The tablets will come with iPadOS 18, which means they will include Apple Intelligence, a redesigned Photo app, new notes features, and new messaging functions. The new OS18 also brings a calculator app to the iPad — a feature the device never had.
The app looks a lot like the iconic orange and white calculator users have long seen on the iPhone. But the app also comes with a new, iPad-only feature called Math Notes: It supports the use of the Apple Pencil and allows people to write down math problems and helps solve them.
Based on Apple's demo, the app looks like it comes with some cool features.
According to the tech giant, users can use the whiteboard-like tool to solve algebraic equations, calculate a budget, and create graphs from text "with just one tap." Math Notes will automatically be accessible in the preexisting Notes app.
The app also has a history function to view past calculations and a feature to convert height, weight, and currencies.
New calculator feature revealed at Apple WWDC 2024.
Apple
The launch not only brings a much-awaited app to a bigger screen but also improves it, which may make the iPad popular with students and those in finance.
But it is unclear if the new OS18 features will boost sales for the tablet, which can cost up to $3,000. iPads made up only 6% of Apple's sales, while the iPhone was more than half of sales, according to the company's last earnings report in May.
Apple "did exactly what they needed to do, which is show the world that they mean business when it comes to AI," Gene Munster, managing partner at Deepwater Asset Management, said.
I'm a former therapist and after seeing patients I would stretch out on the floor.
Videos on TikTok show people doing "floor time" and talking about how it makes them feel better.
The idea is to feel refreshed but not to fall asleep while lying on the floor.
As a former therapist, the first thing I'd do when I got home from seeing clients was stretch out on the floor while my Bulldog, Dally, sniffed every inch of my head. This was my way of decompressing after a long workday.
Now that some of us have the option to work remotely, we may not need to wait until the end of the day for what TikTok users call "floor time." This isn't the same as how floor time is used in therapy for children with autism or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
On TikTok, floor time involves sitting or lying on the floor to soothe yourself. One creator captioned her video by saying, "It's so comforting to just drift away." Another person whose video has almost seven million views said about floor time, "I don't know why it just makes everything better."
The logic behind the online version of floor time is a technique known as grounding, which helps you connect with the present moment and tune out distressing thoughts. We asked experts what they think about floor time and how it can help if you're anxious or overwhelmed.
People have enjoyed floor time for centuries
When you lie on the floor, you're doing "a yoga pose, called savasana, which translates to corpse pose," Nicole Wood, a master trainer at YogaSix told Business Insider. "People have been doing this pose for thousands of years, and in every yoga class, a corpse pose is the last pose one does."
Whether you practice yoga or not, making the corpse pose part of your daily routine can be beneficial. Lying on the floor can help you block out external stimuli, allowing your body time to reset, Wood said.
That said, everyone is different. The extent to which you feel calm and grounded depends on your external environment and how you're feeling physically and emotionally.
Sometimes, people struggle to relax because their mind is racing. Other times, there could be distractions in the environment like kids, traffic, or email notifications.
As with floor time, "Yoga is called a practice for a reason," she said. "Some days, the practice comes easy, while other days, it's more difficult."
Floor time can help you feel grounded
If you've ever tried meditating or felt alert while running cold water over your hands, you're already familiar with the idea of grounding. You can use mental or physical techniques, but the goal of grounding is to shift your attention to the here and now.
An example of mental grounding is reciting song lyrics to yourself or imagining yourself doing a task like cooking or going for a bike ride. Similarly, there are several ways to ground yourself physically, such as going for a walk or taking deep breaths.
When you're having a bad day, "floor time is the ultimate grounding technique," Daryl Appleton, EdD, chief wellness consultant and Fortune 500 executive coach, told Business Insider. Research shows that grounding can reduce inflammation, pain, and stress, which may improve sleep and blood flow.
Compared to when you're sitting or standing, lying on the floor maximizes your contact with the ground. You may notice your muscles releasing tension with your back and legs supported.
"Getting on the ground outdoors is even better because it allows your nervous system to recalibrate," Appleton said. Physically connecting with the earth can boost your mood and help you relax and regulate your emotions.
Making the most out of floor time
When you're starting out, you only need five minutes to stretch out on the floor. The idea is to allow enough time to feel refreshed but not too long that you find yourself falling asleep.
If lying on a hard surface feels uncomfortable, you can use a blanket or yoga mat for added cushioning. You may also wish to cover yourself with a blanket, wear an eye mask, or listen to soothing music.
Wood suggested using blocks and a bolster to create a ramp for your spine. You can also slide a bolster or pillow behind your knees if needed.
Another way to support your back is to place your legs on a chair. As you're lying on the ground, "make sure your knees are at a 90-degree bend to support your lower half," she said.
The corpse pose isn't the only pose that helps with grounding. You can also try the mountain pose, warrior pose, or tree pose to engage your muscles and feel the stability of the ground beneath you.
Alternatives to this practice
Whether you call it floor time or a corpse pose, lying on the floor may not be an option. Still, it's possible to reap the benefits of grounding without having to get down on the floor.
Wood recommended taking the pillows and blankets off your bed. "Then lay flat on the bed to achieve the same goal," she said.
Another option is to walk barefoot outside or have a picnic in a grassy location like a park or forest, Appleton suggested. If you find gardening relaxing, you can pull weeds or plant flowers.
"Getting outside or being near an open window to get some vitamin D can make a person feel more grounded and connected to the physical earth around them," she said. Remember grounding is a healthy and effective way to distract yourself and self-soothe when you're overwhelmed.
Nandini Maharaj is a freelance writer covering health, wellness, identity, and relationships. She holds a master's degree in counseling and a doctorate in public health.
The author's dog was diagnosed with Lyme nephritis and died shortly after.
Courtesy of the author
My dog Taco was 3 years old and my everything.
I noticed he wasn't interested in food, and shortly after he was diagnosed with Lyme nephritis.
Since losing him I've learned that his death feels like a family member's.
My morning routine was simple: wake up, get dressed, let my dog out, and pour our breakfasts. Taco, my 3-year-old terrier, loved his kibble and never missed a piece. As I sipped my coffee, I'd watch him finish his bowl, and our day would continue.
One morning, I noticed Taco's disinterest in his food. It seemed strange but not impossible. By evening, his bowl remained untouched.
"Do you want something else?" I asked, filling his bowl with different kibble. He ate a little and then left the rest. "Strange," I thought.
The next morning, when he didn't eat much, I called the vet, and by noon, we were in the waiting room. I kissed his ear. "You're OK," I said. "Later, we'll do something fun."
When the vet brought us back, she asked questions, and I answered. "His energy's great; there have been no other changes," I said. My vet agreed to run some tests, and as they left the room, I told him again, "You're OK."
I really thought he was until he wasn't, and life just wasn't. When the vet and Taco came back 30 minutes later, she said the prognosis wasn't good. I shook my head. "No. He's thriving," I told her. "We went running yesterday."
"He's not," she said again. I sat on the bench, leaning into my dog.
The author started grieving her dog before he even died.
Courtesy of the author
I said. "Please tell me you're wrong." But my vet couldn't. My dog had Lyme nephritis, and she couldn't fix it. My dog wouldn't live much longer, and there wasn't anything we could do but go home.
I had never lost a pet before, and while I knew it'd be hard, I never imagined the depth of pain and helplessness that'd consume me.
There were a lot of things I didn't know about pet loss, especially how it starts before they die.
I called another vet for a second opinion
My sister set me up with her vet, who fit us in for the following week. Meanwhile, I called other vets, one after another. As much as I trusted my vet, I wanted every opinion I could get. I read Taco's charts and labs to them, numbers I didn't understand, but maybe they would.
I was grasping for hope, willing someone, anyone, to say something different. No one could.
After contacting nearly every vet in my county and seeing another in person, I realized how much science was against us. If my dog were going to survive, it'd take a miracle.
I begged God to save him
Over the next three weeks, I sat on my apartment floor, pleading with God to spare my dog.
"I'll do anything, I'll give up anything," and "I know I'm not perfect, but I don't do bad things — please help," I said out loud.
I've always prayed a lot, but never so desperately and never in a way that made me feel like I was bargaining.
I watched his personality fade
I was losing him, and quickly, too. Not long after Taco's vet visit, I watched his excitement for life dim.
Instead of heading to the window when I pulled in, he'd stay in bed. Instead of following me outdoors, he'd stay put. Sleeping seemed more appealing than playing, and it felt like a gut punch every time.
My dog's personality was fading, and I could do nothing to stop it. There weren't enough Kongs, balls, or treats to bring him back.
The vets and science were right. And although I wanted to cling to hope, my dog was dying, and I knew I couldn't let him suffer. Physically, he was here, but his personality was gone, and the pain was now present, too.
I had to let him go
On our last day together, at 4:30 a.m., I lay on the couch and held him, his weak, soft body pressed against mine. The vet office wouldn't open for three more hours, and when they did, I knew I'd be making the call no pet owner wants to make.
During that brief window, I talked to him. "You're the best thing to ever happen to me. I love you. You are the best part of me. I love you."
I didn't want to sit in the car for 30 minutes or make that vet visit, but if taking away his pain meant giving it to me, I'd take every piece of it.
"It's OK to let go," I told him.
I started grieving him all over again
When Taco died at the vet, a piece of me died, too. He truly was the best thing to ever happen to me, and although I no longer have him, that won't change.
Knowing him made me lucky, and calling him my dog shaped who I am now. Now, I carry both luck and brokenness with me — but not evenly. I feel the luck stronger on some days and the grief more on others. Still, the love I have for Taco is present, and knowing he isn't in pain is the sliver of comfort that helps.
Every morning as I pour my coffee, I stare at his pictures, his bed, and his bowls that I refuse to move, and I feel it so deeply.
Since losing him, I realized pet loss feels like losing a family member; that's true, but it begins before then.
For me, grieving Taco didn't start when he died or when the vet said he was terminal. It started when I realized the miracle I was begging for, "please save my dog," was never coming.
Taco was my miracle, and I'm grateful for him every day.
A US Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle maneuvers during a 2023 bombing exercise.
Markus Rauchenberger/US Army
Precision warfare has been a central tenet of American strategy.
But perceptions that precision weapons are effective is a myth, a retired Army officer argues.
"Accurate strikes do not inherently mean effective," the officer told BI.
America loves smart bombs. Ever since World War II, precision warfare has appealed to what America sees as its strengths: High technology, efficiency and the ability to strike down its enemies with a minimum of harm to innocents.
But that's actually a myth argues Amos Fox, a retired US Army lieutenant colonel. Precision-guided munitions, or PGMs, are no more effective than conventional munitions in limiting collateral damage, and in some cases can make the damage worse.
Fox calls this the "precision paradox." Or, "the incongruence between precision strike theory and the fervent enthusiasm of precision ideologues," he wrote in anessayfor the Royal United Services Institute, a British think tank.
Precision warfare is associated today with guided missiles, but the concept dates back to the 1930s, when the US began to embrace high-altitude daylight bombing by heavy bombers such as the B-17 Flying Fortress. Swayed by Italian airpower theoristGiulio Douhet,American planners were convinced they could cripple an adversary by bombing its factories, without the need for a costly ground war.
This contrasted with Britain's night area-bombing strategy in World War II that targeted entire German cities. Even if factories weren't hit, residential neighborhoods would be destroyed and workers "de-housed," which was expected to collapse the public's morale. In practice, the distinction between precision and area bombardment proved blurry: bombing through cloudy European skies that obscured targets, while under fighter and flak attack and relying on pencil-on-paper navigation plotting and rudimentary bomb sights meant the majority of American bombsfailedto hit their target.
PGMs were supposed to solve this problem. Why drop a dozen bombs when a single GPS-guided missile can destroy a bridge or a command post? Fox sees several flaws in modern precision strike theory. For one, "decapitation" strikes intended to defeat an enemy by eliminating its leaders and command posts have not worked. Nor does Fox believe that the precision strike strategy has actually shortened wars.
But most significantly, Fox questions the essence of US precision warfare: the belief that smart bombs spare a need for boots on the ground. "Accurate strikes are not equivalent to effective strikes," he wrote. In other words, a strike can land on the intended area, selected based on intelligence, and yet fail to achieve the goal of, say, killing a militant leader or stopping a factory from making more bombs, hence necessitating follow-on strikes. When PGMs don't accomplish the mission, "then precision-based warfighting requires additional strikes and, likely, a subsequent use of land force activities to offset the shortcomings of precision strikes."
More than half of the buildings in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed in Israel's bombing campaign since the Oct. 7 terror attacks.
Doaa Albaz/Getty Images
This can actually result in higher civilian casualties than if conventional weapons had been used in the first place because it requires repeated attacks. "If precision strikes are often accurate, but ineffective, and additional strikes or land operations are required to create the effect intended with the initial precision strikes, then precision strategies do not decrease civilian casualties and collateral damage in conflict zones."
Fox points to the extensive use of American PGMs during the ferocious battles of Raqqa and Mosul in 2016-2017. In trying to root out heavily fortified Islamic State positions dug into civilian neighborhoods, many buildings were destroyed and thousands killed. Israel faces a similar situation today as it hunts Hamas in Gaza.
Thus the paradox: an individual PGM may be more accurate than a dumb bomb. But if a PGM fails to knock out a target — whether due to poor intelligence or the pure chance that reigns on battlefields — more guided weapons have to be launched, thus defeating the whole purpose of precision.
"Accurate strikes do not inherently mean effective," Fox told Business Insider. "Therefore, more strikes are required when a strike does not effectively accomplish its intended purpose. Thus, in the aggregate, if a PGM isn't 100 percent effective, it can often result in similar outcomes to ballistic artillery, or other non-precision munition employment."
Fox doesn't believe that smarter bombs will solve the paradox. "Better PGMs isn't really the problem," he said. "PGMs are currently about as accurate as can be. For that matter, although artillery is an area fire weapon, it is still very accurate."
But what about the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, in which massive amounts of PGMs are being employed? In Ukraine, both sides are using massive numbers of guided weapons, at a rate that is depleting stockpiles and factory capacity, yet neither side has managed to achieve decisive results. Israel carried out strikes in Gaza against 29,000 targets in the first four months of the war, often with guided weapons, but that has failed so far to destroy Hamas.
"The lesson is that Hamas is a land force," said Fox. "The inconvenient truth about war is that it still requires a land force to defeat a land force. Precision warfare, which isn't really a thing, augments a land force in defeating another land force. It doesn't replace it."
Michael Peck is a defense writer whose work has appeared in Forbes, Defense News, Foreign Policy magazine, and other publications. He holds an MA in political science from Rutgers Univ. Follow him onTwitterandLinkedIn.
The author traveled with her kids to London and was surprised at how allergy-friendly restaurants were in the city.
Courtesy of the author
Our family traveled to London, apprehensive of how the kids would eat there with food allergies.
We were pleasantly surprised by the precautions that London restaurants take — more than in the US.
London is an ideal destination for food allergy families, and we can't wait to visit again.
As a parent of kids with food allergies, traveling can be stressful. I worry about what they will eat and whether they will be safe when we are outside the comfort of our home.
We typically avoid restaurants. Relying on staff about allergens can be terrifying, especially when they are misinformed.
Yet, I love to travel and share that passion with them. I wanted to show them that we can have amazing adventures, despite our food allergies.
So I booked our family flights to London and prepared as much as I could.
I quickly realized London restaurants are more accommodating
Armed with EpiPens and a suitcase full of foods free of the top eight allergens, we were off on our first London adventure.
When we arrived at our hotel in London's West End, I quickly scanned the area for grocery stores and discovered that there were none. The kids wanted hot food, so we went on a quest to find a good meal.
We discovered a traditional UK pub nearby. I hoped we could find at least one safe food they could eat. I was surprised as to what happened next.
As soon as we sat down, the waiter greeted us. The first question he asked was, "Do you have any food allergies?" In my experience in the US, servers rarely initiate conversations about food allergies. When we ask, they often respond annoyed.
Delighted that I didn't have to initiate this discussion, I listed their many allergies. He pointed out the separate fryers and work spaces to avoid cross-contamination.
He brought out an iPad with an app that listed the allergens for every item on the menu. We typed in our food allergies, and the app told us the foods my kids could eat.
We were thrilled, and the kids devoured their meals safely and without worry.
Could eating at a London restaurant with food allergies be this easy? It was too good to be true!
I figured this was a fluke, so we went to another place. They took the same precautions, provided me with an allergen menu, and did their due diligence to avoid cross-contamination.
My kids never ate so safely and so well as they did in London
My kids have never eaten so well and safely as they did while on vacation in London. London is an ideal international destination for food allergy families.
Curious as to why we were having such a different experience in London than in the US, I researched.
There are more food allergy regulations in the UK than in the US. In the UK, Natasha's Law protects people with food allergies who rely on ingredient transparency. Restaurants must provide allergen information in writing. There is no US federal regulation requiring allergen disclosure in restaurants.
In the UK, restaurants are required to list 14 common allergens on food labels, while in the US, they list nine. In the UK, servers ask their customers about food allergies, while in the US, the customers ask.
Traveling with kids brings unexpected surprises, sometimes good and sometimes bad. In our case, we unexpectedly ate like royalty. We will visit London again with hungry stomachs and a newly gained sense of safety.
US Marines trained with South Korean troops for an amphibious assault in a 2023 exercise.
Staff Sgt. Kevin G. Rivas/US Marine Corps
D-Day on June 6, 1944 was a gargantuan feat. Is it the last invasion of its kind?
In World War II, the best way to stop an amphibious invasion was before troops reached the beach.
Modern weapons and surveillance systems give a defender more power to accomplish that.
D-Day is more than the largest amphibious invasion in history. Even 80 years after the battle, it still resonates as an epic of courage, endurance, and prodigious effort.
But was D-Day the last invasion of its kind? Could such immense resources be mustered again in a modern-day version of "Saving Private Ryan"-style landings?
World War II marked the zenith of wars waged between mass armies, an era that began in 1792, and modern weaponry, from guided missiles and spy satellites to nuclear bombs, has obviated large-scale amphibious invasions.
Even by the standards of WWII, the Allied invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944, was gargantuan. Operation Overlord embraced more than 2 million personnel, 13,000 aircraft and 7,000 vessels from a dozen nations. Six infantry divisions — three American, two British and one Canadian — would hit the beach simultaneously, while three airborne divisions — two American and one British — landed in the German rear.
Some 160,000 troops splashed ashore that Tuesday morning, including around 75,000 American and 61,000 British soldiers, plus 13,000 Allied paratroopers descending from the skies. And these were only the tip of a spear across Europe and the Pacific: the US Army expanded to 11 million personnel during the war — including 2 million in the European theater alone — while the British Army grew to 3 million strong.
These forces today are only a fraction of what they were then. The entire US Army only numbers around 450,000 active-duty soldiers; for Britain, it's 76,000 and shrinking. There were 1,200 warships escorting the D-Day convoys of soldiers and equipment: today's US Navy has just 290 major warships and amphibious vessels spread around the globe, while the Royal Navy is down to 66 commissioned vessels. The Royal Canadian Air Force's 86 squadrons made it the world's fourth-largest air force in 1945, including nearly 40 squadrons that fought at Normandy: today it has just four fighter squadrons with 77 aging F/A-18 Hornet fighters.
The Allies came ashore in five landing areas. American troops suffered heavy casualties on Omaha Beach, but by nightfall the first day 34,000 troops had come ashore at that beach alone.
Universal History Archive/Getty Images
D-Day's Allied planners were haunted by two fears: getting ashore despite German coastal defenses – and then surviving the inevitable German armored counterattack from Panzer divisions waiting behind the beaches. This meant there had to be enough transport capacity to land a large assault force and then quickly reinforce it with troops, supplies, and especially the tanks and artillery needed to even the odds in an armored fight.
More than 3,000 landing and transport vessels were tasked with this mission. The US Navy now aims for enough amphibious capacity to land just two Marine brigades on a hostile shore. More than 1,000 American C-47s transport planes dropped three airborne divisions on D-Day. With just over 200 C-17 cargo planes to meet worldwide airlift requirements, the current US Air Force would struggle to airdrop the entire 82nd Airborne Division.
All of which points to a fundamental difference between 1944 and 2024. The major combatants 80 years ago were committed to total war, in which they mobilized their human and industrial resources to the utmost. Today's Western militaries are much smaller volunteer forces, sustained by a defense-industrial base with only a fraction of its 1940s capacity. As shown by persistent shortages of weapons and ammunition in the Russo-Ukraine War, even if enough soldiers could be drafted to mount a Normandy-sized invasion, there wouldn't be enough equipment for them.
US Troops wade to shore at Omaha beach on D Day, June 6, 1944.
Universal History Archive/UIG via Getty Images
In World War II, the best way to stop an amphibious invasion was before the first troops stepped onto the beach. If the defender's navy and air force could destroy or turn back an invasion fleet, the landing would never take place. D-Day could only happen because, after a long and bloody struggle, the German surface fleet had been decimated, the U-boats suppressed, and the Luftwaffe mauled. Its forces defending French coasts were also spread thin because of the necessity of countering an advancing Soviet force of 140 divisions on the Eastern Front.
Though it must have seemed otherwise to troops splashing ashore under heavy fire, the very fact that the invasion was happening meant the battle for the beach already tipped in favor of the Allies. They could count on the naval bombardment and bombing runs to target German strongpoints and hammer its forces massing for a counterattack.
Isolated from reinforcement and resupply by US ships and aircraft, Japanese troops on Pacific islands, by contrast, could fight to the last man and inflict heavy casualties, but their destruction or isolation was only a matter of time. German counterattacks almost drove Allied landings at Sicily, Salerno and Anzio into the sea, but aided by devastating naval gunfire, the bridgeheads held on.
Hitler placed great hopes in the Atlantic Wall, a fortified belt across 1,700 miles of coastline. The bunkers and machine gun nests did inflict some losses at Normandy, especially during the bloodbath suffered by American soldiers landing on Omaha Beach. But the Atlantic Wall was spread too thin to repel overwhelming Allied force at the landing sites.
In modern strategic parlance, stopping amphibious invasions is part of "anti-access/area denial," or A2/AD. Today's invasion planners worry that coastlines — and waters extending hundreds of miles from the beaches — are becoming no-go zones for warships and transports. Spy satellites and reconnaissance drones can discover an invasion fleet, exposing it to long-range attacks and giving the defender more time to mass troops and firepower in the likely landing zone. Coastal defense weapons include hypersonic anti-ship missiles streaking in at 10 times the speed of sound, GPS-guided cruise missiles and glide bombs, small but stealthy submarines, long-range guided artillery shells, and a variety of aerial and maritime drones. An enemy that has these can threaten the invasion armada and the landing force it launches as it chugs to the beach.
And it's not just major powers like Russia and China that have these arms: even smaller powers like Iran and North Korea could turn beaches into death traps.
There are already signs of this. In the 1982 Falklands War, the Argentine Air Force — armed with bombs and a few Exocet anti-ship missiles — sank six British warships and transports, and nearly derailed the invasion. And in the ongoing Ukraine war, despite initial fears that the Russian Navy would shell cities and land amphibious troops, the Black Sea Fleet has lost two dozen warships and amphibious vessels to anti-ship missiles and small, robotic boats packed with explosives. Russia may have a much larger navy than Ukraine, but it doesn't dare venture closer to the Ukrainian coast.
Of course, it can be argued that technology works both ways. Smart bombs can destroy coastal defenses. Helicopters can ferry troops and supplies from an amphibious fleet hundreds of miles away. Drones likes unmanned tanks and mine-clearing robots can clear beach obstacles.
A US nuclear bomb set off at Bikini Atoll in 1946 tested the weapon's effects on warships.
Universal History Archive/Getty Images
Yet ultimately, what has really killed massive amphibious invasions is the poisonous mushroom cloud. Even as far back as 1945, after the US atomic blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nations realized that a single bomb capable of destroying a city could also wipe out an amphibious fleet. The U.S. Navy tests at Bikini Atoll in 1946 vividly demonstrated how a nuclear blast could smash even battleships and aircraft carriers like bathtub toys. Russia for example is armed to the teeth with tactical nukes that could devastate a massed fleet.
This doesn't mean that amphibious operations are obsolete. They are still needed on a planet that is 71 percent water, and where the ocean is often the only feasible way to transport armies. But we should honor the memory of D-Day, because we shall never see another day like it again.
Michael Peck is a defense writer whose work has appeared in Forbes, Defense News, Foreign Policy magazine, and other publications. He holds an MA in political science from Rutgers Univ. Follow him onTwitterandLinkedIn.
The third and final fully VIP-equipped A350 was sent to the German Air Force on Wednesday.
Jan Brandes Fotografie/Lufthansa Technik
Germany has received its last VIP-equipped Airbus A350 plane, creating a uniform fleet.
The aircraft got a paint job and a swanky new interior, though details of the cabin are scarce.
The A350s replaced Germany's old VIP A340s after maintenance issues forced them out of service.
Boasting the country's national colors of black, red, and gold on the fuselage and wingtips, the German Air Force, or Luftwaffe, has received its third and final fully-equipped governmental A350-900.
Inside the aircraft, which is named "Kurt Schumacher" after the German politician, is a new VIP cabin retrofitted by the aircraft service provider Lufthansa Technik.
The jet is used for political and parliamentary transport, carrying top officials like Germany's president Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Chancellor Olaf Scholz.
"Kurt Schumacher" was the first A350 built for the Luftwaffe, initially delivered in 2020.
The aircraft sports black, red, and gold on the wingtip.
Lufthansa Technik
Its Germany's third A350 aircraft fit with the swanky new cabin. The first two A350s complete with the VIP interior were sister planes "Konrad Adenauer" and "Theodor Heuss."
These aircraft were delivered factory-fresh in November 2022 and March 2023, respectively, with the new cabin already installed. The "Kurt Schumacher" A350 was sent back to Lufthansa Technik in early 2023 to get its retrofit.
"Only a few small accents in the interior, individual reminiscences of the respective namesakes, now distinguish "Adenauer," "Heuss," and "Schumacher" from each other," the company said.
Aside from the minor differences, Lufthansa Technik described the A350's new uniform fleet as having generous seating, an appropriate number of bathrooms, and a modern galley.
It represents a significant change from the interim cabin that was initially installed on the jet four years ago.
The "Kurt Schumacher" A350 once flew without a VIP cabin because, at the time, Germany was flying unreliable Airbus A340 government planes riddled with maintenance problems and needed replacements quickly put into service.
A mid-flight electrical fault on one of the VIP A340s (pictured) forced then-Chancellor Angela Merkel to take a commercial flight to the G7 summit in 2018.
Bernd von Jutrczenka/picture alliance/Getty
"In contrast to the [interim's] open cabin design, the various functional areas for political-parliamentary flight operations are now structurally separated from one another," Lufthansa Technik said after the delivery of the first VIP-equipped A350 in 2022.
The three A350 replacements cost Germany $1.3 billion, Aerotime Hub reported. This included about $325 million for the cabins and about $312 million for missile defense systems.
A company spokesperson told Business Insider that, due to security reasons, interior shots of the aircraft have not been released to the public.
Given this is the first VIP A350 project for Lufthansa Technik, there are no prior fully-built cabin designs for reference. The company has a concept for a corporate A350 that it released in 2016, which includes things like a bed, showers, and a spa.
Rendering of Lufthansa Technik's VIP A350 cabin.
Lufthansa Technik
It's likely Germany's private fleet will have a similar grandiose design and aesthetic, but it will also have those specific governmental touches.
The "Flying Oval Office" has three levels, 4,000 square feet of floor space, dining and conference spaces, an executive suite, and an office for the president and his or her entourage.
Barack Obama on Air Force One.
Official White House photo by Pete Souza
Separate living areas are available for senior staff, the Secret Service, and the media, among other guests.
Mexico's former governmental Boeing 787 had similar luxuries, including a bedroom and dining and office spaces, as well as rows of business-class-like recliners.
The private bedroom onboard Mexico's former presidential Boeing 787.
