As for whatever an Airbus CEO says, I will note Airbus remains a multinational company including a significant proportion of French shares.
I will also note Tom Enders back in the day emphasised regarding A400M how the company will never again sign a contract for a politically instigated program.
I dont know what Merz said, but the French requirements, ie carrier capability and nuclear capability, were known from day one.
If now political decision-makers propose this as a deal-breaker, they need to resign over being incompetent.
"Alex, this is stupid and self destructive." - Mate, we subsidize like half of the Israeli Navy.
f Berlin was the genius on NatSec it sometimes wants to be, we would sit down with Paris right about now, figuring out a way to afford more than one PA-NG, and leverage this for FCAS. Alas.
While the black and white girl represents a grievious "foster fail" (a foster changing to adoption) on our part, its fair to say she brought balance to the Force in our house, mellowing our two feline boys. Who now compete for her attention, because men are the same everywhere.
I'm not one of those suggesting Berlin should simply transfer all cash to Paris and let them do as they wish. But I can see a vague case for it.
The alternative is that we require a lot, A LOT, of time growing the strategic thinking on NatSec thoroughly vanquished in Germany.
"Very important decisions...postponed again.".
While of great comedic value, a continued delaying of any hard choices & actions on FCAS by Berlin is also an act of political cowardice. It underscores how Germany cannot "lead" on European NatSec strategy.
www.n-tv.de/politik/Berl...
Government confirms the initial reporting on RAN submariners onboard the USN SSN involved in the sinking.
The explanation is that they sat out operations, which probably makes for extended study in bunks or mess.
www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03...
The "if safe to do so" operationally speaking allows such enormous leverage and discretion on behalf of the submarine CO, that for all intents and purposes it frees them from engaging in SAR in the majority of conceivable scenarios.
The law of armed conflict applies whether a war is declared or not. Application is separately defined in any international agreement.
That said no relevant treaty includes an unambiguous & supreme obligation for submarines or any combatants to conduct SAR after sinking an enemy combatant.
By tomorrow someone on social media with a straight face will claim the Montreux Convention forbids American warships any access to the Indian Ocean, and Iranian frigates are in fact protected from being fired upon by papal dispensation.
For what its worth, this really just reinforces my view of popular polling having little to no weight for NatSec decision-making. Its more of a topic for the gossip column of reporting.
When RN can send more than one DDG, maybe I acknowledge them as a Mediterranean naval power. 😉
All of which except the UK are mediterranean military and especially naval powers. So I think this is hardly surprising, no matter what European framework there would be.
"The initial plan was to equip them with the MK48 torpedoes from the current Walrus fleet. The Ministry of Defence has now decided against this plan because accelerated replacement of the MK48 appears feasible."
I suspect the word really is "unavoidable".
www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2...
Und das ist immer wieder der Knackpunkt, wenn in Politik oder Streitkraeften behauptet wird, man waere ja transparent mit der Berichtspflicht an den Bundestag. Wo die Kompetent, zu verstehen, worum es geht, weiterhin extrem ueberschaubar ist.
Wenn man Artikel liest, ist zu erkennen, dass dieses mulmige Gefuehl nur beim Autor, und nicht in den USA oder Israel umgeht.
Several aspects on the Iranian frigate sinking for other, future conduct of operations to wonder about.
The Iranian Navy, which for years paraded warships in dog & pony shows seeking prestige & respect, finally meeting someone taking them at their word shouldnt be among them.
Probably safe to guess this wont be the only combatant loss for the Iranian Navy (no, the "carrier" doesnt count).
www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2...
Anyway, these are just random thoughts off the top of my head. Undoubtedly over the next few years we will get some significant additional insights into PLAN submarine development and posture. Some of which will IMO dramatically impact assessments for other navies. /end
There are of course some interesting UUV-developments China appears to be actively evaluating. Unfortunately, the most interesting ones rarely appear in imagery of reasonable quality. China likely developed the largest UUV designs worldwide. But future posture remains tbc.
I am unsurprised at the relative paucity in UUV revelations. The comments generally support my impression that while PLAN undoubtedly pursues UUVs like everyone else, it is not a priority compared to spending on "legacy" designs such as SSN, SSGN and other crewed innovations.
The Zhou-type remains a big mystery for now, but the comments for intended production of at least three Zhous over the next few years is notable. It would explain why Type 039C production appears to have slowed or stopped, while Wuchang completes the Pakistan-contract.
This is because the curious new "trimaran submersible" appears to have originated at Huangpu, suggesting some level of submarine production expertise. Note that Huangpu is a historical producer of submarines as well, having participated in Type 033 production.
More recently JN appears to have halted submarine production, but notably producing at least one experimental design (the "sailless submarine"), which remains at the yard.
Does this report indicate resumption of production? Perhaps. The other candidate could be Huangpu.
As for questions on what the three yards are: Wuchang and Bohai are obvious. The third yard historically for submarine production has been Jiangnan, which has contributed output from the earliest days (Type 033, 035, Type 039, and some of the Type 039A/B).
Interesting testimony on PLAN submarine development. Note comments on expansion of submarine production at three yards. Also on the mysterious Zhou-type produced by Wuchang in 2024, and of course PLAN rebalancing towards a significant nuclear powered submarine force.
www.uscc.gov/sites/defaul...
I think both the Type 903 and Type 901 are quite good looking oilers, yes.
The Chinese Navy has taken into service two additional Type 903-series fleet replenishment oilers 🇨🇳
By @alxluck.bsky.social
www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2...
I've written a short piece on recent PLAN inductions of two new Type 903-series replenishment oilers, for @navalnews.com. Auxiliaries remain a somewhat underappreciated, but critical naval capability. Any changes in this respect are always consequential.
www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2...
