Diplomacy & Crisis News

Summary: This article discusses Ukraine's acquisition of 60 F-16 fighters from the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway to bolster its defense against the Russian invasion. It provides an overview of the F-16's history, specifications, and capabilities. The debate over the F-16's suitability for Ukraine's current situation is explored, considering factors like training, maintenance, and the threat posed by Russia's S-400 missile systems. While some view the F-16s as a significant upgrade for Ukraine's air force, others raise concerns about their effectiveness in the ongoing conflict. The article highlights the potential long-term impact and NATO's technological alignment with Ukraine through the F-16 acquisition.

When Russia first invaded Ukraine back in February 2022, the U.S. and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies immediately pledged support for Kyiv.

From main battle tanks (MBTs) and munitions to cash funds and anti-tank weaponry, the U.S. has provided billions of dollars worth of military equipment to aid Ukraine’s defensive efforts.

While NATO allies have agreed to send over many of the items requested by Kyiv, some were more challenging to provide. For more than a year, Kyiv asked the White House to deliver modern fighter jets to the front lines.

The Biden administration repeatedly refused this request. However, a surprise policy reversal in 2023 was a turning point. The U.S. president told allies that he would support an international coalition to train Ukrainian pilots on Western fighter jets, paving the way for fourth-generation airframes to make their way to the frontlines eventually.

Today, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway are offering Ukraine 60 F-16s in the near future.

Will these airframes actually make a difference in a war that has been characterized as a never-ending stale-mate?

The F-16 was derived from the 1970s Lightweight Fighting Program and has remained a critical component of America’s aerial arsenal over the years. Following lessons learned during the Vietnam War, U.S. officials required an airframe with more robust combat performance.

After much trial and error, the YF-16 prototype was developed by General Dynamics and rolled out in 1973. Over the next year, America’s NATO allies Belgium, Denmark, and the Netherlands reached an agreement with the U.S. to order the winner of the LWF competition. By 1976, the YF-16 was declared the winner. The airframe’s lower operating costs, maneuver performance and greater range made it a standout.

Additionally, using the Pratt & Whitney F100 turbine engine for power was a plus since its use in the F-15 would mean lower engine costs for both programs.

The compact, multi-role fighter jet is highly maneuverable and can perform both air-to-combat and air-to-surface missions. Each Fighting Falcon features the Boeing joint helmet-mounted system and other enhanced technologies like up-look reticles and optical/inertial trackers.

In terms of ordnance, the F-16 is well-stocked. The F-16 possesses nine hardpoints for weapons payloads, one at each tip, one centerline under the fuselage, and three under each wing.

These fighters can carry an array of air-to-surface missiles, including Maverick, HARM and Shrike. Additionally, the fighters are equipped with Boeing Harpool and Kongsberg Penguin anti-ship missiles. To complement its hefty weapons-carrying capabilities, the Fighting Falcon is quite the racehorse.

The fighter can fly over 1,500 miles per hour with an operational ceiling of 50,000 feet. Moreover, the airframe has an operational range of over 500 miles.

Initially, analysts pointed to extensive training time and delivery processes as reasons not to deliver F-16 Fighting Falcons to Ukraine. Additionally, these fourth-generation fighters require much more maintenance than the average Soviet-era fighter Kyiv’s pilots are used to flying.

Last year, a report by the U.S. General Accounting Office ranked the F-16 as one of the most challenging U.S. Air Force planes to maintain. Another key factor analysts point to when explaining why Fighting Falcons are not suited for Russia’s current invasion in Ukraine is the wrath of Moscow’ S-400 Surface-to-air missile systems (SAMs), which could leave the F-16 “completely unmatched.”

Proponents of providing Fighting Falcons to Ukraine claim that while these jets will not abruptly alter the course of the war, they are a major step up for the older planes Kyiv is currently flying and will, in the long run, prove to be a significant asset for the country’s defensive efforts. Down the line, if Kyiv uses these fighters to aid specific operations, it will have a better chance of success. Specifically, Ukraine’s pilots could use F-16s to gradually take apart Russia’s air defense umbrella around the battlefield to make room for more open-air operations.

As detailed by Reuters, the addition of F-16’s “locks Ukraine onto a technological path that NATO is currently on, what Ukraine has now is a dead end; It’s not going anywhere. If you want to have an air force in 10 years, it’s going to have to be F-16s or something similar.”

Since Ukraine launched its highly anticipated counter-offensive this summer, little significant movement has been documented on the ground. In fact, since February 2022, Russia has maintained about one-fifth of Ukraine in its grip while the front lines have remained relatively stagnant.

Hopefully, adding the 60 Fighting Falcons will help push Kyiv’s efforts further.

However, the true outcome that the delivery of these fighters will provide remains up for debate.

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

Summary: The article discusses the reactivation and deployment of Iowa-class battleships during the Korean War. Following their initial decommissioning after World War II, the USS Missouri was the only Iowa-class battleship remaining in active duty. However, during the Korean War, the USS Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Jersey were reactivated and played significant roles in naval operations off the coast of Korea. The battleships conducted bombardments on various targets, contributing to the overall destruction of Korean assets. The article also highlights the modifications made to the Iowa-class battleships during their second comeback in the 1980s, including installing newer weaponry such as anti-ship missiles and cruise missiles. Despite no longer being in service, the Iowa-class battleships are esteemed by military enthusiasts and industry experts.

The Second World War officially ended after the U.S. dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Within five years, almost 90% of the U.S. Navy’s personnel were discharged to civilian life as its active duty personnel had shrunk to 375,000. In addition to those relegated to reserve duty, the majority of the Navy’s battleships were decommissioned or scrapped for parts. However, three completed Iowa-class battleships would soon jump back into service and join their sister ship the USS Missouri off the coast of Korea. For the next three years, these formidable warships would lead the Navy’s operations against North Korean and Chinese forces.

The Iowa-class ships can be traced back to the late 1930’s, when the “escalator clause” first emerged. First penned in the 1936 London Treat, if Japan (or other non-signatories) refused to confirm that future battleships would not be armed with guns over 14-inch calibers, “then the signatories could adopt 16-inch guns and also a larger size limit for ships.” For this reason, the World War II battleships were constructed with 16-inch guns, and the Iowa-class vessels were designed to weigh 45,000 tons, rather than the previous 35,000 ton limit. These battleships were powered by eight Babcock & Wilcox boilers and four sets of double-reduction cross-compound geared turbines. During the Second World War, the earliest search radars installed onto the Iowa ships were the SK air-search radar and SG surface-search radar.

Each Iowa-class battleship measures 860 feet with a maximum beam length of 108 feet. In terms of armament, each vessel packed a punch. Nine 16-inch Mark 7 naval guns were fitted on the ships, which could fire explosive and armor-piercing shells. The “three-gun” turrets on each ship could fire any combination of its guns, including a broadside of all nine. The Mark 38 Gun Fire Control System was installed for fire control, in addition to large-caliber guns.

Notably, the Mk 8 “Super-heavy” Armor Piercing Capped (APC) shell for anti-structure and anti-ship work was incorporated on the Iowa-class ships for use against unarmored targets.

After World War II, the USS Missouri was the only Iowa-class battleship to remain on active duty. She was notably the last American battleship commissioned. In 1950, the Missouri was displaced off the coast of Korea. Shortly after her arrival, the USS Wisconsin was reactivated for support.

The U.S. Navy opted not to transfer the three heavy cruisers of the Des Moines class already in service in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean since they served as important deterrents to the Soviet Union at the time. When the Wisconsin (followed by the reactivation of sister-ships Iowa and New Jersey) re-entered service during the Korean War, they were all in excellent condition. In fact, the only real change involving these battleships was the replacement of WWII-era floatplanes with helicopters.

By 1952, the USS Iowa was serving as flagship for the Commander, Seventh Fleet. It took part in gun strikes on targets around the areas of Songjin, Wonsan, Hungman, Kojo, Toejo, Chaho, and northern Inchon, North Korea. USS New Jersey also operated mightily during the war, taking part in coast raiding of North Korean transportation facilities along the border. The USS Missouri also engaged in numerous bombardments while serving in Korea. The battleship carried out her first attack in 1951 and began a second tour two years later.

While the four Iowa-class battleships certainly did a number on Korean assets via bombardments in the early 1950s, the overall impact of their presence is up for debate. As detailed by Robert Farley here in the National Interest, “Communist forces quickly learned to move critical facilities and troop concentration outside of the range of the battleships’ guns, although the transport network was hard to shift inland.

Heavy U.S. bombing of targets across Korea contributed to the general destruction, making it hard to parse out how much the battleships themselves mattered. The smaller, cheaper heavy cruisers could often deliver similar levels of destruction to enemy targets. Still, the very presence of the battleships may have had some degree of psychological effect on Communist and UN forces alike.”

The Iowa-class ships certainly brought their big guns to Korea. In the 1980s, these battleships would be revived for a second time. Since these vessels are quite large in size, modifications could be more easily incorporated. During the Iowa class’ second comeback phase, workers replaced the older 5-in gun mounts installed onboard with newer and bigger weaponry. In addition to sixteen Harpoon anti-ship missiles, thirty-two Tomahawk cruise missiles were also installed on the battleships.

Although the Iowa-class vessels are no longer in service, these battleships are well regarded by military buffs and industry officials alike.

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

Summary: The USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), the leading vessel of the new Gerald R. Ford-class of aircraft carriers, has completed an extended deployment to the Mediterranean. While the CVN-78 features advanced technologies, it has faced issues with various systems. Concerns arise regarding the sustainability and vulnerability of such massive carriers, considering evolving threats like hypersonic missiles, unmanned vehicles, and cyber attacks. The article questions the necessity of supercarriers and suggests that their construction and maintenance costs, coupled with potential end-of-life challenges, may make them less practical than alternative options like updating conventionally powered carriers or increasing amphibious assault ships in the fleet.

The USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), the newest and largest nuclear-powered supercarrier ever built, is now headed home after an extended deployment to the waters of the Mediterranean. The warship is the lead vessel of a new class of United States Navy aircraft carriers that will replace the aging Nimitz-class on a one-for-one basis over the coming decades.

Featuring greater automation, which allows the ship to operate with a smaller crew, CVN-78 is also among the most advanced warships ever built. As the largest warship ever constructed in terms of displacement, USS Gerald R. Ford is an impressive vessel that will likely serve as power projection throughout the world for decades to come.

Yet, even as she is loaded with new and innovative technologies, there has remained issues with numerous systems that haven't exactly worked as planned. From the ship's toilets, which regularly clog, to the ordnance elevators that didn't function properly; numerous systems have had serious teething issues that have needed to be resolved. Given those problems, it would be easy to dismiss the carrier as a huge money pit in the water and perhaps even suggest that CVN-78 is actually a bad carrier.

The bigger question is whether the Gerald R. Ford-class could end up being the end of the line for true aircraft carriers.

It is worth noting that it has only been about a century since the United States Navy first began to operate carriers – and at the time many naval leaders still saw the battleship as the dominant surface combatant. Fast forward, and today no one operates anything close in size to battleships, and the closest is Russia's aging Soviet-era battlecruisers that never quite delivered on their promise.

Simply put, guided missile destroyers can fill the same role of the old big gun battleships, while being quicker to build, cheaper to operate and requiring a significantly smaller crew.

Aircraft carriers may not be so easy to replace. Few warships can do what carriers can do – notably in being a floating airbase.

Yet, a major concern is that a supercarrier could be really a big target. The old fear was from enemy aircraft and submarines, but the threat now includes hypersonic missiles, undersea unmanned vehicles (UUVs), and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Low-tech threats still remain a concern as well, as was seen on October 12, 2000, when suicide terrorists exploded a small boat alongside the USS Cole.

It wouldn't really take all that much to do considerable damage to such a high-value target.

In addition, the systems are now so complex that they could even be targeted in a cyber attack. The question is whether the United States Navy needs such a massive floating airbase that faces so many threats.

The biggest argument against a nuclear-powered carrier is that it really isn't an efficient system. Yes, such a vessel has nearly unlimited range, yet the endurance is only as great as the food and water it can carry. A ship that can stay a sea indefinitely is good until one considers that it still needs to be supplied with fuel for the aircraft and food for the crew.

During the global Covid-19 pandemic, USS Nimitz (CVN-68) completed the longest deployment of a carrier since the Vietnam War, spending 321 days at sea. It was hardly good for the crew, who had to endure 10 months at sea, but it also pushed the ship hard and required a lengthy maintenance period. Even worse, the Nimitz-class carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) was sidelined for months due to an outbreak of Covid that impacted more than a third of her crew.

Massive vessels that have such massive crews could be just as susceptible in another pandemic.

Then there is the fact that even the regular maintenance of these supercarriers take months and there is little indication that this will be improved on CVN-78 or the other Gerald R. Ford-class flattops. Moreover, the mid-life refueling of the nuclear reactors takes the ships out of service for years! The United States Navy may have 11 nuclear-powered carriers in its fleet, but rarely are more than five or six deployed at any one time.

Yet, the biggest consideration on why these new supercarriers are just a bad idea is that there seems to be little planning for their end of life. Even as the cost to construct the next ships in the class has fallen, there are the billions of dollars that the Navy will have to pay to eventually dispose of these vessels. It was reported that it could take more than a decade and a half to fully dismantle and scrap USS Enterprise (CVN-65), the first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, while the price tag could be more than $1.5 billion.

Even once the issues with CVN-65 are addressed, the Navy will have to deal with the Nimitz-class carriers that the new Ford-class will be replaced on a one-for-one basis. This issue isn't likely to get better with the newest carriers being built.

Each may be impressive, but the Gerald R. Ford-class carriers take years to build, costs a not-so-small fortune, require massive maintenance and will take years to dismantle. Perhaps it would be wiser to update the conventionally powered Kitty Hawk -class, and complement them with more America-class amphibious assault ships (LHDs), which would be better suited to a potential war in the Indo-Pacific. Each of those flattops would be cheaper to build, we could build more of them, and they'd be easier to retire when the time comes. And they aren't a nuclear disaster waiting to happen should a terrorist get lucky.

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. Email the Author: Editor@NationalInterest.org. 

Summary: The P-82/F-82 Twin Mustang, a unique fighter aircraft born out of North American Aviation's innovation, showcased a twin-fuselage design with two pilots. Emerging after World War II, it became operational in 1946, featuring a distinctive structure to alleviate pilot fatigue on long missions. Despite missing WWII combat, the Twin Mustang made history during the Korean War, scoring the first air-to-air kill in 1950. With a range exceeding 1,600 miles and a max speed of 475 mph, it played a significant role until 1952, marking the end of piston-engine fighters in the USAF. Surviving examples stand as relics of Cold War aviation history.

Quite a few military aviation history buffs have argued a case for the P-51D Mustang as the greatest fighter plane of all time. So then, going by the philosophy that "two heads are better than one," the only thing that could be better than one Mustang would be two Mustangs … as in two Mustangs in one single plane/airframe, right? That's apparently what the fine folks at North American Aviation (who'd already gained additional fame during WWII via the B-25 Mitchell) were thinking when they designed and built the "sequel" (so to speak) to the P-51, that being P-82/F-82 Twin Mustang. Let's take a closer look at this aerial oddity of the early Cold War era.

"Don't give me an F-82/That monster from out of the blue/You won't understand, just who's in command/Don't give me an F-82!" That is one of the verses from the humorous Air Force fighter pilot drinking song "Give Me Operations," popularized by folk singers such as the late great Oscar Brand ("the Dean of American Folk Music") and the still-alive-and-kicking Dick Jonas (retired USAF Lt. Col. AKA "the fighter pilot's minstrel"). 

When looking at pics of the Twin Mustang, one might get the impression that the plane was a result of cross-breeding the original WWII Mustang with another highly successful fighter plane from a rival American aircraft manufacturer, that being the P-38 Lightning built by famed Lockheed's Skunk Works factory under the legendary Kelly Johnson. However, unlike the Lightning, the P-82 went beyond mere twin tails and twin-engine and actually added a second fuselage — joined by the wing and the horizontal stabilizer — a second cockpit, and a second pilot to boot.

A Boeing fact sheet explains the rationale:

"With a pilot in each fuselage, it reduced the problem of pilot fatigue on ultra-long-range missions. The P-82F and G models carried a radar operator in the right cockpit instead of a co-pilot. Both engine throttles and both propellers were controllable from either cockpit by manually operated levers. The pilot's cockpit on the left contained the normal flight and engine instruments, while the co-pilot on the right had sufficient instruments for relief and emergency operation. A simplified cockpit arrangement improved pilot comfort, including a tilting, adjustable seat to reduce fatigue during long flights." 

(NOTE: It was after WWII ended that the then-newly independent U.S. Air Force changed the alphanumeric designations for its fighter planes from "P" for "Pursuit" to "F" for 'Fighter.)

The Twin Mustang made her maiden flight on June 15, 1945, but didn't officially go operational until 1946. This was not in time to escort the B-29 Superfortresses on the heavy bombers' long-range high-altitude missions over Japan — hence the rationale for the fatigue-reducing second pilot in the first place — before WWII ended, but the P-82/F-82 would more than make up for the lost time when the Korean War rolled around (more on this in a bit). The F-82 certainly didn't fall short in the combat range department (bad pun intended), as the warplane could cover more than 1,600 miles (2,574 kilometers) with a full payload. 

At a max airspeed of 475 mph (764 kph), the Twin Mustang was 35 mph (56.32 kph) faster than her single-engine predecessor. However, the P-82/F-82 did not one-up the P-51D in armament, still sticking with the six Browning .50 caliber machine guns, except this time it was decided to concentrate guns along the central joining wing span as opposed to the three guns in each wing of the "Single 'Stang" (so to speak). 

As previously mentioned, the Twin Mustang definitely got her fair share of action in the deadly skies over Korea after missing out on WWII aerial combat. In the process, though this twin-bodied warbird didn't rack up quite the impressive kill tally of the P-51, she and her crews made history in terms of both firsts and lasts. 

Most significantly, the F-82G scored the very first air-to-air kill of the war, on June 27, 1950. Whilst escorting a Douglas C-54 Skymaster, an F-82G piloted by then-Lt. William "Skeeter" Hudson and radio operator Lt. Carl Fraser, shot down a Yakovlev Yak-11. The next two North Korean aircraft to be shot down by U.S. forces would also fall to the guns of the F-82G. The Twin Mustang continued participating in combat operations in Korea until March 1952, although the plane would be rendered obsolete for air-to-air combat purposes as jet-vs.-jet fighter engagements rose to prominence. 

As far as last hurrahs go, the F-82 turned out to be the last American piston-engined fighter ordered into production by the USAF. Five of them survive today.

A total of 282 P-82s/F-82s were built (compared with more than 15,000 P-51s) before being retired in 1953 (the same year that the Korean armistice was signed). Five of them survive today, including one on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force at Wright-Patterson AFB near Dayton, Ohio. 

Christian D. Orr is a former Air Force 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 and The Journal of Intelligence and Cyber Security. Last but not least, he is a Companion of the Order of the Naval Order of the United States (NOUS). Email the Author: Editor@nationalinterest.org. 

Image Credit: Shutterstock. 

Summary: The article delves into the fascinating history of the USS Oriskany, an aircraft carrier with notable service in Korea and Vietnam, highlighting its commendations and pivotal missions. After decommissioning in 1976, the Navy transformed the carrier into an artificial reef in 2006. The intentional sinking aimed to create an underwater habitat, and collaboration with environmental agencies ensured minimal impact. Despite concerns about pollutants, the artificial reef has become a thriving marine environment, benefiting local economies and showcasing the innovative reuse of a once-mighty warship.

Fifteen years have passed since the U.S. Navy intentionally sank its aircraft carrier USS Oriskany in the Gulf of Mexico near Pensacola, Florida. Why CV/CVA-34 may be at the bottom of the ocean, the legendary vessel served the Navy well during her decades in operation. In fact, USS Oriskany was awarded the Navy Unit Commendation and the Meritorious Unit Commendation on three occasions. She also was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal and the Korean Service Medal. Although all these roles are certainly commendable, perhaps the Oriskany’s current function deep in the Gulf is her most significant. The once mighty U.S. carrier is now serving the seas as an artificial reef.

The USS Oriskany was one of the Navy’s few Essex-class aircraft carriers completed after the Second World War. Prior to the Essex ships, the Navy sailed Yorktown-calss carriers that were severely limited due to strict arms control treaty obligations. As tensions began to build in Europe in the late 1930’s, however, American engineers understood the need to advance future carrier platforms. The Essex-class ships were notably longer, wider and more than a third heavier than their predecessors. Additionally, each ship was equipped with a bigger flight deck and deck-edge elevator that elevated their offensive and defensive air prowess.

In the first half of the 20th century, naval airframes were much smaller and lighter than their modern day counterparts. Specifically, the Douglas TBD Devastator was entering service around the time the first Essex-class ship was entering service. The Devastator was extremely hefty compared to earlier airframes, weighing more than 4,600 tons. Fully loaded, the Devastator had a wingspan of 50 feet, necessitating much more room than earlier carriers could provide. In addition to this aircraft, the Navy required that future carriers would be able to carry at least 90 planes. The increased space incorporated on the Essex-class ships fulfilled this need.

In the early 1940’s, CV-34 was laid down by the New York Naval Shipyard. By 1945, the carrier officially launched, however, construction on the vessel was halted one year later when it was roughly 85% complete. Over the next few years, the Oriskany would undergo several modernization efforts in order to better handle newer carrier aircraft. Some of the enhancements made to the vessel include a heavily reinforced flight deck structure, stronger elevators, more sophisticated hydraulic catapults and newer arresting gear. Once the Oriskany was fully refitted, she was commissioned in the New York Naval Ship Yard in 1950.

Perhaps the most notable missions accomplished by the Oriskany were in Korea and Vietnam. When the carrier set sail to aid United Nations forces in Korea in 1952, her aircraft heavily struck against enemy supply lines and coordinated bombing operations along the coast. Notably, two aircraft aboard the Oriskany downed two Soviet MiG-15 fighters. In the 1960’s, the carrier would deploy to Vietnam. On October 26 1967, then-Lieutenant Commander John McCain was taken as a prisoner of war after his A-4 Skyhawk was shot down.

After many solid decades in service, the Oriskany was decommissioned in 1976. Within a few years, it became apparent that the massive carrier would be too costly to modernize. By the end of the Cold War, her hull was stripped of all equipment. In 2004, the Oriskany’s retirement trajectory took a turn. The U.S. Navy retook possession of the carrier and transformed the Oriskany to the State of Florida to use as an artificial reef. U.S. Navy personnel teamed up with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Escambia’s County Department of Natural Resources, the Pensacola Police Department, the U.S. Coast Guard and various sheriff departments in surrounding neighborhoods in 2006. A Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal team then detonated C-4 explosive charges intentionally placed throughout the carrier in order to carry out the planned sinking

The Navy worked with the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure the sinking of the Oriskany would not negatively impact sealife. After spending around $20 million to clean the hefty carrier, the service was still forced to leave an estimated 700 pounds of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) aboard the ship. Some ecologists were concerned that the sinking would coincide with unintended consequences below sea level and a State of Florida study is currently underway to determine if there will be a negative outcome in the future.

Since the sinking of the Oriskany, at least thirty-eight fish species have been seen around the wreck. Additionally, Pensacola and Escambia County generated more than $4 million from the addition of the artificial reef in 2007 alone. This number is likely much, much higher today.

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

The M4 Sherman tank was a big part of World War II. But was it any good? Some experts think it was a total piece of junk, while others think it was a strong weapon of war and deserving of a place in history.

Here is what one expert told us: “Quantity has a quality all its own.” The above quote is often attributed, correctly or otherwise, to Joseph Stalin. Whoever said it first, the statement is often a theme when applied to Soviet-designed weapons systems, from the Avtomat Kalashnikova AK-47 rifle, to jet fighters such as the MiG-23 “Flogger” and MiG-21 “Fishbed,” to the venerable T-34 medium battle tank.

But the truism could also apply to certain weapons systems made in America, especially during WWII, when U.S. wartime industrial capacity was at its peak. Arguably no other American-made platform of World War Two fits the proverb quite like the M4 Sherman medium battle tank.

Not counting prototypes, a total of 49,234 of these tanks were produced, a number surpassed only by the Soviet T-34. Officially the Medium Tank, M4, this iconic tank kept the U.S. Army’s then-common naming convention of nicknaming its armored beasts after American Civil War generals, Yankee and Rebel alike.

For example, the M3 medium tank was named for both Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant, depending on whether it had the U.S.-patterned turrets or the British-patterned turrets, respectively. In the case of the Sherman, Civil War buffs can’t help but wonder how much WWII Southron tankers – especially those from Georgia and South Carolina – had to swallow their pride when serving as crewmembers in a vehicle named for their most despised Union officer.

However, unlike its Civil War namesake, the Sherman tank didn’t so much march to the sea as it marched from the seas – from North African, French, and Italian shores, moving inland to confront the might of Nazi Germany’s war machine head-on.

As beloved and iconic as the Sherman tank was and remains, it has also been tarnished as a bit of a lovable loser due to the fact that it was, to be brutally honest, outgunned and outclassed by later WWII German battle tanks like the vaunted and fearsome Tiger.

This reputation is strongly enforced by myriad books, military history documentaries on YouTube, and the box office blockbuster Fury, all of which propagate the mostly accepted notion that the M4 had anywhere from a 3:1 to 5:1 loss-to-kill ratio versus the Tiger – although there is at least one YouTube video out there that dares to challenge this notion.

By that same paradigm, you might believe that it was only through sheer numbers — somewhat akin to how T-34s defined the Battle of Kursk — that the M4 eventually came up on the winning side of the war. Or to go back to the Civil War analogies, similar to the popular myth that it was only through sheer numbers, and not through any sort of fighting prowess or skilled generalship, that the Union defeated the Confederacy.

Even if one does accept these numbers as gospel truth, that doesn’t make the Sherman a truly inferior tank, any more than legendary middleweight boxers such as Jake LaMotta or “Marvelous” Marvin Hagler can be considered inferior boxers because they would most likely be knocked out when matched up against heavyweights like “Iron Mike” Tyson or Evander Holyfield.

To quote the title of former U.S. Army officer turned freelance writer Miguel Ortiz’s 2021 article, “The Sherman was actually a great WWII tank.”

Ortiz backs the title with solid facts:

“Against the early-war Panzer III and Panzer IV tanks, the Sherman’s 75mm M3 short-barrel gun was capable of delivering knock-out punches. Moreover, the tank’s sloped frontal armor was adept at bouncing the incoming German fire…In 1946, the U.S. Army’s Ballistic Research Lab conducted a study on the engagements fought by the 3rd and 4rd Armored Divisions during 1944. The study examined 30 armor-on-armor engagements and found that the Sherman had a 3.6-to-1 kill ratio against the German Panther.“

Ortiz and other defenders of the Sherman’s reputation have provided some additional context: The M4 was not designed for a purely tank-killing role like the Tiger was. Contrary to the typical Hollywood-embellished depictions in popular media and video games, the majority of Allied tank engagements on the Western front were against anti-tank guns, infantry, and fortified positions like bunkers. Against those sort of targets, the Sherman’s 75mm main gun performed just fine, thank you very much.

But if you don’t want to take American writers at their word, how about words of praise from a high-ranking enemy figure?

In this case that figure was no less than Albert Speer, Hitler’s Minister of Armaments and War Production:

“On the Southwest Front, opinions are in favor of the Sherman tank and its cross-country ability. The Sherman tank climbs mountains that our Panzer crews consider impassable. This is accomplished by the especially powerful engine in the Sherman in comparison to its weight. Also, according to reports from the 26.Panzer-Division, the terrain-crossing ability on level ground (in the Po valley) is completely superior to our Panzers. The Sherman tanks drive freely cross-country, while our Panzers must remain on trails and narrow roads and therefore are very restricted in their ability to fight.”

Besides being blessed with greater speed, maneuverability, and versatility, the Sherman was far more reliable and maintenance-friendly than the Tiger. Even the most ardent critics of the Sherman and greatest fans of the Tiger will readily concede that fact, as the German behemoth was infamous for its frequent mechanical breakdowns. To use a handgun analogy, a 9mm pistol that goes “BANG!” every time you pull the trigger beats the hell out of a .45 ACP that can’t go a full magazine without jamming.

And that doesn’t even factor in the upgraded 76mm gun of the Firefly variant of the Sherman, which gave its crews a much better fighting chance against those Tiger bogeymen. Alas, brevity dictates that’s a separate topic – one we will have to discuss at a later date. Stay tuned, folks.

Christian D. Orr is a former Air Force 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 and The Journal of Intelligence and Cyber Security. Last but not least, he is a Companion of the Order of the Naval Order of the United States (NOUS). Email the Author: Editor@nationalinterest.org. 

Summary: Explore Sweden's Cold War-era A-36 project, a would-be bomber designed for potential nuclear capability. Intended as a deterrent against the Soviet Union, Projekt 1300 envisioned a delta-wing supersonic bomber capable of carrying a free-falling nuclear weapon. Despite its advanced design with a single-pilot operation and a range sufficient to reach key Soviet-controlled targets, including the Baltic States, political caution and public sentiment led to the project's cancellation in 1957. Written by former Air Force officer Christian D. Orr, this article sheds light on an intriguing chapter in Sweden's military history. 

Although Sweden hasn’t participated in an officially declared war since the Swedish-Norwegian War of 1814, and maintained a strict neutrality policy throughout the Cold War—bear in mind that it’s only now that Sweden is joining NATO—that certainly didn’t stop Sweden from producing some top-notch and high-tech weapons systems.

Clearly, they still wanted to be prepared for war against the Soviet Union just in case.

A wise precaution, as the Swedes were no doubt ever mindful of their brother Scandinavian country Finland’s military run-in with the Soviets during the Winter War of 1939-1940. Moreover, Sweden found itself in a total of eleven wars with Russia between the 12th and 19th centuries. As it turns out, Sweden’s collective military R&D genius extended beyond fighter planes and into the realm of bombers such as the A-36. Unlike the aforementioned fighter planes, the A-36 bomber never got off the ground (literally or figuratively).

As noted by my colleague Brent M. Eastwood, “Surprisingly, the Swedes even had their own nuclear-weapon program in the 1950s and 1960s – not something you would expect from the peace-loving country. They needed an airplane to carry the bomb had they decided to go all-in on the project and produce an actual nuclear device. It was thought the bomb would give the Swedes a flexible nuclear response as it faced an existential threat from the Soviet Union.”

Enter Projekt 1300, which envisioned a delta-wing supersonic bomber capable of carrying a free-falling nuclear weapon weighing up to 1,700 pounds (800kg).

Unlike American or Soviet bombers of the era (such as the B-52 and the Tupolev Tu-95 “Bear” respectively), which needed to fly extreme distances, the Swedes were able to opt for a smaller bomber that could be flown by a single pilot, with a proposed range of around 250 miles (410 km) that was sufficient to reach targets in the Baltic States—which were under the control of the Soviet Union at the time—and even the city of Leningrad (today’s St. Petersburg).  East Germany and Poland—the USSR’s Warsaw Pact allies at the time—also would have been within striking distance.

The delta-wing design was deemed more optimal for the A-36’s intended airspeed of Mach 2. Powered by twin British Merlins Rolls-Royce Olympus engines, the A-36 was going to be 55-feet long with a wingspan of 31 feet (9.44 meters), a ceiling of 60,000 feet (18,288 meters), and a fuel capacity of 8,800 pounds (3,991kg). An internal weapons bay would have been chosen to avoid (1) issues with the payload overheating that would’ve resulted from underwing carry and (2) drag stemming from an external bomb that would have impeded the aircraft’s overall performance.  The payload itself would have been a free-floating “dumb” bomb.

However, the A-36 project ended up going nowhere fast.

To quote Mr. Eastwood again, “Caution got the better part of the Swedes. Political leadership never wanted a nuclear exchange with the Soviets. And creating its own nuclear program would be difficult, time-consuming, and expensive. Going nuclear did not really fit Swedish peace-loving culture either. Home defense was one thing, but the responsibility for being a nuclear-equipped nation was considered far-fetched. There just was not enough popular support for a nuclear weapons program.”

Ergo the A-36 project was canceled in 1957, the Swedish government decided in 1966 that they were going to resist going nuclear, and in 1968 they scrapped their nuclear bomb project altogether.

Scandinavia remains a nuclear-free region, and there is no indication that it will change anytime soon.

Christian D. Orr is a former Air Force 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 and The Journal of Intelligence and Cyber Security. Email the Author: Editor@nationalinterest.org. 

Summary: Some fortunate U.S. military personnel experienced the awe-inspiring sight of eight U-2 spy planes in a rare 'Elephant Walk' at Beale Air Force Base, California. This showcase of joint airpower, featuring U-2 'Dragon Lady' aircraft, T-38 Talons, and KC-135R Stratotankers, highlights the prowess of the United States Air Force.

Aviation buffs may be lucky to see a single U-2 spy plane – apart from the few that are in a museum – but earlier this month, eight of the legendary aircraft were lined up in an "Elephant Walk" at Beale Air Force Base (AFB), California as part of the United States Air Force's efforts to showcase the joint airpower of the multiple wings stationed at the facility.

On January 4, the U-2 "Dragon Lady" aircraft were seen lined up with T-38 Talons from the 1st Reconnaissance Squadron, and KC-135R Stratotanker aircraft from the 940th Air Refueling Wing.

Currently, a total of 27 U-2s are housed at Beale AFB, and those aircraft rotate through military installations around the world.

In recent years, the United States Air Force has conducted multiple very high-profile "elephant walks," the term for taxiing numerous aircraft before takeoff. In addition to the close formation on the ground, it can involve a minimum interval takeoff.

The first elephant walks occurred during the Second World War when large fleets of allied bombers massed for attacks – and observers on the ground noted that as the aircraft lined up, it resembled the nose-to-tail formations of elephants walking to a watering hole.

Today, the U.S. Air Force employs elephant walks to show the capability of a unit as well as the teamwork that is required to conduct such an operation. It also can help pilots prepare for the launching of fully armed aircraft in a mass event if needed.

The U-2 was designed to provide high-altitude, all-weather surveillance and reconnaissance, day or night, in direct support of U.S. and allied forces.

Developed at Lockheed's famed Skunk Works division under the supervision of engineering guru Clarence "Kelly" Johnson in 1953, the U-2 took the sleek lines of a traditional sailplane featuring long, tapered wings that allowed it to fly missions ranging 3,000 miles while carrying 700 pounds of then state-of-the-art photoreconnaissance equipment.

It wasn't an easy plane to fly and by some accounts was actually the most difficult to master. Known by its nickname "Dragon Lady," it could reach altitudes of 70,000 feet – higher than what was believed to be a threat from enemy missiles. Pilots had to wear a full-pressure suit similar to those worn by astronauts.

The aircraft has been synonymous with the Cold War, in part because, on May 1, 1960, a Soviet surface-to-air missile struck a U-2 piloted by Francis Gary Powers while on a reconnaissance mission over Russia. Yet, despite that incident, the U-2 has remained a critical asset for the IC.

The program was restarted in the 1980s and as a result, many of the U-2s flying today aren't that old – and while the basic design is essentially the same as the originals produced some twenty years earlier, they are 40 percent bigger and feature a modular design that allows the aircraft to carry more equipment, but also heavier equipment. That approach also has meant that the U-2 could be adapted to suit specific missions.

Those U-2s currently in operation can carry three times as much reconnaissance equipment and fly nearly twice as far for three times as long as those first U-2s built during the dark days of the Cold War. In recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Dragon Lady has been used as aerial "eavesdropping devices" where it could survey dirt patterns to look for signs of makeshift mines and improvised explosive devices (IEDs).

The aircraft has also shown versatility as a non-military aircraft, and as noted by Lockheed Martin it has "morphed into everything from a high-tech NASA platform for conducting physics experiments to a high-altitude tool for tracking the migration of destructive spruce bark beetles through the forests of Alaska."

It was announced earlier this year that the Air Force will likely move forward with its plans to retire the U-2 Dragon Lady by Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26). It would mark the end for the spy plane, which first flew in the skies over Groom Lake in 1955.

This isn't exactly "news," as Air Force leaders have been considering retiring the U-2 fleet for nearly two decades. The RQ-4 Global Hawk unmanned aerial systems (UAS) were originally slated to replace the Dragon Lady but now the Hawk's wings have been clipped as well.

As a result, if lawmakers agree, the Air Force could retire its remaining RQ-4s just after the Dragon Lady is sent to retirement. The service would turn to space-based sensors to collect high-altitude images instead.

However, as reported by TheDrive, NASA could likely still fly the U-2 in its ER-2 configuration in very small numbers.

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary: Here, we explore the evolution of British submarine prowess with the Astute class, a technological marvel designed to replace the Trafalgar class. Unveiling its origins from Cold War anti-submarine warfare to present-day advancements, we delve into the Astute's impressive features, including world-leading sensors, Tomahawk missiles, and unique optronic masts. Written by defense expert Harrison Kass, this article provides an in-depth look at the cutting-edge technology defining Britain's submarine naval strength in the 21st century. 

The days in which the British ruled the world’s waterways are over – but the island-based nation is still capable of fielding impressive vessels. And the latest British nuclear-powered submarine, Astute-class, continues a long and venerable seafaring tradition, introducing novel technologies and abilities.

Built by BAE Systems, at Barrow-in-Furness, the Astute will replace the Trafalgar-class, becoming the default British SSN. In all, seven boats are scheduled, with the first becoming operational in 2014 – the culmination of a program that had begun decades earlier, in 1986.

In 1986, the British Ministry of Defence began exploring prospective replacements for the Swiftsure- and Trafalgar-class submarines. Initially known as SSN20, the project was a Cold War venture that continued the Royal Navy’s emphasis on anti-submarine warfare, working to counter the increasingly sophisticated Soviet submarines. SSN20 was designed to match the capabilities of Soviet submarines – with improved nuclear propulsion, enhanced firepower, a more complex “integrated sonar suite” and combat systems. While researching and designing SSN20, the British – caught up in the Cold War defense spending fervor – did not concern themselves with price. Costs were not considered a “constraint.”

Yet, like America, when the Cold War ended, the British reevaluated their spending priorities. In 1990, SSN20 was canceled. A new submarine design program was started – this time with an effort to constrain costs; the British opted to build a new class that was derived from the existing Trafalgar-class (which was in turn derived from the preceding Swiftsure-class). The new project, beginning in June 1991, became known as the Batch 2 Trafalgar-class, or B2TC.

The Astute “has been outfitted with many technological firsts,” reported Peter Suciu in the National Interest recently. “Each of the boats is equipped with world-leading sensors, carries Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missiles and Spearfish heavyweight torpedoes and can circumnavigate the globe submerged, producing their own oxygen and drinking water.”

The Astute-class can carry 38 weapons – usually a mixture of Spearfish and Tomahawk Block IV/V cruise missiles. The ability to launch Tomahawk missiles makes the Astute especially dangerous, as each Tomahawk can hit a target, within a few meters of accuracy, up to a range of 1,000 miles.

The Astute also features an upgraded version of the Submarine Command System, known as the Astute Combat Management System, which receives data from the boat’s sensors and displays the results on command consoles, enhancing the crew’s situational awareness. The Astute also uses Atlas Hydrographic DESO 25 high-precision echosounders. And notably, the Astute does not use a conventional periscope; instead, the Astute features two CM010 non-hull-penetrating optronic masts, which carry thermal imaging, low-light TV, and color CCD TV sensors.

Additionally, the Astute carries the Sonar 2076, which is an integrated passive/active search and attack sonar featuring bow, intercept, flank, and towed arrays. According to BAE Systems, the Sonar 2076 is the world’s best sonar system. The Astute itself has more than 39,000 acoustic tiles, which mask the vessel’s sonar signature, granting the boat better acoustic qualities than any other submarine in the Royal Navy.

“Unlike other nuclear-powered submarines, the Astute-class was developed to utilize state-of-the-art anti-acoustic tiles,” Suciu reported. “Each hull is fitted with more than 39,000 acoustic tiles that mask the vessel’s sonar signature and all the submarine to glide through the water almost silently. The little noise the boat gives off has been compared to that of a “baby dolphin.”

For power, the Astute-class relies upon a Rolls-Royce PWR2 (Core H) pressurized water reactor with a pump-jet propulsor. Originally designed for British Vanguard-class submarine, the PWR2 has a 25-year lifespan and does not need to be refueled – meaning the Astute can technically operate for 25 years without interruption. In addition to providing propulsion, the PWR2 is also used to recycle air and water. But, although the PWR2 can operate indefinitely, the Astute is usually only stocked with about 90 days of food at a time. However, “deployments on the submarines can vary in length, with overall assignments lasting three years,” Suciu reported. “Two full crews rotate shifts to allow the vessel to remain at sea for as long as possible. Crews may serve between 60 and 80 days before resurfacing and rotating out.”

Four Astute-class vessels are already in service: the Astute, Ambush, Artful, and Audacious. The Anson was launched in 2021, and is currently working towards gaining operational status. Meanwhile, the last two planned boats of the Astute-class, the Agamemnon and the Agincourt, are under construction, and are expected to be launched within the next two or three years. Given that the Astute is packed with cutting -edge technology, and is replacing the Trafalgar-class, which has been in service since 1983, we can reasonably expect the Astute to be a fixture of the Royal Navy for decades to come.

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

Summary: In December 2022, the U.S. Air Force and Northrop Grumman unveiled the B-21 Raider, marking a significant leap in bomber technology since the introduction of the B-2 Spirit in 1988. The article explores the key differences between these two generations of stealth bombers, covering aspects such as design, capabilities, and technological advancements. While the B-2 Spirit boasts a Cold War legacy with its revolutionary "flying wing" design, the B-21 Raider represents a digital-age marvel, utilizing computer-aided design and open systems architecture. The comparison delves into size, stealth features, and production processes, offering insights into the evolving landscape of U.S. bomber capabilities. Written by military hardware expert Peter Suciu, the article provides a comprehensive analysis of these iconic aircraft, shedding light on their historical context and technological significance.

In December 2022, the United States Air Force and aerospace and defense giant Northrop Grumman officially unveiled the B-21 Raider. It was the first new United States Air Force bomber in more than three decades that had been presented to the public – since the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit made its public debut back in November 1988 – while it is widely considered to be a generational leap forward in aircraft technology and development.

It could be at least another generation before another bomber is developed and takes to the skies – and that is if the B-21 Raider doesn't end up being the last U.S. bomber to fly.

It was just this past November that the B-21 successfully took its first test flight on in Palmdale, CA, where the bomber has been undergoing testing. Though the service also didn't publicize the event, about three dozen aviation enthusiasts and others gathered around Plant 42 and were able to witness the flying wing-styled bomber take to the skies.

Despite numerous similarities between the aircraft, the B-21 Raider is much more than just a 21st-century version of the Cold War-era B-2 Spirit.

Seen as the first successful "flying wing" aircraft, the B-2's low-observable, or "stealth," characteristics have provided it with the unique ability to penetrate an enemy's most sophisticated defenses and threaten its most valued, and heavily defended, targets. The Spirit's capability to penetrate air defenses and threaten effective retaliation further has provided a strong, effective deterrent and combat force well into the 21st century.

The B-2's low observability was derived from a combination of reduced infrared, acoustic, electromagnetic, visual, and radar signatures. That makes it difficult for the sophisticated defensive systems to detect, track, and engage the B-2. Many aspects of the low-observability process remain classified; however, the B-2's composite materials, special coatings, and flying-wing design all contribute to its "stealthiness."

Its low-observability (LO) further provided it greater freedom of action at high altitudes, thus increasing its range and a better field of view for the aircraft's sensors.

The first B-2 rolled out of the bomber's final assembly facility in Palmdale, Calif., in November 1988 and it flew for the first time on July 17, 1989. The United States Air Force had plans for 132 B-2 Spirits, but as the aircraft was a product of the Cold War, it was originally designed to penetrate Soviet air defenses. With the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Congress slashed the budget for the Spirit, which cut production to just twenty-one aircraft.

The B-21 Raider is actually a generational leap in aircraft technology and development. The Raider was developed to be the multifunctional backbone of the modernized bomber fleet, gradually replacing the aging Rockwell B-1 Lancer and B-2 Spirit bombers now in service. A dual-capable penetrating strike stealth aircraft, the B-21 will be capable of delivering both conventional and nuclear munitions.

Throughout its development, the Raider has been billed as a highly survivable, long-range subsonic stealth bomber that is capable of penetrating adversary air defense networks deep behind enemy lines and delivering both conventional- and nuclear-tipped munitions on key military and infrastructure targets across the globe.

Though the Raider is notably smaller than the Spirit, it is also sleeker and stealthier. Yet, due to its smaller size, the B-21 will have a reduced payload capacity when compared with the B-2A. The United States Air Force's current plans call for at least 100 Raiders, which could address the issue – as a larger number of smaller bombers could be better than fewer larger aircraft. The Air Force can hardly afford to lose any aircraft, but a loss of a single B-2 Spirit could further impact the service's bomber capabilities.

There are other notable differences – the B-21 doesn't feature serrated edges throughout its design, nor do its two engine air intakes extend out of the fuselage to the same extent as the B-2A, and instead is flusher to the fuselage surface. The cockpit windows were modified, likely to improve the Raider's LO characteristics and while the view to the side reportedly doesn't provide as much visibility as the B-2's, it is likely addressed through sensors and cameras.

It has further been reported that the other significant difference is simply the color of the Raider from the traditional black/dark gray operational livery of the B-2. Since it was first publicly revealed, the B-21 sported a lighter gray color scheme. However, this may not be its final color – and we'll have to watch to see if it is updated.

Perhaps the biggest difference is how the aircraft were designed.

The B-2 was devised in an era when engineers still employed slide rules, and pocket calculators were considered expensive hardware.

By contrast, the B-21 Raider is truly a product of the digital age that took advantage of computer-aided design. In addition, it has been noted for being designed with an open systems architecture that would enable rapid future capability integration to keep pace with the highly contested threat environment. In addition, Raider's design is based on firm requirements with existing and mature technology to control program costs. In fact, the plane's prime contractor, Northrop Grumman, has been directed to use production processes, production tooling, and a production workforce that ensures sustained and seamless production while avoiding unnecessary costs.

That latter fact could also ensure that while the Air Force was forced to make do with fewer than two dozen Spirits, its fleet of B-21 Raiders could exceed 100.

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. Email the Author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

All images come from Shutterstock or Creative Commons. 

Summary: The U.S. Air Force's coveted F-22 Raptor stealth fighter, equipped with cutting-edge technology, recently showcased its prowess in intercepting Iranian F-4 Phantom jets attempting to engage a U.S. Air Force MQ-1 Predator drone in international airspace.

In November 2012, two Iranian Air Force Sukhoi Su-25s tried to down a U.S. Air Force MQ-1 Predator drone. At the time, the MQ-1 was flying in international air space, 16 miles from the Iranian border; the drone flight was legal, but understandably instigatory. Iran scrambled the two Su-25s, which quickly closed on the drone. But the Su-25 was designed for close air support, not air superiority, and it struggled impotently with its cannons to shoot down the MQ-1.

The American drone escaped the interaction unscathed, having filmed the entire sequence with on-board cameras. In response to the incident, the U.S. modified its procedures to better protect its vulnerable drone fleet. It began providing drones with a fighter escort.

One year later, in 2013, the Iranians – apparently unaware of this new U.S. drone-escort policy – engaged another MQ-1. This time, the Iranians sent a jet with some air-to-air game, the F-4 Phantom – an aircraft the U.S. exported to Iran in the 1970s, back when the two countries were allies. Unlike the Su-25, the F-4 was entirely capable of bringing down the MQ-1. But when the Iranian F-4s moved to engage the MQ-1, they discovered they were not alone.

Escorting the MQ-1, lurking silently, was a Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor – a fifth-generation stealth fighter. As the Iranian pilots learned that day, the F-22 “is equipped with stealth technology that enables it to operate virtually undetected by radar.”

Indeed, the Iranians were oblivious to its presence as the F-22 stalked them from below.

This aircraft is packed with enviable, cutting-edge technology. “The F-22 Raptor is a technological marvel,” I noted previously.

“The world’s first operational fifth-generation fighter, the F-22 was designed with a bevy of novel features – stealth technology, supercruise, supermaneuverability, and sensor fusion – all combined to create the preeminent air superiority fighter.”

The Iranians flying in Vietnam War-era F-4 Phantoms were ill-equipped to match an F-22. Granted, the F-4 was a capable airframe – the most produced American supersonic military aircraft ever – but it first flew in 1958. The F-22, on the other hand, was an up-to-date, 21st century marvel.

“The F-22’s software is advanced and impressive. Using sensor fusion, data from multiple onboard sensor systems are synthesized to create a more comprehensive tactical picture,” I explained a few years back.

Besides, the F-4 was not built for dogfighting. “The Phantom was not particularly maneuverable,” I explained in a previous article on the F-4. “Enemy MiGs could typically outturn the F-4, which wasn’t designed for dogfighting and suffered from adverse yaw in tight turns. Instead, the F-4 was intended to fire radar-guided missiles from beyond visual range, not engage in air combat maneuvering.”

Well, the F-22 was comfortably within visual range: It was directly below the Iranians.

The F-22’s pilot, operating undetected, had sidled right in. “He flew under their aircraft to check out their weapons load without them knowing that he was there,” then-Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said. Having determined the F-4’s payloads, the Raptor pilot finally alerted the Iranians to his presence.

He “pulled up on their left-wing and then called them and said ‘you really ought to go home,’” Welsh said. The F-4s complied and bugged out.

The incident is indicative of the friction that has underscored the U.S.-Iranian relationship since the late 1970s. Currently, the two sides are working toward a deal on Iran’s nuclear program, which is reportedly nearing break-out capacity and has made Iran an international pariah. The world is watching closely as the negotiations unfold. In the meantime, hopefully the two rival nations can avoid any further dogfighting incidents.

Harrison Kass is a senior defense editor with over 1,000 published articles. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, he joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison has degrees from Lake Forest College, the University of Oregon School of Law, and New York University’s Graduate School of Arts & Sciences. He lives in Oregon and regularly listens to Dokken. Email the Author: Editor@nationalinterest.org. 

Image Credit: Shutterstock. 

The Saab 37 Viggen is among what seems like almost countless Cold War fighters built to deter Russia in the sky if World War III ever took place. However, this plane is from a non-NATO nation and seems to be quite special:

The name Viggen, given to the Saab 37 aircraft, has two distinct meanings. Each, despite striking drastically different tones, are oddly appropriate. The first meaning, refers to askvigg, which today translates loosely to “thunderbolt” – but historically meant “thunderstones.” Thunderstone, or askvigg, is what the Viking age inhabitants of Scandinavia called the prehistoric stone axes that were occasionally excavated. The Vikings believed that Thor, the god of thunder, had sent the axes to Earth in lightning strikes conjured while he was hunting giants with his war hammer Mjolnir. The axes were believed to have magical properties, such as lightning protection. Indeed, the Saab 37 Viggen’s first nominal origin is flattering, apt, and epic. The second, more humble name, refers to vigg, the Swedish word for tufted duck.

The Viggen program began in December 1961  as Aircraft System 37. At the time, the program was the largest industrial undertaking Sweden had ever attempted, of course built during the Cold War when concerns about the Soviet Union were a major factor in building the plane.

Throughout the 1960s, Aircraft System 37 accounted for a whopping ten percent of all Swedish research and development funding. Sweden designed most of the system from the powerplant, ejector seat, reconnaissance systems, armaments, ground servicing equipment, and simulators – a daunting venture for a country like Sweden.

By 1963, Saab had settled on an aerodynamic design for their new jet. The design was radical, featuring an aft-mounted double delta wing plus small, high-set canards. The canards were especially distinct, and the Viggen would be the first mass-produced airplane to ever feature canards. Canards have since come to be relatively common, appealing in modern aircraft like the Dassault Rafale, IAI Kfir, Eurofighter Typhoon, and Saab’s newest offering, the JAS 39 Gripen.

In the Viggen, the inclusion of the canards, along with the delta wings, were to satisfy the various, often conflicting, program requirements set forth by the Swedish government. The jet was to be capable of short take-offs and landings (STOL), to enable operation from Sweden’s Bas 60 dispersal system, which repurposed reinforced public roadways as military airfields during war time. Additionally, the jet needed to be able to break the sound barrier, while also having high maneuverability (and low turbulence sensitivity) at subsonic, low-level flight.

The Saab 37 Viggen was designed to be an attack aircraft, rather than an interceptor, as the Saab 35 Draken already served as an adequate interceptor. Accordingly, Saab hoped to make the Viggen capable of low fuel consumption at high subsonic speeds, something with excellent range. Intending to build such an aircraft, Saab originally planned to power the Viggen with a single Rolls-Royce Medway engine. However, when the Medway engine development was canceled, Saab instead licensed the Pratt & Whitney JT8D engine, producing a modified version, the Volvo RM8. Whereas the original JT8D was used for commercial airliners, the RM8 was quite different from the source engine, featuring updated materials to allow operation at Mach 2 speeds, the addition of a Swedish-built afterburner, and a variable nozzle. The airframe also included a thrust reverse to help slow the aircraft down on landings (thus making short-runway landings possible). The thrust reverse could even be pre-set in the air to fire when the nose-wheel strut compressed upon landing.

A Saab 37 Viggen prototype first flew in 1967, with Saab’s chief test pilot Erik Dalhstrom at the controls. After the prototype’s maiden flight, Dahlstrom described the new jet as easy to control. The international aviation press noted that Sweden had made fantastic progress in aerospace development. By 1971, the Viggen was being delivered to the Swedish Air Force. In service, the jet proved reliable and safe – a relief given how complex and novel the airframe was. The finished product could perform, too. Capable of hitting 1,386 miles per hour, the Viggen could climb at 40,000 feet per minute and reach a service ceiling of 59,000 feet. For armament, the jet carried one 30 mm Oerlikon KCA cannon with 125 rounds. For hardpoints, the jet had three under each wing, plus three under the fuselage.

While the Viggen was capable and innovative, it was never exported, and never saw much action (as Swedish jets never do). The Swedish Air Force began removing the Viggen from front line service in 1994, to make way for the new Saab JAS 39 Gripen. The last Viggen was formally retired in 2005.

Harrison Kass is a Senior Defense Editor with over 1,000 published articles. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, he joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison has degrees from Lake Forest College, the University of Oregon, and New York University. He lives in Oregon and listens to Dokken. Follow him on Twitter @harrison_kass. Email the Author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

All images are from Shutterstock. 

A few years back, the US Air Force’s 49th Wing put on an impressive display of airpower at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico: an elephant walk featuring 49 of the wing’s fighter jets and drones.

What’s an elephant walk?

An elephant walk is “the Air Force term for a close formation aircraft taxiing en masse before takeoff.” So think dozens of jets crawling down the runway together, and then taking off one after another. The term is not new, however; the term dates back to World War II when bomber aircraft would often taxi and take off together en masse. To observers, the nose-to-tail bomber formations looked like a group of elephants walking nose-to-tail.

Elephant walks aren’t just “for clicks and likes though,” the Department of Defense maintains.

“The key to air power is exceptional airmen, and the key to exceptional airmen is exceptional training,” said Brigadier General Lyle K. Drew, who commands the 82nd Training Wing. “[The] elephant walk was our message to the world that the U.S. and its international partners remain committed to delivering the best trained airmen in the world.”

Indeed, the elephant walk can also be use as a means of celebrating, and of boosting on-base morale.

The elephant walk at Hollomon occurred on April 21st, and featured F-16 Vipers plus MQ-9 Reaper drones.

“When people mention Hollomon Air Force Base I want them to picture the aircraft and mission that’s displayed in today’s elephant walk,” said U.S. Air Force Colonel Justin Spears, 49th Wing commander. “We have the largest F-16 Viper and MQ-9 Reaper training pipeline and this elephant walk showcases the amount of airpower and manpower we can generate.”

The forty-nine craft elephant walk at Hollomon certainly has people talking.

“I think elephant walks are important as it shows our NATO partners and other allies around the world that we care about producing pilots and operators,” said U.S. Air Force Major Sean Robere, 311th Fighter Squadron, assistant director of operations. “It also shows other parts of the world that we are continuing to produce capable Airmen and aircraft.”

The F-16s (an airframe first flown in the 1970s) used in the elephant walk belonged to the 8th, 311th, and 314th Fighter Squadrons. The MQ-9s used in the elephant walk – which marked the first time the MQ-9 has been used in an elephant walk – belong to the 29th, 9th, and 6th Attack Squadron.

Allowing forty-nine aircraft to launch at once in such a short window also demonstrated the skill of the Air Force’s maintenance workers.

“Being able to work with the Airmen from the MQ-9 side of the house is always fun because we essentially have the same mission of building combat aircrew but with different aircraft,” said U.S. Air Force Senior Master Sgt. Brian Maple, 311th Aircraft Maintenance Unit assistant superintendent. “The communication between the MQ-9 and F-16 units really helps to build and strengthen our effectiveness at completing the mission.”

The Hollomon elephant walk was indeed an impressive visual display. To get a sense of what an F-16-based elephant walk looks like, check out this 2019 USAF video from Germany.  

Harrison Kass is a Senior Editor and opinion writer with over 1,000 published articles on defense issues. 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. Email the Author: Editor@nationalinterest.org. 

The US Air Force and five foreign allies recently staged an “elephant walk” deep within the Indo-Pacific region, clearly as a show of force and solidarity toward a revisionist China.

Hosted at Andersen Air Force Base in September of last year, the elephant walk featured a 23-plane formation, with jets from the US, UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, and France.

“Train together. Ready together. Stronger together. More than 15,000 US and Allies forces are enhancing #readiness and #interoperability throughout the @INDOPACOM,” PACAF tweeted. (Can you imagine Curtis LeMay using hashtag readiness?)

The USAF contributed five F-35 fighters, one B-52 bomber, two KC-135 tankers, two C-17 transports, and one C-130 transport to the elephant walk.

“On the other hand, the allied forces joined in with contributions from France, consisting of four Rafale fighters, one A400 Atlas transport aircraft, and one A330 MRTT; the United Kingdom provided one A400 Atlas; Canada contributed one C-130J and one CC-150T Polaris; Japan included one C-130H; and Australia participated with one C-130J,” The Eurasian Times reported.

The Andersen elephant walk was one of many exercises, across the US Indo-Pacific Command area. One of the exercises is Mobility Guardian.

“Mobility Guardian, Air Mobility Command’s flagship exercise, focuses on honing the logistics and mobilization capabilities required for large-scale conflicts in the Pacific,” The Eurasian Times reported. Mobility Guardian “supports concurrent exercises led by Pacific Air Forces, such as Northern Edge, which has expanded to other regions of the Pacific from its usual location in Alaska, and Cope Thunder, a joint exercise involving the US and the Philippines.”

Mobility Guardian was conducted from July 5th to July 21, coinciding with a series of Bomber Task Force rotations thar brought the B-52 and B-1 bombers to air bases in Guam and Japan. Specifically, B-52 from the 20th Expeditionary Bomb Squadron at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana and B-52s from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota were deployed to Andersen in Guam. Meanwhile, two B-1s from Dyess Air Force Base in Texas were deployed to Misawa Air Base in Japan.

“At the time, Lt. Col. Andrew Marshall, the commander of the 345th Expeditionary Bomb Squadron, said that the presence of the B-1 in Japan emphasizes the United States’ dedication to the Indo-Pacific region and its commitment to supporting Allies and partners in the area,” The Eurasian Times reported.

While deploying bombers to Guam is rather ordinary, deploying bombers to Misawa in Japan is unusual – and likely to grab China’s attention.

Tensions have been ramping up in the region as China continues to assert itself, make territorial claims, build man-made islands. The US elephant walk is most certainly a display tailored specifically for China. A way of indicating that the US still has considerable force projection. And a way to show that the US is not alone in the region. European powers, Asian powers, and Oceanic powers all have a vested interest in tempering China’s rise, and are willing to coordinate with the US to temper China’s rise.

Harrison Kass is a Senior Editor with over 1,000 articles posted. 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. Email the Author: Editor@nationalinterest.org. 

It was in Crimea where the current war in Ukraine began.

Starting in February 2014, Russian special operators and Wagner Group mercenaries—the infamous “Little Green Men”—invaded the Crimean Peninsula and captured key government functions.

Soon thereafter, conventional Russian forces followed, and the illegal annexation of Crimea was complete. 

In the years that followed, Ukraine has sought to liberate the annexed Crimea Peninsula. Moscow’s invasion presented the perfect opportunity. 

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and the Ukrainian military leadership have repeatedly stated that their strategic goal is to liberate all Ukrainian land under Russian occupation before the war is over.

For now, the Ukrainian people seem to be behind this vision. However, the operational and tactical considerations don’t guarantee success. 

To get to Crimea, the Ukrainian forces would have first to do what they failed to do over the summer: achieve an operational breakthrough in southeastern Ukraine.

With limited fighting windows available (May-November and December-March) and the frequent large-scale offensive of the Russian forces, it would likely take Kyiv a year or more in the current rate of fighting to reach Crimea. 

Entry to the Crimean Peninsula is governed by a small corridor of land. When, in the summer, the Ukrainian military started making progress in southern Ukraine in its large-scale counteroffensive, the Russian military started barricading that small piece of land that leads into Crimea.

Judging from the difficulty the Ukrainians had in penetrating the extensive Russian defensive lines, it would be hard to punch through into Crimea. 

To be sure, Crimea is a Peninsula, and the surrounding water offers opportunities for amphibious operations. Ukraine has already been working with the British Royal Marines Commandos to establish an amphibious commando force. But without air and naval superiority, a large-scale amphibious operation necessary to distract or create a second front in Crimea would be pure folly. 

With additional Western security aid, including more fighter jets, long-range munitions, air defense systems, and better training, the Ukrainian forces would have a better chance of breaking the Russian defenses and entering Crimea. 

But the Kremlin won’t let Crimea go without a fight—and a significant fight, for that matter. 

In the ten years the Crimean Peninsula has been under Russian occupation, the Kremlin has turned it into a military hub. Anti-access/Aerial Defense (A2/AD) systems, fighter jets, and warships have turned Crimea into an “unsinkable aircraft carrier” that protects Russia from the south. There is a lot at stake in Crimea, and the Russian military will throw everything it has to ensure that it doesn’t fall back into Ukrainian hands. Indeed, if there is a credible scenario of the Kremlin employing tactical nuclear weapons in the war, it would likely be if Crimea was under direct threat of being lost. 

Even though the dismantling of the Wagner Group private military company and the assassination of its leader, Yevgeny Prigozhin, reaffirmed the power of Russian President Vladimir Putin within Russia, a potential loss of Crimea would likely create additional woes for the Russian leader. The Kremlin’s “special military operation” in Ukraine sought to replace the Ukrainian leadership and incorporate parts of Ukraine into Russia. 

As the war has turned out, Crimea is the real prize. The Russian military leadership doesn’t entertain notions of achieving the initial strategic goal of capturing Kyiv. Similarly, Kyiv isn’t looking to drive up to Moscow.

No, it is all about Crimea and the territory that leads to it in southeastern Ukraine. 

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

All images are from Shutterstock. 

This time around two years ago, the Russian military was amassing forces and equipment around Ukraine. Through an aggressive—and indeed unprecedented—intelligence declassification strategy, the United States kept Ukraine, NATO, and the international community abreast of Moscow’s plans. The goal was clear: prevent Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. 

Despite the merits of the strategy, Putin went ahead with his invasion with the known consequences.

Almost two years of conflict have cost the lives or limbs of more than 320,000 Russian troops and have destroyed thousands of heavy weapon systems such as main battle tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, artillery pieces, aircraft, and warships. 

So, after so much hard fighting, what is the state of the Russian armed forces today? Are they still a near-peer adversary to the U.S. military? 

This week, National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby offered some valuable insight on the state of the Russian military. 

On the ground, the Russian military has lost significant heavy weapon systems but still retains a sizeable amount of its mechanized capability. 

When it comes to the Russian Aerospace Forces, Moscow retains a sizeable amount of aircraft despite losing up to 300 fighter jets, bombers, attack aircraft, and helicopters. 

As far as the Russian Navy, despite losing 11 surface warships, submarines, and support vessels sunk or destroyed to Ukrainian fire, the Russian Navy retains an important number of vessels. 

And yet, the Russian military struggles. Basic command and control are abominable, and as a result, major offensive operations that might have some promise fail to achieve anything significant. Morale and discipline also continue to be low. 

But almost two years of war have also shown that the Kremlin is more than comfortable with throwing men into the meatgrinder to freeze the conflict and force Ukrainians on the negotiation table. 

“This is a military that still has not really learned the lessons that you would think a modern military would learn after two years of war,” Kirby said.

In terms of logistics, the Russian military continues to be dependent on other countries to meet its munition requirements. Artillery shells, drones, and missiles are a hot commodity. Iran and North Korea are Moscow's primary suppliers. Indeed, most of the suicide drones that have been wreaking havoc on Ukrainian cities have been made in Iran. The overall situation doesn’t seem ideal for Russia if it has to deal with two pariah states.

Despite Moscow’s hopes, the Russian defense and aerospace industry has failed to meet the heavy demands of the war. Even though the Russian military has been scavenging cars, microwaves, refrigerators, and washing machines for microchips and semiconductors to put into missiles and other weapon systems, the demand is higher than the supply. 

“We know that this war has had an impact on Mr. Putin’s war-making capability, particularly when it comes to munitions: artillery, drones, missiles,” Kirby added.

Although the Kremlin might still retain important capabilities on the ground, air, and sea, its performance in Ukraine has proven that it is by no means a conventional near-peer threat to the U.S. military. 

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

Today, the X-1 might seem like an old and antiquated plane when stacked up against the latest and greatest combat aircraft and bombers the U.S. air force has right now. However, this plane's place in aviation history is secure for countless reasons: 

Breaking the sound barrier has become commonplace. Fighter jets, bombers, and even a now-defunct commercial jet have crossed over to travel faster than the speed of sound. Yet eighty years ago, the sound barrier was a province of flight reserved solely for the most cutting edge, daring, experimental airframes – the X-series. Whether the sound barrier could be broken at all remained unproven.

Skeptics maintained that the threshold simply could not be crossed, or that crossing that barrier would cause an aircraft to combust. The sound barrier loomed large in the minds of aerospace designers, as a major milestone with psychological significance.

Intent on being the first to break the sound barrier, NACA (NASA’s predecessor), the U.S. Air Force, and the U.S. Army Air Force jointly commissioned Bell to create the first-ever X-plane, a now mythical airframe, the Bell X-1.

The X-1 was designed in the mid-40s and built in 1945. The jet was built around a Reaction Motors XLR11 rocket engine that featured four chambers. The XLR11 burned ethyl alcohol diluted with water using a liquid oxygen oxidizer. The engine’s four chambers could be turned on or off individually, giving the pilot precise control over the thrust. Each chamber provided 1,500 pounds of thrust.

Bell’s Jack Woolams was the first person to ever fly the X-1. He made several glide-flights in Florida after being dropped from a B-29 at 29,000 feet. Using data gathered from Woolams’ test flights, Bell made further modifications in preparation for powered flight.

The first powered X-1 flight occurred in the last month of 1946. Chalmers “Slick” Goodlin replaced Woolams, who had died practicing for the National Air Races. During the test flight, Goodlin lit only two of the engine’s chambers, but the jet still accelerated so quickly that one was turned off until the X-1 could climb to 35,000 feet. At 35,000 feet, two chambers were tested and the X-1 reached Mach 0.795. Tests continued at a cautious pace while the X-1’s systems were verified. The X-1 wouldn’t break the sound barrier until its 50th flight.

With Goodlin demanding a $150,000 (or, $1.82 million in 2022) bonus for breaking the sound barrier, Chuck Yeager stepped in to see if he couldn’t edge the X-1 past the sound barrier. Flying for just his Air Force base pay, Yeager took X-1 #46-062, nicknamed Glamorous Glennis for his wife, to see whether breaking the sound barrier was possible at all.

On October 14, 1947, Yeager and Glamorous Glennis were dropped from the bomb bay of a B-29. Igniting all four of the X-1’s engine chambers, Yeager became the first person to ever break the sound barrier; he reached Mach 1.06, or 700 miles per hour, proving definitively that the sound barrier was indeed breakable. The U.S. military had hoped to keep the news of their scientific breakthrough a secret but without much luck. Aviation Week and the Los Angeles Times scooped the secret story. When the publications ran headlines about Yeager’s historic flight, the Air Force threatened legal action, although no suit was ever filed. The news shocked the world.

The X-1 program became the template for future X-programs, like the X-15, X-20, and X-29. And data gathered from the X-1 flights deeply informed the development of future fighter jets. Today, you can find Glamorous Glennis on display at the National Air & Space Museum in Washington, D.C. Or, you can watch a depiction of Yeager’s historic flight in The Right Stuff (1983).

Harrison Kass is the Senior Defense Editor at 19FortyFive. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, he joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison has degrees from Lake Forest College, the University of Oregon, and New York University. He lives in Oregon and listens to Dokken. Follow him on Twitter @harrison_kass. Email the Author: Editor@nationalinterest.org. 

Block V Virginia-class submarines are being built in Groton, Connecticut. Many more Block V’s have been ordered and will be built shortly. Block V offers a number of upgrades from the first four Virginia-class blocks, and it could serve for another five decades. 

The Virginia was designed as a class of fast-attack submarines meant to be more affordable than the $2.8 billion Seawolf class. While the Seawolf was a capable fast-attack sub, it was so expensive that the program was cancelled after only three subs were built.

The Virginia class is cheap by comparison, costing $1.8 billion per unit. Both submarine classes were built to replace the aging Los Angeles class.

To date, quite a few  Virginia-class submarines have entered service, most of them from Blocks I, II, and III. Only a few Block IV Virginias are in service. Given that the Block IV program is not yet complete, and is a highly capable submarine, the Block V is especially forward-looking.

It was designed to address a specific vulnerability: the growing missile gap between the U.S. and rising superpower China.

China is building up its military at scale despite enjoying 40 years of relative peace.

Beijing is especially busy building up China’s navy and air force, as well as its nuclear and conventional arsenals. In the meantime, China is making aggressive territorial claims in the Pacific region. Over the last two decades, while China committed time and resources to augmenting its military, the U.S. was bogged down with tangential wars in the Middle East.

The perpetual conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and throughout the region, drained American resources and attention.

Meanwhile, China converted latent power into actual power, pulling even and surpassing the U.S. in certain regards.

For example, China now possesses the largest navy in the world. But perhaps more important, China built an impressive stockpile of cruise and ballistic missiles. The U.S. fell behind, and a missile gap took shape. 

Part of the problem for the U.S. is that China has more missiles. The more significant problem, however, is that those missiles also have greater range. China is approaching monopoly status on intermediate-range missiles in the region. Obviously, the U.S. has the capacity to build intermediate-range missiles. But it was long a signatory to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty – a Cold War pact between the U.S. and the Soviet Union that forbids it from deploying missiles with an effective range between 500 and 5,500 kilometers.

China never signed the Treaty, and remains free to deploy intermediate-range missiles as it pleases. It has done so in massive numbers. Recognizing the widening missile gap, the Trump administration withdrew from the INF, and now the U.S. is working to close the missile gap.

China’s missiles were designed to face down American aircraft carriers, surface warships, and bases – essentially, the backbone of U.S. power in Asia. The missile gap will widen further once the U.S. retires its Ohio-class submarines. This is why the U.S. is urgently working to develop the Block V Virginia-class submarine, which will help pick up the slack that the Ohio’s retirement creates.

With the missile gap in mind, the latest Virginia Block was designed with a groundbreaking new concept, the Virginia Payload Module, or VPM. The VPM is a hull plug that will allow the vessels to carry three times as many Tomahawk missiles as the Block IV.

Assuming the Block is built and deployed punctually, it will be just one step toward closing the missile gap.

Harrison Kass is a senior editor with over 1,000 published articles. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, he 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. He lives in Oregon and listens to Dokken. Email the Author: Editor@nationalinterest.org. 

The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor is an amazing machine – a point this video makes clear. In the video, taken at the famed OshKosh Airshow a few years ago, two F-22s perform a variety of flybys and maneuvers. Now, the F-22, which cost over $100 million dollars per unit and is no longer in production, is flown more conservatively at airshows than cheaper, more readily available fighters such as the F-15 and F-16. You’re not going to see F-22s in the USAF Thunderbirds anytime soon.

But even while flown somewhat conservatively, the grace and power of the F-22 is fully apparent in the Oshkosh video and, indeed in all F-22 public demonstrations. The U.S. Air Force has been publicly demonstrating the F-22 since 2007, performing power loops, split and tailslides, high-speed passes, and dedication passes.

In all, the F-22 has been demonstrated over 250 times. If you have the means, I highly recommend you take the opportunity to see an F-22 demonstration.

The F-22 was designed to be the world’s pre-eminent air-superiority fighter, meaning it was meant to be the world’s best dogfighter. The design choices and performance outcomes allowing the F-22 to outpace its competition in the air are suggested in aerobatic demonstrations. The jet accelerates and decelerates seemingly without friction. The control inputs seem to register smoothly, with exacting precision.

There’s really nothing quite like it. Not even the newer F-35, America’s other fifth-generation fighter, moves with such lithe athleticism or latent power. The F-35 was created to be a utilitarian, exportable multi-role fighter, renowned for its data-sharing and network connectivity, rather than being used as an air-superiority fighter. The F-22 remains the most impressive dogfighter, and relatedly, the most impressive aerobatic demonstrator, in the U.S. military’s inventory.

The F-22 owes much of its performance to its two Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 turbofan engines – each of which is equipped with thrust-vectoring nozzles. The nozzles can move twenty degrees up or down, giving the F-22 the supermaneuverability that is so visible during its demonstrations. Each Pratt & Whitney engine packs plenty of power, too, providing 35,000 pounds of thrust apiece. With such power, the F-22 can exceed Mach 2. 

The F-22 can also achieve supercruise, meaning it can attain supersonic flight without using afterburners. Typically, a jet requires its afterburners to achieve supersonic flight. The problem with afterburner use is that it quickly expends fuel: An afterburner is essentially fuel, mixed with oxygen, being spit into the engine’s exhaust stream, which causes a thrust-increasing explosion. But the F-22, an air superiority fighter, needs to conserve its fuel for dogfighting, which itself is a fuel-guzzling activity.

For the F-22 to burn through all of its fuel just to arrive at the dogfight would render the jet useless. Supercruise technology was incorporated as a way to allow the F-22 to conserve the fuel it needs to effectively conduct its air-superiority missions.

With respect to avionics and raw computer power, the F-22 is not as impressive as the F-35, which remains the industry standard. But the F-22 is still plenty capable – a true fifth-generation fighter using sensor fusion to synthesize data from multiple onboard sensor systems, granting the pilot a more coherent tactical picture. The result is a pilot operating with improved situation awareness and an easier workload in the cockpit.

Specifically, the F-22 relies on the Martin Marietta AN/AAR-56 infrared and ultraviolet Missile Launch Detector; Westinghouse/Texas Instruments AN-APG-77 active electronically scanned array radar; TRW Communication/Navigation/Identification Suite; and a Sanders/General Electric AN/ALR-94 electronic warfare system. The result is a quite capable plane that Air Force personnel often refer to as the “mini-AWACS.” 

Of course, none of the F-22’s software power is on display in the Oshkosh video – only the plane’s raw aerobatic abilities, which are perhaps the finest in military aviation. 

Harrison Kass is a Senior Defense Editor at with over 1,000 articles published. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, he 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. He lives in Oregon and listens to Dokken. Follow him on Twitter @harrison_kass. Email the Author: Editor@nationalinterest.org. 

In January 2020, the US Air Force put on an impressive display of fifth-generation fighter power, with a 52-plane “elephant walk” formation, comprised entirely of F-35A Lightning II aircraft. The exercise happened to coincide as tensions with Iran escalated – but the Air Force said the timing was coincidental, and that the exercise had been planned months in advance.

“The exercise took place at Hill Air Force Base in Utah,” Popular Mechanics reported. “Hill was the first Air Force Base to become fully operational with the F-16 Fighting Falcon more than thirty years ago, and history is repeating itself with the F-35A.”

As Fox 13 News noted at the time, the Hill elephant walk launched more fifth-generation fighters (52), than any other nation has ever built.

“Hill received the last of 78 F-35As in December 2019,” Popular Mechanics reported. “To commemorate the occasion, the base decided to conduct what the U.S. military calls an “elephant walk”: a mass sort of aircraft.”

As Hill AFB stated, “the wings fly 30-60 sorties per day from Hill’s flightline. During the exercise, Airmen launched roughly the same number of daily sorties, but they took off in quick intervals.”

The F-35 Lightning II costs $44,000 per hour to fly. If each of the 52 jets in the elephant walk flew for just one hour, that’s still a $2 million dollar-plus exercise. If the jets flew for two hours, the cost shoots about $4 million.

Worth it? Uh, I’m not sure about that, although the finished result was something to behold. You can watch the video that the 419th tweeted of the event, here.  

“Lockheed Martin [is] struggling to get the cost per hour down,” Popular Mechanics reported, “which left unchecked could force the Pentagon to buy fewer planes.”

Rampant costs aside, “the Air Force does get something out of the exercise. The entire base trains for the event, giving pilots and maintainers a fixed date to get a large number of jets ready to take to the skies. Once the planes are ready, the base must work to launch and recover 52 fighter jets. It’s not a war scenario, but it is one that exercises virtually the entire base’s muscles,” Popular Mechanics reported.

As Hill AFB stated: “launching aircraft from multiple squadrons simultaneously presents various challenges and allows the wings to evaluate the capabilities of maintenance professionals, as well as pilots and command and control teams.”

The F-35 Lightning II has a checkered history, laced with controversy, cost-overruns, delays, performance issues. So, the Hill elephant walk was likely an Air Force effort meant to signal that the F-35 was indeed a functional airframe, capable of operating on a set schedule and capable of projecting force.

“The elephant walk is also evidence the F-35 is growing easier to maintain.” Whereas in the past, the F-35 only had a reliability rate of about 66 percent, the reliability rate has risen above 75 percent, making something like a 52-ship elephant walk a possibility.

Harrison Kass is the Senior Editor with over 1,000 articles published. 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. Email the Author: Editor@nationalinterest.org. 

Image Credit: All images from U.S. Air Force.