The National Interest

Christmas came early for the Polish Air Force, as its first two Lockheed Martin F-35A “Husarz” fighters arrived at Ebbing Air National Guard Base (ANGB), Arkansas, on Monday. The pair of fighters will be used to train Polish pilots on the fifth-generation stealth fighters as part of the Foreign Military Sales Program.

Poland is one of several NATO members that announced plans to adopt the F-35 Lightning II, which is produced in three variants. Warsaw’s aircraft will be the conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) F-35A model. Following a longstanding tradition with the Polish Air Force, the warplanes will receive a domestic moniker—in this case, Husarz (Polish for “Hussar”).

Selected by a public competition, the designation honors the historic Polish Winged Hussars, a famed sixteenth and seventeenth-century cavalry unit. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth’s elite unit was originally formed in 1503, with many of its members coming from the Polish nobility. The Winged Hussars received their name from the colorful and elaborate uniforms that incorporated military influences from the Byzantine Empire and the Mongol cavalry initially, and later from the Balkans, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire.

The cavalry troopers wore a metal zischägge, or “lobster-tail” helmet, and highly adorned armor that consisted of a cuirass (breastplate), spaulders over the shoulders, a bevor around the neck, and arm braces. Most notably, and unique to the hussars, the troopers wore a pair of wings that arched from the end of the saddles to over their heads and fluttered in the wind.

The cavalry unit participated in numerous engagements and helped Poland and her allies win more than sixteen major battles during the commonwealth’s “Golden Age,” which saw conflicts with Ottoman and Russian forces. The Winged Hussars, led by King Jan Sobieski, have been credited with helping break the Ottoman siege of Vienna in September 1693, ending Turkish expansion into Europe.

The Polish Air Force officially received its first F-35 at a ceremony at Lockheed Martin’s facility in Fort Worth, Texas, in August. Warsaw’s program of record is for thirty-two of the fifth-generation fighters, part of a $4.6 billion deal signed in 2020. It also included training and simulators, as well as a logistic support package for the aircraft.

The fleet of F-35 Husarz fighters will begin to arrive in Poland in 2026, but the first two fighters are instead heading to Ebbing ANGB for the aforementioned training.

“The arrival of Poland’s first F-35s is a significant milestone for our state, the nation and our allies who will train on this fifth-generation fighter at Ebbing Air National Guard Base,” said Brigadier General Chad Bridges, Arkansas adjutant general.

“I’m extremely proud of the whole team in the 188th Wing and the staffs at Razorback Range and Fort Chaffee Joint Maneuver Training Center for the planning and work that has resulted in the sound of freedom returning to the River Valley,” Bridges added. “They’ve partnered with the active-duty Air Force to go from concept to jets being parked on the ramp in a compressed timeframe. We are thankful for the dedicated teamwork of those in Fort Smith, Sebastian County, our entire congressional delegation and state elected officials who have moved mountains to make this mission possible in Arkansas.”

According to the Arkansas National Guard Public Affairs Office, “Ebbing ANGB will also host F-35 pilots from Finland, Germany, Switzerland and Singapore in the coming years.”

Deliveries of Poland’s nearly three dozen F-35s will continue through 2030, allowing Warsaw to phase out its Cold War-era Mikoyan MiG-29 (NATO reporting name “Fulcrum”) fighters. In July, it was reported that Warsaw would likely send the remaining MiG-29s to Ukraine as it receives the F-35s.

The F-35 isn’t the first Western-made fighter to be adopted by the NATO member state. The Polish Air Force also operates the F-16 Fighting Falcon, which is locally designated the “Jastrzab” (Polish for “Hawk”).

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 and 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: Mike Mareen / Shutterstock.com. 

Air power is probably the most important aspect of a modern conflict. Whoever controls the skies can control the ground and seas.

In the Ukrainian conflict, neither side has been able to wrestle control of the skies and establish air superiority. And although it is not surprising that the Ukrainian Air Force is having trouble with this—since it lacks the advanced aircraft and numbers of its adversary—it is quite a surprise for the Russian Aerospace Forces.

In an attempt to replenish its significant losses and bolster its air power, the Russian Aerospace Forces are receiving a new batch of Su-57 Felon and Su-34 Fullback fighter jets.

The Russian Aerospace Forces will be getting more Su-57 Felon and Su-34 Fullback fighter jets. Moscow touts the Su-57 Felon as a fifth-generation stealth fighter jet, though Western analysts doubt its stealth capabilities. The Su-34 Fullback is a fighter-bomber aircraft designed to take out strategic targets on land and sea.

“Aerospace enterprises within Rostec are steadily supplying aviation equipment to the troops. The Su-57 and Su-34 aircraft delivered today will soon take their place in active service,” Rostec CEO Sergey Chemezov said.

“The Su-34 is valued by pilots for its high technical and combat characteristics. The Su-57, often referred to as the ‘king of the skies,’ has demonstrated its status as a fifth-generation fighter in prolonged combat conditions. It can effectively engage a wide range of targets using precision-guided weapons while maintaining low visibility against advanced air defense systems,” the Rostec CEO added.

Actually, the Su-57 Felon hasn’t “demonstrated its status as a fifth-generation fighter in prolonged combat conditions.” Yes, the Russian Aerospace Forces have used Su-57 Felons to conduct long-range strikes against Ukrainian urban centers and critical infrastructure. However, Moscow has been very careful not to allow its most advanced fighter jet too close into the fighting out of fear that it will be shot down by Ukraine’s Western air defense batteries. In other words, the Su-57 Felon has participated in combat but not to the extent necessary to determine its actual combat capabilities against comparable Western aircraft.

“The Su-57 and Su-34 are among the best in their class,” said Vadim Badekha, the head of UAC which is itself part of Rostec.

“They address critical tasks while showcasing superior maneuverability and combat performance. Our production teams continue to work diligently to fulfill the state defense order, and we are committed to enhancing wages and expanding corporate social programs,” the Russian aerospace official added.

The Russian Aerospace Forces have taken serious losses in the Ukrainian conflict. The Ukrainian Ministry of Defense puts the number of Russian fixed-wing aircraft losses at approximately 369. The Oryx open-source intelligence analysis website comes up with a lower number, 134. (Oryx relies on visual evidence that is published on social media.) The actual number is probably somewhere in between the two estimates. In terms of the Su-57 and Su-34, the Russian Aerospace Forces have lost thirty-seven Su-34s and one Su-57, which was destroyed on the ground after a Ukrainian long-range drone attack.

Stavros Atlamazoglou is a seasoned defense journalist specializing in special operations and a Hellenic Army veteran (national service with the 575th Marine Battalion and Army HQ). He holds a BA from Johns Hopkins University and an MA from Johns Hopkins’ School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). His work has been featured in Business Insider, Sandboxx, and SOFREP.

Image: vaalaa / Shutterstock.com

The historical significance of the M1 Garand can't be overstated. It was the first semi-automatic military rifle to be employed as a standard shoulder weapon, a point that was quite notable at the time. While movies and video games may suggest that the average German or Soviet soldier carried a submachine gun—respectively the MP40 or PPSh-41—the truth is that throughout World War II, most infantrymen were armed with a bolt action rifle that featured a magazine of just five rounds.

Those rifles were slightly shorter in length than the rifles that had been carried in the trenches of World War I, but the technology was otherwise not improved.

The U.S. infantryman by comparison was equipped with the M1 Garand, which in addition to being semi-automatic—offering a higher rate of fire—held eight rounds. As it was fed by en bloc clips, it was also quicker to reload than the bolt-action rifles. And for the record, while video games suggest it wasn't possible to "top off" the M1 Garand, operators could eject a partially expended clip and put in a full one.

A common misconception is that the M1 Garand was the first successful semi-automatic rifle, if not the first actual auto-loading rifle. Both are incorrect. The latter distinction of the first auto-loader goes to the Mannlicher Model 85, which was the first rifle to employ the recoil to load the next cartridge into the chamber. However, it was far from "successful," as it often jammed and fouled quickly—the latter due to the black powder ammunition of the era.

John Browning's Remington Model 8 earns the distinction of being the first proven semi-automatic rifle and was noted for being reliable and accurate. Yet, the Model 8 was also complex in design and not ideally suited to military use.

Following World War I, various militaries continued to work on the auto-loading concept including the United States, which in the 1930s sought to develop a simple, accurate, and rugged semi-automatic rifle. Several rifles were tested, but Canadian-born John C. Garand's design won out.

Noted firearms expert Ian Hogg described the operation of the M1 Garand in his book Guns and How They Work, writing:

"Originally developed in .276in caliber, it was changed to .30in due to ammunition availability. Operation of the Garand was by a gas piston below the barrel which drove an operating rod. This, by means of a cam, rotated the bolt to unlock it, and thrust it back to open the breach and eject the spent case. A return spring around the piston rod then pulled the rod and bolt back, stripping a round from the magazine and chambering it before rotating to lock it. A hammer, cocked by the returning bolt, was then released by the trigger to strike a firing pin inside the bolt."

Though Hogg's explanation is complex, the operation was fairly straightforward: The M1 Garand proved to be well-suited to coming conflict.

No reporting on the M1 Garand's historical significance would be complete without looking into the praise offered to the firearm by General George S. Patton. "Old Blood and Guts" is often quoted as saying "In my opinion, the M-1 Rifle is the greatest battle implement ever devised."

Now to set the record straight, Patton actually wrote those words in a letter to Major General Levin H. Campbell, Jr., the U.S. War Department's chief of ordnance.

The letter also went on to state, "However, my admiration for Ordnance products does not stop with the M-1 rifle. Our machine guns, mortars, artillery, and tanks are without equal on the battlefields of the world. In the hands of the unconquerable veterans now composing our armies, the utter destruction of the armed forces of our enemies is certain."

Patton's reason for writing the letter to Campbell is unclear, but there is a simple explanation.

Despite the myth that Patton was some kind of military leader who played by his own rules (like too many movie police detectives); the truth is that he was a career military officer who rose through the ranks not only for his leadership skills but also understanding how to "play the game." You don't become a four-star general by being a troublemaker and certainly not by making enemies among the other generals.

Had Patton been discussing military hardware with General Henry "Hap" Arnold, chief of the U.S. Army Air Forces, Old Blood and Guts might have praised the B-17 Flying Fortress instead.

So was Patton just kissing butt or did he really see the M1 Garand as a super weapon? Well, it was probably somewhere in the middle.

The timing of Patton's letter to Campbell is also notable as he wrote it in January 1945, by which time his soldiers would have certainly encountered the German StG44—the world's first assault rifle. History doesn't note whether Patton personally handled the German-made firearm, but it is fair to suggest that the StG44 was the future, not the M1 Garand.

Therefore we should accept that Patton's praise of the M1 Garand was piled on a bit thick, yet, there is no denying that the rifle certainly arrived at just the right time. It was developed in the 1930s, even as the United States was hell-bent on staying out of another European conflict (let alone a world war that would see its troops sent to the Pacific).

Much like a lot of the military hardware of World War II—everything from the M1 Garand to the M4 Sherman tank to the B-17 Flying Fortress bomber to the U.S. Navy's Iowa-class battleships—what was cutting-edge at the start of the war was a bit antiquated by the time the dust settled. The M1 Garand provided greater firepower to the infantryman than the bolt action rifles, but the German military responded with its own semi-automatic rifle, the K43/G43, as well as the aforementioned StG44. That latter firearm was studied by the Soviet Red Army and even if not copied directly, it certainly was reviewed during the development of the AK-47.

The United States missed the memo on assault rifles, however, and continued to employ the M1 Garand in the Korean War. Production of the M1 Garand was restarted to meet the demand, and in total more than five million were produced. The United States military then began the development of the M14, which was essentially an evolutionary step forward in battle rifle design, before changing course and adopting the AR15/M16.

Today, the M1 Garand remains an especially sought-after rifle—in part because those movies, TV shows, and video games have reminded contemporary shooters that this was the firearm that the Greatest Generation carried to win World War II and save democracy.

Yet, there was a time when it wasn't all that popular.

In the years after World War II, the vast majority of GIs, Marines, and other servicemembers who returned to civilian life probably saw little need for a semi-automatic rifle. Hunters preferred bolt-action rifles that could be fitted with a scope, and that fact at least partially explains the move to "sporterize" military surplus rifles in the decades after the war.

It was only as time passed that there was renewed interest in all things World War II. The latest wave certainly began with the release of films like Saving Private Ryan in 1997, followed by HBO's Band of Brothers in 2001. Video games then introduced a new generation to the World War II firearm, while also offering some now commonly-believed myths—notably that you'd hear that infamous "ping" sound when the en bloc clip was ejected from the receiver!

Likewise, though some communities, notably New York City, have a ban on the M1 Garand, it is legal in many states where AR15s and other modern sporting rifles are now illegal to own. Interestingly, the rationale for the Big Apple's ban is based on the fact that the M-5 Bayonet attaches to the gas cylinder lock screw. Any semi-auto rifle with a "bayonet mount" is defined as an "assault weapon" in New York City and subsequently banned.

Today, shooters continue to praise the M1 Garand because it is fairly easy to maintain—as long as you're careful, otherwise, you could end up with "Garand thumb"—while it remains an accurate range gun that can handle all types of weather. It shoots as well in the sweltering summer as it does in the freezing winter.

The interest in the M1 Garand has driven up the prices considerably, however.

It has also presented a few issues along the way—notably, vintage M1 Garands, which are now upwards of eighty years old, shouldn't be used with some modern ammunition. The issue is that modern hunting .30/06 loads, those with 180-grain or heavier bullets and slower-burning propellants, will produce pressures that exceed what the M1 Garand was designed to handle. Shooters are therefore advised to be cautious in what rounds they use with their old rifles.

Yet, with proper ammunition, a well-maintained M1 Garand should operate as well today as it did when it was carried by those of the Greatest Generation during World War II.

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 and/or Shutterstock.

On Friday, December 20, Lockheed Martin announced that it had signed a deal with the United States Department of Defense (DoD) for full-rate production of Lot 18 of the Air Force’s F-35A, the Marine Corps’ F-35B, and the Navy’s F-35C variants of the F-35 Lightning II fifth-generation warplane. 

Beyond the American order, thirty-nine F-35As and seven F-35Bs will be sent to U.S. allies, courtesy of concomitant foreign military sales deals. Interestingly, The Defense Post reports that “Undisclosed program partners will receive 15 F-35As and one F-35B aircraft.” The production of Lot 18 is anticipated to be completed by June 2027.

This is an interesting development, considering how much Lockheed’s F-35 program has fallen into controversy since it was first unveiled in 2006 (the program had been in development since at least 1995).

First, the F-35 has struggled to meet its agreed-upon timelines and Lockheed has, throughout the twenty-year-long course of the program, rarely delivered the quantity of F-35s without going beyond its allotted budget.

Second, the rapid development and deployment of cheaper unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) has called into question the efficacy of paying for the vaunted F-35. And this second point is key, as the incoming president, Donald J. Trump, is a month from taking office. Trump is taking advice from tech leaders such as Elon Musk and the biotech billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy, both of whom have expressed deep skepticism as to the utility of this manned, fifth-generation warplane.

These individuals surrounding Trump believe that unmanned systems are superior and will only become more essential to the modern battlefield, especially in light of the advances in things like artificial intelligence (AI), cloud computing, and quantum computing. When all is said and done, the F-35 program is projected to cost U.S. taxpayers more than $2 trillion over the course of its lifetime. Could that money have been better spent on unmanned autonomous or semi-autonomous systems?

Oh, and Trump himself has long been a critic of the F-35 program.

On December 12, 2016, as he was transitioning to become president for the first time, Trump famously tweeted that, “The F-35 program and cost is out of control. Billions of dollars can and will be saved on military (and other) purchases after January 20th.”

So, the Pentagon is clearly pushing through what might end up being its last tranche of purchases for the F-35 (at least until Trump and his team of advisors get a good look under the hood of the program that many believe has been spinning out of control).

Third, there remains a bit of argument within America’s defense aerospace community as to whether the F-35 or the F-22A Raptor was the right plane for the U.S. government to favor. Sure, the F-35 is a multirole warplane (meaning it does both air-to-air combat as well as air-to-ground attack and surveillance missions) whereas the F-22 is just an air superiority fighter.

Yet, in the age of renewed great power competition, the F-22 might be more important than the F-35 (at least for the Air Force). Further, the F-22 is clearly more advanced than the F-35. 

Key allies, like Britain and Israel, are prevented from purchasing the F-22 not only because the production line was prematurely canceled, but because the F-22 contains such supposedly advanced technologies that if they were shared even with U.S. allies it would weaken U.S. national security.

If there were no real differences technologically then why do the Pentagon and Congress still refuse to make the F-22 an exportable program whereas the F-35 is an exportable system? 

Nevertheless, the Pentagon will be getting forty-eight F-35As for the Air Force, sixteen F-35Bs and five F-35Cs for the Marines, and the Navy will be getting fourteen F-35Cs. Most of the work for Lockheed will occur in California and Texas. After this tranche, though, Trump and his team might push to cancel the program. 

What’s more, the Air Force appears dead set on getting its sixth-generation Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program to replace the fifth-generation birds they have. The Navy is also keen on getting its sixth-generation F/A-XX plane.

Both services are understandably hitting stiff resistance from a Congress that is increasingly skeptical of investing gobs of tax dollars on sixth-generation warplanes that will only marginally enhance the capabilities of the current fleet of fifth-generation warplanes in service to both the Navy and Air Force.

But, should the incoming forty-seventh president follow through on his threats to cancel or seriously curb future production of the F-35, it might free up the Air Force and/or Navy to reinvest in their respective sixth-generation planes. One thing is clear, though, this might be the last tranche of F-35s until the incoming Trump administration can figure out what, precisely, it seeks to do.

Brandon J. Weichert, a Senior National Security Editor at The National Interest as well as a Senior Fellow at the Center for the National Interest, and a contributor at Popular Mechanics, consults regularly with various government institutions and private organizations on geopolitical issues. Weichert’s writings have appeared in multiple publications, including the Washington Times, The American Spectator, to the National Interest. His books include Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His newest book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine is available for purchase wherever books are sold. He can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

Image: Shutterstock.

Of all the government boondoggles, the United States Navy’s Zumwalt-class destroyer might be the silliest waste of money ever. After years of avoiding having to make the hard call on the failed Zumwalt-class (e.g., mothballing these boats), the Navy has kicked the can down the road again. 

This time, the Pentagon has concocted a scheme that might prove to be utterly useless: arming the Zumwalts with hypersonic cruise missiles that the Navy has been developing to counter China in the Indo-Pacific. 

Now, there are some people lamenting the fact that the Zumwalt never went into full production and more units were never bought. And their reason is, frankly, ridiculous. 

According to these sources, now that the Navy has figured out what to do with these boats after twenty years of being totally unable to use them, the Pentagon is retrofitting them by removing their primary guns and replacing them with hypersonic cruise missile launchers. 

They want to turn the Zumwalt class into a hypersonic missile carrier.

Some of you are salivating at that. I know. It’s what we’ve always wanted. Indeed, it’s what America needs, right? 

The Russians—yes, the Russians—are beating us in hypersonic weapons technology. They have long-range and shorter-range hypersonic ballistic missiles in their arsenal that they have used already in combat. China, too, is working on increasingly complicated hypersonic weapons platforms. 

In fact, some of the technological advances China enjoyed over the last few years with its hypersonic weapons development are downright scary. For instance, China successfully experimented with beaming sixth-generation (6G) communications into one of their hypersonic glide vehicles as it was reentering the atmosphere using a laser to enhance Chinese control over the vehicle. 

So, yeah, America needs to up its game in the hypersonic domain.

But the idea that the Zumwalt-class destroyers, given all their chronic problems and failures, can live up to the hype that surrounded them when they were first sold to the American people is ridiculous. One can only put so much lipstick on a pig, after all. And why is the Navy even entertaining notions of placing hypersonic cruise missile launchers on the Zumwalts?

It's because the much-ballyhooed main guns for the Zumwalt-class destroyers that were originally planned to be installed didn’t work. Originally, the Navy had planned for the Zumwalts to feature the Advanced Gun System (AGS) that would fire specialized “Long Range Land Attack Projectile” (LRLAP) ammunition.

Designed to be highly precise but useable only on the Zumwalts, the Navy realized that at a cost of $800,000 per round made the LRLAP munitions impractical. It’s just too bad that the Pentagon figured this out after it had committed to the AGS. Without the LRLAP munitions, the AGS was rendered useless. 

So, the Navy had to go back to the drawing board for what the Zumwalts would fire.

Hence, the introduction of hypersonic missile launchers. And while some of you reading this might be inclined to congratulate the Navy for taking one of its greatest failures, the Zumwalt-class destroyer, and trying to make it a success story, remember that the ship itself is an expensive claptrap. Not only are the main guns for the Zumwalt a failure, but the destroyers are notorious for their relatively weak armor and their chronic engine woes. 

Let’s get this straight. The Navy spent $8 billion per unit on the Zumwalt-class destroyer (which has been billed as the world’s largest destroyer), equaling about $24 billion in all. This new destroyer was to be revolutionary. Instead, it is an evolutionary dead-end (an expensive one at that). Its guns don’t work. Its armor is dangerously weak. And its engines are subpar. That doesn’t sound like a warship. Placing hypersonic weapons onboard will not overcome the inherent flaws of this expensive, useless warship. 

The Navy should be taken to task for wasting the kind of money it has on this failed warship and the boats themselves should be mothballed before they wind out getting their crews killed in combat. 

Brandon J. Weichert, a Senior National Security Editor at The National Interest as well as a Senior Fellow at the Center for the National Interest, and a contributor at Popular Mechanics, consults regularly with various government institutions and private organizations on geopolitical issues. Weichert’s writings have appeared in multiple publications, including the Washington Times, The American Spectator, to the National Interest. His books include Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His newest book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine is available for purchase wherever books are sold. He can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

Image:  Lukas Prosch / Shutterstock.com

Earlier this month, the Lithuanian Defence Materiel Agency under the Ministry of National Defence (DMA) announced it signed a contract with KNDS Deutschland for forty-four Leopard 2A8 main battle tanks (MBTs) to equip a Lithuanian Army armored unit. Valued at €950 million ($988 million), this is the largest defense deal ever made by this Baltic nation and NATO member.

“The agreement on Leopard acquisition is the largest contract Lithuania has ever signed. It is a pivotal stage of modernizing our armed forces and strengthening the regional security,” Minister of National Defence Dovil Šakalien said in a statement. “The new tanks will facilitate integration and interoperability of [the] Lithuanian and German militaries.”

Lithuania, which shares a border with the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad as well as a border with Russian ally Belarus, will become the first nation to acquire the German-made MBT as part of Germany’s Common Procurement Agreement, which has aimed to improve Europe’s common defense capabilities. 

Lithuania will receive the most advanced version of the Leopard 2. The MBT is equipped with the Rafael-designed Trophy APS (active protection system) and a better all-around (360-degree) awareness system. The upgraded variant also features the newest generation of passive multi-layer composite modular armor, which is made up of steel, tungsten, composite filler, and even ceramics.

The 28A model is equipped with a three-man turret containing the main 120mm L55 smoothbore gun manufactured by Rheinmetall AG. This is an improved iteration of the L44 gun that previous models of the Leopard 2 hosted. The L55 is over a meter longer than its predecessor, giving it higher muzzle velocities. It has greater accuracy, range, and penetration and can fire a wide array of ordnance, including APFSDS (Armor-Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot), HEAT (High-Explosive Anti-Tank), and multipurpose ammunition.

The overall layout of the modernized tanks is similar to other models. They are powered by an upgraded 1,600 hp engine that allows the Leopard 2A8 to reach speeds of over seventy kilometers per hour (forty-four miles per hour).

During a recent visit to Germany, Šakalien had further pledged that Vilnius would remain committed to hosting a Bundeswehr military brigade near the border of Belarus, Breaking Defense reported.

Last week, Lithuania also passed its 2025 state budget, which will allocate 4 percent of its GDP (gross domestic product) to defense—double NATO’s 2 percent defense expenditure guidelines.

“We’ve essentially budgeted 4 percent of GDP for defence, but some of that money has to be borrowed,” said Lithuanian president Gitanas Nauseda.

Earlier this month, the German-based Rheinmetall also announced it had begun construction of an artillery ammunition plant in the Lithuanian city of Baisogala, in the center of the country. The plant is on track to begin producing 155mm rounds—the NATO standard ordnance for weapons, including the M777 towed howitzer and numerous self-propelled artillery platforms—by the middle of 2026. Tens of thousands of artillery shells will be manufactured annually.

The facility will not only bring around 150 jobs to the Lithuanian city but also help NATO replenish its stockpiles of the much-needed 155mm ordnance.

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 and 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: Arnoldas Vitkus / Shutterstock.com. 

The war in Ukraine has offered an excellent opportunity to assess the capabilities of Western weapon systems in a state-on-state war.  

Although the United States has been the main supporter of the Ukrainian military, dozens of other countries have sent Kyiv weapon systems. And one of those weapon systems is performing quite well in the fighting.  

The Dutch YPR-756 

With a name similar to that of a Star Wars robot, the YPR-756 is a reliable infantry fighting vehicle that can perform on the modern battlefield. Made for the Dutch military and now in service with the Ukrainian forces, the YPR-756 is an unusual but honest infantry fighting vehicle.  

The Dutch military first introduced the YPR-765 in 1977 as a replacement for the French-made AMX-VCI light tank. Soon, it became the Dutch military’s main infantry fighting vehicle designed to support maneuver warfare on European fields in the event of a conflict with Russia. 

It has a crew of three (commander, gunner, and driver) and can carry up to seven fully-equipped mechanized infantrymen.  

The YPR-756 is relatively fast and can achieve speeds of about thirty-eight miles per hour, or sixty-one kilometers per hour, and has an operational range of around 300 miles, or 490 kilometers. 

In terms of weapons systems, the Dutch-made infantry fighting vehicle packs a 25mm autocannon and a 7.62mm machine gun. The armored vehicle can also be fitted with additional weapon systems, including 120mm mortar and M2 0.5 caliber heavy machine guns, and sensors depending on the battlefield requirements.  

As far as mission sets go, the YPR-765 is mainly designed to transport mechanized infantry into the fight and cover them with its weapons. However, it can also conduct armored reconnaissance and medical transport.  

Fighting In Ukraine  

Over the summer, the Dutch government announced another transfer of YPR-756 infantry fighting vehicles to Ukraine. 

“These types of armored vehicles are very important for Ukraine. They are agile, can move troops quickly, and can be deployed in exploratory, offensive,e and defensive roles,” Dutch Defense Minister Kajsa Ollongren had said about the transfer of the infantry fighting vehicles to the Ukrainian military.  

The Netherlands has transferred over 350 YPR-756s to the Ukrainian military and helped it defend against Russian aggression. The Netherlands will likely send additional infantry fighting vehicles to Kyiv down the line since it has a remaining inventory of approximately 1,500 YPR-756s.  

The fighting in Ukraine has shown the great value of infantry fighting vehicles on the modern battlefield. They offer protection, mobility, and firepower to mechanized infantry and are ideal for maneuver warfare. The Ukrainian military has been using infantry fighting vehicles profusely, and they have made a difference in Kyiv’s offensive operations. Although infantry fighting vehicles can’t carry as many troops as armored personnel carriers, they can use their weapon systems and sensors to better support a dismounted infantry assault.  

In addition, with the right training and weapon systems (and luck), infantry fighting vehicles can even take on main battle tanks. 

 Stavros Atlamazoglou is a seasoned defense journalist specializing in special operations and a Hellenic Army veteran (national service with the 575th Marine Battalion and Army HQ). He holds a BA from Johns Hopkins University and an MA from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). His work has been featured in Business Insider, Sandboxx, and SOFREP.

Image Credit: M.J.J. de Vaan / Shutterstock.com

Since early August, the Ukrainian military has occupied a salient inside Russia, in the Kursk Oblast.

Now, the Russian military is trying to eradicate that salient by throwing thousands of Russian and North Korean troops at it.

“Russia’s counter-offensive against the Ukrainian-occupied salient in Kursk oblast continues with tactical gains in territorial control observed in the last week,” the British Military Intelligence assessed in a recent estimate of the war.

The Russian forces have been making steady progress, slowly pushing back the Ukrainian units. The Ukrainian offensive took the Russian leadership by surprise and managed to capture hundreds of square miles and scores of settlements before the lines solidified.

“In the north-western corner of the salient, Russian forces have advanced up to 4km south-east along a front of approximately 4km, contesting the village of Kruglen’koe. In the south-eastern corner of the salient, Russian forces have advanced west approximately 2km from the town of Plekhovo and remain near the outskirts of Makhnovka, approximately 3km to the north,” the British Military Intelligence added.

In many ways, the Ukrainian military has achieved its objective of distracting the Russian forces and forcing the Kremlin to commit elite units to the salient in Kursk, diverting them from the fighting inside Ukraine.

“Ukrainian forces control approximately 480 sq km of Russian territory, down from approximately 510 sq km a week ago, and a high point of 800-900 sq km in August 2024. The recent loss of territory is likely due to Russian counterattacks being led by Naval Infantry, Airborne (VDV) forces and troops from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,” the British Military Intelligence stated.

The war in Ukraine is the largest conflict on European soil since the end of World War II. That is a fact both in terms of troops engaged, resources spent, and casualties suffered.

“Ukraine’s incursion into Kursk, in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, is the first time since the Second World War that foreign troops have occupied Russian territory,” the British Military Intelligence added.

“Russia will almost certainly continue carrying out limited attacks to reduce the amount of territory in Kursk oblast under Ukrainian control,” the British Military Intelligence concluded.

But progress hasn’t come cheap for the Russian forces.

The Russian military, paramilitary units, and pro-Russian separatist forces keep taking extremely heavy casualties. For example, over the past twenty-four hours, the Russian forces took almost 2,000 losses. In addition to these manpower casualties, the Russian forces lost approximately sixty-seven tactical vehicles and fuel trucks, fifty-five unmanned aerial systems, twenty-nine artillery pieces and multiple launch rocket systems, fifteen infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, six main battle tanks, two pieces of special equipment, and one cruise missile.

Overall, the Russian forces have suffered over 775,000 personnel killed or wounded in over 1,000 days of fighting. Despite the extremely heavy losses, the Russian military is persisting with its attritional strategy. And, notwithstanding the casualty rate, the strategy seems to be working for a Kremlin devoid of quality troops and officers who can fight a more modern type of warfare.

Stavros Atlamazoglou is a seasoned defense journalist specializing in special operations and a Hellenic Army veteran (national service with the 575th Marine Battalion and Army HQ). He holds a BA from Johns Hopkins University and an MA from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). His work has been featured in Business Insider, Sandboxx, and SOFREP.

Image: kibri_ho / Shutterstock.com

“I don’t want no teenage queen/I just want my M14…”

My fellow military film buffs will instantly recognize those two lines as part of a classic running cadence from the boot camp sequence of Stanley Kubrick’s iconic 1987 Vietnam War film “Full Metal Jacket.”

Though not quite as famous or controversial as either the M16/M4/AR-15 series or Avtomat Kalashnikova, i.e., the AK-47 platform and its variants, the M14 is a plenty famous and historically significant military rifle. Some experts thought it was an overweight, overpowered, and overrated hunk of junk, while others thought it was a wonderfully accurate, reliable, hard-hitting weapon that never should’ve been replaced by the “Plastic Fantastic” M16 to fight the Vietnam War. Overall, the positive assessments of the M14 seem to far outweigh the negative ones.

That legend began with the M1 Garand, a rifle that had served American GIs so faithful during both World War II and the Korean War and was praised by no less than General George Smith Patton Jr. himself as “the greatest battle implement ever devised.” But as superb as the Garand truly was, it did have one glaring weakness: the “M-1 ping,” i.e., the rifle would eject its empty stripper clip with a loud “ping!” which sent a pretty strong auditory clue to Axis troops that the American GI’s weapon was empty.

The M14, with its detachable 20-round box magazine, eliminated that problem, and as a major bonus, provided a 150 percent increase in ammunition capacity over the WWII-era weapon. The M14 was designed in 1954 and officially became the standard-issue rifle for the U.S. Armed Forces from 1959 to 1964, with over 1 million units produced over that relatively short span of time. The weapon was (and still is) a gas-operated 7.62x51mm NATO (.308 caliber) rifle, capable of both semiautomatic and fully automatic fire, with the following specifications.

• Cyclic rate of fire (full-auto mode): 700-750 rounds
• Muzzle velocity: 2,800 feet per second
• Maximum effective range: 500 yards
• Maximum overall range: 3,275 yards
• Overall length: 44.14 inches
• Barrel length: 22 inches
• Empty weight: 9.2 pounds
• Weight with fully loaded magazine:10.7 pounds

The M14 soon established a reputation for ruggedness and superb accuracy. Two perceived problems for general-issue infantry usage in the jungles of Vietnam were the heavy weight and lack of controllability during full-auto fire, especially compared to the M16, which could carry more rounds in a more lightweight and lower-recoiling platform. 

However, for elite SpecOps units like the Navy SEALs, those aforementioned concerns aren’t as pressing. As noted by the Navy SEALs webpage: 

“Navy SEALs started using modified M14s as sniper rifles as early as Vietnam. They have used them in Afghanistan and Iraq, primarily as designated marksman and sniper rifles. Navy SEALs keep the M14 in inventory due to its excellent accuracy, effectiveness at long range, and strong takedown capabilities of the 7.62mm round.”

The SEALs’ M14s certainly haven’t remained frozen in time (Vietnam vintage, that is). Their latest and greatest iteration is the Mk 14 Mod 0 Enhanced Battle Rifle (EBR), which is manufactured by Smith Enterprise Inc. (headquartered in Tempe, Arizona) and has the following fancy features:

• An 18-inch barrel
• A telescopic stock
• A pistol grip for improved ergonomics
• New front sights
• A folding bipod
• A set of Picatinny rails around the barrel allows for the mounting of various accessories such as scopes, torches, laser pointing systems, etc.
• Lighter materials (the EBR is constructed from lightweight aircraft alloy)

In addition, during the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993, U.S. Army Delta Force sniper Sergeant First Class Randy Shughart used an M14 for his heroic actions that would earn him a posthumous Medal of Honor.

Besides the SEALs, the M14 is also reportedly still issued by the Hellenic (Greek Navy). Meanwhile, semiauto-only variants remain extremely popular with civilian shooters, particularly the semiauto-only Springfield Armory M1A, which, in its most basic, no-frills version, carries an MSRP of MSRP $1,770.00-$1,875.00.

Christian D. Orr is a Senior Defense Editor for National Security Journal (NSJ). He is a former Air Force Security Forces officer, Federal law enforcement officer, and private military contractor (with assignments worked in Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kosovo, Japan, Germany, and the Pentagon). Chris holds a B.A. in International Relations from the University of Southern California (USC) and an M.A. in Intelligence Studies (concentration in Terrorism Studies) from American Military University (AMU). He has also been published in The Daily Torch, The Journal of Intelligence and Cyber Security, and Simple Flying. Last but not least, he is a Companion of the Order of the Naval Order of the United States (NOUS).

Image: ShapikMedia / Shutterstock.com

Iran’s Simorgh missile, officially known as a Space Launch Vehicle (SLV), represents a key element of Iran’s (growing) space and ballistic missile programs. The missile is named after the mythical Persian bird known for its strength and benevolence, Simorgh is a two-stage, liquid-fueled rocket designed primarily to place satellites into low-Earth orbit (LEO). 

Yet, its development has sparked consternation among the international community, which fears that Iran may be using their supposedly civilian nuclear weapons program as little more than a cover for their ballistic missile program. And that ballistic missile program is, of course, the cornerstone undergirding their nuclear weapons program.

Back in 2010, the cartoonish former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad authorized the creation of the Simorgh, also known as Safir-2. Officially, the Simorgh rocket is meant to place Iranian satellites in orbits around the Earth. 

It has a length of about eighty-nine feet and can place a 551-pound satellite into an orbit as high as 310 miles away. The missile has had varying degrees of success since its inception in 2010. Of the seven official missions it was sent on, three were unsuccessful, though four is more than half, so technically this missile has been a success. 

The Context

Western economic sanctions have specifically targeted the Simorgh and the components that make the missile up. So, the Iranians have struggled to get this system to its full potential in the last fourteen years. Nevertheless, the Islamic Republic possesses the industrial capabilities to build such machines. 

Anyway, the Simorgh rocket is not a vehicle for peaceful exploration or civilian satellite operations. It is very much a dual-use system, meaning that it can have both civilian as well as military applications. Even in the realm of satellites, having a satellite in the attic and a bomb in the basement helps the Iranian nuclear weapons program. Satellites will help Iran’s military have greater over-the-horizon attack capabilities and would help Iran to better target distant targets. 

And let’s just say that this was a civilian project. The lessons learned from the use of the Simorgh rocket could easily be applied to an actual intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). According to the publication Iran Primer, “It would take a handful of years” to “transform its Simorgh into an ICBM” and “would not likely become operational before 2023 or 2024.” The cited article was written in 2021, so the suspenseful music should be playing in your head right now.

Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Threat

While there are real debates about how advanced the Iranian nuclear weapons program is, even if the Iranians do have some rudimentary warheads, they lack the miniaturization technology needed to mount these weapons atop ICBMs, such as the Simorgh or an actual ICBM. 

At the same time, though, the collapse of the Assad Regime in Syria and the subsequent withdrawal of Russian forces from Syria means that Iran is on the strategic backfoot when it comes to its shadow war with Israel and the United States. Now, Tehran will need to expedite the development of its nuclear weapons arsenal and the subsequent delivery systems, including miniaturization technology. 

Iran’s Simorgh, though, would be more akin to an inter-range ballistic missile (IRBM) than an ICBM. The farthest many experts believe the Simorgh could reach is Europe. The United States would remain insulated from the Simorgh. The Middle East has been completely destabilized. Iran now finds itself on the back foot, with the U.S.-Israeli coalition riding high after Assad’s ouster. Tehran will next seek to expand its nuclear weapons capabilities, which, in turn, would bring about the ire of much of the rest of the world. 

America is on notice, but it has not noticed. 

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 available for purchase wherever books are sold. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

Valued at $725 million, the latest package of U.S. military aid to Ukraine includes air defense weapons, munitions for multiple rocket launch systems and artillery, anti-tank weapons, and unmanned aerial systems.  

Specifically, the latest package of security assistance includes munitions for National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS); FIM-92 Stinger missiles shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, counter-Unmanned Aerial Systems (c-UAS) munitions, ammunition for the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) and M270 Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (MLRS), 155mm and 105mm artillery shells, Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), non-persistent land mines, Tube-launched, Optically tracked, Wire-guided (TOW) missiles for anti-tank roles, FGM-148 Javelin and AT-4 anti-tank weapons, small arms and ammunition, demolitions equipment and munitions, equipment to protect critical national infrastructure, spare parts, ancillary equipment, services, training, and transportation. 

The Russian military has been making gains over the past few months, and the Ukrainian forces are desperate for all the help they can get. 

In addition, the U.S., France, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Norway, the Czech Republic, and the United Kingdom have provided important military aid. Dozens of other countries have sent billions of dollars worth of weapon systems and munitions to Kyiv’s aid.  

This is the 71st package of military aid to Ukraine since August 2021, a few months before the large-scale Russian invasion. To this date, the U.S. has provided approximately $64.1 billion in military aid to Ukraine. 

This amounts to about $22 billion per year and is quite a small sum for the impact it has on the ground. With this military aid, the Ukrainian forces have managed to severely degrade the capabilities of the Russian military, killing and wounding almost 800,000 men and destroying tens of thousands of heavy weapon systems. 

In a way, the U.S., which spends more than $800 billion on its defense every year, is getting a bargain out of its support of Ukraine.   

“Russian aggression still poses a threat to Ukrainian sovereignty. The Ukrainians have demonstrated and expressed the will to continue to fight. And as Secretary Austin has said many times, Ukraine matters not only to European security but to U.S. and international security,” Pentagon Press Secretary Air Force Major General Pat Ryder said in a press briefing.  

“So, we will continue to consult with our Ukrainian partners. We'll continue to consult with our allies and partners around the world in terms of what Ukraine needs to defend itself. And so, we will continue to support them in their fight,” Ryder added.  

It remains to be seen whether the new administration will continue to support Ukraine in its defense against Russian aggression. It is a noble cause with strategic benefits, a rare combination.  

Stavros Atlamazoglou is a seasoned defense journalist specializing in special operations and a Hellenic Army veteran (national service with the 575th Marine Battalion and Army HQ). He holds a BA from Johns Hopkins University and an MA from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). His work has been featured in Business Insider, Sandboxx, and SOFREP.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

As the United States Air Force and Navy struggle to justify the exorbitant cost of their sixth-generation warplane programs to an understandably skeptical Congress, it’s important to remember that time the military tried to create an entirely new capability using surplus parts. But that was what the Air Force sought to do with their proposed YA-7F Strikefighter. Using old, surplus A-7 Corsair II attack jets, the Air Force made them more maneuverable, installed better engines, and basically created a nighttime supersonic battlefield interdiction jet for cheap.

It was the mid-1980s and the Air Force was trying out new concepts as the Cold War raged and the Reagan administration was on a defense spending spree. Interestingly, that was the time some in the Pentagon opted to start working on a cheap alternative to the costlier warplanes that were favored by the Pentagon. 

The Air Force wanted planes for close-air support (CAS) missions, anticipating the need for such platforms when—and if—the Cold War turned hot and NATO forces found themselves in a shooting war in Europe. Specifically, the Air Force wanted more speed and agility than what its current CAS systems possessed. Back then, the A-10 Thunderbolt II, the Air Force’s primary CAS warplane, got little love. It was viewed by the Air Force brass as being too slow for some modern combat situations.

So, the Air Force wanted to take the resilience of the A-10 but marry it to a faster moving plane. Thus, the YA-7F Strikefighter.

This bird was based on the subsonic, old A-7 Corsair II attack jet that had served the Air Force and Navy. The Strikefighter was transformed into a transonic aircraft that had the ability to go faster than the speed of sound. The Air Force upgraded the Strikefighter to newer Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220 engines, providing about 26,000 pounds of thrust, hence its supersonic capabilities. Because of the newer, more potent engine, the fuselage was lengthened by four feet, with the designers adding sections to the fuselage both before and after the wings. That four feet of fuselage improved the speed as well as aerodynamics.

Engineers also made the vertical stabilizer higher and alterations to the original control surfaces for high-speed performance. Therefore, the YA-7F could enjoy a 7-g turn which meant its handling and maneuverability were superior to the A-7 Corsair II on which it was based. Pilots were also given quite a spectacle when flying the bird. After all, this plane, while ugly on the outside, had a modernized cockpit. A heads-up display (HUD) was available and the bird had advanced avionics. 

The plane could explode from 400 to 550 knots while carrying 17,380 pounds of ordnance all in under 15 seconds. What’s more, the bird could sustain a speed of about Mach 1.5 with extra fuel. 

These birds could carry nearly 18,000 pounds of armaments, too.

The YA-7F was very promising when it was prematurely canceled by the Pentagon. The plane was a victim of its own success. Indeed, it was far cheaper (and nearly as effective) as the other planes that were being considered. The military, though, wanted as many shiny new F-16s and other fourth-generation planes as possible—and America’s defense contractors were all too happy to steer the Pentagon in that direction.

Canceling the YA-7F was one of the worst decisions the Pentagon ever made. The plane would have been a useful bird and could have filled CAS roles that required speed and agility. Further, it exemplified the kind of cost-saving the Pentagon could engage without losing any significant capabilities.

It is also a portent of what should be done about the costly Air Force Next-Generation Air Dominance program. America doesn’t need this system. The Pentagon could easily enhance the existing aircraft fleet it has without blowing its budget on building the wünderwaffe.

Unlike the 1980s, when the United States could still somewhat afford the Pentagon’s excess, today the only chance the United States has at surviving is if every American gets more involved and demand an end to the wasteful spending in the Pentagon.

Nevertheless, the YA-7F Strikefighter program is an excellent reminder of why the Air Force should reuse its older platforms to exert power. In today’s strategic and economic environment, the Pentagon should really start reusing platforms. For today’s strategic situation, it is actually far better to reuse and enhance than to take the time to build from scratch. 

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 available for purchase wherever books are sold. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

Image: ivanpotapoff / Shutterstock.com

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has, for the first time, sent combatant units abroad, to aid Russia in the war in Ukraine. As noted in the Joint Statement on the DPRK’s Deployment of Troops to Russia this development indelibly connects the Indo-Pacific and European theaters, testifying to the growing systemic entanglement of crises globally. 

Ukraine’s shock incursion into Kursk in early August has been diverting Russia’s attention. Although Russia has not had to redeploy troops away from Ukraine, the May-September 2024 period saw Russia’s highest rate of military losses since the war began. Additionally, Moscow has struggled to meet its recruitment goals. 

North Korean troops deployment provides an avenue for alternative force generation for Russia. Against this backdrop, the DPRK’s decision to deploy troops can be understood as a way to uphold its obligations under the Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between the two countries, signed on June 19, which enshrines the immediate provision of military and other assistance if either side is in a state of war.  

While Ukrainian, U.S., and South Korean intelligence have confirmed that North Korean military personnel will be deployed primarily if not exclusively in the Kursk Oblast, the composition of this force is yet to be fully disclosed. Possibly, in the immediate future, the number of troops deployed by the DPRK will remain limited to maintain the military balance on the Peninsula, and manage and minimize the negative externalities of this deployment, such as desertion, dissent within military ranks, domestic discontent due to to to casualties and ideological contamination, and maximize both short and long-term benefits. 

The short-term benefits for Pyongyang are, to a degree, limited. Russia has already been providing food, oil, raw materials, and parts used in weapons manufacturing as payment for over nine million artillery shells, KN-23 and KN-24 ballistic missiles, and other weaponry. Through this deployment, North Korea might be actively seeking to receive advanced military technology, including nuclear, aviation, naval, and space-related know-how. 

Such a development would tip the balance in Northeast Asia irreversibly ensuring a sequence of escalatory actions from Japan, South Korea, and the United States.   

The most immediate advantage North Korea will gain from this deployment will be exposure to the dynamics of modern combat, which would aid Pyongyang in understanding state-of-the-art military technologies and equip its military with practical on-the-ground experience. This will, in turn, have a long-term effect on North Korea’s military doctrine, allowing it to convert the lessons learned on the battlefield into strategies for better asymmetric and defense warfare especially in the face of technologically superior adversaries such as the United States and South Korea. 

Additionally, the deployment of troops in Russia and the promise of payment from Moscow, set for $2000 per soldier, serves the purpose of replenishing Pyongyang’s coffers. Somewhat in line with the DPRK’s traditional practice of utilizing North Korean workers overseas, which as of 2023 were estimated to inject back into the DPRK an annual revenue of 500 million dollars, this deployment is testimony to the country’s need for hard currency to complete the various projects and plans Kim Jong Un has launched over the last few years. 

Beyond the direct benefits for Pyongyang, North Korea’s troop deployment indelibly connects the European and Indo-Pacific theaters testifying to the rapid worsening of the ongoing great power competition. North Korea’s deployment of troops in concomitance with the escalation of military action on both Russia’s and Ukraine’s side, and possible direct involvement of South Korea in the conflict through direct lethal aid support to Kyiv potentially prolong the continuation of the War in Ukraine, beyond the mandate of the incoming Trump administration. 

North Korea’s involvement could not only prompt a more direct South Korean involvement but may also accelerate decisions regarding intervention in various European capitals. This could indirectly prove beneficial to Washington if one takes into consideration that the various fronts the United States is currently either directly militarily involved in or supporting through lethal aid or other donations is straining its resources.  

Riccardo Villa is the Project Coordinator and Junior Research Fellow at ISDP’s Asia Program and Korea Center and also serves as Director of Security Affairs at The New Global Order, a Rome-based think tank. He is also a Kelly A. Korea Fellow at the Pacific Forum, conducting research on nuclear non-proliferation, military advancements, and innovation on the Korean Peninsula. His research primarily addresses inter-Korean relations and Northeast Asia's security dynamics, specializing in arms control and mediation.

Image Credit: Shutterstock

Long-range global strike is exactly what it sounds like: a military capability to deliver weapons with high precision from great distances. For the United States, which possesses a more robust long-range global strike capability than nearly any other nation, the task falls to both long-range bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles. Both delivery systems fall under the purview of the Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC).

Let’s consider the options available to AFGSC.

The Air Force is fortunate to have multiple long-range capable bomber options available—the B-1, the B-2, and the B-52. The B-1 will soon be phased out but is distinct for being the United States’ only supersonic bomber option. With sweep wings and an elongated fuselage, the B-1 was first brought into service during the Reagan administration after years of production halts.

The B-2 is also being phased out soon. The B-2 is especially distinct; with a flying wing design, the B-2 is the first (and still the only) stealth bomber ever produced. While the B-2’s stealth capabilities have become outdated, the bomber was a technological marvel when she first flew in 1989, a product of Area 51 and one of the United States’ most secret weapons development programs.

Both the B-1 and the B-2 are being phased out to make way for the upcoming B-21 Raider—which bears a striking resemblance to the B-2 and is expected to be the world’s preeminent stealth bomber.

And of course, the Air Force has the B-52 available. Remarkably, the B-52 has been flying active duty since the 1950s—and is slated to continue serving until the 2050s, which means the massive, eight-engine bomber should have an Air Force career spanning a full century.

All three of the American bombers are capable of delivering both conventional and nuclear ordnance.

AFGSC’s long-range strike capabilities also include intercontinental ballistic missiles, specifically, the LGM-30G Minuteman III. Currently, the United States has up to 400 Minuteman missiles at its disposal. According to the Department of Defense, the Minuteman “is a strategic weapon system using a ballistic missile of intercontinental range,” which is “dispersed in hardened silos to protect against attack and connected to an underground launch control center.” Minuteman missiles are manned around the clock. Each Minuteman weighs about 40 tons, relies upon three stages of rocket boosters, and has a range in excess of 6,000 miles. So, while the Minuteman cannot reach any target on Earth, the system does provide the United States with a reliable, domestically-based option that can cross oceans with ease.

To further augment long-range strike options, the United States is working to develop reliable hypersonic missile systems. Hypersonic missiles are a burgeoning variety of missiles which rely on kinetic energy rather than an exploding warhead to cause damage.

In sum, the United States has an enviable and diverse array of long-range strike options.

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.

Image Credit: Shutterstock.

The conflict in Ukraine has introduced drone warfare at an unprecedented scale. There is a constant buzzing of drones of all sizes above the battlefield in Ukraine as both sides are using unmanned aerial systems in great numbers.

Drones have become so important throughout the war that the Ukrainian military has established a separate drone service to control and coordinate the employment of the weapon systems. And now, the Russian military is following suit and is trying to centralize command and control of its drone forces in order to maximize effectiveness. However, although logical, that move might have the opposite effect.

The Russian military is trying to centralize command and control of drone units. But that might not have the desirable tactical effect.

“The Russian Ministry of Defense’s (MoD) efforts to centralize control over informal Russian drone operation units may degrade the effectiveness of Russian drone capabilities,” the Institute for the Study of War assessed in its latest operational estimate of the conflict.

The Russian military has a tendency to centralize its capabilities. But that can easily put bureaucracy in front of efficiency on the battlefield and cost lives. Moreover, the Russian military is taking precious drone operators from support units and is assigning them to line infantry units that conduct human-wave attacks against the Ukrainian positions. In that way, experienced drone operators are killed in senseless World War I-style attacks, thereby depriving the Russian forces of their capabilities.

Russian military bloggers are already making a noise about the “redeployment” of drone operators in infantry tasks, highlighting the tactical and strategic shortcomings.

Although suicide drones, or one-way attack drones or loitering munitions, are the “sexiest” drones because they have a direct impact on the enemy and the course of the fighting, they only account for a very small number of the drones operating in the war. Most of the drones are used for artillery fire support and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. Through drones, commanders now have a literal picture of the battlefield as opposed to an imagined one on a map based on reports.

The Ukrainian military is truly a pioneer in drone warfare. It has created a dedicated service for drones and has brought every pertinent party, from drone operators on the contact line to drone manufacturers to software engineers, together to work closely and improve their effectiveness. The different stakeholders work together to refine capabilities and use data from previous missions to improve. It is delicate work that involves thousands of personnel on the contact line and the rear. But that is the way to win

Indeed, the way the Ukrainian military is treating its drone capabilities resembles the way the U.S. military tackled the terrorism problem during the war in Iraq when it created an industrial counterterrorism machine centered around the Joint Special Operations Command.

Although not new, drone warfare has truly come of age in the war in Ukraine, and the lessons are plenty.

Stavros Atlamazoglou is a seasoned defense journalist specializing in special operations and a Hellenic Army veteran (national service with the 575th Marine Battalion and Army HQ). He holds a BA from Johns Hopkins University and an MA from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). His work has been featured in Business Insider, Sandboxx, and SOFREP.

Image: Shutterstock.

There is often no peace on Earth for those who serve in the military during wartime. That is sadly true for U.S. military personnel deployed to the Middle East—as there remains a threat they could come under attack even on Christmas. However, since the country's earliest days, Americans in uniform have risked life and limb for their nation, knowing that war doesn't stop for the holidays.

This is a tradition that dates back to the American Revolution.

Every school child knows—or at least should know unless they stopped teaching such things—that in 1776, General George Washington famously crossed the Delaware River on Christmas and surprised the British forces at Trenton.

There are a few key details to understand about this event.

First, it was very much true that the Continental Army had suffered a number of defeats in the early stages of the American Revolution and the cause looked bleak as winter set in. Washington desperately needed to rally the troops and restore hope. Thus, General Washington devised a plan to conduct a raid on Trenton, New Jersey, where a unit of Hessian troops was stationed. These were actually German troops, essentially the mercenaries or private military contractors of the day, who had been hired by the British to bolster their ranks in the American colonies.

What is incorrect in most tellings of the story is that Washington struck on Christmas Day. In fact, Washington made the crossing on Christmas evening, catching the Hessians after their holiday celebrations and not on Christmas morning.

It is also important to note that Christmas was a minor holiday for the American colonists at that point, yet it was often a rowdy affair for the Germans. Washington's troops essentially caught the Hessians in a state of post-celebration slumber and most of them surrendered within an hour and a half.

The raid, which became known as the Battle of Trenton, proved to be as much a propaganda victory as a strategic success. It raised the spirits of Washington's troops and more importantly, revived the hope of the American colonists.

However, it almost didn't work out. Only one of the three planned river crossings was successful and even worse, spies and deserters had informed the British that an attack was planned. Fortunately, the Hessian commander, Col. Johann Rall, dismissed that there was any threat.

As for the famous painting by Emanuel Leutze—it is pure nonsense. It was almost pitch dark, and Washington didn't stand at the bow of the boat in a historic pose. Leutze completed work on the painting almost eighty years after the famous event, and he based it on the river Rhine, not on the Delaware. The German river is far wider than what Washington had to endure on that still very cold evening.

One part of the story not quite suitable for children is that Washington is recorded to have told the portly General Henry Knox, who was already seated on one side, "Shift that fat ass Henry… but slowly, or you'll swamp the damned boat."

In a final Christmas connection to the American Revolution, it should be noted that a legend tells that following the British defeat at the Battle of Yorktown in 1781, the British Army band under Lord Cornwallis played the tune "The World Turned Upside Down." Many history books still propagate the story, though it only first appeared about a century after the surrender. What those books fail to note is that the English ballad was first published in the 1640s as a protest against the policies of Parliament that banned the celebration of Christmas—and it was hardly considered a military march at the time.

Given that the American Civil War was one described as pitting brother against brother, it is not surprising that the conflict saw numerous engagements at Christmas time—but not like children fighting over a new toy.

The most significant was at Fredericksburg, Dec 11-15, 1862—which was also arguably the most one-sided battle in the war, and a major Confederate victory. Another battle two years later proved to be a major debacle for the Union. That was the First Battle of Fort Fisher, which Union forces tried to take beginning on Christmas Eve 1864. The battle continued until December 27, when Union Major Benjamin Butler declared the fort to be impregnable.

However, that same year, General William Tecumseh Sherman said he had a Christmas gift for President Abraham Lincoln—the city of Savannah, Georgia, which was captured on December 22.

What is also important to note is that Christmas had a different meaning depending on where the soldiers may have been from. By the 1860s, the South tended to celebrate the holiday, while Christmas celebrations were seen as an unnecessary expense in Massachusetts. In reality, Christmas didn't actually become an official Federal holiday until 1870 when President Ulysses S. Grant made it so as an attempt to unite north and south.

Being away from family is never easy for military personnel during the holidays, but it was even worse for the American soldiers who were surrounded by the German military during the Battle of the Bulge in December 1944. Just a week before Christmas, the Germans launched the largest counteroffensive in the war in the war.

The fighting has been described as intense, without accounts that the snow literally turned red with blood—and there is even a tragic account of a young American nurse whose body was delivered home swaddled in parachute cloth. The battle lasted six weeks and finally came to its apex during the Siege of Bastogne, which began on December 20.

There are accounts of small "Christmas Truces" that occurred, and by some accounts, it was a season of miracles as the determined U.S. forces successfully held out against repeated German attacks. It also wasn't until January 28 that the battle ended in a German failure. Yet, the "Bulge" was still the largest and bloodiest single battle fought by the United States, with some 19,000 killed. It was also the third-deadliest campaign in American history.

It was fifty years ago this month, during the Vietnam War, that the United States launched the largest aerial bombing campaign in military history. Known officially as Operation Linebacker II, a follow-up to the Operation Linebacker air interdiction campaign, it was designed to be a "maximum effort" bombing campaign that would destroy major target complexes in Hanoi and Haiphong.

Ordered by President Richard Nixon, it was also the largest heavy bomber strike launched by the U.S. military since World War II. Taking part from December 18 to 29, it earned the nickname "the 11 Days of Christmas," and involved some 207 B-52 Stratofortress bombers along with nearly 2,000 tactical aircraft—with the bombers taking off from and returning to Andersen Air Force Base (AFB), Guam.

The only day that both sides received any reprieve was Christmas Day when American troops were given a thirty-six-hour break to celebrate the holiday. During that brief interlude, Nixon called upon the North Vietnamese to return to the bargaining table, which they initially refused to do. Only when Hanoi agreed to resume peace talks did the bombing campaign come to an end.

During those eleven days, U.S. aircraft dropped 15,000 tons of bombs during 729 U.S. Air Force sorties that involved some 12,000 airmen. According to United States Department of Defense figures, the raid destroyed or damaged 1,600 structures, 500 rail targets, and ten airfields; while 80 percent of North Vietnam's electric-generating capacity was impacted by the Linebacker II campaign.

It was a costly endeavor for the Americans as well.

Sixteen B-52s were shot down, four more suffered heavy damage, and five others suffered medium damage, while a dozen U.S. tactical aircraft also fell victim to enemy fire. A total of forty-three American personnel were killed and forty-nine more were taken prisoner. The United States claimed that six MiG-21s were also shot down, while North Vietnam reported that 1,624 civilians were killed.

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: Shutterstock.

Could China Sink a U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier in a War?

USS Parche: The Navy Submarine That Could Self-Destruct

When President Donald Trump returns to the White House, most expect he’ll give Israel a long leash to do as it sees fit in the Middle East. However, that expectation could be tested and might prove to be wrong altogether. It is clear enough that Trump cannot stand it when allies defy him the way Israel has defied President Joe Biden on bringing about a ceasefire and a hostage deal since October 7, 2023. Furthermore, if Tel Aviv’s ongoing regional aggression embarrasses Trump by scuttling his ambitious plans to bring peace to the Middle East, Trump’s frustrations will likely boil over into a bid to reign Israel in. 

The big question, then, is: how can he do that? The answer lies in changing the structure of the U.S.-Israeli alliance, namely by making it more ambiguous. A strategically ambiguous alliance will benefit both Israel and the United States. It will ensure Israeli defenses against regional foes, temper Israeli adventurism, and provide the foundation for expanding the Abraham Accords, which Trump is especially keen to do.

A phenomenon that political scientists call “moral hazard” lies at the heart of the troubles that Trump (like Biden) is almost certain to face with Israel. Moral hazard tends to emerge when a great power makes a robust security pledge to a revisionist ally, meaning a state that is desperate to fix its security problems and/or alter the prevailing security order. Protection by the great power shields the ally from the consequences of its actions, making it more risk-acceptant and less responsive to the great power’s demands. On the hook to bail out the ally when trouble comes, the great power finds that its security costs rise to unsustainable levels.

Since October 7, 2023, moral hazard has left Washington at the mercy of its junior partner, Israel. Backed by Washington’s “ironclad” security commitment to Israel and massive supplies of U.S. weapons, Israeli leaders openly boast about manipulating the United States. “The U.S. has our back,” Netanyahu said confidently in July. Resting on that assurance, Israel has largely ignored Washington as it has barreled forward, repeatedly undercutting the kinds of efforts at peace Trump wants to see in the Middle East. According to one expert, Israel is telling Washington that the war in Gaza will end “on our terms and timeline. Not yours.”

The record bears this out. In early July, Biden pressed Netanyahu to negotiate. Tel Aviv instead hardened its negotiating terms, launched airstrikes in Lebanon and Gaza, and assassinated Hamas’s political leader, Ismail Haniyeh.

The same story prevailed in September and October. Biden pushed a “take it or leave it” ceasefire. Israel rejected it and then dramatically expanded the war through pager strikes in Lebanon and the killing of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. Getting Israeli cooperation is “like pulling teeth,” said one U.S. official.

The price tag for Israeli moral hazard has been high. Since October 7, the United States has spent $26 billion defending Israel; strains on U.S. weapons stockpiles have grown due to historic levels of shipments to Israel; and three U.S. service members have died, with another 183 injured.

Israel’s gains against Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran have emboldened Israel in ways that could scuttle Trump’s plans for de-escalating regional conflicts and reducing U.S. security costs. In fact, Trump’s election appears set to make Israel’s moral hazard worse, not better. Israeli leaders anticipate Trump “will support their country unconditionally,” a belief reinforced by the pro-Israel bent of Trump appointees. Despite Trump saying he wants a Gaza ceasefire before inauguration day, Israel helped kill ceasefire talks just after Trump’s election and seems largely unchanged in its position on current negotiations. Likewise, Israel’s post-Assad invasion of Syria belies Trump’s stated wishes that Syrians work out their future alone, without outside interference.

If moral hazard remains a problem going forward, Trump should do what Biden lacked the foresight or courage to do and add strategic ambiguity to the partnership with Israel. This would start by replacing the “ironclad” commitment with an explicit pledge whereby the United States “reserves the right,” as with Taiwan, to defend Israel at Washington’s choosing on a case-by-case basis. Also, as with Taiwan, Trump could pare back the supply of offensive military hardware to Israel and send mostly defensive supplies instead (Washington is Israel’s main arms supplier). A progressive drawdown of U.S. forces sent to protect Israel would help signal ambiguity, too.

Some might call this abandonment. It’s not. The United States never abandoned Taiwan with its policy of strategic ambiguity. Taiwan remains a close U.S. partner in Asia and has been shielded by U.S. power from Chinese attacks for more than seven decades. The same would go for Israel in the Middle East.

Ambiguity will help reduce moral hazards (as in the past with Taiwan) by making Israel bear, or think it will bear, more of the costs of its own security. Consequently, Israel will need to take diplomacy more seriously, giving Trump more leverage to de-escalate conflict and shift attention away from the Middle East. With bigger problems elsewhere in Asia, this course is what U.S. interests dictate. 

C. William “Will” Walldorf, Jr. is an Associate Professor and Shivley Family Faculty Fellow at Wake Forest University, as well as a Non-Resident Fellow at Defense Priorities. He is the author most recently of To Shape Our World For Good: Master Narratives and Regime Change in U.S. Foreign Policy, 1900-2011. Will is currently writing a book titled America’s Forever Wars: Why So Long, Why End Now, What Comes Next that, among other things, develops a comprehensive model for over-the-horizon counterterrorism for the current era.

Image: Noam Galai / Shutterstock.com. 

The word “Typhoon” means different things to different people. Besides the actual natural disaster, old-school WWE fans may remember Typhoon (real name Fred Otto), the professional wrestler who teamed up with the late Earthquake (real name John Tenta; June 22, 1963-June 7, 2006) to form the tag team known as The Natural Disasters, who briefly held the WWF World Tag Team Championship back in 1992.

Meanwhile, since a typhoon is a natural disaster of the aerial variety, it should come as no surprise that more than one military warplane has borne the Typhoon moniker. During World War II, there was Great Britain’s Hawker Typhoon, a piston-engine, prop-driven Royal Air Force (RAF) fighter-bomber that, among other things, performed devastating rocket attacks against German radar stations along the coast and strafing attacks against Nazi German Wehrmacht infantry and armor columns during the D-Day campaign. Fast forward to the present day, and you have the multinational twin-engine, supersonic, canard delta wing, multirole 4.5-generation jet fighter known as the Eurofighter Typhoon. Let us now say “Hello/Bonsoir/Guten Tag/Buona Sera” to this remarkable warbird.

Manufactured by a consortium of France’s Airbus (that famous maker of civilian airlines is also involved in military aircraft manufacturing), Britain’s BAE Systems, and Italy’s Leonardo—all, in turn, working through a joint holding company known as Eurofighter Jagdflugzeug GmbH—this Typhoon made her maiden flight on March 27, 1994, which, according to the BBC, was “two years later than expected”; however, for the sake of fairness and balance, that same BBC report reported that this “troubled” warbird nonetheless “successfully completed airborne system and handling checks in a 40-minute flight at Manching in Germany.”

According to the official RAF info page on the Typhoon:

“The Typhoon FGR.Mk 4 is a highly capable and extremely agile multi-role combat aircraft, capable of being deployed for the full spectrum of air operations, including air policing, peace support and high-intensity conflict. Initially deployed in the air-to-air role as the Typhoon F.Mk 2, the aircraft now has a potent, precision multi-role capability as the FGR4. The pilot performs many essential functions through the aircraft’s hands on throttle and stick (HOTAS) interface which, combined with an advanced cockpit and the Helmet Equipment Assembly (HEA), renders Typhoon superbly equipped for all aspects of air operations.”

The warbird has the following specifications and vital stats:

• Fuselage Length: 15.96 m (52 ft 4 in)
• Wingspan: 10.95 m (35 ft 11 in)
• Height: 5.28 m (17 ft 4 in)
• Max Takeoff Weight: 23,500 kg (51,809 lb)
• Powerplant: Twin Rolls-Royce Eurojet EJ200 turbofan; 20,000 lbf (90 kN) each with afterburner; 13,500 lbf (60 kN) each without afterburner
• Max Airspeed: Mach 2.35 (2,385 km/h (1,482 mph, 1,288 kn)
• Service Ceiling: 16,764 m (55,000 ft)
• Combat range: 1,389 km (863 mi, 750 nmi)
• Armament:
  
  • 1 × 27 mm Mauser “Bordkanone (onboard cannon)” BK-27 autocannon with 150 rounds
  • Total of thirteen external store stations: five (incl one wet) under the fuselage and four (incl one wet) under each wing
  • Mix of Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missiles (BVRAAM) and Short-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (SRAAM) carried externally
  • Four BVRAAM under the fuselage in semi-conformal carriage configuration
  • Laser guided bombs
  • Advanced anti-armor weapons
  • Conventionally armed stand-off missiles

Reportedly 592 airframes have been built as of 2023. Besides the Royal Air Force, the Luftwaffe, the Italian Air Force, and the Spanish Air and Space Force, the warbird has also been adopted by Austria as well as the air forces of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member nations Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia.

For an assessment of the Eurofighter’s real-world combat performance, we turn to back to the RAF info page:

“Although Typhoon has flown precision attack missions in all its combat deployments to date, its most essential role remains the provision of quick reaction alert (QRA) for UK and Falkland Islands airspace … Having first deployed into combat for Operation Ellamy (over Libya) in 2011, Typhoon Force began an enduring commitment to Operation Shader (Iraq/Syria) in December 2015. It has also been a regular contributor to the Baltic Air Policing effort under Operation Azotize and bolstered NATO air defence over the Black Sea, deploying jets to Romania, and Iceland, in addition to the standing commitment of QRA in the UK and Falkland Islands.”

Meanwhile, in a delightful non-combat-related human interest story, this past April the RAF had one of its display Typhoons—based at RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire—repainted a camouflage color scheme with black and white stripes on its wings to commemorate the eightieth anniversary of the D-Day landings. “It means the world to me,” the plane’s pilot, Flt Lt David Turnbull, was quoted as saying.

“No rest for the weary,” as the saying goes (or as some prefer to phrase it, “No rest for the wicked”). Craig Hoyle of FlightGlobal noted last year that the RAF had dramatically ramped up the ops tempo for its Typhoon fleet ever since Vladimir Putin initiated Russia’s so-called “special military operation” in Ukraine in February 2022, and with the end of that conflict seemingly nowhere in sight, that ops tempo probably won’t be slowing down anytime soon.

Meanwhile. other countries expressing an interest in purchasing the Eurofighter include Serbia (somewhat ironic in light of the Serbs’ longstanding “Little Brother-Big Brother” relationship with Russia), Bangladesh, Colombia, and Ukraine.

Christian D. Orr is a Senior Defense Editor for National Security Journal (NSJ). He is a former Air Force Security Forces officer, Federal law enforcement officer, and private military contractor (with assignments worked in Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kosovo, Japan, Germany, and the Pentagon). Chris holds a B.A. in International Relations from the University of Southern California (USC) and an M.A. in Intelligence Studies (concentration in Terrorism Studies) from American Military University (AMU). He has also been published in The Daily Torch, The Journal of Intelligence and Cyber Security, and Simple Flying. Last but not least, he is a Companion of the Order of the Naval Order of the United States (NOUS).

Image: Soos Jozsef / Shutterstock.com

While the French today are mocked for their surrender to Hitler’s Germany in World War II, Americans and others around the world make the mistake of underestimating this once great and proud nation with a rich history of martial prowess.

What’s more, France has a highly sophisticated and reliable defense export sector.

One of the most enduring products of the French defense industrial base is the Dassault Rafale. In fact, it has been described to me at times by proud French defense experts as the “pinnacle of French aeronautical engineering.” It is, without a doubt, the most impressive indigenously produced French warplane. This bird has demonstrated a high degree of versatility, technological prowess, and combat effectiveness across multiple battlefields globally.

The Rafale began its storied existence in the 1980s, as the Europeans were feverishly trying to develop a European-produced next-generation fighter. As always, the French strategic vision diverged from those of the rest of Europe. Thus, much like their development of a nuclear weapons arsenal, the French independently created a delta-canard configured jet that emphasized stealth, agility, and versatility. It became a great system for air superiority and ground attack roles. This bird has a reduced cross-section, making it harder to spot on radar. While it isn’t a stealth plane. It is very effective at cutting down on its radar visibility.

An RBE2 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar comes with the Rafale that greatly improves target detection and tracking capabilities. More importantly, the Rafale uses the SPECTRA EW suite which gives the pilot 360-degree protection against radar and infrared threats, making it one of the most survivable aircraft in its class. All this, of course, merges into the aforementioned Thales Scorpion Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS) for greater pilot situational awareness and off-boresight targeting. 

The M88-2 engine developed originally by Snecma (now Safran Aircraft Engines) powers the Rafale. The M88-2 allows for the plane to enter a supercruise mode, meaning this bird can go supersonic without needing afterburners. This, in turn, conserves fuel for longer missions or increased combat persistence. When used in conjunction with the Rafale’s fly-by-wire control systems, the Rafale has incredible maneuverability.

As a multirole fighter, the Rafale can carry a wide range of weapons, from air-to-air missiles to air-to-ground attack systems and precision-guided munitions. It’s a truly adaptable warplane for nearly any kind of combat environment. The Rafale’s long service life, as well as its popularity as an export system for France, has allowed for it to see combat across a wide variety of regions. 

Fighting in places like Libya, Mali, Iraq, and Syria, the Rafale has been praised for its precision strike capabilities, its survivability in contested environments, and its role in coalition operations. The Rafale is a highly interoperable plane with other NATO and allied nations. 

In fact, French pilots upstaged the United States Air Force during a training exercise in the Middle East when a Rafale supposedly destroyed an F-22A Raptor in combat. The Americans were understandably humiliated by this and issued a series of denunciations against their French allies. 

Yet, the French military maintains that its Rafales outperformed the F-22 in that instance. It remains a point of controversy between the two air forces today. Still, it showed the amazing capabilities that the older, cheaper fourth-generation French plane had when compared to even fifth-generation warplanes.

Thus, the Rafale is an astonishing plane that routinely protects French territory while projecting French power—and giving the French considerable leverage in the global arms industry. 

The French might not be the dominant world power they were a couple of centuries ago. That doesn’t mean they should be underestimated. 

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 available for purchase wherever books are sold. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

Image: Arjan van de Logt / Shutterstock.com

It is no fresh news that the Russian forces have been taking extremely heavy losses in Ukraine. Moscow has lost almost 800,000 men in the fighting thus far. But what about materiel losses? How many heavy ground weapon systems have the Russian force lost in the fighting?

“Russian military equipment losses in Ukraine continue to increase. Russia has lost over 3,600 Main Battle Tanks and nearly 8,000 armoured vehicles since February 2022,” the British Military Intelligence assessed in a recent estimate on the conflict.

According to the Oryx independent open-source analysis website, which has been visually tracking Russian materiel losses since the start of the conflict, the Russian forces have lost approximately 3,660 main battle tanks and 8,900 infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers.

However, the Ukrainian estimates put the number of Russian materiel losses at vastly higher figures. Specifically, the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense assesses that the Russian forces have lost approximately 9,600 main battle tanks and 19,900 armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles.

That is quite a discrepancy in numbers between the Western and Ukrainian intelligence assessments, and the truth may very well lie somewhere in between. The Ukrainians are closer to the action and have a better picture. But they also have a vested interest in portraying high Russian losses.

To counter the extremely heavy attrition on the frontlines, the Russian military has resorted to using obsolete weapon systems and vehicles. These obsolete weapon systems include T-54/55 main battle tanks, which were designed at the end of World War II; Degtyaryov heavy machine guns, dating from World War I; artillery pieces built eighty years ago; and armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles from the 1950s and 1960s.

“This has led to a reliance on outdated and poorly maintained Soviet-era equipment from strategic storage depots. Armoured equipment is being hauled out of storage, upgraded where possible and sent to the frontline,” the British Military Intelligence added.

The Russian military has sent thousands of these older weapon systems to the frontlines to fill the gap created by the heavy attrition.

“Imagery has confirmed a large reduction of stored armoured vehicles at tank storage bases at Arsenyev, Buy and Ulan-Ude since 2022,” the British Military stated, referring to strategic weapon storage facilities operated by the Russian military.

There is a strategic consequence to what is transpiring in Ukraine. The Russian military’s ability to fight modern, maneuver-type warfare has largely diminished. Indeed, if a near-peer conflict between Russia and NATO breaks out tomorrow, the Russian military would very likely not be able to match the transatlantic alliance’s conventional capabilities on the ground—notwithstanding escalation to the use of nuclear weapons. And that is the case with other capabilities.

For example, the Russian special operations forces community has suffered extremely heavy losses in the fighting. Some Spetsnaz units have lost up to 80 percent of their personnel. And when it comes to special operators, recruiting and training take years. As such, it will likely take the Russian military years to recreate a strategic special operations capability once the war is over.

Stavros Atlamazoglou is a seasoned defense journalist specializing in special operations and a Hellenic Army veteran (national service with the 575th Marine Battalion and Army HQ). He holds a BA from Johns Hopkins University and an MA from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). His work has been featured in Business Insider, Sandboxx, and SOFREP.

Image: Andrii Marushchynets / Shutterstock.com