Diplomacy & Crisis News

Drone warfare has utterly transformed the face of warfare in this century. No longer is it about how many tanks an army has or how many aircraft carriers a navy can maintain, it’s all about rapid maneuverability, stealth, affordability, and mass. Both the Russians and Ukrainians have proven this with their drone-swarming techniques that the two armies regularly use against one another in the ongoing Ukraine war. 

Now, this philosophy is migrating to the sea. 

We live in a time when the power projection capabilities of the United States Navy, notably in the all-important Indo-Pacific, are under constant strain. This is in part due to the development of anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) systems by American rivals. The U.S. Navy is further strained, though, by the domestic woes of a sclerotic U.S. defense industrial base and an increasingly cash-strapped U.S. government that is both unable to fund the systems the Navy wants and is unable to fundamentally adapt to the new multipolar strategic environment.

Yet, thanks to some innovative design concepts of the United States military’s research arms, the Navy is slowly starting to embrace the idea of unmanned undersea vehicles (UUVs). Going back to 2017, the Navy began developing what has become known as the Orca. This is a multi-mission platform designed for a multiplicity of important mission sets, ranging from surveillance to undersea cargo delivery, anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare, mine clearing, and strike missions. 

The Orca is considered an “Extra Large Unmanned Undersea Vehicle” (XLUUV).

Boeing is building this system for the Navy. It is based on design architecture from Boeing’s earlier Echo Voyager, meaning that the Orca was built with modularity in mind. (This modularity is key for Orca’s multi-mission capabilities. It means that Orca has a plug-and-play design). Its modular payload means that Orca is capable of adding up to 34 feet in length and can host an eight-ton payload. Again, this is a key tenet of a multi-mission platform like the Orca. 

In fact, Orca is essentially meant to be a drone mothership. Its cargo hold has a capacity of 2,456 cubic feet, meaning it can bring with it multiple other, smaller unmanned vehicles or drones. Orca is the apotheosis of network-centric warfare. She represents a true transition from the warfare of yesteryear to something entirely new today. A new kind of warfare that is more devoid of the human element than at any time before. 

Sure, this reduction of the human elements ensures U.S. sailors are better protected from dangerous missions. At the same time, though, many people should be concerned that removing that human element from combat could have unintended ethical complications. What’s more, it might ensure that warfare is more likely to occur amongst the great powers using these systems.

Orca itself is powered by an advanced hybrid diesel/lithium-ion battery system that enables the vehicle to operate submerged for extended periods, recharging via diesel vehicles when surfaced. 

Since this is still an experimental vehicle, it is unlikely that the Orca will be the Navy’s final XLUUV design. Its top speed right now is reported to be at nine miles per hour (so she isn’t a speed demon), but its typical operational speed is likely to be slower at just shy of four miles per hour. Orca has an impressive projected operational range of around 7,480 miles.

Boeing delivered its first Orca to the Navy in December 2023, meaning that the program had shifted from development testing to operational capability. The vehicle’s autonomous nature means that it can be deployed easily from a friendly pier and navigate on its own to its destination completely free of human involvement. This makes the Orca a relatively simple (and, therefore, cheap) platform because its logistical footprint is as small as its overall operational footprint. 

One of the promises of developing autonomous systems was that they would be cheaper than their manned counterparts. For the Navy, with its complex platforms, such as the aircraft carrier, this seems like a smart move.

Yet, Orca went about 64 percent over budget, according to the Government Accountability Office, thereby continuing a dangerous trend, especially for the Navy, of all new Pentagon platforms going over their intended budgets. What’s more, like the manned counterparts to Orca, the Orca program ran over its allotted timeline by about three years. 

Unlike many of those manned Navy platforms that have gone over budget and time, however, the Orca’s sea trials have proceeded apace with no complications whatsoever. Indeed, the testing phases for this XLUUV have been successful in proving the vehicle’s endurance, functionality, and the reliability of its autonomous systems. 

Make no mistake, unmanned systems will be an important way for the Navy to cut down on its costs. The hard lessons learned from the Orca program will be applied to future unmanned undersea vehicles. 

Eventually, the Navy will have an impressive fleet of these drones that will serve as critical force multipliers and help to protect the costlier manned warships and submarines of the fleet that are increasingly under the threat of enemy A2/AD systems.

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, National Review, The American Spectator, MSN, the Asia Times, and countless others. 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.

America’s sixth-generation stealth bomber is closer to full-scale production.

According to reports, three B-21 Raider prototypes are actively participating in flight testing, propelling the program forward.

At least three B-21 Raider prototypes are participating in flight testing as part of the program’s initial steps to an operational fleet.

Revealed in 2022, the B-21 Raider is moving at a fast pace. Northrup Grumman, the manufacturer, is conducting the initial flight testing for the program. Data gathered during this phase will be used in the subsequent production of the B-21 Raider fleet.

All in all, the new stealth strategic bomber has been in production for over a decade, and the Air Force wants an operational capability before the decade is out. In addition to flight testing, the prototypes are testing new technology on board the B-21 Raider.

The B-21 Raider is designed to cement the U.S. Air Force’s global strike capability. The U.S. military already has superior strategic bombing capabilities with its fleet comprised of the B-1 Lancer, B-2 Spirit, and B-52 Stratofortress (and potentially the F-117 Night Hawk for some niche missions). The addition of the B-21 Raider in place of the B-2 Spirit will ensure that the Air Force’s global strike capabilities remain cutting-edge.

However, the additional capability won’t come cheap. Although Northrup Grumman and the Air Force are still haggling over the price of the new stealth bomber, it is likely that each B-21 Raider will cost between $600 and 750 million. That is an extremely high price tag and the equivalent of about six F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter jets. And yet, it is up to $1.4 billion cheaper compared to the B-2 Spirit it will be replacing, which costs an astronomical $2 billion per aircraft.

The Pentagon has been careful about releasing information on the stealth strategic bomber’s actual capabilities. Back in 2022, when Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin unveiled the aircraft during a ceremony, he provided some intel on the aircraft’s bomber capabilities, low-observability, and durability.

“Let’s talk about the B-21’s range. No other long-range bomber can match its efficiency. It won’t need to be based in-theater. It won’t need logistical support to hold any target at risk,” Austin had said.

As a strategic bomber, the B-21 Raider will need to fly thousands of miles to reach targets deep inside a near-peer adversary’s territory. It needs to be efficient with its energy consumption while retaining its stealth characteristics.

“Let’s talk about the B-21’s stealth. Fifty years of advances in low-observable technology have gone into this aircraft. And even the most sophisticated air-defense systems will struggle to detect a B-21 in the sky,” the outgoing Secretary of Defense had added.

The U.S. military is a leader in stealth technology and already has three stealth aircraft in active service, more than any other country: the F-22 Raptor, F-35 Lightning II, and B-2 Spirit.

Finally, Austin gave some information on the B-21 Raider’s durability. An aircraft that can’t fly because of maintenance issues is not very useful. “Let’s talk about the B-21’s durability,” he said. “You know, we really don’t have a capability unless we can maintain it. And the B-21 is carefully designed to be the most maintainable bomber ever built,” the Pentagon’s top official added.

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: Shutterstock.

Video game publisher Tencent was one of several Chinese companies that the United States Department of Defense (DoD) claimed had links to China. On Tuesday, the Pentagon announced it had added dozens of Chinese-based firms – including Tencent, battery maker CATL, AI firm SenseTime, ChangXin Memory Technologies, Quectel Wireless, and drone maker Autel Robotics – to the list of " Chinese Military Companies" (CMC).

The DoD's list is updated annually and now includes 134 companies.

While not officially banned in the United States, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)  2024 bans the DoD from working with any of the designated companies beginning in June 2026. According to a report from Nikkei Asia, the inclusion on the list is also "a blow to the reputation of affected companies and represents a stark warning to U.S. entities and firms about the risks of conducting business with them."

Tencent – A Gaming Giant

The Shenzhen-based Tencent was founded in August 2003, and it currently owns shares in more than 600 companies in the electronic entertainment sector. It fully controls Riot Games, maker of League of Legends, and Grinding Gear Games, creator of Path of Exile; while it has partial ownership of Epic Games and Ubisoft.

Tencent's Hong Kong-traded shares fell 7.3% on Tuesday following the DoD's announcement.

"As the company is neither a Chinese military company nor a military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base, it believes that its inclusion in the CMC List is a mistake," Tencent said in an announcement to the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, per CBS News.

Tech Firms Links to Beijing

It isn't uncommon for any and all Chinese firms to end up on such blacklists, in no small part due to Beijing's military-civil fusion (MCF), which encourages private firms to partner with the People's Liberation Army (PLA). The goal is to achieve a world-class military by 2049 or earlier.

As the Foundation for Defense of Democracies explained, "This law and associated regulations require Chinese private firms to permit Beijing direct access to their data and mandates their cooperation in protecting Chinese national security interests. This process ensures that the PLA and other elements of China's security and intelligence services can dramatically expand the scope of their reliance on China's civilian economy to bolster their strength and challenge the United States more effectively."

This is why a video game publisher, one that has ties to international studios is suddenly on the DoD's CMC list.

"The core concern with companies like Tencent is that it can conduct surveillance and intelligence opens by gathering large amounts of data on large amounts of players," Dr. Matthew Schmidt, professor of national security and political science at the University of New Haven, told The National Interest.

"It's a game of probabilities. 99% of players are uninteresting targets, but in a population of many millions you'll find some good fish to hook," Schmidt said.

Game Chat Monitored

Video games that are hosted online can record vast quantities of data – including messages between players. That may not seem significant, but Schmidt explained the problem is far deeper than meets the eye.

"They can monitor personal messages between players, use that data to analyze political views and establish any relationships those players may have to classified information or to people with classified information, and create target lists for espionage," Schmidt continued.

The game publisher even has the ability o track movements as people log on to play the game or send messages from different destinations.

"These are the kinds of things that would allow the Chinese military's intelligence branch to gather the back-end information that supports targeting people they exploit based on the information gathered from chats and what that info gives them about other platforms and movement patterns to build the social network diagrams that help Chinese agencies focus on the most likely people they could exploit for access to information," Schmidt continued. "It's the same thing the U.S. does in reverse."

Many companies gather this kind of information and could do this kind of analysis if they wanted. The DoD is especially concerned when it involves China due to MCF.

"Remember the axiom of the Internet Age: if you don't know what the product is they're selling, you're the product. That is, the data you generate when you use Facebook or X/Twitter is where the value is because it allows companies that do sell things to target you," Schmidt told The National Interest. "It's the same science; it's just that one organization targets you for espionage, the other for marketing. The end goal is different, but the process is basically the same."

Gaming Could be a Voter Issue

Even today, video gamers are dismissed as teenage boys in their bedrooms or basements—but it is a multi-billion dollar global industry. The question will be how to balance the economic interests in supporting the digital economy with political interests and not anger millions of constituents by obstructing the digital services they want, and the legitimate security concerns of the government.

"To the generations now of voting age, gaming isn't a fringe issue, it's becoming a core political concern," suggested Schmidt.

Just as we have seen with TikTok, many Americans are less concerned with security and more focused on being able to use the app they've come to love. Gamers could be even more passionate if they were to lose access to League of Legends or the next big hit that Tencent brings to market.

"We haven't figured out the balance yet, and I'd suspect the elder statesmen in power now won't be the last word. My kids fight for more screen time and the ability to play games I ban, every day," Schmidt added. "Someday they'll be power and, as they remind me, they'll let their kids play whatever they want."

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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: Wikimedia Commons.

As geopolitical tensions across the globe continue to escalate, the race to produce sixth-generation technology is on. The U.S., Russia and China are working to develop their respective next-gen bombers and fighters alike. Washington’s Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) and B-21 Raider, Moscow’s PAK DA and Beijing’s Xi’an H-20 represent just some of these futuristic proposals. Due to its ongoing Ukraine invasion, Russia may be less equipped financially and resource-wise to introduce its stealth bomber as planned. The PAK-DA, designed to rival the American-made B-2 Spirit and the upcoming Raider, would guarantee Moscow aerial clout in the skies if produced before its competitors. While limited information surrounding Russia’s new project is available, the upcoming stealth bomber will allegedly be equipped with conventional, nuclear and hypersonic weapons.

Introducing Russia’s sixth-gen stealth bomber

Described as Moscow’s sixth-generation bomber, PAK DA will incorporate a range of advanced attributes when introduced. From stealth and internal weapon bays to supersonic flight capabilities, PAK DA is set to rival its cutting-edge near peers. In fact, many of the qualities being woven into the sixth-generation design mimic the U.S.-made B-2 Spirit. Like the older American platform, PAK DA has a “flying wing” shape. Unlike typical aircraft design, the Spirit (and PAK DA) do not possess the typical parts of an aircraft, a fuselage, wings, and an empennage or tail assembly with flight control surfaces. Instead, the platform relies on an advanced flight control computer to retain stability in the air. Additionally, the Russian bomber will also fly at subsonic speeds and feature a low radar cross-section.

While Russia’s previous attempts at producing “stealth” have not been overly fruitful in the past, the PAK-DA certainly has the stealth look with its sleek flying wing design. Despite the bomber’s potential, it is unlikely that Moscow will be able to produce PAK-Das any time soon. Russia has been embroiled in its Ukraine invasion for nearly three years, quickly running through its financial and material supplies in the process. Since the Kremlin’s priorities are currently centered on achieving their war objectives in Ukraine, the development of future technologies appears to have taken a back seat.

How does PAK-DA compare to its counterparts?

China and the U.S. are also striving to introduce their own stealth bombers in the upcoming years. Developed by Northrop Grumman, the Raider will serve multiple roles for the Air Force once in commission, including as an intelligence collector and as a stealthy battle manager. Limited information surrounding the specs and capabilities of the B-21 have been made public, however, the platform will undoubtedly feature the latest and greatest technologies as it will represent the aerial component of America’s nuclear triad. China’s H-20 bomber is expected to function similarly and is certainly being designed to achieve full air superiority. Notably, Western analysts believe the H-20 could have a range of 8,500 kilometers, which is concerning since a bomber with this range could reach beyond the First Island Chain off the coast of China and into the Philippines, Japan, or even the U.S. territory of Guam.

Since tensions between Beijing, Washington and Moscow are only mounting, a sobering look at each nation’s stealth bomber progress is essential.

Maya Carlin is a National Interest security contributor, an analyst with the Center for Security Policy, and a former Anna Sobol Levy Fellow at IDC Herzliya in Israel. She has by-lines in many publications, including The National Interest, Jerusalem Post, and Times of Israel.

Image: Wikimedia Commons.

The Ukraine war is doing for the evolution of weapons and tactics in modern war what conflicts like the Spanish Civil War did in the previous century. New ideas and methods of attacks are being experimented with by both sides, forcing rapid adaptations. These changes, in turn, are setting brutal examples for the other great powers in the world as they prepare to wage their next round of war in the near future. 

One such wild system that has been deployed by the Russians as a way to overcome the stifling Ukrainian drone threat to Russia’s Main Battle Tanks (MBTs) has been to build what has been nicknamed the “Turtle Tanks.” Looking like some retro machine you’d find in the Amazon series Fallout, the so-called “Turtle Tanks” are essentially steel boxes on tracks with a turret. 

The steel box is meant to protect the tank itself from exploding Ukrainian drones. 

Interestingly, the Turtle Tanks are not entirely new systems. They are merely existing Soviet-era tanks, like the Soviet-era T-62, T-72, and T-80. Russian designers had added improvised steel roofs and siding around the tanks that make the tank look like it is covered by a steel shell—just like how a turtle’s back is covered by a hardened shell that protects it. Metal sheets, corrugated metal, and sometimes even chain-link fences over the tank are welded over the tank to create the “shell.” 

Some variants of these tanks have anti-drone slat armor, mine-clearing collars, and electronic warfare (EW) systems to jam drone signals. This transformation has mutated these tanks into massively armored, very slow fortresses. Much like the original “Land Battleship” concept of the earliest tanks that fought in World War I, the “Turtle Tanks” are essentially bulky, slow-moving fortresses. 

The point of Turtle Tank is to absorb drone attacks when Russian forces are advancing on the front. By absorbing the drone attacks, the Turtle Tanks divert Ukraine’s attention away from other Russian forces advancing that lack the “shell” protections, allowing for those less armored Russian vehicles to move forward in relative safety. Whenever leading assaults or clearing minefields, these tanks serve as “breachers” or “pioneers,” pushing forward and taking enemy fire to allow for other, specialized units to move in for the kill.

Contrary to the rosy predictions of Western media sources and governments, the Turtle Tanks are proof that Russia’s military is rapidly adapting to the combat environment it finds itself in. Thus, the notion that the Russians are failing in the Ukraine war should be viewed with skepticism. Multiple reports from the frontline where these tanks were deployed in combat indicate that the Turtle Tanks can indeed survive multiple drone strikes.

A major problem with the Turtle Tanks, though, is that they are not well-defended against artillery. With so much armor encasing the tanks, artillery is a real problem. If hit with artillery or heavy munitions, the tank is quickly turned into a burning coffin. 

Oh, and the adaptations on these tanks listed above significantly limit the tank’s ability to rotate its turret and reduce the visibility for the crew. So, the Russians have been presented with a one-step-forward-two-steps-backward approach to the Ukraine war. 

The West needs to come to grips with the fact that the Russians, thanks to their greater strategic depth and ability to innovate and adapt to the environment, are likely to win. Systems like the Turtle Tank only show that the Russians are massively adapting to the environment. The Turtle Tanks are ugly and slow, but they get the job done. And that’s what counts. 

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, National Review, The American Spectator, MSN, the Asia Times, and countless others. 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: Degtyaryov Andrey / Shutterstock.com

The Kremlin has pledged to “retaliate” after reportedly shooting down eight American-made long-range missiles at the start of the new year. According to Russian officials, Ukraine deployed Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMs) targeting positions roughly 25 miles north of the border in the Belgorod Oblast. In addition to shooting down these missiles, Russia’s Ministry of Defense claimed that its air defenses also took down six dozen aircraft-type unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). The Kremlin pledged that Ukraine’s recent barrage, “supported by Western curators, will be met with retaliation.”

Moscow also launched strikes targeting Kyiv in the new year, deploying a total of 81 drones toward Ukrainian territory over the weekend. Ukraine’s Air Force Command noted that Iranian-designed Shahed UAVs were used in this attack.

An overview of ATACMS

While Kyiv’s military leadership had lobbied the U.S. for its ATACMS since Russia’s invasion commenced nearly three years ago, the Biden administration just recently authorized Ukrainian forces to use these missiles to target positions inside Russia in November. These surface-to-surface missiles were designed during the tail end of the Cold War to give soldiers the immediate firepower to “win the deep battle,” as its manufacturer Lockheed Martin likes to say.

ATACMS is packaged in a MLRS launch pod and deployed from the MLRS Family of Launchers. Since its introduction to service, the missile system has undergone several facelifts in order to improve its guidance systems, software and command and control. The current ATACMS weighs just under 4,000 pounds and can fire missiles with a top speed of Mach-3.0 and a flight ceiling of 160,000 feet. The standard variant of ATACMS, Block 1, is used to target high-value assets including SAM sites, airfields, command groups and supply areas. As detailed by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, this variant possesses an inertial guidance system that increases the likelihood that the target will be successfully hit. The Block 1A Unitary is a unitary warhead variant of the Block 1A missile, which can use a warhead from the SLAM-ER missile or the AGM-RGM-48 Harpoon. Designed to limit collateral damage when fired, this version can strike targets located 300km away.

Has Kyiv’s use of ATACMS escalated the war?

Equipped with ATACMS and given the green light to strike inside Russian territory, Ukrainian forces have been able to launch more offensive operations since November. Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS), the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, noted in a statement that the long-range ATACMs proved “that Ukraine can notch battlefield victories when given the right tools.” The senator also added, “Ukraine can put a target on every Russian asset in Crimea, including critical ammunition and fuel depots. Imagine if they had these missiles two years ago.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin has remained unambiguous in his declarations that the approval and use of Western-designed long-range missiles into the ongoing Ukraine war would result in “retaliation.” When Donald Trump takes office later this month, Kyiv’s ability to deploy long-range ATACMS may be severed.

Maya Carlin is a National Interest security contributor, an analyst with the Center for Security Policy, and a former Anna Sobol Levy Fellow at IDC Herzliya in Israel. She has by-lines in many publications, including The National Interest, Jerusalem Post, and Times of Israel.

Image: Wikimedia Commons.

The dispatch of First Son Donald Trump Jr. to Greenland has revitalized speculation that the incoming President Trump will attempt to purchase the world’s largest island. President Trump, during his first presidency, was explicit about a desire to purchase Greenland, calling the transaction “an absolute necessity.” Greenland, meanwhile, has been equally clear that it is not for sale.

Let’s consider why Trump has eyes for Greenland.

Emerging Resources

The icecaps are melting and as they do, the geopolitical implications will be profound. Whereas for much of modern history, Greenland and the Arctic have been an inaccessible wasteland, the melting icecaps are sure to improve access to the seas and lands of Greenland, and to the northern climes of our globe, generally. The result of improved access will be one, (arguably) the ability to harvest untapped resources, and two, the emergence of sealines where once there was only ice.

No doubt front of mind for Trump is Greenland’s abundance of natural resources, including oil, gas, and rare earth minerals that are increasingly in demand for their use in emerging green technologies like electric cars and wind turbines. The purchase of Greenland would perhaps allow the US to gain ground on China, who currently “dominates the global rare earth production and has already threatened to restrict the export of critical minerals and associated technologies, ahead of Trump’s second term,” CNN reported.

“There is no question at all that Trump and his advisers are very concerned about the stranglehold that China appears to have,” Klaus Dodds, professor of geopolitics at the University of London, told CNN. “I think Greenland is really about keeping China out.”

And as the ice melts, shipping routes are opening. In the last decade, Arctic shipping increased 37 percent. As transit through the waters of Greenland increases, so does the value of the island.

Strategic Value

Greenland’s strategic value with respect to the Arctic is obvious. But the island also holds strategic value with respect to US-European relations, and with respect to security implications stemming from a revisionist Russia. The US already has a military presence on Greenland, at Pituffik Air Base (formerly Thule Air Base), which hosts the 821st Space Base Group, the 12th Space Warning Squadron, and the 23rd Operations Squadron. In all, about 200 active-duty US Air Force and Space Force personnel are stationed at Pituffik, which holds the distinction as the Department of Defense’s northernmost installation. Were Trump to purchase the island, the Pentagon would likely look to expand the American presence in Greenland, as a show of solidarity with NATO, and as a bulwark against Russian incursions in the region.

Will It Happen?

Greenland has been perfectly clear how it views the proposed acquisition.

“We are not for sale and will never be for sale. We must not lose our years-long struggle for freedom,” wrote Greenland’s Prime Minister Mute Egede on Facebook last month.

Kuupik V. Kleist, a former Greenland PM, reiterated the unlikelihood of a sale: “I don’t see anything in the future that would pave the way for a sale. You don’t simply buy a country or a people.”

Harrison Kass is a senior 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: Wikimedia Commons.

Like so many general aviation pilots, I trained on a variety of Cessnas – the 152, 162, 172, and 182. The Cessna is synonymous with general aviation, enjoying vast swathes of the market share for weekend warriors and aspiring commercial pilots. And for good reason. The distinctively high-winged Cessna is aerodynamically stable, easy to maintain, and intuitive to operate. But Cessna’s reliable aircraft are not exclusively for general aviation. Indeed, the US military has previously employed Cessna aircraft in surveillance roles—most notably the O-2 Skymaster.

Introducing the Skymaster

Nicknamed the Oscar Deuce, the O-2 is a Cessna 337 Super Skymaster converted for forward air control and psychological operations. The O-2 enjoyed a multi-decade service life with the US Air Force, US Navy, and US Army—having been introduced in 1967 and only retired in 2010.

The O-2 was developed in the 1960s as a cheap and simple aircraft, with twin-engines, as a supplement to Cessna’s already-serving forward air control prop, the O-1 Bird Dog. The tell-tale Cessna high-wings were perfectly suited for giving occupants an unobstructed view of the battlespace below. To further enhance viewing capability, the O-2 was designed with two seats, with one observer’s seat located directly behind the pilot’s seat – whereas the civilian 337 was designed with six seats in three rows of two. Other changes were made, too. Notably, the 337’s opaque doors were outfitted with transparent viewing panels; flame-retardant foam was installed in the wing-mounted fuel tanks; civilian communications gear was swapped in favor of military communications gear. The end result was a 5,400 pound aircraft, which weighed one thousand pounds more than its civilian counterpart. To accommodate the increased weight, the O-2 was strengthened structurally. The added weight did slow the O-2 down relative to the 337. But the Air Force deemed the performance reduction acceptable given the low-speed nature of the forward air control mission.

Built for Vietnam

The USAF accepted delivery of their first O-2 in early 1967, towards the beginning of what would be a nearly-decade-long American effort to quell communism in Vietnam. The O-2 served admirably as a forward air control aircraft, which entailed coordinating close air support for troops on the ground. And the O-2 doubled in a psychological operations role. Accordingly, the O-2 was outfitted with loudspeakers and a leaflet dispenser, for pushing propaganda.

Flying the O-2 proved to be hazardous; over the course of the Vietnam War, 178 O-2s were lost.

The USAF had intended to phase out the O-2 for the garage-designed OV-10 Bronco. But the O-2 continued to serve even after the OV-10’s introduction, most especially for nighttime missions (the original OV-10 had a highly illuminated cockpit, which made nighttime reconnaissance difficult to perform for the crew, thus the O-2 remained the USAF’s best nighttime option until a revised OV-10 was developed with dimmed cockpit instrumentation.

While the O-2 is now retired from all branches of the US military, the aircraft can still be found in service worldwide. Botswana, Costa Rica, Iran, Namibia, Solomon Islands, and Uruguay – these are a few of the nations still operating the O-2 today.

Harrison Kass is a senior 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: Wikimedia Commons.

As the new year begins, Israel will need to find a strategy for the war in Gaza. Several factors are at play in this decision. First, the war has gone on for more than fifteen months since it began with the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. Although Israel has fought long conflicts in the past, such as the Second Intifada and the war in Lebanon that began in 1982 and lasted for eighteen years, the war in Gaza has been of greater intensity and complexity than those other wars. This is because the war in Gaza also set off Iranian-backed attacks on Israel from multiple fronts. It is also due to the fact Hamas still holds 100 hostages captive in Gaza.

The conflict in Gaza is challenging because there is evidence Hamas continues to recruit and also controls a large swath of the area. “We are not yet at the point of defeating Hamas entirely,” Brigadier General (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser told ILTV in December 2024. A separate report at The Jerusalem Post noted that Hamas is recruiting more members.

Taken together, these assessments point to a recurring trend. The IDF has operated in Gaza primarily by going into areas, clearing them of Hamas and other terrorist groups, and then leaving the area. In some cases, the IDF has stayed for the long term, such as in the border area in southern Gaza called the Philadelphi Route along the border with Egypt. The IDF has also carved out another corridor south of Gaza City. However, in many urban areas, the IDF withdraws after weeks or months of combat. This was the case in Khan Younis, where an IDF division spent several months fighting between December and April 2024. Today, in Jabaliya and several areas in northern Gaza, the IDF spent three months trying to remove Hamas members, detaining and eliminating thousands of enemy fighters, and yet combat continues.

Although the fighting in Gaza is not as intensive as it was a year ago when it first began in the fall of 2023 and the first months of 2024, the IDF is suffering casualties every week. On January 6, a company commander in the 932nd Battalion of the Nahal Brigade fell during combat in the northern Gaza Strip, the IDF said. Another soldier was also killed. Civilians in Gaza continue to be caught in the maelstrom. Most of the two million residents of the Gaza Strip have been displaced by the fighting.

The tough choices ahead for Israel relate to several key factors in the Gaza war. First of all, Hamas took 250 hostages on October 7, of whom ninety-six are thought to remain in Gaza. Recently, Hamas released a video of one of the hostages. However, Hamas has refused to provide Israel with a list of the total number and names of the hostages who remain alive. Despite various reports over the last six months, The Israeli prime minister’s office clarified on January 6 that a recent list of hostages circulating in the media was “not provided to Israel by Hamas but was originally given by Israel to the meditators in July 2024.” Despite reports of a deal taking shape, Hamas appears to be stalling. Changes may occur once President-elect Donald Trump takes office later in the month. Trump has said several times recently that he wants the hostages released or else “there will be hell” for Hamas.

The hostage deal appears to have been stuck for a year with little progress. It requires a rethink in terms of a strategy. Leaving living and dead hostages in Gaza for a long period of time would appear to be a macabre end to the October 7 attack and send a message that Hamas can get away with its crimes. On the other hand, the Israeli political leadership appears wary of a deal similar to the one in 2011 when one Israeli soldier held hostage in Gaza for five years was released in exchange for 1,000 Palestinians, many of them convicted terrorists. Some, like Yayha Sinwar, were even involved in the October 7 attack.

Israel could choose to continue negotiations in Gaza with limited military incursions, as has been the norm over the past year after fighting became less intense in the spring of 2024. However, Israel’s initial military campaign in Gaza was designed to apply military pressure to secure hostage deals. That pressure largely ended in the spring of 2024 after the first deal took place in late November 2023. Israel could choose to renew pressure on Hamas and try to remove the group from areas it controls in Gaza, such as the central Gaza Strip. The IDF has never entered central Gaza in force, despite the long war, leaving Hamas in charge of key urban areas such as Deir al-Balah and Nuseirat.

The hostage deal and military pressure are not the only challenges in Gaza. A related challenge is the question of whether Hamas will be replaced as the governing authority in Gaza. When the war began, Israel’s political leadership compared Hamas to ISIS and said it would be crushed in the same way ISIS was defeated. ISIS was removed from areas in Iraq and Syria after a multi-year campaign between 2014 and 2019. However, Israel’s goals in Gaza appear to have shifted since October 2023 statements about removing Hamas completely.

After fifteen months of war, there is no alternative being put forward for controlling Gaza. Hamas continues to control all the areas where civilians are present in Gaza. What this means is that, unlike the war on ISIS, where civilians were able to leave areas such as Mosul and move to IDP camps under the control of the Iraqi government or the autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government, civilians in Gaza have not been provided a non-Hamas option for civilian rule. This is why Hamas is able to continue recruiting and also able to continue to control areas where humanitarian aid is supplied. In essence, this puts Hamas astride the supply lines and in possession of many key urban areas in Gaza.

When the October 7 War began, Hamas was able to call on support from other Iranian-backed groups in the region. Hezbollah began attacks on Israel from Lebanon. The Houthis in Yemen began attacks on Israel and attacks on shipping in the Red Sea. Iranian-backed militias in Iraq began attacks on U.S. forces and also prepared to target Israel. This multi-front war made it difficult for Israel to vanquish all these enemies. However, fifteen months later, things have changed in Israel’s favor. Hezbollah is greatly weakened. The Iranian-backed militias in Iraq appear to have stopped their drone attacks on Israel. The Assad regime, which was a conduit for Iranian weapons transfers to Hezbollah, fell on December 8. This leaves Hamas and the Houthis still standing, although Hamas has been greatly weakened since 2023. Israel also faces increasing attacks from the West Bank by groups linked to Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other armed factions.

The overall challenge for Israel in 2025 now returns to Gaza. Although the Iranian nuclear program and other fronts remain, Gaza is where the war began and where it will have to end. A long war in Gaza fighting Hamas for years does not appear to be in Israel’s interest. However, leaving Hamas in control would inevitably enable the group to reconstitute its threat to Israel. Replacing Hamas requires a strategy and coordination with other countries that want to see a peaceful, stable Gaza.

Seth Frantzman is the author of The October 7 War: Israel’s Battle for Security in Gaza (2024) and an adjunct fellow at The Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Image: Shutterstock.com.

North Korea’s ambitious weapons programs continue their long march forward, even as South Korea implodes and the United States becomes increasingly distracted. As the world was celebrating the start of a new year, the Japanese Defense Ministry reported that Pyongyang launched a ballistic missile that blasted its way over to the Sea of Japan. 

The Japanese Defense Ministry assessed that the launch fell “outside Japan’s exclusive economic zone, with no damage to planes or ships.”

Of course, that only tells half the story.

South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff have concluded that the weapon North Korea tested over the Sea of Japan may have been an experimental hypersonic weapon as opposed to an intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM). And if that’s the case, then the whole world has a major problem on its hands. Because, as it stands, only the Russians and Chinese have any semblance of working hypersonic weapons in their arsenals (with the Russians being the most advanced in hypersonic weapons).

Nothing has been confirmed as to whether the weapon North Korea fired was a hypersonic weapon or an IRBM. What is known is that the weapon traveled around 683 miles with a ceiling of around 62 feet. North Korea has long intimated that it was working on advanced hypersonic weapons.

Specifically, according to Kyodo News, Pyongyang has claimed to be developing “missiles tipped with hypersonic warheads, designed to travel at more than five times the speed of sound [that can] follow low-altitude trajectories and evade detection by changing direction mid-flight.”

The increasingly close relationship between North Korea and Russia, the world’s leader in practical hypersonic weapons, could mean that, in exchange for North Korea sending its troops to help Russia fight against NATO-backed Ukraine, Russia gave advanced weapons technology to Pyongyang. 

Given that large numbers of North Koreans have been committed to the fight and that, for many years since the war began in 2022, the North Koreans have supplied large numbers of weapons and ammunition to Russia, Pyongyang is probably receiving technical assistance with hypersonic weapons development from Russia.

Thus, the Ukraine war has created yet another threat vector with which the United States was unprepared to contend. Alas, this is the nature of our current moment. The Americans take an utterly irresponsible and implacable stance on what should be an ancillary issue (to Washington), like Ukraine, and effectively help to create one of the greatest coalitions of anti-American powers in Eurasia since the Axis Powers existed in World War II. 

The only reason that North Korea even likely has some form of a hypersonic weapon is because the Ukraine war has forced the Russians to embrace Pyongyang as a matter of course. 

Russia is waging an existential war in Ukraine and it needs allies. North Korea needs military technology to stay ahead of Japan, South Korea, and the United States. Therefore, it’s all quite congruous.

Plus, by developing hypersonic weapons and testing them before the presidential changeover in the United States, North Korea has a significant bargaining chip to use whenever the new Trump administration comes looking to continue their previous diplomacy with Kim Jong-un.

For his part, Kim Jong-un has stated that the system tested over the Sea of Japan was a hypersonic missile. According to a speech he gave shortly after the test, “The hypersonic missile will reliably contain any rivals in the Pacific region that can affect the security of our state.” 

This makes sense. 

After all, there are no viable defenses against modern hypersonic weapons. Some have speculated that the U.S. Army’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) platform could potentially knock out incoming hypersonic weapons. But there are not enough of these systems available. Further, using THAAD against hypersonic weapons is entirely unproven.

Western analysts remain skeptical. They highlight recent failures involving North Korea’s Hwasong-16 IRBM, leading them to question how Pyongyang could have possibly perfected an even more complex system. Again, though, the likelihood that Russia (or China) helped the North Korean program along could answer some of these questions from skeptical Western observers. 

Plus, having been shown up significantly by tiny North Korea, it is highly unlikely that any major power would want to admit that publicly. Especially since the hypersonic weapons programs of the West are so far behind those of the autocratic Eurasian powers.

When he is sworn in as president, Donald J. Trump is likely going to be faced with a much different North Korean threat than when he was president the first time around.

If North Korea has mastered hypersonic weapons, and if Pyongyang can mass produce them quickly enough, then the next Trump-Kim spat might not end so amicably for the United States. It’s time for the Americans to take hypersonic weapons development far more seriously. In fact, the moment is now for Washington truly develop anti-hypersonic weapon defenses.

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, National Review, The American Spectator, MSN, the Asia Times, and countless others. 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.

Turkey under the Islamist rule of Recep Tayyip Erdogan is back as a world power. What’s more, if the decades of rhetoric from Erdogan’s Islamist political party, the Justice and Development Party (AKP), is at all an indication of intent, then the rebirth of the Ottoman Empire, with Erdogan as its new sultan, is at hand in the Middle East. 

Using Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which is a hodgepodge of former jihadists (from terror groups like Al Nusra Front and even ISIS, for example) who had been fighting in Syria and have now been rebranded as “moderate Syrian rebels,” Turkey was able to force the ouster of Syria’s Alawite dictator, Bashar al-Assad. 

This move by Turkey, in turn, has placed both the Russian Federation and its ally, the Islamic Republic of Iran, on their hind legs. These moves by Turkey risk fundamentally undermining Israeli security in the long run (because Turkey has vowed to destroy the predominantly Jewish state of Israel). 

All this has been in service to the idea of an Ottoman imperial restoration.

As if that wasn’t enough, Turkey is now making major plays to ensnare the Sunni Arab states, notably the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), into its growing orbit. One of the key ways that Ankara is looking to spread influence over the Sunni Arab states (those likeliest to be opposed to any kind of restoration of an ethnic Turkish Sunni empire in the Middle East) is to sell advanced weapons and platforms to the Sunni Arabs. 

Specifically, Riyadh intends to purchase around 100 of the Turkish-built fighter (TF) Kaan. 

The TF-Kaan is not just another warplane. It is a serious upgrade for the Turkish Air Force (as well as any air force purchasing the export model). TF-Kaan was designed to replace Turkey’s aging F-16 Fighting Falcon fourth-generation warplanes with indigenously built, fifth-generation planes.

Indeed, the real reason behind Turkey even building its TF-Kaan warplanes was that the United States officially kicked Turkey out of the F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter program. Needing to ensure they did not lose capabilities as their F-16s aged out, Turkey opted to place its faith in its own capabilities. Thus far, its gambit has worked out. The Kaan is built by Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI). The warplane is on par with the F-35 that Turkey was denied from purchasing. 

The Kaan is 69 feet long and has a wingspan of 46 feet.

Since the TF-Kaan is a fifth-gen bird, it has stealth features, making it harder to detect by enemy radar, just like the American fifth-generation planes possess. There are blended and faceted surfaces as well as specialized skin coatings to ensure the plane is undetected. 

This warplane comes with an Active, Electronically-Scanned Array (AESA) radar system and, most interestingly, the Turkish Air Force plans to have these planes riding along with advanced drones for additional layers of protection and to serve as a force multiplier while in combat. A secure datalink will ensure seamless, uninterrupted connectivity between the cockpit and the drones.

What makes this such an interesting component for the TF-Kaan is that the Americans are seemingly refusing to place similar systems on their F-22A Raptors or their F-35s. Instead, the Pentagon is demanding that Congress pay gobs of tax dollars to build entirely new sixth-generation warplanes that will support the “Loyal Wingman” drone program. 

The more resourceful Turks are happy to ensure their fifth-generation planes come equipped with a “Loyal Wingman”-type drone system.

Given its multirole mission, Turkey designed these planes to carry a multiplicity of armaments, including air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles, guided bombs, and even miniature explosives, according to The Defense Post. These various armaments all fit nicely inside internal weapons bays, increasing the plane’s stealth features.

Twin General Electric turbofan engines power these birds, allowing for a top cruising speed of Mach 1.8 (1,381 miles per hour) and it can fly up to an altitude of 55,775 feet. The plane itself looks almost like the American F-35. 

Like Turkey, the Saudis had wanted to be part of America’s F-35 program. Yet, the Pentagon was taking its sweet time in approving Riyadh’s request to join the program, prompting the KSA government to look to Turkey. 

An agreement between the U.S. government and that of Israel stipulates that the Americans must sell systems that are “superior in capability” to the Israelis compared to the systems that America sells to Israel’s neighbors. Currently, Israel possesses a potent F-35 variant, the F-35I Adir. There is concern that the Americans giving Saudi Arabia access to the F-35 program would deprive Israel of the qualitative edge their armed forces have worked so hard to achieve.

So, Riyadh is looking to Ankara. And Turkey is only more than pleased to oblige. This move will create deeper linkages between the two Sunni Muslim powers of Turkey and Saudi Arabia and may lead to a far darker geopolitical outcome for Israel, as the tiny Jewish democracy struggles to restore the security it had lost on October 7. 

The TF-Kaan, therefore, is more than another warplane. This system is a symbol of Turkey’s growing international pull and its very real status as a rising power in the Middle East.

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, National Review, The American Spectator, MSN, the Asia Times, and countless others. 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: Spiffy Digital Creative / Shutterstock.com

The U.S.-made F-16 Fighting Falcon hasn't been able to turn the tide for Ukraine in its war against Russia, but the multirole all-weather fighter has increased Kyiv's defensive capabilities significantly. On Tuesday, the Ukrainian Air Force claimed that last month a pilot shot down six missiles in a single sortie.

"For the first time in the history of the Fighting Falcon, an F-16 fighter jet destroyed six Russian cruise missiles in one combat mission," the Ukrainian Air Force Command said in a post on Facebook.

According to Ukrainian Air Force spokesman Yurii Ihnat, the action took place on December 13, 2024, when Moscow's forces launched 200 drones and 94 missiles at targets in Ukraine.

"They say that even Americans couldn't believe you did it," Ihnat added, while the post explained that the pilot – who has not been identified – closed in on a group of cruise missiles. Despite their electronic warfare (EW) countermeasures, the pilot was able to down one pair of the Russian weapons with his medium-range missiles, while he struck another pair with short-range missiles.

Two more missiles were shot down with the F-16's cannon, believed to be the first time it was accomplished. As Newsweek reported, while the Ukrainian aviators have been trained "to shoot down missiles with aircraft cannons in simulations," it had not been previously carried out.

"At first I was looking for a target at the bottom - nothing. Then I reached the altitude, raised the radar and saw her. Did everything as taught instructors in the USA, as worked on a gym. A few cannon turns - and a blast... then there is one more! Detonation again," the pilot claimed.

The destruction was confirmed by Ukraine's Air Force Command.

"Based on objective control, we have one hundred percent confirmation that for the first time in history in anti-air combat, an American fighter F-16 shoots down six winged missiles, two of them [from] an air cannon," Ihnat added.

Gunfight Over Ukraine

According to General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems, maker of the F-16 Gatling Gun System, the 20mm weapon "features the M61A1 six-barrel Gatling gun and a linkless ammunition feed system. The M61A1 provides up to 10 times the reliability of single-barrel guns, firing at 6,000 shots per minute and placing a controlled dispersion of projectiles in the path of the target. The double-ended linkless ammunition feed system incorporates a compact lightweight composite rotary ammunition drum to store unfired and fired ammunition."

The Fighting Falcon is able to carry 511 rounds of 20mm ammunition, and given the high rate of fire, pilots must employ short bursts.

More F-16s Coming

Kyiv is set to receive as many as ninety American-made F-16 Fighting Falcon multirole combat aircraft – and it is reported that around two dozen of the fighters are now in service. Multiple NATO members including Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway have pledged to provide the aircraft, which are being replaced by more advanced fighters – notably, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II.

The first F-16s arrived in August, and the fighters were quickly put into action.

However, even as additional aircraft are headed to Ukraine, there have been concerns that pilot training is already being rushed, and even further abridged to get more aircraft in the sky. It would appear that at least one Ukrainian aviator took all of the lessons to heart by downing the six missiles, including the two with the 20mm autocannon.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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: Wikimedia Commons.

The Russian Ministry of Defense announced that it had succeeded in downing a Ukrainian Sukhoi Su-27 (NATO reporting name Flanker). The ministry further claimed to have shot down multiple High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) rockets and several dozen drones since the start of the New Year.

In a statement posted on the Telegram social messaging app, the Kremlin put Kyiv's tally of battlefield losses at 651 fixed-wing aircraft, 283 helicopters, and 39,144 unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV).

"Air defense systems shot down a Su-27 aircraft of the Ukrainian Air Force, six rockets of the U.S.-made HIMARS multiple launch rocket system, and ninety-seven aircraft-type unmanned aerial vehicles," the ministry said in its social media post but did not state where or how the advanced multirole was shot down.

Kyiv has not acknowledged the loss of the Soviet-era fighter or confirmed the total losses. Moscow's claims have been previously seen as exaggerated.

The Su-27 in the Crosshairs

The first designs of what was to become the Su-27 began in the Soviet Union in the early 1970s, and the aircraft was initially envisioned as an air superiority fighter/interceptor, in essence, Moscow's answer to the F-15 Eagle. However, development of the warplane was slow going, and the prototype didn't make its maiden flight until May 1977. Moreover, in its initial form, the T-10 prototype aircraft displayed several serious deficiencies – so much so that a complete redesign was required.

It only reemerged as the radically reworked T-10S-1 in 1981.

The aircraft finally reached series production in 1982 as a single-seat multirole fighter, receiving the designation Su-27 (NATO reporting name Flanker-B). A two-seater variant, the Su-27UB (NATO reporting name Flanker-C), was introduced two years later. By the end of the Cold War, around 400 Su-27s in both versions were produced for service with the Soviet Air Force. It was believed it would be suited to engaging U.S. Air Force B-52 and B-1 bombers.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in late 1991, the Su-27 remained the backbone of the Russian Air Force throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, with many of the aircraft undergoing mid-life upgrades and enhancements, which transformed them into the re-designated Su-27SM.

Despite being touted as one of its most capable warbirds in the latter stages of the Cold War, Moscow opted not to deploy the Su-27 to Afghanistan.

As Brent Eastwood previously wrote for The National Interest, "The Su-27, surprisingly, has seen little combat. Export models have flown in the Angolan civil war and the Ethiopia-Eritrea civil war, both sides of the current Ukrainian frozen conflict, and in Syria. The air-to-air combat happened during the Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict when an Ethiopian Su-27 downed an Eritrean MiG-29."

Until the war in Ukraine, the Su-27 had zero air-to-air combat losses – proving if you don't use it, you won't lose it!

Ukraine's Su-27 – How Few Remain?

At the start of the war nearly three years ago, it was believed that the Ukrainian Air Force had around fifty Su-27s – inherited following the dissolution of the Soviet Union – still in service. That number is reported to be down to just a couple dozen now.

Kyiv has gone to great lengths to keep its Su-27s flying, cannibalizing parts from damaged or otherwise non-airworthy fighters, while it recently modified the aircraft to carry American-made GPS-guided glide bombs. According to David Axe, writing for Forbes.com just last month, multiple Su-27s were used in the Kursk Oblast to lob the ordnance onto Russian positions. However, the tactic, also seen in a post on social media, involved the fighters flying at a low altitude before dropping the bomb and immediately banking to avoid Russian air defenses.

That could explain the loss of one of the fighters on Thursday.

"This method­ to fly low, climb, release bombs, and retreat ­minimizes a warplane's exposure to enemy fire without seriously constraining a bomb's range. Released from high altitude, a GPS-guided GBU-39 might travel farther than sixty miles under its pop-out wings. But flying high in the plan [sic] view of enemy radars is dangerous for all but the stealthiest aircraft. A Su-27 isn't stealthy at all," wrote Axe.

Even with minimal exposure, one pilot's mistake and/or luck from the forces on the ground can result in a downed aircraft. That may have been the case with Ukraine's Flanker.

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.

The Iranian-backed Houthi militant group in Yemen claimed on Monday that it had launched an attack on the United States Navy's Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75). It is the most recent claim that it had carried out a strike on a U.S. carrier in the region.

"Our forces conducted a special operation targeting the U.S. aircraft carrier USS Harry Truman with two cruise missiles and four drones in the northern Red Sea as the US enemy was preparing to launch a major aerial attack on our country. The operation led to the failure of the attack," Houthi spokesperson Yahya Saree said in a statement, as reported by Maritime Executive.

The United States Central Command (CENTCOM) did not respond to the comments made by the Tehran-supported group, but acknowledged it has worked with partner forces to conduct operations in Iraq and Syria from December 30, 2024, to January 6, 2025.

In a statement on Monday, CENTCOM announced that as part of the ongoing Defeat ISIS (D-ISIS) campaign, U.S. and "Iraqi forces conducted multiple strikes in the Hamrin mountains of Iraq, targeting known ISIS locations. The operations served to disrupt and degrade ISIS' ability to plan, organize, and conduct attacks against civilians in the region, as well as U.S. citizens, allies, and partners throughout the region and beyond."

According to the reports, an ISIS attack cell leader was captured in Syria.

Business as Usual for USS Harry S. Truman

The Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group (HSTCSG) has been operating in CENTCOM's area of responsibility since December 14. The warship departed Naval Air Station Norfolk in September of last year, and while it was announced it would be deployed to the Middle East, the HSTCSG first took part in joint NATO operations in the Arctic before heading to the Mediterranean and then transiting the Suez Canal.

The carrier is supported by Destroyer Squadron (DESRON) 28, which includes the Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Gettysburg (CG 64); and the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers, USS Stout (DDG 55) and USS Jason Dunham (DDG 109).

HSTCSG was last deployed to CENTCOM's area of responsibility in March 2020, but the U.S. Navy has continued to rotate its nuclear-powered supercarriers to the region since October 2023 – in response to the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza and to deter aggression from Iran and its regional proxies. The situation has gotten increasingly complex since the fall of the Syrian regime under Bashar al-Assad.

On High Alert

The U.S. Navy's warships remain on high alert while deployed to the region. None of the service's vessels have taken damage, but in October 2023, the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Carney (DDG-64) engaged in a 10-hour battle with Houthi militants, marking the most intense combat by a U.S. Navy vessel since World War II.

The intensity of the deployment has resulted in some mistakes being made. Last month, a U.S. Navy Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet was shot down in a "friendly fire incident" involving USS Gettysburg. The aircraft was preparing to land on the carrier, and another fighter recorded a near miss.

A War of the Words

In addition to countering Houthi missiles and drones, the U.S. Navy has had to counter an ongoing misinformation campaign directed by the group. It claimed it had shot down the F/A-18 Super Hornet last month, but also made repeated allegations that it had struck—and even seriously damaged—U.S. carriers.

In June, the Houthis announced it had successfully carried out a missile and drone strike that seriously damaged USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) in the Red Sea. The group further declared victory after the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) departed the region and returned to the United States in November.

The Pentagon has attempted to counter the false narratives presented by the Houthis, but their claims are regularly reported as factual in the Middle East, and even more ominously, further abroad. While it is almost expected that Iranian state media would report on the Houthi claims, it should be noted that this week, Chinese media outlets, including the Xinhua News Agency, have also run stories that cited the media statements from the Houthis.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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.

In the last seven months of war, the Russian forces have lost nearly as many men as they did in the prior two years combined.

Under a new attritional strategy, the Russian military, paramilitary units, and pro-Russian forces have lost around 300,000 men killed or wounded. To make up for the losses, the Kremlin is offering generous incentives to prospective recruits.

Incentives for Military Recruits

“In late November 2024, Russia passed a law that would allow personnel who signed up after 01 December 2024 to have their loan debt written off,” British Defence Intelligence stated in its latest estimate of the conflict.  

This write-off would cover debt of up to 10 million rubles, or around $94,500, and would be applicable to the spouses of Russian troops. But this isn’t the only financial incentive geared to prospective military recruits.

“This is in addition to the loan repayment holidays for the Russian servicemen program. The independent Russian media organisation Mediazona reports that 411,000 repayment holidays for mortgages and personal loans have been taken up since October 2022,” the report stated.

These generous incentives have one goal: bolster the ranks of the Russian military without forcing the Kremlin to launch another mobilization that could hurt the credibility of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“Russia’s financial incentives to military recruits are almost certainly intended to secure sufficient replacements for their steadily increasing casualties, now totaling over 760,000 killed and injured, and averaging 1,523 a day in November 2024. The incentives are also almost certainly intended to reduce the potential for Russia to have to enact further mobilisations, which are seen by Russian leadership as both damaging public support for the war, and raising the risk of further detrimental large-scale emigration,” British Defence Intelligence assessed.

When the Russian government commenced the first round of mobilization since the start of the war in the fall of 2022, approximately one million Russian males of military age fled the country to avoid being called up.

300,000 Losses in Seven Months

As we have analyzed here at The National Interest, the Russian military is pursuing an attritional strategy that hinges on large numbers of troops, and, consequently casualties. As Russia lacks the troop quality, maneuver warfare capability, or necessary advanced weapon systems, the Russian military leadership has opted to fight simply by hurling hundreds of thousands of troops against the Ukrainian defenses.

The strategy has been paying off. In recent months, the Russian forces have advanced several miles into Ukrainian territory, capturing important battlefield points in the process, including Chasiv Yar, Vuhledar, and Kurakhove. However, the cost has been high. From May to the present, Russian forces lost almost 300,000 men killed or wounded. From February 24, 2022, when the large-scale invasion began, to May 2024, the Russian forces had lost approximately 500,000. So, in about seven months, and under the new attritional strategy, the Russian military lost almost as many troops as it had lost in over two years of fighting.

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 the 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: Wikimedia Commons.

North Korea’s threat to their neighbors to the south, indeed much of the rest of the region, is often closely associated with their nuclear weapons program. If we’re lucky, some analyst will remind us that North Korea’s biological and chemical weapons program is far older, more complex, and expansive than the North Korean nuclear weapons arsenal.

But perhaps an even more significant—indeed, persistent and growing—threat to South Korea comes from North Korea’s immense artillery.

Specifically, North Korea's Koksan M-1989 170mm Self-Propelled Howitzer cannon is a serious threat to the safety of South Korea. With the world’s largest artillery network arrayed just across the border from South Korea, Western analysts had better start sounding the alarm about North Korea’s artillery far more than even Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program.

Understanding the Koksan

The M-1989 Koksan is an evolution of an earlier North Korean artillery model, the M-1978. The Koksan features a 170mm gun-mounted on a tracked chassis, enhancing both the maneuverability and operability of the weapon system across the hilly and overall rough Korean terrain. The gun itself features a gigantic 8-meter barrel, which holds a record as one of the longest barrels of any self-propelled artillery system in the world.

Standard ammunition shells for the Koksan can reach as far as 25 miles away. North Korea’s Koksan, however, can fire rockets as well as conventional artillery shells. These rockets can reach 37 miles away.

One of the key drawbacks to this system is its relative slow rate of fire. It can only launch one to two rounds every five minutes due to the large size and complexity of the ammunition involved. Of course, this weakness is surmounted by the fact that North Korea has a layered network of heavy artillery systems deployed to make up for the slow rate of fire of systems like the Koksan. Further, the M-1989 carries 12 rounds of ammunition onboard.

Like so much North Korean weapons technology, the M-1989 Koksan is based on old Soviet technology from the Cold War. Notably, the Soviet-made ATS-59 artillery tractor forms the basis of the Koksan. Although, the Koksan modified the old Soviet system to better handle the weight and recoil of the Koksan’s massive 170mm gun.

Some have even speculated that the Koksan was inspired by much older Soviet systems from the 1950s, with others going as far to say that Pyongyang may have adapted the system from old German Wehrmacht artillery, as North Korea did with when they copied the old Wehrmacht 17cm Kanone 18.

Another downside to the M-1989 is its open configuration, which makes the system vulnerable to direct attacks. Most artillery systems in use in the world have some level of protection for the system itself and the crew manning it. But that is not the case for North Korea’s M-1989.

What would one expect from a regime, such as North Korea, that holds one of the world’s lowest rankings in terms of human rights?

The M-1989 Koksan Combat History

The Koksan has seen combat in different hotspots around the world, notably by the Islamic Republic of Iran in its bloody war with Iraq in the 1980s. North Korea’s Koksan provided long-range bombardment for the Iranians, who were fighting to stop Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi Army from conquering Iran. 

Iran used this system for counter-battery fire at extremely long ranges, placing it well beyond the reach of enemy artillery, giving the Iranian military an advantage over the otherwise more advanced Iraqi Army.

Interestingly, as part of their close association, the Koksan has been deployed to Russia for use in their war against neighboring Ukraine. The unique 170mm caliber of the Koksan presents logistical challenges for Russia, since the weapon does not align with standard Russian artillery calibers, meaning that North Korea must supply large quantities of specialized ammunition for the Koksans in Russia.

Then again, that works to the favor of the North Koreans, who make gobs of money off selling the M-1989 Koksan and its special ammunition to Russia as well as get to perfect their defense industrial base.

South Korea Needs to Be Prepared for the Koksan

The M-1989 Koksan and its unique capabilities prove that the North Korean artillery threat to the South is real. At a moment’s notice, these systems could be activated and used to decimate major South Korean cities. The loss of life would be catastrophic. 

Despite some of its weaknesses, this is probably one of North Korea’s most important weapons—and the South Koreans had better quickly develop countermeasures for this system before it’s too late. 

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, National Review, The American Spectator, MSN, the Asia Times, and countless others. 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.

Last month, the People's Republic of China appeared to have leapfrogged the United States in military aviation technology, as a previously undisclosed aircraft recently made its maiden flight. The aircraft in question has been described as a "next-generation" or "sixth-generation" fighter. Though no official designation is known, military analysts have dubbed it the J-36.

"BIG: China's next-generation (6th-gen) fighter jet made its first flight today," the open-source military hardware analyst Clash Report wrote on X on December 26, while sharing images of the large tail-less aircraft.

A video, recorded near the Chengdu Aircraft Corporation's (CAC's) headquarters in Chengdu, Sichuan province, and shared online showed the three-engine aircraft being trailed by the fifth-generation Chengdu J-20 Mighty Dragon stealth fighter.

China's Fifth-Gen Leap Forward

Beijing typically holds its cards close to its chest, but in November offered a flight demonstration of its fifth-generation Mighty Dragon at the 15th China International Aviation and Aerospace Exhibition in Zhuhai (aka Airshow China) and unveiled the two-seat variant, the J-20S. That latter is the only twin-seat fifth-gen fighter currently in service.

In addition, the Chinese Ministry of National Defense released teaser images on social media of the Shenyang J-35A, its carrier-based fifth-generation fighter, in advance of the airshow. The twin-engine, all-weather, stealth fighter aircraft on social media took part in a brief aerial performance. It was a short debut for the highly-anticipated fighter, and the demonstration certainly left the audience (and analysts) wanting to see more.

With both the J-20 and the J-35, China has become only the second country after the United States to operate two distinct stealth fighters.

The J-36: What We Know

The appearance of the J-36 would suggest China has made a great leap forward with its military aviation program.

The fact that the video was purportedly recorded near CAC's HQ seems to narrow down the maker. Yet, the capabilities and even function of the aircraft are simply unknown.

As The Diplomat reported, "The leadup to the J-36's emergence holds uncanny similarities to the emergence of the J-20, nearly 14 years ago to the day, showing that history does indeed rhyme. Both were preceded by significant periods of credible rumors and increasingly granular predictions by the Chinese language PLA watching community," adding, "Some have remarked that the date for the J-36's maiden flight might seek to commemorate the December 26 birthday of Mao Zedong, the founder of the People's Republic of China."

Though other milestones indeed occurred on that day, it must be noted that if the aircraft were to be met with disaster such as a crash, it wouldn't be a good day for it to occur. That could put into question whether this was in fact the maiden flight of the J-36 or perhaps simply its first public flight.

The Sixth-Generation Race is Well Underway

The United States Air Force has acknowledged that it has conducted test flights of its Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) manned fighter, one component of the sixth-generation system of systems that could also include unmanned drones that serve as loyal wingmen. However, earlier this year, the U.S. Air Force had suggested it would press pause on the NGAD due to cost concerns and fears the technology could be outdated too quickly.

Even as the Air Force has taken a breather, the U.S. Navy's F/A-XX program is now reported to be moving forward.

There are multiple other six-gen programs in the works – including the Global Air Combat Programme (GACP), a joint partnership between the UK, Italy, and Japan; and the Franco-German-Spanish Future Air Combat System (FACS).

Russia's PAK DP – sometimes described as the MiG-41 – is also believed to be in the works, but as previously reportedly by Stavros Atlamazoglou for The National Interest, "skepticism surrounds the project due to past failures like the Su-57 Felon and T-14 Armata tank, both plagued by production and operational issues."

China may be on track to overtake Russia in aircraft design, which should be seen as a worry for Washington as well as its Indo-Pacific allies.

"The successful flight of China's 6th-gen fighter jet represents a new chapter in the global arms race," Army Recognition reported. "As other nations scramble to develop their own next-generation aircraft, the competition for air superiority is poised to intensify."

Meanwhile, tech entrepreneur Elon Musk has claimed drones are the future when he suggested on social media only "idiots" are building manned fighters like the F-35. He may not be wrong, but it does appear that the military aviation world is still thinking about manned fighters right now.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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: Weibo / Creative Commons.

Ded Moroz, Russia's version of Father Christmas, generally delivers presents to children on New Year's rather than Christmas – and the Kremlin actually may have received its best gift from Uralvagonzavod. The producer of Russia's T-90M and T-72B3M main battle tanks (MBTs) announced last week that it delivered new batches of the vehicles to start the New Year.

"According to tradition, the tank builders decorated the vehicles from each batch in a New Year's style: a Russian flag was installed on the T-90M Proryv, and a New Year's tree was installed on the 'seventy-two'. Calendars with children's drawings dedicated to the upcoming 90th anniversary of the Uralvagonzavod trade union organization were also included in the tanks," the Russian state-owned conglomerate stated.

The firm further claimed that "production increased from month to month," while last November saw significant output of vehicles."

Upgraded Models

Uralvagonzavod further announced that the latest batch of MBTs have been upgraded based on experiences learned in the ongoing fighting in Ukraine. In total, more than one hundred "changes were made" to the tanks, and each has been outfitted with anti-drone nets, and equipped with "rubber-reinforced protection" – which were previously reported to be mats that cover the gaps between the turret and hulls.

The effectiveness of the mats has been questioned, but both sides have taken desperate measures to add protection from the first-person view (FPV) drones. However, the head of Uralvagonzavod has praised the modifications.

"A tank from early 2022 and a tank from late 2024 are, one might say, two different combat vehicles. For example, if we talk about the protection system, it did not anticipate many of the challenges that we faced literally from the first days of the Second Military Operation," explained General Director of JSC Concern Uralvagonzavod Alexander Potapov. "The corresponding modifications were immediately adopted, the designers worked day and night, and the plant workers promptly made changes to the products that were already being assembled in the workshop. This painstaking and responsible work of the plant workers was recognized by the eighth state award – the Order 'For Labor Valor.'"

Production Fails to Keep Pace With Losses

The Russian-based Uralvagonzavod did not announce how many respective T-72 and T-90s were delivered in the recent batches, but military analysts have questioned whether the production of new tanks can replace those lost on the battlefield.

According to a June 2024 report from the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), 13 batches of T-90Ms had been delivered by that point.

"Reports from the Russian defence sector and think tanks suggest that company-sized batches of between 11–15 tanks are being delivered," IISS explained, putting the number "as high as 267 if all batches included 15 tanks." Obviously, additional batches have been delivered since that report was written, but if we conservatively round up the number to 300 T-90s, it still seems unlikely the production can keep pace with the current rate of attrition.

The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) wrote earlier this month, "Ukrainian forces reportedly destroyed or damaged over 3,000 Russian tanks and almost 9,000 armored vehicles in 2024 as Russia continues to accrue vehicle losses that are likely unsustainable in the medium-term."

ISW added, "Russia's current armored vehicle and tank production rates indicate that such losses will likely be prohibitive over the longer term, particularly as Russia continues to dip into its Soviet-era stocks."

Those stockpiles are being depleted, while the antiquated tanks – notably the T-62s and earlier models – have shown to be ill-suited to the modern battlefield.

Thus, the latest batch of new MBTs should be seen as a much anticipated and appreciated gift to start the New Year, but whether a couple of dozen tanks (if even that many) will make enough of a difference for the Russians in 2025.

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: Wikimedia Commons.

The next two United States Navy Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers – both of the Flight III – have officially been given names. USS Intrepid (DDG-145) and USS Robert Kerrey (DDG-146) will be respectively the 95th and 96th vessels of the class of destroyers, and both will be built at Huntington Ingalls Industries' Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula, Mississippi.

In August 2023 the service announced it would acquire the next nine Flight III warships with the costs spread across fiscal years 2023 to 2027. In addition, the contracts with Ingalls Shipbuilding, for six of the vessels, and three for General Dynamics' Bath Iron Works, could be expanded as the Navy sees fit.

The Backbone of the U.S. Navy's Surface Fleet

According to the U.S. Navy, each Arleigh Burke-class destroyer has been "built around the Aegis Combat System," and the vessels continue to be "the backbone of the U.S. Navy's surface fleet providing protection to America around the globe."

The Arleigh Burke class was developed at the tail end of the Cold War to replace the aging Charles F. Adams-class destroyers. Each of the guided-missile warships in the class has an overall length of 500 to 510 feet and a displacement that ranges from 8,230 to 9,700 tons.

The destroyers can operate independently or as part of Carrier Strike Groups, Surface Action Groups, and Expeditionary Strike Groups. As multi-mission surface combatants, the warships are capable of conducting Anti-Air Warfare (AAW), Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW), and Anti-Surface Warfare (ASuW). The DDG 51 Flight III upgrade was designed to be centered on the AN/SPY-6(V)1 Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) system that provides vastly increased capability over Flight IIA ships. The AMDR has enabled Flight III ships to simultaneously perform AAW and BMD, which satisfies the U.S. Navy’s critical need for an enhanced surface combatant Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) capability.

The New USS Intrepid

Last Friday, Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro officially named DDG-145 the future USS Intrepid while aboard the retired Essex-class aircraft carrier that shares its namesake. Preserved as the Intrepid Museum in New York City, the former carrier (CV/CVA/CVS-11) is just one of four maintained as a floating museum ship.

"It is deeply meaningful to stand aboard USS Intrepid – the fourth vessel to bear the name, and whose proud legacy continues to inspire and remind so many visitors of the courage, resilience and sacrifice that define the U.S. Navy – and it is with profound respect that we also look to the future of our Navy from these decks," said Secretary Del Toro. "It is my pleasure to announce that the fifth vessel named Intrepid will be an Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer, DDG 145, USS Intrepid, in honor of her past namesakes and the courageous service of all our Sailors globally from the South China Sea to the Red Sea."

The future Arleigh Burke-class destroyer will be the fifth U.S. Navy vessel to bear the name.

The first was an armed ketch that was actually captured by Commodore Stephen Decatur during his mission against the Barbary pirates in North Africa to destroy the captured USS Philadelphia. Originally named Mastico, Decatur and his men took control of the ketch in December 1803, and renamed her Intrepid. She was employed as a fire ship in Tripoli harbor in September 1804 but exploded either prematurely or perhaps to stop a boarding party. Thirteen U.S. sailors were killed. An admiring Admiral Horatio Nelson of the Royal Navy described the feat as "the most bold and daring act of the age."

The second was an experimental steamship, while the third was a receiving and barracks ship. The most famous former USS Intrepid is the famed aircraft carrier.

Her keel was laid down just six days before the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, and upon completion, she immediately headed to the Pacific where she was greeted by a baptism of fire when she took part in the invasion of the Marshall Islands in January 1944. By the end of the war, USS Intrepid suffered a total of four kamikaze attacks as well as a torpedo strike, yet she survived.

The carrier remained in service until 1973, taking part in combat operations during the war in Vietnam, and recovering several NASA space capsules.

"We know this namesake ship will serve our Navy and our nation proudly as the former USS Intrepid did and continues to do, and we couldn't be more thrilled that it begins its proverbial journey today at the Intrepid Museum," said Intrepid Museum President Susan Marenoff-Zausner. "For all of its missions, the entire Museum team wishes the ships and its crew safety and success."

The future USS Intrepid's sponsor will be Betty Del Toro, wife of Secretary Del Toro and a "lifelong supporter of the Navy and a steadfast advocate for Sailors and Marines."

Meet the USS Robert Kerrey

On Saturday, Secretary Del Toro also named the future DDG-146, the USS Robert Kerrey – the first U.S. Navy vessel to be named for the former United States senator, Nebraska governor, and Medal of Honor recipient. A day earlier, Del Toro met with Kerrey in New York City and shared the news that the 96th vessel of the class would be named in his honor.

"My sincere thanks to President Biden, Secretary of the Navy Del Toro, and the United States Navy that gave me the opportunity to serve my country for three of the best years of my life," said Senator Kerrey. "I am very grateful for this recognition."

Senator Kerrey was awarded the Medal of Honor for service as a United States Navy SEAL in 1969. According to the service, on March 14 of that year, "he led his team on a mission to capture important Viet Cong political leaders who had set up a base of operations on an island in the bay of Nha Trang. The platoon scaled a 350-foot cliff and were descending from a ledge overlooking the enemy camp when a grenade exploded at Kerrey's feet, severely injuring his right leg and propelling him backward onto jagged rocks. Immobilized by his multiple wounds, Kerrey nonetheless continued directing his team in securing the enemy camp and finding an extraction site for helicopter evacuation."

Kerrey lost his lower leg during the action, and in 1970, became the first SEAL to receive the nation's highest decoration. He served as governor of the Cornhusker State from 1983 to 1987, and represented Nebraska as a U.S. senator from 1989 to 2001.

"One of the great privileges I have as Secretary of the Navy is to name ships, and it is my honor to name the future USS Robert Kerrey (DDG 146)," said Del Toro. "This will be the first Navy vessel named in his honor, and it is most appropriate we do so, for his actions in Vietnam and his continued service to this country well beyond his Naval service."

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: Wikimedia Commons.

“What Happens In Vegas, Stays In Vegas.”—Official Las Vegas advertising slogan

It turns out that that slogan is not only applicable to more risqué and naughty nocturnal activities. Thanks to a totally awesome venue known as Battlefield Vegas, the truism also applies to the opportunity to rent and shoot antique firearms that are extremely difficult if not downright impossible to find anywhere else in the country (unless you’re filthy rich and can afford to actually purchase your own).

As luck would have it, during the final week of 2024, Yours Truly happened to be in “Sin City” to witness my beloved USC Trojans win the Las Vegas Bowl, so as one of my pre-Game Day activities, I decided to mosey on down to Battlefield Vegas and take advantage of the opportunity to shoot two antique, historically significant semiautomatic pistols: the Imperial German “Broomhandle” Mauser on the late 19th century and the WWII-era Type 14 8mm Japanese Nambu.

C96 “Broomhandle” 7.63 mm Mauser History & Specifications

Movie buffs will recognize the iconic “Broomhandle” Mauser as the template for the BlasTech DL-44 blaster that Han Solo uses in the Star Wars film franchise.

But this gun’s real-world history is even more remarkable. Patented in 1896 (hence the alphanumeric designation), it was the first military semiautomatic pistol to prove itself both rugged enough and reliable enough for field use. Moreover, it saved the life of none other than a young Winston Churchill during the Battle of Omdurman on September 2, 1898

Dimensions included a barrel length of 5.5 inches, an overall length of 12,3 inches, a weight of 2 pounds 8 ounces, a standard internal magazine capacity of 10 rounds, and firing an original 7.63x25mm Mauser (AKA .30 Mauser) cartridge.

Type 14 8mm Japanese Nambu History & Specifications

The Type 14 Nambu entered production in 1926, an updated version of the Type A Nambu pistol developed in 1902 by Lieutenant General Kijirō Nambu. It was designated the Type 14 because 1926 was the 14th year of the reign of Emperor Taisho (Yoshihito).

Interestingly, the Nambu wasn’t the *official* issue sidearm of the Imperial Japanese Army, as IJA officers were expected to purchase their own pistols.

The gun had such a poor reputation for reliability – due in part to weak magazine springs and weak striker springs – that at least two of my colleagues at The National Interest, Peter Suciu and Kyle Mizokami, include the Nambu on their all-time Worst Guns lists. Also, various test-fire sessions with the Nambu on YouTube are plagued with malfunctions.

As for the 8x22mm cartridge, it’s a rimless bottleneck cartridge with a diameter of  0.320 inch, generating a muzzle velocity of 1,030 feet per second and 242 foot-pounds of muzzle energy with a 102-grain bullet. These ballistics put the 8mm Nambu round roughly on par with the .380 ACP round (which has an 0.355 inch diameter).

Range Report and Shooting Impressions

Battlefield Vegas’s rental Nambu will cost you $25.00 USD for shooting five rounds and $40 for firing ten rounds; their rental C96 Mauser will cost you 29 and 40 bucks respectively for those same round counts. Now, that might sound excessive, even with the cost of more conventional handgun ammo being what it is nowadays. However, from a business standpoint, these prices make perfect sense; after all, these are antique firearms for which spare parts are extremely difficult to come by in case something breaks, so naturally Battlefield Vegas is going to want to maximize their profit margin for each shot fired. (I suppose you could call that “getting more buck for your bang” as opposed to vice versa.)

The shop’s Nambu specimen was the following mini-history:

“This Japanese pistol was brought back to the United States by a US Marine when World War 2 ended and is a genuine piece of world history.”

So then, how did these classic pistols shoot for me?

Well, naturally I had to purchase the 10-round options for each gun in order to do at least a semi-proper evaluation. The ammo for the 7.63mm Mauser was PPU (Prvi Partizan) 85-grain full metal jacket (FMJ), whilst the 8mm Nambu ammo was a generic (no manufacturing specs listed anywhere on the box) 106-grain FMJ.

I was provided a single B-27 silhouette target for both pistols. For both guns, I divvied the eval into five rounds of head shots at 7 yards and five rounds of torso shots at 25 yards, “When in Rome, do like a Roman,” as the saying goes, so for the 7-yard stage, I used the old-school one-handed pistol shooting stance that was universally taught to soldiers before the late great Col. Jeff Cooper revolutionized two-handed handgun shooting in the 1950s and 60s; at 25 yards, I reverted to my preferred two-handed Classic Weaver Stance.

Both pistols had tolerable ergonomics and trigger pulls, much better than might be expected of mil-spec pistols; the Type 14’s didn’t have excess slack or creep, whilst the C96’s pull felt rather surprisingly like that of a newer vintage traditional double-action (TDA) pistol . The Japanese gun had the cruder sights of the two, whilst the German gat had tangent sights that could hypothetically (and rather optimistically) be adjusted for accurate fire at hundreds of meters.

Both guns enabled me to connect on all of my head shots, although surprisingly the 8mm gave me the tighter groups. At 25 yards, the Nambu gave me one 10-ring hit (just shy of the tie-breaking X-ring), two low-right in the 9-wing, one low-right in the 8-ring…and one flier way off to the extreme right periphery of the 7-ring. The Mauser gave me the tighter group at the farther distance, printing high-right, with one round just barely clipping the 10-ring and the rest taking the 9-ring.

The “Broomhandle” gave me flawless reliability, whist, unsurprisingly, the Type 14 had a failure to feed at Round #8.

Overall, a fun though all-too-brief range session getting to shoot these two pieces of history. Many thanks/Vielen dank/Domo arigato gozaimasu, Battlefield Vegas!

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). If you’d like to pick his brain further, you can ofttimes find him at the Old Virginia Tobacco Company (OVTC) lounge in Manassas, Virginia, partaking of fine stogies and good quality human camaraderie.

Image: Wikimedia Commons.