fleet

When a Danish-flagged tanker named Torm Agnes quietly pulled into Mexico’s Port of Ensenada this spring, few took notice. The harbor, better known for cruise liners and pleasure yachts, seemed an unlikely setting for a large-scale energy delivery. But what followed was no ordinary unloading. Within hours, convoys of fuel-hauling trucks began siphoning off diesel from the tanker under the cover of night, an industrial cover that occurred so fast that witnesses said it operated “like clockwork.”

By morning, much of the shipment, worth roughly $12 million, had vanished into the Mexican black market. On paper, the cargo was listed as lubricants, exempt from Mexico’s high import taxes. In reality, it was a vast quantity of U.S.-sourced diesel smuggled by intermediaries working with one of Mexico’s most violent cartels; the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, or CJNG.

This was not a one-off operation. It was part of a sprawling, billion-dollar criminal enterprise linking Mexican cartels, U.S. traders, corrupt officials, and global shipping firms into what security analysts are now calling a “dark fleet.” And it underscores a deeper truth: the cartelization of Mexico’s energy market is no longer a localized issue, it’s a geopolitical problem touching the heart of North American trade, governance, and security.

A New Market Touched by Cartels:

For decades, Mexico’s cartels made their fortune in narcotics. Today, they are energy traders, exploiting systemic weaknesses in Mexico’s tax system and infrastructure to build empires rivaling legitimate fuel companies. According to Mexican officials, bootleg imports may now account for up to one-third of the country’s diesel and gasoline market, worth more than $20 billion a year.

The genius of the scheme lies in its simplicity. Mexico’s IEPS tax, a levy on imported fuels often exceeding 50% of a shipment’s value, creates a powerful incentive to cheat. Smugglers evade this tax by falsifying cargo documents, claiming their shipments contain lubricants or petrochemical additives, both of which are tax-exempt. The fake paperwork passes through customs with the help of bribes, while the actual diesel or gasoline floods Mexican markets at a discount.

Companies like Houston-based Ikon Midstream, which bought and shipped the Torm Agnes cargo, occupy the gray zone between legality and complicity. The firm purchased diesel in Canada, disguised it as lubricants in customs documents, and sent it to a Monterrey-based recipient called Intanza, a company authorities now suspect is a CJNG front.

It is the blending of formal and criminal economies that makes this phenomenon so dangerous. What once required violent pipeline theft now operates as a hybrid supply chain, complete with invoices, shipping manifests, and trade intermediaries. The same global infrastructure that powers legitimate energy commerce has been repurposed for organized crime.

The American connection:

The Ensenada case illustrates how deeply intertwined U.S. and Mexican energy systems have become. Nearly all the smuggled fuel originates in the United States or Canada. It passes through American ports, refineries, and shipping brokers, some unwitting, others complicit.

Texas, long a hub for legitimate fuel exports, has also become fertile ground for illicit operations. “The cartels have infiltrated many legitimate businesses along the border and further north,” warned Texas State Senator Juan Hinojosa, who has pushed for stricter licensing of fuel depots and transporters.

The U.S. Treasury Department and the Office of Foreign Assets Control  have since begun sanctioning dozens of Mexican nationals and companies tied to CJNG’s fuel operations. Yet the challenge lies in the complex nature of the trade; each shipment can involve multiple shell companies, international middlemen, and falsified documents. Even major firms like Torm, one of the world’s largest tanker operators, have been drawn into controversy. The company says it cut ties with Ikon Midstream after the Ensenada operation became public, citing contractual deception.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Justice has already prosecuted American citizens for aiding cartel-linked fuel schemes. In May, a Utah father and son were charged with laundering money and supplying material support to CJNG by helping smuggle Mexican crude oil. Such cases highlight that America’s own regulatory and commercial systems are being leveraged to sustain the very criminal organizations Washington seeks to dismantle.

Mexico’s Shaky Governance:

For Mexico, the rise of cartel fuel empires is not just an economic issue, it’s an existential one. The Mexican Navy, once regarded as among the country’s least corrupt institutions, is now under internal investigation for its role in facilitating smuggling at ports. Senior naval and customs officials have been arrested in connection with illegal tanker operations, while President Claudia Sheinbaum’s administration has made combating fuel theft a cornerstone of its early tenure.

But even high-profile seizures barely scratch the surface. Since Sheinbaum took office in late 2024, authorities have confiscated an estimated 500,000 barrels of illegal fuel, less than a fraction of the $20 billion trade. Prosecutors investigating the racket face mortal danger. In August, Tamaulipas’ federal prosecutor was assassinated after leading raids that uncovered more than 1.8 million liters of illicit fuel.

This combination of organized crime, corruption, and governance failure is a hallmark of what political scientists call “criminal capture”, the point at which state institutions become functionally co-opted by illicit economies. With cartels operating as false energy corporations, Mexico’s sovereignty over its own fuel sector is seemingly a facade.

The Global Shadow Market:

The implications stretch beyond Mexico. The term “dark fleet” was first used to describe tankers smuggling sanctioned Russian and Iranian oil. Now, it applies equally to the vessels carrying contraband fuel across the Gulf of Mexico and Pacific coastlines.

These ships exploit the same legal and logistical loopholes that sustain global energy markets; open registries, layered ownership, and limited oversight in maritime trade. Once a vessel’s cargo is reclassified or offloaded at an unsanctioned port, tracing its origins becomes almost impossible.

For Western energy giants, this black-market competition is tangible. Shell’s decision to sell its retail operations in Mexico earlier this year was due in part to its inability to compete with cheaper cartel-supplied fuel. Bootleg diesel sells at a 5–10% discount below legitimate imports, enough to distort prices across an entire sector.

Meanwhile, the illusion of “cheap” fuel comes at extraordinary cost. Mexico’s treasury loses billions in tax revenue annually, honest importers are squeezed out, and legitimate workers are drawn into dangerous informal economies. The trade also erodes trust in North America’s supply chains, just as Washington and Mexico City struggle to deepen cross-border economic integration under the USMCA framework.

Cartel Infiltration into Trade Routes:

The evolution of cartels from narcotics traffickers to fuel traders reflects a broader transformation in organized crime. Cartels have always been adaptive enterprises, but their pivot into energy reveals strategy: fuel is legal, high-margin, and logistically complex, making it perfect for laundering money under the guise of legitimate trade.

In this new landscape, the line between criminal and commercial actor has blurred beyond recognition. A U.S. trader signing a fuel invoice in Houston may be unknowingly financing a cartel warehouse in Jalisco. A Danish shipping company fulfilling a contract may inadvertently be enabling tax evasion worth millions. And a Mexican port official turning a blind eye may be advancing the interests of a criminal enterprise larger than the state itself.

The Torm Agnes episode is not merely a tale of smuggling; it is an example showcasing globalization’s vulnerabilities. As supply chains grow more complex and opaque, the ability of states to control what passes through their borders diminishes.

What’s Next?

Mexico’s “dark fleet” is more than a law enforcement issue, it’s a test of North America’s supply chain security. If cartels can operate international fuel logistics networks using legitimate Western infrastructure, the implications reach far beyond Ensenada. It raises fundamental questions about regulation, accountability, and the complicity embedded in global commerce.

President Sheinbaum’s crackdown, combined with U.S. sanctions, suggests the beginnings of a coordinated response. But the scale of the challenge is daunting. As one former OFAC official put it, “The cartels are not just criminals anymore, they’re businessmen with global reach.”

Whether Washington and Mexico City can curb this hybrid economy will define not just the future of bilateral relations, but the credibility and stability of the global energy system itself.

President Donald Trump says he has been seriously talking with Navy Secretary John Phelan about adding “battleships” with gun-centric armament and heavily armored hulls back into America’s naval force structure. There are immediate questions about the feasibility and practicality of the Navy fielding any sort of battleship, a type of vessel the service has not had in its active inventory since 1992. At the same time, Trump’s comments do touch on real questions about the future of naval guns for major surface warships, especially amid ongoing work globally on railguns, and the potential value of added armor to respond to threats, including cruise missiles and drones.

Trump talked about the prospect of a new battleship for the Navy at an unprecedented all-hands meeting of top U.S. military officers at the Marine Corps’ base in Quantico, Virginia, yesterday. War Secretary Pete Hegseth had called for the gathering and had addressed the attendees first.

“I think we should maybe start thinking about battleships,” Trump said, adding that he had spoken to Secretary Phelan on the matter. “Some people would say, ‘No, that’s old technology.’ I don’t know. I don’t think it’s old technology when you look at those guns.”

“It’s something we’re actually considering, the concept of battleship, nice, six-inch side, solid steel. Not aluminum, aluminum that melts. If it looks at a missile coming at it, [it] starts melting as the missile’s about two miles away,” he continued. “Now those ships, they don’t make them that way anymore, but you look at it, your Secretary [Phelan] likes it, and I’m sort of open to it. And bullets are a lot less expensive than missiles.”

“It’s something we’re seriously considering,” he reiterated. 

It is unclear if Trump was talking about attempting to recommission any of the four ex-Iowa class battleships, which are preserved as museum ships at various locations around the United States, or building new ones. How seriously the Navy is or isn’t looking at a future battleship force of any kind is also not clear.

“The Navy is committed to maintaining a modern and effective fighting force. An updated Battle Force Ship Assessment and Requirements review has been initiated in alignment with the forthcoming National Defense Strategy,” a Navy official told TWZ when asked for more information. “This work is about fielding the right capabilities, with the right numbers and in the right theater. Once force structure decisions are finalized, they will be announced publicly and executed with speed. Until then, internal deliberations will not be previewed.”

The Navy uses the term “Battle Force” to collectively refer to its fleets of aircraft carriers, submarines, major surface combatants, and amphibious warfare ships, as well as combat logistics vessels and some other types of auxiliaries.

In response to additional queries on the matter, the Office of the Secretary of War also redirected us to the Navy.

This is not the first time that Trump has put forward a version of the battleship proposal. A decade ago, speaking from the deck of the former USS Iowa, then-candidate Trump raised the prospect of recommissioning that ship into service should he be elected. Trump won that election, but Iowa remained berthed in the Port of Los Angeles in California, where it still sits today.

On a level, the idea of recommissioning the Iowas reflects past precedent. These were the last battleships built for the Navy, and their main armament initially consisted of nine 16-inch guns, three in each of three turrets, which could hit targets up to around 23 miles away. Each one also had 20 five-inch guns spread across multiple turrets, along with other weapons. The four ships in the class – the USS Iowa, USS New Jersey, USS Missouri, and USS Wisconsin – were first commissioned into service between 1943 and 1944, and they all served during World War II in the Pacific.

Iowa, New Jersey, and Wisconsin were then decommissioned between 1948 and 1949 as part of post-war drawdowns. Two more ships in the class that were still under construction when Japan surrendered were scrapped entirely.

The Navy recommissioned Iowa, New Jersey, and Wisconsin between 1950 and 1951 to serve in the Korean War. All three of those battleships, along with the USS Missouri, were subsequently decommissioned before 1960. New Jersey briefly returned to service once more between 1968 and 1969, taking part in the Vietnam War.

In the 1980s, under President Ronald Reagan, the four Iowas were put through a deep overhaul and upgrade program before being recommissioned yet again. The modifications most notably included launchers for as many as 32 Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles and up to 16 Harpoon anti-ship missiles, something worth emphasizing in light of Trump’s remark that “bullets are a lot less expensive than missiles.” At that time, the ships also received new radars, electronic warfare systems, and other improvements, including Mk 15 Phalanx close-in defensive gun systems.

Until Ticonderoga class cruisers with 122 Mk 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) cells, as well as upgraded Spruance class destroyers with 61-cell Mk 41 arrays, began entering service in the late 1980s, the modified Iowa design had the largest Tomahawk load of any single ship in the Navy’s inventory.

The four battleships continued to serve through the end of the Cold War, before being decommissioned between 1990 and 1992. Missouri and Wisconsin remained in service just long enough to take part in the Gulf War.

In 2015, there was a case to be made, albeit already increasingly remote, that recommissioning at least some of the Iowas one more time might have been feasible. The former Missouri and New Jersey had been stricken from the Navy’s rolls in 1995 and 1999, respectively, but Iowa and Wisconsin remained in mothballs until 2006. After that, they were turned into floating museums, but Congress only allowed that to happen with the express understanding, enshrined in law, that the U.S. military could ask for them back should the President invoke certain provisions of the National Emergencies Act. In 2007, legislators further clarified that this meant, among other things, that “spare parts and unique equipment, such as 16-inch gun barrels and projectiles, if donated,” could also “be recalled if the battleships are returned to the Navy in the event of a national emergency.”

A debate about the need, or lack thereof, for naval gunfire support to aid in future amphibious operations had been a central factor in the decision to keep the ships in a regenerative state. This was also later tied into the fate of the Zumwalt class stealth destroyers, also known as DDG-1000s, which we will come back to later.

A decade on now, the prospective cost and time to get any of the former Iowa class battleships serviceable again can only have increased, and likely dramatically so. Rehabilitating their now thoroughly dated steam-powered propulsion systems and training personnel to operate them would present particular challenges. TWZ touched on similar issues years ago amid discussions about recommissioning the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk, which first entered service in 1961. The Navy ultimately decided to scrap Kitty Hawk, as well as the ex-USS John F. Kennedy, another ship in its class that had been in mothballs for years.

No country in the world is currently building new warships of a size and with a configuration in line with traditional battleships. Any attempt to do so in the United States would be very costly and manpower intensive. At the end of their final resurrections, the Iowas had over 1,500 crewmen aboard. That is well over five times the crew size of a Arleigh Burke class destroyer. Even assuming automation could cut that number down, making a very large crew commitment to a single surface combatant would be problematic for a Navy that has had trouble in the past meeting recruiting goals.

Beyond all this, in the context of modern naval warfare, there are glaring questions about the basic utility of a very large surface combatant, which would also require a large crew, and that devotes much of its available volume to relatively short-ranged guns. Operating ships like this on a day-to-day basis would be extremely costly and could be otherwise complicated for a U.S. Navy that has struggled to sustain the fleets it has now.

A gun-centric ship would also need to get in very close proximity to use those weapons against any targets at a time when the reach of adversary anti-access and area denial capabilities is only growing. This would only further narrow the scope of operations it could undertake, given that it could easily find itself vastly outranged in many circumstances by threats at sea, ashore, and/or in the air. Such a vessel would already be an obvious high-value target for enemy forces, which would create challenges for more independent operations outside of a larger surface action group.

The future of the very kinds of amphibious operations where naval gunfire support could be most of use is increasingly in question. Since 2020, the U.S. Marine Corps has been engaged in a complete overhaul of force structure centered on new concepts of operations that put significantly less emphasis on deploying via traditional large amphibious warfare ships.

Trump’s comment yesterday that ammunition for naval guns is cheaper per round than a missile is accurate, but this reality does not exist in a vacuum. Missiles have become the dominant naval weapons on larger surface combatants worldwide for attacking targets at sea and on land, as well as in the air, in large part because of the vastly longer reach and precision that they offer over even very large caliber guns. Major surface warships in service today, including in the U.S. Navy, do still typically feature at least one general-purpose main gun, but with a decidedly secondary role to their missile magazines, although these are far smaller than the Iowa class’ main guns. They also generally have arrays of other smaller guns, but for close-in defense.

It is worth noting here that top Navy officials have talked in the past about the need to think about future surface warfare plans outside of the lens of total missile launch capacity, especially as the service’s fleets have contracted in size. A key driver in those discussions has been how to fill the gaps that will come from the retirement of the last of the Ticonderoga class cruisers, now set to come at the end of the decade, which will take hundreds of VLS cells out of service. That being said, large caliber guns historically associated with battleships have not been discussed as any kind of alternative.

Concepts for battleship-like arsenal ships packed with VLS cells, which might also have some degree of secondary gun armament, have been put forward in the past. This rebalancing of capabilities could help just their cost.

We have seen some of this debate play out already in a way with regard to the Zumwalt class stealth destroyers. A pair of 155mm Advanced Gun Systems (AGS) tucked away inside stealthy turrets, and coupled with specialized long-range rounds, were core features of the finalized DDG-1000 design explicitly intended to meet continued demand for naval gunfire support.

However, the intended ammunition from the AGSs became so costly that the Navy decided not to buy any, rendering the AGSs effectively dead weight. The service is now in the process of stripping at least one of the turrets from each of the three DDG-1000s in order to refit them with the ability to launch Intermediate-Range Conventional Prompt Strike (IRCPS) hypersonic missiles.

Defense spending drawdowns immediately following the end of the Cold War led the Navy to severely truncate its overall plans for the Zumwalt class, overall. This is why only three of the ships were ever built, one of which still has yet to be commissioned into service. The DDG-1000 program has seen major cost and significant technical issues amid persistent questions about the expected roles and missions of these ships. The USS Zumwalt, the USS Michael Monsoor, and the future USS Lyndon B. Johnson are all currently assigned to a unit charged primarily with research and development and test and evaluation tasks. How much it will cost to keep this tiny fleet of exotic ships operational remains a burning question.

There is a line of development that could offer significant new capability in the naval gun space: railguns. Weapons of this type, which use electromagnets rather than chemical propellants to launch projectiles at very high speeds, hold the promise of offering a new and flexible way to rapidly engage targets at sea, on land, and in the air, and do so at considerable ranges for a gun. Railguns also offer magazine depth and cost-per-round benefits over missiles.

Between 2005 and 2021, the Navy was actively working toward an operational railgun capability. The estimated unit cost of the rounds for that weapon was pegged at around $100,000. In addition to being cheaper than missiles, this was also much less pricey than the rounds the Navy had been developing for the guns on the DDG-1000s, which had soared to some $800,000 per shell before that effort was axed.

The Navy halted work, at least publicly, on its prototype naval railgun in the early 2020s, citing technical hurdles. Planned at-sea testing had been repeatedly pushed back at that point. Development of the ammunition has continued for use in existing 5-inch naval guns, as well as weapon systems on land.

Other countries, including China, have also been pursuing this capability in recent years. Just this year, Japan has made significant strides in this realm, as TWZ has been following closely. This might presage the coming introduction of a new category of gun-armed naval vessels, which some experts and observers have quipped to be something of a second coming of the battleship.

Trump’s remarks yesterday also touched on the fact that battleships like the Iowa class offered a higher degree of physical armor protection than is found on modern surface combatants. In particular, battleships were historically characterized by thick armor ‘belts’ along the outside and/or on the interior of the hull above and below the waterline. The main belts on the Iowas, made of steel, were 13.5 inches thick, and they also had extensive armoring elsewhere.

Though it is also not clear what the President was necessarily referring to specifically when he mentioned “aluminum,” those comments do reflect a still-ongoing debate when it comes to the construction of naval warships. Aluminum and aluminum alloys offer certain advantages in naval shipbuilding, particularly when it comes to weight and cost. However, there has been much discussion over the years about their relative durability, as well as their lower melting point and fire resistance compared to available steels.

Persistent cracking on the aluminum superstructures on Ticonderoga class cruisers played a real role in the Navy’s decision to insist on all-steel construction for the Arleigh Burke class of destroyers. The service’s all-aluminum Independence class Littoral Combat Ships have notably suffered from cracking over the years, as well.

Whether it means battleship-like protection or not, there is a case to be made for renewed focus on passive armoring of surface warships as the maritime threat ecosystem continues to expand and evolve. A modern take on the armor belts of traditional battleships could provide valuable additional layers of defense against anti-ship cruise missiles, including types with specially designed penetrating warheads.

Even more limited additional armor could also provide useful extra protection against attacks involving lower-tier weapons, especially one-way attack drones, which are in increasing use, even by non-state actors. Iranian-backed Houthi militants in Yemen have shown how dangerous drones can be to ships at sea, especially if they are layered in with cruise and ballistic missiles and other munitions. The Houthis have also demonstrated how much pressure this puts on the missile magazines on modern warships. Those threats would only be magnified in higher-volume attacks in any future high-end conflict, such as one on the Pacific against China.

Added battleship-like armor may be effective in shrugging-off many types of anti-ship missile attacks, but it would still have its limits, especially against anti-ship ballistic missiles capable of drilling down into hardened targets from directly above just as a byproduct of the high speeds they reach in the terminal phase of their flights. Any extra armoring would require many design trades and considerations. The added mass would require larger propulsion and mechanical support systems, which would then push the ship to be even larger and more complex. Speed requirements could be relaxed although presumably the ship would have to keep-up with a carrier strike group, which would require it to meet or exceed the speeds of other ships designed to do so.

The U.S. Navy is in the process now of devising the requirements for its next surface warship, a future destroyer currently referred to as DDG(X). There are few things more central to the design of a naval vessel than what armament it should have and what materials should be used in its construction.

At the very end of last year, the Navy turned some heads with pictures from a ceremony marking the end of Capt. Matt Schroeder’s time as head of the DDG(X) program office, and Mr. Jim Dempsey’s taking over of that role. A cake at the event featured a rendering of the ship with no main gun at all on the bow, something that had been present in previous official artwork. Though it was just a cake, there is no indication that the source image came from an unofficial source. The Navy also does not appear to have clarified since then whether or not this reflects a design concept currently under consideration.

Beyond battleships, President Trump has also taken a very vocal interest in Navy ship design, in general, over the years, which could have other impacts on the service’s plans. At the tail-end of his first term, the President said he had personally intervened to turn the design of the Constellation class frigate from “a terrible-looking ship” into “a yacht with missiles on it.”

“I’m not a fan of some of the ships you do. I’m a very aesthetic person, and I don’t like some of the ships you’re doing, aesthetically,” Trump said during another portion of his remarks just today. “They say, ‘Oh, it’s stealth.’ I say that’s an ugly ship.”

Even before he was confirmed to his post, Navy Secretary Phelan had said Trump was also texting him in the middle of the night to complain about what is commonly called “running rust” on American warships.

In 2017, Trump had also suggested that the Navy should ditch electromagnetic catapults for launching aircraft on its Ford class aircraft carriers and go back to using steam-powered types. The Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) has been plagued by issues over the years, which the Navy has spent considerable resources working to mitigate.

All of this comes as the Navy continues to struggle, broadly, with acquiring and fielding new warships and otherwise modernizing its fleets, as well as sustaining the vessels in its inventory already. The Constellation class frigate program, which is already three years behind schedule and on track to deliver the first ship nearly a decade after awarding the initial contract, has become a particular poster child for these failings. Constellation was supposed to reduce risk and keep costs relatively low by using an in-production design as a starting point, but the ship now only has around 15 percent commonality with its ‘parent,’ the Franco-Italian Fregata Europea Multi-Missione (FREMM), as you can read more about here.

“All of our programs are a mess, to be honest,” Secretary Phelan told members of Congress during a hearing back in June. “Our best-performing one [program] is six months late and 57 percent over budget.”

The Trump administration and Congress have pushed to try to reverse these trends in recent years, including by working to incentivize U.S. shipbuilders and exploring how foreign companies might be able to assist. The Navy has also put increasing emphasis on acquiring larger numbers of smaller vessels, including multiple tiers of uncrewed types, to help bolster its capabilities and operational capacity, while also maximizing available resources. In the meantime, China, in particular, has been surging ahead in naval warship production, as well as the expansion of its capacity to build those vessels, something TWZ has been sounding the alarm on for some time now.

It’s also important to remember that Trump often makes grand pronouncements about potential future military acquisition efforts that do not come to fruition.

Still, while the idea of the Navy operating battleships again is extremely remote, Trump’s influence could emerge in other ways in the Navy’s shipbuilding plans, especially as DDG(X) evolves.

Contact the author: [email protected]

Sept. 4 (UPI) — Virginia-based Leidos is expanding the Royal Navy’s autonomous fleet with a medium-sized craft to support the rapid tactical deployment of commando forces.

Leidos announced it has designed and produced 24 autonomous medium surface-insertion craft that can deploy commando strike teams, light tactical-mobility platforms, offboard systems and medium combat loads from long range.

“Sea Dagger represents a pivotal step in equipping the U.K.Commando Force with the capability to operate with greater agility, survivability and intent in a complex and congested maritime environment,” said Adam Clarke, Leidos U.K. & Europe senior vice president and chief executive officer, in a news release.

“The Leidos design reflects our commitment to delivering resilient, future-ready platforms that can adapt to the complexities of modern warfare, ensuring capability, availability and operational advantage from day one,” Clarke said.

The Sea Dagger can exceed 40 knots and is the first craft of its size to combine speed, range, vehicle delivery and adaptable modular mission systems in a single autonomous craft, according to Leidos.

Leidos developed the Sea Dagger as part of the U.K. Commando Force program, which is a fully enclosed craft that can operate in coastal and shallow-water areas.

The Sea Dagger is a fully enclosed, medium-sized vessel that is equipped with a bow-mounted ramp for the rapid loading and unloading of commando troops and equipment during military operations.

Its design incorporates artificial intelligence, high-tech sensors, weapons and command-and-control capabilities to create an autonomous fastcraft that is the culmination of 30 years of fast-craft development.

The Sea Dagger “helps ensure the [U.K. Commando Force] can respond quickly with the tools, training and systems needed to face the evolving threats and demands of modern conflict,” according to Leidos.

The autonomous maritime platform is similar to those that U.S. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle recently said the U.S. Navy needs to modernize its fleets and address national defense needs.

Caudle told the Senate Armed Services Committee such craft are needed to modernize the Navy during a July 24 confirmation hearing ahead of the admiral being elevated to the nation’s chief of naval operations.

DONALD Trump sent warships to Venezuela as the country’s dictator Nicolas Maduro moved 15,000 troops to the border with Colombia.

Three US destroyers and 4,000 marines sailed to the coastline just weeks after the Washington administration announced a $50million bounty on the South American tyrant’s head.

6

6

6

6

A guided missile cruiser, the USS Erie, and a nuclear-powered fast attack submarine are also expected to reach the Caribbean coastline next week, a source confirmed.

The move comes as the US tries to officially crackdown on threats from Venezuela’s drug cartels, one of which officials accuse Maduro of spearheading.

In a bid to push US vessels out, the tyrant announced on Monday the deployment of 15,000 troops to Colombia, just a day before declaring the launch of his own fleet of vessels along the Caribbean coast.

In a video shared online, Venezuela’s Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino said this would include a “significant” number of drones, as well as naval patrols “further north in our territorial waters”.

The US deployment of vessels comes as the US President tries to squash  “narco-terrorist organizations” in the region.

During Trump’s first term in the office, Maduro and other high-ranking Venezuelan officials were indicted in federal court in New York on several charges including participating in a “narco-terrorism” conspiracy.

Investigators say Maduro’s cartel worked hand-in-hand with the rebel Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), which the US has labeled a terrorist organization.

The US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) “has seized 30 tons of cocaine linked to Maduro and his associates, with nearly seven tons linked to Maduro himself,” Bondi said.

The US government has also seized more than $700 million in Maduro-linked assets, including two Venezuelan government aircraft, since September last year, according to Bondi.

GREEDY RULER

Elected by a narrow margin in March, 2013, Maduro has presided over the country for year as its problems skyrocket.

As his country suffered and starved, Maduro lived a life of luxury and reportedly racked up a fortune of £220million.

In 2018, he sparked outrage after being pictured enjoying a lavish meat banquet hosted by celebrity chef Salt Bae in Istanbul.

While Venezuelans can barely afford fresh meat, the president tucked into the infamous gold-crusted steaks.

“This is a once in a lifetime moment,” the president said as puffed on a cigar and ignored the widespread food shortage raging in his country.

Opposition leader Julio Borges, who fled Venezuela for fear of arrest, tweeted: “While Venezuelans suffer and die of hunger, Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores have a good time in one of the most expensive restaurants in the world, all with money stolen from the Venezuelan people.”

Only a few months earlier, his two stepsons Yoswal Gavidia Flores and Walter Gavidia Flores managed to blow £36,000 on an extravagant 18-night stay at the Ritz hotel in Paris.

The bill was equivalent to the monthly wages of 2,000 Venezuelans – a casual two weeks for the pair who frequently parade themselves around Europe’s most expensive restaurants and hotels.

And back at home, the president and his family can escape the chaos of their own making by hiding out in his luxury enclave in the capital, complete with its own bowling alley, swimming pools, lakes and restaurants.

Maduro and his so-called “dirty dozen” of top lieutenants live in fabulous estates which would not look out of place in the hills of Hollywood.

The five star bolthole is guarded by seven successive checkpoints and hundreds of heavily armed troops.

6

6

The Israeli Ministry of Defense has said it will seek to buy two more Boeing KC-46A Pegasus tankers from the United States, as it invests in its fleet of in-flight refueling tankers, heavily utilized in the recent campaign against Iran, as well as for other long-range combat missions and domestic ones. While Israel has already committed to buying four KC-46s, it currently relies on a dwindling fleet of veteran Boeing 707 tankers. The 12-day war against Iran earlier this year, in particular, led to questions about Israeli Air Force (IAF) aerial refueling capacity, and the U.S. government was forced to deny that it had provided additional tanker support for the operation.

“The fifth and sixth [KC-46] refueling aircraft will strengthen the IAF — the IDF’s long-range strategic arm — enabling it to reach distant theaters with greater force and scope,” said Maj. Gen. Amir Baram, director general of the Israeli Ministry of Defense, earlier this week.

Baram was announcing re-equipment plans that also include additional armored vehicles and first-person-view (FPV) drones. The KC-46 acquisition is set to move forward once approval has been granted by Israel’s Defense Procurement Ministerial Committee. Valued at a reported $500 million, the tanker deal will be funded through U.S. financial aid.

The “new aircraft will be equipped with Israeli systems and adapted to the Israeli Air Force’s operational requirements,” the Israeli Ministry of Defense added.

Ido Nehushtan, president of Boeing Israel, told Breaking Defense that the company “takes pride in its longstanding partnership with Israel, a relationship that dates back to the nation’s establishment. The KC-46A tanker aircraft will provide the world’s most advanced multi-mission aerial refueling capability to the IAF.”

Back in 2020, the U.S. State Department approved the potential sale of eight KC-46As to Israel, with the entire package having an estimated price tag of $2.4 billion.

“The United States is committed to the security of Israel, and it is vital to U.S. national interests to assist Israel to develop and maintain a strong and ready self-defense capability,” the U.S. Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) said at the time. “This proposed sale is consistent with those objectives.”

A year later, Israel formally approved plans for its first order of KC-46s. Israel reportedly also inquired about whether it could take delivery of its first pair of KC-46s from a lot the U.S. Air Force had already contracted Boeing to build. This would allow the IAF to get these aircraft earlier than would otherwise be possible.

Finally, in 2022, the U.S. Department of Defense awarded Boeing a $930-million contract for the first four KC-46s for Israel, with deliveries due before the end of 2026.

It’s unclear to what degree Israel’s procurement timeline for the KC-46 has been affected by the type’s well-publicized problems in U.S. service, but the move to increase the purchase signals confidence in the program and will be a boon for Boeing as it seeks further foreign sales for the type.

By the time the first IAF KC-46s arrive, they are expected to be fitted with the next-generation version of the critical Remote Vision System (RVS) that has proven so challenging to perfect. Ironically, the Israeli 707s that the KC-46 will replace have long used a locally developed RVS that has apparently proven very effective, and which you can read more about here and here.

Meanwhile, there’s no doubt that the IAF badly needs a successor for its 707 fleet, these aircraft being known locally as the Re’em (oryx in Hebrew).

Today’s Re’em fleet first entered service in 1979, with then-newer 707-300 airframes replacing previous 707-100s. These aircraft were acquired from commercial airlines before being modified locally for aerial refueling. The conversion was done by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI). Additional airframes were acquired and upgraded to tankers as recently as the 2010s, but the most worn-out examples are already being retired.

In addition to aerial refueling, the IAF’s 707s have a critical role as a command-and-control station and communications node. The aircraft carries a satellite communications suite to provide critical, secure beyond-line-of-sight communications with appropriately equipped tactical aircraft like the F-15 and F-16, and command centers far away. This is also highly important for long-range strike operations. The reference to the KC-46 being fitted with “Israeli systems and adapted to the Israeli Air Force’s operational requirements” may well be a reference to similar C2 and communications modifications.

As of today, Israel is understood to have no more than seven 707 tankers in service, with satellite imagery of Nevatim Airbase dating from late last year showing five examples visible there.

This means that the Re’em is more valuable to the IAF than ever, especially for its long-range strike capabilities, a point underscored by recent Israeli operations in the Middle East.

As well as the campaign against Iran’s nuclear program, codenamed Operation Rising Lion, which involved round-trip flights of around 2,000 miles, the IAF has flown other high-profile long-range attacks against targets across the region, since Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, attack. This has included raids against Houthi targets in Yemen.

The demand for tanker capacity to support these operations, as well as other assignments and routine and training activities, led to speculation that the U.S. Air Force might be assisting Israel in this regard.

In the wake of the 12-day war with Iran, the U.S. Department of Defense issued a flat-out denial that it provided any such support for the IAF during the conflict.

A U.S. Air Force spokesperson stated the following in response to TWZ’s inquiry into the matter:

“The U.S. Air Force routinely conducts training operations alongside allies and partners within the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility. The Israeli Air Force routinely participates in these exercises and operations at various levels; however, U.S. aerial refueling platforms do not conduct in-flight refueling operations with the IAF.”

There are still claims that the U.S. did in fact provide some tanking during the 12-Day War. Regardless, provided the USAF’s denial is fully accurate, it makes the IAF’s ability to sustain a high tempo of operations and achieve significant effects over such great distances all the more remarkable.

Meanwhile, it remains undeniable that the U.S. military has an unmatched ability to provide Israel with tanking capacity, if there were a plan to do so. With KC-46 deliveries continuing, and with the Pegasus looking to be on track for further U.S. orders, under what has been termed the ‘bridge tanker’ requirement, the aircraft is increasingly becoming the backbone of the U.S. Air Force’s tanker fleet.

With Israel now moving to grow its KC-46 orders, this should speed the process of retiring the fast-aging 707s and providing much-needed modernization for the Israeli Air Force’s aerial refueling capacity.

Contact the author: [email protected]

European Union says move amounts to one of the strongest sanctions packages against Russia to date linked to the war.

The European Union has approved a new raft of stiff sanctions against Russia over its war in Ukraine, including a lower oil price cap, a ban on transactions with Nord Stream gas pipelines, and the targeting of more shadow fleet ships.

“The message is clear: Europe will not back down in its support for Ukraine. The EU will keep raising the pressure until Russia ends its war,” EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said in a statement on Friday.

Kallas said the EU move amounts to “one of its strongest sanctions packages against Russia to date” linked to the war, which is now in its fourth year.

Ukraine’s newly appointed Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko welcomed the EU’s agreement on an 18th sanctions package against Russia, saying it “strengthens the pressure where it counts”. Svyrydenko added on X that there was more to be done in terms of measures to help bring peace closer.

French President Emmanuel Macron said that he spoke with Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy and added he also welcomed the adoption of the sanctions. “The Russian attacks must stop immediately,” he wrote in a post on social media platform X. “France is and remains at Ukraine’s side.”

Meanwhile, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said that the bloc is “keeping up the pressure on Russia” following the announcement. “It’s good that we in the EU have now agreed on the 18th sanctions package against Russia,” Merz wrote on X.

“It targets banks, energy and the military industry. This weakens Russia’s ability to continue financing the war against Ukraine,” he added.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Friday that Russia has built up an immunity to Western sanctions and adapted to them. Peskov also called the sanctions illegal, saying every new restriction creates negative consequences for those countries that back them.

The move comes as European countries start to buy United States weapons for Ukraine to help the country better defend itself.

US President Donald Trump announced the deal to supply more weapons to Ukraine and threatened earlier this week to impose steep tariffs on Russia unless a peace deal is reached within 50 days.

The European Commission, the EU’s executive branch, had proposed to lower the oil price cap from $60 to $45, which is lower than the market price, to target Russia’s vast energy revenues.

The EU had hoped to get major international powers in the Group of Seven countries involved in the price cap to broaden the effect, but conflict in the Middle East pushed up oil prices, and the US administration could not be brought on board.

In 2023, Ukraine’s Western allies limited sales of Russian oil to $60 per barrel, but the price cap was largely symbolic as most of Moscow’s crude – its main moneymaker – cost less than that. Still, the cap was there in case oil prices rose.

Oil is Russia’s main source of income

The linchpin of Russia’s economy is oil income, allowing President Vladimir Putin to pour money into the armed forces without worsening inflation for people, and avoiding a currency collapse.

The EU has also targeted the Nord Stream pipelines between Russia and Germany to prevent Putin from generating any revenue from them in future, notably by discouraging would-be investors. Russian energy giant Rosneft’s refinery in India was hit, as well.

The pipelines were built to carry Russian natural gas to Germany but are not in operation. They were targeted by sabotage in 2022, but the source of the underwater explosions has remained a major international mystery.

Additionally, the new EU sanctions are targeting Russia’s banking sector to limit the Kremlin’s ability to raise funds or carry out financial transactions. Two Chinese banks were added to the list.

The EU has slapped several rounds of sanctions on Russia since Putin ordered the invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022.

But each round of sanctions is getting harder to agree on, as measures targeting Russia bite the economies of the 27 member nations. Slovakia held up the latest package over concerns about proposals to stop Russian gas supplies, which it relies on.