Diplomacy & Crisis News

Peter Suciu

T-14 Armata, Eurasia

The T-15 was designed primarily as a transport and could carry a dozen soldiers including three crewmembers.

Here's What You Need to Remember: As a troop transport, the T-15 is unusually heavy, and at forty-eight tons it is actually heavier than any serving Russian tank other than the T-14. It even weighs slightly more than the T-90 tank, which remains the frontline armored vehicle of the Russian Army.

While both are based on the same Armata chassis, the T-14 main battle tank has routinely been in the spotlight whether for its latest improvements that could allow it to be remotely operated or if one was even destroyed in Syria. However, far less has been noted about the T-15 armored fighting vehicle, which could be a significant component to the Russian Army.

It could even have as much effect on the Russian military as its heavier sister platform.

The T-15 was designed primarily as a transport and could carry a dozen soldiers including three crewmembers. However, it was not quite an armored personnel carrier (APC)—such as the U.S. military’s Cold War-era M113 (APC) or newer Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV)—but not exactly an update to its BMP-3M infantry fighting vehicle (IFV), which is the latest update to a platform dating back to the early 1960s.

This vehicle exists somewhere between an APC and IFV. There is no NATO vehicle that is comparable to the T-15 and the closest equivalent could arguably be the Israeli-built Merkava, which is essentially a heavy tank that can also carry troops. In the case of the T-15 however, it is far more of a heavily armed and armored troop carrier.

The keyword could be heavy—in both cases. 

As a troop transport, the T-15 is unusually heavy, and at forty-eight tons it is actually heavier than any serving Russian tank other than the T-14. It even weighs slightly more than the T-90 tank, which remains the frontline armored vehicle of the Russian Army. This is because the T-15 shares the same Armata chassis as the T-14, which is about as beefy as they come today.

Unlike the true tank version of the Armata platform, the T-15 features a remote-controlled Bumerang-EM/Empoch turret that is placed at the back of the tank, while the engine is situated at the front of the vehicle. This has the added benefit of allowing the engine to shield the passengers from hits to the front.

The platform’s primary armament is a Shipunov 2A42 30-millimeter autocannon, while secondary armament consists of a dual bank of Kornet anti-tank missiles and a 7.62 PKMT machine gun. The “fire and forget” missiles are capable of defeating reactive armor and active protection systems. These use technical vision with an automatic target tracker, which makes it five times more likely to accurately hit a target at ranges from 150 to 10,000 meters.

This mix of weapons, along with the fire and forget ability, actually allows the T-15 to fire at multiple targets simultaneously. The T-15 can carry a total of 500 rounds of ammunition including 160 armor-piercing and 340 high-explosive fragmentation rounds.  

Latest Updates 

Russian deputy defense minister Alexei Krivoruchko announced in August 2018 that a contract on 132 T-14 tanks and T-15 infantry fighting vehicles based on the Armata combat platform had been signed—but how many of each was unclear, but deliveries of both have been repeatedly delayed and according to state media troops wouldn’t even get the first tanks until 2021. It isn’t known when deliveries of the T-15 would begin.

However, both platforms were demonstrated to potential foreign buyers at Army-2020 international arms show last month.

This past winter, Georgy Zakamennykh, CEO of the Burevestnik Central Research Institute, which is part of Uralvagonzavod manufacturer within the state hi-tech corporation Rostec, also told Tass that the T-15 Armata heavy infantry fighting vehicle with the latest AU-220M combat module. 

According to information from the Uralvagonzavod press office, the AU-220M is an unmanned cannon and machine-gun module. It was designed to serve as the armament for various combat vehicles infantry fighting vehicles already in operation as well as new platforms such as the T-15.

The AU-220M has a firing range of up to 14.5 kilometers with a maximum rate of fire of eighty rounds per minute. Ammunition load typically includes eighty unitary fifty-seven-millimeter munitions including multifunctional remote-controlled, armor-piercing and guided projectiles, which allows effectively striking small-size unmanned aerial vehicles, low-flying aircraft and helicopters, and also land-based light-armored hardware and field fortifications.

However, it remains unclear when the first T-15s to feature the AU-220M combat module will be deployed or for that matter if the hybrid APC/IFV will be rolling out even next year.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. This article is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Wikipedia.

Peter Suciu

U.S. Navy, Americas

Modern weapons are threatening to send the aircraft carrier into the dustbin of history.

Key point: The aircraft carrier needs longer range aircraft and drones in order to strike safely from a distance. Here is how America is aiming to do that.

Since their creation a century ago the goal of the aircraft carrier was to extend the range of naval forces beyond the horizon, and now U.S. Navy carriers could extend that range significantly further. Speaking at last Friday’s Virtual Hook convention webinar of the Tailhook Association, Rear Adm. Gregory Harris, director of Air Warfare in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, offer his thoughts on the future air wing that will launch from flight decks by the end of this decade.

This first appeared earlier this year and is being reposted due to reader interest.

The future air wing will still consist of the forty-four strike fighters but it will include a mix of Block 4 F-35C fighter jets along with Block III F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighter jets changing from ten and thirty-four respectively, to sixteen and twenty-eight. The strike fighters will further equip one sixteen-aircraft F-35C squadron and three ten-aircraft F/A-18E/F Super Hornet squadrons.

The balance of the aircraft in the wing will be filled by configurations including five to seven EA-18G Growler electronic combat aircraft, five E-2D Advanced Hawkeye command-and-control aircraft, six to ten MH-60 Seahawk helicopters, three CMV-22B Osprey carrier-onboard delivery aircraft, and five to nine MQ-9 Stingray aerial tanker unmanned aircraft.

The addition of the MQ-25 Stingray, which was developed by Boeing, could be a crucial component of the air wing of the future.

“The MQ-25 adds range, which adds lethality to the carrier strike group,” said Harris as reported by Defense News. “When you add that additional range to 4th and 5th Gen[eration] fighters; when you add that range to the range we’re looking at for F/A-XX or next-generation air dominance family of systems; if you add that to the long-range weapons that we are currently procuring and look to procure in the future: we have an ability to strike at range and with volume and tempo.”

As Defense News also noted, Harris made his comments just weeks after the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy staged high profile tests of its DF-26B and DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missiles, which were fired into the South China Sea. The so-called “carrier killer” missiles were fired as an apparent warning to the United States Navy, which has operated carriers including the USS Nimitz and USS Ronald Reagan among other warships in the waters of the disputed region. 

Harris downplayed the threat the anti-ship ballistic missiles present to the U.S. Navy’s carriers. 

“We just finished a future naval force structure study that looked very specifically at the carrier air wing, and throughout that study the folks who were working with us challenged us to operate farther and farther away from the threat, with the assumption that threat systems were going to prevent us from being able to operate from inside certain ranges,” Harris added.

“I’ll never stop saying it: the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is one of the 11 most survivable airfields in the world,” Harris reaffirmed. “You put on top of that a flexible carrier air wing and supported by a carrier strike group and all the capabilities that are resident with our flight III DDGs and the rest of our systems, you have an amazing capability that is able to strike at range, at depth and with volume.”

Next year, the Navy’s carrier USS Carl Vinson will be deployed with a ten-aircraft F-35C squadron (Strike Fighter Squadron 147) on the aircraft’s first carrier deployment. In addition, the warship will carry two ten-aircraft F/A-18E squadrons and one fourteen-aircraft F/A-18F squadron. The second carrier deployment of the F-35C jets is scheduled in 2022 by Marine Fighter Attack 314.

In addition, members of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 211 (VMFA-211), Marine Aircraft Group 13, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing and ten of the U.S. Marine Corps fifth-generation multirole fighter jets arrived at RAF Station Mahram, home to the British F-35 jets to begin training for a deployment on the new Royal Navy carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. This first appeared earlier this year and is being reposted due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters

Emanuele Ottolenghi

Security, Americas

Asunción’s financial system is compromised: terror finance, cigarette contraband, the trade of counterfeited goods, smuggling, and tax evasion fuel fraud and draw organized crime like a magnet.

On April 8, after a three-year judicial ordeal, Paraguay sentenced Hezbollah financier Assad Ahmad Barakat to two years and six months for passport forgery and immigration fraud. Barakat already served his time while awaiting trial, and Paraguayan authorities swiftly expelled him to Brazil. For a country that for decades hosted Hezbollah’s terror finance networks with impunity, sentencing Barakat, whom the United States Department of Treasury sanctioned in 2004, looks like a welcome change. It is not. Barakat’s expulsion changes nothing. The Hezbollah networks in the area are unaffected and his supporters are already hailing his return home as a victory.

The Biden administration—which just last week sanctioned Ulises Quintana, a member of Paraguay’s National Assembly, for corruption and aiding transnational organized crime—should recognize that Paraguay remains a haven for organized crime and terror finance thanks to its corrupt political elites. Unless Washington keeps its attention and pressure on Paraguayan leaders, Asunción will only put up a show, much like the expulsion of Barakat, but do little else to address the systemic corruption abetting crime within its own borders.

For decades since the 1989 overthrow of Paraguay’s fascist dictator, Alfredo Stroessner, the country’s old elites have embraced democracy while benefiting from Stroessner’s legacy—a largely corrupt power structure, heavily compromised by a black economy of contraband and illicit trafficking. The twin engines of that economy remain vast, porous frontiers and thriving money-laundering centers along the country’s borderlands, especially in the notorious Tri-Border Area of Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay (TBA). Since the 1980s, Hezbollah has built a sophisticated trade-based money laundering center in the heart of a retail commerce-free zone in Ciudad Del Este, on the Paraguayan side of the TBA.

The TBA’s illicit economy poses a serious threat to the integrity of the U.S. financial system. A large quantity of merchandise shipped to the TBA to fuel illicit schemes transits through the United States. So do payments, which, as a growing number of cases currently being tried in America show, are exposing the U.S. financial system to money laundering and terror finance.

Paraguay’s financial system is compromised: terror finance, cigarette contraband, the trade of counterfeited goods, smuggling, and tax evasion fuel fraud and draw organized crime like a magnet. Numerous criminal syndicates have established their presence there in recent years, where they grease the public sector to ensure complicity in their criminal activities. Growing international concern has put pressure on Asunción to change course, but to little effect so far. Even as Paraguay’s legislature passed new laws to improve its anti-money laundering and terror finance regulations, the gap between stated intents and actual results remains.

To be sure, Paraguayan prosecutors, at least those who are not in the pay of politicians and criminal networks, continue to doggedly investigate crime. The prosecutions of Barakat and Quintana are proof that even a country ranking 137 in Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index for 2020 can still find integrity among its public servants. Under increased pressure and scrutiny, Paraguay also cooperated with the United States in the arrest and extradition of three suspected Hezbollah traffickers and financiers: Ali Issa Chamas in 2017, Mahmoud Ali Barakat in 2018, and Nader Mohamad Farhat in 2019. And in 2019, Paraguay designated Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.

Yet with some exceptions, investigations rarely yield convictions, which is something that is regularly lamented in the annual State Department International Narcotics Control Strategy Report to Congress. Corruption sabotages the course of justice more often than not, with politicians taking money from criminal networks to fund their electoral campaigns in exchange for political cover and immunity from prosecution.

Barakat has operated with impunity for more than two decades in this corrupt environment, despite the occasional run-ins with local justice and the U.S. Treasury designation in 2004. In 2018, the Argentinian government, under then-President Mauricio Macri, took the unprecedented step investigating a TBA money laundering network linked to the Barakat family, which was moving cash into Argentina and using a local casino to launder it.

Going after the most prominent member of the Barakat clan seemed a good way to respond to mounting U.S. pressure and international attention and show that Paraguay too was ready to rein in local terror finance networks. In August 2018, Paraguayan authorities accused Barakat of passport fraud and issued an international arrest warrant for his capture. Brazilian authorities arrested him soon after in Foz do Iguaçu, the Brazilian city in the TBA that sits across the river from Ciudad Del Este, the main site of Hezbollah’s terror finance activities in the area.

Brazil eventually extradited Barakat to Paraguay. A swift trial followed, leading to expulsion. Yet expelling Barakat to Brazil, where he is a permanent resident, is meaningless. Brazil has no open case against him. He served his time. And while technically Barakat cannot return to Paraguay ever again, the border crossing in the TBA is not exactly an insurmountable barrier.

Besides, most business owners operating in Ciudad Del Este live on the Brazilian side. Hezbollah-controlled communal institutions for the thirty thousand strong Shiite community in the area are on the Brazilian side. Even in “exile,” Barakat can continue to engage in his corrupt activities.

Nothing illustrates this better than the case of Ulises Quintana, who is currently under investigation and has spent time in jail, for facilitating, through his position as an elected official, a drug trafficking scheme. Quintana tried every trick in the book to derail the investigation, and after his release from jail in 2020, has resumed official duties as a parliamentarian inside the National Assembly.

Quintana is now running for mayor of Ciudad Del Este, Paraguay’s second-largest city and the main hub of its illicit economy. He remains the candidate for the ruling party—an alliance of two movements, headed by the current president, Marito Abdo, and his predecessor, Horacio Cartes, who is wanted in Brazil for money laundering.

The Biden administration has made the global fight against corruption a keystone of its foreign policy. Last week’s U.S. announcement that Quintana and his wife are henceforth barred from entering America on grounds of corruption and aiding transnational organized crime is a clear signal that Paraguay needs to do more. Yet that applies to Washington as well. Paraguay’s sporadic actions so far have failed to disrupt the intricate web of organized crime and terror finance exploiting its porous borders and corrupt governance. Yet, these actions also show that its governing elites respond to pressure from Washington. That is why U.S. sanctions against Quintana should not be the endgame, but the beginning of a sustained campaign where no corrupt politician or criminal figure should be beyond reach.

In the great Italian novel, The Leopard, by Giuseppe Tomasi Prince of Lampedusa, the young Sicilian aristocrat Tancredi famously quipped, “Everything must change, for everything to remain the same.” Tancredi and Sicilian aristocracy faced radical changes, as Italy’s unification swept away their feudal old world. To preserve the old power structure, they had to embrace the new and, like a leopard, they changed their spots. Paraguay is doing the same thing. Its ruling cupola manages to pretend it is changing course so that everything can stay the same. It is up to Washington to make sure change will be real.

Emanuele Ottolenghi is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a non-partisan think tank focused on national security and foreign policy. Follow him on Twitter @eottolenghi

Image: Reuters

James Jay Carafano

Military History, Americas

From “traditional” war to “gray zone” tactics, the levels of war continue to demonstrate relevance.

Decades ago, the U.S. military adopted the concept of the “three levels of war” as part of their doctrine. Developed from a historical appreciation of conflict, this framework for understanding war remains relevant, a reminder that even as technology and geopolitics march on, sometimes the past marches with them. 

“Seeing the elephant,” was a popular nineteenth-century catchphrase. It meant investing a lot of effort to see or do something and then concluding it hadn’t been worth it. The term was usually applied to the experience of war.

The phrase was often paired with the ancient Hindu parable of the blind men who encounter an elephant for the first time. Each described the animal differently, according to which part of the elephant they touched. This aptly explained the challenge of analyzing and describing war, so much was shaped by perspective and experience. 

In practice, nineteenth-century military histories reflected the elephant parable. In the West, Napoleon Bonaparte was the historian’s elephant in the room, the dominant topic. What complicated understanding the Napoleonic way of war was that Bonaparte did pretty much everything there was to do in fighting a war. He commanded troops in battle. He directed protracted operations over vast distances. He was his empire’s strategist making all the big decisions about how the ways, means and ends of France’s way of war would be employed.  

Distinguishing Bonaparte’s role and influence as a military leader across decades of campaigning across multiple continents could be bewildering. Consider the two most renowned and influential interpreters of Bonaparte, Antoine-Henri, baron de Jomini and Carl von Clausewitz. In analyzing the Little Corporal’s influence, they bounce all over the place. Clausewitz’s seminal On War, for example, though often thought of as the classic text for understanding military strategy, actually dedicates many of its pages to describing tactics and military campaigning. 

Military writings often drifted towards the “sexy” part of the elephant, focusing on the conduct and outcome of battles. One of the most popular and influential books was The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World: from Marathon to Waterloo by Sir Edward Shepherd Creasy, published in 1851. This battle-centric approach to military history dovetailed well with Clausewitz’s notion, from the study of Napoleonic warfare, that the proper focus of effort was on the decisive military engagement. This really popularized the notion that winning wars was about annihilating the enemy in a climactic battle. 

Of course, wars don’t follow a script, least of all one that was written by Clausewitz or Edward Shepherd Creasy.  Even in their own times, not all wars looked like a classic Napoleonic campaign. Clausewitz, for instance, never showed much interest in the protracted French campaigns in Iberia (1808–1814), which featured guerilla warfare and interminable skirmishing rather than big Armageddon-like engagements a la Waterloo.  Similarly, the Crimean War (1856) looked nothing like a page out of Cressey’s book.  

Understanding military history and operations required a more sophisticated framework than just focusing on one part of war and ignoring others. The U.S. military realized this when it struggled to come to terms with America’s failure to dominate in the Vietnam War.  

For his part, Army Col. Harry Summers, tried to shift the focus of analysis on Vietnam from body counts and helicopter raids to the strategic component of the war. In 1982, he produced a study for the Army War College which became a best-selling book, On Strategy: the Vietnam War in Context. That started people thinking.  

The 1980s saw a dramatic revival of interest in the U.S. military history, spearheaded by a newly established military command called TRADOC. One of the command’s efforts was to revitalize warfighting doctrine, drawing from the broad sweep of history rather than just refighting the last war.

One doctrinal initiative was to break out conflict into its component parts—the levels of war. The tactical level of war comprised activities on the battlefield including battles and engagements, like Waterloo. The larger activities that compromised the campaign, sequences of moving and positioning forces are the battlefield—was called the operational level of war (such Wellington’s peninsular campaigns during the Iberian War). The strategy was the capstone level, including how leaders brought together all the instruments of power—political, diplomatic and economic, as well as a military force—to achieve their ends. It was, for example, Bonaparte’s Continental Strategy to isolate Great Britain that eventually led to his final downfall at Waterloo. 

Like organizing parts of an orchestra so they all make sense as a whole, understanding how the parts of the war come together helps leaders, “design and synchronize operations, allocate resources, and assign tasks to the appropriate command.” They also remain the best tool for dissecting wars and understanding what went right and what went wrong.  

Take, for example, the Korean War, Vietnam and current operations in Afghanistan. The inability to decisively bring the enemy to heal—different tactics and campaigns, victories and defeats aside—was the strategic challenge that couldn’t be easily solved. In each case, the enemy had a sanctuary to which it could withdraw and where, for geopolitical reasons, the United States could not pursue the enemy and defeat them in detail.  

From “traditional” war to “gray zone” tactics, the levels of war continue to demonstrate relevance. Of course, like any construct, they should not be approached dogmatically. As Australian military analyst Martin Dunn observes:  

The concept of levels of war is useful teaching and learning tool. They help us explain the past, and develop our ideas for the future. But we need to remember that they provide us with just a tool. Clausewitz observed, “Only the rankest pedant would expect theoretical distinctions to show direct results on the battlefield. The primary purpose of any theory is to clarify concepts and ideas that have become, as it were, confused and entangled.”  

Well said.   

A Heritage vice president, James Jay Carafano directs the think tank’s research on matters of national security and foreign relations.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Peter Suciu

AK-47 and M16,

But aside from the fact that they were gun designers who served their respective nations, the two men shared little in common.

Here's What You Need to Remember: While Kalashnikov lived in near poverty, Stoner was reportedly paid $1 for every single M16 produced.

The Soviet-designed AK-47 and the American-built AR-15/M16 are arguably the most iconic firearms in the modern world. Even people who don't actually "know guns" have at least heard of these. Both were developed and introduced in the Cold War, and millions were produced and used by the respective allies of the Soviet Union and the United States. Arguments on which rifle is better rage on to this day, in this publication and elsewhere.

AK-47 and M16: Legendary Rifles

Each was part of a new class of weapons – the "assault rifle" – and fired an intermediate cartridge that was smaller than the traditional rounds used in a main battle rifle, but larger than the pistol rounds employed in submachine guns.

Each weapon was designed by men who served in the Second World War, and who each had a talent for tinkering. The AK-47 was the creation of Red Army tank mechanic Mikhail Kalashnikov (1919-2013), while the AR-15 was developed by Eugene Morrison Stoner (1922-1997) who served in the United States Marine Corps.

Apart from the fact that they were gun designers who served their respective nations, the two men shared little in common.

The Soviet Peasant

Kalashnikov was a loyal citizen, a self-taught peasant turned tank mechanic who never finished high school and yet created a truly revolutionary weapon that would be used by countless revolutionaries. Chambered in the 7.62x39mm cartridge it was a weapon that was rugged, reasonably accurate, and easy to maintain.

For his efforts, he was awarded the Hero of the Soviet Union, the highest decoration his nation could bestow – yet he lived a modest life in a small apartment. Even after the fall of the Soviet Union, Kalashnikov never received royalties for his design, and yet today, the Russian military company that produces small arms for its military bears his name. The weapon he designed has also been on the flags of Mozambique and Hezbollah and the coat of arms of East Timor and Zimbabwe.

In a visit to Germany in 2002, Kalashnikov also admitted that he regretted creating the weapon that was used in innumerable conflicts around the world. "I would prefer to have invented a machine that people could use and that would help farmers with their work – for example, a lawnmower," The Guardian Newspaper quoted him as stating.

The American Engineer

Stoner by contrast was a trained engineer and worked at ArmaLite, a division of Fairchild Engine & Airplane Corporation. By the time he finally found limited success with his AR-5 survival rifle, the Kalashnikov-designed AK-47 was already in widespread use throughout the world.

Stoner then worked on his equally revolutionary ArmaLite AR-10, a select-fire infantry rifle that was chambered for the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge. It showed promise, but not enough at the time to interest the military. He was given a chance to refine it, and that resulted in the AR-15 – a firearm that has become as infamous as the AK-47 even if few people even know the name Eugene Stoner.

Even among shooting aficionados, Stoner isn't even that well known. Yet, while Kalashnikov lived in near poverty, Stoner was reportedly paid $1 for every single M16 produced. He wasn't awarded any medals, but he made enough money that he could afford his own plane. He later went to work at the Colt Firearms Company, which also happened to buy the rights to his AR-15 from ArmaLite.

While the AK-47 was nearly "perfect" when it was introduced because of its simplicity, the M16 had a difficult beginning when it was used in Vietnam. It was more complicated to maintain and required more cleaning than soldiers expected. Yet, it proved a success when refined, and it remains the basis of American infantry small arms to this day.

Beyond the AK-47 and M16: Other Guns By the Greats

Kalashnikov proved to be a successful designer who later worked on the AKM, a modernized variant of the AK-47; as well as the PKM and AK-74 among other firearms. Even today his legacy is seen in the latest Kalashnikov firearms used by the Russian military.

Stoner may have gotten rich from the AR-15, but he never really had another successful design. The Stoner 63 Weapons System was a forward-thinking modular platform that could be configured as an automatic rifle, light machine gun, medium machine gun or even solenoid-fired fixed machine gun. While it saw limited use in the Vietnam War, it was too complicated a design.

In the end, Kalashnikov has had statues erected in his honor, and he has been commemorated on stamps, while he was also awarded the Order of St. Andrew, Hero of Socialist Labour, Order of Lenin, Order of the Red Banner of Labour, and Hero of the Federation.

Stoner simply made money, a lot of it. The differences of the firearms can also be seen in the differences of the men and the systems under which they worked.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He regularly writes about military small arms, and is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com.

Image: Reuters

TNI Staff

Su-35, Eurofighter, Europe

The Eurofighter is likely able to more than hold its own against late generation Flanker variants like the Sukhoi Su-35S.

Here's What You Need to Remember: There is no question that Russian jets have come a long way technologically since the end of the Cold War. The Su-30 and especially the Su-35 are excellent fighters—and they’ll be a handful for any Western fourth-generation fighter in the event of a war.

With heightened tensions in Europe over Russia’s actions Ukraine, NATO countries have stepped up their air patrols over the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. While the U.S. Air Force often deploys aircraft to help police the air space over those former Soviet republics, often the task falls to European air arms to keep Moscow in check.

For many of those European forces, including Great Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain, their aircraft of choice is the Eurofighter Typhoon. Developed originally as a purebred air superiority fighter, the Typhoon excels in the air-to-air arena. In the unlikely event of a conflict, the Eurofighter is likely able to more than hold its own against late generation Flanker variants like the Sukhoi Su-35S.  While the Russian and European machines each have their advantages, the jets are very comparable overall.

Indeed, Royal Air Force (RAF) Typhoons recently trained with their Indian Air Force (IAF) Su-30MKI Flanker-H counterparts and found that to be true. “First impressions of the Flanker are very positive,” Wing Commander Chris Moon, commander of 3(F) Squadron said in a statement. “It is a superb aeroplane and it’s a privilege to operate our Typhoon alongside it.”

The Indians were also fairly impressed with the Typhoon—noting that the two machines are more or less evenly matched. “Both are fourth generation aircraft and so are matched evenly, so the learning value comes from the person to person contact,” said IAF Squadron Leader Avi Arya in a statement to the RAF. “It’s the man behind the machine which matters.”

As Arya noted, most fourth-generation fighters like the Su-35 or Typhoon offer comparable performance. Pilots of each type of aircraft have to learn how to operate their aircraft to the limits of their capabilities. That means exploiting the strengths of your aircraft and avoiding its weaknesses.

In the case of the Flanker, that means using its excellent low speed handling—thanks to its thrust vectoring capability—to offset the Typhoon’s very, very high turn rate and excellent energy addition while exploiting its poor high angle of attack capability. That’s similar to how U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force pilots flying the F/A-18 Hornet and the F-15 Eagle fight the Typhoon in a visual range engagement. It pretty much comes down to the individual—and luck.

Beyond visual range, technology plays a greater role, but tactics, training and procedures are key. Groups of fighters have to coordinate with each other and their AWACS or ground controllers. As an example, one senior U.S. Air Force instructor pilot explained that if there were a four-ship of F-15s versus another four-ship of F-15s using standard “blue” tactics—unless someone makes a mistake—the each engagement would end in a draw. Moreover, those tactics are generally held close to the vest. For example, U.S. Air Force units don’t generally employ their cutting edge tactics during international exercises since that might compromise those techniques.

Technology wise, neither the Su-35 Flanker nor the Typhoon is currently equipped with an active electronically scanned array radar, but both have good beyond visual range capability. Both jets are designed for high speed, high altitude beyond visual range engagements, and as such, can impart an enormous amount of launch energy to their beyond visual range weapons. But it is not known how effective Russian combat identification systems are—you have to know what you’re shooting at. Further, the Typhoon’s cockpit and pilot vehicle interface are excellent—much better than anything found on the current Flanker variants.

The Typhoon also has one other advantage. In the coming years, the RAF will start to deploy the MBDA Meteor missile. The Meteor, which is a long-range ramjet powered weapon, is quite possibly the best beyond visual air-to-air missile developed to date. It has excellent end-game performance and could be the Typhoon pilots’ trump card—at least until the Russians develop an equivalent.  

There is no question that Russian jets have come a long way technologically since the end of the Cold War. The Su-30 and especially the Su-35 are excellent fighters—and they’ll be a handful for any Western fourth-generation fighter in the event of a war. But at the end of the day, the Russian machines still lag behind on in terms of sensors and pilot vehicle interfaces. As such, the smart money is on the Typhoon.

This article first appeared several years ago.

Image: Wikipedia.

Peter Suciu

F-16, Americas

Since entering service in 1979, this "warbird" has been battle-tested, engaging in more than 400,000 combat sorties and has a combined 19 million flight hours.

Here's What You Need To Remember: While Lockheed delivered the last F-16 from Fort Worth to the Iraqi Air Force in November 2017, ending 40 years of F-16 production, this old warbird will be taking to the sky for years to come.

There are approximately 3,000 operational F-16s in service today in 25 countries, a testament to what is easily the world's most successful, combat-proven multi-role jet fighter ever produced. The fast and agile F-16 Fighting Falcon isn't just one of the top fighters it is also amongst the most cost-effective. While it lacks the range and payload of the larger twin-engine F-15 Eagle, it also costs less than half – which is why the fourth-generation F-16 has been in use since the 1970s and will likely keep flying for many more years to come.

Since entering service in 1979, this "warbird" has been battle-tested, engaging in more than 400,000 combat sorties and has a combined 19 million flight hours. It has been adapted to complete a number of missions, including air-to-air fighting, ground attack, and electronic warfare. As a combat fighter, the F-16 has proven to be highly maneuverable while its combat radius exceeds that of its potential threats.

Along with the larger F-15 Eagle, the F-16 was one of the world's first aircraft to withstand higher g-forces than the pilots. These are notable accolades for an aircraft that really began as a technology demonstrator to determine where it was possible to build a versatile fighter that could be cheaper than the F-15.

In 1972 the Air Force's Prototype Program Office at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, launched the Lightweight Fighter (LWF) program, and the request for proposals (RFP) called for a highly maneuverable fighter with a significant emphasis on reduced weight but also cost. The program wasn't originally intended to lead to a production aircraft, but rather to determine what was possible at what cost.

While five contractors competed for the LWF two finalists emerged – General Dynamics and Northrop, which would build two prototypes of their respective designs, the YF-16 and YF-17. As the program continued four European members of NATO – Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway – sought to replace the F-105Gs with a lighter and more affordable fighter.

In April 1974 this resulted in a revision to the LWF, which became the Air Combat Fighter (ACF) program and together the F-16 took shape – with final airframe assembly in Belgium and the Netherlands, while components came from all five countries.

The latest version of the Fighting Falcon is powered by a single-engine, either the General Electric F110-GE-129 or Pratt and Whitney F100-PW-229, and while it is a speedy fighter it can pack a serious punch. The F-16 has nine hardpoints for weapons payloads – including one at each wingtip, three under each wing and one centerline under the fuselage.

It has carried a variety of air-to-air missiles including the Lockheed Martin/Raytheon AIM-9 Sidewinder, Raytheon AMRAAM, Raytheon Sparrow, MBDA (formerly Matra BAe Dynamics) Skyflash and ASRAAM, and the MBDA R550 Magic 2; and in April 2004 it was the first fighter to fire the new-generation AIM-9X Sidewinder. Air-to-surface missiles carried on the F-16 include Maverick, HARM and Shrike missiles, manufactured by Raytheon, and anti-ship missiles include Boeing Harpoon and Kongsberg Penguin.

While Lockheed delivered the last F-16 from Fort Worth to the Iraqi Air Force in November 2017, ending 40 years of F-16 production, this old warbird will be taking to the sky for years to come.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. This article is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Wikipedia.

More From The National Interest: 

Russia Has Missing Nuclear Weapons Sitting on the Ocean Floor 

How China Could Sink a U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier 

Where World War III Could Start This Year

Peter Suciu

M79 Grenade Launcher,

It earned some wild nicknames, including the "Thumper," "Thump Gun," "Bloop Tube" and "Blooper." Australian soldiers also called it the "Wombat gun."

Here's What You Need to Remember: During the Vietnam War, the weapon was typically used by U.S. Army soldiers and U.S. Marines at targets from 150 to 300 yards away, and it also proved effective against Viet Cong bunkers or other fortified positions.

Developed in the early 1960s, the M79 grenade launcher saw use in the Vietnam War – and for those who carried the weapon, it was either instant love or lasting hatred.

The weapon was simple to use. Much like a shotgun, it was a break-open, shoulder-fire weapon that could fire a 40mm grenade. It utilized a "high-low propulsion" launching system that reduced the recoil, yet allowed shooters to launch a grenade upwards of 400 yards, which was far further than a hand grenade could be thrown. The rifled barrel gave the round a right-hand spin, which also ensured accuracy.

The M79 extended the "reach" of an infantryman, and thus bridged the effectiveness between the maximum range of a hand grenade and the minimum range of a mortar. It was more accurate and had a longer range than rifle grenades, and it could also fire grenades that held 2.5 ounces of high explosives, tear gas, pellets, or smokes. Non-lethal crowd control "rubber bullets' and CS gas grenades were later developed for use with the M79.

In Country

During the Vietnam War, the weapon was typically used by U.S. Army soldiers and U.S. Marines at targets from 150 to 300 yards away, and it also proved effective against Viet Cong bunkers or other fortified positions. A skilled shooter could reportedly hit a man-sized target at a range of 150 yards. While it was intended to be used as a shoulder-fired weapon for direct fire, the M79 also proved effective for indirect fire, where the shooter placed the buttstock on the ground and fired it like a mortar.

When the M79 was fired it produced a distinctive report, which led to its various nicknames including the "Thumper," "Thump Gun," "Bloop Tube" and "Blooper." Australian soldiers also called it the "Wombat gun."

The downside of the weapon was that its rounds had to travel around 40 yards before arming, which meant that soldiers carrying the M79 had to have a back-up weapon and in Vietnam that usually just meant a sidearm. Additionally, it was a single-shot weapon and had to be reloaded manually, which limited its rate of fire and ability to maintain a constant volume of fire during combat.

The M79 was replaced by the M203 underslung launcher, which was used on the standard M16 rifle beginning in 1971. However, the M79 has remained in use with militaries and police forces around the world, and it continues to have fans in the ranks of the U.S. Special Forces, which see it as easy to use and due to the fact that it has greater accuracy and rang when compared to the M203. The M79 proved popular during Operation Iraqi Freedom, where it was used for the clearing of improvised explosive devices (IEDs).

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He regularly writes about military small arms, and is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com.

Image: "Vietnam War 1960s - American picket in the jungle armed with M16 assault rifle and M79 grenade launcher" by manhhai is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0

Peter Suciu

, Americas

The F-106 actually proved that the need for such aircraft was simply overstated. 

Here's What You Need To Remember: The F-106 Delta Dart proved to be the last dedicated Air Force interceptor, and the aircraft were gradually retired by the early 1980s. Some of those aircraft were converted into target drones and designated QF-106A, while six were retained by NASA for test purposes and used throughout the 1990s. 

Throughout the Cold War, the United States Air Force continued to develop interceptor aircraft to address the threat from Soviet bombers. This included such aircraft as the Convair F-102 and the North American F-108, and finally, the Convair F-106 Delta Dart, which was designed to be the “Ultimate Interceptor.” But in the end, the F-106 actually proved that the need for such aircraft was simply overstated. 

That is why the Delta Dart was the last dedicated interceptor in the U.S. Air Force to date. 

The all-weather interceptor was developed as a variation on the F-102 Delta Dagger in the early 1950s, and it was originally designated as the F-102B as it retained the delta wing design. Due to extensive structural changes, including changes to the fuselage, and the inclusion of a more power Pratt & Whitney J-75 turbojet engine—which provided a maximum speed of 1,525 miles per hour and a cruising speed of 650 miles per hour—it was re-designated F-106 Delta Dart.  

While it was the last dedicated interceptor, the aircraft was also among the earliest semi-autonomous military weapon platforms. The F-106 was fitted with a sophisticated Hughes MA-1 electronic and fire control system, which worked in conjunction with the SAGE (Semi-Automatic Ground Environment) defense system that took over control of the plane shortly after takeoff and guided it to the proper altitude and attack position. The system would enable the aircraft to lock and fire the weapons at an intruder aircraft and then return the plane to the vicinity of its airbase. The pilot would take over control for landing.  

Armaments that were compatible with the aircraft included the Douglas AIR-2A Genie rocket with nuclear warhead, and the AIM-4 Falcon missiles, of which four could be carried.  

The first F-106A flew in late December 1956, while deliveries to the Air Force began in 1959 but ended just over a year later. In total only 277 F-106As and 63 F-106Bs had been built. While it was considered for use in the Vietnam War, the F-106 Delta Dart remained stateside and was never used in combat.  

One particular F-106 stood out after it earned the colorful nickname “Cornfield Bomber,” when it was involved in an incident during a training mission from Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana in February 1970. The interceptor, which was in service with the 71st Fighter-Interceptor Squadron and piloted by Captain Gary Foust was on a routine flight when it suddenly entered an uncontrollable flat spin. Foust attempted unsuccessfully to regain control, and even deployed the aircraft’s drag chute as a last resort, but finally, Foust was forced to eject. 

In a most unusual situation, the resulting change of balance actually caused by ejection somehow allowed the aircraft to stabilize. Miraculously, the unpiloted F-106 Delta Dart recovered and made a gentle belly landing in a snow-covered field near Big Sandy, Montana. After minor repairs, the aircraft was returned to service and later served with the 49th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron. The Cornfield Bomber was retired from service in 1986 and presented to the National Museum of the United States Air Force, where it is currently on display.  

The F-106 Delta Dart proved to be the last dedicated Air Force interceptor, and the aircraft were gradually retired by the early 1980s. Some of those aircraft were converted into target drones and designated QF-106A, while six were retained by NASA for test purposes and used throughout the 1990s. 

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four-dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com.  This article is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Wikipedia.

Peter Suciu

World War II History, World

The B-10 was an older plane with a somewhat odd design, but it also helped in the global fight against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

Key point: The B-17 and the B-24 were the true workhorses that won the war. However, it was the B-10 laid the technological groundwork for these powerful bombers.

If World War II had come a decade earlier it might have been the Martin B-10 rather than the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress and Consolidated B-24 Liberator that would have been the workhorse of the U.S. Army Air Corps (USAAC). The aircraft was developed in the early 1930s but was largely antiquated by the time the war came – yet, the B-10 started a revolution in bomber design.

The plane began as a private venture in early 1932 at the Glenn L. Martin Company as the Model 123. It was not bound to any military specification and that gave the engineers at Martin free rein in the aircraft's development, and the focus was on maximum performance over other considerations for a military bomber. It was powered by two 750hp Wright R-1820-E Cyclone engines, which gave it a top speed of 207 mph, more than 22 mph faster than its competition of the era.

This first appeared earlier this year and is being reposted due to reader interest.

The plane was also the first all-metal monoplane and first all-metal bomber, and it featured many innovations including retractable landing gear, an enclosed rotating turret for defense and enclosed cockpits. In trials it was found that the aircraft would carry a bomb load of 2,200 pounds over a distance of 650 miles and at a maxim speed of 197mph. It also had a ceiling of 6,000 feet, which was higher than contemporary fighters.

Military planners saw that the bomber could successfully attack strategic targets without long-range fighter escort.

The Army immediately ordered 14 of the aircraft, but eventually, a total of 121 B-10s were ordered from 1933 to 1936, the largest procurement of bomber aircraft by any nation since the First World War. Another 32 were ordered with 700hp Pratt & Whitney R-1690 Hornet engines and designated as the B-12.

Notable Achievements

The B-10 was awarded 1932's Collier Trophy for outstanding achievement in American aviation and the trophy was presented to Martin by President Franklin Roosevelt shortly after he took office in 1933. That would be the first of six times that Martin received the prestigious award.

Military aviation pioneer General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold called the Martin bomber "the air power wonder of its day," and he led 10 B-10s  on a 8,290-mile flight from Washington, D.C. to Fairbanks, Alaska and back in 1934.

Even as the B-17s and B-18 Bolos began to replace the Air Corps' B-10s/B-12s, the plane was exported to the Chinese and Dutch air forces, and it was used in combat against Imperial Japanese forces – and actually saw its baptism of fire during the Sino-Japanese War in May 1938. The Martin B-10 was also used by the Royal Netherlands East Indies Army (Koninklijk Nederlands Indisch Leger or KNIL) in the Defense of the Dutch Indies in late 1941 and early 1942.

While a total of 348 of all variants including 182 export versions were produced in total, there is only one complete B-10 in the world today. It is in the collection of the National Museum of the United States Air Force and was actually found in Argentina, where it was used by engineering students at the "Jorge Newberry" National School of Technical Education, No. 1 in Buenos Aires. As a gesture of friendship the Argentine Navy donated the aircraft to the museum in August 1970.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. This first appeared earlier this year and is being reposted due to reader interest.

Image: Wikimedia.

Peter Suciu

History,

It could pack a punch but it wouldn't exactly get into or out of a fight quickly, and that fight couldn't be all that far away.

Here's What You Need To Remember: In the late 1940s and early 1950s, there was fear in Washington over the Soviet Union's superiority in armored warfare. The Chrysler M103 was certainly not an ideal weapon - but it helped to alleviate those fears.

When the tank was originally conceived during the First World War by the "Landship Committee," the concept was to have a lumbering vehicle that would be truly massive in size. That proved to be impractical—but as tank development continued tanks of different sizes were devised. This included light tanks able to scout and exploit breakthroughs, while a medium tank would offer firepower and mobility.

The bulk of most tanks used during the Second World War fell into the medium tank category, but Germany and the Soviet Union also fielded "heavy tanks," which could dominate the battlefield, taking out bunkers and fortifications while being able to stand up to the smaller tanks that attempted to stop them. The United States lacked such a tank, and during the war its M4 Sherman medium tank, while more than adequate when it entered service in 1942, couldn't stand up to the more powerful German tanks such as the Tiger.

Even the M26 Pershing wasn't heavy enough to withstand the Tiger and Panther. The development of a new heavy tank began for the next war even as the conflict in Europe was winding down.

This was because there was a real concern that the Soviet heavy tanks would be just as hard to stop as anything the German's had, maybe even more so. The IS-3 and IS-4—which the Soviets built due to Premier Josef Stalin's obsession for heavy tanks and thus named for him—worried American planners. These were heavy in every sense of the word, with strong front armor and a 122mm gun.

To address the threat from those Soviet behemoths came the T43E1, which was developed out of a series of prototypes built in 1953-54 at Chrysler's Newark, Delaware tank plant. Production ramped up even as the Korean War ended.

A total of three hundred tanks were produced and these were designed as "Tank, Combat, Full Tracked, 120mm, M103" – but known simply as the M103. It is notable too that no nickname was ever assigned to the tank.

As its official name implied, however, it had a powerful 120mm M58 main gun, which was fitted in the M89 turret mount. The tank was as well armored as it was armed, with upwards of five inches of hull armor at the front. It weighed 62 tons, and had a crew of five. It was a tank that could do some hard-hitting and wouldn't need to run from a fight.

Yet, like most heavy tanks, the size meant some compromises. The M103 had a maximum speed of just 21mph and only a range of 80 miles. It could pack a punch but it wouldn't exactly get into or out of a fight quickly, and that fight couldn't be all that far away.

Because the M103 was rushed into service it didn't entirely meet the needs of the U.S. Army, which operated eighty of the original T43E1 models – of which seventy-four were converted to the M103 standard. Instead, while it was the Army that had sought the tank, the U.S. Marines operated 220 of the T43E1s, with 219 converted to M103A1 of which 154 were further rebuilt as the M103A2. The former upgrade included a new Stereoscopic T42 sight, M14 ballistic computer and new turret electric amplidyne system traverse with a turret basket. The M103A2 upgrade, which took place in 1964, added a new 750 hp diesel engine that provided better range a top speed. The M24 Coincidence Rangefinder also replaced the older rangefinder.

The M103 served with the USMC until 1972 and reportedly none ever left American soil. It was replaced by the M60, and thus ended the American experiment to develop a true heavy tank.

As a footnote, only twenty-five of the original three hundred M103 tanks are preserved in museums around the world, including one at the Tank Museum in Bovington in the UK.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and website. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com.

This article first appeared in 2020.

Image: Wikipedia.

More From The National Interest: 

Russia Has Missing Nuclear Weapons Sitting on the Ocean Floor 

How China Could Sink a U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier 

Where World War III Could Start This Year

Richard Douglas

Guns,

This is the sort of reliable shotgun that would make the Founding Fathers proud.

The Beretta Xtrema 2 is a 12-gauge semi-automatic shotgun that would make our Founding Fathers proud. It’s chambered for 3.5” Magnum loads, yet offers a surprising amount of recoil-reducing features that make heavy ammo very comfortable to shoot. Although it is a bit pricey, it’s extremely durable, reliable, and accurate as can be.

The Xtrema 2 runs with a very reliable gas metering system that easily cycles any ammo, from target loads to magnums. The bolt features a rotating head that locks up when firing for additional safety, and there are action and bolt bars on each side of the magazine tube for even more strength. It’s designed to be reliable and durable, and throughout thousands of rounds, I’ve never had a malfunction of any kind.

All the metal parts of the Xtrema 2 have been coated in Aqua Tek, which provides superior corrosion resistance to keep everything looking new. Both the synthetic stock and fore-end include rubber inserts for the best grip possible, even in bad weather conditions. It even includes stock-adjusting shims to lengthen the stock, if that’s something that interests you. It’s built very well, and one area where the Xtrema 2 really stands out is with the trigger. It’s very crisp and light enough for competition shooting, and even includes an oversized trigger guard for easy, comfortable use with gloves.

Similar to Akdal’s MKA 1919, another area where the Xtrema 2 excels is in recoil reduction. It includes the Kick-Off recoil pad, which features two hydraulic pampers and springs to help reset it between shots. It also includes a GelTek pad on the buttstock, along with a recoil absorber inside that softens the bolt’s travel. All of these features make shooting heavier loads more comfortable and aid a great deal in accuracy.

Both the recoil absorption features and the extended interlocking barrel tang go a long way in maximizing your shot accuracy. Even using 3.5” Magnum loads, you’re able to get very densely accurate patterns. I’ve gotten consistent 2” groupings from 100 yards, with some higher-quality ammo even giving me 1.5” groups. While the standard model only has a 2+1 capacity (much less than most semi-automatic rifles), these are still excellent 3-shot groupings and I’m sure red dot could take your accuracy even further.

Barrel lengths for the Xtrema 2 include 30,” 28,” 26,” and 24.” Despite its massive length, the gun weighs just under 8 lbs with the 28” barrel. Although it’s not the lightest shotgun around, it still is surprisingly light for its size.

All of these features do come at a premium, so it’s not shocking that the MSRP for these guns runs between $1,400 and $1,600. When you purchase the Beretta Xtrema 2, you’ll also get five extra-long choke tubes, the stock-adjusting shims, and a nice carrying case. For what you get, in my opinion, it’s worth the investment.

Most people like to use the Xtrema 2 for bird or small game hunting, but I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t work for deer hunting as well. Whatever purpose you’ll be using it for, you can’t go wrong with this semi-auto.

Richard Douglas writes on firearms, defense, and security issues. He is the founder and editor of Scopes Field, and a columnist at The National Interest, 1945, Daily Caller, and other publications.

Image: Creative Commons.

Charlie Gao

T-22M3, Europe

The Tu-22M3 bomber has been the face of the Russian air force all over the world.

Here's What You Need to Remember: While the TASS article mentions that the upgraded Tu-22M3M will be able to carry newer Kh-32 missiles with ranges of up to 600km, it has also been circulated that the new Kh-SD missile will also arm the Tu-22M3M. This missile is said to have ranges of up to 2000km, which would qualify it as a long range ALCM.

Recently, the Tu-22M3 bomber has been the face of the Russian air force all over the world. Between dropping bombs over Syria to patrolling airspace over Japan, the Tu-22M3 has also been receiving a series of upgrades. These upgrades allow for greater bombing accuracy with conventional weapons, as well as the capability to fire new Air-Launched Cruise Missiles (ALCM). One of these upgrades may change how the Tu-22M3 is controlled under the New START treaty. It may finally be considered a strategic “heavy” bomber.

The status of the Tu-22M has long been under debate in the U.S. intelligence community. Back in 1971, when the Tu-22M first became known to the United States, the mission of the new Soviet bomber as unknown. Range estimates of the new bomber would allow it to attack the United States, albeit with air refueling. This would allow it to act in a strategic strike role. The Soviets maintained that the Tu-22M was not used for this role as it did not possess true intercontinental range, it would be used for attack and naval defense only on the periphery of the Soviet Union. This was even written into the aborted SALT-II treaty, the U.S. delegation wanted the Tu-22M not to be equipped with an air refueling system of any kind.

This changed in the early 1980s with the test of ALCMs on the Tu-22M. The addition of these missiles, which could be shot from ranges of around 3,000 km lead the Department of Defense and intelligence agencies to again believe that the Tu-22M would be used in an intercontinental strike capability. However, with the fall of the Soviet Union and START I in 1991, the Soviet side swore off any capability that would allow the Tu-22M to operate at intercontinental range, with the acknowledgment that the Tu-22M would not be considered a “heavy bomber” (eg. one of strategic importance) under START. This is the current assumption that is held under the New START treaty that was ratified in 2010 and expected to hold until 2021—only Tu-160 “Blackjack” and Tu-95 “Bear” bombers are listed in the START aggregate arms table.

Enter the new Tu-22M3M upgrade. Documentation for this upgrade was finally completed in November 2017, according to TASS. The upgrading of Tu-22M3 bombers to the new M3M standard will start in 2018. While many features in this upgrade are oriented towards greater conventional capability such as the new Gefest precision bombing system, other upgrades may allow it to act as a strategic weapon. Most notably, the avionics suite is said to be standardized with the Tu-160M2, a heavy bomber that is qualified as one under the New START treaty. While the TASS article mentions that the upgraded Tu-22M3M will be able to carry newer Kh-32 missiles with ranges of up to 600km, it has also been circulated that the new Kh-SD missile will also arm the Tu-22M3M. This missile is said to have ranges of up to 2000km, which would qualify it as a long range ALCM. While this missile is only conventional at the moment, it is derived from the Kh-55 missile, which is known to have nuclear capability. The implementation of this missile might change the status of the Tu-22M3M under New START, if the Kh-SD is confirmed to have nuclear capability.

Charlie Gao studied political and computer science at Grinnell College and is a frequent commentator on defense and national-security issues.

The article first appeared in 2017. It is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Wikipedia.

Peter Suciu

, Europe

After the defeat of the Nationalist forces during the Chinese Civil War, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) of the People's Republic of China began to develop its own tank force.

Here's What You Need to Remember: When the People's Republic of China was proclaimed on October 1, 1949, the Gongchen Tank served as the lead armored vehicle in the military parade in Tiananmen Square. It remained in service under the new Communist Red China, until it was officially retired in 1959. Number 102 has been in the Military Museum of the Chinese People's Revolution ever since.

Before the outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937, which merged into the Second World War when Japan attacked American and British forces in late 1941, the National Revolutionary Army of China under Chiang Kai-shek was armed with mostly aging European armor. This included the truly antiquated Renault FT tanks, which were “upgraded” to some extent with 37mm guns.

Fearing the Japanese more than the Chinese at the time, Soviet Russia also supplied the Nationalist Chinese with some 82 T-26 tanks, while tank crews were even trained under the supervision of Soviet specialists. The Soviet Red Army was already in the process of upgrading its armored forces and supplied the same T-26 tanks to the Republican forces in Spain as well.

Later during World War II the American's also supplied a few M3 Stuarts and M4 Shermans, and those tanks were put to good use stopping Japanese attacks.

The First Domestic Chinese Tank 

After the defeat of the Nationalist forces during the Chinese Civil War, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) of the People's Republic of China began to develop its own tank force. But it took until 1959 for the Chinese to develop the Type 59 main battle tank (MBT), and in truth it was little more than a Chinese-produced version of the Soviet T-54A, which had been developed after World War II to replace the venerable T-34.

The T-54A was supplied to China under the Sino-Soviet Friendship Treaty after the Korean War. The Chinese military leadership negotiated with the Soviets to acquire the blueprints and assembly know-how to domestically produce their own version. The Type 59 subsequently became the backbone of the Chinese Army, and it was the longest PLA tank production to date, spanning all the way until 1985 when nearly 10,000 were produced in a number of variations. Moreover, it also served as the basis for several other MBTs including the light Type 62, the Type 69, and the Type 97.

However, the Type 59 was not the first domestically-built (or at least modified) tank used by the PLA.

In 1945, the Japanese surrendered large numbers of the Type 97 Chi-Ha ShinHoTo, but most were handed over to the Kuomintang (KMT) or Nationalist forces. However, the Chinese PLA also captured a pair of the tanks at the Imperial Japanese Arsenal in Shenyang, and these were given the designations 101 and 102.

The PLA troops also forced a group of captured Japanese personnel to help repair/refurbish the tanks. Before the work was completed, the Japanese engineers successfully sabotaged 101, leaving the Communists forces with just the one functional but nearly complete tank.

The Number 102 Tank

That particular tank has become the stuff of legend. It was used by the Northeast Special Tank Brigade with thirty soldiers. The tank was used to smash through a wall to help the PLA unit successfully escape from Shenyang as the KMT retook the city.

The number 102 tank then took part in various actions and according to PLA propaganda it was used to kill upwards of 3,000 KMT soldiers. It was later used in the October 1948 action at the Battle of Jinzhou along with other Type 97 tanks, and somehow it survived largely undamaged. Dubbed the “Gongchen” or “Heroic” tank, it took part in the Liaoshen and Tianjin Campaigns and drove within the walls of Peiping in February 1949.

When the People's Republic of China was proclaimed on October 1, 1949, the Gongchen Tank served as the lead armored vehicle in the military parade in Tiananmen Square. It remained in service under the new Communist Red China, until it was officially retired in 1959. Number 102 has been in the Military Museum of the Chinese People's Revolution ever since.

There were other Type 97 Chi-Ha tanks that were produced in China during World War II and later used by the KMT, but it is the Gongchen Tank that remains the most remembered tank today in the People's Republic of China.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. This article is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Wikipedia.

Tory Rich

U.S. Air Force, United States

It wasn’t intentional. The feat occurred after the pilot was forced to eject.

The story of the “Cornfield Bomber,” an aircraft that landed without a pilot, might not sound very impressive in today’s age of drones and increased automation. The narrative changes drastically when one key piece of information is added: this happened in 1970, after the pilot was forced to eject from a jet he had last control of.

The bizarre event, on February 2nd, 1970, to be precise, took place during a training sortie for the 71st Fighter Interceptor Squadron out of Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana. Three pilots in F-106 Delta Darts took to the sky for a two-on-one combat training exercise. A fourth was a last-minute scratch from the flight schedule after an equipment issue on the runway, leaving instructor pilot Captain Tom Curtis flying solo against fellow instructor pilot, Major James Lowe, and 1st Lieutenant Gary Foust (at the sticks of the “Cornfield Bomber”). Regardless of the hierarchy, bragging rights were at stake.

“Of course, this was a big ego thing, who was the winner…” said Curtis, whose recollection of the day is available at f-106deltadart.com.

Curtis goes on to detail what led to Foust needing to eject from his aircraft:

“I figured I could handle Gary pretty easy, but I did not trust Jimmy. I figured he would probably break off and come after me. With this thought in mind, I came at them in full afterburner. I was doing 1.9 Mach when we passed.

I took them straight up at about 38,000 feet. We got into a vertical rolling scissors. I gave [Gary] a high-G rudder reversal. He tried to stay with me – that’s when he lost it. He got into a post-stall gyration… a very violent maneuver. His recovery attempt was unsuccessful and the aircraft stalled and went into a flat spin, which is usually unrecoverable.”

Lt. Foust started running through emergency recovery procedures by the book, but the jet did not respond and continued to spin and plummet to the Earth. Maj. Lowe instructed him to deploy his drag chute, but it only wrapped uselessly around the tail. Out of options, Foust was finally instructed to eject at 15,000 feet. No one could have predicted what happened next.

When Foust ejected, the Delta Dart first went nose down, but then recovered on its own and resumed the straight and level flight Foust had been trying to achieve for about 23,000 feet. Lowe watched Foust eject, and then witnessed the unmanned F-106 take things from there, improbably flying itself away. Unphased, Lowe still had time for humor, and quipped over the radio:

“Gary, you’d better get back in it!”

Of course, Foust had little choice but to watch, dumbfounded, as he floated safely to the ground in the mountains of Montana, to be later extracted by locals on snowmobiles.

“I had assumed it crashed,” he said years later in an interview at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force (where the jet now sits). However, over fifty miles away as the crow (or Delta Dart) flies, the jet skidded on its belly to a safe landing in a field near a town called Big Sandy.

The high-performance interceptor hadn’t gone unnoticed on its approach through rural Montana. According to a 1978 article in the Mohawk Flyer (a local paper near Griffiss AFB in NY, where this particular jet had since been re-assigned), a local sheriff got in touch with the Air Force at Malmstrom and got instructions on how to throttle down the still-turning aircraft. The jet was melting the snow beneath it and still lurching slowly across the field. The understandably apprehensive sheriff decided to instead let the jet punch itself out and run out of fuel, which took another hour and 45 minutes.

Fortunately, bystanders had kept a safe distance from the unpredictable monstrosity that managed to crawl another 400 yards. The radar in its nosecone was still sweeping and would have been hazardous to anyone approaching the aircraft from the front, as well. When the dust (or snow) had settled, Foust’s wayward steed was no worse for the wear besides a gash in the belly. It was partially disassembled and transported by train to California, where it was repaired and eventually returned to service.

With the rise of the F-15, and as the Soviets began to focus more on inter-continental ballistic missiles over long-range bombers for nuclear deterrence, the F-106 was slowly phased out. Ironically, many were converted to the QF-106, an unmanned drone used for target practice. This bird, however, was not one of them. Tail number 58-0787 ended up as one of the jets at the 49th Fighter Interceptor Squadron, the Air Force’s last F-106 squadron, at Griffis AFB. As fate would have it, Foust would be stationed there, along with his wingman the day of the incident, James Lowe, who was now his squadron commander. Lowe, who apparently has a delightfully twisted sense of humor, saw to it that Foust was paired back up with his old aircraft.

How did the “Cornfield Bomber” land itself?

An unmanned jet flying itself to a safe landing, away from a populated area, and almost completely unharmed, is improbable, to be sure. It was more than just dumb luck, however. As theorized by Peter Grier in his Air Force Magazine article, the force of the rockets from Foust’s ejection seat, as well as the shift in the aircraft’s center of gravity from a now missing pilot, corrected the spin and set the aircraft back to what it was naturally shaped to do, take advantage of lift and fly.

As it turns out, the attempted recovery procedures carried out by Foust before he bailed out were significant in saving the aircraft. One of those measures was to “trim” the aircraft to take-off settings, which happen to be very similar to those for landing. Trim refers to automated settings that free the pilot from having to maintain constant pressure on the controls to keep flight surfaces (flaps, ailerons, etc.) in the correct position for a given phase of flight (ascent, descent, maintain altitude, etc.)

“When Gary ejected, the aircraft was trimmed wings-level for about 175 knots (200 mph), a very nice glide setting,” Curtis said in his account.

Another element of the jet’s salvation, as noted by Grier, may have been a concept in aeronautics known as “ground effect.” In short, ground effect is a change in aerodynamics as an aircraft gets closer to the ground. Because of the way air interacts with the aircraft’s wings as it nears landing, drag is decreased and lift is increased, causing an aircraft to “float,” which is a very plausible explanation for such little damage sustained in this case.

Whether it was a pilot determined to save his plane, physics, some kind of divine intervention, or a combination of all three, the “Cornfield Bomber” remains one of the wildest stories in American aviation history that most people haven’t heard of. Foust remarked in his interview at the museum:

“I don’t know who named it that, or how it got that name. It should be the ‘Wheatfield Fighter.’ But it sounds a little catchier to be the ‘Cornfield Bomber…'”

“…I guess I’m part of a one-in-a-million occurrence. I don’t know that this has ever happened again, this whole scenario. But it is good to see the airplane again, and to know that it’s in the museum here and that this story will live on…”

This article first appeared at Sandboxx.

Image: Wikipedia.

Caleb Larson

Eurofighter Typhoon, Europe

The Eurofighter Typhoon is a decent and modern plane that has served European countries well.

Key point: The Eurofighter is a surprisingly good weapon for a multinational project. Here is how it compares to the American-made F-22.

The only pilot to have flown an F-22 Raptor and the Eurofighter Typhoon had this to say about the European design. 

Multinational Cooperation

The Eurofighter Typhoon was a multinational design effort that originally included Italy, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Spain, though France later dropped out of the program due to disagreements over the design. 

This first appeared earlier this year and is being reposted due to reader interest.

The Typhoon’s airframe is a delta-shaped design with two forward canards that provide additional lift and maneuverability. The Typhoon was designed to be a highly capable air-to-air combat aircraft, and has a quadruple-redundant fly-by-wire system that compensates for the airframe’s inherently unstable—but maneuverable—design. 

One of the Typhoon’s few drawbacks is its lack of stealth capabilities. 

Not Stealthy

The former Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John P. Jumper is the only person that has flown both the Eurofighter Typhoon and the F-22 Raptor. Though Jumper said that both aircraft are capable, they’re fundamentally different, “they are different kinds of airplanes to start with,” Jumper said. “It’s like asking us to compare a NASCAR car with a Formula 1 car. They are both exciting in different ways, but they are designed for different levels of performance.” 

Especially with an externally carried weapons load, the Eurofighter has a significantly higher radar signature than the F-22, arguably the world’s stealthiest fighter. Still, some of the Eurofighter’s weapons are partially recessed into the fuselage, which would help minimize radar return signature. Additionally, the air intake ducts are s-shaped rather than a straight-through design, which helps conceal the engines from enemy radar. 

Despite these radar-reduction measures, the Eurofighter has prominent canards and control surfaces right below the cockpit, which are inherently unstealthy. Popular Science outlines why canards are detrimental to stealth, “designing a stealthy canard is difficult, particularly if the canards are big enough to enable the airplane to recover quickly from an extreme nose-up attitude.” This is thanks to the extra control surfaces that can return an enemy radar signal—the more control surfaces there are, more opportunities for a radar signal to return. What the Eurofighter lacks in stealth however, it makes up for in maneuverability. 

General Jumper highlighted the aerobatics of the Typhoon, “the Eurofighter is certainly, as far as smoothness of controls and the ability to pull (and sustain high G forces), very impressive,” Jumper explained.” That is what it was designed to do, especially the version I flew, with the avionics, the color moving map displays, etc.—all absolutely top notch. The maneuverability of the airplane in close-in combat was also very impressive.” 

Upgrades

One of the changes that has been suggested and tested, was pushed for by the United Kingdom’s Royal Air Force. The RAF wants conformal fuel tanks, which would free up space underneath the Typhoon for additional weaponry. 

These tanks, which look like large blisters, are of an unknown volume, but would increase the range of the Typhoon. Though CFTs do add additional drag, there are instances where they are beneficial to an airframe’s flight characteristics. 

The Typhoon is projected to stay in service with the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, and Germany until the mid- 2030s or early 2040s, when it will be replaced by newer, sixth-generation stealthy designs. Until then, the Typhoon will fly on.

Caleb Larson holds a Master of Public Policy degree from the Willy Brandt School of Public Policy. He lives in Berlin and writes on U.S. and Russian foreign and defense policy, German politics, and culture. This first appeared earlier this year and is being reposted due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters

Caleb Larson

T-72 Tank,

The T-72 sits staunchly within the Soviet design camp: it is very light in comparison to American and NATO Main Battle Tanks at a slight 41 tons

Here's What You Need to Remember: Although likely undergunned but more modern alternatives, the T-72 series has nonetheless enjoyed an extensive afterlife, especially in Africa and the Middle east, where lower-intensity conflicts continue to smolder. For customers who can’t afford an M1 Abrams or other western Main Battle Tanks — the T-72 is the way to go.

The T-72 is one of the most-built tanks in the post- Second World War world, a testament to their effectiveness and affordability. Quite a few companies — mostly former Soviet, Eastern European countries offer an extensive range of upgrade kits that will continue to prolong the T-72 series’ life for many years to come

Interim Solution

The T-72 series was designed to address shortcoming inherent to its predecessor — the T-64’s design — namely a very compact, but unreliable and underpowered engine. To address this deficiency, T-64s were outfitted with more powerful and more conventional diesel engines. While this helped alleviate the power issue, it became apparent after some time that a complete redesign would be in order, as the newly installed engine put undue stress on the tank’s hull.

Small but Mighty

The T-72 sits staunchly within the Soviet design camp: it is very light in comparison to American and NATO Main Battle Tanks at a slight 41 tons. This light weight, combined with its very wide tank treads, allow for very low ground pressure, facilitating good traction in boggy spring and winter conditions endemic to Russia during the spring as snow and and ice melt. Its cross-country performance is thus excellent.

Like many Soviet designs, early-model T-72s are rather underpowered, equipped with a decidedly feeble 780 horsepower engine. Later engine upgrades would improve output to about 1,130 horsepower, at which point the T-72 finds its stride, especially in off-road conditions.

Part of the T-72’s lightweight is achieved via it’s small stature and cramped interior, also in keeping with Soviet armor doctrine, which favors a squat, low-profile stature. It’s crew of just three benefit from an autoloader that further helps reduce its silhouette by keeping the crew number low.

Unfortunately, the T-72s had one major drawback — ammunition was not stored separately from the crew in a blow-out ammunition compartment. This drawback became apparent in Iraq, where a number of T-72s suffered catastrophic internal explosions.

Various Upgrades

Like many Soviet tanks, the T-72 has a nearly unending number of variations, tailored to specific customer needs. Many thousands of later model T-72s with extensively upgraded explosive reactive armor (ERA) are still held in reserve with the Russian Federation, and both Ukrainian and Russian companies offer upgrade kits to improve survivability for foreign customers.

In the 1980s, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq slightly modified a series of T-72 and called them the Lion of Babylon — thought they were anything but lions. Their only strength were in the front. Essentially, Iraq engineers welded a layer of steel to the frontal glacis, with a small gap in-between the original hull and the new layer, in an effort to dispel the explosion from a hit outward around the hull.

Heavily modified Polish T-72s are still in service as Main Battle Tanks, called PT-91 Twardy, and feature domestically developed engines, comms, and fire control systems that have been successfully exported as upgrade kits abroad to countries that also field T-72 versions.

Although likely undergunned but more modern alternatives, the T-72 series has nonetheless enjoyed an extensive afterlife, especially in Africa and the Middle east, where lower-intensity conflicts continue to smolder. For customers who can’t afford an M1 Abrams or other western Main Battle Tanks — the T-72 is the way to go.

Caleb Larson is a Defense Writer with The National Interest. He holds a Master of Public Policy and covers U.S. and Russian security, European defense issues, and German politics and culture. This article is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Wikipedia.

Caleb Larson

Russian Air Force, Europe

Some of these warplanes are upgraded Soviet-era aircraft, but some of them are very modern and have even yet to go into serial production.

Key point: Moscow has taken pains to modernize and maintain its aging aircraft. But Russia is also investing in the future, including drones and stealth.

Most military equipment in Russian arsenals today is legacy Soviet hardware. Russian bombers are no exception. Although some airframes in Russian inventories are quite old, they remain potent thanks to airframe, electronics and radar upgrades, along with improvements in standoff missiles and precision-guided munitions.  Here are Russia’s most dangerous bombers.

This first appeared earlier this year and is being reposted due to reader interest.

Tu-95 “Bear”

In 1950, Andrei Tupolev was tasked with designing the Soviet Union’s new long-range heavy bomber, the Tu-95. It was to be able to carry a 24,200-pound payload with a range of nearly 5,000 miles—and thus threaten important targets in the United States.

Tupolev needed to balance speed and performance with range. Jet engines at the time would given a long-range strategic bomber the needed speed, but guzzled fuel, limiting range. Although Tupolev was already a highly successful designer, he tasked a group of German and Austrian aircraft engineers that had been captured after World War II with the design. They designed the most powerful turboprop engine ever made, the venerable KN-12.

Using two sets of contra-rotating propellers, the KN-12 is still used on the Tu-95 today. Although the engines are extremely powerful, the are also incredibly loud. Still, when mission requirements are massive payload rather than stealthiness, the Bear can do the job.

Repeated upgrades have greatly extended the airframe’s service life, and increasingly sophisticated stand-off cruise missiles have kept the Tu-95 potent. It is planned to operate until the 2040s.

Tu-22M “Backfire”

Sometimes called “Backfire” by NATO, the Tu-22M variant was developed to address design deficiencies inherent in the Tu-22 parent design. The Tu-22M uses a variable-sweep wing design that provided a balance between favorable landing and take-off handling, with good cruising and high-speed flight.

The Tu-22M carries a respectable bomb load, and can fly at a maximum speed of Mach 1.88. Interestingly, it has a twin-barreled 23mm cannon in the tail that is remotely controlled.

The introduction of the Tu-22M in the early 1970s was an odd time for supersonic bombers, as the superiority of ICBMs was widely recognized. Despite the Tu-22M’s technical obsolescence, continuous upgrades to radar and electronics, combined with improved air-to-surface missiles have kept the Tu-22M platform relevant.

Tu-160 “Blackjack”

The Tu-160 is truly a beast of an aircraft with several firsts and world records to its name. Visually similar to the Tu-22M or the American Rockwell B-1 Lancer, the Tu-160 was the last strategic bomber designed by the Soviet Union.

Also known as the “Blackjack” it is the heaviest bomber in service in any country, and tops out at Mach 2.05. In contrast to the B-1 Lancer, the Blackjack is more of a stand-off weapons platform rather than a traditional bomber, although its tow large weapons bays allow it to carry a payload of 88,000 pounds and allows the delivery of conventional, precision, and nuclear munitions. The Blackjack is the only Soviet bomber designed without any defensive weapons.

Again, upgrades to radar and targeting, along with the restart of airframe production in 2019 is keeping the Blackjack airborne, probably for many more years to come.

Tupolev PAK DA

Although still under development, the PAK DA will undoubtedly be Russia’s deadliest bomber. Once fielded, the PAK DA will eventually replace both the Tu-160 supersonic bomber and the earlier Tu-95.

PAK DA is essentially a next-gen long-range stealth bomber, similar to the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit bomber. Like the B-2, the PAK DA will probably have a flying wing design, although this is only known from promotional material. No known prototypes currently exist. This would be the first truly Russian bomber— not simply a legacy Soviet design, or improvements upon them.

The first PAK DA prototype flight was delayed from 2019 to sometime in the 2021–2023 timeframe. As already pointed out, upgraded variants of the Tu-160 are currently conducting flight trials, so it will likely be some time before we have any photos or more concrete info on Russia’s first true stealth bomber.

Future Flight

If Russian military history can teach us anything, the Tu-22M, -95 and -160 will probably be maintained and upgraded for many years to come. When and if the PAK DA becomes operational, it would put an important arrow in Russia’s quiver—a theoretically very capable stealth bomber. Still, if that can be managed affordably remains to be seen. The relatively low price of oil has severely constrained Russian military spending, and designing a brand-new stealth platform is no easy thing.

Caleb Larson holds a Master of Public Policy degree from the Willy Brandt School of Public Policy. He lives in Berlin and writes on U.S. and Russian foreign and defense policy, German politics, and culture. This first appeared earlier this year and is being reposted due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters.

Peter Suciu

World War I History, Europe

There were several options for victory or at least a favorable stalemate that Berling could have pursued.

Key point: Berlin blundered majorly with the Von Schlieffen plan, which brought Britain into the war. To make matters worse, unrestricted warfare eventually brought in America.

There has been some discussion on the things Imperial Germany could have done to reach a different outcome including using its High Seas Fleet more effectively and not conducting unrestricted submarine warfare.

However, the real mistake lies in German strategy in 1914, which was formulated even before the war began. Unlike a generation later when Adolf Hitler and the Nazi high command actively sought to create a two-front war, Imperial Germany knew that a war with either Russia or France meant a war with both.

This first appeared earlier this year and is being reposted due to reader interest.

Thus was born the Schlieffen Plan, created by General Count Alfred von Schlieffen, chief of the Imperial German General Staff from 1891 to 1906. It called for a bold and swift invasion of France through neutral Belgium, which would capture Paris and knock France out of the war before Russia could mobilize and be a threat in the east.

It sounded good, but as history showed it didn't work. The British Expeditionary Force arrived in France sooner than the Germans expected and in a series of collective actions known as the Battle of the Frontiers in August 1914, the German lines were disrupted enough that Paris wasn't captured. Instead, the armies of Europe were forced to dig in, resulting in four years of hellish trench warfare.

With more than one hundred years of hindsight, we can see that the plan was doomed before it was launched, and it was one that presented more risk than reward. It is also something that should have been seen by German military planners. Nearly a decade had passed from when Schlieffen devised the plan and when it was put into action.

Notably, Great Britain moved closer to France and Russia—and it should have been obvious to anyone in Berlin that the British would come into the war to defend Belgian neutrality. The Schlieffen plan never really addressed that fact, but when Germany crossed the Belgian frontier the British declared war.

Even if somehow the British stayed out of the war the plan called for Germany to defeat France in six weeks! That assumed that the French capital could be captured, but clearly Schlieffen and the rest of the Imperial German high command failed to remember that the siege of Paris during the Franco-Prussian War lasted from September 19 to January 28. Why would it be expected that France wouldn't or couldn't hold out at least as long again?

Thus the better course of action for a victory should have been a swift move to the east, while defending the western frontier. Great Britain likely wouldn't have come into the war on the side of Germany and its Central Power allies, but historians have generally agreed that the doves in the cabinet—who did support war when Belgium's neutrality was violated—would have likely pushed for neutrality.

It is possible that the British Expeditionary Force could have been sent to Belgium as a de facto peacekeeping force to ensure neither side violated that neutrality.

France certainly would not, and really could not, have violated Belgian neutrality to invade Germany with British forces there, and likely wouldn't have invaded further than Alsace-Lorraine—the territories lost in the Franco-Prussian War.

Russia had mobilized far faster than Germany and Austria-Hungary expected, but bungled things in battle in the early stages of the war and saw an army destroyed at Tannenberg in Prussia. With the full might of the Germans and Austrians in the east the Czar may have been forced to the peace table by winter.

With its main ally out of the war, France may have settled for peace, potentially gaining back part of Alsace or Lorraine while giving colonial concessions to Germany. It is likely possible that David Lloyd George, the British prime minister, or Sir Edward Gray, the foreign secretary, could have been the peacemakers—potential Nobel Prize Winners for their efforts in the Treaty of London.

It could have potentially been a short war that spared millions of lives, and even stopped the rise of communism—although it is just as possible the Romanov monarchy in Russia may have collapsed anyway. Of course, it wouldn't have resolved all the underlying issues of the day and may have only pushed a truly "Great War" down the road a bit.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. This first appeared earlier this year and is being reposted due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters.

Caleb Larson

F-4, World

Not bad for a jet designed in the 1950s.

Here's What You Need to Know: Though the F-4 was eventually replaced by more capable F-15s and F-16s, both frames drew on lessons learned from the F-4s service history.

The F-4 Phantom was a beast of a jet. Despite early losses in Vietnam, the Phantom set sixteen world records and is still in service nearly sixty years after its first flight. 

Beast

In an interview with an aviation website, Col. (Ret.) Charles B. DeBellvue, a former F-4 pilot, reminisced about his days flying the F-4 Phantom. “The F-4 was the last plane that looked like it was made to kill somebody. It was a beast. It could go through a flock of birds and kick out barbecue from the back.” 

In the days before onboard computers and fly-by-wire flight controls, the pilot—and the pilot alone—was responsible for flying the airplane. “You didn’t get into the F-4, you put it on, it became you,” DeBellevue explained. It was a manual airplane, not like an F-16 or F-15, they were aerodynamic and designed well.” 

The F-4 was a large, muscular twin-engine jet designed as an fighter-bomber and interceptor that was intended to rule the skies over Vietnam. When it debuted, in 1961, it was perhaps the most capable airframe for its role in the world. 

The F-4 platform also set sixteen time-to-climb, altitude, and speed records. In 1959, the F-4 flew above 98,000 feet, and in 1961, the F-4 was the fasted jet in the world—2,581 kilometers per hour, or 1,604 miles per hour. 

Vietnam

The airframe surrounded two engines that gave the F-4 a massive amount thrust. During engagements in Vietnam, American pilots were able to engage and disengage from engagements virtually at will—a tops speed over twice the speed of sound. 

However, Vietnam revealed some glaring deficiencies with the F-4 design that needed to be rectified. The Air Force assumed that by relying on sheer speed, acceleration, and a high weapons load, the F-4 would destroy North Vietnamese MiGs. 

Engineers estimated that dogfights at supersonic speeds would happen so fast, cannons would not be useful, so early-production airframes didn’t come equipped with any onboard guns. 

At low speeds however, the F-4 was not very maneuverable, and was outfought by agile, tight-turning MiG-17s and MiG-19s. So F-4s were then equipped with an onboard 20 millimeter cannon after suffering an outsize number of losses against groups of MiGs using hit-and-run tactics. 

Still Flying

The F-4 platform is still in service today with a few countries—nearly sixty years after introduction. 

In 1971, Japan bought licenses for Mitsubishi Heavy Industries to build F-4s domestically. The first F-4 that Japan assembled, in 1971, carries out monthly flights for a surprising mission. 

The F-4, #301, is equipped with a dust collection pod (“sniffer”) that samples the air in order to detect radioactive particles. In addition to monitoring North Korean nuclear tests, the sniffer monitors other environmental pollution. 

Iran also flies American-built F-4s. In 2014, at least one F-4 was filmed on a bombing run in Iraq, though Iran has denied any involvement. As I wrote previously, F-4s in Iraq could be evidence of a non-interference agreement between the United States and Iran. 

Into the Sunset

Though the F-4 was eventually replaced by more capable F-15s and F-16s, these frames drew on lessons learned from the F-4s service history. Phantoms held their own up until Operation Desert Storm, where specially modified “Wild Weasel” F-4s were used in suppressing Iraqi air defenses. Not bad for a jet designed in the 1950s.

Caleb Larson holds a Master of Public Policy degree from the Willy Brandt School of Public Policy. He lives in Berlin and writes on U.S. and Russian foreign and defense policy, German politics, and culture.

This article first appeared in 2020.

Image: Wikimedia Commons