After decades of service, Taiwan retires its last F-5 fighter jets
To keep pace with increased threats from mainland China, Taiwan has been upgrading both its manned and unmanned aerial assets, including purchasing 66 of the latest generation F-16V fighters and upgrading existing aircraft to modern specifications.
China claims the island as its own territory and has never dropped its threat to invade since the sides split amid civil war in 1949.
The air force invited journalists on Friday to witness one last flyby by the F-5, which first entered service with Taiwan in 1965 and most of which have now been converted to trainers, reconnaissance planes or decoys.
The planes began moving into a backing role 30 years ago when Taiwan began acquiring more modern American F-16s, French Mirage 2000s and domestically developed Ching Kuos.
The F-5 is one of the world's most widely produced jets, with Taiwan the largest operator at one point with 336, producing some 100 domestically. Dozens of countries still use them, including the U.S., which uses them as pretend opponents in training exercises.
The planes gained favor for their high speed and maneuverability, alongside their low cost and ease of maintenance. For Taiwan, they guarded the skies above the Taiwan Strait against mainland China's Soviet and domestically built fighters.
Taiwan's F-5s were based along the eastern coast, separated from China by both the 160 kilometer (100 mile)-wide Taiwan Strait and Taiwan's formidable Central Mountain Range.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
23 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Nvidia's Icy Reception in China Is Buying Time for Huawei
Don't be fooled by China's icy response to America's policy reversal that will allow a key Nvidia Corp. artificial intelligence chip back on the mainland. The country's AI ambitions currently rely on Nvidia's hardware, and authorities know that — even if they won't admit it. But by fanning fears of alleged security or environmental concerns, they're buying time for Huawei Technologies Co. to catch up while keeping trade talks pressure on the US.
Fast Company
2 hours ago
- Fast Company
Black beauty businesses are stuggling under Trump's tariffs
Earlier this summer, Dajiah Blackshear-Calloway, 34, started to notice that her regular clients weren't visiting her hair salon as often as they used to. The salon, in Smyrna, Georgia, houses two stylists and offers dozens of services that range from $50 natural hairstyles to $745 tape-in weave extensions. Her most popular services are $254 sew-ins, where human hair extensions are woven into braids, and $125 quick weaves, where human or synthetic hair is styled and then glued to a stocking cap. But the prices of hair extensions and hair glues used to create wigs and weaves have gone up exponentially after U.S. President Donald Trump imposed a series of different tariffs on China and Vietnam, where the majority of Black beauty products are made. The price of a package of hair imported from Vietnam has gone up to $290 from $190 since May. A bottle of hair glue, imported from China, has gone up from $8 a bottle to $14.99 at her local beauty supply store. 'We're being impacted at every level,' Blackshear-Calloway said. 'I'm either having to eat that cost or pass that expense along to my clients, which affects their budgets and their pockets as well.' To avoid passing on rising costs, Blackshear-Calloway is asking her clients to bring their own hair to their appointments. Now her salon is offering a quick weave service without hair for $140, but with hair the price is $400, according to her booking website. She's also struggling to get products since her wholesaler is delaying shipments as tariff rates fluctuate. Kadidja Dosso, 30, owner of Dosso Beauty, which sells hypoallergenic braiding hair, as well as The Dosso Hair Salon in Philadelphia, has also faced delayed shipments on imports from China. She waited over a month to get $50,000 worth of China-made braiding hair via air freight at John F. Kennedy Airport in June, when U.S. President Donald Trump announced 145% tariffs on the country over confusion over what tariff should apply. 'We have to provide more specifics of the products – exact materials, the product use – for it to clear customs,' Dosso said. 'Part of the issue was that the same language that we've been using for years wasn't descriptive enough.' She wants to avoid raising prices on her $13 packets of hair, which customers typically buy at least five at a time to complete one hairstyle. Higher costs Tariffs are disproportionately impacting Black business owners like Blackshear-Calloway and Dosso, said Andre Perry, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. 'Many Black entrepreneurs started off with less wealth,' Perry said. He said that the wealth gap puts Black entrepreneurs, especially those in low-margin businesses like consumer goods or hair care services, into precarious financial positions as tariffs eat into their bottom lines. Sina Golara, an assistant professor of supply chain and operations management at Georgia State University, said rising costs due to tariffs are 'like a tax that you're imposing on business.' 'In some cases, it could be borne by the foreign manufacturer, but in most cases, it will also have quite a substantial impact on the domestic buyers and consumers,' Golara said. Diann Valentine, 55, founder of Slayyy Hair, first felt the impact of tariffs shortly after the initial 145% tariff was imposed on China and she faced a $300,000 bill to get 26,000 units of braiding hair out of the Los Angeles port in May. 'To lose that kind of money at this stage has been devastating,' Valentine said. Since then she has raised the price of her braiding hair and drawstring ponytail extensions by 20%. She also laid off four employees and is working 16-hour days to compensate in her two Glow+Flow beauty supply stores in Inglewood and Hawthorne, California. Slayyy Hair supplies $8.49 nontoxic braiding hair and $35.99 synthetic drawstring ponytails to TJ Maxx and Marshalls, which have resisted renegotiating prices or delivery deadlines to compensate. 'So essentially, we paid more for our ponytails than TJ Maxx and Marshalls paid for them,' Valentine said. She is also trying to renegotiate price increases with Target, where she sells in at least 70 stores in California, Nevada and Colorado, she said. TJ Maxx and Marshalls declined a Reuters request for comment. Fifty percent of the merchandise comes from China, Valentine said, and prices for synthetic wigs, human-hair weaves, plastic hair rollers, rubber bands, combs and brushes that stock her shelves are trending up at her beauty supply locations. 'I thought maybe we would see an increase in foot traffic because there would be more DIY hairstyles – more women doing their hair at home,' she said. 'But for right now, we've only seen decreased foot traffic and also a decrease in frequency of visits from our existing customers.' Struggling salons While beauty product sales are typically resilient during economic downturns, beauty services are seen as discretionary, said Marley Brocker, senior analyst at market research firm IBISWorld. 'Tariffs on those imports are going to directly lead to higher costs for those service providers, whether they're buying directly from overseas manufacturers or buying from wholesalers within the U.S.,' she said. Black U.S. consumers spent approximately $2.29 billion on hair care products in 2022, according to a NielsenIQ study from that year. But higher prices are causing some Black women to visit the salon less frequently. Deiara Frye, 27, of Raleigh, North Carolina, usually schedules hair appointments at least five times a year, but so far this year she's only gone once. 'Due to the cost of everything rising over the years, I tend to get braids a little more often now than sew-ins, or try to maintain my natural hair,' she said. She's also seeing prices for her natural hair products like Unilever's Shea Moisture and Procter & Gamble's Pantene go up. Fewer visits are impacting salons and beauty supply stores. Until earlier this year, Dionne Maxwell was selling wigs, braiding hair, shampoos, and conditioners out of her mini beauty supply store in Dallas, Georgia, located 33 miles outside of Atlanta, but she shut it down after she started losing foot traffic in May and moved operations into her home. Now she's relying on orders placed through Uber Eats, TikTok Shop and to sustain her business, but even those sales have slowed significantly, she said. 'We don't have the money for advertising, because enough revenue is not coming in to advertise with,' Maxwell said. Tariffs have raised Maxwell's wholesale price for China-made braiding hair by 50 cents per pack, she said, and she is now required to buy more hair in her wholesale orders. She said she's struggled to negotiate better prices with her hair wholesalers, who are requiring her to order more units of merchandise at higher costs. Her wholesaler is asking her to purchase 110 packs of hair per order, when she was previously able to buy 30 packs at a time, she said. 'For the past two months, we have been basically paying our bills out of pocket because we really have had nothing coming in,' Maxwell said.
Gizmodo
3 hours ago
- Gizmodo
Howard Lutnick Calls CHIPS Act a ‘Giveaway to Rich Companies' Like Intel
The U.S. government could get a 10% equity stake in Intel in exchange for more funds from the CHIPS Act, according to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who appeared on CNBC Tuesday. Lutnick was pressed about whether that would be a worse deal than what Intel had previously received under the Biden-era manufacturing plan, and the commerce secretary seemed more than happy to acknowledge it was. 'Of course it's worse, of course it's worse…' Lutnick said, laughing. CNBC host David Faber asked if that made it difficult for U.S.-based tech giant Intel to actually compete against companies like Taiwan-based TSMC—a concern because chip manufacturers overseas are eating Intel's lunch. But Lutnick didn't buy the argument. 'The CHIPS Act was just a giveaway to rich companies,' Lutnick said. 'I mean, why in the world is the United States of America taking money and giving it to companies like TSMC, which is worth a trillion dollars? I mean, why would we give them money to come to America?' The CHIPS Act passed with bipartisan support in 2022 and allocated $39 billion for subsidies in an effort to spur chip manufacturing in the U.S. and better compete with China. TSMC received $6.6 billion in grants to expand chip production in the U.S. under the law, while Intel has received about $7.9 billion, according to CNBC. Intel has struggled in recent years, announcing plans last month to lay off about 15% of its staff and dramatically slowing its expansion, which means much of the money it has available hasn't been handed over yet under the terms of the legislation. Lutnick insisted that Trump has secured better deals with technology companies, while Biden has been just handing out money without getting more for the U.S. government. The commerce secretary said he wanted Intel to succeed, but it was going to come with strings. 'The Biden administration literally was giving Intel for free and giving TSMC money for free,' Lutnick said. 'And all these companies just giving them money for free. And Donald Trump turns that into saying, 'Hey, we want equity for the money. If we're going to give you the money, we want a piece of the action for the American taxpayer.'' The New York Times notes that turning $10.86 billion in grants for Intel into equity (about 10% of Intel's $100 billion worth), would be one of the largest U.S. government interventions into private industry since the 2008 financial crisis, when the government poured billions into Chrysler and General Motors to save auto manufacturing jobs. Lutnick was asked if the government would get any governance role in Intel with a 10% stake, and he said they would not. In fact, he treated it as a ridiculous question, insisting 'we're just converting what was a grant under Biden into equity.' But it's not a ridiculous question, and Faber pointed out the government received a 'golden share' on the U.S. Steel deal, which allows Trump to veto corporate decisions he doesn't like. That kind of intervention obviously makes Wall Street a little nervous. CNBC host Carl Quintanilla read excerpts from a recent Wall Street Journal editorial titled 'The Nationalization of Intel,' which referred to the Trump regime's plans as 'corporate statism.' From the article: Details of that potential investment are vague, but you can bet the feds wouldn't be passive investors. Intel's stock rallied last week on the news, perhaps because investors figure the company will now be too big to fail. They're probably right. Once the government acquires a stake in Intel, the politicians will have an incentive to keep pouring on subsidies so they wouldn't have to admit a mistake. At the same time, the Administration's conditions for the equity investment may also make it harder for Intel to undertake needed changes to become more competitive. Politicians don't like to preside over plant closures or employee layoffs. See Renault, the French car maker, for that political lesson. Lutnick just laughed it off, indignantly pointing out that 'we were just giving away the money' under the previous terms of the CHIPS Act. But the legality of any equity stake would likely be challenged by both Intel shareholders and competitors in the industry, according to the Times. President Trump has leaned heavily on Intel, firing off a post on Truth Social about CEO Lip-Bu Tan and his alleged links to China. The president even called for Tan's resignation, saying there was 'no other solution to this problem,' but seemed to back off that demand last week after meeting with the CEO. Lutnick insisted on CNBC that Trump's approach was necessary and much better than anything Biden had accomplished, a common refrain among Trump's supporters. 'How could that not be smarter, better, and more important for the American taxpayer than just free money for $100 billion, trillion-dollar companies… makes no sense. Donald Trump is fixing what Biden got completely, totally, and utterly wrong,' Lutnick said.
