naval

Marilyn Hubalde recalls the fear of local residents in Batanes, Philippines, when they first heard military helicopters during joint exercises with U. S. troops in April 2023. Hubalde’s helper even hid in the woods, thinking war had begun. The military drills, part of increased U. S.-Philippines cooperation, involve airlifting anti-ship missile launchers to the islands, marking a significant shift for the once-peaceful province.

Situated near Taiwan, Batanes is now seen as a frontline region in the competition between the U. S. and China for influence in Asia. The province is close to the Bashi Channel, an important shipping route between the Philippines and Taiwan, which connects the South China Sea to the Western Pacific. The recent exercises highlighted how both countries plan to use ground-based missiles to prevent Chinese naval access in potential conflicts.

Experts emphasize that denying Chinese control of the Bashi Channel is crucial, as it could decide the outcome of any conflict. Retired military officials state that controlling the northern Philippines is essential for any Chinese invasion of Taiwan, which China claims as its territory. President Xi Jinping has stated that China may use force to assert control over Taiwan, a position Taiwan’s government rejects, insisting that its future is for its people to determine.

China’s foreign ministry has warned the Philippines against involving external forces and escalating tensions in the South China Sea, calling Taiwan an internal issue that should not involve outside interference. The Pentagon and Taiwan’s defense ministry did not provide comments on these developments.

Using the ‘First Island Chain’

American military deployments in Batanes are part of a broader Pentagon strategy focused on using the Philippines’ geographic position to deter or counter Chinese military actions towards Taiwan and other areas in the South China Sea. The Philippines, consisting of over 7,600 islands and vital maritime chokepoints, is essential to the “First Island Chain,” which comprises territories controlled by U. S. allies, forming a barrier against China’s expanding navy. Rear Admiral Roy Trinidad of the Philippine Navy stated that the archipelago serves as a crucial gateway between the South China Sea and the Pacific Ocean.

The U. S. aims to ensure this gateway remains secure, despite uncertainties about American security commitments under President Donald Trump. Efforts have intensified since President Joe Biden took office to strengthen defense collaboration with the Philippines. Recent reports indicate an evolving and permanent U. S. military presence in the country, characterized by joint exercises and ongoing training, reversing an earlier period after the U. S. left its military base at Subic Bay in 1992.

In a meeting between Philippine Armed Forces chief General Romeo Brawner and U. S. Indo-Pacific Command head Admiral Samuel Paparo, the two sides agreed to more than 500 joint engagements for 2026, covering various military activities. U. S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth highlighted a focus on enhancing capabilities to counter Chinese aggression in the First Island Chain, noting that training activities with the Philippines are increasing in scale and duration.

The cooperation under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. is vital for containing Chinese forces, especially in a potential conflict scenario. Marcos has stated that should war arise over Taiwan, the Philippines would be inevitably involved, while also emphasizing the desire to avoid conflict. The Philippine defense ministry expressed confidence in the commitments made by the Trump administration.

China’s recent military movements demonstrate the importance of the Bashi Channel for its Pacific strategies. The region has seen enhanced Chinese naval activity, including exercises near Japan, which highlight its ambitions. In response to Chinese “gray-zone” warfare aimed at the Philippines, which involves intimidation tactics against Philippine vessels, the military has reported unauthorized incursions by Chinese ships into Philippine waters. The defense ministry asserts that these actions challenge international law and reflect China’s desire to reshape the global order. China’s foreign ministry did not provide responses regarding these tactics.

War Jitters in Batanes

Communities near key military passages in the archipelago feel vulnerable due to preparations for conflict. In Batanes, residents, like Hubalde, rushed to buy essential supplies like rice, oil, sugar, and milk when military exercises began. The islands heavily depend on regular shipments from the mainland for food, fuel, and medical supplies.

Provincial Governor Ronald “Jun” Aguto Jr. said that the community has adapted to the military presence, which initially caused alarm and panic buying. Aguto is now focused on updating the provincial contingency plan to prepare for a potential influx of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) from Taiwan during a conflict. There are around 200,000 Filipinos living in Taiwan. He mentioned that Batanes could be used as a launch pad for bringing these workers home, but the islands can support only 20,000 people, requiring a plan to transfer them to the mainland for better sustainability.

The military is developing a rescue plan, according to Commodore Edward Ike De Sagon, the retiring Philippine Navy commander for Northern Luzon. He emphasized that the military is preparing for various scenarios, including handling large numbers of returning workers and possible refugees from Taiwan. The Philippine military has noted Batanes’ strategic location as a potential logistical hub for evacuations and humanitarian responses.

Concerns about being caught in conflict have intensified, especially if China were to attack Taiwan, with fears that Batanes could be targeted. Past military exercises have indicated preparations for potential fighting in the region. Retired politician Florencio Abad urged Manila authorities to reassure the local population regarding plans for managing the impact of conflict, expressing fears about survival in such a scenario. He highlighted the lack of clear communication from the government about evacuating workers from Taiwan or plans for potential refugees. The Philippine defense ministry stated that it is working on contingency and repatriation plans but did not provide details.

Missiles ‘Designed to Close a Strait’

Locals are concerned about potential conflict as the U. S. and the Philippines conduct annual military drills named Balikatan, which includes the deployment of U. S. Marines and new missile systems. The U. S. brought the NMESIS ground-based anti-ship missile launcher to Batanes, capable of launching the Naval Strike Missile with a range over 300 kilometers. This missile can target hostile warships in the Bashi Channel, providing “sea denial capability,” which is crucial for controlling access to this strait.

In late May, more drills occurred with the NMESIS system moved secretly into position for simulated strikes while U. S. and Philippine marines practiced key area operations. Not long after the NMESIS was deployed, China’s aircraft carrier Shandong entered the Western Pacific through the Bashi Channel for military exercises, spotlighting the strategic importance of this maritime route. China also deployed its other carrier, the Liaoning, similarly entering from the Miyako Strait, as both aimed to enhance their naval capabilities. Japan’s military anticipates that in a conflict, it would prevent Chinese access through certain straits, making the Bashi Channel vital for China.

The Philippine military described China’s naval activities as part of aggressive and illegal regional tactics. Meanwhile, the U. S. Army deployed Typhon launchers in Luzon, armed with powerful anti-ship missiles, which can hit targets deep into China, even as Manila expressed a willingness for further deployments despite Chinese objections.

China condemned the U. S. and Philippines’ military exercises and deployment of offensive weapons as destabilizing. The Philippine military clarified that these missile systems are for training and deterrence, not aimed specifically at any country, and operational security prevents them from confirming the locations of such systems. The military maintained that the presence of these missiles during exercises was temporary and not intended to close any maritime routes like the Bashi Channel.

If China doesn’t like it, ‘we’re doing it right’

Senior Philippine defense officials believe that China’s negative reaction indicates it sees the new anti-ship missiles as a significant threat. Retired Admiral Ong noted that disapproval from China means the Philippines is on the right track. The Philippine military recently acquired BrahMos supersonic anti-ship missiles from India, intended to give ground forces the ability to strike Chinese vessels and land targets while staying hidden. This approach helps avoid the vulnerability of fixed military bases to Chinese attacks.

Joint military exercises with the U. S., Japan, and Australia are being conducted to prepare for potential blockades in key maritime routes in the Philippines, such as the Mindoro Strait and the Balabac Strait. The Marcos administration has also allowed the U. S. access to four new military sites in northern Luzon, expanding military cooperation.

U. S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed America’s defense commitments to the Philippines shortly after President Trump took office and exempted funds for Philippine security force modernization from an overseas aid freeze. Despite increased military activity, Batanes Governor Aguto believes China is unlikely to attack, as it would escalate into a larger conflict.

However, local residents, like store owner Marilyn Hubalde, are preparing for possible disruptions to their supply chains. They are considering the need to grow their own food should conflict arise, emphasizing the importance of self-sufficiency in uncertain times.

With information from Reuters

SEOUL, Oct. 6 (UPI) — North Korean leader Kim Jong Un visited the country’s first 5,000-ton destroyer and called for bolstering naval power to “punish” threats to national sovereignty, state-run media reported Monday.

Kim visited the Choe Hyon destroyer on Sunday with high-ranking party and government officials as part of his tour of a military hardware exhibition, the official Korean Central News Agency reported.

Pyongyang launched the Choe Hyon at the Nampo Shipyard in April. The vessel is armed with a wide range of weapons, including nuclear-capable cruise missiles, according to North Korean reports.

Kim called the destroyer the “remarkable latest success” of the North’s warship-building industry and a symbol of the “rapidly developing naval forces of the DPRK,” KCNA reported.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is the official name of North Korea.

The North Korean leader added that the country’s naval power “should be exercised in the vast ocean to thoroughly deter or counter and punish the enemy’s provocations for the sovereignty of the state and its security interests.”

The de facto maritime border in the Yellow Sea, known as the Northern Limit Line, has long been a source of tension between the two Koreas. North Korea does not officially recognize the NLL, which was drawn unilaterally by the U.S.-led United Nations Command after the Korean War.

The boundary area has been the location for a handful of naval skirmishes in the decades after the 1950-53 war, including the North’s 2010 torpedo attack on a South Korean warship that left 46 dead.

In January 2024, Kim called the line “illegal” and warned that even the slightest violation of the North’s territory would be considered a “war provocation.”

He later repeated the threats, saying the boundary was a “ghost … without any ground in the light of international law or legal justification.”

More recently, South Korea’s military fired warning shots after a North Korean merchant vessel crossed the border on Sep. 25.

Pyongyang unveiled a second 5,000-ton warship in May, named the Kang Kon, but the vessel suffered an accident at its launch ceremony that left it listing on its side.

Kim, who was in attendance at the launch, called the mishap a “criminal act” and warned of serious consequences for those found responsible. At least four officials were arrested in the aftermath.

The Kang Kon was repaired and relaunched in June, although analysts have questioned whether it is fully operational.

The North has vowed to build another 5,000-ton destroyer by October 2026.

THIS is the moment a Ukraine naval drone strikes one of Vladimir Putin’s key fuel sites sparking chaos in Russia.

The Salavat factory was hit for the second time in less than a week amid Volodymyr Zelensky’s soaring campaign against Russian oil.

6

6

6

Footage shows thick black smoke billowing out of the facility as an inferno rages on the ground.

A second explosion, meanwhile, is seen pounding the building.

Locals reported hearing a “loud noise” before flames ravaged the surrounding area.

The Salavat refinery, considered a linchpin in Russia’s oil industry, was last hit on September 18 – causing a “massive explosion”, according to local media.

It’s just one of a number of facilities Ukraine has targeted in recent weeks as it steps up its campaign on Russian energy infrastructure.

The strikes have sparked chaos in Moscow with petrol stations reportedly not able to stockpile fuel.

Widely used petrol – such as Ai 92 and Ai 95 – are often unavailable, according to reports.

One employee at a petrol station in the western Belgorod suggested the oil crisis had reached a tipping point, with stations forced to close “because there was no gasoline”.

She told Reuters: “The station in the neighbouring village also closed, and others simply ran out of gasoline.”

Moscow has been forced to ban fuel exports for six months, sacrificing vital revenue just to stop unrest at home.

Military intelligence expert Philip Ingram MBE previously explained how “Putin’s greatest fear” is “the Russian people rising up.”

Before the invasion, energy exports made up around 40 per cent of the Kremlin’s budget.

Even under sanctions, oil and gas still bring in 30 per cent of Russia’s income.

He showed how Ukraine has zeroed in on this “river of oil money” with pinpoint strikes hundreds of miles inside Russian territory.

Long-range drones have torched colossal refineries, exploded pumping stations and set storage tanks ablaze – systematically dismantling Moscow’s refining capacity.

The campaign has shattered Russia’s aura of invulnerability, exposed its sprawling oil empire as a fatal weakness, and brought the war crashing into the lives of ordinary Russians.

And as Ingram puts it: “It proves that in modern warfare, the most effective battle plans aren’t always about brute force on the tactical frontline, but about finding your enemy’s single point of failure – and striking it again and again with unrelenting precision.”

6

6

It comes as Donald Trump announced in his keynote speech at the UN General Assembly that Ukraine could win back “every inch” of its territory with Russia.

In a major pivot from his previous stance on the three-and-a-half-year conflict, Trump also dismissed Russia’s military strength and mocked its inability to beat Ukraine in just a few days.

Posting on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump said Ukraine “may be able to take back their country in its original form and, who knows, maybe even go further than that”.

Trump’s Vlad-bashing follows months of growing frustration at Putin’s refusal to end the offensive in Ukraine.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov hit back at Trump’s insults, particularly those levelled at the Russian economy.

“The phrase ‘paper tiger’ was used in relation to our economy,” he said.

“Russia is more associated with a bear. And paper bears don’t exist.

“Russia is a real bear.”

Peskov did, however, admit that the Russian economy had faced “tensions”.

6

The U.S.-China competition is intensifying in the Indo-Pacific, especially in the maritime domain, and it is increasing the risk of a dangerous miscalculation. Both countries are rapidly building up their navies, reinforcing their deterrence posture, and heading for riskier military encounters. Yet while the buildup of hard power is accelerating, crisis management mechanisms are left shockingly underdeveloped.

Such dynamics remind one of the most unfortunate security failures in modern history: the pre-WWI Anglo-German naval race. Similarly, at the time, rising powers clashed at sea, backed by nationalist ambitions and rigid alliance systems, while mechanisms for de-escalation and maritime communication were nonexistent. Eventually, a fragile security environment was formed, prone to escalation from small events into a global conflagration.

Today, the U.S. and China are taking a similar path. If the United States does not urgently invest in an institutionalized crisis management mechanism alongside its defense modernization, it could lead to a strategic trap that is “ready to fight but unprepared for de-escalation.”

Risk of Escalation: Today’s U.S. and China

Like Germany’s pre-1914 maritime expansion under the Kaiser’s rule, China is attempting to modify the regional order by its naval power. In 2023, China’s PLA Navy commissioned at least two Type 055 destroyers and multiple Type 052D and Type 054A frigates, totaling more than 20 major naval platforms (including submarines and amphibious ships). Simultaneously, sea trials of Fujian, China’s third aircraft carrier—the most technologically advanced naval vessel in the fleet—have begun. In addition, coupled with A2/AD capabilities such as anti-ship ballistic missiles, including DF-21D and DF-26, such a military buildup can be considered a clear intent to complicate U.S. Navy operations in the Taiwan Strait and in the South China Sea.

The U.S. response was strong and swift. Under the context of the Pacific Deterrence Initiative (PDI), Washington has invested more than 27 billion USD since FY 2022 in forward basing, pre-positioning of munitions, and enhancing maritime operational resilience in the Indo-Pacific. In addition, the U.S. Navy is continuously investing in Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines, Virginia-class fast-attack submarines, and unmanned platforms. Strategic clarity is increasingly shaped by operational deterrence, and a greater number of U.S. naval platforms are now being forward deployed in contested waters.

Yet, just like before WWI, investment in military hardware is ahead of investment in crisis management systems. The gap between military capability and the mechanisms to manage conflicts is increasing, and such misalignment was what led the European countries to disaster in 1914.

Historical Parallels: The Anglo-German Trap

The Anglo-German naval race that occurred from the 1890s to 1914 reminds us of the current situation in the Indo-Pacific. Due to its industrial confidence, nationalist ambition, and strategic anxiety, Germany challenged the UK’s naval supremacy. In response, the UK reinforced its maritime dominance, built the revolutionary HMS Dreadnought, and eventually triggered a vicious cycle of competitive arms racing.

Despite the growing perception of risk, naval arms control was unsuccessful. The construction freeze proposed by the UK was refused by Berlin, and diplomatic overtures, including the 1912 Haldane Mission, collapsed due to distrust, lack of transparency, and domestic political pressures.

Effective crisis management did not exist. Maritime incidents that occurred in the North Sea and the Mediterranean were not arbitrated while diplomacy was intermittent and reactive. When the two sides tried to slow down the arms race, strategic distrust was deeply embedded. The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand transmogrified into a world war not because of one party’s aggression but because there was no off-ramp. Similar vulnerabilities exist in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea.

The Crisis Management Gap

Although some formal structures (military hotlines) exist between the U.S. and China, such instruments turn out to be continuously ineffective during crisis situations. During the 2023 Chinese balloon incident, Beijing did not respond to the U.S.’s urgent request for a hotline call. After Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Taiwan visit in 2022, China suspended the senior defense dialogue.

Meanwhile, risky close encounters are increasing. For example, in June 2023, a Chinese J-16 fighter intercepted a U.S. RC-135 reconnaissance aircraft in a dangerous manner. In the same month, a Chinese destroyer violated navigation safety norms by crossing directly in front of USS Chung-Hoon in the Taiwan Strait.

These incidents are not individual events but systemic ones. And such events are occurring while there are no reliable institutionalized communication protocols between the two sides, where both are under a constant alert status.

To correct this, it is advisable for Washington to create a Joint Crisis Management Cell within INDOPACOM. This center should include liaison officers from the U.S., Japan, and Australia and be empowered to rapidly activate de-escalation protocols when a high-risk maritime incident occurs, even if high-level political channels are stagnant. This crisis management cell should utilize pre-negotiated crisis response templates—similar to an air traffic controller managing near-miss procedures—and guarantee the clarity and continuity of communication.

At the same time, the U.S. should embark upon a U.S.-China maritime deconfliction agreement, modeled upon the U.S.-Soviet INCSEA accord of the Cold War era. That accord, negotiated in 1972, defined maritime encounter procedures and communication protocols, and it proved durable even during the height of the Cold War. The modern version of INCSEA does not necessitate trust but is a functional necessity when heavily armed parties are operating at close range.

Strategic Effectiveness, Rather Than Symbolic Hardware

In the early 20th century, the UK’s naval expansion was not necessarily strategically consistent. Occasionally prestige overwhelmed operational planning, and doctrine lagged behind technological innovation. The U.S. should avoid falling into a similar trap.

Modern U.S. Navy planning should emphasize systems that actually provide effectiveness in a contested environment. In that sense, unmanned systems, including the MQ-9B SeaGuardian, long-range munitions like LRASM, and resilient RC2 structures are necessities. Such capabilities could enable U.S. forces to function even under missile saturation and communication denial situations.

Logistical innovation is also crucial. Forward bases situated in Guam, the Philippines, and Northern Australia should be diversified and strengthened to serve as maritime resupply nodes and distributed logistics hubs.

In addition, all these elements should be coordinated across domains. The U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Army, and allies’ coordinated integrated capacity would be sine qua non for effectively projecting power and managing military escalation.

Alliance Management and Entanglement

Although entangled alliances did not trigger WWI, they did contribute to its rapid escalation. The risk lay not only in misjudgment but also in the absence of a common structure that could manage shocks within complexly interconnected treaty systems.

The U.S. faces a similar risk. While the U.S. is maintaining defense treaties with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, and Australia, it is deepening its alignment in the region with AUKUS and the Quad. But many of these arrangements lack joint crisis response protocols or clear role expectations concerning the Taiwan contingency or conflictual situations in the South China Sea.

To mitigate such inherent risk, Japan should proactively lead in creating a Strategic Escalation Forum by 2026. This forum would summon decision-makers of the U.S.’s key allies—Australia, India, and the ASEAN countries—and jointly plan crisis responses, define thresholds, and establish mechanisms that provide political signaling during escalation.

As for South Korea, it should clarify its stance of non-combat in a Taiwan contingency through declaratory policy. This would confirm that South Korea would not dispatch troops to the Taiwan Strait, yet it could include commitments of logistics support, cyber operations, and intelligence sharing. Such a stance would lessen Beijing’s misunderstanding and alleviate allies’ concerns while enabling Seoul to prevent itself from being entrapped by a high-intensity scenario.

At the same time, Washington should initiate scenario planning on how AUKUS and Quad partners could contribute to coordinated crisis management, not necessarily through combat roles but through measures including ISR, sanctions enforcement, and strategic signaling.

The Future Path: To Prevent Another 1914

U.S.-China naval competition will not disappear, at least in the foreseeable future. Yet Washington has a choice: it could escalate through inertia, or it could manage competition through strategy. It is important to construct more submarines and missiles, yet that alone is insufficient. The genuine risk lies in the absence of an institutionalized safety mechanism.

If Europe was engulfed in the 1914 war due to unmanaged arms races and rigid alliances, the Indo-Pacific could also face a similar fate. If leaders in Washington do not create a structure that could absorb shocks and prevent escalation, the Taiwan Strait, just like Sarajevo, could become a spark.

The historical lesson is to plan for great powers not to collide with one another, rather than leaving them to rush toward an inevitable collision.

Washington should act now—not after a collision, but before—by institutionalizing a de-escalation mechanism before the strategic environment becomes rigid. The window of opportunity for prevention is still open, but it is narrowing.

The United States has deployed military forces to the Caribbean with the ostensible goal of combatting drug trafficking.

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has said that a United States military deployment in the Caribbean is aimed at overthrowing his government, viewed as a longtime foe by the US.

In a series of rare remarks before reporters on Monday, Maduro said that Venezuela seeks peace but that the military is prepared to respond to any attacks from US forces.

“They are seeking a regime change through military threat,” Maduro told journalists. “Venezuela is confronting the biggest threat that has been seen on our continent in the last 100 years.”

Maduro has raised alarm over a US naval buildup in the region, ostensibly for the purpose of combating drug trafficking, that has caused speculation about possible military interference against Venezuela. The Venezuelan leader has deployed troops along the South American nation’s borders and called on citizens to join militias.

The US Navy currently has two Aegis guided-missile destroyers – the USS Gravely and the USS Jason Dunham – in the Caribbean, along with the destroyer USS Sampson and the cruiser USS Lake Erie in the waters off Latin America.

The news agency Associated Press has reported that those forces could expand further in the coming days, with the inclusion of amphibious assault ships with 4,000 sailors and US Marines. The US, for its part, has not announced plans to deploy any personnel to Venezuelan soil.

US President Donald Trump’s administration has accused Maduro of close connections to an array of drug trafficking and criminal organisations throughout the region, claims for which it has thus far failed to offer any evidence.

The US doubled its reward for information leading to Maduro’s arrest over allegations of involvement in drug trafficking to $50m in August.

In May, US media reported that an internal intelligence memo concluded that there was no evidence linking Maduro to the Venezuelan criminal group Tren de Aragua, undercutting a claim pushed publicly by Trump and his allies. That allegation had also been an important component of the administration’s push to rapidly deport Venezuelans accused of membership without due process.

Despite his frequent use of rhetoric railing against the history of US intervention in Latin America, the Venezuelan leader had previously expressed an interest in cooperating with the Trump administration in areas such as immigration enforcement, agreeing to accept Venezuelans deported from the US.

During his press conference on Monday, Maduro also insisted that he was the rightful ruler of the country after winning a third term in a strongly contested 2024 election. The opposition has maintained that they were the true winners of that election, and neither the US nor most regional governments have recognised Maduro’s victory.

Boeing has provided a new rendering for its F/A-XX proposal, and it’s remarkably similar to concept artwork that has already been released for its F-47, selected for the U.S. Air Force’s Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) ‘fighter’ initiative. While it’s important not to read too much into declassified conceptual renderings of either of those aircraft, based on the artwork, the new art does, at least, correspond with Boeing’s previous hints that the F/A-XX and F-47 would incorporate significant commonality.

The new rendering of the F/A-XX proposal from Boeing was first shown at the Tailhook Symposium last week. The rendering was subsequently published by Aviation Week and is also seen at the top of this story. An F-47 rendering, for comparison, is seen below.

As we reported only earlier this week, Navy Vice Adm. Daniel Cheever, commonly referred to as the service’s “Air Boss,” is still “eagerly awaiting” a decision on the F/A-XX down-select, despite the uncertainty now swirling around that program.

Like previous F-47 depictions, the new Boeing F/A-XX rendering obscures the aircraft in clouds but adds a Navy flattop below, befitting its role as a carrier-based tactical jet. The tail surfaces of the aircraft are fully concealed in clouds. Meanwhile, the aircraft’s ‘bubble’ canopy appears to be very similar to that presented in F-47 renderings. While the radome appears to be smaller and shorter than the notably wide one shown on the Air Force jet, this might be due to the viewing angle. Based on the angle of the wing leading-edge extension, it seems that the F/A-XX concept may well also include canard foreplanes.

As we discussed in an in-depth feature on the topic, canards were a surprising feature of the F-47 renderings that appeared once Boeing had been announced as the winner of the Air Force’s NGAD fighter program. In the F-47 renderings, the details of the canards are also deliberately obscured, but are clearly present.

Above all, canards are a feature that’s not immediately associated with an aircraft optimized for low observability (stealth), range, payload, and speed. Instead, this is a feature that’s normally included on tactical fighters on the basis of maneuverability.

First off, we should note that the new F/A-XX rendering might not include canards, and the degree to which the rendering may reflect the final Boeing design proposal remains open to question. There may also be some counter-intelligence work at play in the F/A-XX rendering, as well as those of the F-47, by pushing concept art that alludes to a prominent feature that the aircraft actually doesn’t have.

However, canards would be of particular benefit for a carrier-based aircraft like the F/A-XX. In this case, the foreplanes enhance low-speed maneuverability, which is especially important during carrier approaches and landings.

Since the tail is entirely hidden in the new F/A-XX rendering, we can’t comment with any degree of authority on this area. However, it’s worth bearing in mind that it’s widely assumed that the F-47 is a tailless design. Previous 6th generation naval fighter renderings from Boeing have also shown a tailless design. Such a configuration would help optimize stealth, although it would sacrifice some maneuverability. To mitigate this, Boeing may have opted to use thrust vectoring and/or canards for its F-47 and F/A-XX proposals.

Otherwise, based on what we already know about the F-47 and F/A-XX, the two aircraft are expected to offer somewhat different capabilities, over and above the carrier compatibility of the Navy jet. According to Aviation Week, the F-47 is presumed to use an all-new adaptive powerplant, the F/A-XX will use a derivative engine, Navy officials have said.

While the Navy previously said that the F/A-XX would be optimized for extended range and survivability, more recent comments suggest its range may only be 25 percent greater than existing tactical jets. This may also be dictated, in part, by the constraints of carrier operations.

There are meanwhile signs that the Air Force might have scaled back its range requirements for the F-47, with the original NGAD fighter having been pitched as a ‘cruiser’ type aircraft with very long endurance suited to Pacific operations. The Air Force now says that the aircraft will possess a combat radius of “1,000+” nautical miles, a significant advance over other fighters currently in the inventory, but not the kind of extended range that many had expected for the Air Force NGAD, especially considering the need to confront advanced enemy air defenses in the decades to come.

The new Boeing F/A-XX rendering appears soon after Northrop Grumman released a rendering for its own submission for the program, something that TWZ was first to report on.

Boeing and Northrop Grumman are understood to be the remaining contenders for F/A-XX.

The Northrop Grumman rendering notably doesn’t include canards, and its overall design appears to be heavily weighted toward stealth, including a flowing, almost organic design, with constantly changing radiused surfaces. Overall, the design has similarities to the passed-over YF-23. You can read more about it here.

Overall, however, Boeing’s new F/A-XX rendering seems to underscore previous affirmations from the company that it would not have a problem building both the Navy and Air Force next-generation fighters.

Earlier this summer, Steve Parker, Boeing Defense and Space CEO, said he didn’t see a problem with his company building both the F-47 and F/A-XX, stating that this had been part of the strategy all along.

Parker’s comments came in response to questions raised by Navy and Pentagon budget officials about the U.S. defense industry’s capacity to produce the two new highly-advanced tactical jets simultaneously.

In particular, Boeing has invested considerable sums in developing a new Advanced Combat Aircraft Assembly Facility in St. Louis, Missouri, which should have the potential to build both aircraft, if the company’s F/A-XX bid is successful. Building the two types in parallel would be made even easier if they were based, at least somewhat, on a core design, with a high degree of commonality.

As we noted earlier this week, the Navy was reportedly close to announcing the winner of the F/A-XX competition in March.

In June, however, the Pentagon announced as part of the rollout of its Fiscal Year 2026 budget proposal that it was moving to complete initial development work related to F/A-XX, but then froze the program indefinitely. It reasoned that it wanted to avoid competition for resources that could affect the Air Force’s F-47.

“They [the Navy] haven’t made a decision yet. So that’s what the down-select is. We’re waiting for the decision, and I’m not the decision maker,” Vice Adm. Cheever told TWZ last week.

Overall, there remains uncertainty around the F/A-XX. In recent months, other senior Navy officials have voiced support publicly for pressing forward with the program. Members of Congress have also been making moves to keep F/A-XX moving ahead as planned in the upcoming Fiscal Year 2026 budget.

“The Navy has a validated requirement for carrier-based sixth-generation aircraft, and it is critical that we field that capability as quickly as possible to give our warfighters the capabilities they need to win against a myriad of emerging threats,” Adm. Daryl Caudle, Chief of Naval Operations, the Navy’s top officer, wrote in response to a question about F/A-XX ahead of his confirmation hearing in July.

Not surprisingly, the Navy considers the F/A-XX as critical to ensuring its carrier air wings can continue to project power in the face of ever-growing threats, especially in any future high-end fight, such as one against China in the Pacific.

Ultimately, if the FA-XX program remains in purgatory, and the F-47 program meets its potential and planned timeline, the Navy could end up buying a navalized F-47 derivative with much lower risk and lower development cost. This might parallel the wait-and-see approach the Navy is taking with its Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA), compared to the Air Force (and, to a lesser degree, the Marine Corps). The Navy can capitalize on what is proven to work without investing major funds, but at the cost of waiting.

While we can’t say for sure how close Boeing’s new rendering will be to the company’s final F/A-XX submission, its appearance underlines the fact that the company is very much hoping to follow up its Air Force NGAD success with another sixth-generation fighter contract win, this time for the Navy.

Contact the author: [email protected]

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro says ready to defend ‘sovereignty’ as US military deploys warships near country’s territorial waters.

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro said there was “no way” United States troops could invade his country as tension rises with Washington and a US naval force builds up in the Southern Caribbean near Venezuela’s territorial waters.

“There’s no way they can enter Venezuela,” Maduro said on Thursday, stating that his country was well prepared to defend its sovereignty as US warships arrive in the region in a so-called operation against Latin American drug cartels.

“Today, we are stronger than yesterday. Today, we are more prepared to defend peace, sovereignty and territorial integrity,” Maduro said in a speech to troops, according to the state-run Venezuela News Agency.

Maduro made his comment as Venezuela’s ambassador to the United Nations, Samuel Moncada, met with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to protest the US military build-up.

“It’s a massive propaganda operation to justify what the experts call kinetic action – meaning military intervention in a country which is a sovereign and independent country and is no threat to anyone,” Moncada told reporters after meeting with Guterres.

“They are saying that they are sending a nuclear submarine … I mean, it’s ridiculous to think that they’re fighting drug trafficking with nuclear submarines,” the ambassador said.

Earlier on Thursday, Admiral Daryl Claude, the US Navy’s chief of naval operations, confirmed that US warships were deployed to waters off South America, citing concerns that some Venezuelans were participating in large-scale drug operations.

Seven US warships, along with one nuclear-powered fast attack submarine, were either in the region or were expected to be there in the coming week, a US official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the Reuters news agency.

More than 4,500 US service members, including some 2,200 Marines, were also reported to be on board the ships in an operation that was launched after the Trump administration accused Maduro and other members of his government of links to cocaine trafficking.

Venezuela has responded to the US threats by sending warships and drones to patrol its coastline and launching a drive to recruit thousands of militia members to bolster domestic defences.

Caracas has also deployed 15,000 troops to its borders with Colombia to crack down on drug trafficking and other criminal gangs.

On Thursday, Maduro thanked Colombia for sending an additional 25,000 military personnel to the Colombia-Venezuela frontier to tackle “narco-terrorist gangs”, the Venezuela News Agency reported.

While the US has made no public threats to invade Venezuela, Trump’s threats against the country have focused chiefly on its powerful criminal gangs, particularly the cocaine trafficking Cartel de los Soles, which the Trump administration has designated a terrorist organisation and accused Maduro of leading.

Maduro has, in turn, accused Washington, which is offering a $50m reward for his capture over alleged drug offences, of seeking to implement regime change in Venezuela.

Russia says it carried out a drone boat attack on a Ukrainian Navy reconnaissance ship in the mouth of the Danube River, marking Moscow’s first confirmed use of these weapons that Ukraine has deployed to great effect. The Ukrainian Navy confirmed an attack on one of its ships but did not say how the strike was carried out. Meanwhile, Ukraine carried out an aerial drone strike deep behind enemy lines on a Russian missile corvette in the Sea of Azov. You can read more about that later in this story.

“Using a high-speed uncrewed surface (USV) vehicle, the Ukrainian Navy’s Simferopol medium reconnaissance ship was defeated at the River Danube mouth,” the Russian Defense Ministry (MoD) claimed. “As a result of the attack, the Ukrainian ship sank.”

“This marks the first recorded instance of Russian forces employing a naval drone to strike a Ukrainian warship,” the official Ukrainian United24 media outlet reported.

Two videos emerged on social media showing the moment of the attack. One showed the drone boat view as it approached the Simferpol while the other was taken from a surveillance drone operating overhead.

Ukrainian officials did not name the vessel or provide details about its status.

“We confirm the fact of the strike on the ship,” Ukrainian Navy spokesman Dmitry Pletenchuk told the Ukrainian Ukrinform news outlet. “Currently, the elimination of the consequences of the attack is ongoing. The overwhelming majority of the crew is safe. The search for several sailors continues. Unfortunately, one crew member was killed, and several were wounded.”

Though posting a video of the attack, Russia provided no details about the type of USV, where it was launched or any of its capabilities, beyond being able to stream video back to a controller. The Russian USV could have been launched from occupied Crimea, more than 130 miles to the east, or from a larger Navy vessel.

It is interesting to note that on Aug. 27, just a day before Russia supposedly launched its drone boat attack, a U.S. Navy P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol plane fitted with a secretive radar pod was videod by a Russian jet during a very rare mission over the western Black Sea. That’s over the region where the drone boat strike took place. The jet’s sensors are likely the best available for detecting small craft like a drone boat. You can see a video of that encounter below and read more about it in our original story here.

The meeting between a Russian Sukhoi fighter jet and U.S. Navy Boeing P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft/ASW plane over the Black Sea. Video reportedly from today.

The P-8A is equipped with the AN/APS-154 Advanced Airborne Sensor multifunctional AESA radar, deployed under… pic.twitter.com/F6xo80Hyq4

— Status-6 (Military & Conflict News) (@Archer83Able) August 27, 2025

While the first known sea drone attack on a Ukrainian naval ship, there were claims that Russia hit a bridge near Odesa with one in February 2023. It is unclear if those claims were ever confirmed.

Russia has been working to create its own fleet of these weapons. One publicly known variant is called the Katran. Like Ukrainian versions we have written about in the past, this USV is designed to launch first-person view (FPV) aerial drones or have a mounted machine gun.

Little is publicly known about the Katran, but in May, the Ukrainian Defense Express publication pointed out some apparent limitations.

“Katran lacks satellite communication capabilities, unlike Ukrainian sea drones equipped with systems like Starlink,” the publication reported. “Instead, it relies on radio channels, limiting its operational range and making it susceptible to electronic warfare (EW) systems. The declared control range is 100–200 km, possibly extended through a network of relays.”

In April, the official Russian Izvestia news outlet noted a similar limitation.

“Transmitting a reliable radio signal still limits the range of the boats,” the publication reported.

The War Zone cannot independently verify these claims or the current status of the Katran. This is just one of several drone boats the Russians are developing of various capabilities.

🇷🇺 An unmanned suicide boat of the Black Sea Fleet, which took part in the “July Storm” exercises a month ago, sending the Ukrainian Navy reconnaissance ship “Simferopol” to the bottom at the mouth of the Danube. pic.twitter.com/JupWdOiDNe

— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) August 28, 2025

For Russia, the attack is a significant new step in the ongoing battle for the Black Sea region, where Ukraine has pinned down the Russian Navy by using drone boats in a campaign unleashed in the fall of 2022. You can see videos of one of the earliest such attacks below.

Ukraine released a video from today’s attack on Sevastopol. It shows a naval drone targeting the Black Sea Fleet’s Admiral Makarov Project 11356 frigate, which Russian sources said was damaged (it replaced the Moskva as the Black Sea Fleet’s flagship). https://t.co/zdAeWUvDrb pic.twitter.com/TNnIu4OIap

— Rob Lee (@RALee85) October 29, 2022

As we noted earlier this year, in addition to building drone boats, Russia has also created dedicated units to operate them.

“The new units, which will be formed in all fleets, will perform reconnaissance and strike functions,” Izvestia reported in May. “According to experts, combining different types of drones will allow for effective reconnaissance, surveillance, and destruction of sea and coastal targets.”

The Russian Navy also created a course of study on these systems in the curriculum of its higher educational institutions.

“Now all cadets study the structure and characteristics of drones of various types and their use,” Izvestia pointed out. “In the future, they will master the combat use of attack drones to destroy enemy UAVs, unmanned boats and saboteurs. Classes are taught by teachers who have experience working with drones in combat zones.”

Ukraine’s drone boat campaign in the Black Sea has proven that a nation with nearly no significant remaining traditional navy but an array of uncrewed surface vessels (USVs) can keep one of the world’s largest sea services at bay. Over the course of the past three and a half years, Ukraine’s USVs have attacked Russian ports, ships and the Kerch Bridge. They have forced Russia’s Black Sea Fleet (BSF) to avoid operating in the open waters of the northern Black Sea, and limit activities in other areas.

The campaign began with kamikaze drone boats, laden with explosives and set out on one-way missions to hit Russian targets. Ukraine has since made a series of advancements, turning its USVs into reusable anti-aircraft platforms, the aforementioned first-person view (FPV) drone launchers and gunboats. As we previously noted, Ukraine’s early drone boat attacks on the BSF were a “wakeup call” marking “a new point in unmanned warfare.”

Meanwhile, about 300 miles to the east, Ukraine’s Defense Intelligence Directorate (GUR) carried out what its commander told us was the second successful strike on a Russian warship in the Sea of Azov in the past year. The two-pronged attack was launched from deep behind enemy lines using aerial drones, Lt. Gen. Kyrylo Budanov told us Thursday morning.

The drones first struck and destroyed the radar of the Russian Project 21631 Buyan-M missile ship, GUR stated on Telegram. A secondary attack further damaged the ship, the agency claimed, though no further details were provided. GUR produced a video of that attack, which you can see below.

The attack on the Buyan-M was significant for several reasons. 

The ship was struck while it was in Temryuk Bay, GUR stated. That was more than 130 miles from the front lines and would have required a great deal of coordination to carry out. The bay is also a known launch point for ships like the Buyan-M to fire Kalibr long-range sea-launched cruise missiles at Ukraine. As we previously reported, Russia began launching missile attacks from the Sea of Azov in June of 2024 due to the Black Sea becoming more dangerous as a result of repeated attacks by Ukrainian missiles and aerial and sea drones.

The attack on the Buyan-M came while Russia was launching its largest missile and drone barrage on Ukraine since U.S. President Donald Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska. At least 17 people were killed, many more were wounded, and many buildings were damaged during that bombardment, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stated on X.

Now, as our people are dealing with the consequences of one of the most large-scale Russian terrorist attacks, we see yet another attempt by Hungarian officials to portray black as white and to shift the blame for the ongoing war onto Ukraine.

In Ukraine, we responded positively… pic.twitter.com/hCdg0rHtRJ

— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) August 28, 2025

Striking the Buyan-M took one missile carrier offline, GUR stated.

“As a result of the strikes, the Russian missile ship, which was in the potential launch zone of the Kalibrs in the Temryuk Bay, was damaged and forced to leave the combat patrol area,” GUR stated. However, given the complexity of getting forces that deep behind the lines, the timing of the attack was most likely coincidental.

Still, both of these attacks show the increasing use of asymmetric drone tactics against naval vessels. While the Simferpol was probably attacked in large measure because it is one of the few larger vessels left in the Ukrainian Navy, there are other targets along Ukraine’s remaining Black Sea coastline. Given the success of Ukraine’s drone boat campaign, there is a high likelihood that we will see more Russian drone boat attacks in the near future.

Contact the author: [email protected]

Venezuela’s defence minister says military vessels and drones will be sent to patrol the country’s coastline amid simmering tension with the United States after Washington deployed warships to waters off Venezuela to fight drug trafficking.

In a video on social media on Tuesday, Minister of Defence Vladimir Padrino announced a “significant” drone deployment as well as naval patrols along the country’s Caribbean coast, including “larger vessels further north in our territorial waters”.

The move comes after Washington last week deployed an amphibious squadron of three warships towards Venezuela’s coast in what it said was an operation against Latin American drug cartels.

News agencies reported on Monday that two more US ships – a guided missile cruiser and a nuclear-powered fast-attack submarine – had also been dispatched to the Caribbean, and that some 4,500 US service members, including 2,200 Marines, were part of the deployment.

The US naval build-up comes after the administration of US President Donald Trump last week accused Venezuela’s left-wing president, Nicolas Maduro, of being involved in cocaine trafficking and working with drug cartels.

Washington also announced that it had doubled a reward for the capture or prosecution of Maduro on drug charges from $25m to $50m. The US is also offering a reward of $25m for the arrest or prosecution of Venezuelan Minister of the Popular Power for Interior Diosdado Cabello.

US officials have accused Maduro and members of his government of heading the Venezuelan cocaine trafficking cartel Cartel de los Soles, which Washington has designated a terrorist organisation .

Maduro has dismissed the accusations and accused the US of attempting to instigate regime change in his country.

Military build-up

On Monday, Maduro insisted during a weekly television show that his country, unlike neighbouring Colombia, is “free of coca leaf crops and free of cocaine production”.

Maduro, who has also criticised the US government for not addressing the drug consumption within its borders, has mobilised hundreds of thousands of local militia members to strengthen national security amid the threats from Washington.

Some 15,000 Venezuelan troops have also been dispatched to the country’s border with Colombia to crack down on criminal groups, including those involved in drug trafficking.

In a separate announcement on Tuesday, Defence Minister Padrino said an ongoing operation in Venezuela’s northeastern corner had resulted in the dismantling of shipyards where criminals intended “to manufacture semisubmersibles and boats to transport drugs by sea” to markets in Europe and North America.

The move to deploy US warships and personnel off Venezuela comes as Trump pushes for using the military to thwart cartels he blames for the flow of fentanyl and other illicit drugs into US communities, and for perpetuating violence in some US cities.

Venezuela’s mission to the United Nations denounced the US’s “escalation of hostile actions and threats” in a letter, local media outlet Noticias Venevision reported on Tuesday.

Referring to the imminent arrival of US ships off the coast, Venezuela told the UN that Washington’s actions were “a serious threat to regional peace and security”, while the presence of a nuclear-powered attack submarine was “a clear act of intimidation”.

The letter also demanded “guarantees” that the US would “not deploy or threaten to use nuclear weapons in the region”, Noticias Venevision reported.

Despite the military build-up, analysts have downplayed the possibility of a US invasion or US strikes on Venezuela, while many Venezuelan people have shrugged off the US threat as posturing, the AFP news agency reported.

Maduro, who claimed a third term in office following an election in July 2024, which was described as deeply flawed, has been in Trump’s sights ever since the US president’s first term, from 2017 to 2021.

But the US policy of maximum pressure on Venezuela, including an ongoing oil embargo, failed to dislodge Maduro from power.

“I think what we’re seeing represents an attempt to create anxiety in government circles and force Maduro to negotiate something,” International Crisis Group analyst Phil Gunson told the AFP regarding the building tension.

U.S. Navy Vice Adm. Daniel Cheever, commonly referred to as the service’s “Air Boss,” is still “eagerly awaiting” a new F/A-XX next-generation carrier-based fighter despite the uncertainty now swirling around that program. Cheever already sees a key boost in capability for the Navy’s carrier air wings on the horizon in the form of the MQ-25 Stingray tanker drone, which could leverage its very long range to perform other missions in the future, as TWZ has previously explored in detail.

Cheever, whose formal title is commander of Naval Air Forces, talked to TWZ‘s Jamie Hunter about F/A-XX and MQ-25 on the sidelines of the Tailhook Association’s annual symposium last Friday.

F/A-XX is “ready for down-select, to which of the vendors you would go with, and we’re just excited,” Cheever said. For “Naval Aviation, fourth, fifth, and sixth-generation on an aircraft carrier is a phenomenal capability and absolutely needed for air superiority, which allows [for] sea control.”

The Navy was reportedly close to announcing the winner of the F/A-XX competition in March, hot on the heels of the U.S. Air Force choosing Boeing’s F-47 as the sixth-generation fighter component of its Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) effort. Boeing and Northrop Grumman are understood to be the remaining contenders for F/A-XX.

However, in June, the Pentagon announced as part of the rollout of its Fiscal Year 2026 budget proposal that it was moving to complete initial development work related to F/A-XX, but then freeze the program indefinitely. The stated reason for this decision was to avoid competition for resources that could hurt the USAF’s F-47. There has been pushback on the concerns that America’s aviation industry can support two sixth-generation fighter programs simultaneously, including from Boeing.

“They [the Navy] haven’t made a decision yet. So that’s what the down-select is. We’re waiting for the decision, and I’m not the decision maker. I’m just eagerly awaiting,” Vice Adm. Cheever told TWZ last week.

Cheever’s comments add to the murkiness that currently surrounds F/A-XX. In recent months, other senior Navy officials have voiced support publicly for continuing with the next-generation carrier-based fighter program. Members of Congress have also been making moves to keep F/A-XX moving ahead as planned in the upcoming Fiscal Year 2026 budget.

“Nothing in the Joint Force projects combat power from the sea as a Carrier Strike Group, which at the heart has a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier (CVN). To maintain this striking power, the CVN must have an air wing that is comprised of the most advanced strike fighters,” Adm. Daryl Caudle, Chief of Naval Operations, the Navy’s top officer, wrote in response to a question about F/A-XX ahead of his confirmation hearing in July. “Therefore, the ability to maintain air superiority against peer competitors will be put at risk if the Navy is unable to field a 6th Generation strike fighter on a relevant timeline. Without a replacement for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and E/A-18G Growler, the Navy will be forced to retrofit 4th generation aircraft and increase procurement of 5th generation aircraft to attempt to compete with the new 6th generation aircraft that the threat is already flying.”

“The Navy has a validated requirement for carrier-based 6th generation aircraft, and it is critical that we field that capability as quickly as possible to give our warfighters the capabilities they need to win against a myriad of emerging threats,” he added.

The Navy has now long presented F/A-XX as critical to ensuring its carrier air wings can continue to project power in the face of ever-growing threats, especially in any future high-end fight, such as one against China in the Pacific. The aforementioned MQ-25 Stingray also remains a top priority in this regard.

“To me, it [MQ-25] is the key that unlocks manned-unmanned teaming on the aircraft carrier. So once we get MQ-25 flying, and it’s supposed to fly in 2025, that is the big thing,” Vice Adm. Cheever told TWZ at Tailhook. “Now, I unlock all of the manned-unmanned teaming that can happen on the aircraft carrier in the future.”

“If you think about it, I have all these strike fighters that are configured as tankers, and I can free them all up to be strike fighters again, instead of tankers,” Cheever added. “And that is just that is an exponential increase in our strike and fighting capability and capacity.”

What the Air Boss is referring to here is the current use of F/A-18E/F Super Hornets with buddy refueling stores to provide organic tanker capacity to the Navy’s carrier air wings. The Navy has estimated in the past that 20 to 30 percent of carrier-based Super Hornet sorties are taken up by aerial refueling. In addition to eliminating the need for Super Hornets to perform this function, the MQ-25 also offers additional benefits in terms of its own range and on-station time, which will significantly extend the air wing’s operational reach.

As noted, the goal now is for the MQ-25 to fly for the first time this year, a key milestone for a program that has suffered delays and cost growth. The current hope is to reach initial operational capability (IOC) with the Stingray sometime in Fiscal Year 2027, around three years later than originally expected.

On top of being tankers, the baseline MQ-25s are set to be delivered with a secondary intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capability. The Stingray’s baked-in capabilities, especially its range, open doors to the drones, or future variants or derivatives thereof, taking on a host of other missions, including kinetic strike and airborne early warning, as TWZ has laid out in-depth in this past feature.

“It’s got a lot of potential,” Vice Adm. told TWZ last week. “[It’s got] huge range.”

“Absolutely,” Cheever said when asked specifically about the MQ-25 taking on additional roles in the future, though he did not elaborate.

In terms of MQ-25 as a springboard to adding more uncrewed capabilities in the Navy carrier air wings, “the future of Collaborative Combat Aircraft, and that kind of thing, is TBD [to be decided], still to come. That work’s still to be done, and there’s a lot of folks in that space,” Cheever added.

By the Navy’s own admission, it is following the lead of the Air Force, and the U.S. Marine Corps to a lesser extent, when it comes to plans for future Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) ‘loyal wingman’ type drones, and is looking to leverage the work those services are doing now. The Navy has previously outlined one vision for future CCAs that are low-cost enough to be “consumable,” and expended as one-way attack munitions or targets for use in training or test evaluation activities at the end of relatively short service lives. The service has also expressed a “strong interest” in the MQ-28 Ghost Bat, originally developed by Boeing’s subsidiary in Australia for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). You can read more about the current state of the Navy’s CCA plans in TWZ‘s earlier reporting from this year’s Tailhook symposium.

Overall, Cheever’s comments at Tailhook underscore that the Navy is still pressing to proceed with F/A-XX as a critical part of its larger plans to modernize its carrier air wings.

Contact the author: [email protected]

Russian Pacific Fleet says joint patrol with China in the Asia Pacific will follow naval drill in the Sea of Japan.

Russian and Chinese naval vessels plan to conduct a joint patrol in the Asia Pacific region, following recent exercises in the Sea of Japan, Russia’s official Interfax has reported.

Citing a statement on Wednesday from the Russian Pacific Fleet’s press service, Interfax said that ships from the Russian Navy and China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy “will form a new task group to carry out joint patrol missions in the Asia-Pacific region”.

“After replenishing supplies from logistics vessels, the crews of the Russian Navy and the PLA Navy will form a new detachment to carry out joint patrol tasks in the Asia-Pacific region,” the news agency said.

Russia is conducting a series of military exercises with China in response to the build-up of US military potential in the Asia Pacific region, Interfax said, citing Russia’s chief of staff, Valery Gerasimov, in 2022.

Moscow and Beijing have already conducted joint air patrols in the Asia Pacific region since 2019, it added.

The joint patrol announcement comes as the two countries conclude five days of joint naval drills in the Sea of Japan that focused on anti-submarine and air defence missions.

During the final phase of the exercises, Russia’s large anti-submarine ship Admiral Tributs and the corvette Gromky, together with the Chinese destroyers Shaoxing and Urumqi, carried out live-fire drills while crews practised searching for and neutralising a mock enemy submarine, Interfax reported.

Russia’s Pacific Fleet earlier said that the drills were defensive in nature and not directed against any other countries.

The reported formation of the Asia Pacific joint patrol comes as China modernises and upgrades its naval fleet to become a “blue water” force, capable of carrying out long-range operations in the world’s oceans, similar to the United States and other Western forces.

Russia and China, which signed a “no-limits” strategic partnership shortly before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, conduct regular exercises to rehearse coordination between their armed forces and send a deterrent signal to adversaries.

The exercise coincided with President Ferdinand Marcos’s departure for a five-day trip to India, where he said he would look to deepen maritime ties.

India and the Philippines have staged their first joint sail and naval exercises in the disputed South China Sea.

The two-day joint military deployment that kicked off on Sunday is likely to anger China, which claims nearly the entire key waterway and has separate territorial disputes with the two Asian countries.

Philippine Chief of Staff Romeo Brawner Jr said on Monday that the joint sail took place inside his country’s exclusive economic zone.

“We did not experience any untoward incidents, but there are still those shadowing us – as we had already expected,” Brawner told reporters, without naming China.

In past joint patrols with other foreign navies, Chinese navy and coastguard ships have kept watch from a distance, according to the Philippine military.

Indian navy ships that took part included guided missile destroyer INS Delhi, tanker INS Shakti and corvette INS Kiltan. The Philippines deployed two frigates, BRP Miguel Malvar and BRP Jose Rizal.

The exercise coincided with President Ferdinand Marcos’s departure for a five-day trip to India, where he said he would look to deepen maritime ties and seek cooperation on sectors including defence, pharmaceuticals and agriculture.

Brawner, meanwhile, expressed hope that Filipino forces could engage India’s military in more joint manoeuvres in the future.

The drill “sends a powerful signal of solidarity, strength in partnership and the energy of cooperation between two vibrant democracies in the Indo-Pacific”, he said.

China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement that territorial and maritime disputes should be resolved between the countries directly involved, and no third party should intervene.

In response to a question last week about the Philippines’ plans to build up military cooperation, the Chinese Ministry of National Defense called the country a “troublemaker” that has aligned itself with foreign forces to stir up trouble, in what China deems its own territorial waters.

“China never wavers in its resolve and will safeguard national territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests, and take resolute countermeasures against any provocations by the Philippine side,” spokesperson Zhang Xiaogang had told reporters.

The South China Sea is a strategic shipping route where $3 trillion of annual shipborne commerce takes place.

A 2016 ruling of an international arbitral tribunal found China’s sweeping claims have no basis under international law, a decision Beijing rejects.

July 24 (UPI) — The U.S. Navy needs to complete its shipbuilding program and modernize its weapons systems to effectively address the nation’s defense needs, Adm. Daryl Caudle told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Committee members questioned Caudle on Thursday morning to consider his nomination for Chief of Naval Operations and reappointment to the grade of admiral.

“I view this nomination as a solemn opportunity to ensure the nation’s maritime dominance never is surpassed by competitors or adversaries,” Caudle told the committee during his opening comments.

“Our sailors are the Navy’s most enduring competitive advantage,” Caudle said. “A stronger Navy means a more effective fleet.”

He said his father was an Army veteran who served in the Korean War and passed on the importance of service to protect American families and their way of life from harm.

Recruitment standards, shipbuilding

Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., said the Navy has lowered its recruitment standards in recent years to enable more people to join its ranks.

He asked how Caudle might ensure the Navy does not permanently rely on lowered standards.

Caudle said the Navy has not lowered its standards but instead has increased access.

“All that graduate from boot camp meet the rigorous standards of that course to the letter,” he told Wicker.

Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, said the Navy has an “overdue” 30-year shipbuilding plan that has not been followed and asked if Caudle would undertake a shipbuilding program to increase the Navy’s size and visibility.

Caudle said King has his “complete commitment” to the Navy shipbuilding program.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., also raised the matter of the 30-year shipbuilding program and asked if Caudle would commit to completing the program in a timely manner and on budget.

Caudle affirmed he would do so and cited the Navy’s nuclear submarine program as especially important for ensuring the nation does its part to fulfill strategic agreements with other nations.

Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb., raised concerns about the Navy’s force structure design to deter other nuclear powers that are threatening the United States and the world.

Caudle called the matter a “math problem” and said he will work closely with Strategic Command to address growing threats from China and other nations to maximize the Navy’s effectiveness.

Munitions and maintenance

Fischer also asked what the Navy could do to ensure it has an ample supply of munitions to quickly replace those that are expended during naval operations.

King said the Navy has “way too many sole-source vendors that are underproducing” munitions due to difficulties with obtaining the materials needed to make them.

“We need to work through that,” King said, adding that the Navy needs to streamline production for greater efficiency.

“We roll a Ford F-150 off the assembly line every 20 hours, but it takes greater than a year to build an SM-6” missile, he added. “It’s just unacceptable.”

Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, asked about drydock construction in Hawaii and what Caudle would do to complete an under-construction drydock there on time to ensure Naval vessels can use it for maintenance and repairs.

Caudle called the drydock a national asset and said he shares Hirono’s concern regarding the importance of the drydock and getting it completed for as close to its budget as possible.

Weapons systems modernization

Sen. Ted Budd, R-N.C., asked how Caudle might incorporate unmanned weapons systems to counter naval growth among the nation’s potential adversaries.

“There is no question that unmanned robotic autonomous systems will be part of any modern warfare going forward,” Caudle answered.

He said they are used in the Russia-Ukraine war, in space and Middle East conflicts.

“We’re all learning from this,” he said. “Everyone is, including our adversaries.”

He said the Navy must invest in robotic autonomous weapons systems and ensure the command structure and operational systems are in place to maximize their effectiveness.

During his questioning, King suggested directed-energy weapons are the “future” of naval warfare and asked Caudle what his position might be regarding their development and use.

“A directed-energy shot is much cheaper than a $4 million missile,” but the Biden administration “grossly underfunded” development of the weapons system, King said.

Caudle responded that his master’s degree is in directed energy and his thesis was on high-powered lasers.

“I’ve not seen the Navy do an adequate amount of effort translating the research and development into shipboard use,” he said.

“If confirmed, I will make that a priority because it is the infinite magazine, especially against certain targets,” Caudle said.

“Admiral, you just got my vote,” King responded.

The morning confirmation hearing lasted for more than two hours.

Before the confirmation hearing, Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind., met with Caudle and in a news release said the admiral “knows a stronger Navy means a safer America.”

Caudle is a four-star admiral and would replace former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti.

If confirmed, Caudle would control a naval fleet that is 14 times smaller than the Chinese fleet and has experienced costly shipbuilding delays, according to Politico.

NASCAR is returning to Southern California, only its cars will be racing on the streets of Coronado and not on an oval in Fontana. The stock car racing circuit announced Wednesday it will be hosting a three-day series of races June 19-21, ending in a NASCAR Cup Series race on the U.S. Naval base in Coronado.

NASCAR did not race in Southern California last year for the first time since 1997, with the exception of 2021, when the schedule was hampered by the coronavirus pandemic. For much of that time, the races were held at Auto Club Speedway in Fontana, but that track was torn down in 2023 to make room for a giant warehouse complex. NASCAR preserved part of the grandstand and had hoped to built a half-mile oval track on the site, but that project has stalled and is unlikely to be revived.

NASCAR also raced on a temporary quarter-mile oval on the floor of the Coliseum, but that event has also been abandoned.

Next summer’s Coronado race, which came to fruition after years of careful negotiation, is the first NASCAR event to be run on an active military base. It is being timed to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Navy and will feature a race weekend including an Xfinity Series race and a Craftsman Truck Series event.

NASCAR ran street course races in Chicago’s Grant Park from 2023-25 but that event will not return in 2026, making the Coronado race the only street race on the schedule next year.

“NASCAR embodies the very best of the American spirit through speed, precision and an unyielding pursuit of excellence,” Secretary of the Navy John C. Phelan said in a statement. “Hosting a race aboard Naval Air Station North Island, the birthplace of naval aviation, it’s not just a historic first, it’s a powerful tribute to the values we share: grit, teamwork and love of country.

“We’re proud to open our gates to the American people, honor those who wear the uniform, and inspire the next generation to step forward and serve something greater than themselves.”

Naval Base Coronado, known as the West Coast Quarterdeck, is a consortium of nine Navy installations stretching from San Clemente Island, 50 miles off the coast of Long Beach, to the Mountain Warfare Training Facility 50 miles east of San Diego.

“Hosting one of America’s premier motorsports events on this historic base reflects our partnership with the local community and our shared pride in the nation’s heritage,” said captain Loren Jacobi, commanding officer of Naval Base Coronado. “We are privileged to showcase the dedication of our sailors alongside NASCAR’s finest as we celebrate our 250th anniversary.”

The NASCAR San Diego logo features an F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, which is recognized as only being flown by the U.S. Navy. The three stars in the logo signify land, sea, and air, which represents the Navy as the only branch of the military to operate in all three spaces. The arch represents the mission-style architecture found in San Diego. The stripes at the bottom of the logo represent the four largest United States Armed Force branches: Air Force, U.S. Army, U.S. Marine Corps, and U.S. Navy.

Tickets for the 2026 NASCAR San Diego Weekend will go on-sale this fall.

Islamabad, Pakistan – When Indian Minister of Defence Rajnath Singh visited the Indian Navy’s aircraft carrier INS Vikrant on May 30, nearly three weeks after a ceasefire was announced with Pakistan after a four-day conflict, he had stern words for Islamabad.

Wearing an Indian Navy baseball cap, with his initial “R” emblazoned on it, Singh declared that Pakistan was fortunate the Indian Navy had not been called upon during the recent hostilities.

“Despite remaining silent, the Indian Navy succeeded in tying down the Pakistani Army. Just imagine what will happen when someone who can keep a country’s army locked in a bottle, even by remaining silent, speaks up?” Singh said, standing in front of a Russian-made MiG-29 fighter jet on the deck of the 262-metre-long (860 feet) ship.

Just two days later, on June 1, the Pakistan Navy issued a pointed response. In a message posted on X, it announced a two-day exercise, “focusing on countering sub-conventional and asymmetric threats across all major ports and harbours of Pakistan”.

PN conducted 2-day Ex focusing on countering sub-conventional & asymmetric threats across all major ports & harbours of Pak, aimed at validating & refining Tactics, Techniques & Procedures to ensure robust defence of critical maritime infrastructure against asymmetric threats.1/3 pic.twitter.com/R1IsajwyBB

— DGPR (Navy) (@dgprPaknavy) June 1, 2025

These symbolic shows of strength followed India’s “Operation Sindoor” and Pakistan’s “Operation Bunyan Marsoos“, the countries’ respective codenames for the four-day conflict that ended in a ceasefire on May 10.

The standoff was triggered by an April 22 attack in Pahalgam, in Indian-administered Kashmir, in which 26 civilians, almost all tourists, were killed. India blamed armed groups allegedly backed by Pakistan, a charge Islamabad denied.

On May 7, India launched missile strikes at multiple sites in Pakistan’s Punjab province and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, killing at least 51 people, including 11 soldiers and several children. Over the next three days, the two countries exchanged artillery and air power, hitting each other’s airbases.

The 96 hours of conflict brought 1.6 billion people to the brink of war. But while the navies largely remained passive observers, they monitored each other’s movements – and were ready for action.

Satellite imagery showed that the INS Vikrant moved towards Pakistan soon after the Pahalgam attack and remained deployed for four days in the Arabian Sea before returning to its base in Karnataka.

Pakistan also mobilised its fleet, which was bolstered by the docking of a Turkish naval ship in Karachi on May 2. According to the Pakistani Navy, Turkish personnel engaged in “a series of professional interactions” with their counterparts.

Now, even amid the current pause in military tensions, analysts say Singh’s remarks and Pakistan’s naval drills highlight the growing part that maritime forces could play in the next chapter of their conflict. This is a role the Indian and Pakistani navies are well-versed in.

Early naval conflicts

After independence from Britain in August 1947, India inherited two-thirds of British India’s naval assets.

These saw no use during the first India-Pakistan war in 1947, over the contested Himalayan region of Kashmir. India and Pakistan both administer parts of Kashmir, along with China, which governs two thin strips. India claims all of Kashmir, while Pakistan claims all the parts not controlled by China, its ally.

By the 1965 war, also over Kashmir, Pakistan had expanded its fleet with aid from the United States and United Kingdom, its Cold War allies. It had acquired Ghazi, a long-range submarine, giving it an edge over India, which lacked a submarine at the time, though it owned an aircraft carrier. Pakistan, to date, does not have an aircraft carrier.

While the land war started on September 6, the Pakistan Navy joined the conflict on the night of September 7-8. A fleet of seven warships and submarine PNS Ghazi left Karachi harbour and made their way towards the Indian naval base of Dwarka in the western state of Gujarat, roughly 350km (217 miles) away.

They were tasked with carrying out the “bombardment of Dwarka about midnight using 50 rounds per ship”, according to the Pakistan Navy’s official account, targeting the base’s radar and other installations.

The selection of Dwarka was significant from a historical and strategic perspective. The city is home to one of the most sacred sites for Hindus, the Somnath Temple, on which the Pakistan Navy named its operation.

Militarily, the radar installations in Dwarka were used to provide guidance to the Indian Air Force. Knocking them out would have made it harder for India to launch aerial attacks against Pakistani cities, especially Karachi. That, in turn, would have forced India to send out its warships from the nearby port of Bombay (now Mumbai) – and PNS Ghazi, the submarine, could have ambushed them.

But the Pakistani plan only partly worked. Many Indian warships were under maintenance, and so the Indian Navy did not send them out to chase the Pakistani fleet.

According to the Pakistan Navy’s accounts, after firing about 350 rounds, the operation ended in “four minutes” and all its ships returned safely.

Syed Muhammad Obaidullah, a former commodore in the Pakistan Navy, recalled the attack.

“We were able to send eight vessels, seven ships and a submarine – that surprised the Indians, as our ships targeted the radar station used to assist Indian planes,” Obaidullah told Al Jazeera.

Muhammad Shareh Qazi, a Lahore-based maritime security expert, added that the operation was a tactical surprise, but did not lead to any gains in territory or of the maritime continental shelf.

“All our ships returned safely, without resistance, but it was only an operational-level success for the PN, not a strategic one,” he said, referring to the Pakistan Navy.

Official Indian Navy records claim that most of the shells fired by Pakistani ships caused no damage and remained unexploded.

Anjali Ghosh, a professor of international relations at Jadavpur University, Kolkata, in her book India’s Foreign Policy, described the attack as “daring” but symbolic rather than strategically meaningful.

Decisive turn in 1971

The 1971 war, fought over East Pakistan’s secession to become Bangladesh, saw more substantial naval engagements.

India launched two operations – Trident and Python – which dealt major blows to Pakistan’s Navy, sinking several ships, including the destroyer PNS Khaibar and minesweeper PNS Muhafiz, and destroying fuel tanks at Karachi Harbour.

Uday Bhaskar, a former commodore in the Indian Navy, said the navy played a pivotal role in India’s 1971 victory.

“The naval role enabled the final outcome on land,” Bhaskar, the current director of the Society for Policy Studies, an independent think tank based in New Delhi, told Al Jazeera.

Pakistan also suffered the loss of its prized submarine Ghazi, which sank while laying mines near Visakhapatnam in Andhra Pradesh, home to India’s Eastern Naval Command.

The one major victory for the Pakistani Navy was its torpedoing of the Indian frigate INS Khukri using its submarine Hangor, which killed more than 170 Indian sailors.

Qazi, who is also an assistant professor at Lahore’s Punjab University, said that the Indian Navy replicated the Pakistani playbook from the 1965 war in the way it surprised the Pakistan Navy.

“India caused a heavy blow to Pakistan and our naval capabilities were severely dented,” he said.

Diverging strategies

Since the 1971 war, India and Pakistan have approached different naval strategies.

Obaidullah, who retired from the Pakistan Navy in 2008, said that India has tried to build a “blue water navy” capable of projecting power across oceans. The idea: “To assert its dominance in [the] Indian Ocean,” he said.

Qazi, the maritime expert, agreed, saying that the Indian Navy has focused not just on building a numerical advantage in its naval assets but also on partnerships with nations such as Russia, which have helped it develop a powerful fleet.

“The Indian Navy now has the ability to conduct missions that can cover long distances, all the way down to Mauritius near southern Africa, or even some adventures in [the] Pacific Ocean as well,” he said.

As the world’s fifth-largest economy, India has invested heavily in naval development.

According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), a London-based research institute focusing on defence and security issues, India has 29 principal surface combat vessels, including two aircraft carriers, 12 destroyers, 15 frigates and 18 submarines, of which two are nuclear-powered.

Pakistan, by contrast, has prioritised its land and air forces. Its navy has grown more slowly, mainly through cooperation with China and Turkiye. It regularly holds major naval exercises with its allies, with the last one taking place in February this year.

IISS data shows that Pakistan’s navy lacks aircraft carriers and destroyers but includes 11 frigates, eight submarines and at least 21 patrol vessels.

Obaidullah explained that Pakistan’s naval ambitions and objectives are very different from those of India.

“India aims to project global power. We have a defensive navy to secure our sea lines of communication and deter aggression,” the former naval officer said. With more than 95 percent of Pakistan’s trade sea-based, protecting maritime routes is its top priority.

Maritime expert Qazi also said that the Pakistani Navy is focused on defending its “littoral zones”. From a naval perspective, a “littoral zone” is a critically important area close to coastlines, unlike the open ocean’s “blue water” expanse. It is within this space that countries engage in coastal defence.

“Pakistan has a small economy, and we do not have blue water ambitions. We do not have the capacity to build a fleet, nor [do] we need one,” Qazi said. “Our defence paradigm is about defending our coastlines, and for that, we have our submarines, which carry cruise missiles.”

Naval engagements in future conflicts?

The latest conflict saw both conventional and modern warfare, including drones used to strike deep inside each other’s territory. But Singh’s May 30 remarks suggest a more assertive naval posture in future conflicts, say analysts.

“If Pakistan does any unholy act this time, it is possible that the opening will be done by our navy,” Singh said during his speech on May 30.

Bhaskar, the Indian commodore who retired in 2007, agreed that future conflicts could see naval escalation.

“If another military conflict escalates, the probability of navies being actively involved is high,” he said.

Bashir Ali Abbas, a New Delhi-based maritime affairs expert and former fellow at the Stimson Center, in Washington, DC, said that naval platforms inherently serve multiple roles.

Abbas said that warships and submarines can switch from patrolling missions or exercises to operational missions on short notice. But that would carry risks of its own.

“Should the Indian Navy play a substantial role in operations against Pakistan following the next crisis, then the element of escalation control practically disappears. Any ship-on-ship, or ship-on-land engagement will imply that India and Pakistan are at war,” he told Al Jazeera, adding that the risk of inadvertent nuclear escalation is also potentially highest in the nuclear domain.

Qazi, however, said that Singh’s statement was ambiguous about whether the Indian Navy would engage in surveillance or aggression.

Any attack on Karachi, Pakistan’s economic hub, would provoke a strong response, the Lahore-based analyst said.

“I believe India will choose to play hide and seek like it did this time,” Qazi said. But he added that there was a “high probability” that India could attack Pakistan’s naval installations on land, including its planes and radar stations. And that, he said, was an “alarming possibility”.

May 23 (UPI) — Vice President J.D. Vance on Friday addressed the 1,048 graduates of the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., telling them, “Your country needs you now more than ever.”

During the ceremony, Marine 2 circled Navy-Marine Corps Memorial Stadium, and there was Blue Angels flyover.

During the ceremony, Vance, who served in the U.S. Marine Corps and was deployed to the Iraq War, watched as 786 men and women received Navy assignments and 262 went to graduates who now will serve in the Marines.

On a sunny day, the graduates raised their right hands and swore to protect the Constitution as they were officially commissioned. In unison, they shouted “I do” when the oath was finished.

They walked up to the stage to shake Vance’s hand and receive their diploma.

Divided into 36 companies, they later tossed caps into the air, a Naval tradition.

“It will be you, the graduates gathered here today, who will lead the way for the rest of us,” Vance said. “Your service will bring new challenges and environments, including ones unfamiliar even to those who served before you. You will deploy new equipment, new systems, and new technology. And, through those experiences, it is you who will learn, who will teach others and will help our services and our entire country adapt to the future we’re confronting.”

This was Vance’s first remarks to service academy’s graduates as vice president.

“The extraordinary education you received is an investment by the American people, an investment not only in your courage, but in the strength of your minds and the promise of your leadership because your nation rests easier knowing that we have the most brilliant strategists and tacticians standing guard,” Vance added.

Vance noted that they would be leading troops in regions with military powers, including China and Russia.

To the graduates, guests and military personnel, he touted the Trump administration’s policies.

He described President Donald Trump‘s visit last week to the Middle East as “historic.”

Vance told the crowd how his administration’s foreign policy is different from predecessors by moving away from nation-building and prioritizing American interests.

“No more undefined missions. No more open-ended conflicts,” Vance said.

He voted that Trump and himself would “never ask you to do anything without a clear mission and a clear path home.”

The vice president described the military’s targeted and limited airstrikes this spring against the Houthis in Yemen as the type of mission the Trump administration would prioritize. The goal was to stop Houthi militants from attacking American ships in the Red Sea.

“We pursued that goal through overwhelming force,” Vance said. “That’s how military power should be used: Decisively.”

Earlier he was greeted by demonstrators protesting the Trump administration’s policies

Several groups advocating for racial justice and LGBTQ+ rights rallied across the street on the grounds of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. From a distance, they protested deep cuts to social services in the proposed budget.

The Naval Academy stopped considering race, ethnicity or sex in admissions. Nearly 400 books exploring White supremacy, race and racism in America; gender identity; and sexuality and diversity were removed from the academy’s library after an executive order by Trump. Many have since been returned to the library’s shelves.

“I’m sure some of you share my politics and some of you don’t,” Vance said, “but I know today I speak for a grateful nation when I say, ‘We are rooting for you, Naval Academy Class of 2025, we are proud of you and we depend on you. Congratulations. Godspeed.’ “

The U.S. Naval Academy’s Class of 2025 includes 751 men and 298 women from all 50 states. Fourteen international students from 13 countries will return home to serve in their respective armed forces. The class began with 1,186 candidates: 838 men and 348 women.

Midshipmen said the graduation of four challenging years at the academy was surreal.

“After today, I’m a commissioned officer in the greatest fighting force. There’s a little bit of nerves,” political science major Lucas Merritt, 23, of Georgia, who is going into the Marine Corps, told The Baltimore Banner. “I feel ready.”

“Our sailors and Marines’ lives are literally in our hands,” Rebecca Wiley, 21, of Houston, who will work on submarines in Charleston, S.C., said after studying naval architecture and mechanical engineering. “I’m nervous to do a good job, but that just shows that I care.”

Joseph Lee, a 22-year-old from Kansas, studied chemistry and will go to medical school.

They will join approximately 92,000 Naval Academy alumni who have graduated since 1845.

May 14 (UPI) — A lard-covered obelisk is more than a slippery slope for U.S. Naval Academy plebes, who view it as a rite of passage that changes them into midshipmen.

Dozens of freshmen who are called “plebes” were tasked with climbing the 21-foot-tall Herndon Monument on Wednesday, with the mission being to replace a cap placed on top to mark the end of their first year at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md.

They accomplished the feat in 2 hours, 27 minutes and 31 seconds by using the kind of teamwork that is required to effectively operate vessels on the high seas like the U.S. Navy has done for almost 250 years, and as it today carries out missions on land and in the air, as well.

The annual climb is a 75-year tradition that started in 1950 and scales the monument to Commander William Lewis Herndon, who went down with his ship when a hurricane sank it in 1857.

The climb requires Naval Academy plebes to scale the obelisk after it has been covered with 200 pounds of lard, remove a “Dixie cup” placed on top and replace it with the hat of an upperclassman.

The Dixie cup is not a reference to the paper cup that often is used at water dispensers.

Instead, it is a reference to the “low-rolled brim, high-domed item constructed of canvas” cap that was created in 1886 and has represented the U.S. Navy throughout the 20th century and beyond.

The Dixie cup cap is featured in the iconic photo of a sailor kissing a nurse in New York City’s Times Square on Victory over Japan Day in 1945.

It also was featured in many classic films and was worn by the S.S. Minnow’s first mate Gilligan on television’s “Gilligan’s Island.”

Members of the Naval Academy’s class of 2028 successfully undertook the task of replacing the Dixie Cup with the upperclassman’s hat.

The 2028 class has about 1,187 plebes, who now are referred to as “midshipmen” upon their completion of the annual rite of passage.