southfront--2020-07-18--The Virus And The US ‘Defense’ Industry: A Bit Less ‘Free Market’ Capitalism, A Bit More Strategic P

The Virus And The US ‘Defense’ Industry: A Bit Less ‘Free Market’ Capitalism, A Bit More Strategic Planning In Order?

Two recent articles , one in Defenseone.com and the other in Military.com , highlight different though not entirely unrelated aspects of the dis-functionality that has steadily encroached ever deeper into the US ’ military-industrial complex , and how the situation can be addressed .
The first reviews structural and procedural impediments affecting the planning , procurement and development of advanced aircraft , and summarizes the arguments of a top Air Force official who warned earlier this week that the United States might need to nationalize parts of the military aviation sector if the Pentagon does not come up with new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ competition in private industry .
The second article notes that the pandemic crisis has served as an incentive to consolidate the military production chain in a way that can benefit US technological and industrial capacity and thereby generate additional economic and employment benefits , as well as addressing security and resilience weaknesses inevitably associated with extensive overseas outsourcing of key components and technological processes .
A fundamental aspect of the military-industrial complex that escapes the attention of both analyses , however , is the role of the financial overlords that rule it all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behind Russia in particular in the development of the most advanced high-tech weapons systems and platforms in many sectors has become increasingly apparent , despite the fact that Russia has about one tenth the military budget of the US .
The US weapons procurement and production system is characterized by isolated financial-industrial combines that have minimal interoperability as they compete to secure long-term supply contracts that will lock them into guaranteed production contracts for many years .
The competition between conglomerates prevents cooperation among the country ’ s best scientific and engineering teams @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of effort on key elements of procurement and development of new technologies .
For example , while one of the conglomerate ’ s research units may have solved an obstacle related to , say , optimal fuel composition for a specific engine type , research teams at the other conglomerates may still be spending millions of dollars and thousands of research hours on finding a solution to the same obstacle .
Many aspects of how these conceptual dilemmas and structural realities are affecting the US ’ ability to develop advanced high-technology weapons systems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revealed in the article by Defenseone.com , which reviews the comments of , Will Roper , the head of Air Force acquisition , at a forum earlier this week as the Air Force finalizes ambitious plans to buy a new series of combat fighter jets called the Digital Century Series .
Numerous anomalies have resulted from strictly isolated R & D and production systems .
Lockheed Martin and Boeing are the only US companies that make tactical fighter jets .
Boeing ’ s F-15 Eagle and F/A-18 Super Hornet are considered a generation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ F-35 Lightning II .
Boeing and Sweden ’ s Saab are building the new T-7 pilot training jet .
Northrop Grumman is the only US manufacturer of a heavy bomber .
Boeing ’ s KC-46 is the only aerial tanker in serial production and Lockheed ’ s C-130 Super Hercules tactical transport is the only military cargo plane in production .
There are no strategic , long-range military transports in production .
The isolation and fragmentation of final products has associated affects throughout the production chain , from strategic planning and scientific research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ construction and production of components and the final product .
At a public forum Will Roper discussed some of the difficulties he faces as the head of Airforce acquisition , and some of the alternatives for moving forward .
Thus many separate but interconnected elements of the planning , design and development process are involved , not just in terms of adjusting strategic planning and management needs to existing structural and corporate realities , but also providing satisfying career paths and opportunities for individuals and groups that not only enable existing scientific , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most effectively but also to provide for ongoing consolidation and enhancement of that capacity .
In this sense , Roper hopes his Digital Century Series plan will attract a new generation of engineers to the defence sector and provide a model for buying different types of military aircraft .
Roper ’ s project envisions developing and buying plans at a much quicker rate than traditional tactical fighters which often take a decade before they are produced in large quantities .
By that time , technology is already dated and brand new planes must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Digital Century Series is a throwback to the U.S. military ’ s “ Century Series ” fighter jets built in the 1950s and 1960s .
His hope is that new companies can emerge and disrupt the sector , much like Elon Musk ’ s Tesla electric vehicles have disrupted the automobile industry .
“ If our industrial base collapses any more , we ’ ll have to nationalize advanced aviation and maybe other parts of the Air Force that currently are competitive , ” Roper said .
“ But I also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we open up the door to do design frequently , and build things in smaller batches that are between X-planes and mass production , that we will eventually encourage an innovative company to cross over into defense , or companies to start up that just want to build really cool airplanes or satellites , because they don ’ t have to own the big production lines and tooling workforce , which is the only way to work with us today.
” The defense industry has contracted ( SF comment : i.e.
, become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , control and functional and organizational structuring and management ) in recent years following a series of high-profile mergers and acquisitions , the latest being the April mega-merger of United Technologies and Raytheon , which followed UTC ’ s acquisition of Rockwell Collins .
L3 Technologies merged with Harris last year .
Roper said he has been surprised that other top defense officials seem unworried about the shrinking defense industrial base .
“ It ’ s not because the defense industrial base has gotten worse , it ’ s just programs are so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any long-term partner with us in defense tech , you ’ d have to have a pretty diversified portfolio , ” he said .
Roper believes his Digital Century Series plan will lower the military ’ s long-term costs .
Since becoming the Air Force ’ s top weapons buyer in early 2018 , he has been looking for ways to lower the lifetime costs of owning planes .
Roper compared buying weapons to getting a free or deeply discounted mobile phone from a wireless provider which then locks the customer into a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s going to be cheaper to procure airplanes this way than it will be with the major production line , not because the per unit price will be cheaper … but because the total price of ownership is lower , that we will get out the heavy modernization and sustainment costs that really start piling after Year 15 , ” he said .
Roper has pushed for companies to build weapons with open technology , so the Air Force isn ’ t forced to repeatedly pay the company that made a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Everything has to change , ” Roper said .
“ This 21st-century challenge we have simply flies in the face of Cold War acquisition .
We ’ re going to have to use technology available to everyone .
We ’ re not going to be able to own it and have it be exclusive for us .
We ’ ve got to create a business model that … [ empowers the ] defense industry to design systems that are open for technology , especially digital technology that again will be open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defence industry feel about Roper ’ s plan to radically change the way the Air Force buys weapons ?
Not surprisingly , the industry is against any changes that could ` potentially interfere with the structures of ownership and control that they have systematically and meticulously developed over the last few decades .
Thus , one analyst says other countries — Britain , France , Japan , Sweden — have proven that they can keep a single combat aircraft manufacturer alive without formally nationalizing it .
Nationalization is “ an admission that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t think they have failed , ” said Richard Aboulafia , vice president of analysis at the Teal Group aviation consulting firm .
“ The arsenal system was great for the Civil War , where you don ’ t have to respond to market needs in terms of talent and corporate organization , but the real world of aerospace calls for , at the very least , a public-private partnership — nationalization being , kind of the land of the lost , ” Aboulafia said .
Similarly , another industry consultant was dismissive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fundamental re-evaluation of the existing modes of production of the financial-military-industrial process .
The second article , by Military.com , briefly recounts some of the collateral benefits that have resulted from the structural disruptions caused by the Coronavirus outbreak .
The COVID-19 crisis has accelerated Defense Department efforts to secure supply chains against China and bring overseas manufacturing capacity back to the US , according to the Pentagon ’ s acquisitions chief .
“ This has , in a way , been the silver lining for us ” in the pandemic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and sustainment , said at a Ronald Reagan Institute forum aired Thursday .
“ We in government can not let a good crisis go unused here , ” Lord said , adding that the pandemic is “ a wake-up call to do things a little bit differently.
” The crisis has pushed the DoD to accelerate efforts under President Donald Trump ’ s July 2017 executive order to secure supply chains and strengthen the Defense Industrial Base , or DIB , she explained .
“ We identified a lot of single-source , offshore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be produced in the U.S. , including microelectronics , Lord said .
The DoD “ also advanced pharmaceutical ingredients that go into our drugs , ” she said , adding that much of generic drug production now comes from China .
Most chief executives are well aware of the challenges of doing business in China , Lord said , but there “ wasn ’ t really a compelling reason to reshore ” ( ‘ onshore ’ ) and bring the work back to the U.S. until COVID-19 hit .
She stressed her continuing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over U.S. firms through shadow third parties controlled by China .
The major concern is for aircraft manufacturers who supply the DoD , as well as the commercial aircraft industry , she explained .
“ Those dual-use providers have been particularly hard hit , ” as air travel has cratered during the pandemic , Lord said .
“ We have made amazing inroads in coming back up to prior productivity levels ” throughout the Defense Industrial Base despite the pandemic , although shipbuilding and aircraft production have lagged behind , Lord said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ expressed “ continuing concern about ‘ adversarial capital ’ taking over U.S. firms through shadow third parties controlled by China.
” Certainly , each country must take every precaution to ensure that actual and potential adversaries don ’ t get access to the most advanced research and technology , much less infiltrate or worst of all take over the entire research , development and production process .
However , by limiting their perspective to a traditional Nation-State perspective the officials seem trapped in a paradigm that blinds them to the possibility that this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ challenge in conceptual terms is creating an operational environmental that promotes diversification and competition among research efforts , whilst maintaining mechanisms for strategic planning and coordination of efforts to meet national needs .
Another structural and conceptual aspect is , is the profit motive and ‘ free market competition ’ the only way to achieve innovative weapons production ?
However , notwithstanding the compartmentalization of each conglomerate ’ s R & D and production capabilities there is an apparent structural anomaly , in that the major shareholders of each conglomerate are almost identical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not at all free , and a small number of investment funds appear to have captured control of the majority of the largest weapons producers .
Hence , there is a high capability for strategic planning and coordination of effort , and one must assume that this is occurring .
The many billion dollar question is , who is determining the strategic planning parameters and objectives , and on what basis ?
The circular and interlocked ownership of the major investment funds involved prevents a clear answer to this question .
The people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the point of fanatical , about the virtues of ‘ free enterprise ’ , the ‘ pioneering spirit ’ , individual liberty , etc .
These concepts and values certainly have much merit and are to be encouraged .
However , they don ’ t seem to realize that these values have been appropriated and transmuted into malignant forms of predatory capitalism where huge financial and corporate combines claim these same individual values to justify corporate immunity from any form of State regulation and accountability to the public ( reduced to a basic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free market ’ = good ) .
This is not to suggest that the equations should be reversed in a similarly simplistic manner ( State = good , corporations = bad ) , and the analyst ’ s comment above that public-private partnerships can be beneficial can not be reasonably disputed .
But the nature of the specific roles and functions of the respective parties must be carefully identified and considered in each instance .
In the US it seems that the State ( the Presidency , the Congress and all relevant State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or outsourced , most of their strategic capacities and functions to the financial-corporate combines .
Beyond the superficial appearance of ‘ dynamic free market capitalism competition ’ between Boeing , Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman , each is actually controlled by the same three to five key shareholders , with several other investment funds clearly also firmly meshed into the central network of ownership , control and management .
Boeing ’ s largest shareholders are Capital Research & Management ( approximately 14.3 % ) , The Vanguard Group ( 7 % ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Newport Trust ( 5.8 % ) , State Street ( through its investment vehicle , SSgA Funds Management , 4.6 % ) , T. Rowe Price ( 3.5 % ) and BlackRock ( 2.2 % ) .
( The percentages listed are probably underestimates , and sourced from ‘ marketscreener ’ . )
Northrop Grumman ’ s largest shareholders are Capital Research & Management ( 33 % ) , State Street ( 9.9 % ) , Vanguard ( 7.7 % ) , and Massachusetts Financial Services ( 3.5 % ) .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is provided in another study by South Front .
In relation to some of the largest weapons producers and some of the largest corporations of the financial sector the results were as follows : Vngd – Vanguard , BkRk – BlackRock , StSt – State Street , Nwpt – Newport , CapRM – Capital Research & Management , FMR – Fidelity Management & Research Co. – FMR LLC , TRP – T. Rowe Price Associates , Bnk Am – Bank of America , LAC – Longview Asset Management , Norges – Norges Bank @ @ @ @ @ @ @ H – Berkshire Hathaway , Mtbshi – Mitsubishi The difficulty of penetrating the corporate veil to identify real shareholders , the actual people who are directing and benefiting from the activities of these mega-shareholders , results from the fact that the shareholders of Vanguard and BlackRock , for example , are virtual replicas of those listed above .
Some of the mega-shareholders ’ stakes are a bit less , some a bit more , and some other investment funds and corporate vehicles appear , but overall they forma consolidated nucleus of interlocked entities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tail apparent from the surface .
This aspect is also explored in more detail in the earlier South Front article .
The power of these mega-shareholders to appoint directors of the industrial conglomerates flows down from there into the subsequent appointment of senior managers and permeates into every aspect of each industrial combine ’ s activities and subsidiaries .
The phenomenon is by no means limited to the ‘ defense sector ’ , but penetrates all of the most strategic and lucrative sectors of the US economy , as well as those of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meld the worst of unaccountable centralized planning and total control exercised by a small group of corporate executives and shareholders , without the benefits accruing to the American people of the consolidation and coordination of strategic planning , prioritization and management .
There is definitely a form of extremely strategic and centralized planning and management occurring : the very precise allocation of carefully calculated strategic percentages of shares held between a small number of shareholders demonstrates this beyond a doubt .
The paramount question is who is directing this centralized effort , based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clearly isn ’ t the Congress or the Presidency , who depend on these same combines for the money to run their election campaigns , to receive favourable media coverage , etc .
And who is responsible for running the security checks of the people that control and manage the investment funds and the vast array of corporate vehicles that they have progressively brought under their control ?
How do they even identify who they are ?
An excellent study ( Hidden Power of the Big Three : Passive index funds reconcentration of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ analyses some of the structural elements and mechanisms through which the shareholders translate into influence or control over the decisions of specific industrial combines .
However , it gets no closer to identifying the locus of control , ownership and beneficiaries behind ‘ the Big Three ’ and the associated constellation of investment funds .
MORE ON THE TOPIC : • The pinnacle of the pyramid of wealth and power : the buck stops here • Apocalypse soon ?
US still scrambling and surging to develop new high tech weapons systems

Support SouthFront
DEAR FRIENDS. IF YOU LIKE THIS TYPE OF CONTENT, SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT WORK: PayPal: southfront@internet.ru Donation alerts: https://donationalerts.com/r/southfront Gumroad: https://gumroad.com/southfront Or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront, BTC: 3Gbs4rjcVUtQd8p3CiFUCxPLZwRqurezRZ, BCH ABC: qpf2cphc5dkuclkqur7lhj2yuqq9pk3hmukle77vhq, ETH: 0x9f4cda013e354b8fc285bf4b9a60460cee7f7ea9
Two recent articles, one in Defenseone.com and the other in Military.com, highlight different though not entirely unrelated aspects of the dis-functionality that has steadily encroached ever deeper into the US’ military-industrial complex, and how the situation can be addressed.
The first reviews structural and procedural impediments affecting the planning, procurement and development of advanced aircraft, and summarizes the arguments of a top Air Force official who warned earlier this week that the United States might need to nationalize parts of the military aviation sector if the Pentagon does not come up with new ways to buy planes that stimulate more competition in private industry.
The second article notes that the pandemic crisis has served as an incentive to consolidate the military production chain in a way that can benefit US technological and industrial capacity and thereby generate additional economic and employment benefits, as well as addressing security and resilience weaknesses inevitably associated with extensive overseas outsourcing of key components and technological processes.
A fundamental aspect of the military-industrial complex that escapes the attention of both analyses, however, is the role of the financial overlords that rule it all.
That the US has fallen far behind Russia in particular in the development of the most advanced high-tech weapons systems and platforms in many sectors has become increasingly apparent, despite the fact that Russia has about one tenth the military budget of the US.
The US weapons procurement and production system is characterized by isolated financial-industrial combines that have minimal interoperability as they compete to secure long-term supply contracts that will lock them into guaranteed production contracts for many years. The competition between conglomerates prevents cooperation among the country’s best scientific and engineering teams and creates an environment conducive to duplication of effort on key elements of procurement and development of new technologies. For example, while one of the conglomerate’s research units may have solved an obstacle related to, say, optimal fuel composition for a specific engine type, research teams at the other conglomerates may still be spending millions of dollars and thousands of research hours on finding a solution to the same obstacle.
Many aspects of how these conceptual dilemmas and structural realities are affecting the US’ ability to develop advanced high-technology weapons systems and platforms efficiently and cost-effectively are clearly revealed in the article by Defenseone.com, which reviews the comments of, Will Roper, the head of Air Force acquisition, at a forum earlier this week as the Air Force finalizes ambitious plans to buy a new series of combat fighter jets called the Digital Century Series.
Numerous anomalies have resulted from strictly isolated R&D and production systems. Lockheed Martin and Boeing are the only US companies that make tactical fighter jets. Boeing’s F-15 Eagle and F/A-18 Super Hornet are considered a generation behind Lockheed’s F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II. Boeing and Sweden’s Saab are building the new T-7 pilot training jet.
Northrop Grumman is the only US manufacturer of a heavy bomber. Boeing’s KC-46 is the only aerial tanker in serial production and Lockheed’s C-130 Super Hercules tactical transport is the only military cargo plane in production. There are no strategic, long-range military transports in production. The isolation and fragmentation of final products has associated affects throughout the production chain, from strategic planning and scientific research and technological development to individual design, construction and production of components and the final product.
At a public forum Will Roper discussed some of the difficulties he faces as the head of Airforce acquisition, and some of the alternatives for moving forward.
“We have multiple vendors who can still build a high-end, tactical platform,” Roper told reporters. “I think it’s really important that we find a new model where there are no big winners and no big losers, but continual competition.” “Technical talent is at a premium,” he said. “If the design opportunities are so few and far between that joining a defense company means you may get to design one thing in your career … — and that’s if you’re lucky — then that talent will go elsewhere into commercial innovation where the opportunities are more plentiful.”
Thus many separate but interconnected elements of the planning, design and development process are involved, not just in terms of adjusting strategic planning and management needs to existing structural and corporate realities, but also providing satisfying career paths and opportunities for individuals and groups that not only enable existing scientific, technical and managerial talent to be harnessed most effectively but also to provide for ongoing consolidation and enhancement of that capacity.
Defenseone writes:
In this sense, Roper hopes his Digital Century Series plan will attract a new generation of engineers to the defence sector and provide a model for buying different types of military aircraft. Roper’s project envisions developing and buying plans at a much quicker rate than traditional tactical fighters which often take a decade before they are produced in large quantities. By that time, technology is already dated and brand new planes must undergo costly and time consuming upgrade projects. The Digital Century Series is a throwback to the U.S. military’s “Century Series” fighter jets built in the 1950s and 1960s. His hope is that new companies can emerge and disrupt the sector, much like Elon Musk’s Tesla electric vehicles have disrupted the automobile industry. “If our industrial base collapses any more, we’ll have to nationalize advanced aviation and maybe other parts of the Air Force that currently are competitive,” Roper said. “But I also am holding out some hope that if we open up the door to do design frequently, and build things in smaller batches that are between X-planes and mass production, that we will eventually encourage an innovative company to cross over into defense, or companies to start up that just want to build really cool airplanes or satellites, because they don’t have to own the big production lines and tooling workforce, which is the only way to work with us today.” The defense industry has contracted (SF comment: i.e., become even more concentrated in terms of ownership, control and functional and organizational structuring and management) in recent years following a series of high-profile mergers and acquisitions, the latest being the April mega-merger of United Technologies and Raytheon, which followed UTC’s acquisition of Rockwell Collins. L3 Technologies merged with Harris last year. Roper said he has been surprised that other top defense officials seem unworried about the shrinking defense industrial base. “It’s not because the defense industrial base has gotten worse, it’s just programs are so few and far between that to be any long-term partner with us in defense tech, you’d have to have a pretty diversified portfolio,” he said. Roper believes his Digital Century Series plan will lower the military’s long-term costs. Since becoming the Air Force’s top weapons buyer in early 2018, he has been looking for ways to lower the lifetime costs of owning planes. Roper compared buying weapons to getting a free or deeply discounted mobile phone from a wireless provider which then locks the customer into a long-term service contract. “I believe it’s going to be cheaper to procure airplanes this way than it will be with the major production line, not because the per unit price will be cheaper … but because the total price of ownership is lower, that we will get out the heavy modernization and sustainment costs that really start piling after Year 15,” he said. Roper has pushed for companies to build weapons with open technology, so the Air Force isn’t forced to repeatedly pay the company that made a specific weapon for upgrades over its lifetime. “Everything has to change,” Roper said. “This 21st-century challenge we have simply flies in the face of Cold War acquisition. We’re going to have to use technology available to everyone. We’re not going to be able to own it and have it be exclusive for us. We’ve got to create a business model that … [empowers the] defense industry to design systems that are open for technology, especially digital technology that again will be open to everyone.” So how does the defence industry feel about Roper’s plan to radically change the way the Air Force buys weapons? Not surprisingly, the industry is against any changes that could `potentially interfere with the structures of ownership and control that they have systematically and meticulously developed over the last few decades. Thus, one analyst says other countries — Britain, France, Japan, Sweden — have proven that they can keep a single combat aircraft manufacturer alive without formally nationalizing it. Nationalization is “an admission that they have failed miserably and I don’t think they have failed,” said Richard Aboulafia, vice president of analysis at the Teal Group aviation consulting firm. “The arsenal system was great for the Civil War, where you don’t have to respond to market needs in terms of talent and corporate organization, but the real world of aerospace calls for, at the very least, a public-private partnership — nationalization being, kind of the land of the lost,” Aboulafia said.
Similarly, another industry consultant was dismissive of the possible benefits of carrying out a fundamental re-evaluation of the existing modes of production of the financial-military-industrial process.
“The Digital Century Series may help America win the tech war with China while making it more likely our military loses in a real war,” defence industry analyst and consultant Loren Thompson wrote in Forbes earlier this year. LINK
The second article, by Military.com, briefly recounts some of the collateral benefits that have resulted from the structural disruptions caused by the Coronavirus outbreak.
The COVID-19 crisis has accelerated Defense Department efforts to secure supply chains against China and bring overseas manufacturing capacity back to the US, according to the Pentagon’s acquisitions chief. “This has, in a way, been the silver lining for us” in the pandemic, Ellen Lord, the undersecretary for acquisition and sustainment, said at a Ronald Reagan Institute forum aired Thursday. “We in government cannot let a good crisis go unused here,” Lord said, adding that the pandemic is “a wake-up call to do things a little bit differently.” The crisis has pushed the DoD to accelerate efforts under President Donald Trump’s July 2017 executive order to secure supply chains and strengthen the Defense Industrial Base, or DIB, she explained. “We identified a lot of single-source, offshore supply chain critical items” that could be produced in the U.S., including microelectronics, Lord said. The DoD “also advanced pharmaceutical ingredients that go into our drugs,” she said, adding that much of generic drug production now comes from China. Most chief executives are well aware of the challenges of doing business in China, Lord said, but there “wasn’t really a compelling reason to reshore” (‘onshore’) and bring the work back to the U.S. until COVID-19 hit. She stressed her continuing concern about “adversarial capital” taking over U.S. firms through shadow third parties controlled by China. The major concern is for aircraft manufacturers who supply the DoD, as well as the commercial aircraft industry, she explained. “Those dual-use providers have been particularly hard hit,” as air travel has cratered during the pandemic, Lord said. “We have made amazing inroads in coming back up to prior productivity levels” throughout the Defense Industrial Base despite the pandemic, although shipbuilding and aircraft production have lagged behind, Lord said.
The official quoted in the second article expressed “continuing concern about ‘adversarial capital’ taking over U.S. firms through shadow third parties controlled by China.” Certainly, each country must take every precaution to ensure that actual and potential adversaries don’t get access to the most advanced research and technology, much less infiltrate or worst of all take over the entire research, development and production process. However, by limiting their perspective to a traditional Nation-State perspective the officials seem trapped in a paradigm that blinds them to the possibility that this may have already occurred.
The fundamental challenge in conceptual terms is creating an operational environmental that promotes diversification and competition among research efforts, whilst maintaining mechanisms for strategic planning and coordination of efforts to meet national needs. Another structural and conceptual aspect is, is the profit motive and ‘free market competition’ the only way to achieve innovative weapons production?
However, notwithstanding the compartmentalization of each conglomerate’s R & D and production capabilities there is an apparent structural anomaly, in that the major shareholders of each conglomerate are almost identical. The ‘free market’ is not at all free, and a small number of investment funds appear to have captured control of the majority of the largest weapons producers. Hence, there is a high capability for strategic planning and coordination of effort, and one must assume that this is occurring. The many billion dollar question is, who is determining the strategic planning parameters and objectives, and on what basis? The circular and interlocked ownership of the major investment funds involved prevents a clear answer to this question.
The people of the US are enthusiastic, to the point of fanatical, about the virtues of ‘free enterprise’, the ‘pioneering spirit’, individual liberty, etc. These concepts and values certainly have much merit and are to be encouraged.
However, they don’t seem to realize that these values have been appropriated and transmuted into malignant forms of predatory capitalism where huge financial and corporate combines claim these same individual values to justify corporate immunity from any form of State regulation and accountability to the public (reduced to a basic equation of State = bad, ‘free market’ = good). This is not to suggest that the equations should be reversed in a similarly simplistic manner (State = good, corporations = bad), and the analyst’s comment above that public-private partnerships can be beneficial cannot be reasonably disputed.
But the nature of the specific roles and functions of the respective parties must be carefully identified and considered in each instance. In the US it seems that the State (the Presidency, the Congress and all relevant State agencies and officials) have abdicated, or outsourced, most of their strategic capacities and functions to the financial-corporate combines.
Beyond the superficial appearance of ‘dynamic free market capitalism competition’ between Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, each is actually controlled by the same three to five key shareholders, with several other investment funds clearly also firmly meshed into the central network of ownership, control and management.
Boeing’s largest shareholders are Capital Research & Management (approximately 14.3%), The Vanguard Group (7%), Evercore Trust Company (6%), Newport Trust (5.8%), State Street (through its investment vehicle, SSgA Funds Management, 4.6%), T. Rowe Price (3.5%) and BlackRock (2.2%). (The percentages listed are probably underestimates, and sourced from ‘marketscreener’.)
Northrop Grumman’s largest shareholders are Capital Research & Management (33%), State Street (9.9%), Vanguard (7.7%), and Massachusetts Financial Services (3.5%).
Lockheed Martin’s largest shareholders are State Street (15.1%), Capital Research & Management (9%), Vanguard (7.9%), Putnam (5.3%), Wellington Management (4%) and BlackRock (2.2%).
A more detailed tabulation of the shareholding structure is provided in another study by South Front. In relation to some of the largest weapons producers and some of the largest corporations of the financial sector the results were as follows:
Vngd – Vanguard, BkRk – BlackRock, StSt – State Street, Nwpt – Newport, CapRM – Capital Research & Management, FMR – Fidelity Management & Research Co. – FMR LLC, TRP – T. Rowe Price Associates, Bnk Am – Bank of America, LAC – Longview Asset Management, Norges – Norges Bank, Harris – Harris Associates, Brkshr H – Berkshire Hathaway, Mtbshi – Mitsubishi
The difficulty of penetrating the corporate veil to identify real shareholders, the actual people who are directing and benefiting from the activities of these mega-shareholders, results from the fact that the shareholders of Vanguard and BlackRock, for example, are virtual replicas of those listed above. Some of the mega-shareholders’ stakes are a bit less, some a bit more, and some other investment funds and corporate vehicles appear, but overall they forma consolidated nucleus of interlocked entities where there is no head and no tail apparent from the surface. This aspect is also explored in more detail in the earlier South Front article.
The power of these mega-shareholders to appoint directors of the industrial conglomerates flows down from there into the subsequent appointment of senior managers and permeates into every aspect of each industrial combine’s activities and subsidiaries. The phenomenon is by no means limited to the ‘defense sector’, but penetrates all of the most strategic and lucrative sectors of the US economy, as well as those of many other countries.
The financial/corporate combines meld the worst of unaccountable centralized planning and total control exercised by a small group of corporate executives and shareholders, without the benefits accruing to the American people of the consolidation and coordination of strategic planning, prioritization and management. There is definitely a form of extremely strategic and centralized planning and management occurring: the very precise allocation of carefully calculated strategic percentages of shares held between a small number of shareholders demonstrates this beyond a doubt.
The paramount question is who is directing this centralized effort, based on what values and objectives? It clearly isn’t the Congress or the Presidency, who depend on these same combines for the money to run their election campaigns, to receive favourable media coverage, etc.
And who is responsible for running the security checks of the people that control and manage the investment funds and the vast array of corporate vehicles that they have progressively brought under their control? How do they even identify who they are? An excellent study (Hidden Power of the Big Three: Passive index funds reconcentration of corporate ownership and new financial risk) analyses some of the structural elements and mechanisms through which the shareholders translate into influence or control over the decisions of specific industrial combines.
However, it gets no closer to identifying the locus of control, ownership and beneficiaries behind ‘the Big Three’ and the associated constellation of investment funds.
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
Support SouthFront


southfront--2020-07-18--Russian Jets Scrambled Over Barents Sea To Intercept Norwegian Reconnaissance Plane

After many years of adopting a relatively passive role in NATO ’ s military activities and being careful not to participate in activities that could be interpreted as provocative or hostile by Russia , since at least 2016 Norway has become a much more frequent participant in NATO military activities , including long-range strategic offensive exercises and operations that could have no target other than Russia .
On Friday ( 17 July ) , Russia ’ s Northern Fleet ’ s fighter jets shadowed a Norwegian Air Force P-3C Orion reconnaissance plane over the Barents Sea , Russia ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Russian airspace control capabilities detected a Norwegian Air Force P-3C Orion reconnaissance plane over the Barents Sea flying towards Russia ’ s state border , the Northern Fleet ’ s fighter aircraft were scrambled to identify and intercept the target .
LINK In June , Norway hosted a NATO long range bombing exercise that featured four B-52s from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota on a long-range training mission that flew through the Arctic to Europe .
The Stratofortress bombers , from the 5th Bomb Wing , trained with F-16s and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LINK Norway ’ s strategic policy shift has been underway since at least 2016-2017 when it became increasingly apparent that the country was executing a drastic change in its military policy , towards a far more aggressive posture .
A total of 330 US Marines were stationed for a trial period from January 2017 at the Vaernes military base east of Trondheim .
The deployment marked the first time since World War II that foreign troops have been allowed to station in Norway .
In 2016 , the Norwegian Parliament approved a one-year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including two six-month rotations .
Subsequently it was decided to double the Marine presence in the country from 330 to 650 soldiers .
The plans included a ‘ prepositioning program ’ to stockpile caches of military equipment in caves and bunkers sufficient for up to 16,000 Marine Corps troops , and providing bases for US reconnaissance aircraft and radar stations .
LINK Around the same time , Norway stepped up its role as a support and supply base for NATO submarines despite strong opposition from the municipal council of the town most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s port call to Tromsø in 2016 caused considerable controversy at the time .
It was the first nuclear powered submarine to dock in northern Norway since October 2007 when the last nuclear powered vessel made port call to Olavsvern .
By the following year , US submarine activity in Norway ’ s territorial waters and port calls had become commonplace , with nuclear powered submarines surfacing for crew-exchange or other purposes ; either calling in to port or inshore waters along the coast .
In 2017 activity increased sharply with more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ 3 to 4 per month , ” said Navy Captain Per-Thomas Bøe with the Ministry of Defence in Oslo when asked by Barents Observer about the 2017 numbers of allied nuclear powered submarines .
Russia has become increasingly concerned by Norway ’ s change in military posture .
In 2019 Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told reporters : Despite increasing Russian concern , Norway has continued to shift its military posture to a more aggressive approach against Russia and increased involvement in NATO activities .
MORE ON THE TOPIC :

Support SouthFront
After many years of adopting a relatively passive role in NATO’s military activities and being careful not to participate in activities that could be interpreted as provocative or hostile by Russia, since at least 2016 Norway has become a much more frequent participant in NATO military activities, including long-range strategic offensive exercises and operations that could have no target other than Russia.
On Friday (17 July), Russia’s Northern Fleet’s fighter jets shadowed a Norwegian Air Force P-3C Orion reconnaissance plane over the Barents Sea, Russia’s National Defence Control Centre reported.
After the Russian airspace control capabilities detected a Norwegian Air Force P-3C Orion reconnaissance plane over the Barents Sea flying towards Russia’s state border, the Northern Fleet’s fighter aircraft were scrambled to identify and intercept the target. LINK
A similar interception on July 14:
In June, Norway hosted a NATO long range bombing exercise that featured four B-52s from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota on a long-range training mission that flew through the Arctic to Europe. The Stratofortress bombers, from the 5th Bomb Wing, trained with F-16s and F-35s from the Norwegian Air Force. LINK
Norway’s strategic policy shift has been underway since at least 2016-2017 when it became increasingly apparent that the country was executing a drastic change in its military policy, towards a far more aggressive posture. A total of 330 US Marines were stationed for a trial period from January 2017 at the Vaernes military base east of Trondheim.
The deployment marked the first time since World War II that foreign troops have been allowed to station in Norway. In 2016, the Norwegian Parliament approved a one-year trial period for the US military presence, including two six-month rotations. Subsequently it was decided to double the Marine presence in the country from 330 to 650 soldiers. The plans included a ‘prepositioning program’ to stockpile caches of military equipment in caves and bunkers sufficient for up to 16,000 Marine Corps troops, and providing bases for US reconnaissance aircraft and radar stations. LINK
Around the same time, Norway stepped up its role as a support and supply base for NATO submarines despite strong opposition from the municipal council of the town most affected. A US Navy submarine’s port call to Tromsø in 2016 caused considerable controversy at the time. It was the first nuclear powered submarine to dock in northern Norway since October 2007 when the last nuclear powered vessel made port call to Olavsvern.
Jens Ingvald Olsen, a member of the City Council, argued that no deals should be made with US authorities on visiting nuclear submarines: “First of all there is a risk of nuclear accidents, and we don’t have the emergency preparedness to handle such incident. Secondly, regular visits by American submarines will make Tromsø a Russian bomb target.”
By the following year, US submarine activity in Norway’s territorial waters and port calls had become commonplace, with nuclear powered submarines surfacing for crew-exchange or other purposes; either calling in to port or inshore waters along the coast. In 2017 activity increased sharply with more than 40 voyages into Norwegian coastal waters.
“3 to 4 per month,” said Navy Captain Per-Thomas Bøe with the Ministry of Defence in Oslo when asked by Barents Observer about the 2017 numbers of allied nuclear powered submarines.
Russia has become increasingly concerned by Norway’s change in military posture. In 2019 Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told reporters:
“Contrary to the historical traditions of neighbourly relations and cooperation in the Arctic, Oslo continues to escalate tension and increase the risk of military action. This will not be left without a response.”
Despite increasing Russian concern, Norway has continued to shift its military posture to a more aggressive approach against Russia and increased involvement in NATO activities.
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
Support SouthFront


The Struggle!

SOUTHFRONT IS IN A CRITICAL SITUATION AS A RESULT OF THE ONGOING MEDIA AND TECHNICAL PRESSURE CAMPAIGN AGAINST OUR ENDEAVOUR @ @ @ @ @ has collected 1346 USD .
This is 27 % of the monthly budget needed to @ @ @ @ @ .
YOUR HELP IS VITAL TO KEEP SOUTHFRONT ALIVE : Donate via VISA , PayPal @ @ @ @ @ other options .
This systems accepts all types of cards , PayPal , Amazon Payments @ @ @ @ @ under the main text , in P.S . )
You can subscribe for a monthly @ @ @ @ @ or any another amount ) OR make one time donation by clicking buttons below

Support SouthFront
SOUTHFRONT IS IN A CRITICAL SITUATION AS A RESULT OF THE ONGOING MEDIA AND TECHNICAL PRESSURE CAMPAIGN AGAINST OUR ENDEAVOUR
Since July 1, SouthFront has collected 1391 USD. This is 27.82% of the monthly budget needed to keep SouthFront working and further.
YOUR HELP IS VITAL TO KEEP SOUTHFRONT ALIVE:
PayPal
Account: southfront@list.ru
DonationAlerts
Donate via VISA, PayPal, Paysafecard, Bitcoin and other options.
Tinypass (Piano)
This systems accepts all types of cards, PayPal, Amazon Payments, bitcoin (FAQ is under the main text, in P.S.)
You can subscribe for a monthly donation of $15 (or any another amount) OR make one time donation by clicking buttons below
Patreon
Donate via SouthFront’s Patreon account (click here)
SouthFront: Analysis & Intelligence Team
Support SouthFront


southfront--2020-07-18--Pentagon Reveals Trump’s “Super-Duper” Hypersonic Missile

Rising Sino-US tensions aren ’ t going away , not tomorrow , not next month or next year .
There ’ s a geopolitical rivalry at play , or as we ’ ve explained before : Thucydides Trap .
China ’ s rapid military expansion in the Pacific has been a wake-up call to Washington .
Beijing has also spent the last decade modernizing its military with the latest war technology , including fifth-generation fighters and hypersonic weapons .
President Trump , the Pentagon , and the military-industrial complex recognize a conflict is ahead ; otherwise , why would the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the military over the last couple of years ?
When it comes to hypersonic technology , the US is behind the curve in the deployment of these super-fast weapons onto the modern battlefield .
On the other hand , China and Russia have already claimed they ’ ve fielded these missiles that can travel multiples of the speed of sound .
President Trump boasted Ameria ’ s hypersonic capabilities in May , saying a “ super-duper ” missile in development can travel 17-times faster , though the Pentagon at the time was unwilling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , right now , incredible military equipment at a level that nobody has ever seen before .
We have no choice .
We have to do it — with the adversaries , we have out there .
We have a — I call it the ‘ super-duper missile.
’ And I heard the other night , 17 times faster than what they have right now , ” Trump said in May .
Now there ’ s more color on the hypersonic missile the president was touting .
A senior defense official told CNN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ special interest ” in hypersonics revealing that the new missile can travel “ 17 times faster ” than the speed of sound .
The defense official is referring to a “ hypersonic glide body ” test over the Pacific in March .
CNN noted the US won ’ t have hypersonic missiles fielded until 2023 while China and Russia already have there ’ s in the field .
As China challenges America ’ s predominance , a new Cold War is already underway .
The rise of China and the stumbling of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tensions between both countries will continue until there ’ s a conflict .

Support SouthFront
Originally appeared at ZeroHedge
Rising Sino-US tensions aren’t going away, not tomorrow, not next month or next year. There’s a geopolitical rivalry at play, or as we’ve explained before: Thucydides Trap.
China’s rapid military expansion in the Pacific has been a wake-up call to Washington. Beijing has also spent the last decade modernizing its military with the latest war technology, including fifth-generation fighters and hypersonic weapons.
President Trump, the Pentagon, and the military-industrial complex recognize a conflict is ahead; otherwise, why would the president plow $2 trillion into modernizing the military over the last couple of years?
When it comes to hypersonic technology, the US is behind the curve in the deployment of these super-fast weapons onto the modern battlefield. On the other hand, China and Russia have already claimed they’ve fielded these missiles that can travel multiples of the speed of sound.
President Trump boasted Ameria’s hypersonic capabilities in May, saying a “super-duper” missile in development can travel 17-times faster, though the Pentagon at the time was unwilling to confirm.
“We are building, right now, incredible military equipment at a level that nobody has ever seen before. We have no choice. We have to do it — with the adversaries, we have out there. We have a — I call it the ‘super-duper missile.’ And I heard the other night, 17 times faster than what they have right now,” Trump said in May.
Now there’s more color on the hypersonic missile the president was touting. A senior defense official told CNN this week, President Trump has taken “special interest” in hypersonics revealing that the new missile can travel “17 times faster” than the speed of sound.
h/t CNN
The defense official is referring to a “hypersonic glide body” test over the Pacific in March.
U.S. Navy and U.S. Army jointly tests hypersonic glide body pic.twitter.com/9Fr8YvlBUS — Dylan Malyasov (@DylanMalyasov) March 21, 2020
“What he was referring to, really, was the recent flight test that we’ve performed in March where we flew 17 times the speed of sound,” the senior defense official said.
CNN noted the US won’t have hypersonic missiles fielded until 2023 while China and Russia already have there’s in the field.
As China challenges America’s predominance, a new Cold War is already underway. The rise of China and the stumbling of the US is one that could suggest tensions between both countries will continue until there’s a conflict.
Support SouthFront


southfront--2020-07-18--Beriev Be-200 Multirole Amphibious Aircraft (Infographics)

Come on , this is No military plane what so ever , the only enemy this type of plane engages @ @ @ @ @ + catastrophies – Something usefull + different for a change .

Support SouthFront
The Beriev Be-200 is a multirole amphibious aircraft designed and built by the Beriev Aircraft Company.
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
Support SouthFront


southfront--2020-07-18--No Sympathy For The Devil? Iranian Media Speculates About Cause Of Fire On US Warship

After extensive Western media conjecture about a long series of suspicious fires and incidents in Iran , Iranian state media is now speculating that the recent fire on a US warship may be the result of an attack by dissidents , or others .
In early July an explosion at a factory south of Tehran killed two people and seriously injured three others .
It was part of a string of deadly fires and explosions that have broken out at military and industrial installations in the country , including the Natanz nuclear facility and a missile assembly plant .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tehran and caused extensive damage to a neighbouring factory , was described as an accident and attributed to human error which caused oxygen tanks stored there to explode .
Several days before the factory fire broke out , an explosion damaged a power plant in the Iranian city of Ahvaz .
Later the same day , the Islamic Republic News Agency reported that a chlorine gas leak at a petrochemical centre in southeast Iran had injured 70 workers .
The week before that , there was an explosion at a medical centre in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an accident and attributed to faulty gas canisters , and an explosion occurred at Iran ’ s Natanz nuclear facility .
The preceding week , a large blast was felt in Tehran , apparently caused by an explosion at the Parchin military complex , believed by Western analysts to be the location of an underground tunnel complex that includes missile production facilities .
The explosion and subsequent fire were blamed on leaking gas tanks Iranian officials eventually admitted that the fire at Natanz caused “ considerable ” damage , after satellite images appeared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sought to downplay the damage from the blaze , which destroyed an above-ground laboratory used to prepare advanced centrifuges for installation in the underground facilities .
According to a spokesman for Iran ’ s atomic agency , the building was constructed in 2013 .
However , work was suspended at the plant in 2015 pursuant to the JCPOA nuclear deal .
When the United States unilaterally withdrew from the nuclear deal in 2018 operations were renewed .
The spokesman said that the fire had damaged “ precision and measuring instruments ” at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as an “ accident ” and the damage caused was dismissed as not substantial , Iranian officials subsequently warned that Iran would weigh its response to “ hostile countries ” if it was determined that they were responsible for the explosion .
Hours after the announcement , Iran ’ s state news agency IRNA published an editorial warning that “ if there are signs of hostile countries crossing Iran ’ s red lines in any way , especially the Zionist regime ( Israel ) and the United States , Iran ’ s strategy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fundamentally reconsidered.
” Western media outlets were quick to feed the rumour mill .
Several contradictory accounts appeared purporting to explain the cause of the fire .
According to a report by the BBC , the fire was set by a group of dissident Iranian officers .
The New York Times quoted an unnamed Middle Eastern intelligence official saying an explosion had taken place as the result of a bomb planted inside the facility .
“ The blast was caused by an explosive device planted inside the facility , ” the Times quoted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much of the aboveground parts of the facility where new centrifuges… are balanced before they are put into operation.
” Asked about reports of the incident at a press conference Thursday evening , Israel ’ s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu brushed aside the question : “ I don ’ t address these issues , ” he said .
In Washington , the State Department said that US officials were “ monitoring reports of a fire at an Iranian nuclear facility.
” It added : “ This incident serves as another reminder of how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misguided nuclear program to the detriment of the Iranian people ’ s needs.
” So it shouldn ’ t be surprising that Iranian media and officials have taken the opportunity to speculate over the cause of the fire at a naval shipyard in San Diego last week .
He was referring to the fire that broke out on the Bonhomme Richard , an amphibious assault ship and light aircraft carrier , as it was anchored at the US Naval base in San Diego on Sunday .
Qa ’ ani – who was assigned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assassinated his predecessor Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani in a drone strike in Baghdad in early January – said both the United States and its regional ally Israel were heading into a period of serious hardship and adversity .
An article posted at Press TV proffered a selection of possible causes of the fire : And so when we explore the possibilities for what may have caused this fire , I think we can rule out an Israeli false flag because if the Israelis had done it , they would have done their best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ship .
They would have waited till it was full and then they would have tried to blow it up or attack it with gunboats like they did with the USS Liberty in 1967 .
So I think the Israelis probably weren ’ t behind this one .
But one never knows .
It ’ s quite possible that this is another Gulf of Tonkin or “ Remember the Maine ” type of incident .
It ’ s conceivable that it will be blamed on a cyberattack from whoever the US wants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be Iran , it could be Russia , it could even be China , we don ’ t really know .
This type of mysterious event is perfect for being blamed on a cyberattack because nobody can prove that kind of thing… It ’ s also possible that we ’ re witnessing some kind of civil war within the US military over the violent suppression of the recent Black Lives Matter protests .
It could be angry pro-Black Lives Matter sailors who were behind this , or some pro-BLM faction in the military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposite faction , the angry white nationalist contingent .
The US military is very much divided .
It has a lot of extremist white nationalists , and it also has a disproportionate representation of African Americans .
Unlike almost all other important institutions in American life , African Americans are more or less welcomed and quite well represented in the military .
And so that has led to a situation where the over-representation of white nationalist racists and African Americans in the military has created a situation where there could conceivably be some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and see what the propagandists in the corporate-controlled mainstream media infiltrated by Operation Mockingbird , the CIA media-controlled operation , have to say about this fire , and then from there , we can start to speculate with a little bit more evidence behind us as to what really happened .
LINK It is to be expected that there will be further incidents in the future , both in Iran and elsewhere .
And there will be very little sympathy to be found .
MORE ON THE TOPIC : • Explosion at Iranian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is gas explosion

Support SouthFront
After extensive Western media conjecture about a long series of suspicious fires and incidents in Iran, Iranian state media is now speculating that the recent fire on a US warship may be the result of an attack by dissidents, or others.
In early July an explosion at a factory south of Tehran killed two people and seriously injured three others. It was part of a string of deadly fires and explosions that have broken out at military and industrial installations in the country, including the Natanz nuclear facility and a missile assembly plant.
The explosion, which destroyed a factory in Tehran and caused extensive damage to a neighbouring factory, was described as an accident and attributed to human error which caused oxygen tanks stored there to explode.
Several days before the factory fire broke out, an explosion damaged a power plant in the Iranian city of Ahvaz. Later the same day, the Islamic Republic News Agency reported that a chlorine gas leak at a petrochemical centre in southeast Iran had injured 70 workers.
The week before that, there was an explosion at a medical centre in Teheran, described by Iranian officials as an accident and attributed to faulty gas canisters, and an explosion occurred at Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility. The preceding week, a large blast was felt in Tehran, apparently caused by an explosion at the Parchin military complex, believed by Western analysts to be the location of an underground tunnel complex that includes missile production facilities. The explosion and subsequent fire were blamed on leaking gas tanks
Iranian officials eventually admitted that the fire at Natanz caused “considerable” damage, after satellite images appeared revealing widespread devastation. They had previously sought to downplay the damage from the blaze, which destroyed an above-ground laboratory used to prepare advanced centrifuges for installation in the underground facilities.
According to a spokesman for Iran’s atomic agency, the building was constructed in 2013. However, work was suspended at the plant in 2015 pursuant to the JCPOA nuclear deal. When the United States unilaterally withdrew from the nuclear deal in 2018 operations were renewed. The spokesman said that the fire had damaged “precision and measuring instruments” at the facility.
Although the incident was described as an “accident” and the damage caused was dismissed as not substantial, Iranian officials subsequently warned that Iran would weigh its response to “hostile countries” if it was determined that they were responsible for the explosion.
Hours after the announcement, Iran’s state news agency IRNA published an editorial warning that “if there are signs of hostile countries crossing Iran’s red lines in any way, especially the Zionist regime (Israel) and the United States, Iran’s strategy to confront the new situation must be fundamentally reconsidered.”
Western media outlets were quick to feed the rumour mill. Several contradictory accounts appeared purporting to explain the cause of the fire. According to a report by the BBC, the fire was set by a group of dissident Iranian officers.
The New York Times quoted an unnamed Middle Eastern intelligence official saying an explosion had taken place as the result of a bomb planted inside the facility. “The blast was caused by an explosive device planted inside the facility,” the Times quoted the official saying, and “destroyed much of the aboveground parts of the facility where new centrifuges… are balanced before they are put into operation.”
Asked about reports of the incident at a press conference Thursday evening, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu brushed aside the question: “I don’t address these issues,” he said.
In Washington, the State Department said that US officials were “monitoring reports of a fire at an Iranian nuclear facility.” It added: “This incident serves as another reminder of how the Iranian regime continues to prioritize its misguided nuclear program to the detriment of the Iranian people’s needs.”
So it shouldn’t be surprising that Iranian media and officials have taken the opportunity to speculate over the cause of the fire at a naval shipyard in San Diego last week.
Addressing a meeting of senior resistance commanders, Brigadier General Esmail Qa’ani, commander of the Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), urged the Americans “not to waste their time looking for a culprit or levelling accusations against others” over what happened to the navy ship off San Diego. “This is a fire they (Americans) have lit themselves,” he said.
He was referring to the fire that broke out on the Bonhomme Richard, an amphibious assault ship and light aircraft carrier, as it was anchored at the US Naval base in San Diego on Sunday.
Qa’ani – who was assigned to the Quds Force after the US assassinated his predecessor Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani in a drone strike in Baghdad in early January – said both the United States and its regional ally Israel were heading into a period of serious hardship and adversity.
“You are still experiencing your halcyon days. You have very tough days and occurrences ahead of you.” He further noted that the US military has turned into a “tired and decrepit” force, and its equipment has degraded into “scrap iron”, adding that Washington has to accept its dire conditions and stop oppressing the humanity and its own people. LINK
An article posted at Press TV proffered a selection of possible causes of the fire:
And so when we explore the possibilities for what may have caused this fire, I think we can rule out an Israeli false flag because if the Israelis had done it, they would have done their best to murder all 1000 sailors assigned to the ship. They would have waited till it was full and then they would have tried to blow it up or attack it with gunboats like they did with the USS Liberty in 1967. So I think the Israelis probably weren’t behind this one. But one never knows. It’s quite possible that this is another Gulf of Tonkin or “Remember the Maine” type of incident. It’s conceivable that it will be blamed on a cyberattack from whoever the US wants to escalate against. That easily could be Iran, it could be Russia, it could even be China, we don’t really know. This type of mysterious event is perfect for being blamed on a cyberattack because nobody can prove that kind of thing… It’s also possible that we’re witnessing some kind of civil war within the US military over the violent suppression of the recent Black Lives Matter protests. It could be angry pro-Black Lives Matter sailors who were behind this, or some pro-BLM faction in the military, or it could have been the opposite faction, the angry white nationalist contingent. The US military is very much divided. It has a lot of extremist white nationalists, and it also has a disproportionate representation of African Americans. Unlike almost all other important institutions in American life, African Americans are more or less welcomed and quite well represented in the military. And so that has led to a situation where the over-representation of white nationalist racists and African Americans in the military has created a situation where there could conceivably be some conflict. So we’ll wait and see what the propagandists in the corporate-controlled mainstream media infiltrated by Operation Mockingbird, the CIA media-controlled operation, have to say about this fire, and then from there, we can start to speculate with a little bit more evidence behind us as to what really happened. LINK
It is to be expected that there will be further incidents in the future, both in Iran and elsewhere. And there will be very little sympathy to be found.
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
Support SouthFront


southfront--2020-07-18--Armenian-Azerbaijani Clashes And Shifting Balance Of Power In South Caucasus

The Armenian-Azerbaijani tensions have once again turned South Caucasus into a hot point increasing chances of a new regional war .
The key difference with previous military incidents between the two countries is that the point of confrontation shifted from the breakaway Nagorno-Karabakh Republic to the Armenian-Azerbaijani state border .
Clashes first erupted on July 12 in the area of Tovuz and since then both sides have repeatedly accused each other of provoking the conflict , attacking civilians and declared defeats of the ‘ enemy ’ .
According to the Defense Ministry of Azerbaijan , the fighting started after Armenian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forces in the Tovuz district .
The fighting which included the use of combat drones , artillery , mortars , and battle tanks continued over the following days , including July 17 .
The Azerbaijani military confirmed that at least 12 personnel , including Major General Gashimov Polad and Colonel Ilgar Mirzaev , were killed .
In turn , Kerim Veliyev , Azerbaijan ’ s deputy defense minister , said that 100 Armenian soldiers were killed , several fortified positions were destroyed and that a UAV was shot down .
Armenia , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of its casualties .
Azerbaijani media and top leadership describe the current situation as an act of Armenian aggression , and say that Azerbaijani forces are only responding to it .
President Ilham Aliyev even called Armenia a “ fascist state ” adding that “ Armenian forces could not enter Azerbaijan in one centimeter of soil and will never be able to do this ” .
The Armenian version of events is quite different .
According to it , the clashes started after a group of Azerbaijani soldiers violated the Armenian state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defense ministry press service claimed that after the warning from the Armenian side , “ the enemy troops returned to their positions ” .
It added that later Azerbaijani forces attacked an Armenian checkpoint .
As of now , the Armenian military said that it had repelled two ‘ offensives ’ involving at least 100 soldiers supported by fire of several artillery battalions .
These attacks were allegedly actively supported by combat and reconnaissance drones of Azerbaijan .
A spokesperson for the Armenian Defense Ministry Artsrun Hovhannisyan said that Azerbaijan lost at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other equipment during the clashes .
Armenia says that only 4 of its service members were killed .
Both Armenia and Azerbaijan claim that their forces are repelling an aggression of the enemy , which has been attacking it and killing civilians .
However , despite the harsh rhetoric , the leadership of the both countries are sending signals that they are not interested in a larger military confrontation .
At the same time , years of war propaganda and historic tensions between the nations push the situation towards a further escalation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ hostilities by leaders of either country would be presented by the other one as a sign of weakness and promoted as an admission of defeat .
Taking into account the complicated political and economic conditions in both countries , neither Armenian nor Azerbaijani leaders could afford such a public move .
Therefore , de-escalation is possible only through international mechanisms .
The situation is further complicated by the complex diplomatic situation in the region of the South Caucasus .
Armenia , alongside with Russia , Belarus , Kazakhstan , Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Treaty Organization ( CSTO ) .
The CSTO expressed its concerns over the situation and called on the sides to commit to a ceasefire regime .
Nonetheless , the Russia-led security bloc , and Russia itself , demonstrated that in the current situation they will focus on diplomatic measures .
Since the 2018 coup , when Nikol Pashinyan came to power in Armenia , the country has been consistently undermining its relations with the CSTO and Russia by persuing a quite weak , but apparent anti-Russian and pro-Western foreign policy course .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to sell its loyalty to the United States for some coins and commit itself to the way of the so-called ‘ European integration ’ .
The issue with this plan is that Washington and its partners need Armenia only as a tool of their geopolitical gains and are not interested in providing it with any kind of military protection or economic assistance .
The Pashinyan government is forced to play a double game in an attempt to simultaneously please its ‘ democratic ’ masters and receive protection and assistance from Russia .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On the other hand , in the event of a large-scale military confrontation , Azerbaijan will be supported by its main ally Turkey , which also has close bilateral ties with Russia .
Ankara already declared that it fully supports Azerbaijan and condemned the supposed ‘ Armenian aggression ’ .
Thus , in the event of full-scale military confrontation , Armenia will immediately find itself in a very complicated situation , and direct military assistance from the CSTO and Russia will be unlikely until there is no threat to Armenian statehood .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ limited military conflict with Azerbaijan and Turkey is at least shaky .
Turkey and Azerbaijan fully understand this .
By undermining strategic relations with Moscow , and thus the balance of power in the region , Erevan put the entire South Caucasus on the brink of a new regional war .

Support SouthFront
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
DEAR FRIENDS. IF YOU LIKE THIS TYPE OF CONTENT, SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT WORK: PayPal: southfront@list.ru, http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront, BTC: 3Gbs4rjcVUtQd8p3CiFUCxPLZwRqurezRZ, BCH ABC: qpf2cphc5dkuclkqur7lhj2yuqq9pk3hmukle77vhq, ETH: 0x9f4cda013e354b8fc285bf4b9a60460cee7f7ea9
The Armenian-Azerbaijani tensions have once again turned South Caucasus into a hot point increasing chances of a new regional war.
The key difference with previous military incidents between the two countries is that the point of confrontation shifted from the breakaway Nagorno-Karabakh Republic to the Armenian-Azerbaijani state border. Clashes first erupted on July 12 in the area of Tovuz and since then both sides have repeatedly accused each other of provoking the conflict, attacking civilians and declared defeats of the ‘enemy’.
According to the Defense Ministry of Azerbaijan, the fighting started after Armenian forces opened fire on positions of Azerbaijani forces in the Tovuz district. The fighting which included the use of combat drones, artillery, mortars, and battle tanks continued over the following days, including July 17. The Azerbaijani military confirmed that at least 12 personnel, including Major General Gashimov Polad and Colonel Ilgar Mirzaev, were killed. In turn, Kerim Veliyev, Azerbaijan’s deputy defense minister, said that 100 Armenian soldiers were killed, several fortified positions were destroyed and that a UAV was shot down. Armenia, according to Veliyev, is hiding the real number of its casualties.
Azerbaijani media and top leadership describe the current situation as an act of Armenian aggression, and say that Azerbaijani forces are only responding to it. President Ilham Aliyev even called Armenia a “fascist state” adding that “Armenian forces could not enter Azerbaijan in one centimeter of soil and will never be able to do this”.
The Armenian version of events is quite different. According to it, the clashes started after a group of Azerbaijani soldiers violated the Armenian state border in an UAZ vehicle. The defense ministry press service claimed that after the warning from the Armenian side, “the enemy troops returned to their positions”. It added that later Azerbaijani forces attacked an Armenian checkpoint.
As of now, the Armenian military said that it had repelled two ‘offensives’ involving at least 100 soldiers supported by fire of several artillery battalions. These attacks were allegedly actively supported by combat and reconnaissance drones of Azerbaijan. A spokesperson for the Armenian Defense Ministry Artsrun Hovhannisyan said that Azerbaijan lost at least 20 soldiers, a battle tank and other equipment during the clashes. Armenia says that only 4 of its service members were killed.
Both Armenia and Azerbaijan claim that their forces are repelling an aggression of the enemy, which has been attacking it and killing civilians. However, despite the harsh rhetoric, the leadership of the both countries are sending signals that they are not interested in a larger military confrontation.
At the same time, years of war propaganda and historic tensions between the nations push the situation towards a further escalation. A unilateral move towards the cessation of hostilities by leaders of either country would be presented by the other one as a sign of weakness and promoted as an admission of defeat. Taking into account the complicated political and economic conditions in both countries, neither Armenian nor Azerbaijani leaders could afford such a public move. Therefore, de-escalation is possible only through international mechanisms.
The situation is further complicated by the complex diplomatic situation in the region of the South Caucasus. Armenia, alongside with Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, is a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). The CSTO expressed its concerns over the situation and called on the sides to commit to a ceasefire regime. Nonetheless, the Russia-led security bloc, and Russia itself, demonstrated that in the current situation they will focus on diplomatic measures.
Since the 2018 coup, when Nikol Pashinyan came to power in Armenia, the country has been consistently undermining its relations with the CSTO and Russia by persuing a quite weak, but apparent anti-Russian and pro-Western foreign policy course. The bright dream of the Pashinyan government is to sell its loyalty to the United States for some coins and commit itself to the way of the so-called ‘European integration’. The issue with this plan is that Washington and its partners need Armenia only as a tool of their geopolitical gains and are not interested in providing it with any kind of military protection or economic assistance. The Pashinyan government is forced to play a double game in an attempt to simultaneously please its ‘democratic’ masters and receive protection and assistance from Russia. This attitude is not a secret for Moscow.
On the other hand, in the event of a large-scale military confrontation, Azerbaijan will be supported by its main ally Turkey, which also has close bilateral ties with Russia. Ankara already declared that it fully supports Azerbaijan and condemned the supposed ‘Armenian aggression’. Thus, in the event of full-scale military confrontation, Armenia will immediately find itself in a very complicated situation, and direct military assistance from the CSTO and Russia will be unlikely until there is no threat to Armenian statehood.
So, the Armenian chances in a limited military conflict with Azerbaijan and Turkey is at least shaky. Turkey and Azerbaijan fully understand this. By undermining strategic relations with Moscow, and thus the balance of power in the region, Erevan put the entire South Caucasus on the brink of a new regional war.
Support SouthFront


southfront--2020-07-18--Turkish Intelligence Brags Of ‘Freeing’ Woman From ISIS Wives Camp In Northeastern Syria

The Turkish intelligence had “ freed ” a Moldavian woman and her four children from the al-Hawl Camp , where ISIS wives and family members are held in northeastern Syria , the Anadolu Agency reported on July 17 .
The Turkish state-run agency claimed that the woman , “ Natalia Barkal , ” had traveled to Syria with her husband and children in 2013 to “ do business ” when she had been “ abducted ” by the People ’ s Protection Units , YPG , and the Kurdistan Workers ’ Party , PKK .
The Anadolu Agency didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take an entire family to a war-torn country .
The identity of her husband or his whereabouts also were not disclosed .
According to Turkey ’ s claims , Barkal and her four children were illegally held in al-Hawl camp by Kurdish forces .
The Turkish intelligence “ freed ” them upon and official request from Moldavian authorities .
The al-Hawl camp , which is located in eastern al-Hasakah , is hosting 67,000 people , including 40,000 family members of ISIS fighters .
An entire section of the camp is dedicated for foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is run by the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces .
The Kurdish-led group has not commented on Turkey ’ s accusations , so far .
The claims made by Turkey appear to be unrealistic as al-Hawl is known to be hosting ISIS-linked individuals .
Many of these dangerous individuals attempt to escape from the camp to Turkey on a regular basis .
MORE ON THIS TOPIC :

Support SouthFront
The Turkish intelligence had “freed” a Moldavian woman and her four children from the al-Hawl Camp, where ISIS wives and family members are held in northeastern Syria, the Anadolu Agency reported on July 17.
The Turkish state-run agency claimed that the woman, “Natalia Barkal,” had traveled to Syria with her husband and children in 2013 to “do business” when she had been “abducted” by the People’s Protection Units, YPG, and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, PKK.
The Anadolu Agency didn’t clarify what type of business would take an entire family to a war-torn country. The identity of her husband or his whereabouts also were not disclosed.
ذكرت مصادر أمنية، للأناضول، إن المواطنة المولودفية ناتاليا باركال، سافرت إلى سوريا برفقة زوجها وأبنائها في 2013 بغرض التجارة.https://t.co/A8N1ERNHFt pic.twitter.com/SbUX8ttTPS — ترك برس (@TurkPressMedia) July 17, 2020
According to Turkey’s claims, Barkal and her four children were illegally held in al-Hawl camp by Kurdish forces. The Turkish intelligence “freed” them upon and official request from Moldavian authorities.
The al-Hawl camp, which is located in eastern al-Hasakah, is hosting 67,000 people, including 40,000 family members of ISIS fighters. An entire section of the camp is dedicated for foreign wives of ISIS terrorists.
The camp is run by the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces. The Kurdish-led group has not commented on Turkey’s accusations, so far.
The claims made by Turkey appear to be unrealistic as al-Hawl is known to be hosting ISIS-linked individuals. Many of these dangerous individuals attempt to escape from the camp to Turkey on a regular basis.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC:
Support SouthFront


southfront--2020-07-18--Turkish Military Aircraft Made First Direct Flight To Libya’s Al-Watiya Air Base

On July 16 , a Turkish C-130E Hercules military transport aircraft landed in al-Watiya Air Base , marking the first direct flight from Turkey to the western Libyan base .
The C-130E , which belong to the 222nd Squadron of the Turkish Air Forces ’ Air Logistical Command took off from the military section of Konya Airport in northern Turkey .
The aircraft landed in al-Watiya in the morning .
A day later , a second Turkish military transport aircraft , also a C-130E , landed in al-Watiya Air Base .
The aircraft followed exactly the same path as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been working to restore al-Watiya Air Base since last May , when it was captured by forces loyal to the Government of National Accord from the Libyan National Army .
The base sustained damage in the battle .
Earlier this month , a series of pinpoint airstrikes destroyed a Turkish air-defense and electronic warfare systems which were recently deployed in the air base .
Turkey is reportedly working to turn al-Watiya into a permanent base for its troops in Libya .
This may mean that Ankara is planning to deploy fighter jets and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It remains unclear if al-Watiya can , as for now , host fighter jets .
C-130 were designed to take off and land in unprepared runways .
Fighter jets , like Turkey ’ s F-16s , can ’ t do this .
The air base will likely need much more work to host such warplanes .
MORE ON THIS TOPIC : • Turkey Deploys More Troops And Equipment In Preparation Of Sirte Push

Support SouthFront
On July 16, a Turkish C-130E Hercules military transport aircraft landed in al-Watiya Air Base, marking the first direct flight from Turkey to the western Libyan base.
The C-130E, which belong to the 222nd Squadron of the Turkish Air Forces’ Air Logistical Command took off from the military section of Konya Airport in northern Turkey. The aircraft landed in al-Watiya in the morning.
⚠Turkish Air Force lands directly at Al Watiya AFB ! Turkish Air Force’s Erkilet based turboprop transport planes, 221st Squadron A400 17080 flew from Istanbul to Misrata & 222nd Squadron’s Lockheed C130 Hercules 711468 flew from Konya to Al Watiya. pic.twitter.com/4YOm4Mfxpm — Yörük Işık (@YorukIsik) July 16, 2020
A day later, a second Turkish military transport aircraft, also a C-130E, landed in al-Watiya Air Base. The aircraft followed exactly the same path as the first one.
Next morning, a second ??Turkish Air Force C-130E Hercules flight approached ????Al-Wattiyah/Al-Wutiyah Air Base in ??#Libya a near identical manner. https://t.co/lWbcmH9Tg9 pic.twitter.com/7ddr6Ard8l — Gerjon | חריון (@Gerjon_) July 17, 2020
The Turkish military has been working to restore al-Watiya Air Base since last May, when it was captured by forces loyal to the Government of National Accord from the Libyan National Army. The base sustained damage in the battle.
Earlier this month, a series of pinpoint airstrikes destroyed a Turkish air-defense and electronic warfare systems which were recently deployed in the air base.
Turkey is reportedly working to turn al-Watiya into a permanent base for its troops in Libya. This may mean that Ankara is planning to deploy fighter jets and more military equipment at the base.
It remains unclear if al-Watiya can, as for now, host fighter jets. C-130 were designed to take off and land in unprepared runways. Fighter jets, like Turkey’s F-16s, can’t do this. The air base will likely need much more work to host such warplanes.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC:
Support SouthFront


southfront--2020-07-18--Syrian Government Forces Clashed With ISIS Terrorists In Western Deir Ezzor, Eastern Homs (Photos)

The National Defense Forces ( NDF ) announced on July 15 that its units had conducted a combing operation in the western Deir Ezzor countryside .
NDF units cleared a vast region between al-Taim oil fields and Qalaat Ruhibah in the western outskirts of the city of al-Mayadin .
During the operation , a number of hideouts of ISIS cells were uncovered .
NDF units also recovered the body of a Syrian Arab Army service member , “ Moataz Abdel-Awfi , ” who was killed in the region a while back .
The operation in western Deir Ezzor coincided with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Homs desert .
The clashes last until July 16 , with Russian warplanes carrying out a series of airstrikes on ISIS ’ hideouts in the region .
According to the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights , at least 44 Syrian service members and ISIS terrorists were killed .
These claims are yet to be verified .
Hundreds of ISIS terrorists , including senior leaders , are reportedly taking shelter in the Homs desert .
The region lays between western Deir Ezzor and eastern Homs , south of the M20 highway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intensified their operations against ISIS terrorists around the Homs desert over the past few months .
The terrorist group sustained serious losses .
However , it is still active in the region .
MORE ON THIS TOPIC : • SDF Launched Second Stage Of Large Counter-Terrorism Operation In Northeastern Syria ( Photos )

Support SouthFront
The National Defense Forces (NDF) announced on July 15 that its units had conducted a combing operation in the western Deir Ezzor countryside.
NDF units cleared a vast region between al-Taim oil fields and Qalaat Ruhibah in the western outskirts of the city of al-Mayadin.
During the operation, a number of hideouts of ISIS cells were uncovered. NDF units also recovered the body of a Syrian Arab Army service member, “Moataz Abdel-Awfi,” who was killed in the region a while back.
The operation in western Deir Ezzor coincided with intense clashes between the army and ISIS in the Homs desert. The clashes last until July 16, with Russian warplanes carrying out a series of airstrikes on ISIS’ hideouts in the region.
According to the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, at least 44 Syrian service members and ISIS terrorists were killed. These claims are yet to be verified.
Hundreds of ISIS terrorists, including senior leaders, are reportedly taking shelter in the Homs desert. The region lays between western Deir Ezzor and eastern Homs, south of the M20 highway.
The Syrian military and its allies intensified their operations against ISIS terrorists around the Homs desert over the past few months. The terrorist group sustained serious losses. However, it is still active in the region.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC:
Support SouthFront


Final Countdown

13 DAYS LEFT UNTIL THE END OF JULY Since July 1 , SouthFront has collected 1391 USD .
This is @ @ @ @ @ budget needed to keep SouthFront working and further .
IN THIS DARK HOUR , YOUR @ @ @ @ @ SOUTHFRONT ALIVE : Donate via VISA , PayPal , Paysafecard , Bitcoin and other options @ @ @ @ @ types of cards , PayPal , Amazon Payments , bitcoin ( FAQ is under the @ @ @ @ @ . )
You can subscribe for a monthly donation of $ 15 ( or any @ @ @ @ @ one time donation by clicking buttons below

Support SouthFront
11 DAYS LEFT UNTIL THE END OF JULY
Since July 1, SouthFront has collected 1616 USD. This is 32.3% of the monthly budget needed to keep SouthFront working and further.
Meanwhile, the propaganda and technical pressure campaign against SouthFront continues.
IN THIS DARK HOUR, YOUR HELP IS VITAL TO KEEP SOUTHFRONT ALIVE:
PayPal
Account: southfront@list.ru
DonationAlerts
Donate via VISA, PayPal, Paysafecard, Bitcoin and other options.
Tinypass (Piano)
This systems accepts all types of cards, PayPal, Amazon Payments, bitcoin (FAQ is under the main text, in P.S.)
You can subscribe for a monthly donation of $15 (or any another amount) OR make one time donation by clicking buttons below
Patreon
Donate via SouthFront’s Patreon account (click here)
SouthFront: Analysis & Intelligence Team
Support SouthFront


southfront--2020-07-18--Russian Shipyard Floats Out First Serial Borei-A-Class Nuclear-Powered Submarine

The first serial Project 955A ( Borei-A ) strategic nuclear-powered missile-carrying submarine Knyaz Oleg was floated out on Thursday , the Sevmash shipbuilding plant ’ s press service said .
The official ceremony to float out the Knyaz Oleg strategic nuclear-powered missile-carrying submarine of the Borei-A class took place at the Sevmash shipyard in Severodvinsk on 16 July .
The ceremony was attended by officials from the Defense Ministry , the Russian Navy , the United Shipbuilding Corporation , Sevmash and other agencies .
The lead submarine of Project 955A , the Knyaz Vladimir , has already entered service with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gadzhiyevo , the main base of the Northern Fleet ’ s submarine forces , on July 3 .
Project 955A strategic missile-carrying underwater cruisers represent the fourth generation of nuclear-powered subs built for the Russian Navy .
According to Russia ’ s Defence Ministry , Borei-A-class submarines are quieter and feature improved manoeuvring , depth and armament control systems .
LINK The Borei Class submarines have lower displacement levels than the Typhoon Class , which can carry a similar number of missiles .
Yury Dolgoruky could carry 16 missiles , while the improved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carry up to 20 .
All Borei-class submarines can carry 16 Bulava ballistic missiles .
They are also furnished with 533mm torpedo tubes .
The SS-N-32 “ Bulava ” is an intercontinental-range , submarine-launched , solid propellant ballistic missile .
Along with the SS-25 and the SS-27 , both land-based ICBMs , the Bulava missiles are a core component of Russia ’ s strategic nuclear force .
Development of the program began in the 1990 ’ s with official production commencing around 2007-2008 .
LINK The submarine also carries six of the SS-N-15 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calibre anti-ship missile that has a range of 45km and is capable of being fitted with a 20kt warhead or a type 40 torpedo .
LINK MORE ON THE TOPIC :

Support SouthFront
The first serial Project 955A (Borei-A) strategic nuclear-powered missile-carrying submarine Knyaz Oleg was floated out on Thursday, the Sevmash shipbuilding plant’s press service said.
The official ceremony to float out the Knyaz Oleg strategic nuclear-powered missile-carrying submarine of the Borei-A class took place at the Sevmash shipyard in Severodvinsk on 16 July.
The ceremony was attended by officials from the Defense Ministry, the Russian Navy, the United Shipbuilding Corporation, Sevmash and other agencies.
The lead submarine of Project 955A, the Knyaz Vladimir, has already entered service with the Russian Navy. It arrived to Gadzhiyevo, the main base of the Northern Fleet’s submarine forces, on July 3.
Project 955A strategic missile-carrying underwater cruisers represent the fourth generation of nuclear-powered subs built for the Russian Navy. According to Russia’s Defence Ministry, Borei-A-class submarines are quieter and feature improved manoeuvring, depth and armament control systems. LINK
The Borei Class submarines have lower displacement levels than the Typhoon Class, which can carry a similar number of missiles. Yury Dolgoruky could carry 16 missiles, while the improved versions of the Borei Class submarines may carry up to 20.
All Borei-class submarines can carry 16 Bulava ballistic missiles. They are also furnished with 533mm torpedo tubes. The SS-N-32 “Bulava” is an intercontinental-range, submarine-launched, solid propellant ballistic missile. Along with the SS-25 and the SS-27, both land-based ICBMs, the Bulava missiles are a core component of Russia’s strategic nuclear force. Development of the program began in the 1990’s with official production commencing around 2007-2008. LINK
The submarine also carries six of the SS-N-15 missiles. Each SS-N-15 is a 533mm calibre anti-ship missile that has a range of 45km and is capable of being fitted with a 20kt warhead or a type 40 torpedo. LINK
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
Support SouthFront


southfront--2020-07-18--Military Situation In Libya On July 18, 2020 (Map Update)

France should stop bleating to the US and NATO .
France was one of the wolves who ripped Libya apart @ @ @ @ @ lamb .
The shoe is on the other foot France , NATO is a screwing @ @ @ @ @ of just Grecocyprus and you don ’ t like it .
That will teach you @ @ @ @ @ so many centuries .
Having said that I hope the Turks get their ass kicked @ @ @

Support SouthFront
A brief overview of the recent developments in Libya:
The Turkish President stated that the UAE acts like a pirate by supporting the Libyan National Army (LNA) with weapons and money;
France called on the US to intervene to stop the repeated violations of the arms embargo on Libya;
Clashes among LNA factions reportedly erupted by unknown reason in the Brega area.
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
Support SouthFront


southfront--2020-07-18--Damascus Is Rocked By Explosions Ahead Of Parliamentary Elections (Photos)

Late on July 18 , two small explosions rocked the Syrian capital , Damascus , according to the Syrian Arab News Agency ( SANA ) .
The explosions were caused by two improvised explosive devices , which had been planted near a stall in front of Anas Bin Malek mosque in Nahr Eshe neighborhood in the southwestern part of Damascus .
According to the SANA , a man was killed and another was injured in the explosions .
The identity of the victim is yet to be revealed .
The bombings came ahead of highly-critical parliamentary elections .
Ballots are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ July 19 in different parts of the war-torn country , including Damascus .
The National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces slammed the parliamentary election calling it “ illegitimate.
” Meanwhile , the Syrian Democratic Force stressed that it will not allow any ballots in areas that it controls in the northeastern region .
Despite much criticism , Damascus is determined to hold the elections .
The bombings in Damascus today are without a doubt an attempt to intimidate the voters ahead of the elections .
MORE ON THIS TOPIC : • @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Its Troops In Northeast Syria – Report

Support SouthFront
Late on July 18, two small explosions rocked the Syrian capital, Damascus, according to the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA).
The explosions were caused by two improvised explosive devices, which had been planted near a stall in front of Anas Bin Malek mosque in Nahr Eshe neighborhood in the southwestern part of Damascus.
According to the SANA, a man was killed and another was injured in the explosions. The identity of the victim is yet to be revealed.
The bombings came ahead of highly-critical parliamentary elections. Ballots are set to open in the morning of July 19 in different parts of the war-torn country, including Damascus.
The National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces slammed the parliamentary election calling it “illegitimate.” Meanwhile, the Syrian Democratic Force stressed that it will not allow any ballots in areas that it controls in the northeastern region.
Despite much criticism, Damascus is determined to hold the elections. The bombings in Damascus today are without a doubt an attempt to intimidate the voters ahead of the elections.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC:
Support SouthFront


southfront--2020-07-18--Russia Is Investigating Recent Drone Attack On Its Troops In Northeast Syria – Report

Russia is investigating a recent drone attack that injured three of its service members in Syria ’ s northeastern region , the Hawar News Agency ( ANHA ) reported on July 18 .
The attack , which took place on July 16 , targeted a gathering of Russian and Syrian troops in the vicinity of the town of al-Darbasiyah right on the border with Turkey .
Three Syrian service members were also injured in the attack .
According to the ANHA , Russian investigators visited the attack site .
Later , the investigator held a meeting in al-Darbasiyah ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attended by a senior Russian officer .
Kurdish sources accused the Turkish military of carrying out the attack .
The drone used in the attack was a quadcopter armed with a small explosive charge .
The Turkish military operates such drones .
The drone attack on Russian troops in northeastern Syria was a serious provocation .
If Turkey is indeed responsible , its relations with Russia will witness a setback .
MORE ON THIS TOPIC : • SDF Seizes Thousands Of Mortars , Arrests Terrorists In Second Day Of Deir Ezzor Operation ( @ @ @ @

Support SouthFront
Russia is investigating a recent drone attack that injured three of its service members in Syria’s northeastern region, the Hawar News Agency (ANHA) reported on July 18.
The attack, which took place on July 16, targeted a gathering of Russian and Syrian troops in the vicinity of the town of al-Darbasiyah right on the border with Turkey. Three Syrian service members were also injured in the attack.
According to the ANHA, Russian investigators visited the attack site. Later, the investigator held a meeting in al-Darbasiyah’s coordination center. The meeting was reportedly attended by a senior Russian officer.
“The meeting lasted for an hour, after that the delegation headed to the city of al-Qamishily,” ANHA’s reporter said.
Kurdish sources accused the Turkish military of carrying out the attack. The drone used in the attack was a quadcopter armed with a small explosive charge. The Turkish military operates such drones.
The drone attack on Russian troops in northeastern Syria was a serious provocation. If Turkey is indeed responsible, its relations with Russia will witness a setback.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC:
Support SouthFront