Latest news with #MarkCancian
Business Insider
5 days ago
- Business
- Business Insider
Spain is passing on the F-35, looking instead at European fighters as anxiety over Trump has had US allies rethinking the jet
NATO ally Spain has decided against buying the US-designed F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, opting instead to invest in European-made aircraft for its air force. Spain's decision comes after several NATO members publicly questioned their commitment to the jet, made by Lockheed Martin, amid concerns about President Donald Trump's attitude toward the alliance. Antagonism from the White House has rattled several American allies, though there were no firm decisions made concerning the F-35. "This makes those thoughts or ideas concrete," said Mark Cancian, a retired Marine Corps colonel and senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "Here's a country that really has changed its view about a future procurement." Asked about Spain's decision, a Lockheed Martin spokesperson told Business Insider: "Foreign military sales are government-to-government transactions, and this matter is best addressed by the US or Spanish government." A spokesperson for the Spanish defense ministry said on Wednesday that the country was no longer considering the F-35 for its new fighter jet acquisitions. The official did not give a reason but told Politico that "the Spanish option involves the current Eurofighter and the FCAS in the future." The ministry directed Business Insider to the Spanish air force, which did not respond when reached for comment. The reported ministry statements, however, confirmed an earlier report from Spain's El País newspaper, citing government sources that said any plans to pursue the F-35 had been shelved and preliminary contacts that had been started were suspended indefinitely. Richard Aboulafia, an aviation expert and the managing director of US consulting firm AeroDynamic Advisory, told Business Insider that Spain's decision fits with "the broader European objective of sovereignty and self-sufficiency." The Eurofighter Typhoon under consideration is a fourth-generation, multi-role combat aircraft made by a consortium of European companies: Airbus, BAE Systems, and Leonardo. And the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) is an initiative from France, Germany, and Spain to create a sixth-generation jet, with an operational rollout planned for 2040. Aboulafia noted that Spain has a personal interest, including in job creation, with the FCAS. Spain has wavered on the F-35 in recent years, sometimes leaning more toward other fighter types or extending the life of older aircraft. Its recent decision speaks to its new focus on European-made military technologies and comes at a time of anxiety among allies, including Madrid, over their relationship with the US. A focus on European jets Spain's government said this year that 87% of the more than $12 billion it was increasing its defense spending by would go to Spanish companies. El País reported that this commitment was incompatible with any plans to buy fighter jets that were made in the US. Interest has been growing in building out Europe's defense industrial base and buying more homegrown gear. Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, said in March,"We must buy more" European weapons. Part of this drive is Trump, whose rhetoric has created new tensions between the US and its longtime allies. He excluded European allies from peace talks over Russia's invasion of Ukraine, criticized the NATO alliance, and has threatened to annex a European territory. He also said last year that he would "encourage" Russia to attack any NATO member that doesn't spend enough on defense. And the tariffs have been another source of tension. There's a growing wariness among US allies and partners when it comes to weapons technology. Canada's defense minister said that his country was reviewing its contract for F-35s and looking at "other alternatives," the chairman of Denmark's parliamentary defense committee said he regrets choosing the F-35 for his country, and Portugal's defense minister said his country was unsure about plans to move to the F-35, pointing to uncertainties in US reliability as an ally. And politicians across all of Switzerland's political parties also said this week that the country should withdraw or reconsider the planned purchase of 36 F-35As due to the tariffs Trump put on the country. European fighter jet makers have pounced at the opportunity: Eric Trappier, CEO of France's Dassault Aviation, which makes the Mirage and Rafale aircraft, said in March that the company was ready for countries concerned about the F-35 to adopt its Rafale fighter. But despite some of the remarks on the F-35, a widespread shift might not happen. Pivoting to a new type of aircraft would be a huge undertaking for countries that are already committed, and the F-35 is considered a particularly good jet. Aboulafia described the Eurofighter as "equal or better" to the F-35 as an air vehicle, but said the F-35 "has the better mission equipment package by a wide margin." The F-35 is an advanced fifth-generation fighter aircraft. Furthermore, production levels may be a factor. Far fewer Eurofighters are made each year, and FCAS production has not yet begun. Aboulafia said that he believes Europe could build enough fighter jets to cover the demand if it brought all its available models, from Gripens to Rafales, to the table. There are limitations, though. Relying solely on European capabilities means that countries would have to make decisions and potential changes to their force structure. Spain's navy, for example, has an aircraft carrier that is currently equipped with an air wing of aging Harrier jump jets set to retire. The F-35B could serve in that role, but the Eurofighters and other European jets can't. So there would need to be a change. Cancian said that he expects "more reliance on European suppliers, both because of concerns that the United States might not be reliable and the fact that the Europeans are now investing a lot in their defense industrial base, so there's more to choose from and it's maybe more competitive — or will be more." The downside, however, is that if US allies don't pick the F-35, the interoperability with other countries will take a hit. "Since the F-35 is used by so many, including the United States, that makes it easier for other countries to operate with countries that have the same equipment." For now, many NATO members are committed to the F-35: The defense ministries of the UK, Australia, Denmark, and the Netherlands told BI earlier this year that they were unwavering. And Trump hardening his stance against Russia in recent weeks may dull some countries' worries about the relationship, Aboulafia speculated, but there continue to be rifts. Spain is experiencing a very particular tension with the US. Spain is the lowest defense spender in NATO as a proportion of its GDP, at 1.28% in 2024 per NATO estimates. It also requested an exemption to NATO members' proposal to bring defense spending to 5% of GDP. The alliance leaders agreed to the 5% in June, but Spain maintains that increasing its spending to 2.1% is sufficient. Trump called Spain's position "very unfair" to other members and threatened trade ramifications, without giving any details. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez earlier this year said it had become obvious "only Europe will know how to protect Europe" from now on.
News18
05-08-2025
- Politics
- News18
10 Days To Empty: How Vulnerable Is Taiwan's Energy Supply To A China Blockade?
A report revealed Taiwan would exhaust its natural gas reserves in 10 days if China imposed a maritime blockade, highlighting Taiwan's energy vulnerability and conflict risks. Taiwan would exhaust its natural gas reserves in just 10 days if China imposed a maritime blockade, according to a new report by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington-based think tank. The report paints a stark picture of Taiwan's vulnerability in the event of a Chinese military blockade, concluding that the island's coal reserves would last about seven weeks, and oil supplies could run out in roughly 20 weeks. The findings come amid heightened tensions in the Taiwan Strait and follow recent Chinese military exercises that appeared to simulate blockades and attacks on Taiwan's energy infrastructure. Why Does This Matter? Taiwan is heavily dependent on energy imports, sourcing nearly 98% of its fuel from overseas, according to the US International Trade Administration. Natural gas alone powers about 40% of Taiwan's electricity generation, much of it delivered via liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipments. If Beijing were to seal off key maritime gateways, the report suggests Taipei would quickly face an energy crisis- not just in military terms but across homes, hospitals, factories and data centres. What Did The Study Find? The report ran 26 war-gaming scenarios to simulate how a Chinese blockade of Taiwan might play out and how the island and its allies could respond. The study concluded that a blockade would not be a 'low-cost, low-risk" strategy for Beijing. In most simulations, casualties were high on all sides and the blockade frequently escalated into a broader regional conflict. In two of the most extreme scenarios- labelled 'maximum escalation"- the United States intervened militarily, launching strikes on mainland China while Chinese missiles retaliated by targeting US bases in Guam and Japan. The report also argued that a blockade would make for a poor prelude to invasion as the aggressive move would likely deplete key Chinese military assets and alert other countries, strengthening international resistance. Can Taiwan Be Resupplied Like Ukraine? Not easily. The authors- Col Mark Cancian (retired), Matthew Cancian and Eric Heginbotham- warned that applying a 'Ukraine model" of supplying weapons and aid to Taiwan during a crisis would likely fall short. The report said, 'A 'Ukraine strategy' was attractive but insufficient. Taiwan's needs are too great, and in most scenarios, China's blockade was too tight." Even when the US did manage to escort supply convoys through the blockade, the missions were costly and highly risky, with several involving combat scenarios against Chinese forces. view comments Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Business Insider
04-07-2025
- Business
- Business Insider
NATO's big $1.4 trillion bet is seeing long-ignored air defenses coming back in a big way
NATO pledged to massively increase its air defenses as part of soaring defense spending. The aim is to rebuild a capability that the war in Ukraine has shown to be crucial but has been allowed to wither in the West since the end of the Cold War. The heads of government for the 32 members of the decades-old security alliance committed last week to investing 5% of their GDP on defense and security by 2035. The increase, based on current GDP size, could be worth more than $1.4 trillion. NATO's secretary general, Mark Rutte, said that one use for the money will be a "five-fold increase in air defence capabilities." He said the way Russia is fighting proved the need. "We see Russia's deadly terror from the skies over Ukraine every day, and we must be able to defend ourselves from such attacks," he said. Western countries reduced their ground-based air defense arsenals after the end of the Cold War as they found themselves involved in conflicts with much smaller, less powerful adversaries. This war has shown that Western stocks are insufficient. Lacking since the Cold War Western countries have been fighting foes very much unlike Russia. Air superiority has been achieved with ease, enabling ground maneuvers. There hasn't been a pressing need for weapons to shoot down enemy aircraft and ballistic missiles, except in one-off instances. The US and the rest of NATO scaled back their ground-based defenses "very substantially," Mark Cancian, a retired Marine Corps colonel who is now a senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said. During the Cold War, as tensions skyrocketed between NATO and the Soviet Union, Western countries maintained substantial defenses. But in the aftermath, he said, "it appeared that fighter aircraft could handle any air threat, and the need for ground-based air defenses was much reduced." During Operation Desert Storm in the early 1990s, the US took control of the skies, and aircraft largely had free rein in the later wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the main threat being to low-flying aircraft, helicopters in particular. Ed Arnold, a European security expert with the Royal United Services Institute, said that Europe depioritized air defense at the end of the Cold War "because the types of missions that the Europeans were doing were, for example, overseas where you only needed a small sort of section of it to be able to protect your forces in the field." Retired Air Commodore Andrew Curtis, an air warfare expert with a 35-year career in the Royal Air Force, said that there had been "an element of complacency" in recent decades, but also an element of trying to prioritize what was needed when defense budgets shrank as countries felt safer in the post-Cold War era. Russia's war against Ukraine, which followed earlier acts of aggression, suggests the world has changed. But, Curtis said, the West has to some extent been "asleep at the wheel." The problem now, Justin Bronk, an air power expert at RUSI, explained, is "that NATO faces a significant shortfall in ground-based air defense systems, both in terms of number of systems, but also particularly ammunition stocks for those systems." Russia shows they're needed Rutte warned earlier this month that NATO needs "five times as many systems to defend ourselves," and described the speed Russia was reconsituting its military as "threatening." Many European countries have warned Russia could attack elsewhere on the continent and are watching closely to see what weaponry and tactics it needs to be ready. The volume and variety of air attacks against Ukraine have thus made air defenses a top takeaway. Russia can launch hundreds of drones and missiles in a single day, and NATO's air defense networks are not well designed to deal with these kinds of strike threats, like exploding Shahed-136 drones backed by ballistic and cruise missiles. Western countries need more defenses, as there are just so many air attacks. "Even if only 10% get through, that still does a lot of damage," Cancian said. Cancian said innovations in this war, like drones being used more than in any other conflict in history, point to evolutions in warfare that make having strong air defenses more necessary than ever before. Nations aren't just facing planes. It's aircraft, missiles, and drones, all able to bring destruction. And the solutions need to be layered to address threats within their cost range. For instance, high-end Patriot interceptors worth millions of dollars aren't meant for cheap drones worth thousands. Former Australian Army Maj. Gen. Mick Ryan, a warfare strategist, said that countries have to find "a balance" between the expensive systems like the Patriot or the THAAD system, both made by Lockheed Martin, and lower-end systems. Ukraine, for example, uses AI-controlled systems equipped with machine guns to stop some smaller drones, and the US military has been experimenting with air-launched rockets as drone killers. "It's not just all about the exquisite, expensive, and highly capable systems. You also need some of those lower-end systems," the former general said, adding that the last three years have not only shown how important air defenses are, but also "that the array of threats that air defenses have to deal with has broadened." Smaller weapons used in missile attacks, weapons like drones, can "saturate and overwhelm an air defense system" — a tactic Russia has employed. For the West, Europe in particular, the new emphasis on bolstering critical air defenses and the push to spend more aren't optional. "It's not a choice. You absolutely have to do this," Ryan said. It'd be impossibly expensive to protect everywhere, but the West will need to sort its priorities, balancing front-line demands with the protection of civilians in cities, something Ukraine has grappled with throughout the war. Arnold said that "the biggest change, now as Ukraine is seeing, is you also need air defense to protect your civilians, all of your critical national infrastructure, and your forces in the field. So it's absolutely critical." NATO's new defense spending will be huge: No member currently spends that new 5% target, and many spent just over or below 2% in 2024, according to NATO's own estimated figures. But spending doesn't automatically solve the problem. There is a big production backlog with many systems, and increasing production capacity takes years, industrial revitalization, and workforce expertise, much of which has been diminished with time, leading to a hollowing out of the defense industrial sector. Bronk said fixing this "is much more a question of building production capacity at every stage in the supply chain as rapidly as possible as part of a crisis response rather than just spending more money." More production capacity is needed for interceptors. More money and big orders help, though, by giving industry confidence to invest more in facilities and processes, but there has to be sustained investment. Rutte pledged that NATO's increased spending would also be used on "thousands more tanks and armoured vehicles" and "millions of rounds of artillery ammunition," but that many plans are classified.
Hindustan Times
18-06-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
This ‘Bunker Buster' U.S. Bomb Could Cripple Iran's Nuclear Ambitions
The best shot at knocking out the most fortified part of Iran's nuclear program comes down to a giant U.S. bomb that has never been used in war. The GBU-57—also called the Massive Ordnance Penetrator—is a 30,000-pound behemoth encased in a high-density steel alloy designed to plummet through 200 feet of mountain rock before exploding. Military analysts said that large bunker buster has the best chance of getting through to such targets as the Fordow uranium-enrichment facility, which Iran buried under a mountain. Its existence has driven speculation that the U.S. could get involved in Israel's attack. 'This is really what it was designed for,' said Mark Cancian, who matched bombs to targets in the military and later worked at the Pentagon on procurement and budgeting, including for programs like the MOP. Before bunker busters, the military figured it could turn to nuclear weapons to blast through mountains, but those were seen as unpalatable for political reasons, said Cancian, now a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Later, the U.S. worked on a new conventional alternative and spent about $400 million to develop and refine the MOP, he said. The U.S. now has around 20 of the giant explosives, he said, designed to be delivered by B-2 stealth bombers. 'It's a really specialized weapon for a very specialized set of targets that don't come up very often,' Cancian said. Israel on Friday launched a campaign of intelligence operations and hundreds of airstrikes aimed at setting back Iran's nuclear program and hobbling its regime. Israel notched direct hits on Iran's underground centrifuge halls at Natanz, some 140 miles south of Tehran, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. But it has yet to attack Iran's other enrichment site, Fordow, in central Iran, near the holy city of Qom. The U.S., which hasn't joined Israel in the attacks, began building up its military assets in the region in recent days, including bringing in a second aircraft-carrier group. President Trump, who has pushed for a diplomatic solution all year, has turned more bellicose, suggesting Tuesday on social media that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could be killed and calling for unconditional surrender. If the U.S. were to get involved, it would make sense for it to take on hardened targets like Fordow and Natanz, said Mick Mulroy, former U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East. Destroying them could take half a dozen MOPs apiece, he said. The United Nations atomic-energy chief has warned of safety concerns from attacking nuclear sites, but other nuclear experts say the radiation risks of an attack on Fordow are low. The International Atomic Energy Agency reported radiological and chemical contamination inside Natanz, which was bombed Friday, but normal radiation outside. 'If anything were to be dropped on Fordow, there is not a risk of radiation contamination from the attack outside of the site,' said Scott Roecker, vice president for nuclear materials security at the Nuclear Threat Initiative think tank. Israel has a plan for Fordow and the ability to carry it out on its own, a senior Israeli military official said without elaborating. It is also taking a broader view of its mission by attacking Iran's military leadership and nuclear scientists as well as components of the nuclear program itself. Ehud Eilam, a former researcher for Israel's Ministry of Defense, said Israel could send a large number of its own, smaller penetrator bombs to dig their way into Fordow, as Israel did when it killed the Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, in a bunker under Beirut. It could also try a risky commando raid or more-covert means such as cyberattacks and targeted killings, he said. An MOP dropped by a B-2 bomber could be simpler and better. 'The approach with the highest confidence of success would be a U.S. strike,' said William Wechsler, who was deputy assistant defense secretary for special operations under President Barack Obama. Write to Benoit Faucon at Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines to 100 year archives.
Mint
18-06-2025
- Business
- Mint
This ‘bunker buster' US bomb could cripple Iran's nuclear ambitions
The best shot at knocking out the most fortified part of Iran's nuclear program comes down to a giant U.S. bomb that has never been used in war. The GBU-57—also called the Massive Ordnance Penetrator—is a 30,000-pound behemoth encased in a high-density steel alloy designed to plummet through 200 feet of mountain rock before exploding. Military analysts said that large bunker buster has the best chance of getting through to such targets as the Fordow uranium-enrichment facility, which Iran buried under a mountain. Its existence has driven speculation that the U.S. could get involved in Israel's attack. 'This is really what it was designed for," said Mark Cancian, who matched bombs to targets in the military and later worked at the Pentagon on procurement and budgeting, including for programs like the MOP. Before bunker busters, the military figured it could turn to nuclear weapons to blast through mountains, but those were seen as unpalatable for political reasons, said Cancian, now a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Later, the U.S. worked on a new conventional alternative and spent about $400 million to develop and refine the MOP, he said. The U.S. now has around 20 of the giant explosives, he said, designed to be delivered by B-2 stealth bombers. 'It's a really specialized weapon for a very specialized set of targets that don't come up very often," Cancian said. Israel on Friday launched a campaign of intelligence operations and hundreds of airstrikes aimed at setting back Iran's nuclear program and hobbling its regime. Israel notched direct hits on Iran's underground centrifuge halls at Natanz, some 140 miles south of Tehran, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. But it has yet to attack Iran's other enrichment site, Fordow, in central Iran, near the holy city of Qom. The U.S., which hasn't joined Israel in the attacks, began building up its military assets in the region in recent days, including bringing in a second aircraft-carrier group. President Trump, who has pushed for a diplomatic solution all year, has turned more bellicose, suggesting Tuesday on social media that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could be killed and calling for unconditional surrender. If the U.S. were to get involved, it would make sense for it to take on hardened targets like Fordow and Natanz, said Mick Mulroy, former U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East. Destroying them could take half a dozen MOPs apiece, he said. The United Nations atomic-energy chief has warned of safety concerns from attacking nuclear sites, but other nuclear experts say the radiation risks of an attack on Fordow are low. The International Atomic Energy Agency reported radiological and chemical contamination inside Natanz, which was bombed Friday, but normal radiation outside. 'If anything were to be dropped on Fordow, there is not a risk of radiation contamination from the attack outside of the site," said Scott Roecker, vice president for nuclear materials security at the Nuclear Threat Initiative think tank. Israel has a plan for Fordow and the ability to carry it out on its own, a senior Israeli military official said without elaborating. It is also taking a broader view of its mission by attacking Iran's military leadership and nuclear scientists as well as components of the nuclear program itself. Ehud Eilam, a former researcher for Israel's Ministry of Defense, said Israel could send a large number of its own, smaller penetrator bombs to dig their way into Fordow, as Israel did when it killed the Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, in a bunker under Beirut. It could also try a risky commando raid or more-covert means such as cyberattacks and targeted killings, he said. An MOP dropped by a B-2 bomber could be simpler and better. 'The approach with the highest confidence of success would be a U.S. strike," said William Wechsler, who was deputy assistant defense secretary for special operations under President Barack Obama. Write to Benoit Faucon at
