Diplomacy & Crisis News

Summary: Throughout history, fire has been a devastating weapon, from the Byzantine Empire's secretive "Greek fire" to modern flamethrowers and incendiary weapons. The U.S. military has largely abandoned such weapons, but Russia has continued to develop and deploy them. The TOS-1A Solntsepek, a thermobaric rocket launcher mounted on a T-72 tank chassis, exemplifies this trend. Designed to incinerate targets with a massive, high-temperature explosion, the TOS-1A has seen use in Ukraine, where its destructive power has been highlighted.

-Despite their effectiveness, thermobaric weapons are controversial due to their indiscriminate nature and potential for civilian casualties. The latest version, the TOS-2 Tosochka, is currently undergoing trials, further advancing Russia's incendiary capabilities.

During the Middle Ages, the Byzantine Empire developed its infamous "Greek fire" – a weapon that was so devastating that its military kept it largely a secret. Even today it remains somewhat of a mystery of how it was made or who "invented it." Yet, it is known that it harnessed the power of fire and literally burned a trail of destruction in its path, while it was nearly impossible to extinguish.

In addition to burning the enemy alive, Greek fire was also used for psychological warfare, as the sight and sound of the weapon alone were intimidating and disheartening to enemy soldiers. It was arguably one of the first "terror weapons" to see widespread use.

Though fire as a weapon largely diminished over time, it was revived during the First World War with the advent of the man-portable flamethrower. The ability to shoot fire at an enemy proved highly effective, so much so that the United States military even developed specialized flamethrowing tanks!

However, even before the end of the Cold War, many nations including the United States ceased using such horrific weapons. Yet, Moscow had essentially gone in another direction and it has since doubled down with its efforts to utilize fire on the modern battlefield. Rather than the backpack-and-nozzle systems that were employed with infantry throughout both World Wars, Russia developed its TOS-1A Solntsepek ('Scorching Sun'), a multiple rocket launcher platform mounted on a T-72 tank chassis to launch thermobaric rockets.

In this way, it is more about launching weapons that start a fire than shooting flames!

The TOS-1A was an updated version of the TOS-1 'Burantino,' a heavily armored rocket launcher that could launch incendiary and thermobaric rockets – and meant to kill or rush any "soft target" in its path.  It was essentially a 220 mm 24-barrel multiple rocket launcher that was mounted on the chassis of a T-72/T-90 main battle tank.

The system's first combat tests took place in 1988 and 1989 in the Panjshir Valley during the Soviet–Afghan War. Much like the Byzantine Empire's Greek Fire, the Solntsepek proved to be a terror weapon that caused panic. It has been employed in the ongoing war in Ukraine, where Russian airborne troops have been equipped with the TOS-1A.

"You are being given a formidable weapon, which has no equal in the arsenals of the collective West," one Russian colonel said in the statement posted by the defense ministry, Newsweek reported.

According to Russian state media and defense exporter Rosoboronexport, the TOS-1A has a maximum range of 5.6 miles and can be combat-ready within a minute and a half.

The latest TOS-2 'Tosochka' heavy flamethrowers are currently undergoing trial tests, the Russian military announced last Friday according to Tass.

"Heavy flamethrower TOS-2 is one of the newest weapons with the RCBD [Radiological, Chemical and Biological Defense] troops," Chief of Russia's Chemical, Biological, and Radiation Protection Forces Lieutenant-General Igor Kirillov said in an interview with the Russian Defense Ministry's Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper. "The pilot batch of the weapons at the issue was delivered to the military this year and it is currently under a trial test."

When deployed, thermobaric ordnance is a devastating weapon as it employs oxygen from the surrounding air to generate a high-temperature explosion. Also known as aerosol or vacuum bombs, these can create a  massive shockwave followed by a fire cloud where the temperature can reach 2500-3000 degrees Celsius (4500-5450 Fahrenheit). In addition to certainly killing anyone within the blast radius, the heat from the weapon can cause significant damage to structures and vehicles –igniting any fuels and lubricants, as well as setting off any ordnance. Many targets are essentially vaporized.

Anyone who survives the blast can't be described as the "lucky one," as they often have severe injuries to the lungs, eyes, ears, and colon.

The weapons are not unlawful or prohibited by the Geneva Convention, but their use on civilian targets would violate the law of armed conflict (LOAC). Thermobaric weapons are "likely to cause civilian casualties due to their indiscriminate and uncontained nature," the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation has warned.

The first reported deployment of thermobaric weapons in Ukraine occurred in the early stages of the ongoing Ukraine war when 70 Ukrainian fighters were killed in the northeastern town of Okhtyrka. Russian doctrine appeared to be that the best way to attack people in buildings in urban combat was to ensure that people inside could never make it out – or would be wounded so badly they were not capable of continuing to fight.

The Russian military is not alone in using such insidious weapons.

The United States had employed thermobaric weapons in Vietnam, but those tended to be air-dropped over enemy positions. During the War in Afghanistan, the U.S. military employed such weapons against the cave complexes in which Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters had taken refuge in the Gardez region.

In late October of 2023, a video circulated online that showed a Ukrainian drone strike a Russian TOS-1A. Soon after the first-person view (FPV) drone hit the Russian vehicle, it set off a secondary explosion that produced a massive fireball. The TOS-1A appeared to have been destroyed by its own ordnance, and its crew was left burning – not in hell, but quite literally within the TOS-1A.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu.

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary: The U.S. Army's new M10 Booker light tank has ignited debate over its necessity and effectiveness in modern warfare.

-Critics argue that the M10 is an outdated concept, unnecessary in today's changing combat landscape as demonstrated in conflicts like those in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Ukraine.

-Despite its advanced sensors and communication systems, the M10 faces operational challenges due to its lighter weight and reduced armor compared to heavier tanks like the Abrams.

-Detractors claim that the M10 offers redundant capabilities and that the funds spent on its development could have been better invested in emerging technologies such as cyberwarfare, unmanned systems, and long-range precision strikes.

-This debate highlights broader concerns about the Army's ability to innovate and adapt to contemporary warfare demands.

The US Army’s M10 Booker, a light tank recently added to the Army’s arsenal, has sparked a debate about its necessity and role in warfare. The Army’s officials insist that it not be referred to as a light tank (that’s what it is). 

Meanwhile, the detractors of the M10 argue that it is a weapon system not worth the money invested into it because the nature of ground warfare, as proven by the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, have fundamentally changed. A Twitter user derided the M10 by tweeting, “Let’s be real, the M10 ‘totally not a light tank’ Booker light tank is named after a private noone [sic] heard of before as well.”

It's just yet another example of the wastefulness—and lack of innovation—that the US Army has struggled to overcome since the end of the Cold War (lest we forget the rather accurate 1998 HBO comedy film The Pentagon Wars starring Kelsey Grammer detailing the disastrous development of an armored personnel carrier?) 

Even in the Global War on Terror, the US Army struggled to adapt to what was then a novel warfighting environment. The US Marines, the other major ground force in the US military, adapted almost seamlessly to the kind of counterterrorism missions that were required in the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while the Army struggled. 

In the post-9/11 era, when great power conflict is again upon us, the other branches have sketched out new warfighting concepts whereas the Army keeps repurposing its old AirLand Battle concepts from the Cold War era.

Without a reliable doctrine to guide the force, it’s no surprise that the Army’s development of warfighting equipment is as listless as the rest of the force. 

The M10 Booker is an armored vehicle designed to support infantry brigade combat teams (BCT) by providing a mobile, protected direct fire capability. It is intended to suppress and destroy fortifications, gun systems, and trench routes. Further, the M10 is meant to protect against enemy armored vehicles. The Booker is equipped with a 105mm main gun and a suite of advanced sensors and communication systems.

But light tanks have not fared very well in modern combat, especially against near-peer adversaries. Just look at Ukraine’s experience with the admittedly older French AMX-10RC units that were so poorly matched against Russia’s armor that the Ukrainians unilaterally withdrew the French light tanks and forbade their further use in combat. Sure, the Booker is more advanced than the AMX-10RC. But the issue isn’t sophistication. It’s armor and firepower.

Here are just a few things that the critics in multiple publications have raised as downsides to the Booker. 

First, the M10 Booker is believed to offer redundant capabilities. It’s meant to fill a gap in the Army’s capabilities, providing a light tank option to support infantry brigades. Yet, the M10 offers nothing new that older, cheaper vehicles in the Army’s inventory doesn’t already offer. Both the Abrams Main Battle Tank and the Stryker Mobile Gun System do the same things that the M10 is meant to do.

The M10 cost $1.14 billion in the production and fielding of up to 96 units of these vehicles. The money spent on developing and deploying these light tanks could have been spent on other areas of need for the US Army, such as improving existing systems or investing in new technologies.

The M10 Booker is not without its operational challenges. Its smaller size and lighter weight compared to the M1 Abrams make it more vulnerable to enemy fire. Additionally, the M10 Booker’s reduced armor protection and firepower could limit its effectiveness in certain combat situations (such as the kind currently being experienced in Ukraine). 

In the last decade alone, the face of warfare has changed so much that it is almost unrecognizable. It is, understandably, hard for some in power to keep up with those changes. But it is their duty to try to keep up. That means not designing a force that is meant to fight yesterday’s wars. The Army needs to focus much more on enhancing cyberwarfare capabilities, unmanned systems, and long-range precision strikes.

The M10 Booker offers none of these capabilities. 

The M10 Booker is yet another example of the US Army failing to learn and adapt. Failure to adapt means that a force becomes rigid and unable to improvise in combat. Being unable to fully improvise in unique combat situations means that the force will be unable to overcome the enemy.

And that spells defeat. 

Brandon J. Weichert, a National Interest national security analyst, is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, the Asia Times, and The-Pipeline. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His next book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine, is due October 22 from Encounter Books. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary: Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Moscow has reportedly lost around 330 aircraft, including the advanced Su-34 "Fullback" fighters.

-Ukraine's use of Western-developed weapons, notably the U.S.-delivered Patriot air defense missile system, has significantly contributed to these losses.

-The Su-34, an evolution of the Cold War-era Su-27 Flanker, officially entered service in 2014 and is known for its distinctive platypus nose and side-by-side cockpit.

-Despite its advanced capabilities and robust armament, the Fullback has proven vulnerable in the conflict, with numerous videos showing its destruction.

-The ongoing war threatens to further deplete Russia's stockpile of these crucial aircraft.

Since invading Ukraine in February 2022, Russia has reportedly lost some 330 aircraft. Moscow’s fighter airframes have proven vulnerable to Ukraine’s stockpile of advanced Western-developed weapons. 

Ukrainian officials claimed that nine Russian jets were destroyed in May alone. While these numbers cannot be independently verified, the U.S.-delivered Patriot air defense missile system has certainly aided Kyiv’s ability to take down Moscow’s top-tier fighters, including the Su-34. Nicknamed the “Fullback” by NATO, this all-weather supersonic fighter has been an essential asset for Russia for many years.

The Soviet-era Su-34 fighter derived from the Su-27 Flanker during the Cold War. While the Su-34 took its maiden flight before the collapse of the USSR, evolving requirements imposed by the Russian Aerospace Forces pushed back the fighter’s official introduction to service until 2014. 

The Fullback’s several unique characteristics include a platypus nose and side-by-side cockpit. Aside from these external characteristics, the jet retains its predecessor’s basic layout, engine, construction, and wing structure. The jet is powered by a pair of Saturn AL-31FM1 engines, which give it a top speed of Mach 1.8 and a service ceiling of around 56,000 feet.  

The Fullback can lug more than 17,000 pounds of weapons across a dozen hardpoints positioned underwing and beneath the fuselage. The jet can also carry a wide range of precision-guided and unguided bombs and rockets, including KAB-500 laser-guided bombs. As detailed by Airforce Technology, the jet can also carry Vympel R-27, Vympel R-73, and NPO-R-77 missiles used primarily for defense against adversarial aircraft if detected by the rear-facing radar.

Two distinct variants of the Fullback have been produced, both of which Russia exports to foreign client states. The Su-34FN is the maritime strike fighter version of the Fullback, equipped with anti-submarine warfare systems, a Sea Snake radar, a radio sonobuoy system, and other unique attributes. Since this model is designed to elevate the fighter’s naval warfare capabilities, it is highly sought out across the globe.

The Kremlin may claim that its Su-34 fighter is essentially invulnerable, but the platform’s performance in Ukraine suggests otherwise. As explained by Ukrainian Air Force spokesperson Yurii Ihnat, "Our experience suggests that after Russian planes are downed and destroyed, the occupiers do not dare come closer – this is the case across the northern, southern, and eastern fronts. The closer the aircraft armed with guided bombs approach, the farther those bombs can reach into our defenses." 

Countless videos have circulated in recent months purporting to show the destruction of Russian fighters, including Fullbacks. As the war rages on with no end in sight, Moscow’s Su-34 stockpile will surely dwindle further.

Maya Carlin, National Security Writer with The National Interest, is an analyst with the Center for Security Policy and a former Anna Sobol Levy Fellow at IDC Herzliya in Israel. She has by-lines in many publications, including The National Interest, Jerusalem Post, and Times of Israel. You can follow her on Twitter: @MayaCarlin. 

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary: The Su-57 boasts stealth features, advanced weaponry, and high maneuverability, but its stealth capabilities are questioned compared to U.S. counterparts like the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II.

-Meanwhile, the U.S. is developing the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program, aiming to surpass fifth-generation fighters with advanced AI, unmanned systems, and cutting-edge technology.

-Despite Russia's claims, the Su-57 may fall short of true fifth-generation standards and is unlikely to evolve into a sixth-generation fighter easily.

It would be unwise to dismiss all Russian military hardware out of hand. While jokes can still be made that a hammer is the tool typically employed to repair its tanks and that its submarines are better at diving than surfacing, the fact remains that the former Soviet Union managed to produce some truly advanced aircraft.

The Kremlin has continued that tradition, and the Sukhoi Su-57 (NATO reporting name "Felon") is currently one of only four  "fifth-generation" fighters built to date – the others being the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, and the Chengdu J-20 (NATO reporting name "Fagin").

Yet, where Moscow often loses creditability is that it all too often overhypes even its very best aircraft – and looks almost stupid in the process.

The Kremlin boasted that its Su-57 employs composite materials including polymer, fiberglass, and aluminum load-bearing honeycomb fillers. It also featured an aerodynamic configuration that includes a pair of internal weapons bays, which help provide a low level of radar and infrared signature.

Each of the aforementioned bays was designed to carry up to four K-77M beyond visual range radar-guided missions. In addition, the Su-57 can carry a pair of K-74M2 short-range infrared-guided missiles in underwing fairings, but at the expense of its stealth.

According to Air Force Technology, the Russian aircraft is also equipped with 3D thrust vector jets for higher maneuverability and is capable of developing supersonic cruising speed. The twin-engine fighter is powered by Izdeliye 117 or AL-41F1 augmented turbofans, and it can fly at a speed of up to Mach two without afterburners, while it can reach a range of up to 3,500km at subsonic speeds.

The Su-57 has been further noted to employ a powerful onboard computer – which has been described as an electronic second pilot – while its radar system is spread across its body. Its onboard avionics systems include active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar and ELINT systems.

Russia has further suggested that an upgraded and even more advanced model of the Su-57 could be in the works and that it would be the world's first in-service "sixth-generation" aircraft.

This was first noted in a November 2017 report from Russian state media outlet Tass, which cited Russian Aerospace Force ex-commander and Chairman of the Federation Council Defense and Security Committee Viktor Bondarev, who explained, "This is actually a splendid plane and it can embrace both fifth-and sixth-generation features. It has huge modernization potential. Importantly, it is the best among the existing versions of its stealth characteristics. It incorporates all the best that is available in modern aviation science both in Russia and in the world."

Yet, even as Russia continues to tout the aircraft, Western aviation experts have suggested the Su-57 is mostly hype – and that Moscow lacks the manufacturing capabilities even to produce the aircraft in significant numbers. That has been noted by the fact that the Su-57 first flew in January 2010 but didn't enter service until December 2020.

First conceptualized back in 2014 in a DARPA's Air Dominance Initiative study, the United States Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program is designed to achieve air superiority, yet, the NGAD shouldn't be seen as simply a single aircraft.

Last year, at the POLITICO Defense Summit, U.S. Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall explained that the manned NGAD aircraft will control the uncrewed fighters escorting it. A variety of multi-mission drones, which have been dubbed Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA), could act as loyal wingmen, while all of the aircraft could be networked together enhancing the situational awareness for the manned and unmanned craft alike.

Moreover, as previously reported by Maya Carlin, there are likely five different technologies that will be prioritized in the NGAD's fighter design including advanced weapons, stealth, digital design, propulsion, and thermal management. While sixth-generation technology has not been precisely defined, the features in the NGAD program are expected to exceed the capabilities of fifth-generation counterparts.

Therefore it would still seem like quite the leap that the Su-57, or any fifth-generation fighter for that matter, could be upgraded to a sixth-generation fighter so easily.

The next generation will likely include advanced digital capabilities, including highly-capable artificial intelligence (AI), data fusion, and battlefield, command, control, and communications (C3) capabilities; will be optionally manned; employ enhanced human-systems integration with virtual cockpits; advanced stealth airframes and avionics; advanced variable-cycle engines; increased-range stand-off and BVR (beyond visual range) weapons; and even be equipped with directed-energy weapons such as laser CIWS (close-in weapons systems).

Finally, some Western analysts have even suggested that Russia's Su-57 fighter has a design that is much closer to an advanced fourth-generation fighter than a true fifth-generation aircraft. 

Its stealth is nowhere near as effective as that of the F-22 Raptor or F-35 Lightning II. It may be less detectable than an F-15 Eagle or F-16 Fighting Falcon, but the Su-57 simply has a poor cross-section compared to its main fifth-generation rivals.

In conclusion, the Su-57 may be a very capable aircraft – even if Russia doesn't have all that many in service – but it simply can't be considered sixth-generation when it is barely a fifth-generation fighter.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu.

Summary: As tensions escalate between Beijing and Washington over the South China Sea and Taiwan, the battle for air superiority intensifies. The U.S., long a leader in aerial combat with the introduction of the F-22 Raptor, now faces competition from China's Chengdu J-20 and Russia's Sukhoi Su-57. The U.S.'s F-35 Lightning II is widely regarded as the most advanced fifth-generation fighter, combining stealth, speed, and advanced avionics.

-However, the U.S. Air Force is already looking ahead with its Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program, which aims to develop a sixth-generation fighter incorporating advanced weapons, AI technology, and unmanned aerial vehicles.

-Demonstrator NGAD aircraft are already airborne, with a contract expected in 2024, underscoring the need for cutting-edge air superiority in the current global threat climate.

Now that tensions between Beijing and Washington are ramping up over the South China Sea and Taiwan, the fight for air superiority between the two nations is at an all-time high.

For many years, the U.S. retained aerial might over its adversaries. When the F-22 Raptor was first introduced to the service, it became the world’s first-ever fifth-generation fighter platform. However, Moscow and Beijing pushed to modernize their respective aircraft capabilities around this time and ultimately developed their fifth-generation counterparts - the Chengdu J-20 and the Sukhoi Su-57. While America’s latest F-35 Lightening II fighter platform is widely considered to be the most formidable of its kind to take to the skies, the U.S. Air Force is already looking towards the future with its Next Generation Air Dominance program (NGAD). 

Although no explicit definition can be applied to fifth-generation airframes, experts and military experts alike generally agree that stealth characteristics are the foundation.

The leading fifth-generation airframes today combine precision attack capabilities, agility, speed and situational awareness with stealth.

The Lockheed Martin F-22 and F-35 Lightening II, in addition to China’s Chengdu J-20 and Russia’s Sukhoi Su-57, fall into this category.

Each of these fighters is considered lightyears ahead of preceding platforms, yet the F-35 stands out for its particular cutting-edge features. 

This article takes a look at what will separate the F-35 and NGAD, as many experts are now questioning if the U.S. Air Force needs a 6th generation fighter like NGAD. 

When the F-35 was well within its development phases in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the fighter incorporated new systems that were truly at the bleeding edge of combat aircraft design.

As the product of the Joint Strike Fighter program, the F-35 was developed to fulfill the specific needs of both the Navy and Air Force.

International partners notably participated in the JSF program, including the U.D., Italy, Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands.

By the late 1990s, both Lockheed Martin and manufacturing competitor Boeing were selected based on their concept demonstrator aircraft. Ultimately, Lockheed was selected as the winner, and the F-35 entered its development phase. 

The F-35 was designed to fly at speeds reaching Mach-1.6 (times the speed of sound), which is attainable with a full internal payload. With nearly double the internal fuel of its predecessor the F-16 Fighting Falcon, the Lightening II has a greater combat radius. Since the F-35 is highly armed, it is considerably heavier than the lightweight fighters that came before it. The lightest of the F-35 variants has an empty weight of just over 29,000 pounds.

Three main F-35 variants exist: the conventional takeoff and landing F-35A, the short take-off and vertical-landing F-35B and the carrier-based F-35C.

One of the most pivotal upgrades incorporated in the F-35 is advanced technology. Built on lessons learned from designing the Raptor program, the F-35 is equipped with sophisticated sensors and avionics components. The open architecture code installed in this platform enables continuous updates and improvements over time.

In addition to this top-notch avionics suite, the F-35 has an extremely low radar cross-section. 

While the F-35 will likely be dominating the skies for years to come, the Air Force is already working towards its next-generation strategy. First conceptualized back in 2014, the NGAD program is designed to achieve air superiority.

Five different technologies that will be prioritized in the fighter’s design are advanced weapons, stealth, digital design, propulsion and thermal management.

While sixth-generation technology has not been precisely defined, the features in the NGAD program are expected to exceed the capabilities of fifth-generation counterparts. 

Significantly, AI technology and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) will be incorporated into the NGAD. These collective combat aircraft are expected to fly alongside a sixth-generation fighter jet. The concept of moving away from the idea that fighters have to be a single, crewed aircraft is also being toyed with in Beijing. While the U.S. became the first country to introduce a fifth-generation airframe to the playing field, it won’t necessarily be the first to get a sixth-generation successor out front first. 

The Air Force has indicated that demonstrator NGAD aircraft are already airborne and that within a year a contract could be awarded to start its official development.

As posted in Breaking Defense: “The Department of the Air Force released a classified solicitation to industry for an Engineering and Manufacturing Development contract for the Next Generation Air Dominance Platform with the intent to award a contract in 2024,” adding that “This solicitation release formally begins the source selection process providing industry with the requirements the DAF expects for NGAD, as the future replacement of the F-22.”

Considering the current threat climate, the introduction of the military’s new-generation fighter program is essential to preserving America’s dominant aerial capabilities.

Maya Carlin is an analyst with the Center for Security Policy and a former Anna Sobol Levy Fellow at IDC Herzliya in Israel. She has by-lines in many publications, including The National Interest, Jerusalem Post, and Times of Israel. You can follow her on Twitter: @MayaCarlin. 

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary: The USS New Jersey (BB-62), a former United States Navy Iowa-class battleship from World War II, will return to its home in Camden, New Jersey, after spending the spring in drydock at the Philadelphia Naval Yard for extensive maintenance.

-The historic battleship, currently serving as a museum ship, underwent its first dry docking in over thirty years for crucial hull repairs.

-The vessel is scheduled to leave Philadelphia on June 14, with a brief stop in Paulsboro before its grand homecoming celebration on June 20. Despite delays, the USS New Jersey will be back in time for Fourth of July celebrations, ensuring the preservation of this significant piece of naval history.

The former United States Navy's World War II Iowa-class battleship USS New Jersey (BB-62) spent much of the spring in drydock undergoing maintenance at the Philadelphia Naval Yard, but in a few weeks time, the historic warship will be back home in the Garden State.

Officials at the Battleship New Jersey Museum & Memorial announced late last week that preparations are underway for a June 20 homecoming celebration for the battle wagon. The vessel is now scheduled to depart Philadelphia on June 14, and the "Big J" will dock in Paulsboro for six days before making a triumphant return to Camden.

The historic warship, which opened as a museum ship on Oct. 15, 2001, had spent decades in the water and was in need of a major restoration. This marked the battleship's first dry docking in more than three decades, and efforts to preserve the ship focused on hull repairs.

In March, USS New Jersey was carefully guided down the Delaware River en route to the North Atlantic Ship Repair facility at the Philadelphia Navy Yard, back to the very berth where it was built and subsequently launched on December 7, 1942.

The original plan to preserve the 80-year-old, 887-foot-long, 45,000-ton vessel called for the repairs to be completed in time for Memorial Day. However, the museum and memorial's newly-titled CEO Marshall Spevak told the Courier-Post newspaper last month that work has taken longer than expected as unexpected issues were discovered during the restoration. That included the welding of a steel ring around the outward propeller shafts as part of an effort to prevent future leaks, while ultrasonic tests were conducted to determine the thickness of the steel hull. The biggest task was the application of around 18,000 linear feet of sealant to further stop corrosion and future leaks – and more importantly to ensure that the elements won't win and sink this battleship!

The ship will now be back in time for the Fourth of July celebrations.

"We'll be leaving the Philadelphia Navy Yard on June 14," Spevak told WHYY. "We'll be heading to Paulsboro for a quick pit stop as we did on the way down here. And then on June 20, we’ll be leaving Paulsboro and traveling the six miles upriver underneath the Walt Whitman Bridge again and back to our home court in Camden."

The stopover is needed to remove water in the ballast tanks.

"When we stopped there on the way on the way down to the dry dock, we actually put about almost 500,000 gallons of water in the forward tanks in order to even out the ship," Spevak added. "What we'll be doing when we return is taking that water off. So we'll de-water about 500,000 gallons from the forward tanks at Paulsboro. And then after that, that’s when we'll be ready to return back to Camden."

The USS New Jersey is the only Iowa-class battleship to be maintained as a museum in her namesake state. Three locations were originally determined to be suitable for the warship, including Bayonne, Jersey City, and Camden.

Several factors came into play – notably the fact that the vessel was already undergoing the necessary preparation in Philadelphia, which was just across the Delaware River from Camden. However, after Jersey City opted not to submit a proposal, Bayonne became the frontrunner and was selected as the site for the museum.

In the end, it was decided that Bayonne was too close to New York City, which was home to the USS Intrepid (CV-11), as the U.S. Navy feared the battleship would overshadow the carrier. In the end, it was decided that Camden would be the future home for the Big J – and perhaps fittingly, BB-62's home is across the river from the Independence Seaport Museum, the home of the protected cruiser USS Olympia (C-6), the oldest remaining steel ship afloat.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu.

You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

The main image is from Creative Commons. All others are from the National Interest via Ethan Saunders on seen at the USS New Jersey. 

Summary: The U.S. Navy relies on aircraft carriers for force projection, protecting sea lanes, and supporting ground operations. Carriers have been crucial since WWII, but their role is threatened by advancements in adversary anti-ship weapons.

-Critics argue that large, expensive supercarriers are vulnerable and suggest a shift to more numerous, smaller, conventionally-powered flattops for greater flexibility and reduced costs.

-Despite these challenges, aircraft carriers remain vital to the Navy's 21st-century operations, much like tanks for the Army or bombers for the Air Force.

A recent hypothetical raised on some discussion boards was whether the United States Navy could exist without aircraft carriers. There were numerous considerations – including whether the smaller Amphibious Assault Ships should be counted as carriers.

Yet, the simplest answer is that from its founding on October 13, 1775, until March 1922, when USS Langley (CV-1) was commissioned, the sea service had no aircraft carriers in service. In other words, for nearly its first 150 years of existence, the U.S. Navy got by without any flattops – but that answer is being a bit cheeky, as of course until the early 20th century there were no heavier-than-air aircraft in military service (or even in existence), so it was a moot point.

Thus, the question is really about whether the carrier has a place in the modern 21st-century U.S. Navy. The answer is a bit more complicated.

Aircraft carriers are about force projection around the globe, so the short answer is that the United States Navy remains committed to the floating airfields.

"The United States is a maritime nation, and the U.S. Navy protects America at sea. Alongside our allies and partners, we defend freedom, preserve economic prosperity, and keep the seas open and free. Our nation is engaged in long-term competition. To defend American interests around the globe, the U.S. Navy must remain prepared to execute our timeless role, as directed by Congress and the President," the sea service explains concisely but to the point in its mission statement.

Although it doesn't specify how the U.S. Navy should execute that role, since the Second World War, carriers have played a vital role – replacing the battleship as the core of the fleet. Yet, as the U.S. Naval Institute noted in a 2018 report, the role the carrier now plays has narrowed considerably. It stated, "The centerpiece of U.S. power projection has been the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, a hugely expensive but immensely flexible asset that can conduct almost every naval role imaginable."

The argument against large supercarriers – one emphasized by the U.S. Naval Institute and others – is that near-peer adversaries including (but certainly not limited to) China have made great strides in developing so-called "carrier killer" weapons, including anti-ship missiles that can strike targets from hundreds of miles away. Moreover, efforts to develop nuclear-armed drones, hypersonic weapons, stealth aircraft, and even small unmanned aerial systems (UAS) all pose a serious threat to the flattop in the 21st century.

It is also true that the United States Air Force has shown that its long-range strategic bombers are more than capable of conducting CONUS-to-CONUS missions, while the U.S. military maintains bases worldwide.

However, while carriers are vulnerable to a plethora of weapons, and long-range bombers can strike targets around the world, the carrier remains vital in supporting ground operations on distant shores – while the deployment of the Nimitz-class nuclear-powered supercarrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) to protect commercial shipping in the Red Sea has proven, a U.S. Navy carrier strike group (CSG) can both defend the waterways and then launch strikes on enemy positions with near impunity.

The real question isn't whether the U.S. Navy needs aircraft carriers, but whether it needs 11 nuclear-powered supercarriers that make for large tempting targets. The answer may be a return to more numerous and less costly smaller conventionally-powered flattops. In addition to costing less to produce, these would be easier to retire and scrap at the end of their services lives. Disposing of nuclear-powered carriers remains an expensive proposition!

More importantly, in large operations multiple warships could be employed together – and such deployments could allow for greater flexibility.

All things considered, it is impossible to think that the United States Navy could exist in the 21st century without a fleet of aircraft carriers. It would be like asking whether the U.S. Army can operate without tanks, or the U.S. Air Force without bombers. It is possible that someday smaller unmanned platforms will replace the bombers, the tanks, and yes, even the carriers – but that isn't today. 

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

All images are Creative Commons. 

Editor’s Note: The following article is adapted from the introduction to The New Line Institute for Strategy and Policy’s recently published report “Genocide in Tigray: Serious Breaches of International Law and Paths to Accountability” with the permission of the New Lines Institute.

Measured by the estimated number of deaths, the Tigray War in Ethiopia could be the deadliest armed conflict of the twenty-first century and one of the bloodiest since the end of the Cold War. From its outbreak in 2020 to the official ceasefire in 2022, the civil conflict claimed the lives of up to 400,000 soldiers and 300,000 civilians.

Despite the intense human suffering, this “forgotten” war has not garnered the international attention it desperately needs. There is an unfortunate sense in which the world is too ready to move on after its initial efforts. The International Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia dissolved before concluding its work. The United States, despite recognizing more than half a million deaths in the region and that crimes against humanity and war crimes had been committed there has restored financial and economic assistance to the status quo ante bellum. Similarly, the EU has returned to its $680 million development strategy with the nation despite a lack of accountability for the widespread abuses in the region.

The consequence has been that international efforts to verify serious breaches of international law have not been followed through or adequately supported. Victims will carry with them scarring and abuse from a conflict that, despite an apparent cessation of hostilities in 2022, did not result in a stable peace. Innocent lives continue to be lost, and many millions continue to face food insecurity resulting from military campaigns. More time must be given not only to investigate and, as needed, provide accountability for the blockade on humanitarian aid that contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Tigrayans but also to investigate and provide accountability for the widely-reported mass murder, rape, forced displacement, physical abuse, and torture which took place, as well as the targeting of key civilian infrastructure such as the healthcare system.

The New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy today published a new groundbreaking report on “Genocide in Tigray: Serious Breaches of International Law and Paths to Accountability” with an aim to fill this vacuum by informing stakeholders of the sheer scale and variety of the alleged criminal conduct; providing a legal analysis of the relevant allegations through the particular lens of the Genocide Convention and describing pathways to accountability which should be adopted, including measures at both the national and international levels.

The report was prepared by a group of international law professionals with expertise in fields including international human rights law and international criminal law. While several other reports have reached similar conclusions concerning some of the key factual allegations, the New Lines Institute report is the first to relate these allegations directly to the Genocide Convention and to call for action accordingly.

While the report finds that there is a reasonable basis to believe that all sides committed war crimes in the course of the conflict, Ethiopian and allied forces—specifically, members of the Ethiopian National Defense Force, the Eritrean Defense Forces, and the Amhara Special Forces, among other groups—also appear to have committed crimes against humanity against Tigrayans, as well as acts of genocide.

These acts of genocide include killings, the infliction of serious bodily and mental harm, intentional measures to prevent births, and the deliberate infliction of conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of Tigrayans. The report finds, furthermore, that certain individuals also appear to have made statements amounting to direct and public incitement to commit genocide.

Irrespective of whether this apparent conduct by the Ethiopian and allied forces was committed as part of a plan or whether it was supported at senior levels, Ethiopia was obliged as a state party to the Genocide Convention to take effective action to prevent the commission of genocidal acts and to punish such acts if they occurred.

As a consequence, the international community is compelled to act, including potentially by states instituting proceedings before the International Court of Justice under Article IX of the Genocide Convention. The international community should also take steps to secure an international, impartial, and independent criminal investigation, exercise universal jurisdiction where practicable, and thus ensure that justice for the numerous human rights violations is finally done in Tigray.

Dr. Azeem Ibrahim OBE is the Senior Director of Special Initiatives at the New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy in Washington, DC. The New Lines Institute report “Genocide in Tigray: Serious Breaches of International Law and Paths to Accountability” can be accessed here.

Image: Rudi Ernst / Shutterstock.com

Summary: The U.S. Army has received its first M10 Booker combat vehicles from General Dynamics Land Systems, entering low-rate initial production. The new weapons platform would certainly give nations like Russia trouble on any battlefield. 

-Named after two fallen American soldiers, the M10 Booker is designed to enhance the Army's firepower and maneuverability.

-Testing at Fort Liberty, NC, and Fort Stewart, GA, will assess its performance in various conditions.

-The Army plans to acquire 504 units, each costing between $12 million and $14 million, with full-rate production expected to begin next year.

The United States Army's new assault vehicle is charging forward. Last month, General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) announced that it delivered the first M10 Booker Combat Vehicles to the Army, as it reached low-rate initial production (LRIP).

"The M10 Booker is named after two American heroes who gave their lives in service to their country, and we are honored to design, build and deliver these vehicles to the Army," said Gordon Stein, General Dynamics Land Systems vice president and general manager for U.S. operations in a May 15, 2024 statement. "These latest Bookers incorporate improvements and lessons we learned from the Middle Tier Acquisition phase of the program, and we’re confident that Soldiers will find them highly useful in completing their missions."

The LRIP will support the U.S. Army's testing and logistic efforts, which will determine any modifications that may need to be made to the platform. Breaking Defense reported that the initial units will be sent to Fort Liberty, North Carolina, and put to the tests later this summer with the 82nd Airborne Division before some of the M10s then head to Fort Stewart, Georgia for additional gunnery training and testing.

"We will also put the vehicle through production qualification and testing in desert, arctic, temperate and tropical conditions, challenging it with obstacles like gaps and walls to scale, and engaging it with real word threats to ensure its survivability," said Maj. Gen. Glenn Dean, program executive officer for Ground Combat Systems, in an April U.S. Army press release.

Early next year, the Booker will then head to an Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) event to finalize any near-term and long-term modifications that GDLS will need to make. That will move the program forward, with the tracked vehicle on track to reach a full-rate production contract that could be awarded in the second quarter of next year.

Citing budget requests, Breaking Defense further reported that the U.S. Army eyes acquiring 504 M10 Bookers, with the initial vehicles costing between $12 million and $14 million.

Originally initiated as the Mobile Protected Firepower Vehicle (MPFV), it was officially designated the M10 last year – while it honors two different soldiers named Booker.

The first was Medal of Honor recipient Private Robert Booker of the 133rd Infantry Regiment, 34th Infantry Division, who was killed on April 9, 1943, near Fondouk, Tunisia, during the Second World War; while the latter was tank commander and Distinguished Service Cross recipient Staff Sergeant Stevon Booker, Company A, 1st Battalion, 64th Armored Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, who was killed in April 5, 2003, during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

"The Army is undertaking its most significant transformation in several decades to dominate in large-scale combat operations in a multidomain environment, and the M10 Booker is a crucial part of that transformation," added Doug Bush, the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology, in the April release.

The GDLS prototype beat out a design from BAE Systems in 2022. It is the first major combat vehicle developed for the U.S. Army since the late stages of the Cold War in the 1980s. The finalized M10 Booker is operated by a crew of four, including a commander, a driver, a gunner, and a loader.

Its main armament is the XM35 105mm cannon, while it is also armed with a 7.62mm coaxial machine gun, .50 caliber M2 commander's machine gun, and is further equipped with the Abrams primary weapon sight, smoke grenade launchers, blowoff panels, and an automatic fire suppression system. Those features are intended to increase the survivability against both direct and indirect fire, including from rocket-propelled grenades and improvised explosive devices (IEDs). The M10 can reach a top speed of 40 miles per hour, while two Bookers can be transported on the C-17 cargo plane.

It is now undergoing testing and will soon allow soldiers to move at a faster pace, and protect an assault force in a variety of terrains.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

Summary: The U.S. Air Force's B-1B Lancer and the Soviet Tu-160 "Blackjack" are among the largest, fastest bombers, but they were designed with different philosophies.

-The B-1B, intended for low-level penetration to avoid radar, has been adapted for tactical support roles. Conversely, the Tu-160, designed for high-speed, high-altitude missions, has a greater takeoff weight but less payload diversity.

-Both aircraft have been modernized: the B-1B for supporting roles and the Tu-160M as a stopgap until Russia's PAK-DA stealth bomber is operational.

The U.S. Air Force’s B-1B Lancer “Bone” and the Tu-160 “Blackjack” of Soviet manufacture are known for being some of the largest, fastest bombers ever. 

At first glance, they appear nearly identical. Closer inspection, however, reveals that while the design considerations and technology available at the time of their creation meant they looked quite alike, the two aircraft were designed with different philosophies in mind. 

The B-1B was conceived in the 1960s as an attempt to marry the range and payload of the B-52 with the speed of the B-58. Technology had improved throughout the 1950s, and the U.S. Air Force recognized that speed and altitude were no longer the only safe defense for strategic bombers. 

Interceptor aircraft were long the only available tool able to attack bombers, and they could not match the high ceilings and top speeds of aircraft like the XB-70 Valkyrie. But then surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) were introduced. The shootdown of Gary Powers’ U-2 in 1960 by a SAM caused the Air Force to rethink its bombing doctrine, swapping high-altitude penetration for low-level ingress.

Flying at low level allows aircraft to take advantage of terrain masking. It breaks line of sight to the radar station, which struggles to get a return on the aircraft. Radar at the time was limited by ground clutter – false returns off of objects on the ground that rendered them useless below a certain elevation. 

For aircraft like the Valkyrie that were optimized for high-altitude flight, though, operations in the thick air down low made them inefficient and ineffective. 

The Department of Defense in the 1960s commissioned multiple studies on the feasibility and potential design of a low-altitude penetrator. Rockwell was awarded the B-1A development contract in 1970 and ultimately produced a variable-wing bomber capable of extended operations at low speeds, around Mach 0.85, but able to make a high-speed Mach 2.0 “dash” past Soviet defenses. 

Work continued throughout the 1970s, but the B-1A was canceled in 1977 due to improvements in ballistic and cruise missiles, as well as the forthcoming B-2 Spirit stealth bomber, which rendered the B-1A obsolete. 

In 1981, President Ronald Reagan revived the program. Returning as the B-1B, it was now intended to bridge the gap between the aging B-52 fleet and the B-2, which faced delays. 

Around the same time, the Soviet Union was finalizing plans for its supersonic strategic bomber. It too had begun work as early as the 1960s, but it was ultimately the revival of the B-1 program that prompted Soviet planners to begin production of the Tu-160.

Like the Bone, the Blackjack features variable geometry or “swing” wings, giving it better performance across the range of its flight envelope. It is much larger than its counterpart: 30 feet longer and with a takeoff weight 130,000 lbs greater.

Unlike the B-1B, the Tu-160 was never designed as a low-level bomber. Its top speed of Mach 2.0 far outstrips the Mach 1.25 of the B-1B, whose top speed was reduced as part of cost-cutting measures when the program was revived in the 1980s. 

Furthermore, while it does have a greater takeoff weight, the Tu-160’s payload capability is less diverse, as it only has two bomb bays with rotating launcher racks. The Bone has three bomb bays as well as optional pylons. It can also be fitted with a sniper targeting pod for air support missions. 

While the B-1B spent the 1990s and 2000s being modified into more of a support bomber, the Tu-160 has seen a revival of its own with the Tu-160M program. These bombers have upgraded airframes and avionics and give a major boost to the Russian long-range air fleet. Much as happened decades ago to the B-1B, the Tu-160M was approved in part as a stopgap measure until the PAK-DA stealth bomber is ready.

While the B-1B’s orientation changed over its lifetime toward more of a tactical support bombing role, advances in adversary air defenses mean it will most likely be limited to firing stand-off weapons and air-launched cruise missiles in any future conflict. In doing so, it will be carrying out the same mission as the Tu-160.

Maya Carlin, National Security Writer with The National Interest, is an analyst with the Center for Security Policy and a former Anna Sobol Levy Fellow at IDC Herzliya in Israel. She has by-lines in many publications, including The National Interest, Jerusalem Post, and Times of Israel. You can follow her on Twitter: @MayaCarlin. Email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

Summary: The U.S. Army accepted delivery of the M10 Booker combat vehicle in April, marking the occasion with a christening ceremony.

-Designed to enhance infantry brigades, the M10 Booker provides advanced lethality and protection.

-Only three units have been delivered so far, with comprehensive testing to follow.

-This includes evaluations in diverse environments and real-world obstacles.

-The vehicle, resulting from the Army's rapid acquisition pathway, is expected to be operational by summer 2025.

-Although it resembles a tank, the Army refers to it as a "combat vehicle," sparking debate among enthusiasts.

The U.S. Army in April accepted delivery of its newest combat vehicle, the M10 Booker. To commemorate the moment, the Army held a christening ceremony on April 18 at the Aberdeen Proving Ground. 

“The M10 Booker represents a new modernized capability for the Army, allowing light maneuvers forces to overmatch adversaries,” the Army said in a statement.

So far, just three M10 Bookers have been delivered to the Army. The new vehicle is expected to supplement the precision firepower of infantry brigades. The Army boasts that the M10 “without a doubt brings a new level of lethality and protection to our infantry forces and will allow our infantry soldiers to gain and maintain the speed and momentum that is critical on the modern battlefield.”

Doug Bush, the Army’s assistant secretary for acquisition, logistics, and technology, heralded the M10 with non-specific platitudes: “The Army is undertaking the most significant transformation in several decades to dominate in large-scale combat operations in a multidomain environment, and the M10 Booker is a crucial part of that transformation.”

For two years, the Army will exhaustively test the new M10 Booker. Testing will include high-volume firing and long-distance driving – all to better understand the vehicle’s reliability and durability. 

The M10 Booker will also be tested for effectiveness in different environments – specifically in desert, arctic, temperate, and tropical conditions. The M10 Booker will also test against real-world obstacles like gaps and walls, to see how well the vehicle will perform in the field, where any sort of battleground obstruction is possible.

The 82nd Airborne Division will be responsible for testing the M10 Booker for the next few months, with the hopes that an operational company outfitted with the vehicle will be ready for service in the summer of 2025.

The M10 Booker is the result of the Army’s Middle Tier of Acquisition pathway, which is used to develop “fieldable prototypes” and “production quantities” rapidly. According to the Army, the “M10 Booker is a benchmark modernization program, as the acquisition and requirement communities worked together to move this system into production in just under four years.”

There is debate over what exactly the new platform is. The vehicle looks like a tank – yet the Army has been reluctant to call the thing a tank. Doug Bush, for example, called the M10 a “combat vehicle” and refused to enter the “esoteric and borderline religious debate among the armored community about what [the word tank] means.”

Bush’s comments were not entirely well received. An online community of tank enthusiasts took one look at the M10, which features armor, a pivoting gun turret, and tracks, and said you could call the M10 whatever you want, but the thing is obviously a tank.

Military Times weighed in last June with a headline suggesting that the M10 is a tank: “The Army’s M10 Booker is a tank. Prove us wrong.”

What do you think?

Harrison Kass is a defense and national security writer with over 1,000 total pieces on issues involving global affairs. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, Harrison joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison holds a BA from Lake Forest College, a JD from the University of Oregon, and an MA from New York University. Harrison listens to Dokken.

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary: Russian forces are set to enhance their aerial capabilities with increased production of Su-35 and Su-57 fighter jets from the Komsomolsk-on-Amur plant.

-Despite these additions, the Su-35, a modernized version of the Su-27 Flanker, has faced significant losses in the Ukraine conflict, particularly against Western-supplied air defense systems like the Patriot missiles.

-The Su-35 boasts advanced features and weaponry but has struggled to maintain superiority in combat.

-With nearly 350 Russian aircraft reportedly lost since the invasion began, the sustainability of Russia’s air force remains in question.

According to reports from the Komsomolsk-on-Amur plant, a steady uptick in the production of Su-35 and Su-57 fighters will bolster the Russian Aerospace Forces’ capabilities. While extra airframes will certainly help replenish Moscow’s hard-hit fleet amid its invasion of Ukraine, Su-35s have not performed well in the conflict. Armed with sophisticated Western-delivered weaponry, Ukrainian forces have shot down many of these Soviet-era fighters. 

The Ukrainian Defense Ministry announced that its forces had shot down at least seven Sukhoi glide-bombers earlier this year using American-made Patriot missiles. The Kremlin takes every chance it gets to tout its “fourth generation ++” fighters as superior jets, but they have yet to prove that title.

Moscow’s twin-engine supermaneuverable Su-35 platform is an evolution of the Soviet Su-27 Flanker. The Soviet planners who oversaw the program wanted a new fighter capable of going up against American fourth-generation jets like the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle and Northrop Grumman F-14 Tomcat. 

The first Su-35 prototype (initially known as the Su-27M) took its maiden flight in the early 1980s. As the platform progressed over the years, NATO gave it the moniker “Flanker-E.” Manufacturer United Aircraft Corporation describes the Su-35 as an airframe that “combines the qualities of a modern fighter (super-maneuverability, superior active and passive acquisition aids, high supersonic speed and long range, capability of managing battle group actions, etc.) and a good tactical airplane (wide range of weapons that can be carried, modern multi-channel electronic warfare system, reduced radar signature, and high combat survivability).”

Equipped with a dozen hardpoints for carrying external weapons and stores, the Flanker-E is a well armed platform. The fighter can carry a range of air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles, including the Vympel R-27, Molniya Kh-29, and the long-range Kh-58UShE. The Su-35 can launch the KAB-500Kr, KAB-1500Kr TV, and the KAB-1500LG laser-guided bomb. As detailed by Airforce Technology, the Russian platform also features countermeasures like a jammer and a radar warning system, and the Gryazev-Shipunov 30mm GSh-30-1 gun. 

Considering these specs and capabilities, the Flanker-E certainly should not be underestimated. However, these jets have suffered greatly in Ukraine. They are vulnerable to many Western air defense systems. In February alone, Moscow lost at least six of its 120 Su-35 airframes. According to Forbes, the rate at which Russia is losing its Flanker-E jets is “accelerating” and becoming “unsustainable.” 

Ukraine’s supply of Patriot missiles is not infinite, though, so the country’s defense against Russian airframes might diminish down the line. 

The Flanker-E is not the only Russian fighter struggling in the ongoing invasion. The General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine has claimed the destruction of nearly 350 Russian aircraft since the war began back in February 2022. While this number cannot be exactly verified, documentation and footage suggest that Russia’s aerial fleet has shrunk significantly. 

Maya Carlin, National Security Writer with The National Interest, is an analyst with the Center for Security Policy and a former Anna Sobol Levy Fellow at IDC Herzliya in Israel. She has by-lines in many publications, including The National Interest, Jerusalem Post, and Times of Israel. You can follow her on Twitter: @MayaCarlin. 

All images are from Shutterstock. 

Summary: The USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69), the U.S. Navy’s second-oldest nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, will remain in the Red Sea for an additional month to protect commercial shipping.

-Originally deployed in October 2023, the carrier and its strike group, including the guided-missile cruiser USS Philippine Sea and destroyers USS Mason and USS Gravely, have conducted operations in the region under the U.S. 5th Fleet.

-The extension follows recent Houthi rebel attacks on commercial vessels in the area.

The United States Navy's second-oldest nuclear-powered aircraft carrier will remain deployed in the Red Sea to protect commercial shipping in the region for at least another month. Late last month, United States Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin extended the deployment of Nimitz-class supercarrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) and her strike group.

CVN-69 recently returned to the Red Sea after a brief deployment to the Eastern Mediterranean. The carrier and units of her carrier strike group (IKECSG) – including the Flight II Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Philippine Sea (CG-58), and the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers USS Mason (DDG-87) and USS Gravely (DDG-107) – departed their homeports of Norfolk, Virginia, and Mayport, Florida, on Oct. 13 & 14.

The carrier strike group consists of approximately 6,000 sailors.

IKECSG initially arrived in the region as part of a scheduled deployment to the region, but since last fall conducted operations as part of the U.S. 5th Fleet in the Red Sea, Bab Al-Mandeb Strait, Gulf of Aden, and Arabian Gulf including Operation Prosperity Guardian and self-defensive strikes into Iranian-backed Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen.

The Associated Press reported on Friday that a normal warship deployment averages around seven months, which was reached in the middle of May. However, Secretary Austin previously approved the first order to extend the deployment of the carrier strike group about four weeks ago. The news wire also noted that about 12% of the world's trade passes through the waters of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, which first have came attack last November.

Yemen's Houthi rebels have targeted commercial vessels, claiming it is in response to Israel's ongoing offensive in Gaza. However, most of the cargo ships targeted by the Iranian-back group have little to no connection with Israel, the United States, or its partners.

The Houthis have alleged twice in recent days that they have targeted USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and her escorts with drones and missiles, and made the dubious claim that they achieved multiple "direct hits" on the carrier and a destroyer. The United States Central Command (CENTCOM) has not addressed the Houthi claims directly, but said via a statement that it had shot down multiple Houthi munitions.

CVN-69 will continue to operate in waters that should be familiar to the vessel if not the entire crew. As previously reported the ship's first deployment – dubbed Operation Eagle Claw – was during the 1980 Iran hostage crisis, and it operated in the region. One of the carrier's most notable deployments also took place during Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, during which she became the second nuclear-powered carrier ever to transit the Suez Canal.

CVN-69 has been deployed for more than 200 days as of the beginning of May, and will now remain in the Red Sea a bit longer.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Summary: The XB-70 was designed to be larger and faster than the B-52. It was 196 feet long, 31 feet tall at the tail, with a 105-foot wingspan, and powered by six turbojet engines.

-It could reach speeds of Mach 3.1 and fly at altitudes over 70,000 feet.

-A sleek, futuristic-looking bomber jet with a large delta wing design, six turbojet engines in a cluster underneath the fuselage, and a length of 196 feet.

-The aircraft is seen in flight, showcasing its impressive wingspan and powerful engines, against a backdrop of a clear blue sky at high altitude.

The six-engined XB-70 Valkyrie was designed for the United States Air Force during the Cold War to be capable of cruising for thousands of miles at Mach 3+ while flying at 70,000 feet (21,000 m) – and essentially immune to interceptor aircraft.

The sole surviving prototype is now maintained in the collection of the National Museum of the United States Air Force at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (AFB), Dayton, Ohio. While it hasn't flown since it arrived at the base on February 4, 1969, the massive aircraft was moved out of the museum's Research & Development Gallery last month for a good cleaning!

Here are some high flying facts about the North American XB-70 Valkyrie:

The United States Air Force envisioned the need for a larger and faster aircraft than the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress. North American Aviation (NAA) beat out Boeing during the design phase, and in 1958, it was awarded a development contract to develop a bomber that could fly at high altitudes at speeds of Mach 3 and would be capable of carrying nuclear and conventional weapons.

The XB-70 had a length of 196 feet, a height at the tail of 31 feet, and an estimated maximum gross weight of 521,000 pounds. Its delta wing had a span of 105 feet with six turbojet engines side by side in a large pod underneath the fuselage. As initially planned, the XB-70A – which was powered by six General Electric YJ93s of 30,000 lbs. thrust each with afterburner – was to have a maximum speed of Mach 3.1 (2,056 miles per hour, or 3,309 kilometers per hour).

The XB-70 met the Strategic Air Command (SAC) goals and was designed to fly at Mach 3 – three times the speed of sound – and higher than 70,000 feet (21,000 kilometers). According to the Federation of American Scientists, the concept called for the entire mission (including return) to be flown at Mach 3. While it could outrun any interceptor, it was vulnerable to Surface-to-Air Missiles (SAMs) of the 1960s vintage.

The issue was "Its straight and level trajectory would have been an easy course to plot and intercept," FAS warned "Further, the technology that made Mach 3 possible yielded an airframe with a large RCS that added to the effectiveness of SAMs against the XB-70.

According to an Air Force Times article published on New Year's Day in 1960, "Valkyrie" was selected following a SAC naming contest. More than 20,000 entries were submitted.

As previously reported, "The Valkyrie were maidens of extreme beauty, who ranged the heavens on their steeds, choosing those who were to die in battle and bearing the fallen heroes back to Valhalla." It was thus a fitting name for the aircraft!

The XB-70 was both ahead of its time, but also too late. As noted, it would have been vulnerable to SAMs, while less costly, nuclear-armed ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles) were also beginning to enter service. The XB-70 design offered payload flexibility but not mission flexibility – and while there were considerations to employ it as a reconnaissance aircraft with a bomber strike capability, as the RS-70, it was determined it wouldn't be ideal in either role. The Air Force already has the far superior SR-71 Blackbird filling the reconnaissance role!

As noted by the National Museum of the United States Air Force, while the program was canceled, two prototypes (AV-1 and AV-2) were ordered and employed as test vehicles – carrying out 129 flights between 1964 and 1969. Those flights generated a plethora of data on large supersonic aircraft. However, AV-2 was lost in June 1966 after an F-104 collided with the prototype XB-70 in mid-air, killing the F-104 pilot Joe Walker of NASA and XB-70 copilot Major Carl Cross of the Air Force, while North American pilot Al White was able to eject but as badly injured in the incident.

Less than three years later, the surviving prototype was flown to the Air Force Museum – later renamed the National Museum of the United States Air Force – where it is now on display, and following the recent cleaning, looking better than ever!

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary: The Dassault Rafale fighter jets from the Indian Air Force (IAF) will participate in Red Flag-Alaska 24-2, training with and against U.S. F-16 and F-35 fighters.

-This exercise allows the IAF to evaluate the Rafale against advanced aircraft, particularly as the F-35 simulates the Chinese J-20's capabilities.

-The training, involving over 100 aircraft and 3100 personnel, aims to enhance interoperability and combat readiness in a realistic threat environment, crucial given current India-China tensions.

The French-made Dassault Rafale will soon go head-to-head against the American-made F-16 Fighting Falcon and F-35 Lightning II in the skies over Alaska as part of this month's Red Flag-AK 24-2, which runs through June 14. Eight of the Rafale fighter jets, operated by the Indian Air Force (IAF), landed at Eielson Air Force Base (AFB), Alaska, last week – where they will take part in simulated dogfights with the American combat aircraft.

However, this is really about highlight the capabilities of the Dassault Rafale and how it can stand up to the most advanced aircraft operated by China.

"The exercise includes simulated dogfights between the Rafale and the American F-35 stealth fighter, the latter standing in for the Chinese J-20," Defence.in reported. "The J-20, a fifth-generation fighter frequently deployed by China along its disputed border with India, is a key concern for the IAF. The simulation allows Indian pilots to gain valuable experience against an aircraft with similar capabilities, enhancing their preparedness for potential real-world scenarios."

The F-35 and J-20 do have stark differences, with the former serving as a multirole fighter capable of ground attacks, while the latter was designed with air superiority in mind – yet the exercises will still enable the IAF to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the Rafale against a fifth-generation fighter.

According the United States Pacific Air Forces, "approximately 3100 service members are expected to fly, maintain and support more than 100 aircraft from 4 nations scheduled to participate in Red Flag-Alaska 24-2," while primary flight operations will take part in a realistic threat environment over the more than 77,000 square miles of airspace in the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex, the largest combat training range in the world. The United States Air Force has conducted the Red Flag exercises with allies and partner nations since 1975, and the IAF first took part in 2008.

"Red Flag-Alaska is designed to provide realistic training in a simulated combat environment enabling joint combined forces to exchange tactics, techniques and procedures while improving interoperability with fellow servicemembers," PAF added. "Red Flag-Alaska training spans from individual skills to complex, large-scale joint engagements."

The IAF's participation comes as tensions remain high between New Delhi and Beijing.

The Dassault Rafale – which means literally "gust of wind," or "burst of fire" in a more military sense – was developed as an "omnirole" fighter, meaning that it would replace seven types of combat aircraft in operation at the time of its development.

The new aircraft – originally conceived for the French Air Force and French Navy – was designed to carry out a wide range of missions, including air-defense/air-superiority, anti-access/area denial, reconnaissance, close air support, dynamic targeting, air-to-ground precision strike/interdiction, anti-ship attacks, nuclear deterrence, and even buddy-buddy refueling. It is slated to be the French armed forces’ prime combat aircraft until at least 2050, and has found favor with the IAF.

The fourth-generation combat aircraft utilizes a quadruple-redundant fly-by-wire system that provides for longitudinal stability and superior handling performance across three digital channels and one separately designed analog channel. The close-coupled/delta wing configuration ensures that the Rafale remains agile even at high angles of attack. The airframe radar cross-section is minimized by using appropriate materials and mold lines, including serrated edges to the trailing edge of the wings and canards.

It will now be put to the test against the very best multirole fighter in the world – and if he can hold its own that should only serve to make Beijing worry.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

All images are Creative Commons. 

A recent Bloomberg article reported: “Hong Kong is turning to oil-rich Saudi Arabia for new funds to help offset a growing list of challenges facing its stock market.” That is quite an understatement for what was once one of the freest, cleanest financial capitals in the world. 

The reality is grimmer than the story suggests. Hong Kong may soon climb the ignominious list of finance centers that depend on laundered funds as more legitimate capital flees to locales that have not shed the rule of law. 

Saudi funds are the least of the city’s problems (and an unlikely salvation for the ailing city). More suspect are funds from places like Russia or elsewhere that legitimate bankers avoid. In April, Reuters reported that Hong Kong was among the transit points for Russian firms attempting to pay Chinese companies while evading Western sanctions related to the Ukraine War. Also mentioned were legal entities in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan that are friendly to Russia and convenient for Russia-related business activities—not great company. 

Hong Kong’s fall from grace has been steep. The city was once a British-run capitalist outpost in China known for its professionalism and lawfulness. China’s central government promised this system would continue for at least fifty years after London ceded the colony to Beijing in 1997. Since China’s opening began in the late 1970s, Hong Kong has been a mechanism for China to access capital and for foreigners to invest in China without being impeded by the mainland’s capital controls and communist economy.

Hong Kong’s arrangement worked relatively well until Beijing promulgated a vague and sweeping national security law in 2019. The government has used the law to imprison dissidents ranging from low-level peaceful protesters to Jimmy Lai, the publisher of Hong Kong’s popular pro-democracy Apple Daily newspaper, which the government shuttered. Recently, the government and judicial system have been occupied by outlawing the singing of popular songs. 

The government and businesses stuck in the city are trying to return to normalcy and portray Hong Kong as the dominant gateway to China. The Hong Kong Monetary Authority still boasts that “Hong Kong originates and intermediates two-thirds of China’s inward foreign direct investment (FDI) and outward direct investment (ODI) as well as most financial investments.” Last year, the government initiated a “Hello Hong Kong” advertising campaign stressing normalcy that even featured the chairman of the American Chamber of Commerce—a dalliance with Chinese propaganda that drew a U.S. congressional inquiry. 

The reality is less hopeful. Hong Kong’s stock exchange had a paltry twelve initial public offerings in the first quarter of this year—the worst performance since the 2009 economic crisis. A Bloomberg article in March detailed a “lost generation” of financial professionals in the former boomtown and summed up the situation: “The damage is underscored by the barrage of layoffs by Wall Street firms, the retreat of global capital into the world’s second-largest economy, and the city’s diminishing role as an international financial center.”

The fall from grace occurs at a time when other banking centers have cleaned up their acts. Switzerland has largely ceased to be the haven used to hide funds from the Internal Revenue Service. A senior finance official in the United Arab Emirates plainly told me that the amount of capital in the country and region means that bankers in Abu Dhabi and Dubai simply aren’t impressed by briefcases of cash from dubious sources—the risk is not worth the reward. In February, the multilateral Financial Action Task Force dropped the UAE from its list of countries at risk of illicit money flows. Last year, Singapore arrested ten foreigners from Cyprus, Cambodia, Dominica, China, Turkey, and Vanuatu and seized $740 million in laundered funds—a reminder that the city-state intends to keep its clean image. 

These developments leave Hong Kong as the path of least resistance for those seeking to deposit dirty money. The Ukraine War has accelerated the creation of new financial pathways and practices, with China and Russia, in particular, breaking from Western-dominated banks and financial data networks. This development creates opportunities not only for laundering funds from those countries but also for corrupt locales and individuals around the world.

Amid this decline, the U.S. government should recognize that Hong Kong is no longer clean or financially distinct from the rest of China and take steps to defend U.S. financial institutions from corruption. First, the U.S. Federal Reserve should revoke the Hong Kong Monetary Authority’s right to clear U.S. dollar-denominated transactions, which the Authority delegated to HSBC as its settlement institution. In 2022, several members of Congress criticized HSBC for colluding with Hong Kong authorities to harass pro-democracy activists. The Federal Reserve allows foreign dollar clearing only in Hong Kong, Japan, the Philippines, and Singapore. This mechanism, extended in 2000 primarily due to time-zone differences, allows Hong Kong banks to avoid the step of working through a U.S. bank when conducting dollar transactions.

Washington should end this privilege. It should also apply enhanced scrutiny to U.S. banks’ business in Hong Kong and encourage them to wind up operations. The Treasury should press foreign governments and institutions that want to curb money laundering to take a more jaded view of Hong Kong’s financial scene.

Should the city back off its repression and demonstrate a desire to return to the rule of law, it can restore its lost luster. Until then, the world should recognize Hong Kong as a repressive scofflaw.

Christian Whiton was a senior State Department advisor in the Bush and Trump administrations. He is the author of Smart Power: Between Diplomacy and War and a senior fellow at the Center for the National Interest.

Image: Shutterstock.com.