclear arsenal, the largest globally. In light of Putin’s repeated warnings about Russia’s nuclear capabilities, the U.S. and its allies have remained cautious throughout the Ukraine conflict regarding the potential for it to escalate into World War Three.

A current U.S. administration official stated that Trump and the White House were not informed prior to the attack. A former administration official noted that Ukraine often refrains from disclosing its operational plans to Washington for security reasons. A UK government official also mentioned that the British government was not informed in advance.

Zelenskiy stated that the operation, which utilized drones hidden within wooden sheds, has contributed to rebuilding partners’ trust in Ukraine’s capability to persist in the conflict. “Ukraine asserts that we will not capitulate and will not yield to any ultimatums,” he remarked during an online news briefing.

“However, we do not seek to engage in combat, nor do we wish to showcase our power – we exhibit it only because the adversary refuses to cease.”

Rafale Controversy Ignites: Former Fighter Pilot Calls for Modi to Clarify Indian Air Force Losses

By
Hammad Saeed
-
0
Retrieving wreckage of Indian Rafale fighter jet reportedly shot down by Pakistan in Aklian, Bathinda.

A political tempest is unfolding in India following shocking allegations that the nation’s esteemed Rafale fighter jets might have been downed by Pakistani aircraft amid recent cross-border conflicts. A senior minister from Telangana and ex-Indian Air Force (IAF) pilot is calling for complete transparency from the central government. N. Uttam Kumar Reddy, Telangana’s Minister for Irrigation and Civil Supplies and a leader of the Congress Party, has accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s administration of hiding vital information regarding supposed combat losses involving the IAF’s most advanced aircraft.

“We are pleased with the safe return of Indian Air Force pilots after they successfully completed their missions,” Reddy stated during a press conference in New Delhi. “However, the central government needs to clarify the reports that our fighter jet has been shot down.” “The government should also disclose how many Pakistani fighter jets were downed,” he continued, expressing skepticism about the narrative presented by the Modi-led BJP government concerning the ongoing conflict.

Reddy, a persistent critic of Modi’s BJP, charged the ruling party with politicizing genuine defense issues by labeling Congress Party leaders as “unpatriotic” whenever inquiries are made. “If our leader Rahul Gandhi had made the same statement, the BJP leaders would have initiated a significant campaign against him.” “Democratic accountability is essential in this operation. It should not be associated with patriotism.” “Will they question the patriotism of CDS Anil Chauhan? No one is more patriotic than the Gandhi family,” he contended.

Reddy also criticized Modi’s silence on controversial comments made by former U.S. President Donald Trump, who publicly mentioned an India-Pakistan ceasefire before it was officially declared by the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) of both countries.

Reddy’s comments followed a shocking interview with Bloomberg in Singapore, where India’s Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), General Anil Chauhan, for the first time acknowledged that the IAF had indeed experienced aircraft losses during the recent confrontation with Pakistan. While General Chauhan did not disclose the exact number of aircraft lost, he confirmed the event, stating, “The key issue is not whether the aircraft was downed, but why it went down.”

He firmly rejected Pakistani assertions of having downed six IAF jets as “completely inaccurate,” yet he notably avoided providing any specific figures or alternative explanations. “Numbers are not important,” Chauhan emphasized, instead highlighting tactical errors: “What is good is that we understood the mistakes, corrected them, and within 48 hours launched retaliatory long-range precision strikes with all our fighters.”

These statements from India’s leading military figure seemed to support reports from Islamabad, where on May 17, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif claimed that Pakistan’s air force had shot down six Indian fighter jets during what is now considered the most intense aerial confrontation between the two nuclear-armed nations in recent history. The sixth aircraft, a Mirage 2000, was allegedly downed during nighttime operations on May 6–7 near Pampore, east of Srinagar, an area adjacent to the Line of Control.

Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs further asserted that three Rafales, one Su-30MKI, and a MiG-29 were shot down earlier in the conflict, all by PL-15E air-to-air missiles launched from Chinese-made J-10C fighters operated by the Pakistan Air Force (PAF). “The much-hyped Rafale fighter jets have failed disastrously, and the Indian Air Force pilots have demonstrated a clear lack of proficiency,” stated Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar.

According to various military sources, it appears that Indian aircraft were likely targeted and engaged by a mix of PAF J-10C and JF-17 “Thunder” fighters utilizing China’s PL-15 missile—one of the most sophisticated beyond-visual-range (BVR) air-to-air weapons currently operational. The J-10C, created by Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group (CAIG), along with the JF-17, which is a collaborative effort between CAIG and Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC), forms a fundamental part of Pakistan’s contemporary air combat fleet.

The PL-15 missile—thought to have been launched from distances of up to 182 km in certain encounters—is a Mach 4-class BVR weapon featuring an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar seeker, designed to compete with leading Western systems such as the AIM-120D AMRAAM and the MBDA Meteor.

In what some analysts now refer to as “the largest air battle in history,” approximately 125 combat aircraft from both sides were reportedly engaged in the initial confrontations, during which Pakistan reportedly achieved the advantage through precise long-range strikes from within its own airspace.

Despite a growing body of circumstantial and intelligence-backed evidence, New Delhi has yet to acknowledge the potential loss of as many as six fighter jets, including three Rafales—its most advanced multirole aircraft, procured from France as part of a prominent defense agreement. When questioned about the situation, IAF Air Marshal A.K. Bharti only stated, “We are in a wartime scenario. Losses are a part of battle,” a vague remark that many analysts have interpreted as an indirect acknowledgment of combat losses. On the international stage, these claims have surprisingly gained some validation.

Senior U.S. defense officials informed Reuters that Pakistani J-10Cs were “responsible for downing at least two Indian Air Force fighters,” a claim that was similarly supported by French intelligence agents. CNN’s seasoned national security correspondent Jim Sciutto shared on X that “at least one Rafale” had been shot down by Pakistan, referencing sources from French intelligence.

French officials are reportedly looking into the possibility that more than one Rafale was lost during the incident, a statement that—if validated—could significantly tarnish the Rafale’s standing in future export markets. CNN also indicated that American intelligence analysts have determined that “an Indian fighter jet was shot down during India’s air strikes into Pakistani territory,” although Washington has yet to confirm the specific weapons platform utilized by Pakistan.

A representative from France’s Ministry of Armed Forces confirmed that Paris is “in close communication with Indian authorities” to ascertain the status of the Rafale jets and comprehend the ramifications of their alleged combat performance. “We are undoubtedly in the fog of war and an intense information war,” the French spokesperson remarked, highlighting the increasing uncertainty within European defense circles.

“What we know for sure is that we still do not completely understand what has transpired. There are significant worries about the operational results related to the Rafale, and we are vigilantly observing the situation,” the spokesperson remarked.

If verified, the loss of even one Rafale would mark the first combat defeat for Dassault Aviation’s premier fighter since its introduction, sending ripples through the global defense market. Following the initial reports of losses, Dassault Aviation’s stock has dropped by 9.48% over the course of five days. In contrast, the shares of Avic Chengdu Aircraft Co., which manufactures the J-10C, have skyrocketed by an impressive 61.6% during the same timeframe—highlighting a worldwide reevaluation of aerial combat capabilities.

Indonesian defense officials, who are set to receive the Rafale in 2026, have allegedly expressed concerns regarding its performance on the battlefield and are now undertaking what they describe as a “legitimate and evidence-based reassessment” of the French platform’s survivability in contested airspace.

Without official confirmation from New Delhi, the regional strategic balance may now be shifting—if not in favor of Pakistan, then certainly against the narrative India has diligently constructed around the invulnerability of its Rafales.

Pakistan Addresses Indian Submarine Threats by Conducting Comprehensive Coastal War Exercises

By
Anjum Nadeem
-
0

The Pakistan Navy has initiated an extensive two-day maritime exercise throughout its coastal and port facilities, enhancing its defensive stance against sub-conventional and asymmetric maritime threats—an urgency heightened by a history of Indian submarines persistently trying to infiltrate Pakistan’s territorial waters.

Taking place from June 1 to 2, 2025, the exercise occurred amid a tense military standoff between the nuclear-capable neighbors, following four days of continuous cross-border conflicts that included precision airstrikes, ballistic missile launches, armed drone incursions, and ongoing artillery exchanges along the Line of Control.

As stated by Commodore Ahmed Hussain, the Director General Public Relations for the Pakistan Navy, the exercise was meticulously crafted to “validate and refine tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) to ensure a strong defense of critical maritime infrastructure against evolving asymmetric threats.” The Navy emphasized that “the exercise involved coordinated operations by PN (Pakistan Navy) Fleet units, Pak Marines, SSG (Navy), and Naval Aviation assets,” showcasing the integration of operations across various domains to tackle the growing challenges of unconventional warfare.

Simulated threats encompassed infiltration by enemy special forces, underwater sabotage, drone swarm attacks, and coordinated multi-domain assaults—scenarios that are directly pertinent to the current Indian naval doctrine, which focuses on network-centric warfare and maritime coercion. These drills were conducted just 48 hours after Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh issued a stern warning that India would not hesitate to utilize its naval capabilities in response to “any future aggression by Pakistan,” a remark widely interpreted as a signal of increasing naval assertiveness in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR).

In response, Pakistan’s military reaffirmed its strong dedication to protecting its sovereignty and territorial integrity, referencing a previous statement from May 12 that cautioned about a “comprehensive and decisive” reaction to any infringement of its maritime boundaries.

Rear Admiral Faisal Amin, Commander Coast (COMCOAST), personally inspected various operational stations during the exercise and witnessed live-action simulations, which included port breach responses and underwater threat interception drills carried out by the Navy’s Special Services Group and anti-sabotage teams.

In his comments, Rear Admiral Amin commended the readiness and professionalism exhibited by the deployed forces and stressed that safeguarding port infrastructure—such as Gwadar and Karachi—is not merely a security issue, but a cornerstone of Pakistan’s economic resilience and the stability of its energy corridor under CPEC. “The Pakistan Navy is dedicated to maintaining a high level of readiness to address all types of threats and is continuously enhancing its ability to defend maritime frontiers against emerging challenges,” Commodore Hussain concluded.

This commitment is not just rhetorical—Pakistan has a longstanding history of intercepting Indian undersea assets attempting covert incursions into its territorial waters, with the most recent incident confirmed during Exercise SEASPARK-22 in March 2022. In that 2022 event, a Pakistan Navy anti-submarine warfare (ASW) unit successfully detected and tracked an Indian Kalvari-class diesel-electric submarine, which had tried to penetrate Pakistan’s maritime zone under the guise of war games and electronic silence.

The Indian submarine, operating at snorkel depth to recharge its lithium-ion batteries, was identified by Pakistan’s comprehensive maritime domain awareness network, which is believed to include P-3C Orion aircraft, towed sonar arrays, and seabed hydrophone sensors.

“Nevertheless, once again, through unwavering vigilance and professionalism, the Pakistan Navy has successfully thwarted an attempt by an Indian submarine to enter Pakistani waters,” stated the ISPR, highlighting that a comprehensive monitoring protocol was in effect. The statement further noted, “A strict monitoring watch and rigorous vigilance procedures were implemented. Consequently, the Pakistan Navy’s Anti-submarine warfare unit took the initiative and intercepted and tracked the latest Indian submarine, Kalvari, ahead of time.”

This incident in 2022 marked the fourth confirmed interception of an Indian submarine by Pakistan since 2016, following previous attempts in October 2019 and November 2016, which were also repelled by long-range maritime patrol assets and coastal sonar networks.

The Kalvari-class submarines are diesel-electric attack submarines derived from the French Scorpène-class design, built in India under Project-75. These submarines boast advanced stealth capabilities, including acoustic silencing techniques and low radiated noise levels, making them challenging to detect. They are equipped with heavyweight torpedoes and SM.39 Exocet anti-ship missiles, which enhance their offensive capabilities.

Additionally, the submarines incorporate the SUBTICS combat management system, which integrates all onboard sensors and weaponry for effective operation. The recurring incidents of underwater surveillance attempts indicate that a broader undersea shadow war is developing between India and Pakistan, with ramifications that extend beyond regional rivalry and impact global maritime stability in the Western Indian Ocean and Hormuz approaches.

Naval analysts emphasize that as both countries continue to expand their submarine fleets—India through future Project-75(I) SSNs and Arihant-class SSBNs, and Pakistan through its acquisition of eight Chinese Type 039B Hangor-class SSKs—submerged confrontations are expected to increase in both frequency and complexity.

These changing dynamics highlight the growing necessity for strong command-and-control systems, strategic restraint, and open military-to-military communication channels to prevent unintended escalation in the maritime sphere, where transparency is fundamentally restricted.

As Pakistan indicates its intention to fortify its coastline and vital sea routes against grey-zone activities, the recent military exercises and incidents involving Indian submarines serve as a clear reminder that South Asia’s most perilous flashpoint may now be submerged beneath the surface.

India’s submarine fleet acts as the silent spearhead of the country’s maritime deterrence strategy, integrating legacy Soviet vessels, contemporary French-origin diesel-electric submarines, and a developing yet formidable indigenous nuclear submarine capability. With a combination of conventional and nuclear-powered assets, the Indian Navy’s submarine fleet is designed to execute multi-domain operations that range from sea denial and anti-surface warfare to second-strike nuclear deterrence and ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) missions throughout the Indian Ocean Region (IOR).

As of mid-2025, the Indian Navy operates a fleet of 17 submarines—consisting of 15 diesel-electric attack submarines (SSKs) and two nuclear-powered vessels—establishing itself as a powerful undersea force in the Indian Ocean Region.

At the forefront of India’s traditional undersea capabilities are six Kalvari-class submarines, which are based on the French Scorpène design and constructed domestically under Project-75. Five vessels—INS Kalvari, Khanderi, Karanj, Vela, and Vagir—are currently operational, while the sixth, INS Vagsheer, is in the process of sea trials and is expected to be commissioned by the end of 2025.

Equipped with Exocet anti-ship missiles and heavyweight torpedoes, the later Kalvari units are anticipated to feature air-independent propulsion (AIP), which will greatly improve their endurance and stealth in littoral combat zones. Additionally, India operates eight upgraded Kilo-class submarines, referred to locally as the Sindhughosh-class, which were acquired from Russia between the late 1980s and early 2000s. Despite their age, ongoing mid-life refits and the integration of Club-S cruise missiles have maintained their effectiveness in strike and patrol missions.

Complementing these submarines are four German-made Type 209/1500 submarines, known as the Shishumar-class, which are primarily utilized for training and coastal defense, with one unit recently undergoing life-extension upgrades. India’s nuclear deterrent at sea is represented by the Arihant-class SSBNs, which constitute the maritime component of its strategic triad.

INS Arihant, which has been operational since 2016, is equipped with K-15 SLBMs (with a range of 750 km), while her successor, INS Arighat, is in the final stages of outfitting and is expected to carry K-4 SLBMs with an extended range of up to 3,500 km.

Regarding nuclear attack capabilities, India once operated the INS Chakra II, a leased Akula-class SSN from Russia, which was returned in 2021. Currently, there are plans to lease another Akula-class submarine (Chakra III), while India is also developing six indigenous SSNs as part of a Strategic Forces Command initiative, designed to be the core hunter-killer component of its future undersea fleet.

The next significant advancement for India—Project-75I—aims to procure six advanced SSKs equipped with AIP and vertical launch systems for BrahMos-class cruise missiles, although there are ongoing procurement delays. The contenders for this project include platforms from South Korea, Russia, Germany, and Spain, with a final decision anticipated between 2025 and 2026. Although India’s submarine fleet lags behind China in terms of numbers, it benefits from improved network integration, long-range maritime patrol aircraft (P-8I Poseidon), and an increasing capacity for indigenous production.

Concurrently, as geopolitical competition escalates in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), Pakistan is reinforcing its undersea warfare capabilities by modernizing its submarine fleet—quietly yet decisively strengthening its sea-denial strategy and nuclear second-strike deterrent. Central to Pakistan’s undersea warfare strategy is a combination of legacy platforms designed in France and a new generation of modern Chinese submarines—together forming a credible, multi-layered force capable of surveillance, interdiction, and strategic deterrence across critical maritime chokepoints.

At present, the Pakistan Navy has five active diesel-electric attack submarines (SSKs): three upgraded Agosta-90B (Khalid-class) submarines equipped with Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) systems, and two older Agosta-70 (Hashmat-class) submarines, which mainly serve in training and support functions. The Agosta-90B class, which includes PNS Khalid, PNS Saad, and PNS Hamza, constitutes the backbone of Pakistan’s submarine fleet. These vessels, with a submerged displacement of approximately 2,000 tonnes, were built with French collaboration in the late 1990s and early 2000s and are equipped with MESMA AIP modules, greatly enhancing their underwater endurance compared to conventional diesel-electric models.

All three submarines have received significant mid-life upgrades as part of a $350 million agreement with Turkey’s STM (Savunma Teknolojileri Mühendislik), incorporating advanced sonar systems, combat management systems, electronic warfare enhancements, new periscopes, and fire-control systems that are compatible with heavyweight torpedoes and submarine-launched cruise missiles.

On the other hand, the Agosta-70 class, which includes PNS Hashmat and PNS Hurmat, was commissioned in the late 1970s and continues to operate, reportedly being utilized for secondary operational roles and training purposes. Nevertheless, the focal point of Pakistan’s submarine modernization initiative is the upcoming introduction of eight Hangor-class submarines, based on the Chinese Type 039B (Yuan-class) design—a stealth-optimized, AIP-equipped platform anticipated to transform the regional underwater balance.

Under a 2015 agreement between Islamabad and Beijing, valued at around $4–5 billion, four submarines are being constructed in China, while the other four are being built at Karachi Shipyard & Engineering Works (KSEW) as part of a technology transfer arrangement. By 2025, the first two submarines—PNS Hangor and PNS Shushuk—have already been launched at Chinese shipyards, with deliveries expected by late 2025 and 2026, respectively.

These Hangor-class submarines, with a displacement of around 2,800 tonnes, are said to be designed to carry the Babur-3 submarine-launched cruise missile (SLCM)—a nuclear-capable system boasting an estimated range of 450 km, which provides Pakistan with a credible second-strike capability from underwater platforms.

Fitted with sophisticated passive/active sonar systems, integrated combat systems, and long-endurance AIP modules, the Hangor-class will enable the Pakistan Navy to sustain a continuous undersea presence throughout the Arabian Sea and into the Strait of Hormuz.

This new generation of submarines will greatly enhance Pakistan’s capacity to execute area denial operations, strategic ISR, and deterrent patrols deep within contested maritime regions—especially in reaction to Indian Navy deployments and joint exercises with QUAD nations.

Simultaneously, Pakistan is advancing its anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capabilities through the use of P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft, unmanned undersea sensors, and an expanding network of surface combatants to safeguard its own fleet and counter enemy incursions—particularly in light of repeated incidents of Indian submarine detection in 2016, 2019, and most recently in 2022.

The leadership of Pakistan’s navy has consistently emphasized the strategic importance of submarines in protecting vital sea lanes and deterring hostile naval activities near Gwadar Port, which is a crucial component of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).

Considering the swift modernization of the Indian Navy’s own undersea capabilities—including Kalvari-class (Scorpène) submarines and a growing nuclear fleet—Pakistan’s focus on indigenous construction, AIP technology, and the integration of strategic weapons signifies a purposeful transition towards enhanced survivability, autonomy, and technological equivalence.

By the end of the decade, the Pakistan Navy is anticipated to operate at least 11 modern submarines, the majority of which will be AIP-capable, positioning it as one of the most formidable undersea forces in the region, particularly when compared to its relative size and conventional capabilities.

THE BEAST REVEALED: A Leaked Front Image of the J-36 Showcases China’s Stealth Colossus in Stunning Detail

By
Anjum Nadeem
-
0
China's J-36

In a development that could greatly change global views on China’s aerospace goals, recently shared front-facing images and video footage have provided the most comprehensive and revealing look yet at the Chengdu J-36 sixth-generation fighter, offering unprecedented insight into its design and configuration.

The front-facing visuals and images of the J-36 seem to validate long-held theories among defense analysts that the aircraft incorporates a prominent “bubble canopy,” which is significantly larger and wider than anticipated, situated over the nose section of the aircraft. This design strongly indicates a twin-crew setup, consistent with previous reports suggesting that the J-36 will be operated by two pilots—a configuration reminiscent of traditional heavy strike fighters like the General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark and Russia’s Su-34 Fullback.

Developed by Chengdu Aircraft Group (CAG), the same defense contractor behind the J-10C and J-20 stealth fighters, the J-36 appears to symbolize the pinnacle of Chinese efforts to advance to the forefront of next-generation air combat. “The new images reinforce the idea that China is no longer satisfied with merely following—it aims to lead the sixth-generation fighter competition,” a Western aerospace analyst remarked to Defence Security Asia.

From a design perspective, the J-36’s impressive scale becomes strikingly evident in the leaked footage, which showcases its tailless airframe, broad fuselage, and modified double-delta wing design. As is typical with many stealthy tailless platforms, the aircraft seems deceptively compact when viewed from the side, but its true size is clear in head-on or top-down views, highlighting the mass and design intricacy of this tactical warplane.

Although its delta-planform has been observed before, the latest head-on images showcase a notable increase in airframe volume, suggesting ample internal capacity for weapon bays, avionics, and extra fuel—features that are consistent with heavy multirole and long-range strike missions.

Reports indicate that the J-36 completed its first flight on December 26, 2024, yet no official statement was issued by Chinese state media, which reflects Beijing’s enduring strategy of maintaining secrecy regarding sensitive defense projects. Even in the absence of formal confirmation, this flight represents a significant achievement in China’s rapid efforts to bridge the capability divide with U.S. and European sixth-generation aircraft programs.

Initial evaluations estimate the J-36 to be around 72 feet in length with a wingspan of 66 feet, positioning it firmly within the same weight and performance class as the U.S. Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) platform and Europe’s Tempest/FCAS initiatives.

Current full-scale flight tests are reportedly aimed at confirming the aircraft’s Electronic Data Control System (EDCS), which serves as the digital foundation for its sophisticated mission systems, as well as its multi-mode flight capabilities across different operational scenarios.

The aircraft is currently undergoing extensive weapons integration testing, which includes its side-mounted Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar—likely providing wide-angle target acquisition—and a low-observable fuselage design optimized for high survivability in contested airspace.

In a notable departure from Western sixth-generation prototypes that usually utilize twin engines, the J-36 is said to have a triple-engine setup—this design aims to achieve higher thrust, increased payload capacity, and a longer range without the need for aerial refueling.

Defence analysts estimate that the J-36 can reach speeds of up to 2,900 km/h at an altitude of 11,500 meters, with supercruise capabilities in the 2,100–2,200 km/h range—indicating a strong focus on penetration and strike capabilities in heavily defended airspace.

The operational ceiling is estimated to be between 20,000 and 21,000 meters, while the internal weapons load is believed to be between 10 to 13 tonnes, providing it with both air dominance and precision strike flexibility.

The J-36 is reportedly being developed at a classified facility located approximately six nautical miles from downtown Chengdu—an ultra-secure aerospace manufacturing complex operated by the Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC), which has a long history of involvement in black project aircraft development.

The timing and quality of the leaked video have raised concerns within the global intelligence community, leading to speculation about whether the footage was an accidental leak or a meticulously planned psychological operation intended to influence regional threat perceptions.

While Beijing has historically maintained stringent control over sensitive military information, the filming angle and strategic timing of the J-36’s low-altitude approach over an urban highway imply that the release may have been authorized by high-ranking officials within the Chinese military-industrial complex.

Some analysts view the leak as a calculated action by the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) to convey both intent and capability, especially considering the escalating tensions between the U.S. and China and the upcoming introduction of the U.S. Air Force’s NGAD fighter. Regardless of whether it was intentional, the brief clip provides a rare and unfiltered look at the design of one of the most clandestine fighter programs globally—an aircraft that has been engaged in high-speed taxi trials, ground-based avionics assessments, and likely simulated combat scenarios for several months.

Recent intelligence indicates that the J-36 will feature AI-assisted avionics, advanced sensor fusion, and manned-unmanned teaming (MUM-T) capabilities—key elements of sixth-generation doctrine focused on information dominance, electronic warfare superiority, and adaptive mission control. As air combat evolves towards autonomy, multi-domain integration, and deep-penetration strikes, the emergence of the J-36 signals China’s intention to match or surpass Western advancements in future air dominance systems.

With these capabilities, the J-36 is poised to be a potential rival to the U.S. NGAD, Europe’s Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP), and the Franco-German-Spanish Future Combat Air System (FCAS)—igniting a new chapter of aerospace competition in the Indo-Pacific and beyond.

As of now, China has not released any official public statement affirming the existence or objectives of the J-36 programme. Nevertheless, both leaked video footage and commercial satellite images present strong evidence that development and testing are progressing swiftly.

The competition for sixth-generation air superiority is no longer a theoretical concept—it is actively in progress. Complicating this evolving threat landscape, it is also believed that China is working on a distinct sixth-generation fighter known as the ‘J-50,’ under the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation (SAC).

In April, a four-second video gained widespread attention on Chinese social media, showing the J-36 nearing a clandestine airfield—thought to be the Chengdu Aerospace Manufacturing Facility—just prior to landing. The low-resolution video, recorded from inside a civilian vehicle, showcased the J-36 flying low over a busy city expressway, providing the clearest visual representation to date of the aircraft’s flight characteristics and design features.

This sighting is thought to have taken place at one of China’s most secretive aerospace centers, situated in Sichuan province, which is central to Beijing’s sixth-generation air combat development framework. As China confidently advances into the sixth-generation domain, the global strategic equilibrium in air power may soon enter its most significant transformation in decades.

Iran is set to reject the US nuclear proposal, according to an Iranian diplomat

By
Hammad Saeed
-
0

Iran is set to dismiss a U.S. proposal aimed at resolving a long-standing nuclear conflict, according to an Iranian diplomat on Monday, who criticized it as a “non-starter” that does not cater to Tehran’s interests and keeps Washington’s position on uranium enrichment unchanged.

“Iran is preparing a negative reply to the U.S. proposal, which may be seen as a rejection of the U.S. offer,” the senior diplomat, who is affiliated with Iran’s negotiating team, informed Reuters.

The U.S. proposal for a new nuclear agreement was delivered to Iran on Saturday by Oman’s Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr Albusaidi, who was visiting Tehran briefly and has been facilitating nuclear discussions between Tehran and Washington.

However, after five rounds of negotiations involving Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi and President Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff to address the nuclear impasse, numerous issues remain unresolved.

One of the main points of contention is Iran’s refusal to comply with a U.S. demand to abandon uranium enrichment, which is seen as a potential route to developing nuclear weapons. Tehran asserts that its goal is to acquire nuclear technology for peaceful applications and has consistently denied Western allegations of pursuing nuclear armament.

“In this proposal, the U.S. position on enrichment within Iranian territory remains the same, and there is no definitive clarification regarding the lifting of sanctions,” stated the diplomat, who requested anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the issue.

Tehran insists on the immediate removal of all U.S.-imposed restrictions that hinder its oil-dependent economy. Conversely, the U.S. maintains that the lifting of nuclear-related sanctions should occur gradually.

Since 2018, numerous Iranian entities crucial to the nation’s economy, including its central bank and national oil company, have faced sanctions for allegedly “supporting terrorism or weapons proliferation.”

Trump’s reintroduction of a “maximum pressure” strategy against Tehran since his return to the White House in January has involved stricter sanctions and threats to bomb Iran if ongoing negotiations do not result in an agreement. During his first term, Trump abandoned Tehran’s 2015 nuclear agreement with six nations in 2018 and reinstated sanctions that have devastated Iran’s economy.

In response, Tehran has swiftly breached the limitations set by the 2015 nuclear agreement regarding its nuclear program. The 2015 accord mandated that Iran take measures to limit its nuclear activities in exchange for relief from U.S., EU, and U.N. economic sanctions.

According to a diplomat, the evaluation from “Iran’s nuclear negotiations committee,” overseen by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is that the U.S. proposal is “entirely one-sided” and does not align with Tehran’s interests.

Consequently, the diplomat stated that Tehran views this proposal as a “non-starter” and believes it attempts to impose a “bad deal” on Iran through unreasonable demands.

Last week, two Iranian officials informed Reuters that Iran might halt uranium enrichment if the U.S. releases frozen Iranian assets and acknowledges Tehran’s right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes as part of a “political deal” that could pave the way for a more comprehensive nuclear agreement.

Drone attacks prior to the Russia-Ukraine peace negotiations put Trump’s credibility at risk.

By
Asif Shahid
-
0
U.S. President-elect Donald Trump attends a wreath laying ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery ahead of the presidential inauguration in Arlington, Virginia, U.S.

It was already difficult to envision a breakthrough resulting from the renewed direct talks between Russia and Ukraine scheduled to take place in Istanbul on Monday. However, following what seem to be multiple large-scale Ukrainian drone strikes targeting strategic bases throughout Russia, it is even less probable that either side will be willing to alter their red lines.

Prior to the recent strikes, which aimed at Russian strategic aircraft located thousands of miles from the Ukrainian border, the Kremlin had refrained from formally outlining, through an agreed memorandum, what it specifically desires in exchange for concluding what it terms its ‘Special Military Operation’. Nevertheless, Russian officials have been transparent about their stringent demands, which include sovereignty over all annexed territories, the demilitarization of Ukraine, immediate relief from sanctions, and what the Kremlin refers to as ‘de-Nazification’, which encompasses ensuring the rights of Russian speakers.

Concerns regarding further NATO expansion towards Russian borders – particularly with respect to Ukraine, as well as other nations – have consistently been a point of contention for the Kremlin, alongside the issue of hundreds of billions of dollars in frozen Russian assets overseas. Speculation has arisen in both Russian and Western media regarding potential negotiation areas, and the results of the Istanbul discussions are being closely monitored for any signs of flexibility.

However, in light of what seems to be a remarkable Ukrainian achievement, discussions of Kremlin concessions may currently be off the table. Ukraine enters this second round of direct negotiations strengthened by its apparent success in destroying Russian strategic bombers and other vital air assets. On Sunday, President Volodymyr Zelensky articulated some of Ukraine’s positions, which include an unconditional ceasefire and the repatriation of Ukrainian children taken to Russia.

However, Russia’s insistence that Ukrainian forces retreat from territories it claims but has yet to conquer remains unacceptable, especially now that Ukraine has demonstrated its capability to strike deep behind enemy lines.

Prior to the recent Ukrainian drone attacks, and while preparations for peace talks in Istanbul were underway, Russia intensified its assaults on Ukraine, indicating the potential onset of a new summer offensive. On Saturday night, Russia executed its most extensive drone assault on Ukraine since the war began, deploying 472 drones.

The following day, a Russian missile strike resulted in the deaths of at least 12 individuals and left over 60 injured at a Ukrainian military training facility. Amid these developments, a visibly frustrated US President Donald Trump, who previously claimed he could swiftly resolve the Ukraine conflict, now finds himself observing from the sidelines as a key aspect of his foreign policy appears increasingly unstable.

Neither his pressure on the Ukrainian president, whom Trump criticized in the Oval Office, nor his recent admonishments directed at the Kremlin leader seem to have brought the two parties any closer to achieving a peace agreement. Trump still possesses significant options to influence the situation if he decides to act, such as implementing stringent new sanctions, which have garnered overwhelming support in the US Senate, or modifying US military assistance in a manner that would substantially raise the costs of continued fighting. While these actions may not be conclusive, they would convey a strong message of US commitment.

What Trump claims he is tempted to do, however, is simply abandon the entire situation. He asserts that this is Biden’s war, or that of Putin and Zelensky. Yet, walking away – and the implications of that for US policy remain uncertain – may no longer be feasible. At least not without consequences.

His persistent call for an end to the Ukraine conflict, coupled with his direct engagements with both Ukrainian and Russian leaders, signifies that Trump and the United States are now deeply intertwined with the outcome. This is why developments on the battlefield and at the negotiating table in Istanbul are being monitored so intently.

Despite his frequent efforts to distance himself from it, the Ukraine war has undeniably become Trump’s war, and US credibility now hangs by a precarious thread.

Ukraine targets Russian bomber bases using a swarm of FPV drones

By
Hammad Saeed
-
0

Ukraine has initiated what seems to be its most extensive drone operation to date, targeting two significant Russian air bases that accommodate strategic bombers utilized in long-range assaults on Ukrainian cities. The attack on June 1 focused on the Olenya and Belaya airfields, located deep within Russian territory, as confirmed by Ukrainian sources.

According to information provided by Ukrainian officials, the operation employed swarms of FPV drones that were remotely launched from vehicles stationed near the airfields. These mobile platforms were reportedly positioned close to the targets, allowing for direct line-of-sight control to ensure accurate navigation and terminal strikes.

The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) is managing this initiative as part of an ongoing special operation codenamed “Pavutyna” — or “Web” — which aims to diminish Russia’s long-range strike capabilities. “This is a coordinated effort to eliminate enemy aircraft that persist in attacking our civilian infrastructure nightly,” stated a Ukrainian official familiar with the operation.

Ukrainian sources assert that the drone strike damaged or destroyed over 40 aircraft, including Tu-95 and Tu-22M3 bombers, along with at least one A-50 airborne early warning aircraft. Footage released to the public depicts burning Tu-95 bombers on the airfield aprons, with secondary explosions observable in various locations.

Open-source videos captured by local residents seem to corroborate the timing and location of the strikes. Later in the day, Ukrainian defense channels shared further visual evidence showing smoldering Russian aircraft engulfed in flames.

The extent of the damage has yet to be independently confirmed; however, estimates from Ukrainian sources suggest that Russian losses exceed $2 billion. If validated, this would mark the most significant blow to Russia‘s strategic aviation capabilities since the onset of the full-scale invasion in 2022.

The Tu-95 and Tu-22M3 bombers involved in the attack are key assets utilized by the Russian Aerospace Forces for launching cruise missiles at Ukrainian urban areas. Their elimination could momentarily hinder Russia’s capacity to execute deep strikes from a distance.

1234...161Page 3 of 161

Defence Talks

Welcome to Defence Talks, your trusted source for insightful news and in-depth analysis on defense and security matters worldwide. We bring you the latest updates, expert commentary, and exclusive coverage on military technology, strategic developments, geopolitical trends, and global conflicts.

Defence Talks

Each story in our ever growing library can be accessed through our membership program. Subscribe and receive instantaneous and unlimited access!

Subscribe Now
Newsletter

Follow Us

Advertise With Us

Subscribe

© DefenceTalks.com All Rights Reserved