A NEW PLATFORM FOR THE NEXT WAR

Russian Slava-class guided-missile cruiser Moskva in the Mediterranean Sea, December 17, 2015.Russian Defense Ministry Press Service via AP

On March 9, 1862, the Union warship Monitor met its Confederate counterpart, Virginia. After a four-hour exchange of fire, the two fought to a draw. It was the first battle of ironclads. In one day, every wooden ship of the line of every naval power became immediately obsolete.

On December 7, 1941, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. If the battle of the ironclads settled once and for all the wood-versus-iron debate, Japanese carrier-based aircraft settled the battleship-versus-carrier debate by sinking the cream of America’s battleship fleet in a single morning.

On April 14, 2022, the Ukrainians sank the Russian cruiser Moskva with a pair of Neptune anti-ship missiles. And that success posed an urgent question to the world’s major militaries: Has another age of warfare just begun? After 20 years spent fighting the post-9/11 wars, the United States military’s attention is again focused on a peer-level adversary. The Pentagon hasn’t been thinking this way since the Cold War, and it is attempting a profound transformation. Today, fierce debate attends this transformation, and nowhere more acutely than in the Marine Corps.

US Navy Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Antietam in the South China Sea.Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Marcus L. Stanley/U.S. Navy via AP, File

The US Navy is trying to retire all of its guided-missile cruisers by 2027.


US cruisers are specialized for air defense and are among the best-armed naval ships in service.


Lawmakers are dismayed by the Navy plan, believing it will reduce US firepower as China's navy grows.

In April, the US Navy presented an ambitious plan to decommission all 22 of its Ticonderoga-class cruisers by 2027.

The move is not surprising. The Navy has tried to rid itself of its cruisers for years, but Congress has consistently rejected its proposals, largely out of concern that decommissioning them would take away a much-needed weapon as China's naval force continues to grow.

With the retirement of the last battleships nearly 20 years ago, cruisers are the largest surface combatants — a category that generally doesn't include aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships — in service.

Cruisers remain among the best armed and most powerful ships in the few navies that employ them, and decommissioning the Ticonderogas would take the US out of that small and very well-armed club.
The Ticonderoga-class

Guided-missile cruiser USS Cowpens fires SM-2 missiles during an exercise in the Pacific Ocean, September 20, 2012.REUTERS/Paul Kelly/U.S. Navy photo

Twenty-seven Ticonderoga-class cruisers were built between 1980 and 1994. They have an extensive service history, with high-profile operations all over the world. The 567-foot ships displace about 10,000 tons, and they are the US Navy's most heavily armed surface combatants.

Two Mk 41 Vertical Launching Systems, each with 61 cells, can carry up to 122 missiles. Two Mk-141 missile launchers can carry up to eight more missiles. Ticonderogas are also equipped with two Mark 45 5-inch guns, two Phalanx close-in weapon systems, and two triple-tubed Mark 32 torpedo tubes.

They can be armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles, Harpoon anti-ship missiles, Evolved Sea Sparrow surface-to-air missiles, and vertical-launch anti-submarine missiles, as well as anti-satellite and anti-ballistic missiles.

Guided-missile cruiser USS Vicksburg escorts aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt through the Strait of Gibraltar, March 31, 2015.US Navy/MCS Seaman Anthony Hopkins II

Their large and diverse arsenal allows Ticonderogas to fill multiple rules, including air-defense, anti-ship anti-submarine warfare, and land-attack strikes. They primarily serve as air-defense escorts in carrier strike groups, as they have the most robust air-defense capability in the surface fleet.

They were also the first ships to be equipped with the Aegis Combat System, which uses computers and radars to track hostile forces and guide friendly fire toward incoming threats.

Because of the Ticonderogas' status and armament, their stand-alone deployments are usually meant to convey a message, as with USS Port Royal's transit of the Taiwan Strait in May.
The Kirovs and Slavas

Soviet nuclear-powered guided-missile cruiser Kirov, December 22, 1989.US Navy/PH1 Davis

The Russian Navy fields two types of cruisers. The most well-known and feared are the Kirov-class, four of which were built between 1974 and 1998.

Classified as "battlecruisers" because of their heavy armament, the Kirovs are 827 feet long and displace about 28,000 tons. Their nuclear propulsion gives them range limited only by the crew's endurance and their supplies.

Designed to destroy American carrier groups, their primary armament are 20 P-700 supersonic anti-ship missiles, each capable of carrying a 1,600-pound high-explosive warhead or a nuclear one. Kirovs also carry 136 surface-to-air missiles and six close-in weapon systems, as well as one double-barreled 130mm gun, 10 torpedo tubes, and two anti-submarine rocket launchers.

Only two Kirov-class battlecruisers, Pyotr Velikiy and Admiral Nakhimov, remain in service. Pyotr Velikiy is the flagship of the powerful Northern Fleet, while Admiral Nakhimov has been undergoing modernization since 1999, though Russian officials say it will delivered this year.

Russian Slava-class guided-missile cruiser Moskva in the Mediterranean Sea, December 17, 2015.Russian Defense Ministry Press Service via AP

Nakhimov's upgrades will allow it to fire Kalibr and Onyx cruise missiles and new anti-submarine weapons, and carry Pantsir-M air-defense systems. Russian officials also claim Nakhimov will be armed with Zircon hypersonic missiles in the future.

In 1976, the Soviets laid down the first of three Slava-class guided-missile cruisers.

At 611 feet long and displacing about 11,000 tons, the Slavas are armed with 16 P-500 cruise missiles in eight distinctive dual launchers on either side of the ship. Each P-500 can carry a 2,000-pound conventional warhead or a nuclear one. Some Slavas have reportedly been armed with more modern P-1000 anti-ship missiles.

Slava-class cruisers also carry 96 surface-to-air missiles, a twin-barreled 130mm gun, six close-in weapon systems, two anti-submarine rocket launchers, and 10 torpedo tubes.

Only two Slava-class cruisers, Marshal Ustinov and Varyag, remain in active service. Marshal Ustinov is assigned to the Northern Fleet and Varyag is the Pacific Fleet flagship. Moskva, the lead ship of the class, was the Black Sea Fleet flagship until it was sunk by Ukrainian anti-ship missiles in April.
The 'destroyers'

Chinese Type 055 guided-missile destroyer Nanchang during Joint Sea-2021, China and Russia's first joint naval patrol, in the Western Pacific on October 19, 2021.Sun Zifa/China News Service via Getty Images

Two countries field warships they designate as destroyers but the US and naval experts classify as cruisers because of their size, displacement, and armament.

China's Type 055, known as the Renhai-class, is the most notable. The International Institute for Strategic Studies think tank has said it "may be the most capable multi-role surface combatant currently at sea."

At 590 feet long and displacing over 12,000 tons, Type 055s are armed with 112 VLS cells capable of launching surface-to-air missiles, anti-submarine missiles, anti-ship missiles, and land-attack cruise missiles. They also carry a 130mm gun and a close-in weapons system.

China tested a hypersonic missile aboard a Type 055 earlier this year, and in the future the ships may be armed with anti-ship ballistic missiles designed to kill carriers.

Type 055s are equipped with Type-346A active electronically scanned array radars, a more modern and accurate radar than the passive phased-array radar aboard Ticonderoga-class ships.

ROKS Sejong the Great off the coast of Hawaii during Rim of the Pacific 2010 exercises, July 7, 2010.US Navy/MCS1 Brandon Raile

Eight Type 055s have been built and launched since 2014. At least five have been commissioned and two more are believed to be under construction. Their deployment is already seen as a show of strength — they have been spotted near Japan and Alaska — and they may be a central part of China's future carrier battlegroups.

South Korea's Sejong the Great-class destroyers are also classified by others as cruisers. Three are in active service, each 544 feet long and displacing over 10,600 tons.

Each Sejong the Great-class ship has 128 VLS cells and 16 anti-ship missile launchers in four quad mounts. They are Aegis-equipped and provide early warning of incoming ballistic missiles.

South Korea plans to build three more Sejong the Great-class ships that will have only 88 VLS cells but will be equipped with SM-6 missiles that Seoul plans to buy, allowing them to intercept ballistic missiles.
'Divest to invest'

US Navy guided-missile cruiser USS Vicksburg, April 2, 2009.US Navy/PO2 Class Jesse Dick

The US Navy wants to shed the Ticonderogas — including USS Vicksburg, which is in the middle of a $200 million refit — as part of a broader "divest to invest" strategy to free up resources for newer and more advanced vessels.

While lawmakers and others worry that doing so will leave Navy shorthanded against China, Navy officials argue the cruisers, all of which are over 30 years old, are approaching the ends of their service lives, have outdated electronics, and will cost too much to maintain or refit. Some are even unsafe to operate, Navy officials say.

"They're eating us alive in terms of our ability to get maintenance back on track," Adm. Mike Gilday, chief of naval operations, said in March. "We are paying tens of millions of dollars beyond what we expected to because of growth work and new work on ships that are beyond their service life."

The Navy proposed retiring five cruisers in 2023. In budget documents released this month, the House Armed Services Committee would only allow four retirements and block that of USS Vicksburg, which is one of the youngest of the five on the chopping block, a committee aide told reporters.

The 2023 budget is yet to be finalized, but the documents released this month also direct the Navy to submit a report on the costs of modernizing and extending the service lives of its other cruisers, suggesting the divestment battle will only continue.

In March 2020, the Marine commandant, General David Berger, published “Force Design 2030.” This controversial paper announced a significant restructuring based on the belief that “the Marine Corps is not organized, trained, equipped or postured to meet the demands of the rapidly evolving future operating environment.” That “future operating environment” is an imagined war with China in the South Pacific—but in many ways, that hypothetical conflict resembles the real war in Ukraine.

The military we have—an army built around tanks, a navy built around ships, and an air force built around planes, all of which are technologically advanced and astronomically expensive—is platform-centric. So far, in Ukraine, the signature land weapon hasn’t been a tank but an anti-tank missile: the Javelin. The signature air weapon hasn’t been an aircraft, but an anti-air missile: the Stinger. And as the sinking of the Moskva showed, the signature maritime weapon hasn’t been a ship but an anti-ship missile: the Neptune.

Berger believes a new age of war is upon us. In “Force Design 2030,” he puts the following sentence in bold: “We must acknowledge the impacts of proliferated precision long-range fires, mines, and other smart weapons, and seek innovative ways to overcome these threat capabilities.” The weapons General Berger refers to include the same family of anti-platform weapons Ukrainians are using to incinerate Russian tanks, shoot down Russian helicopters, and sink Russian warships. The successes against a platform-centric Russian Goliath by an anti-platform-centric Ukrainian David have elicited cheers in the West, but what we are witnessing in Ukraine may well be a prelude to the besting of our own American Goliath.

The flying ship is a ground effect vehicle (GEV)  a vehicle that is designed to attain sustained flight over a level surface (usually over the sea), by making use of ground effect, the aerodynamic interaction between the wings and the surface. Among the best known are the Soviet ekranoplans, but names like wing-in-ground-effect (WIG), flarecraft, sea skimmer, or wing-in-surface-effect ship (WISE) are also used.

Design and Construction of Flying Aircraft Carriers Powered by a massless energy storage to increase strength and regidity along the whole body and wings of the flying aircraft carrier. 

My (BWB) blended wing body circular design will make it look like a flying saucer with hull and wing thickness of 25 inches or more making it indestructible in heavy seas, unlike the Russian design.

My design of a huge flying aircraft carrier with SWARMS of ‘Gremlin' drones will be

capable of launching swarms of drones from mid-air.The huge aircraft will quickly release armies of drones to assault enemy targets before returning to dock with their flying mothership. The length of the flight deck shall be no less than 600 feet to accommodate 4 F35 and 3 SB1 attack helicopters. considering the amount of volume located at the wings of a Blended Wing Body (BWB) design, missiles magazines can be stored there and fuel also. Underneath the flight deck is a hangar accessible by 2 elevators.

The flying ship is a ground effect vehicle (GEV)  a vehicle that is designed to attain sustained flight over a level surface (usually over the sea), by making use of ground effect, the aerodynamic interaction between the wings and the surface. Among the best known are the Soviet ekranoplans, but names like wing-in-ground-effect (WIG), flarecraft, sea skimmer, or wing-in-surface-effect ship (WISE) are also used.

Materials of construction shall be that can float on water: Radical new material  a metal matrix could lead to 'indestructible' warships and ultralight cars. Metal matrix composite was developed with the US Army. Alloy is turned into foam by adding strong, lightweight hollow spheres. Warship made of it will not sink despite damage to its structure. Researchers have demonstrated a new type of metal so light it can float on water.

The radical new material, called a metal matrix composite, was developed with the US Army. 

A boat made of such lightweight composites will not sink despite damage to its structure. 

The radical new material, called a metal matrix composite, was developed with the US Army and could be used in everything from warship to cars.

HOW IT IS MADE 

The syntactic foam captures the lightness of foams, but adds substantial strength.

The secret of this syntactic foam starts with a matrix made of a magnesium alloy, which is then turned into foam by adding strong, lightweight silicon carbide hollow spheres developed and manufactured by DST. 

A single sphere's shell can withstand pressure of over 25,000 pounds per square inch (PSI) before it ruptures—one hundred times the maximum pressure in a fire hose.

The new material also promises to improve automotive fuel economy because it combines light weight with heat resistance

Although syntactic foams have been around for many years, this is the first development of a lightweight metal matrix syntactic foam. 

'This new development of very light metal matrix composites can swing the pendulum back in favor of metallic materials,' said Nikhil Gupta, an NYU School of Engineering professor in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering and the study's co-author.

It was created by Deep Springs Technology and the New York University Polytechnic School of Engineering.

'The ability of metals to withstand higher temperatures can be a huge advantage for these composites in engine and exhaust components, quite apart from structural parts.' 

The magnesium alloy matrix composite is reinforced with silicon carbide hollow particles and has a density of only 0.92 grams per cubic centimeter compared to 1.0 g/cc of water. 

Not only does it have a density lower than that of water, it is strong enough to withstand the rigorous conditions faced in the marine environment.Significant efforts in recent years have focused on developing lightweight polymer matrix composites to replace heavier metal-based components in automobiles and marine vessels. 

The technology for the new composite is very close to maturation and could be put into prototypes for testing within three years. 

Amphibious vehicles such as the Ultra Heavy-lift Amphibious Connector (UHAC) being developed by the U.S. Marine Corps can especially benefit from the light weight and high buoyancy offered by the new syntactic foams, the researchers explained.

The syntactic foam made by DST and NYU captures the lightness of foams, but adds substantial strength. 

FLYING  AIRCRAFT CARRIER POWERED BY Turboelectric Distributed Propulsion Engine 

My conceptual design will be without the potruding nose but an upward deck where the planes can be launched in a 30 degree angle at the bow. The wings are fixed and a hybrid Blended Wing Body (BWB). The BWB is a type of tailless flying wing design in which the wing and fuselage are blended together into one seamless body in order to achieve significant improvements in performance over the conventional aircraft, example shown in Fig. 67. Unlike the flying wing design, in which the entire body of the aircraft is a wing, the BWB has a fuselage that is designed as a wing. Therefore, the BWB has a fuselage section that is thicker than the flying wing which allows it to accommodate more payloads. And, unlike a conventional aircraft, the BWB's fuselage acts as a lifting body allowing it to generate lift, rather than acting as an interference component

It will have two twin vertcal stabilizer situated halfway on the wings slanted outward from bow to aft, as the wings will be the whole length of the ship. All engines will be on the other side of the vertcal stabilizer allowing for a clean flight deck and safety for deck personnel.

Placing the Engine The BWB program is examining a new method for engine installation that promises to increase safety and fuel efficiency. Three advanced “high-bypass ratio” engines will be buried in the trailing edge of the outer section of the BWB wing, allowing the center of the craft free for flight deck use. While conventional aircraft engines only take in “free-stream air,” both the air on and near the surface of the wing will flow through the BWB’s curved inlets and into its engines. Taking in the layer of air on the wing surface reduces drag. While this technology will require validation before becoming a reality, researchers are initiating tests to determine acceptable levels of turbulence in the engine inlet

Later in the very near future..............

Carbon fibre planes: Lighter and stronger by design

Currently, Boeing's latest plane, the 787 Dreamliner uses composites for half of its airframe including the fuselage and wing, while Airbus's A350 XWB has both its fuselage and wings made of carbon fibre.

While the use of carbon fibre has allowed the creation of sweeping wing tips, which can cut fuel consumption by up to 5%, both aircraft are still fairly conventionally shaped.

Yet, the great advantage of using carbon fibre as opposed to traditional metal is that it gives designers much more freedom when trying to juggle the conflicting demands of aerodynamic efficiency, fuel savings and reducing engine noise.

So, the airliners of the future are likely to be radically different.

Such shapes could include blended wing designs, where the fuselage and wings merge into each other - like some military aircraft today.

Similar shape BWB plane  burns 20 per cent less fuel than conventional aircraft and can carry more than 300 passengers

• 'Flying-V' was developed by the Delft Technical University in the Netherlands and KLM is funding the design  
• It has the same wingspan as existing planes and is named after the iconic Gibson Flying-V electric guitar 
• The aircraft would be able to carry up to 314 passengers in the V-shaped layout of the craft its designers claim 
• Passenger cabin, cargo hold and fuel tanks to be integrated in the design which uses 20 per cent less fuel

Dutch airline KLM are funding a pioneering aeronautical project which could see the shape and layout of commercial aeroplanes changed forever.  

The stunning 'Flying-V' design, financially backed by KLM, has the same wingspan as existing planes and is able to carry up to 314 passengers.

It is named after the iconic Gibson Flying-V electric guitar used by a number of legendary players - from Eddie Van Halen and Jimi Hendrix, to Brian May and Keith Richards.

The concept craft, developed by researchers at Delft Technology University in the Netherlands, flares diagonally backwards from it nose to create the striking V-shape. 

Its designers say this unique configuration uses 20 per cent less fuel. The wings would host the passenger space, cargo hold, fuel tanks and all other infrastructure, it is believed. 

A stunning 'V-shaped' craft developed by researchers at Delft Technology University in the Netherlands has been financially backed by KLM 

It has the wingspan of existing planes but is shaped like a guitar, with the nose flaring backwards diagonally to create the striking V-shape. It is believed to use 20 per cent less fuel, be more aerodynamic and still be able to carry up to 314 passengers. 

The aircraft name is derived from the moniker of the electric guitar developed by Gibson in 1958.

Designs were drawn up by Delft Technology University in the Netherlands.

KLM, the Dutch aeronautical giant, is funding the development of the unique plane. 

It has the wingspan of existing planes but is shaped like a guitar, with the nose flaring backwards diagonally to create the striking V-shape. 

Its total width is 215ft (65m) and its length will be slightly shorter, at 180 ft (55m). 

Its size makes it a comparable rival to the traditional Airbus A350 and the Boeing 787. pair of turbofan jet engines will be mounted at its rear and the design would drastically reduce both the carbon footprint of air travel and the expenditure on fuel.Pieter Elbers, the KLM chief executive, refused to reveal the exact extent of the project but it is being heralded as a potential leader in the field of 'sustainable aviation initiatives'. Its size makes it a comparable rival to the traditional Airbus A350 and the Boeing 787 and it would be able to use existing gates, hangars and runways. Its total width is 215ft (65m) and its length will be slightly shorter, at 180 ft (55m).

WHAT IS THE 'FLYING-V'? 

Details of what the inside will look like are scarce but it will inevitably allow for a range of innovative seating arrangements, rooms and fittings. 

The wings would host the passenger space, cargo hold, fuel tanks and all other infrastructure, it is believed

Its total width is 215ft (65m) and its length will be slightly shorter, at 180 ft (55m). Details of what the inside will look like are scarcebut it will inevitably allow for a range of innovative seating arrangements, rooms and fittings

Lightweight furniture will enable the plane to maximise its gains in fuel efficiency.   

Professor Henri Werij, dean of the university's faculty of aerospace engineering, said the object was to make aviation more sustainable, according to The Times. 

'New and energy-efficient aircraft designs such as the Flying-V are important, as are new forms of propulsion. Our ultimate aim is emission-free flight,' he said. 

The aircraft name is derived from the moniker of the electric guitar developed by Gibson in 1958.

Lightweight furniture will enable the plane to maximise its gains in fuel efficiency. Professor Henri Werij, dean of the university's faculty of aerospace engineering, said the object was to make aviation more sustainable, according to The Times

Like its Russian counterpart, the American military has long been built around platforms. To pivot away from a platform-centric view of warfare is both a cultural challenge—what does it mean to be a fighter pilot without a jet, a tanker without a tank, or a sailor without a ship?—and a resource challenge. It asks the U.S. military, as well as the U.S. defense industry, to divest itself of legacy capabilities like, for example, a $13 billion Ford-class aircraft carrier, in order to invest in new, potentially less profitable technologies like, say, $6,000 Switchblade drones that can kill tanks.

 disunity among senior commanders. One of the dissenters is a former commandant, retired General Charles Krulak. “You’re divesting yourself of huge capability to buy capability that’s still on the drawing boards,” Krulak told me. “We’re being painted as a bunch of old farts who want the Marine Corps to remain as it was and don’t understand the impact of technology on warfare. Nothing could be further from the truth.”

To discount Krulak’s views would be a mistake. His tenure as commandant ushered in significant innovations for the Corps. He laid the intellectual groundwork that allowed the Corps to fight in the post-9/11 world. He also acquired the V-22 for the Marine Corps, a first-of-its-kind tilt-rotor aircraft that is both a plane and a helicopter. Berger’s strategic vision is also the first of its kind; in the event of a war with China, it imagines a 21st-century island-hopping campaign in which bands of 60 to 70 highly trained, lethally equipped Marines would infiltrate onto islands in the South Pacific to target the Chinese navy with advanced missile systems and other long-range weapons. The war at sea, in Berger’s vision, would be decided by a slew of Moskva-like engagements.

Berger’s critics don’t buy it. “The assumption that Marines can get on contested islands without being detected and conduct resupply missions is unrealistic,” Krulak said. “Plus, you’re underestimating the capability of the Chinese. The belief that these forces will shoot and scoot counts on Marines moving faster than a Chinese missile flies. You’re going to lose Marines and be unable to evacuate our wounded and dead. The Navy won’t sail in to get our wounded.”

Admiral James Stavridis, who spent much of his 40-plus-year Navy career in the South China Sea, is a believer in Berger’s vision. “The Army of tomorrow will look like the Marine Corps of today,” Stavridis told me. “What General Berger is doing is critical.” A truism among Marines is that the Corps must be at its most ready when America is at its least. In the 1930s, the Marine Corps pioneered the amphibious doctrine that would pave the way not only for the island-hopping campaigns in the Pacific but also the amphibious landings that allowed the Army to liberate Europe. Innovation, according to Stavridis, remains a core Marine mission.

The debate in the Marine Corps is more profound than the internecine politics of one service branch; it’s a debate about which form of warfare will dominate in the next decades of the 21st century, a platform-centric one or an anti-platform-centric one. Historical precedent abounds for these types of debates. Before the First World War, in the opening years of the 20th century, many militaries adhered to the cult of the offense, a then-stale belief that well-trained, determined troops would always carry the day over a defending force. In the Napoleonic Wars 100 years before, this had often proved true. But up against the 20th century’s breech-loading rifles and machine guns, the offense had become the weaker form of warfare. Tragically, it took the Marne, the Somme, and countless other bayonet charges into the teeth of chattering machine guns for the generals of that era to accept that their understanding of warfare was dated.

Representative Seth Moulton, a former Marine and Iraq War veteran who sits on the House Armed Services Committee, believes that today’s dissenting generals are failing to comprehend how much technology is changing the battlefield and how quickly the services must adapt. “When you look at what weapons are on top of the Ukrainians’ wish list,” Moulton told me, “it isn’t towed howitzers. Top of their list are armed drones, anti-tank missiles, and anti-ship missiles.”

But what if Berger is wrong? What if his “divest to invest” strategy winds up overinvesting the Marine Corps in a highly specific vision of warfare that never comes to pass? According to Moulton, much of this comes down to the role the Marine Corps has traditionally played as an incubator for new ideas as the smallest, nimblest of the services. “Our country can afford to have the Marine Corps overinvested in a new type of warfare that never comes to pass,” Moulton explained. “What our country cannot afford is to have the Marine Corps underinvested in a new type of warfare that does come to pass.”Events in Ukraine seem to validate Berger’s anti-platform-centric view of warfare, in much the same way that World War I validated those who had argued that defense had become stronger than offense. Of course, no form of warfare maintains primacy forever. Krulak made this point as we finished our conversation. “We need to be careful we don’t learn the wrong lessons from Ukraine. You have a great measure. The next thing you know they come up with a countermeasure. So you come up with a counter-countermeasure.”One of the most famous countermeasures developed after the end of the First World War was France’s Maginot Line, a physical shrine to the primacy of defense. What the French failed to account for was that in two short decades, certain developments—more advanced tanks, aircraft, and combined-arms doctrine—had once again swung the balance, allowing offense to reassume its role as the dominant form of warfare. The result was a German blitzkrieg in June 1940 that simply maneuvered around the Maginot Line.

The wager that Berger and the Marine Corps are making is that anti-platform systems won’t be an American Maginot Line, but the best way to save a generation of Americans from their own Somme or Moskva.

In the twilight of age all things seem strange and phantasmal, 

  As between daylight and dark ghost-like the landscape My heart goes back to wander there, 

And among the dreams of the days that were, 

  I find my lost youth again. 

    And the strange and beautiful song, 

    The groves are repeating it still: 

  "A boy's will is the wind's will, 

And the thoughts of youth are long, long thoughts."

I should not be withheld but that some day 

into their vastness I should steal away, 

Fearless of ever finding open land, 

or highway where the slow wheel pours the sand...RF

On the road of life one mile-stone more!

In the book of life one leaf turned o'er!

Like a red seal is the setting sun

On the good and the evil men have done,--

     Naught can to-day restore!

Life is real!  Life is earnest!

  And the grave is not its goal;

Dust thou art, to dust returnest,

  Was not spoken of the soul. 

Not enjoyment, and not sorrow,

  Is our destined end or way;

But to act, that each to-morrow

  Find us farther than to-day. 

Art is long, and Time is fleeting,

  And our hearts, though stout and brave,

Still, like muffled drums, are beating

  Funeral marches to the grave. 

In the world's broad field of battle,

  In the bivouac of Life,

Be not like dumb, driven cattle!

  Be a hero in the strife! 

Trust no Future, howe'er pleasant!

  Let the dead Past bury its dead!

Act,--act in the living Present!

  Heart within, and God o'erhead! 

Lives of great men all remind us

  We can make our lives sublime,

And, departing, leave behind us

  Footprints on the sands of time;

Footprints, that perhaps another,

  Sailing o'er life's solemn main,

A forlorn and shipwrecked brother,

  Seeing, shall take heart again. 

Let us, then, be up and doing,

  With a heart for any fate;

Still achieving, still pursuing,

  Learn to labor and to wait...

 

A BANANA REPUBLIC; THE PLUNDERERS ARE BACK ENDORSED BY GUTTER DUTERTE

Angry young voters gathered in the Philippines on Tuesday to protest against Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the son and namesake of the former dictator, who clinched a landslide victory this week in one of the most divisive presidential elections in the country’s recent history.

Multiple election observers said they had received thousands of reports of election-related anomalies since the vote on Monday. Malfunctioning voting machines were one of the biggest concerns, with VoteReportPH, an election watchdog, saying the breakdowns had “severely impaired this electoral process.”

On Tuesday, Leni Robredo, Mr. Marcos’s closest rival in the race and the country’s current vice president, said that her team was looking into reports of voter fraud. But every opinion poll before the election had predicted that Mr. Marcos would win by a huge margin, and his lead by Tuesday was so overwhelming that reports of fraud and malfunctioning machines were unlikely to sway the result.

Mr. Marcos, known by his childhood nickname, “Bongbong,” had racked up nearly 31 million votes by 4:30 p.m., according to a preliminary tally. That was more than double the number of votes that Ms. Robredo had, giving Mr. Marcos the biggest margin of victory in more than three decades. Voter turnout was around 80 percent, an election official said Tuesday.

During his campaign, Mr. Marcos appealed to a public disillusioned with democracy in the Philippines, a country of 110 million and the oldest democracy in Southeast Asia. Yet for many Filipinos, the Marcos family name remains a byword for excess and greed, and a painful reminder of the atrocities committed by the father.


Image

Riot police were deployed in Manila on Tuesday to protect election commissioners. The vote this week was one of the most divisive presidential elections in modern Philippine history.Credit...Jes Aznar for The New York Times




Mr. Marcos’s 92-year-old mother, Imelda Marcos, was sentenced to up to 11 years in 2018 for creating private foundations to hide her unexplained wealth, but remains free. She posted bail, and her case is under appeal by the Supreme Court. Critics fear Mr. Marcos could use the presidency to scrap that case and other outstanding cases against the family.

Dozens of mostly young voters gathered in a park across from the elections commission building on Tuesday morning to protest the election results and Mr. Marcos, chanting, “Thief, thief, thief!” and “Put Imelda in jail.” Riot police stood watch over the demonstrations.

Paula Santos, a doctor in training, confronted the officers: “Personally, I am scared,” she told them. “I am turning 27 and I am scared for our future, especially now that I’m an adult. When I was young, I did not care about politics. But now I am having goose bumps because of fear.”
In the months leading up to the election, hundreds of thousands of Ms. Robredo’s young supporters had campaigned door to door, seeking to fight an online disinformation campaign that portrayed the violent Marcos regime as a “golden age” in the country’s history.

Ms. Santos told the officers that she had supported the younger Mr. Marcos when he ran against Ms. Robredo for the vice presidency in 2016 “because of the beautifully crafted posts and infographics I saw on YouTube.” “But then I saw other accounts, I did my research,” she said. “Knowing the truth is now in your own hands.”

“We’re not here to rewrite history,” she added. “We’re here to learn from it.”

In an interview later, Ms. Santos said that she and her 17-year-old sister cried on election night. Both of them had campaigned for Ms. Robredo. “I was expecting a close fight,” she said. “I didn’t expect it to be such a big gap between numbers. It was hard to believe.”


Image
Members of the Catholic church praying in front of the elections comission building in Manila on Tuesday. Credit...Jes Aznar for The New York Times




Across the country, many voters shared in her disbelief.

Recrimination and regret prevailed among some Filipinos as they considered the possibility of another Marcos as president, 36 years after millions of their countrymen ousted the Marcos family for looting billions of dollars from the treasury.

Robert Reyes, a Roman Catholic priest who spent every Wednesday for the past 11 weeks outside the elections commission building demanding a clean vote, said the Catholic Church had failed to “denounce evil.” The Catholic church, which has outsize influence in the Philippines, played a crucial role in overthrowing the Marcos dictatorship during the 1986 “People Power” uprising.

“Hopefully this will wake up the church,” Father Reyes said. “Because what moral authority does the son of a dictator who has not returned what his father has stolen have? What authority does he have to govern a country whose people were plundered by his father?”

Ms. Robredo has stopped short of formally conceding the race. On Tuesday, she told her supporters to accept “whatever the final result will be.”

“I do not consider this a loss because we have achieved many things this election season,” she said, speaking during a Catholic Mass in Bicol Region, where she is from.

She has hinted at a bigger role for her broad-based movement, which she said “will not die at the close of counting.”

Vote counting could continue through the end of the week. By Tuesday afternoon, Mr. Marcos had yet to deliver a victory speech. But in a statement, Victor Rodriguez, Mr. Marcos’s spokesman, said his “unassailable lead” meant that “the Filipino people have spoken decisively.”

“To those who voted for Bongbong, and those who did not, it is his promise to be a president for all Filipinos,” Mr. Rodriguez said. “To the world, he says: Judge me not by my ancestors, but by my actions.”


Image
Demonstrators faced off with riot police officers in Manila on Tuesday.Credit...Jes Aznar for The New York Times




Sara Duterte, the daughter of President Rodrigo Duterte and Mr. Marcos’s running mate, had garnered 31.5 million votes by Tuesday, more than triple the votes of Senator Francis Pangilinan, who ran as vice president in support of Ms. Robredo.


ADVERTISEMENTContinue reading the main story




Mr. Duterte has been accused of rolling back democratic institutions during his six years as president. Opponents have warned that the alliance between the Marcoses and the Dutertes could usher in a new era of autocracy in the Philippines.

Mr. Marcos and Ms. Duterte are expected to take office on June 30.

As the protests continued outside the elections commission building on Tuesday, demonstrators held up signs that said, “Never again,” and “Fight Marcos, reject Duterte.”

Maria Socorro Naguit, 72, a freelance writer at the protest, said she was 22 when the Marcos regime, during a crackdown on the press, shut down the magazine she worked for. “I’m here because it’s too much, you know?” Ms. Socorro Naguit said. “Honestly, I cannot countenance the return of the Marcoses.”

Watching the results come in on Monday night, Ms. Socorro Naguit said her first reaction was letting out curse words. “And I thought of the republic. Oh my god,” she said.

For Mirus Ponon, a first-time voter in Manila, Election Day was marked by excitement. The 20-year-old university student and civil rights activist stood in line for five hours to cast his vote for Ms. Robredo.

The euphoria didn’t last long. Several hours later, he was crying.

“You could see it coming from a standpoint of the structured propaganda and the machinery of the Marcoses,” he said. “But it’s something that makes you so depressed, as someone who loves the country. You want to continue to fight, yet the country and its people fail you.”

Ferdinand Marcos, who ruled the Philippines as a dictator from 1972 to 1986, is remembered for the thousands of human rights violations he committed, as well as his massive corruption. Indeed, Marcos holds the dubious title of being the most corrupt Philippine president (a title for which there is unfortunately stiff competition), and has been identified in one study as the second most corrupt government leader in the world, as measured by the value of public assets he stole. The profligacy of Ferdinand Marcos and his wife Imelda—even at a time when the Philippines was spiraling into recession and a debt crisis—was shameless, and symbolized by Imelda’s 2,700 pairs of shoes and extravagant shopping sprees.

Given the magnitude of the corruption and abuses he perpetrated, one would think that Marcos’ place in Philippine history and in Filipinos’ collective memory is already well-settled. But alarmingly, a “revisionist” account of his presidency has recently gained, and continues to gain, wide currency. Many Filipinos are now beginning to consider the notion that Marcos may not really have been so bad—that his “sins” were merely overstated by the victors who wrote post-Marcos history. (Some of these issues are discussed here, here and here, but they are more frequently debated informally in mass and social media platforms.) These revisionist narratives spiked during the 2016 Philippine elections, when Marcos’ son, Ferdinand, Jr. (known as “Bongbong”), ran for, and almost won, the Vice Presidency. During his campaign, Bongbong denied his father’s legacy of corruption and framed his own platform as a revival of Marcos’ supposed “golden age” of peace and progress. Bongbong’s efforts to whitewash his father’s historical record to suit his electoral objectives gained traction, and has even spread to other fronts, like Wikipedia and Facebook. It did not help that President Rodrigo Duterte favorably endorsed the Martial Law declaration that paved the way for Marcos’ dictatorial rule in 1972 (calling it “very good”), and that the Supreme Court, in a recent controversial ruling, allowed the interment of Marcos’ remains in the Libingan ng mga Bayani (“Cemetery of Heroes”).

From a historical perspective, this phenomenon is disturbing in itself; but, if not arrested, this distortion of collective memory about Marcos’ history of corruption would also have dangerous implications for the Philippines’ ongoing and future anticorruption efforts.  

First, a “whitewashed” history of Marcos’ corruption and kleptocracy can serve as a smokescreen for his family members’ own corrupt practices. While the “Marcos” name has been sullied by the dictator’s dismal record, his family members managed to get themselves elected to various public offices on the strength of their still-sizable base of loyalists and supporters. Imelda, Marcos’ wife, is currently a member of the House of Representatives; his daughter, Imee, is the Governor of Ilocos Norte, Marcos’ home province; Bongbong was a Senator before he ran for Vice President. For better or worse, the political careers of Imelda, Imee, and Bongbong are tied to Marcos’ own reputation. If Marcos continues to be perceived as a corrupt leader, his family members will be associated to corruption too. But if Marcos’ image is sanitized through historical revisionism, his family members can use the “vindication” of the “Marcos” name to cover up their own corrupt practices. This is particularly dangerous considering the corruption accusations currently being leveled against the Marcos family members: against Imelda, for her role in setting up bogus Swiss foundations; against Bongbong, for misappropriation of “pork barrel” funds; and against Imee, for undeclared campaign contributions to President Duterte, misappropriation of funds meant for tobacco farmers, and secret bank accounts exposed in the “Panama Papers” leak.

Second, forgetting Marcos’ corruption undermines the still-ongoing work of the institution established to recover his ill-gotten wealth. One of the first official acts of President Corazon Aquino, Marcos’ successor, was to establish the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), and to task it with the recovery of public assets stolen by Marcos, his family, and his cronies—and to return that wealth to its rightful owners, the Filipino people. Needless to say, the historical basis of the PCGG’s existence is the fact of Marcos’ corruption; if this fact were to be expunged from the nation’s collective memory, the legitimacy of the PCGG will be severely compromised. This, in turn, will seriously undermine the ongoing efforts to recover the rest of the $10 billion worth of Marcos’ ill-gotten wealth, of which only $4 billion have so far been recovered. Now more than ever, continued public support for the PCGG’s efforts is needed. Under President Duterte, who has called Marcos “a hero to many Filipinos,” the PCGG is about to be abolished and absorbed by the Office of the Solicitor General. This move will undoubtedly dilute the PCGG’s historical and symbolic value as a tangible reminder of Marcos’ kleptocracy.

Third, remembering Marcos’ history of corruption is essential to fostering the environment needed for ongoing and future anticorruption efforts to succeed. If Marcos’ image is successfully sanitized by tampering with collective memory, it will send the wrong signal to public officials. It will tell them that corruption ultimately pays, because even if they are caught, they can still hope for some sort of historical vindication for their name and reputation in the future. This dangerous mindset is inimical to the success of any anticorruption effort, which depends heavily on fostering an environment of accountability and justice rather than of impunity. It is also important to continue holding up Marcos’ kleptocracy as a cautionary illustration of how the suppression of democratic values can enable large-scale plunder. When the people are armed with a truthful rendition of Marcos’ history of corruption, they are in a better position to be vigilant against similar acts. They will likewise be more inclined to guard and strengthen democratic institutions and norms, which in turn contribute to building an environment hostile to corruption.

Efforts to make the Filipino people forget Marcos’ history of corruption and abuse should be resisted. At this juncture, it should no longer be a matter of debate that Marcos was a thief. Not only is it in society’s best interest to preserve an accurate chronicle of its history, it is also an anticorruption imperative to keep the lessons of Marcos’ kleptocratic legacy salient and meaningful for succeeding generations. Charting a national course free of corruption will be even more difficult than it already is if this recent tide of pro-Marcos historical revisionism is not decisively turned.

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte said the family of former dictator Ferdinand Marcos has indicated a willingness to return a still-unspecified amount of money and “a few gold bars” to help ease the government’s expected budget deficit.

Duterte said without elaborating that he was considering designating three people, including a former Supreme Court chief justice, to negotiate with the Marcoses over the return of the assets.

Duterte said the Marcoses’ intention was relayed by a family spokesman, whom he did not identify, and indicated the Marcoses were of the view that the assets to be returned had not been stolen as alleged by political opponents.

“I will accept the explanation, whether or not it is true,” Duterte said in a speech to newly appointed officials.

There was no immediate reaction from the Marcos family, including his wife Imelda, who is currently a member of the House of Representatives.The Marcoses are “ready to open and bring back (assets) including a few gold bars,” Duterte quoted the Marcos family spokesman as saying. “It’s not that big, it’s not Fort Knox, it’s just a few but they said, they’ll return.”

Marcos was ousted in a 1986 “people power” revolt and died in exile in Hawaii three years later without admitting any wrongdoing, including accusations that he and his family amassed an estimated $5 billion to $10 billion while he was in power.

Marcos placed the Philippines under martial rule in 1972, a year before his term was to expire. He padlocked Congress, ordered the arrest of political rivals and left-wing activists and ruled by decree.

A Hawaii court found Marcos liable for human rights violations and awarded $2 billion from his estate to compensate more than 9,000 Filipinos who filed a lawsuit against him for torture, incarceration, extrajudicial killings and disappearances.

Although he rose to power last year on a promise to combat widespread crime and corruption, Duterte has acknowledged that one of Marcos’ daughters, a provincial governor, backed his presidential candidacy. Duterte has noted that his late father, a local politician, was a trusted Cabinet member of Marcos.

In November last year, Duterte approved the burial of the long-dead Marcos at the country’s Heroes’ Cemetery in a secrecy-shrouded ceremony, sparking protests and shocking many democracy advocates and human rights victims.

Burying someone accused of massive rights violations and plunder at the heroes’ cemetery, which is reserved for former presidents, soldiers and national artists, has long been an emotional and divisive issue. Duterte argued that it was Marcos’s right as a president and soldier to be buried at the cemetery, taking a political risk in a country where democracy advocates still celebrate Marcos’s ouster each year.