Latest news with #F-35
Powys County Times
3 hours ago
- General
- Powys County Times
MP Steve Witherden demands government response on Gaza
The UK Government must suspend all arms exports to Israel to remove the risk of British-made weapons being used to 'ethnically cleanse' Palestinians, the Commons has heard. Labour MP Steve Witherden said Gaza is 'already a slaughterhouse' as he urged ministers to detail their 'red line' which would halt further exports. The MP for Montgomeryshire and Glyndwr added the 'true scale' of UK military exports to Israel 'remains unknown and unaccountable' before raising questions over the supply of 'crucial' components to Israel connected to the F-35 fighter jet programme. Business minister Douglas Alexander said the UK Government is not selling F-35 components 'directly to the Israeli authorities' and the export licence prevents 'direct shipments for Israel for use in Israel'. MPs were told the UK's exports of spare F-35 parts are part of a global supply network and exporters have 'no sight and no control over the specific ultimate end users for their export'. In September last year, Foreign Secretary David Lammy announced the suspension of around 30 arms sale licences to Israel amid concerns a 'clear risk' exists that they could be used to breach international humanitarian law. The Government said exports to the global F-35 programme would be excluded from the suspension decision, except where going directly to Israel, to avoid 'prejudicing the entire' scheme. Al-Haq, a Palestinian human rights organisation, which has brought a legal action against the Department for Business and Trade over its decisions, said the 'carve-out' gives 'rise to a significant risk of facilitating crime'. Mr Witherden, leading an adjournment debate on arms and military cargo export controls and Israel, told the Commons: 'The Foreign Secretary's recent condemnation of Israel's action as 'monstrous' was welcome but incomplete for my very same Government continues to facilitate such actions. 'We cannot have it both ways. We cannot condemn atrocity whilst simultaneously fuelling the machinery that enables it. We cannot claim to uphold international law while profiting from its breach.' Mr Witherden raised several issues, including asking the Government to explain how it defines 'defensive' weapons and what makes an F-35 component compatible with this definition. He said: 'It's the Government's position that the need to continue to supply F-35 components outweighs the risk of genocide and, if so, is there any circumstance that would lead to the UK stopping that supply? 'The Government has claimed that there are red lines that would trigger a halt to exports, but Gaza is already a slaughterhouse. 'Children are emaciated or dying of hunger. Hospitals have been intentionally destroyed. Israel's leaders vow to wipe out Gaza and still the weapons flow. 'So finally I ask the minister where is our red line? I call on this Government to suspend all arms exports to Israel to ensure that no British-made weapons are used in Israel's brutal plans to annexe, starve and ethnically cleanse the Palestinian population. 'The credibility of this House depends not just on what we condemn but on what we enable and history will remember we enabled too much.' Mr Alexander began by condemning the 'act of barbarism' by Hamas in Israel on October 7 2023, which killed around 1,200 people, before he warned that Israel's operations have been 'indefensible', 'disproportionate' and 'counterproductive to any lasting peace settlement'. The minister reiterated that the UK Government in September last year suspended arms exports licences for items to the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) that could be used in military operations in Gaza. 'There are a relatively small number of licences for the IDF relating to equipment which we assess would not be used in the current conflict, including – for example – parts of air defence systems that defend Israel from acts such as the major aerial attack from Iran in April 2024," he added. 'We also think it is right for us to continue providing military grade body armour used by non-governmental organisations and journalists and to provide parts to the supply chain which are ultimately re-exported back out of Israel to support the defence of our Nato allies.'
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
What are rare earth minerals, and why are they central to Trump's trade war?
The US trade war with China has a major sticking point: rare earths minerals. Last month, President Donald Trump said the United States needed Greenland 'very badly,' renewing his threat to annex the Danish territory. Greenland is a resource-rich island with a plentiful supply of critical minerals, a category that also includes rare earths elements, under its ice sheet. Trump also signed a 'rare earth deal' with Ukraine. The tussle over rare earths precedes the current administration. China for years has built up near-total control of the materials as part of its wider industrial policy. Here's what you need to know about rare earths. Rare earths are 17 metallic elements in the periodic table made up of scandium, yttrium and the lanthanides. The name 'rare earths' is a bit of a misnomer, as the materials are found throughout the Earth's crust. They are more abundant than gold, but they are difficult and costly to extract and process, and also environmentally damaging. Rare earths are ubiquitous in the technologies we rely on every day, from smartphones to wind turbines to LED lights and flat-screen TVs. They're also crucial for batteries in electric vehicles as well as MRI scanners and cancer treatments. Rare earths are also essential for the US military. They're used in F-35 fighter jets, submarines, lasers, satellites, Tomahawk missiles and more, according to a 2025 research note from CSIS. The International Energy Agency said 61% of mined rare earth production comes from China, and the country controls 92% of the global output in the processing stage. There's two types of rare earths, categorized by their atomic weights: heavy and light. Heavy rare earths are more scarce, and the United States doesn't have the capabilities for the tough task of separating rare earths after extraction. 'Until the start of the year, whatever heavy rare earths we did mine in California, we still sent to China for separation,' Gracelin Baskaran, director of the Critical Minerals Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told CNN. However, the Trump administration's announcement of sky-high tariffs on China in April derailed this process. 'China has shown a willingness to weaponize' America's reliance on China for rare earths separation, she said. The US has one operational rare earth mine in California, according to Baskaran. On Friday, Trump said on Truth Social that China violated a trade truce put in place last month. Beijing has kept its export controls on seven rare earth minerals and associated products, which were seen as a response to Trump's 'reciprocal tariffs' on Chinese goods announced in April. After agreeing on the truce in Geneva, US officials had expected China to ease export restrictions on those minerals. The export controls could have a major impact, since the US is heavily reliant on China for rare earths. Between 2020 and 2023, 70% of US imports of rare earth compounds and metals came from the country, according to a US Geological Survey report. Beyond China, rare earths are also featured in US foreign policy objectives with Ukraine, Greenland and Saudi Arabia. 'Ukraine is a very, very nascent mining industry, and even though it was a part of the conversation, we don't actually have a mapping of what's economically viable,' Baskaran said. CNN's Nectar Gan and John Liu contributed to this report.
Time of India
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Operation Spiderweb shows how small $400 drones deliver big blows to Russia's $7 billion fighter jets
On 1 June, Ukraine launched Operation Spiderweb, a daring drone offensive deep into Russian territory, disabling over 40 high-value military aircraft. Using cheap, first-person-view (FPV) drones smuggled into Russia and launched from hidden truck compartments, Kyiv inflicted billions in damages—at a fraction of the cost. The attack not only exposed critical gaps in Russia's defences but also signalled a shift in global warfare. With each drone costing under $1,000, the future of expensive fighter jets like the F-35 may be in question. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Operation Spiderweb: Targets spanned five time zones Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Drones vs F-35 jets: An inflection point in modern warfare Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Drones are changing the battlefield faster than strategy can keep up Russia's layered air defences proved inadequate A war of drones, not jets Heavy bomber losses and strategic risk Nuclear proximity raises global concerns Ukraine struck at the heart of Russia's air power on 1 June in one of its most daring operations of the war—codenamed Operation Spiderweb . Over 100 low-cost, first-person-view (FPV) drones hit air bases in five Russian regions, damaging at least 41 military aircraft including Tu-95, Tu-22M, and A-50 strategic to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the 'brilliant' strike had been under development for 18 months. In his nightly address, he said, 'It took one year, six months, and nine days from the start of planning to effective execution.'Zelenskyy also revealed that the operation was run from an office near the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) headquarters. A Ukrainian military source described it as 'extremely complex', involving the smuggling of drones hidden inside wooden mobile houses mounted on trucks.'Later, drones were hidden under the roofs of these houses while already placed on trucks. At the right moment, the roofs of the houses were remotely opened, and the drones flew to hit Russian bombers,' the source Defence Ministry confirmed the strikes occurred across five regions: Murmansk, Irkutsk, Ivanovo, Ryazan , and Amur. These locations span more than 7,000 kilometres—underscoring the depth of Ukraine's social media showed video clips of drones rising from containers and men attempting to interfere with their launch. Satellite imagery later revealed severe damage to aircraft stationed at these sites. At Irkutsk's Belaya air base, multiple Tu-22M3 bombers were seen official response downplayed the scale, labelling the attack 'a terrorist act'. However, Russian military bloggers admitted the operation had seriously weakened Russia's long-range air Olenya Air Base in the Murmansk region, footage shared by Russian air defence personnel showed multiple Tu-95MS bombers ablaze. Unverified but credible reports suggest two Tu-95MS aircraft were destroyed and two others damaged, along with one An-12 Cub transport aircraft. Olenya, on the Kola Peninsula, is home to the 40th Composite Aviation Regiment, which operates Tu-22M3 strike at Belaya Air Base near Irkutsk may have been even more damaging. Satellite images analysed by defence observers indicate that at least three Tu-95MS bombers were destroyed, with another possibly damaged, and as many as four Tu-22M3s attacks were reported at Dyagilevo and Ivanovo air bases. Dyagilevo, in Ryazan, is a known training centre for Russia's Long-Range Aviation fleet. Ivanovo, located northeast of Moscow, hosts Russia's A-50 airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft, though most are currently forward deployed. The A-50s play a critical role in Russia's air defence confirmed attacks in the Murmansk, Irkutsk, Ryazan, Ivanovo, and Amur regions. The Ministry of Defence admitted that 'several' aircraft were set ablaze in Murmansk and Irkutsk, effectively confirming that Olenya and Belaya were hit.A separate incident in the Amur region, near Ukrainka Air Base, may have involved a truck filled with drones. Videos from the scene show the vehicle burning before reaching its intended most striking aspect of Operation Spiderweb lies in its cost-efficiency. While each F-35 fighter jet costs upwards of $80 million, Ukraine reportedly used drones worth as little as $500 to disable aircraft collectively valued at over $7 according to defence analysts, reflects a broader shift in warfare—where tactical innovation can now outweigh brute force and expensive Musk, CEO of SpaceX and former adviser to Donald Trump on federal spending, criticised continued reliance on manned fighter jets. In a pointed post, Musk wrote, 'Manned fighter jets are obsolete in the age of drones anyway. Will just get pilots killed.'Musk's remarks came shortly before Trump proposed selling F-35s to India—an offer that New Delhi has not yet accepted. Instead, the Indian government has focused on expanding its domestic drone aerial vehicles ( UAVs ) have been used in war since the early 20th century. But Ukraine has scaled up their use to an unprecedented degree. Nearly every Ukrainian brigade now has a drone unit, using small UAVs for both reconnaissance and direct this year, Ukraine aimed to manufacture one million FPV drones. By October, Zelenskyy claimed the nation could produce up to 4 million drones, flown manually by operators, have proven capable of tracking and striking moving targets with high accuracy. Though their payloads are limited compared to traditional artillery, their precision and accessibility make them a key tool in Ukraine's unlike jets that require air superiority, refuelling tankers, or satellite support, these drones can be launched from the back of a its vast geography and heavily fortified bases, Russia was unable to stop the drone offensive. The slow-flying, low-altitude drones reportedly evaded radar by launching from inside Russia—essentially bypassing perimeter detection strike exposed vulnerabilities at airfields like Engels, Belaya, and Olenya—once thought to be secure. These bases lacked proper counter-drone defences, especially systems to detect low-tech, loitering munitions launched from ground bloggers, usually quick to defend Russian forces, acknowledged the attack's effectiveness. Some even questioned why key aircraft had not been moved, despite the high alert following Russia's own massive drone barrage against Ukraine on 31 to Ukrainian military estimates, the attacks destroyed around 40 aircraft, causing damage worth approximately $7 billion. That figure is difficult to confirm due to the unknown extent of damage and the age of the aircraft, many of which are no longer in drones were once viewed as a supplementary technology, Ukraine has turned them into frontline assets. Countries like China, Türkiye, and Israel dominate the drone export market. Yet Ukraine has demonstrated that domestic production, tactical creativity, and minimal resources can produce strategic India, similar trends are visible. During May's Operation Sindoor, India deployed homegrown kamikaze drones like SkyStriker and Nagastra-1. Developed by Bengaluru-based Alpha Design Technologies in partnership with Israel's Elbit Systems, SkyStriker drones were used for precision strikes. Surveillance was carried out using Hawk drones from Zuppa Geo Navigation Ulrike Franke of the European Council on Foreign Relations put it, mass production and affordability can compensate for the lack of high-end features—if employed bombers targeted in these strikes—particularly the Tu-95MS and Tu-22M3—form the backbone of Russia's strategic airstrike capability. Most were built during the Cold War, and Russia lacks the industrial capacity to replace them at Tu-95MS, or Bear-H, is a four-engine turboprop bomber designed in the 1950s and updated through the 1980s to carry cruise missiles. Russia entered the war with fewer than 50 Tu-95MS bombers. If reports of five confirmed losses are accurate, it would mark a 10% reduction in the fleet—a major operational Tu-22M3, known as the Backfire, is a swing-wing bomber capable of delivering free-fall bombs and long-range missiles. While more numerous, its upgrade programme has been slow. Russia began the war with around 60 Tu-22M3s, but has suffered further attrition since is no confirmation yet that any Tu-160 Blackjacks—the most modern and valuable Russian bombers—were destroyed. But even limited losses across all three strategic bomber types would stretch Russia's capacity to sustain long-range Tu-160, Russia's most advanced bomber, is being slowly supplemented by new-build Tu-160Ms. Each of these is valued at over $270 million, though Russian expert Piotr Butowski believes the cost is likely 'underestimated,' and said, 'in the current circumstances, I would add another 50 percent.'The Tu-160M, he added, 'is the only aircraft that is currently in production, so its price can be estimated.' By contrast, estimating the cost of the Tu-95MS is difficult: 'How to estimate the price of the Tu-95MS, which has not been produced for 30-plus years and has no replacement? Its value to the Russian air force is greater than money.'While Russia has plans to build up to 50 new Tu-160Ms, only a few prototypes have been completed, and none are in frontline service. Even if construction ramps up, these bombers cannot be produced final element of Operation Spiderweb has heightened international attention: the drones struck strategic bombers capable of carrying nuclear no nuclear command facilities or warheads were targeted, the attack on platforms like the Tu-95 sent an unmissable message. For Russia, these bombers are a core element of its nuclear deterrence drone attacks appear to have dealt a rare, large-scale blow to the most flexible leg of Russia's nuclear triad. The long-range bombers are not just used to launch cruise missiles into Ukraine, but are part of Moscow's strategic nuclear deterrent, regularly patrolling regions as distant as the Arctic, Europe, and even the attacks may not yet provoke a strategic escalation, but they mark a serious dent in Russia's deterrence credibility. Moscow has repeatedly stated that strikes on strategic military assets could cross a 'red line.' Yet, similar attacks have taken place over the past two years, albeit none on this even a fraction of the reported damage proves accurate, Ukraine's latest drone operation could reshape the long-term trajectory of Russia's air war—simply because these ageing aircraft cannot be without an escalation, the implications are serious. If such assets can be hit by cheap drones, it raises fresh questions about deterrence credibility and strategic stability.(with inputs from NYT , agencies)
New European
14 hours ago
- Business
- New European
Britain enters a new nuclear age
Alongside an ambitious plan to build up to 12 new attack submarines, and to create jobs in six new ammunition factories, one of the most striking commitments is to enter discussions with the USA aimed at 'enhanced participation in Nato's nuclear mission'. This innocuous sounding sentence represents a big change in nuclear posture. Make no mistake: today's Strategic Defence Review marks the start of British rearmament. Not only does it signal the UK's commitment to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP, but to a type of spending designed to enhance the UK's strategic clout in the world. At present, only Belgium, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands host US-owned tactical nuclear bombs, with their aircraft designed to be 'dual capable' of delivering such bombs on target. The UK, which lacks tactical nuclear weapons, could now volunteer to do likewise, but would need to buy a different variant of the F-35 combat aircraft than the one that is flown from the Royal Navy's carriers. That would be a major change in nuclear policy – because the British deterrent has, since the 1990s, been strategic-only. As I've argued here before, we need a wider range of options because Putin is now making regular threats to use nukes against Nato, and tactical nukes against Ukraine – so it makes sense to place more of Nato's collective nuclear armoury closer to the front line, and distributed among a larger number of allies. Over and above deterring Russian aggression, almost everything Labour has announced today looks designed to achieve three things: to boost Britain's influence among its allies, to deliver high skilled jobs to places where they are scarce, and to get ahead of the game in the military technologies of the future. These don't only include drones – though the spectacular Ukrainian strike on Russia's strategic bomber fleet on Sunday shows that we've hardly even begun to understand their power. The technological arms race is now focused on niche areas of science – like nanotech, materials and quantum computing – and Labour, to its credit, has understood that it in any conflict with Russia it is the science labs of Oxbridge, Imperial and Edinburgh, not the 'playing fields of Eton', that might be decisive. Suggested Reading We must take a nuclear leap into the unknown Paul Mason For the armed forces, often bound by tradition and prone to inter-service rivalry, making the SDR work will be a challenge. Because in every domain of warfare – land, air, sea, space and cyberspace – they face the same problem: they are running decades-old kit designed for an era when Britain could choose which wars it fights, while at the same time moving to a completely new, digitally enabled way of fighting, in which technological change never stops. In this context, faced with a Russia that has turned itself into a war economy, and itself learned to innovate rapidly – deterrence comes down to showing Putin that our own industry, science and digital technology base could crank itself up to speed, and indeed surpass what Russia itself could achieve. For me, the most basic task of the SDR was to assess the scale of the Russian threat and offer the electorate an honest proposal of how to meet it – within our means. Though it might sound simple to achieve, it was not achieved at any point during 14 years of Conservative government, above all after 2020, when Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings declared a 'tilt' of security priorities towards Asia, while systematically underfunding the ministry of defence. Labour reversed that stance, declaring from day one that its priority is: 'Nato First'. The SDR places maritime warfare as the highest priority and designates the Atlantic and the Arctic as the UK's prime areas of interest. There's been a row today over the precise form of words Keir Starmer is using – describing the 3% target in the 2030s as an ambition. I think it's clear that Labour means to find the money to achieve that – but it stands way outside the term of UK fiscal forecasting, and no chancellor would allow it to be stated as a firm commitment outside of a budget statement. The real question with the SDR is: do the capabilities match the threats? The answer is: only if you believe Russia can be deterred through Nato remaining cohesive and the UK leading an enhancement of continent-wide nuclear deterrence. If it cannot, then 3, 4 or even 5% won't be enough. In 1939, after seven years of rearmament, Britain's defence budget was 9% of GDP – and once war broke out it rose above 50%. Today's focus on the big stuff – submarines, which are the capital ships of the 21st century, and a £15bn upgrade to nuclear warheads – reflects Starmer's determination for this country to avoid any impression that it wants to be 'Little Britain'. With a cash-strapped treasury, it is a decision to spend on what's strategic, and rely on allies for that which is not. There is even the promise, thinking long term, to specify within this parliament a replacement for the Dreadnought submarines, currently being built at Barrow: and they don't even go out of service until 2050. I would like to have seen more spending and faster – above all because defence industrial investment is one of the surest ways to boost growth and social cohesion in communities that have seen too little of it. But until Labour can win the argument with the British people that they need to pay more tax, and tolerate more borrowing to fund defence, progress is going to be incremental. That, in turn, will depend on the outcome of Ukraine's peace negotiations with Russia. If they fail – and that looks likely – people may wake up to the fact that the prospect of endless war on our doorstep requires a change of attitude to defence. In that sense, the SDR was the start, not the end, of something.
ITV News
15 hours ago
- Business
- ITV News
Ensure no UK-made weapons used to ‘ethnically cleanse' Palestinians, MP urges
The UK Government must suspend all arms exports to Israel to remove the risk of British-made weapons being used to 'ethnically cleanse' Palestinians, the Commons has heard. Labour MP Steve Witherden said Gaza is 'already a slaughterhouse' as he urged ministers to detail their 'red line' which would halt further exports. The MP for Montgomeryshire and Glyndwr added the 'true scale' of UK military exports to Israel 'remains unknown and unaccountable' before raising questions over the supply of 'crucial' components to Israel connected to the F-35 fighter jet programme. We cannot condemn atrocity whilst simultaneously fuelling the machinery that enables it. Labour MP Steve Witherden Business minister Douglas Alexander said the UK Government is not selling F-35 components 'directly to the Israeli authorities' and the export licence prevents 'direct shipments for Israel for use in Israel'. MPs were told the UK's exports of spare F-35 parts are part of a global supply network and exporters have 'no sight and no control over the specific ultimate end users for their export'. In September last year, Foreign Secretary David Lammy announced the suspension of around 30 arms sale licences to Israel amid concerns a 'clear risk' exists that they could be used to breach international humanitarian law. The Government said exports to the global F-35 programme would be excluded from the suspension decision, except where going directly to Israel, to avoid 'prejudicing the entire' scheme. Al-Haq, a Palestinian human rights organisation, which has brought a legal action against the Department for Business and Trade over its decisions, said the 'carve-out' gives 'rise to a significant risk of facilitating crime'. Mr Witherden, leading an adjournment debate on arms and military cargo export controls and Israel, told the Commons: 'The Foreign Secretary's recent condemnation of Israel's action as 'monstrous' was welcome but incomplete for my very same Government continues to facilitate such actions. 'We cannot have it both ways. We cannot condemn atrocity whilst simultaneously fuelling the machinery that enables it. We cannot claim to uphold international law while profiting from its breach.' Mr Witherden raised several issues, including asking the Government to explain how it defines 'defensive' weapons and what makes an F-35 component compatible with this definition. He said: 'It's the Government's position that the need to continue to supply F-35 components outweighs the risk of genocide and, if so, is there any circumstance that would lead to the UK stopping that supply? 'The Government has claimed that there are red lines that would trigger a halt to exports, but Gaza is already a slaughterhouse. 'Children are emaciated or dying of hunger. Hospitals have been intentionally destroyed. Israel's leaders vow to wipe out Gaza and still the weapons flow. 'So finally I ask the minister where is our red line? I call on this Government to suspend all arms exports to Israel to ensure that no British-made weapons are used in Israel's brutal plans to annexe, starve and ethnically cleanse the Palestinian population. 'The credibility of this House depends not just on what we condemn but on what we enable and history will remember we enabled too much.' Mr Alexander began by condemning the 'act of barbarism' by Hamas in Israel on October 7 2023, which killed around 1,200 people, before he warned that Israel's operations have been 'indefensible', 'disproportionate' and 'counterproductive to any lasting peace settlement'. The minister reiterated that the UK Government in September last year suspended arms exports licences for items to the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) that could be used in military operations in Gaza. He said: 'This measure is still in place and I'd like to reiterate that based on our current assessment of potential breaches of international humanitarian law, we are not licencing military equipment provided directly to the IDF that could be used for military operations in Gaza. 'It is right to acknowledge that our export licences granted in relation to Israel cover a wider remit than simply those items that may be used in Gaza. 'There are a relatively small number of licences for the IDF relating to equipment which we assess would not be used in the current conflict, including – for example – parts of air defence systems that defend Israel from acts such as the major aerial attack from Iran in April 2024. 'We also think it is right for us to continue providing military grade body armour used by non-governmental organisations and journalists and to provide parts to the supply chain which are ultimately re-exported back out of Israel to support the defence of our Nato allies.' Mr Alexander also said: 'Undermining the F-35 programme at this juncture would, in the view of the Government, disrupt international peace and security, Nato deterrence and European defence as a whole. 'In relation to components for the F-35 aircraft, our exporters provide these to a global spares pool and the common production line for new aircraft where they have no sight and no control over the specific ultimate end users for their export. 'Put plainly, it is not possible to suspend licencing of F-35 components for use by one F-35 nation without ceasing supply to the entire global F-35 programme. It was therefore judged necessary by the Government to exclude F-35 components from the scope of the suspension. 'But let me be very clear, the UK Government is not selling F-35 components directly to the Israeli authorities and the licence that allows the export of F-35 components was amended in September to specifically make clear that direct shipments for Israel for use in Israel are not permitted.'
