On February 25 I asked the NDP leader if he’d reconsider paying tens of billions of dollars to a US arms giant for offensive fighter jets as part of his stated desire to take a hardline in response to Donald Trump’s threats. Singh spent over a minute responding to my question but refused to answer. While seeking to portray himself as the ‘get tough on Trump’ candidate, Singh was unwilling to even say the party could reconsider paying huge sums to Lockheed Martin for 88 F-35s. To make his cautiousness even more absurd, the NDP has effectively opposed the F-35 contract, which is to cost $19 billion upfront and $70 billion over the life cycle.

The answer wasn’t simply off the cuff. I arrived half an hour early and had a conversation with Singh’s assistant in which I told her the two questions I hoped to ask.

Two weeks later I asked Yves Francois Blanchet basically the same question I had asked Singh. Last Tuesday the Bloc Québécois leader said he was open to canceling the F-35 contract in response to Trump’s belligerence. Blanchet expressed concern about a “switch off controlled in the US” for Canada’s expensive fighter jets.

In a sign that the issue was ripe, my Blanchet clip was viewed by over 200,000 times on social media, which is a surprisingly large number for an exchange in French.

To be fair to Singh, days before my question to Blanchet Postmedia reporter David Pugliese published a story discussing the US having an effective “kill switch” over the warplanes. Additionally, Michael Byers published a column in the Globe and Mail detailing some nationalist reasons to oppose the F-35 deal.

Also on Tuesday, thousands began responding to a Canadian Foreign Policy Institute, Just Peace Advocates and World Beyond War email campaign to Mark Carney and the leaders of the other political parties. It called for the F-35 contract to be scrapped and to “Stop Canada’s plan to spend billions on U.S.-made & controlled weapons of war.”

On Thursday former Liberal foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy added his voice to a rapidly growing number of Canadians speaking out on the F-35. That day Portugal also announced it was abandoning a plan to purchase the F-35s. The government cited concerns about US reliability and control over the planes’ logistics and parts.

Amidst the mounting pressure, defence minister Bill Blair told CBC on Friday that Carney asked him to reconsider the F-35 deal. The news made international headlines and has hit Lockheed Martin’s stock.

In effect, Canada’s new investment banker prime minister outflanked the leader of a social democratic party polling under 15%. In a widely circulated YouTube interview Saturday morning Brent Patterson and I discussed the NDP brass’ caution amidst a rapidly changing political terrain.

On Sunday the NDP released a sloppily put together statement (they rewrote the headline after publishing) saying the government should cancel the F-35 deal and its contract for 16 Boeing P-8A Poseidon Multi-Mission Aircraft. It notes “At a time when Donald Trump has threatened not just workers and jobs, but Canada’s very sovereignty, it’s a matter of national security that our defence technology not be controlled by the United States. That’s why we’ll cancel the F-35 contract, and build the fighter jets Canada needs in Canada, using Canadian workers.”

Simultaneously, NDP defence critic Lindsay Mathyssen released a statement on the F-35. It noted, “We cannot allow President Trump to control the production, maintenance, and software of our military equipment. At a time when the United States is not respecting our territorial sovereignty, we cannot risk him being able to control our military equipment … Cancelling these projects would have an immediate impact on President Trump’s economy and send our clearest message yet that Canada will not stand for his disrespect.”

Mathyssen has largely ignored the issue even though 1,400 emailed her in 2022 calling on the party to question the “Liberal’s fighter jet plans” in a statement headlined “NDP must oppose F-35 purchase”. Previous to that the NDP largely ignored the widely mediatized 2021 No New Fighter Jets for Canada statement signed by Neil Young, Stephen Lewis, Teagan and Sarah, David Suzuki and many other notable Canadian and international figures.

While it’s good the NDP has decided to criticize the F-35, their Sunday statement also calls for Canada to spend 2% of GDP on its military by 2032. That would boost outlays on the war machine by some $20 billion per year (with annual rises matching GDP growth).

This is an odious shift in NDP policy. In July Singh repeated to me that the NDP considered NATO’s 2% of GDP target “arbitrary”. Their shift reflects the party’s subservience to an alliance NDP members previously voted to withdraw from as well as to the president seeking to annex Canada.

The NDP statement even responds to the contradiction, noting that “We don’t do this [call to increase military spending] to placate Donald Trump.” But that is precisely who has spurred the renewed push to boost military spending. Trump’s criticism is what led the Liberal leadership candidates to seek to outdo each other in declaring the speed at which they would hit the 2% of GDP target.

While it may be difficult to have principles in electoral politics, the opportunism shaping NDP military policy is beyond embarrassing.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Yves Engler.

Produced by a Chinese aviation company, Shenyang, the new jet took more than a decade to build- and bears more than a passing resemblance a U.S. fighter, the F-35, made by Lockheed Martin.

As the U.S. Air Force’s chief of staff, David Allvin, told Air & Space Forces Magazine, the similarities between the two aircraft were striking. Both models have silver-grey wings, a pointed nose and a smooth, slicked-back design. Though made in two different countries, they looked as if they came from the same factory. If you were to put the two jets side-by-side, said Allvin, you could practically see where they both “got their blueprints.”

That in itself is an achievement for the Chinese military, which has for years struggled to compete with the U.S. military advances. Still, there are differences between the two aircraft.

The Chinese-made J-31 is more svelte than the American jet—despite the fact that the Chinese model has two engines, while the U.S.-made F-35 has one.

Chinese designers may have chosen to build their aircraft with two engines to give the jet more power, says Douglas Royce, a senior aircraft analyst with the Sandy Hook, Connecticut-based research company, Forecast International.

But the design could have also been chosen for a more primitive reason: the second engine could serve as a backup in case of mission failure.

“Maybe they have less faith in the reliability of the aircraft,” says Greg Malandrino, a former U.S. fighter pilot now at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

Chinese pilots will have to make do with a smaller workspace than American F-35 pilots, according to Boyko Nikolov, the head of a media company Bulgarian Military. The U.S. fighter jet’s cockpit is cushier, roomier, with a bigger canopy, while the Chinese plane’s cockpit reflects “a more utilitarian approach to pilot ergonomics,” according to Nikolov.

Malandrino, says he did not notice any significant differences in the design of the two cockpits. Besides, as he points out, the cockpit of a fighter jet, whether Chinese or American, is not known for comfort. The seat is designed to provide the pilot with a way out of a tricky situation.

“You’re sitting on ejection seat,” he says. “It’s basically a rocket seat.”

Others questioned whether the Chinese jet, however well-designed, is all that sneaky. According to aviation expert Dario Leone, the J-31 spits a lot of smoke from its exhaust pipe when it’s in the air, which could make it easier to detect the plane.

But experts agree that the real power of a fighter jet lies in the overall strength of the military they serve. Says Forecast International’s Royce: “People are thinking about two jets operating in a dog fight. But in the real world, it depends on the entire combat system.”

“Until the two countries fight, it’s just guesswork,” Royce says. “You really don’t know till the shooting starts.”

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Tara McKelvey.

In the United States, a valiant effort was made in the US District Court for the Northern District of California to restrain the Biden administration from aiding Israel’s war efforts.  The application, filed by the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, argued that President Joseph Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, had made genocidal conditions possible “because of unconditional support given [to Israel] by the named official-capacity defendants in this case”.

The troubled judge, while citing the convention that foreign policy could not be the subject of a court’s jurisdiction, nonetheless implored President Biden and his officials to observe the obligations of the UN Genocide Convention.  As justice Jeffrey S. White declared, “the undisputed evidence before this Court comports with the finding of the ICJ and indicates that the current treatment of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip by the Israeli military may plausibly constitute a genocide in violation of international law.”

A Dutch appeals court in The Hague has further added its name to this growing list of interventions.  Judge Bas Boele, in siding with the human rights groups making the application including Oxfam Novib, had no such quibbles with questioning government policy towards Israel and the shipping of parts vital for the F-35 fighter. While the Netherlands does not assemble or produce the F-35, it houses at least one storage facility at Woensdrecht, where US-made components are stored for shipping to various countries.

Despite the ongoing conflict in Gaza, which commenced after the attacks by Hamas militants on October 7, 2023 on Israel, the Dutch government had not discontinued deliveries under a permit granted in 2016.  This is despite the monumentally lethal nature of a war that has left 28,100 Palestinians dead, and the decision by the ICJ.

The lower court had, in a similar vein to their US counterparts, adopted the position that decisions regarding export permits of weapon components tended to be of a political and policy nature, warranting wide executive latitude.  The judge duly held that the Minister of Foreign Trade and Cooperation had weighed up the relevant interests in the case in deciding to continue with the exports.

Such an artificial distinction – one that finds political acts that may lead to complicity in genocide armoured, if not above legal challenge – was not persuasive to the higher court.  “It is undeniable that there is a clear risk that the exported F-35 parts are used in serious violations of international humanitarian law,” the appeals court found. “Israel does not take sufficient account of the consequences for the civilian population when conducting its attacks.”  Such attacks had “resulted in a disproportionate number of civilian casualties [in Gaza].”

It followed that, “The Netherlands is obliged to prohibit the export of military goods if there is a clear risk of serious violations of international humanitarian law.”  The export and transit of all F-35 parts with Israel as their final destination would cease within seven days.

In responding to the ruling, Oxfam Novib Executive Director Michiel Servaes called it “an important step to force the Dutch government to adhere to international law, which the Netherlands has strongly advocated for in the past.  Israel has just launched an attack against the city of Rafah, where more than half of Gaza’s population are sheltering, the Netherlands must take immediate steps.”

Immediate steps have been duly taken, but not along the lines advocated by Oxfam; the Dutch government is appealing to the country’s Supreme Court to return to the status quo.  It was always likely to happen and was timed with the February 12 visit by Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte to Israel and the Palestinian territories.  “In the government’s view,” went the official statement, “the distribution of American F-35 parts is not unlawful.  The government believes it is up to the State to its [sic] determine foreign policy.”

The statement also goes on to reveal the sheer scope of the F-35 supply program and its relevance to the Dutch defence industry.  Whatever the humanitarian considerations about the devastation caused by Israel’s F-35 fighters, no participant wants to miss out.  “The government will do everything it can to convince allies and partners that the Netherlands remains a reliable partner in the F-35 project and in European and international defence cooperation.”

Being part of the program was also vital to the country’s own security, and that of Israel’s “in particular with regard to threats emanating from the region, for instance from Iran, Yemen, Syria and Lebanon.”

The Palestinian civilians hardly figure in these considerations, though Gaza warrants the briefest of mentions.  “The Netherlands continues to call for an immediate temporary humanitarian ceasefire, and for as much humanitarian aid as possible to be allowed to reach the suffering people of Gaza.  The situation is extremely serious.  It is clear that international humanitarian law applies in full and Israel, too, must abide by it.”  As, indeed, Israel implausibly claims to be doing so, even as the starving continues and the graves fill.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

The post US Navy Top Gun Founder Thinks the F-35 Is A Mistake appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Roger Thompson.

The post Does South Korea Really Need the F-35? appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Roger Thompson.

My name is Bill Astore and I’m a card-carrying member of the military-industrial complex (MIC).

Sure, I hung up my military uniform for the last time in 2005. Since 2007, I’ve been writing articles for TomDispatch focused largely on critiquing that same MIC and America’s permanent war economy. I’ve written against this country’s wasteful and unwise wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, its costly and disastrous weapons systems, and its undemocratic embrace of warriors and militarism. Nevertheless, I remain a lieutenant colonel, if a retired one. I still have my military ID card, if only to get on bases, and I still tend to say “we” when I talk about my fellow soldiers, Marines, sailors, and airmen (and our “guardians,” too, now that we have a Space Force).

So, when I talk to organizations that are antiwar, that seek to downsize, dismantle, or otherwise weaken the MIC, I’m upfront about my military biases even as I add my own voice to their critiques. Of course, you don’t have to be antiwar to be highly suspicious of the U.S. military. Senior leaders in “my” military have lied so often, whether in the Vietnam War era of the last century or in this one about “progress” in Iraq and Afghanistan, that you’d have to be asleep at the wheel or ignorant not to have suspected the official story.

Just remember one thing: the military-industrial complex won’t reform itself.

Yet I also urge antiwar forces to see more than mendacity or malice in “our” military. It was retired general and then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower, after all, who first warned Americans of the profound dangers of the military-industrial complex in his 1961 farewell address. Not enough Americans heeded Ike’s warning then and, judging by our near-constant state of warfare since that time, not to speak of our ever-ballooning “defense” budgets, very few have heeded his warning to this day. How to explain that?

Well, give the MIC credit. Its tenacity has been amazing. You might compare it to an invasive weed, a parasitic cowbird (an image I’ve used before), or even a metastasizing cancer. As a weed, it’s choking democracy; as a cowbird, it’s gobbling up most of the “food” (at least half of the federal discretionary budget) with no end in sight; as a cancer, it continues to spread, weakening our individual freedoms and liberty.

Call it what you will. The question is: How do we stop it? I’ve offered suggestions in the past; so, too, have writers for TomDispatch like retired Army Colonel Andrew Bacevich and retired Army Major Danny Sjursen, as well as William Hartung, Julia Gledhill, and Alfred McCoy among others. Despite our critiques, the MIC grows ever stronger. If Ike’s warning wasn’t eye-opening enough, enhanced by an even more powerful speech, “Beyond Vietnam,” by Martin Luther King, Jr., in 1967, what could I and my fellow TomDispatch writers possibly say or do to make a difference?

Maybe nothing, but that won’t stop me from trying. Since I am the MIC, so to speak, maybe I can look within for a few lessons that came to me the hard way (in the sense that I had to live them). So, what have l learned of value?

War Racketeers Enjoy Their Racket

In the 1930s, Smedley Butler, a Marine general twice decorated with the Medal of Honor, wrote a book entitled War Is a Racket. He knew better than most since, as he confessed in that volume, when he wore a military uniform, he served as “a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.” And the corporate-driven racket he helped enable almost a century ago by busting heads from the Caribbean to China was small-scale indeed compared to today’s thoroughly global one.

There’s an obvious lesson to be drawn from its striking endurance, never-ending enlargement, and distinct engorgement in our moment (even after all those lost wars it fought): the system will not reform itself. It will always demand and take more — more money, more authority, more power. It will never be geared for peace. By its nature, it’s authoritarian and distinctly less than honorable, replacing patriotism with service loyalty and victory with triumphant budgetary authority. And it always favors the darkest of scenarios, including at present a new cold war with China and Russia, because that’s the best and most expedient way for it to thrive.

Within the military-industrial complex, there are no incentives to do the right thing. Those few who have a conscience and speak out honorably are punished, including truth-tellers in the enlisted ranks like Chelsea Manning and Daniel Hale. Even being an officer doesn’t make you immune. For his temerity in resisting the Vietnam War, David M. Shoup, a retired Marine Corps general and Medal of Honor recipient, was typically dismissed by his peers as unbalanced and of questionable sanity.

For all the talk of “mavericks,” whether in Top Gun or elsewhere, we — there’s that “we” again (I can’t help myself!) — in the military are a hotbed of go-along-to-get-along conformity.

Recently, I was talking with a senior enlisted colleague about why so few top-ranking officers are willing to speak truth to the powerless (that’s you and me) even after they retire. He mentioned credibility. To question the system, to criticize it, to air dirty laundry in public is to risk losing credibility within the club and so to be rejected as a malcontent, disloyal, even “unbalanced.” Then, of course, that infamous revolving door between the military and giant weapons makers like Boeing and Raytheon simply won’t spin for you. Seven-figure compensation packages, like the one current Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin gained from Raytheon after his retirement as an Army general, won’t be an option. And in America, who doesn’t want to cash in while gaining more power within the system?

Quite simply, it pays so much better to mouth untruths, or at least distinctly less-than-full-truths, in service to the powerful. And with that in mind, here, at least as I see it, are a few full truths about my old service, the Air Force, that I guarantee you I won’t be applauded for mentioning. How about this as a start: that the production of F-35s — an overpriced “Ferrari” of a fighter jet that’s both too complex and remarkably successful as an underperformer — should be canceled (savings: as much as $1 trillion over time); that the much-touted new B-21 nuclear bomber isn’t needed (savings: at least $200 billion) and neither is the new Sentinel Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (savings: another $200 billion and possibly the entire Earth from doomsday); that the KC-46 tanker is seriously flawed and should be canceled (savings: another $50 billion).

Now, tote it up. By canceling the F-35, the B-21, the Sentinel, and the KC-46, I singlehandedly saved the American taxpayer roughly $1.5 trillion without hurting America’s national defense in the least. But I’ve also just lost all credibility (assuming I had any left) with my old service.

Look, what matters to the military-industrial complex isn’t either the truth or saving your taxpayer dollars but keeping those weapons programs going and the money flowing. What matters, above all, is keeping America’s economy on a permanent wartime footing both by buying endless new (and old) weapons systems for the military and selling them globally in a bizarrely Orwellian pursuit of peace through war.

How are Americans, Ike’s “alert and knowledgeable citizenry,” supposed to end a racket like this? We certainly should know one thing by now: the MIC will never check itself and Congress, already part of it thanks to impressive campaign donations and the like by major weapons makers, won’t corral it either. Indeed, last year, Congress shoveled $45 billion more than the Biden administration requested (more even than the Pentagon asked for) to that complex, all ostensibly in your name. Who cares that it hasn’t won a war of the faintest significance since 1945. Even “victory” in the Cold War (after the Soviet Union imploded in 1991) was thrown away. And now the complex warns us of an onrushing “new cold war” to be waged, naturally, at tremendous cost to you, the American taxpayer.

As citizens, we must be informed, willing, and able to act. And that’s precisely why the complex seeks to deny you knowledge, precisely why it seeks to isolate you from its actions in this world. So, it’s up to you — to us! — to remain alert and involved. Most of all, each of us must struggle to keep our identity and autonomy as a citizen, a rank higher than that of any general or admiral, for, as we all need to be reminded, those wearing uniforms are supposed to serve you, not vice-versa.

I know you hear otherwise. You’ve been told repeatedly in these years that it’s your job to “support our troops.” Yet, in truth, those troops should only exist to support and defend you, and of course the Constitution, the compact that binds us all together as a nation.

When misguided citizens genuflect before those troops (and then ignore everything that’s done in their name), I’m reminded yet again of Ike’s sage warning that only Americans can truly hurt this country. Military service may be necessary, but it’s not necessarily ennobling. America’s founders were profoundly skeptical of large militaries, of entangling alliances with foreign powers, and of permanent wars and threats of the same. So should we all be.

Citizens United Is the Answer

No, not that “Citizens United,” not the case in which the Supreme Court decided corporations had the same free speech rights as you and me, allowing them to coopt the legislative process by drowning us out with massive amounts of “speech,” aka dark-money-driven propaganda. We need citizens united against America’s war machine.

Understanding how that machine works — not just its waste and corruption, but also its positive attributes — is the best way to wrestle it down, to make it submit to the people’s will. Yet activists are sometimes ignorant of the most basic facts about “their” military. So what? Does the difference between a sergeant major and a major, or a chief petty officer and the chief of naval operations matter? The answer is: yes.

An antimilitary approach anchored in ignorance won’t resonate with the American people. An antiwar message anchored in knowledge could, however. It’s important, that is, to hit the proverbial nail on the head. Look, for example, at the traction Donald Trump gained in the presidential race of 2015-2016 when he did something few other politicians then dared do: dismiss the Iraq War as wasteful and stupid. His election win in 2016 was not primarily about racism, nor the result of a nefarious Russian plot. Trump won, at least in part because, despite his ignorance on so many other things, he spoke a fundamental truth — that America’s wars of this century were horrendous blunders.

Trump, of course, was anything but antimilitary. He dreamed of military parades in Washington, D.C. But I (grudgingly) give him credit for boasting that he knew more than his generals and by that I mean many more Americans need to challenge those in authority, especially those in uniform.

Yet challenging them is just a start. The only real way to wrestle the military-industrial complex to the ground is to cut its funding in half, whether gradually over years or in one fell swoop. Yes, indeed, it’s the understatement of the century to note how much easier that’s said than done. It’s not like any of us could wave a military swagger stick like a magic wand and make half the Pentagon budget disappear. But consider this: If I could do so, that military budget would still be roughly $430 billion, easily more than China’s and Russia’s combined, and more than seven times what this country spends on the State Department. As usual, you get what you pay for, which for America has meant more weapons and disastrous wars.

Join me in imagining the (almost) inconceivable — a Pentagon budget cut in half. Yes, generals and admirals would scream and Congress would squeal. But it would truly matter because, as a retired Army major general once told me, major budget cuts would force the Pentagon to think — for once. With any luck, a few sane and patriotic officers would emerge to place the defense of America first, meaning that hubristic imperial designs and forever wars would truly be reined in because there’d simply be no more money for them.

Currently, Americans are giving the Pentagon all it wants — plus some. And how’s that been working out for the rest of us? Isn’t it finally time for us to exercise real oversight, as Ike challenged us to do in 1961? Isn’t it time to force the Pentagon to pass an audit each year — it’s failed the last five! — or else cut its budget even more deeply? Isn’t it time to hold Congress truly responsible for enabling ever more war by voting out military sycophants? Isn’t it time to recognize, as America’s founders did, that sustaining a vast military establishment constitutes the slow and certain death of democracy?

Just remember one thing: the military-industrial complex won’t reform itself. It just might have no choice, however, but to respond to our demands, if we as citizens remain alert, knowledgeable, determined, and united. And if it should refuse to, if the MIC can’t be tamed, whether because of its strength or our weakness, you will know beyond doubt that this country has truly lost its way.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by William Astore.

The post The F-35: Sales to Allied Countries Don’t Mean It’s A Great Airplane appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Roger Thompson.

Prominent anti-war voices including Medea Benjamin, Noam Chomsky, Abby Martin, and Roger Waters on Monday joined over 220 groups around the world in calling for the cancellation of Lockheed Martin's $1.7 trillion F-35 fighter plane program.

"The only people this project benefits are the executives at Lockheed Martin."

The women-led peace group CodePink is spearheading an international effort to urge President Joe Biden and members of the U.S. Congress to cancel the manufacturing and training of the F-35 fighter jet, which has been dogged by serious technical and operational problems since it first flew in 2006.

"I joined over 200 organizations from around the world in calling on the U.S. government to end the disastrous F-35 fighter jet program because as a global community we need to drastically change our priorities." Waters, co-founder of the iconic rock band Pink Floyd, said in a statement.

"To the people in the countries the F-35 is sold to and produced in, it's time we demand a reinvestment into life, not war," he added.

In a letter to Biden and U.S. lawmakers signed by nearly 230 groups, CodePink says that its cancellation demand is "based on the harm caused abroad, cost of the program to the taxpayer, inefficiencies and failures, the environmental impact of F-35s, and the effects training has on local communities."

Some of those communities are in Vermont, where—despite railing against the military-industrial complex during his two presidential runs—Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) supports the F-35 program.

"Currently, F-35 training in Vermont disrupts the lives of working-class people," the letter states. "The training is irregular and Vermonters go without warning of when these trainings will take place. The noise caused by the F-35 hits 115 decibels which especially hurts and injures infants and children, the elderly, and the disabled. The F-35 has 300 to 600 takeoffs and landings a month."

Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben & Jerry's ice cream and a Vermont resident, said that "the global community is fed up with overpriced, underperforming weapon systems like the F-35. It's a complete waste of taxpayer dollars that causes harm abroad and here at home in Vermont."

"The only people this project benefits are the executives at Lockheed Martin," Cohen added. "Real security is knowing you can see a doctor when you're sick, not a boondoggle fighter jet that can't fly near thunderstorms."

That's just one of the many problems plaguing the F-35. The warplane's exorbitant cost has also raised critics eyebrows and ire. According to the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation:

The F-35's price per unit, including ancillary costs like depot maintenance, ground support equipment, and spare parts is $110.3 million per F-35A, $135.8 million per F-35B, and $117.3 million per F-35C. Those totals do not include the nearly $1.3 trillion in life cycle costs to operate and sustain the aircraft over its 66-year life cycle, making it the most expensive weapons system in U.S. history.

Ashik Siddique, a research analyst for the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies, recently noted that canceling all U.S. student loan debt would cost about $1.75 trillion, or about the same amount as the total cost of the F-35 program. Department of Education data shows that amount is also enough to eliminate all tuition at U.S. public colleges for more than 20 years. 

According to the Children's Defense Fund, the projected cost of the program would also be enough to reduce child poverty in the United States by more than 60% for the next two decades.

"The F-35 program is a microcosm of the military-industrial complex. Each year the U.S. government funnels massive amounts of money into the program while letting places in the U.S. go without clean water for months or years," said CodePink national co-director Danaka Katovich. "Sustaining this program for any longer will have detrimental effects on human life and the Earth."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

The Biden administration has eliminated a major chunk of federal student debt, extending forgiveness up to $10,000 for all individual borrowers who earn under $125,000 annually, and up to $20,000 for Pell grant recipients.

Where there's a will, there's a way.

That's a big deal—tens of millions of people can benefit from this debt relief. According to the Student Borrower Protection Center, 41 million Americans are eligible for up to $10,000 in debt relief, while 25 million are eligible for up to $20,000. And 20 million could have their entire debt canceled, going from negative wealth to positive for the first time in their lives.

The debt cancellation policy could go even further. As The Debt Collective pointed out in response to the news, this relief proves that the White House has the authority to cancel all federal student debt.

Total student loan debt in the United States amounts to $1.75 trillion, including federal and private loans. That may seem like a lot of money, but the federal government already spends comparable amounts on plenty of items with much more questionable value.

The Pentagon is already set to spend $1.7 trillion on its most expensive weapon system, the F-35 jet fighter.

When it comes to military spending in the United States, money is no object—even for programs like the F-35, which has been criticized for many years as an expensive failure that should be phased out altogether. 

That just shows that where there's a will, there's a way. Organized student debtors and their allies successfully pressured the government into providing this much relief. Now we know it's possible to win instant relief to all the rest of the millions of current and former students who are struggling with debt.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Ashik Siddique.

The wreckage was recovered on Wednesday from a depth of approximately 12,400 feet (3,779 meters), the Fleet’s spokesperson, Cdr. Amanda S. Kitchner, said in a statement.

Last week, another spokesperson told RFA that a team including personnel from Task Force 75 (CTF 75), the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), and NAVSEA’s Supervisor of Salvage and Diving, was sent “to verify the site and recover” the aircraft.

That spokesperson, Cdr. Hayley Sims, said the team aboard the diving support construction vessel Picasso left Naha in Okinawa, Japan, to the site in the northern part of the South China Sea on Feb. 23.

The recovery operations have been completed “within 37 days of the incident,” CTF 75 Commodore, Capt. Gareth Healy, was quoted as saying. He added that “this was an aggressive and achievable timeline.”

The F-35C crashed into the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson and then fell into the water on Jan. 24. A leaked video showed the plane hit the deck then rotated and skidded in flames before sliding off the flight deck and into the sea.

Five Navy personnel were facing charges for leaking the video, deemed official as it was taken from the pilot’s landing aid television on the aircraft carrier. It’s unclear whether they’ve been formally charged.

The crash is listed as “Class A mishap” - an incident either “involving loss of life or permanent disability, or the complete loss of an aircraft or property damage of $2.5 million or more,” according to the U.S. Navy.

“The aircraft was recovered using a CURV-21, a remotely operated vehicle, which attached specialized rigging and lift lines to the aircraft. The ship's crane lifting hook was then lowered to the seafloor and connected to the rigging, and then lifted the aircraft to the surface and hoisted it onboard Picasso,” the 7^th Fleet’s statement reads.

“The aircraft will be delivered to a nearby military installation to aid in the ongoing investigation and evaluated for potential transport to the United States,” it added.

Prior to this, experts suggested that it would take weeks if not months, and millions of dollars to recover the state-of-the-art stealth fighter jet. The recovery process turned out to be speedier than expected.

There were fears that China, which maintains a large presence in the South China Sea, could get hold of the wreckage that may contain sensitive technological information before the U.S.

 Beijing however has always denied that it has any interest in recovering it.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Staff.

The U.S. Navy 7th Fleet spokesperson confirmed to RFA on Thursday that it has sent a team “to verify the site and recover the F-35C aircraft involved in the Jan. 24 crash aboard USS Carl Vinson.”

Only after the crash site is verified can the recovery process officially begin.

Cdr. Hayley Sims said that the Navy has “embarked personnel … aboard the diving support construction vessel (DSCV) Picasso, which departed Naha, Okinawa [on] Feb. 23.”

The team includes personnel from Task Force 75 (CTF 75), the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), and NAVSEA’s Supervisor of Salvage and Diving (SUPSALV), Sims said.

Carl Schuster, a retired U.S. Navy captain and former director of operations at the U.S. Pacific Command's Joint Intelligence Center, said it would take “three to five days for the Picasso to reach the location from Okinawa, depending on transit speed and sea conditions along the route.”

“The Navy and CTF 75 have spent the last month planning and gathering what they needed,” he said.

CTF 75 specializes in disaster response, expeditionary operations that require specialized skills and equipment, including salvage operations.

The F-35C crashed into the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson and then fell into the water on Jan. 24. A leaked video showed the plane hit the deck then rotated and skidded in flames before sliding off the flight deck and into the sea.

Five Navy personnel are facing charges for leaking the video, deemed official as it was taken from the pilot’s landing aid television on the aircraft carrier.

Last month the Japanese Coast Guard’s Hydrological and Oceanographic Department issued a navigation warning for salvage operations to be carried out in northern part of the South China Sea “until further notice.”

A navigation warning is a public advisory notice to mariners about changes to navigational aids and current marine activities or hazards including fishing zones and military exercises.

The operations are believed to be for the crashed F-35C and the navigation warning is still in effect.

It would take weeks if not months, and millions of dollars to recover the state-of-the-art stealth fighter jet, experts said.

The crash is listed as “Class A mishap” - an incident either “involving loss of life or permanent disability, or the complete loss of an aircraft or property damage of $2.5 million or more,” according to the U.S. Navy.

The vessel contracted by the U.S. Navy for the operation, DSCV Picasso, is a high-tech, deep-diving support vessel built and operated by Singapore-based Ultra Deep Solutions.

Picasso can carry deep-diving underwater unmanned vehicles to do the survey work.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Staff.

Cmdr. Zach Harrell, spokesperson for the commander of Naval Air Forces, confirmed to the RFA on Friday that “one U.S. navy ensign, one senior chief petty officer, and three chief petty officers have been charged under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”

A navy ensign is the lowest rank of junior officer while chief petty officer and senior chief petty officer are senior enlisted ranks.

The video of the so-called “ramp strike” by the fighter jet on the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier emerged earlier this month and was shared widely on social media.

The Pentagon afterwards confirmed that the shipboard video of the Jan. 24 crash was authentic. It shows footage, apparently originating from the pilot’s landing aid television (PLAT) and taken from two angles as the jet comes into land.

From the first one, the plane hits the deck then rotates and skids in flames. In the second, it crashes onto the deck before sliding off the flight deck and into the sea.

PLAT is installed on the carrier to assist pilots in making accurate landings.

In the video, yelling can be heard for the pilot to abort the landing attempt but within five seconds the F-35C drops into the South China Sea. The pilot safely ejected, the U.S. Navy said.

Another video clip and a photo circulating on social media shows the F-35C hitting the water. Nobody has been charged in connection with those as they are deemed personal recordings and not government property, according to an anonymous spokesman cited by USNI News.

Cmdr. Harrell did not disclose identities of the four senior enlisted sailors and the junior officer facing charges, adding that “there is an ongoing investigation into the crash.”

Carl Schuster, a retired U.S. Navy captain, predicted the five personnel will likely receive a “captain's mast,” also known as an Article 15.

A captain’s mast is a non-judicial disciplinary hearing into minor offenses of the crew.

“The senior chief and chief petty officers are looking at a reduction in rank and forfeiture of pay. The ensign would receive a letter of reprimand, which will prevent him from being promoted, ensuring he is out of the Navy in 18 months,” Schuster said.

“They are on sea duty so they can't refuse a captain's mast but they can request court martial. However, a special court martial can inflict very severe punishment,” he added.

“We remain grateful to the highly trained sailors aboard USS Carl Vinson who immediately responded to ensure that the pilot was recovered from the water, all injured personnel were cared for, and flight deck was cleared and re-set for operations,” he told RFA.

“After a short pause in accordance with safety procedures, the rapid response from the crew enabled flight operations to resume with minimal impact to mission requirements.”

Still pending is the task of recovering the sunken jet from the depths of the South China Sea.

The U.S. Navy said in late January that it was “making recovery operations arrangements for the F-35C aircraft” but did not give further details. The Japanese coastguard also issued a navigation warning for mariners to beware of salvage operations in an area in the northern part of the South China Sea. The warning remains in effect.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.