Latest news with #MarkCancian
Business Insider
04-07-2025
- Business
- Business Insider
NATO's big $1.4 trillion bet is seeing long-ignored air defenses coming back in a big way
NATO pledged to massively increase its air defenses as part of soaring defense spending. The aim is to rebuild a capability that the war in Ukraine has shown to be crucial but has been allowed to wither in the West since the end of the Cold War. The heads of government for the 32 members of the decades-old security alliance committed last week to investing 5% of their GDP on defense and security by 2035. The increase, based on current GDP size, could be worth more than $1.4 trillion. NATO's secretary general, Mark Rutte, said that one use for the money will be a "five-fold increase in air defence capabilities." He said the way Russia is fighting proved the need. "We see Russia's deadly terror from the skies over Ukraine every day, and we must be able to defend ourselves from such attacks," he said. Western countries reduced their ground-based air defense arsenals after the end of the Cold War as they found themselves involved in conflicts with much smaller, less powerful adversaries. This war has shown that Western stocks are insufficient. Lacking since the Cold War Western countries have been fighting foes very much unlike Russia. Air superiority has been achieved with ease, enabling ground maneuvers. There hasn't been a pressing need for weapons to shoot down enemy aircraft and ballistic missiles, except in one-off instances. The US and the rest of NATO scaled back their ground-based defenses "very substantially," Mark Cancian, a retired Marine Corps colonel who is now a senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said. During the Cold War, as tensions skyrocketed between NATO and the Soviet Union, Western countries maintained substantial defenses. But in the aftermath, he said, "it appeared that fighter aircraft could handle any air threat, and the need for ground-based air defenses was much reduced." During Operation Desert Storm in the early 1990s, the US took control of the skies, and aircraft largely had free rein in the later wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the main threat being to low-flying aircraft, helicopters in particular. Ed Arnold, a European security expert with the Royal United Services Institute, said that Europe depioritized air defense at the end of the Cold War "because the types of missions that the Europeans were doing were, for example, overseas where you only needed a small sort of section of it to be able to protect your forces in the field." Retired Air Commodore Andrew Curtis, an air warfare expert with a 35-year career in the Royal Air Force, said that there had been "an element of complacency" in recent decades, but also an element of trying to prioritize what was needed when defense budgets shrank as countries felt safer in the post-Cold War era. Russia's war against Ukraine, which followed earlier acts of aggression, suggests the world has changed. But, Curtis said, the West has to some extent been "asleep at the wheel." The problem now, Justin Bronk, an air power expert at RUSI, explained, is "that NATO faces a significant shortfall in ground-based air defense systems, both in terms of number of systems, but also particularly ammunition stocks for those systems." Russia shows they're needed Rutte warned earlier this month that NATO needs "five times as many systems to defend ourselves," and described the speed Russia was reconsituting its military as "threatening." Many European countries have warned Russia could attack elsewhere on the continent and are watching closely to see what weaponry and tactics it needs to be ready. The volume and variety of air attacks against Ukraine have thus made air defenses a top takeaway. Russia can launch hundreds of drones and missiles in a single day, and NATO's air defense networks are not well designed to deal with these kinds of strike threats, like exploding Shahed-136 drones backed by ballistic and cruise missiles. Western countries need more defenses, as there are just so many air attacks. "Even if only 10% get through, that still does a lot of damage," Cancian said. Cancian said innovations in this war, like drones being used more than in any other conflict in history, point to evolutions in warfare that make having strong air defenses more necessary than ever before. Nations aren't just facing planes. It's aircraft, missiles, and drones, all able to bring destruction. And the solutions need to be layered to address threats within their cost range. For instance, high-end Patriot interceptors worth millions of dollars aren't meant for cheap drones worth thousands. Former Australian Army Maj. Gen. Mick Ryan, a warfare strategist, said that countries have to find "a balance" between the expensive systems like the Patriot or the THAAD system, both made by Lockheed Martin, and lower-end systems. Ukraine, for example, uses AI-controlled systems equipped with machine guns to stop some smaller drones, and the US military has been experimenting with air-launched rockets as drone killers. "It's not just all about the exquisite, expensive, and highly capable systems. You also need some of those lower-end systems," the former general said, adding that the last three years have not only shown how important air defenses are, but also "that the array of threats that air defenses have to deal with has broadened." Smaller weapons used in missile attacks, weapons like drones, can "saturate and overwhelm an air defense system" — a tactic Russia has employed. For the West, Europe in particular, the new emphasis on bolstering critical air defenses and the push to spend more aren't optional. "It's not a choice. You absolutely have to do this," Ryan said. It'd be impossibly expensive to protect everywhere, but the West will need to sort its priorities, balancing front-line demands with the protection of civilians in cities, something Ukraine has grappled with throughout the war. Arnold said that "the biggest change, now as Ukraine is seeing, is you also need air defense to protect your civilians, all of your critical national infrastructure, and your forces in the field. So it's absolutely critical." NATO's new defense spending will be huge: No member currently spends that new 5% target, and many spent just over or below 2% in 2024, according to NATO's own estimated figures. But spending doesn't automatically solve the problem. There is a big production backlog with many systems, and increasing production capacity takes years, industrial revitalization, and workforce expertise, much of which has been diminished with time, leading to a hollowing out of the defense industrial sector. Bronk said fixing this "is much more a question of building production capacity at every stage in the supply chain as rapidly as possible as part of a crisis response rather than just spending more money." More production capacity is needed for interceptors. More money and big orders help, though, by giving industry confidence to invest more in facilities and processes, but there has to be sustained investment. Rutte pledged that NATO's increased spending would also be used on "thousands more tanks and armoured vehicles" and "millions of rounds of artillery ammunition," but that many plans are classified.
Hindustan Times
18-06-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
This ‘Bunker Buster' U.S. Bomb Could Cripple Iran's Nuclear Ambitions
The best shot at knocking out the most fortified part of Iran's nuclear program comes down to a giant U.S. bomb that has never been used in war. The GBU-57—also called the Massive Ordnance Penetrator—is a 30,000-pound behemoth encased in a high-density steel alloy designed to plummet through 200 feet of mountain rock before exploding. Military analysts said that large bunker buster has the best chance of getting through to such targets as the Fordow uranium-enrichment facility, which Iran buried under a mountain. Its existence has driven speculation that the U.S. could get involved in Israel's attack. 'This is really what it was designed for,' said Mark Cancian, who matched bombs to targets in the military and later worked at the Pentagon on procurement and budgeting, including for programs like the MOP. Before bunker busters, the military figured it could turn to nuclear weapons to blast through mountains, but those were seen as unpalatable for political reasons, said Cancian, now a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Later, the U.S. worked on a new conventional alternative and spent about $400 million to develop and refine the MOP, he said. The U.S. now has around 20 of the giant explosives, he said, designed to be delivered by B-2 stealth bombers. 'It's a really specialized weapon for a very specialized set of targets that don't come up very often,' Cancian said. Israel on Friday launched a campaign of intelligence operations and hundreds of airstrikes aimed at setting back Iran's nuclear program and hobbling its regime. Israel notched direct hits on Iran's underground centrifuge halls at Natanz, some 140 miles south of Tehran, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. But it has yet to attack Iran's other enrichment site, Fordow, in central Iran, near the holy city of Qom. The U.S., which hasn't joined Israel in the attacks, began building up its military assets in the region in recent days, including bringing in a second aircraft-carrier group. President Trump, who has pushed for a diplomatic solution all year, has turned more bellicose, suggesting Tuesday on social media that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could be killed and calling for unconditional surrender. If the U.S. were to get involved, it would make sense for it to take on hardened targets like Fordow and Natanz, said Mick Mulroy, former U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East. Destroying them could take half a dozen MOPs apiece, he said. The United Nations atomic-energy chief has warned of safety concerns from attacking nuclear sites, but other nuclear experts say the radiation risks of an attack on Fordow are low. The International Atomic Energy Agency reported radiological and chemical contamination inside Natanz, which was bombed Friday, but normal radiation outside. 'If anything were to be dropped on Fordow, there is not a risk of radiation contamination from the attack outside of the site,' said Scott Roecker, vice president for nuclear materials security at the Nuclear Threat Initiative think tank. Israel has a plan for Fordow and the ability to carry it out on its own, a senior Israeli military official said without elaborating. It is also taking a broader view of its mission by attacking Iran's military leadership and nuclear scientists as well as components of the nuclear program itself. Ehud Eilam, a former researcher for Israel's Ministry of Defense, said Israel could send a large number of its own, smaller penetrator bombs to dig their way into Fordow, as Israel did when it killed the Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, in a bunker under Beirut. It could also try a risky commando raid or more-covert means such as cyberattacks and targeted killings, he said. An MOP dropped by a B-2 bomber could be simpler and better. 'The approach with the highest confidence of success would be a U.S. strike,' said William Wechsler, who was deputy assistant defense secretary for special operations under President Barack Obama. Write to Benoit Faucon at Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines to 100 year archives.
Mint
18-06-2025
- Business
- Mint
This ‘bunker buster' US bomb could cripple Iran's nuclear ambitions
The best shot at knocking out the most fortified part of Iran's nuclear program comes down to a giant U.S. bomb that has never been used in war. The GBU-57—also called the Massive Ordnance Penetrator—is a 30,000-pound behemoth encased in a high-density steel alloy designed to plummet through 200 feet of mountain rock before exploding. Military analysts said that large bunker buster has the best chance of getting through to such targets as the Fordow uranium-enrichment facility, which Iran buried under a mountain. Its existence has driven speculation that the U.S. could get involved in Israel's attack. 'This is really what it was designed for," said Mark Cancian, who matched bombs to targets in the military and later worked at the Pentagon on procurement and budgeting, including for programs like the MOP. Before bunker busters, the military figured it could turn to nuclear weapons to blast through mountains, but those were seen as unpalatable for political reasons, said Cancian, now a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Later, the U.S. worked on a new conventional alternative and spent about $400 million to develop and refine the MOP, he said. The U.S. now has around 20 of the giant explosives, he said, designed to be delivered by B-2 stealth bombers. 'It's a really specialized weapon for a very specialized set of targets that don't come up very often," Cancian said. Israel on Friday launched a campaign of intelligence operations and hundreds of airstrikes aimed at setting back Iran's nuclear program and hobbling its regime. Israel notched direct hits on Iran's underground centrifuge halls at Natanz, some 140 miles south of Tehran, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. But it has yet to attack Iran's other enrichment site, Fordow, in central Iran, near the holy city of Qom. The U.S., which hasn't joined Israel in the attacks, began building up its military assets in the region in recent days, including bringing in a second aircraft-carrier group. President Trump, who has pushed for a diplomatic solution all year, has turned more bellicose, suggesting Tuesday on social media that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could be killed and calling for unconditional surrender. If the U.S. were to get involved, it would make sense for it to take on hardened targets like Fordow and Natanz, said Mick Mulroy, former U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East. Destroying them could take half a dozen MOPs apiece, he said. The United Nations atomic-energy chief has warned of safety concerns from attacking nuclear sites, but other nuclear experts say the radiation risks of an attack on Fordow are low. The International Atomic Energy Agency reported radiological and chemical contamination inside Natanz, which was bombed Friday, but normal radiation outside. 'If anything were to be dropped on Fordow, there is not a risk of radiation contamination from the attack outside of the site," said Scott Roecker, vice president for nuclear materials security at the Nuclear Threat Initiative think tank. Israel has a plan for Fordow and the ability to carry it out on its own, a senior Israeli military official said without elaborating. It is also taking a broader view of its mission by attacking Iran's military leadership and nuclear scientists as well as components of the nuclear program itself. Ehud Eilam, a former researcher for Israel's Ministry of Defense, said Israel could send a large number of its own, smaller penetrator bombs to dig their way into Fordow, as Israel did when it killed the Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, in a bunker under Beirut. It could also try a risky commando raid or more-covert means such as cyberattacks and targeted killings, he said. An MOP dropped by a B-2 bomber could be simpler and better. 'The approach with the highest confidence of success would be a U.S. strike," said William Wechsler, who was deputy assistant defense secretary for special operations under President Barack Obama. Write to Benoit Faucon at
Business Insider
04-06-2025
- Politics
- Business Insider
Ukraine says the drones that hit Russian aircraft used AI to find and strike their targets when they lost signal
The attack drones that Ukraine used to hit Russian aircraft at a string of bases turned to AI to find and strike their targets when they lost signal, Ukraine's security service said. The Security Service of Ukraine, or SBU, said in a Wednesday update on its Operation Spiderweb attack that some drones, upon losing signal, "switched to performing a mission using artificial intelligence along a pre-planned route. " "And after approaching and contacting a specifically designated target, the warhead was automatically activated," it said. The security service said it was using "modern UAV control technology" that combines "artificial intelligence algorithms and manual operator intervention." The SBU said that it hit 41 Russian aircraft in its attack on Sunday, which involved drones snuck into positions close to Russian airbases and then launched in swarms. The service said of the Russian aircraft on Wednesday that "a significant part of them was irretrievably destroyed." It said "some damaged aircraft will take many years to rebuild." Video footage and satellite imagery show that attacks took place at multiple bases and that some aircraft were damaged, but the full extent of destruction noted by Ukraine has not been independently verified. Both Russia and Ukraine are increasingly relying on drones as Russia's invasion of Ukraine continues. Drone proliferation has led to a race to develop electronic warfare to jam drones and prevent systems from working properly. Drone makers and operators are, in turn, working to find new ways to operate their uncrewed systems, including designing unjammable fiber-optic drones, working without using GPS, and using AI-enabled drones that can function with less human input. A Ukrainian war researcher reported earlier this year that drones equipped with AI are three to four times more likely to hit their target than ones that are only directed by humans. Artificial intelligence is a new technology that both countries are rushing to develop and are increasingly using, but neither side is fielding AI drones on the battlefield at scale yet, according to a new report from the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for the Study of War. The reported use of AI in this attack is notable, but it's far from the only thing the stands out. Ukraine has been conducting long-range strikes that have hit Russian airfields hundreds of miles into Russia and destroyed aircraft. But this new attack is different in that it used drones secretly moved into the country and then launched from positions near the targeted airbases. The SBU said it brought drones into Russia and put them into containers that they loaded onto trucks and drove to spots close to the Russian bases. The SBU said the container covers were opened remotely, allowing the drones to fly out. The service shared images of dozens of drones inside large containers, which it said were used in the attack. Mark Cancian, a senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told BI that this attack stood out from many in this war, with drones "launched close by." Russia was likely designing airfield protections for a different type of attack. This attack was different from what it had previously faced. Ukraine's account of the attack details an operation that many warfare experts have described as pioneering and that could have big ramifications for how countries attack and protect their aircraft and bases. James Patton Rogers, a drone expert and the executive director of the Cornell Brooks Tech Policy Institute, told BI that "this attack is a window to future war." Richard Aboulafia, an aviation expert and the managing director of the US consulting firm AeroDynamic Advisory, described the operation to BI as "mind blowing" in how it was able to be pulled off across such a large area and with so many people involved. The SBU said the 41 aircraft that it hit included the A-50 airborne early warning and control plane, Tupolev Tu-95, Tu-22, and Tu-160 bombers, An-12 transport aircraft, and the Il-78 refueling tanker. Those aircraft have been key to firing missiles at Ukraine and gathering intelligence. And many of them cannot be easily replaced as Russia stopped production years ago. Justin Bronk, an air power expert at the Royal United Services Institute, told BI that even if the number of planes damaged or destroyed is less than what Ukraine has claimed, "it will have a significant impact" on Russia's ability to "keep up its regular large scale cruise missile salvos against Ukrainian cities and infrastructure" while also keeping up its nuclear deterrence and signaling patrols. The SBU framed the attack as a direct response to Russia's missile attacks. Lt. Gen. Vasyl Maliuk, head of the SBU, said Sunday that "the adversary bombed our country almost every night from these aircraft, and today they have felt that retribution is inevitable." He added that "the enemy thought it could bomb Ukraine and kill Ukrainians endlessly and with impunity. This is not the case. We will respond to russian terror and destroy the enemy everywhere — at sea, in the air and on land." The SBU said the attack hit four airfields — Olenya", "Ivanovo", "Dyagilevo," and "Belaya" — across three time zones, and it took more than a year and a half of planning. The service said the estimated cost of the equipment that was affected by the operation was over $7 billion.
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
What are the security and logistical issues of accepting a jet from Qatar?
CHARLOTTE () — Despite real security and logistical issues that will need to be overcome, the Defense Department said it has officially accepted a luxury jet plane from Qatar to use as the new Air Force One for President Donald Trump. Retired Colonel Mark Cancian joins Queen City News Now to discuss the safety and security concerns surrounding the gift. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
