engine

The Turkish Air Force looks set to receive a major boost to its fighter fleet, with the delivery of dozens of F110 engines required to power the homegrown TF Kaan combat jet. This would be one of the most significant positive developments in U.S.-Turkish defense relations since Turkey was ejected from the F-35 program in 2019, and may even pave the way for Ankara to rejoin that effort.

Citing four sources familiar with the matter, Reuters reports that President Donald Trump’s administration plans to go ahead with the engine sale, said to be worth more than $700 million, despite some resistance from Congress.

Ahead of his July trip to a NATO summit in Turkey, Trump was asked by a reporter whether Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan would be provided with a “big gift” in the form of F110 engines and potentially F-35 fighter jets.

“He’s a member of NATO,” Trump replied. “He really is a strong member of NATO. Yeah, I’m going to probably do something that’s going to make him very happy.”

Speaking alongside Trump, Vice President JD Vance said a review was underway to see if Turkey could receive the F-35.

“Pete and the entire team are reviewing this right now, because there are certain things that we have to certify have happened … in order to comply with American law,” Vance ⁠said, referring ​to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

The question of whether Turkey might receive F-35s has long been a fraught one, with Ankara kicked out of the program back in 2019, a development we will return to later.

For now, however, Turkey’s priority seems to be securing F110 engines.

Turkey’s TF Kaan next-generation fighter is a flagship program of the country’s burgeoning aerospace industry. The program was launched in 2010, and the first prototype took to the air in early 2024.

Reportedly, Turkey plans to complete three pre-production prototypes, to be followed by 250 series-production aircraft, incorporating various refinements.

Last month, a contract was reportedly signed for 20 examples of the initial Block 10 versions of the Kaan.

The twin-engine Kaan was developed with a reduced radar signature in mind, as well as a high level of performance and modern avionics and other systems. As a result, it doesn’t offer the same level of low observability as the F-35, while its sensor fusion, electronic warfare capabilities, and other ‘fifth-generation’ features lag behind the U.S.-designed jet.

Critically, the Kaan is powered by U.S.-supplied General Electric F110 turbofans.

F110s are assembled under license in Turkey by TUSAS Engine Industries (TEI) but are still governed by U.S. export restrictions. These engines are already used in significant numbers by the Turkish Air Force F-16 fleet, the third-largest in the world. Outside of the F-16, the F110 is also used in the F-15E Strike Eagle and F-15EX Eagle II, among other F-15 variants. An F110 comes with a typical flyaway unit cost of $10 to $15 million.

The Kaan program has long been overshadowed by the question of whether Washington will make available in larger numbers the F110 turbofans used in the prototype. Reportedly, an initial batch of 80 engines is required.

While Turkish officials have expressed hope of ultimately switching to a domestically produced engine type for the Kaan, TEI’s TF35000, it’s unclear how realistic this is, at least in the near term. Turkey has also looked at acquiring alternative engines, too, including those from Russia or Rolls-Royce in the United Kingdom.

In the meantime, the importance of the Kaan to the Turkish Air Force increased significantly in 2019, when it became clear that Ankara would be kicked out of the F-35 program, in which it had a considerable industrial stake, and a plan to buy around 100 of the fighters. Washington took that decision after Turkey refused to abandon its purchase of Russian-made S-400 long-range air defense systems.

As well as the S-400, U.S. lawmakers were unhappy with Turkey’s worsening relations with Greece, its other connections with Russia and Azerbaijan (which included the deployment of F-16s to the latter country), its conduct in the Syrian civil war, and human rights abuses. Turkey’s opposition to Sweden joining NATO also proved to be a significant hurdle.

In the wake of all this, the chances of Turkey receiving F110 engines were dramatically reduced. At the same time, Turkey’s request to buy additional F-16 fighters was also turned down. Turkey reportedly also began stockpiling spare parts for its F-16 back in 2019, fearing the effects of U.S. sanctions.

Toward the end of the Biden administration, U.S.-Turkish relations began to improve, and Washington moved to push through sales of new F-16s and upgrade kits for older jets to Turkey. There also began to be suggestions that the F-35 was potentially back on the table for Turkey.

Under the Trump administration, Washington’s relationship with Ankara has become closer, with Erdogan frequently praised by the U.S. leader.

In early 2024, the U.S. State Department finally approved a possible Foreign Military Sale to Turkey of 40 new F-16C/D Block 70 fighters, plus the upgrade of 79 existing aircraft to F-16V configuration.

At the same time, the issue surrounding the S-400 and the sanctions that followed that acquisition remains.

As it stands, U.S. law does not permit Turkey to operate or possess the S-400 system if it wishes to rejoin the F-35 program, as a result of security concerns around the Russian-made system.

During a visit to Turkey in early 2024, the U.S. Acting Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland reportedly suggested that the United States might be willing to offer Patriot air defense systems if it were to give up its S-400s, which could also clear the way to re-entering the F-35 program.

“Frankly, if we can resolve this S-400 issue, which we want to do, the United States would be pleased to welcome Turkey back into the F-35 family,” Nuland said. “But we must solve this other issue first, and while we solve it, we must also ensure that Turkey has a strong air defense.”

The apparent decision to clear the F110 sale certainly represents a further softening of Washington’s stance, and it could be a stepping-stone to Ankara eventually being readmitted to the F-35 program.

Turkey’s desire for F-35s has only been intensified by the fact that Greece, its major strategic rival, has been approved for a purchase of the jets. You can read all about how tensions between Greece and Turkey are reflected in the countries’ respective air forces in this previous feature.

Even regarding the F110 transfer, some opposition to defense sales to Turkey remains in Washington.

In particular, Representative Gregory Meeks of New York, the leading Democrat on the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, has reportedly stood in the way of the engine sale during an informal review process.

However, according to the four sources who spoke to Reuters, the F110 deal should be “finalized in the coming days, followed by a formal notification from the State Department to Congress.”

While lawmakers can use the congressional review process to raise their concerns over big-ticket defense exports, the administration can override these.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Trump administration is expected to override Meeks’ effort to block the engine deal.

For the Kaan program, the F110 is vital.

Denied the F-35 and with F-16 deals moving forward only slowly, Turkey has been forced to look elsewhere to meet its short-term fighter needs. Most significantly, it signed a deal for 20 Eurofighter Typhoon jets last October.

Turkey has also been investing heavily in drones, including the ANKA-3, a low-observable flying wing uncrewed combat air vehicle (UCAV), and the fighter-like Bayraktar Kizilelma. Still, these are viewed as adjuncts to advanced crewed fighters, like the Kaan.

Whether securing the F110 engines means the Kaan meets its target of service entry around the 2030 timeframe remains questionable.

However, it is a major step in that direction.

As well as being fielded by the Turkish Air Force, the Kaan could have significant potential for export, although sales would be governed by U.S. restrictions on its engines. It is one of a number of medium-weight fighters that feature low-observable characteristics and advanced avionics. These include China’s FC-31 and South Korea’s KF-21.

Reportedly, Indonesia already signed a contract for 48 Kaan fighters last June.

Perhaps most importantly, the F110 deal would get back on track what is very much the flagship of Turkey’s military aerospace industry. At the same time, a U.S. decision to provide Ankara with these engines will also be welcomed by those in Turkey who still wish for a way back into the F-35 program.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Round eight of Formula 1 season takes place in Austria this weekend in the stunning surroundings of the Styrian hills.

Last time out in Barcelona, Mercedes were beaten in a grand prix for the first time this year with Lewis Hamilton taking victory.

The Briton’s first grand prix win for Ferrari, combined with Kimi Antonelli’s retirement late in the race, narrowed the gap at the top of the drivers’ championship to 41 points.

Before Sunday’s race in Spielberg, BBC F1 correspondent Andrew Benson answers your latest questions.

A retrospective podium for Pierre Gasly. Justice? Or a can of worms best left unopened? – Clive

Formula 1 has clearly got itself in a bit of a pickle regarding the pit-lane speeding penalties in the Monaco Grand Prix.

The facts are that five cars were given penalties for pit-lane speeding when none of them had gone over the limit.

The length of the pit lane had been mis-measured – it was possible to drive a shorter distance than officials initially realised, by 77 metres.

And as the pit-lane speed limit is policed by the time taken to pass through a series of timing loops over a specific distance, that meant the drivers were wrongly penalised.

This led to a sequence of events that had a dramatic effect on the race result.

George Russell was most badly affected by what followed, having a third place turned into a 12th and losing 15 points in the process.

But McLaren’s Oscar Piastri and Red Bull’s Isack Hadjar also had their results changed.

Is it justice that Gasly is returned to a third place at the flag that he lost because Alpine refused to serve his penalty during the race, while the other drivers’ results are unaddressed?

Should the stewards who dealt with Alpine’s right of review over the Barcelona weekend have left it at that, and not raised the very obvious questions that followed on from it?

In terms of natural justice, the answer to both those questions is clearly no – there remain a number of issues raised by this situation that have not properly been dealt with.

McLaren and Red Bull have taken the case to the FIA court of appeal. No date has yet been set for that to be heard.

Mercedes have withdrawn their attempt to get the race result reviewed after concluding there was no viable mechanism for restoring Russell to where he could have finished, and it would not serve anybody to drag it all on.

As McLaren said in their statement about giving notice of intention to appeal: “We believe this case raises important questions concerning sporting fairness, regulatory consistency and the integrity of competition.”

The shame is that this could all have been avoided had the FIA and F1 acted differently before the race.

Teams warned the FIA that there was a problem waiting to happen with the pit-lane speeding limit during the Monaco weekend.

Officials did look into it, but their initial conclusion was that the concerns were unfounded. That was clearly an error. Had that been properly addressed at the time, none of this would have happened.

In terms of sporting fairness, it’s hard not to conclude that the issue should be taken to a full and proper conclusion.

Will Ferrari make Carlo Santi Lewis Hamilton’s permanent full-time race engineer, or is his role still considered temporary? – Anthony

The relationship between Lewis Hamilton and his new race engineer Carlo Santi has started off well.

Santi was initially meant to be a stop-gap before Hamilton received a new full-time engineer, but a Ferrari spokesperson says: “Carlo and Lewis are working pretty well together and there’s no plan to replace him.”

Hamilton has found a much more satisfactory relationship with Santi than he had with Riccardo Adami last year, and he’s tried to explain that without sounding too negative about his situation in 2025.

Hamilton said in Canada, where he finished second for what was his best result with Ferrari at the time, that Santi was “absolutely awesome and I’m really loving working with him”.

In Monaco he went further and compared the relationship with Santi to the one he forged over 12 years at Mercedes with Peter ‘Bono’ Bonnington.

“Driver-engineer working together is very, very important,” Hamilton said. “Last year, Adami and I had a really good relationship. He’s a lovely guy. We worked relatively well together.

“Catering to a driver’s needs takes time to learn.

“When you’re giving an engineer feedback, their understanding of through-corner balance, their understanding of all the elements that contribute to the struggles that you’re struggling with, you try to describe what it is, the problem you have, corner by corner, entry, mid and exit where you dissect it into five sections if you want.

“Having that driver-engineer collab, it’s hit and miss sometimes. With me and Bono, we hit it off from the beginning. He had a good working relationship with Michael (Schumacher). I do feel like Carlo is like my Italian Bono.

“He’s a bit of an OG. He’s an older guy that’s been around the block and he’s very calm. You can hear him on the radio. That’s the detail that we’re able to go into together. Our understanding of the engineer side, it’s something that’s very cool.”

For my 50th birthday, I bought a Toyota Corolla. Wait. Is my midlife crisis car really a Corolla, the best selling and most boring model of all time?

Well, yes. And no.

I have “modded” it, or in layman’s terms, modified the stock components and tuned the engine. This is not your aunt’s Corolla. When I hit the gas, the car pulls hard and the engine buzzes as if it’s powered by a hive of killer bees.

I get thumbs-ups from Mustang drivers and cool head nods from Challenger owners. My favorite is when kids at red lights ask me to rev the engine like I’m F1 driver Lewis Hamilton.

Probably a lot of my drive-by admirers are fans of the movie “The Fast and the Furious,” which was released 25 years ago this month. Fans of modified Japanese import cars, like me, have a love-hate relationship with the $7 billion “Fast and Furious” franchise. On one hand, the movies helped popularize modified Japanese cars. People all over the world fell in love with them and the import car culture they publicized.

On the other hand, the movies left out so, so much of the story.

In Southern California in the mid-1990s and early 2000s, people lived, for the most part, phone-free. The internet was nascent — a repository for flyers and ’zines — and most websites looked like Tetris.

The fashion was baggy everything for guys and short shorts, midriffs and little backpacks for girls. The hair was outrageous. And the cars, especially Japanese import cars, had reached the pinnacle of automotive engineering.

During this era, I was in college at UCLA. I saved up and bought a red 1989 Honda CRX Si. It also had a slick five-speed manual transmission, peppy engine and nimble steering. That car got me to work and through college, and from the mountains of California to the border of Oregon. It probably helped me get girlfriends. It consoled me through breakups. It helped me move to the San Francisco Bay Area for my first grown-up job.

And then, stupidly, I sold it, and all the precious memories it carried.

Now when I hit a loopy freeway interchange at night and my GR Corolla carves through the turns, it’s 1996 and I’m cruising in my CRX, getting pho in San Gabriel or rushing to a flyer party at Naga in Long Beach. That’s the magic of certain cars. A regular car takes you from place to place. A special car takes you back in time.

To be completely honest, I bought the CRX to fit in.

The ’90s import car scene was as diverse as Southern California. But there’s no doubt it started with Asian Americans (specifically Japanese Americans in the South Bay city of Gardena) who were influenced by modified car culture in Japan. Soon, Asian American kids all over the region were taking their inexpensive, underpowered four-cylinder, front-wheel-drive Honda Civics (our parents preferred Japanese reliability over American muscle) and turning them into street rockets.

Not only were they building race cars from scratch, they were also building one of my first experiences with a collective Asian American identity: one that wasn’t overtly about politics and activism, or immigration and assimilation. It was about Asian American joy. It was Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Filipino and Vietnamese Americans building cool-looking, fast cars. It was kids stereotyped as nerds going to parties where the awful stereotype of Long Duk Dong from “Sixteen Candles” was shredded into rubber and obliterated by exhaust blasts.

At the time, the Asian Americans we saw in the mainstream media were negligible or offensive, especially for Vietnamese Americans like me. But in import car culture, I saw, for maybe the first time, Asian guys and Asian girls in a centered and even glamorous light.

We made our own cars and our own car shows. We raced each other and then got fast (with turbos, superchargers and nitrous oxide) and raced others. And we won. We published our own magazines, built our own automotive businesses and, for good and bad, promoted our own outlaw street racer image and our own beauty standard. In those 1990s clubs and car shows, you could see and feel that Asian Americans weren’t assimilating culture. We were creating it.

“The Fast and the Furious” picked up on that. Based on a 1998 Vibe magazine article about street racing import cars in New York, the film was transplanted to Southern California. But it got so many details glaringly wrong. Its street races looked like street raves on major, four-wide roads packed with pedestrians. The races of our scene were clandestine, underground events in industrial, under-policed areas, where cars faced off two at a time.

But the most egregious and inexcusable Hollywood crime to me is that “The Fast and the Furious” whitewashed Asian Americans, the creators of this world, out of starring roles. The Korean American actor Rick Yune appears in the movie, sure — but he plays the villain, Johnny Tran, a guy who hates Vin Diesel’s Dominic Toretto for a crime deal gone bad (understandable) and for sleeping with his sister (ditto). Of course, in a tradition that goes back to “Madame Butterfly” and “Miss Saigon,” Tran dies at the end, shot dead by the blond-haired, blue-eyed hero, Paul Walker’s Brian O’Conner.

A few months ago, seeking a mechanic to mod my Corolla, I was referred to an auto shop in Garden Grove aka Little Saigon. The guy who sent me asked me, “Do you even know who’s working on your car?”

“No,” I replied.

He told me the name, and I Googled it.

Apparently, back in the ’90s, this Vietnamese American mechanic from Orange County had one of the fastest Honda Civics in the world. A true OG of the import car scene modified my car with his own hands. What an honor, and what a connection to the past.

This import car story ends in a full poetic justice circle. As a pioneer and legend of the real-life import car scene, my mechanic wasn’t the villain. He was the hero. He was the fastest, and his car was the most furious.

That’s the heart of my GR Corolla journey. Asian Americans created import car culture. We all deserve to be the hero of our own story.

Ky-Phong Tran is a Vietnamese American writer from Long Beach. He is a professional artist fellow with the Arts Council for Long Beach. This article was produced in partnership with Zócalo Public Square.

June 19 (Asia Today) — South Korea is seeking to transform its defense industry into a national growth engine by integrating military procurement, weapons exports, advanced technology and industrial policy, government and industry officials said Friday.

Officials at a public-private seminar in Seoul rejected the long-standing argument that growing foreign orders could divert production capacity from the South Korean military and delay domestic weapons deliveries.

Instead, they said an analysis of about 2,000 South Korean defense companies found that exports increased factory utilization, encouraged investment in research and production facilities and eventually reduced manufacturing costs.

The findings were presented at a seminar titled “A New Leap Forward in Acquisition and the Defense Industry,” held at the Fairmont Ambassador Seoul in the city’s Yeouido financial district.

The Defense Acquisition Program Administration organized the event as it marked the 20th anniversary of its establishment.

Participants included lawmakers, officials from the defense, industry, science and small-business ministries, defense company executives and academic researchers.

They called for an end to treating military procurement and defense exports as separate policy areas.

Lee Yong-cheol, minister of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration, said South Korea’s annual defense exports had grown from about $250 million when the agency was established to $15.4 billion last year.

“Defense exports are no longer merely a supplement to domestic military procurement,” Lee said. “They have become a central growth engine driving the Republic of Korea as a whole.”

Lee said South Korea also needed to move beyond selling individual weapons.

He proposed combining weapons with energy systems, infrastructure, maintenance, repair and overhaul services and other forms of industrial cooperation.

“The era of selling weapons as stand-alone products is over,” Lee said. “We will transform the K-defense paradigm through cross-industry package cooperation.”

Lawmakers from South Korea’s governing and opposition parties pledged bipartisan legislative support for faster procurement and stronger financing for small and midsized defense companies.

They said a system that can take about 15 years to plan, develop and deploy a weapon is not suitable for an era in which artificial intelligence, drones and robotic systems evolve rapidly.

Participants also cited research indicating that financial instability among smaller suppliers, rather than export production, was a more important cause of delivery delays.

They called for expanded government-backed financing to prevent small manufacturers in the defense supply chain from being overwhelmed by debt and working-capital shortages.

Study links exports to stronger domestic production

South Korea’s defense industry has long debated whether large export contracts weaken or strengthen the country’s own military procurement.

Critics have warned that foreign orders could occupy production lines and delay the delivery of weapons to South Korean forces.

Supporters have argued that exports create economies of scale, preserve production capacity and lower the price paid by the South Korean military.

Research presented at Friday’s seminar supported the second view.

A team led by researchers from Myongji University analyzed data from about 2,000 South Korean defense-related companies.

The analysis found that increasing exports produced an immediate rise in factory utilization. Higher utilization was then associated with greater investment in research, development and production facilities.

Researchers said the benefits became more evident about three years after an export increase.

The analysis identified improvements in operating profit, lower production costs and greater independence in critical technologies after that period.

Repeated production also allowed factory workers and engineers to improve their skills and reduce defects, a process commonly described as a learning effect.

At the same time, producing weapons in larger quantities spread fixed development and manufacturing expenses across more units.

Researchers said those effects increased the competitiveness of South Korean products in foreign markets while potentially lowering the cost of weapons purchased by the South Korean military.

Industry experts cited South Korea’s large exports of K2 tanks and K9 self-propelled howitzers to Poland as an example.

They said the contracts increased domestic production, helped reduce unit costs and accelerated work on upgraded models.

Kim Myung-keun, an executive at Hyundai Rotem, said the company achieved economies of scale after receiving Poland’s large K2 tank order.

“Mass production lowered costs, reduced the acquisition cost for our own military and accelerated the development of upgraded models,” Kim said.

Yoon Byung-jo, an executive at SNT Motiv, said repeated production generated through large export orders also strengthened technical capabilities on factory floors.

“The learning effect accumulated by technicians during repeated production is the most powerful tool for reducing defects in critical components and increasing technological independence and localization,” Yoon said.

Lee Jung-hyun, a Myongji University professor involved in the study, said the analysis did not identify export volume as the principal cause of delayed deliveries.

“The real causes of delivery delays were companies’ debt ratios and financial soundness,” Lee said. “Exports instead improved operating profits and technological capabilities after a time lag of about three years.”

Lee said the government should strengthen the financial stability of smaller defense companies rather than restrict exports.

Officials seek to shorten 15-year procurement cycle

Government officials said South Korea’s traditional weapons acquisition process is too slow to keep pace with civilian advances in AI, drones, robots and human-machine teaming systems.

Weapons programs can take about 15 years from initial planning through development and operational deployment.

Officials said that schedule risks delivering technology that has already become outdated by the time it reaches military units.

Won Jong-dae, an assistant defense minister, said the existing system had become a national security obstacle.

“In the age of AI and drones, an acquisition process that takes 15 years is an impediment to security,” Won said.

He said the government would seek legislation tentatively called the Advanced Defense Capabilities Projects Act to shorten the process from initial requirements planning through deployment.

Kim Seong-su, a senior research and development official at the Science and Technology Ministry, said innovation in the civilian sector was advancing more quickly than military technology.

Kim called for an adaptive research and development system that would allow mature commercial technologies to be introduced into the military without passing through the full conventional development process.

The acquisition agency said it plans to expand rapid-introduction programs, particularly for drones and AI-related technologies.

The programs would allow the military to test and deploy promising civilian products more quickly while making adjustments based on operational experience.

Jeong Hwan, chief executive of infrared sensor manufacturer i3system, said smaller companies with advanced commercial technologies often cannot withstand the military’s complicated testing requirements and lengthy acquisition schedule.

He urged the government to make rapid acquisition programs more flexible and accessible to technology companies.

Financial support sought for smaller suppliers

Officials said South Korea must also strengthen small and midsized companies that produce components and materials for major weapons manufacturers.

Park Yong-soon, a senior official at the Ministry of SMEs and Startups, said the research presented Friday showed that financial weakness was a major source of supply-chain disruption.

Park said the government would shift policy toward stronger financial support for vulnerable suppliers and seek to increase the share of domestic defense revenue generated by small companies.

Smaller companies currently account for about 18% of South Korean defense industry sales. The government aims to raise the proportion to 25%.

Officials said those businesses can face severe cash-flow pressures because defense contracts require lengthy development, testing and certification before companies receive full payment.

The problem can become more serious when a small supplier must expand production rapidly to meet a major overseas order.

Park said the government must ensure that otherwise competitive companies do not collapse because they cannot obtain sufficient operating capital.

Park Dong-il, a senior official at the Industry Ministry, also warned that South Korea’s export portfolio remained concentrated in ground weapons.

More than 60% of the country’s defense exports come from land-based systems, he said.

Park said the government would work to diversify the industry into aerospace, next-generation satellites and advanced naval vessels while strengthening the domestic manufacturing and component ecosystem.

South Korea plans national security export packages

The acquisition agency said future export efforts would go beyond individual tanks, aircraft or artillery systems.

The government plans to package defense products with energy projects, transportation and industrial infrastructure, information and communications technology, maintenance services and technology transfers.

Officials described the approach as exporting an integrated security platform rather than a single weapon.

They cited Poland as a model.

South Korean arms agreements with Warsaw have included not only K2 tanks, K9 howitzers and other weapon systems but also plans for local production, technology cooperation, training and long-term maintenance.

An industry official said future transactions could involve building a partner country’s broader security and industrial system.

“The business will no longer be about exporting one tank,” the official said. “It will become a platform business that exports an entire national security system.”

Such packages can help importing countries create domestic jobs, develop supply chains and maintain weapons locally.

They can also give South Korean companies access to long-term revenue from training, spare parts, upgrades and depot-level maintenance after the initial sale.

The approach, however, requires coordination among several ministries because infrastructure, export financing and industrial cooperation extend beyond the authority of the acquisition agency.

Kim Il-dong, deputy minister of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration, said procurement and exports should be viewed as two sides of the same coin.

Kim said the acquisition agency could not achieve South Korea’s defense industry goals on its own.

He called for coordinated action by the defense, science, industry and small-business ministries to develop the sector as a strategic national industry.

Seoul targets 5% share of global defense market

The Defense Acquisition Program Administration said it aims to increase South Korea’s share of the global defense market to at least 5% and establish the country as one of the world’s four largest defense exporters.

Officials said South Korea’s defense industry had already approached the global top five based on its 2025 export performance.

Future growth will depend on moving beyond the country’s current strength in tanks, armored vehicles and artillery, they said.

The government plans to support companies working in AI, space systems, drones, advanced ships and autonomous and human-machine teaming technologies.

It also wants to foster globally competitive defense startups and companies capable of reaching valuations of more than $1 billion.

Officials and industry representatives said South Korea’s defense sector had completed an initial period of quantitative growth and now needed to focus on technology, productivity and supply-chain resilience.

“The past 20 years were a period of quantitative growth in which K-defense built weapons capabilities from the ground up,” seminar participants said. “The next 20 years should be remembered as an era of qualitative growth centered on AI, space, drones and unmanned systems.”

They said military procurement and the defense industry should no longer be treated as separate areas.

Instead, both should be viewed as parts of a single strategic industry supporting South Korea’s security, technological development and economic growth.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260619010006831

Before answering this question directly, it’s important to point out that not everyone views the new rules in such a negative way.

There is an acceptance in F1 that qualifying has been significantly negatively affected, in terms of the driving experience of being on the limit.

Efforts have already been made to address that up to a point this year, and larger steps are in the making for next year.

At the same time, most senior figures in F1 – including some of the drivers – agree that there has been a positive effect on the racing, even if some of the increased number of overtakes that have been seen can be argued to be artificial and down to offsets between states of charge.

TV figures over the first three races were up by more than 20% – all three of Australia, China and Japan had significant increases. Miami’s are not available yet.

Now, as for the genesis of the new regulations, the target when talks started five or so years ago was to attract more manufacturers.

At the time, the direction of road-car technology was firmly electric, so it was decided in concert with the manufacturers to increase the amount of electrification.

A nominal 50-50 split between internal combustion and electric was agreed. Fully sustainable, carbon-neutral fuels were added for further environmental credibility.

The MGU-H, a part of the hybrid system that recovered energy from the turbo, was removed. The reasoning being it was complex and expensive – and therefore hard for new manufacturers to compete with existing ones – and not road relevant.

Following the announcement of those rules, first Audi committed to F1. Soon afterwards, Ford and General Motors did the same, and Honda reversed its decision to quit.

Had the rules not changed, F1 now would have a maximum of three manufacturers or possibly only two, Mercedes and Ferrari, if Renault had gone ahead with its withdrawal.

Instead, it has six.

The problems started when the teams started to look at what a near 50-50 energy split with an engine devoid of an MGU-H meant in terms of operating the cars.

Very early on, at least by 2023, there were warnings that the cars would be energy starved.

Energy recovery from the front axle could have solved this, but this was rejected on the basis that it could give Audi an advantage as it had experience in it from world endurance racing.

The result was a series of sticking-plaster solutions – such as active aerodynamics – that only tickled with the fundamental problem.

It’s hard to get a definitive answer as to why someone in authority did not ask everyone to stop, step back for a minute, look at the big picture, and ask whether the 50-50 split was really so important. And whether the sport should change tack. Clearly, that was a failure.

So now the rules have to be amended. And solutions that could have been introduced before 2026 – such as altering the energy split and making it more in favour of the internal combustion engine – are now likely to be introduced for 2027.

Parallel to that, talks are now ongoing on what comes next – from either 2030 or 2031.

The trajectory of road cars has changed. Electrification is still coming, but – it seems – not to the same degree or at the same speed as was thought five or so years ago.

In F1, a reversal away from electrification to some degree is inevitable. But how much remains to be seen.

A naturally aspirated engine – most likely a V8 – with token hybrid is being pushed by FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem.

But for various reasons that exact solution may not be acceptable to all stakeholders, nor the panacea its proponents claim. Negotiations are ongoing.

FOUND in a small seaside town in Wales is a railway that was said to be the inspiration for Thomas the Tank Engine.

Talyllyn Railway is celebrating its 75th anniversary this weekend to acknowledge the day when it became a ‘world first’, not to mention that children can enjoy hopping aboard for as little as £5.

Follow The Sun’s award-winning travel team on Instagram and Tiktok for top holiday tips and inspiration @thesuntravel.

The Talyllyn Railway in the Welsh county of Gwynedd was saved from closure in 1951 by volunteer train enthusiasts.

This was the first time in history that a railway had been taken over by volunteers, and now it’s celebrating 75 years of being ‘The World’s First Preserved Railway’.

One of the very first railway volunteers was actually children’s author Rev Wilbert Awdry who was the creator of beloved character Thomas the Tank Engine.

GO SEA IT

£9.50 holiday spot with shipwrecks, seals offshore & horseshoe-shaped waterfalls

SIGHT SEA

£9.50 holidaymakers’ favourite Skegness activities… away from the beach

It’s said that Wilbert Awdry based some of his stories on his experiences while working at the railway.

One tale in one of the books is from the time when Wilbert left a colleague, the refreshment lady behind at Abergynolwyn which is at the far end of the line.

Railway historian Tim Dunn said the Talyllyn Railway had made its way into a number of Thomas the Tank Engine books.

He even called the railway the “spiritual home” of Thomas the Tank Engine.

The railway is open seasonally with train journeys throughout spring and summer.

The best part is that children can visit the Talyllyn Railway now and hop onboard for as little as £5 with a ‘Child Explorer’ ticket.

An ‘Adult Explorer’ fare starts from £29 – if you fancy reserving whole compartments this is from £155 (which seats up to six passengers).

The one-hour return journeys start from Tywyn Wharf and head to Nant Gwernol stopping in-between at Pendre, Rhydyronen, Brynglas, Dolgoch and Abergynolwyn.

You can even add an Afternoon Tea or Welsh Cream Tea Package to your experience.

On arrival at the Abergynolwyn stop, the teas are set up with fresh scones, cream and jam with a pot of fresh pot of tea or coffee – these start from an extra £6.50 per person.

On-site, the railway has a Narrow Gauge Railway Museum with a collection of items – some of which are 200 years old.

There’s even a special collection dedicated to the author of Thomas the Tank Engine.

The King’s Café and Quarryman’s Caban at Tywyn Wharf Station are open for breakfast, Sunday lunches, takeaways – there’s even a licenced bar.

The railway is a favourite attraction amongst its visitors with over 1,200 five-star reviews on Tripadvisor.

One visitor even said: “I visited for the first time yesterday. No exaggeration, it was the best day of my life.”

Another added: “My wife and I took a trip to this historic railway during their Awdry Extravaganza weekend and loved it. The trip up the valley is beautiful on a sunny day.”

It holds events throughout the year too – and this weekend the railway is holding its 75th Anniversary Gala to celebrate Talyllyn Railway being saved by volunteers.

Across the weekend, special locomotives are taking to the tracks, like an overnight steam train which will return to the railway for the first time in 11 years.

Trains from various eras like the 1950s, 60s, 70s, 80s all the way to modern day will also be on display.

Other events include Sunset Specials which run on Wednesday and Sunday during spring bank holiday week between 6PM until 9PM for pretty views.

The ‘Railway Adventure’ event is where visitors can travel behind a historic steam locomotives. Guides explain how Talyllyn Railway got to be a world first, and delve into the early days of the Preservation Pioneers.

During ‘The Slate Trail’, passengers can experience a train journey inside a Victorian-era carriage. Tickets for these two experience start from £23.75 for children and £47.50 for adults.