Diplomacy & Crisis News

Summary and Key Points: The B-21 Raider, the U.S. Air Force’s next-generation stealth bomber, is undergoing flight testing and is set to replace the B-2.

The Question: What Weapons Will it Carry? Designed for offensive missions, the B-21 will carry a wide array of weapons, including penetrating bombs like the 30,000-pound GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), precision-guided munitions like the AGM-158B, and nuclear bombs such as the B-61.

-What sets the B-21 apart is its advanced stealth capabilities, allowing it to evade sophisticated air defense systems and deliver its deadly payloads undetected, making it a crucial component of the U.S. nuclear triad.

B-21 Raider: The Future of U.S. Air Force Power Projection

The U.S. Air Force’s next bomber is undergoing flight testing. 

The B-21 Raider is scheduled to replace the B-2 and is being developed as the future of Air Force power projection. Built purely for offensive reasons, the bomber is essentially a vessel of death and destruction, limited in purpose to the delivery of ordnance on target. 

Let’s take a look at the weapons the B-21 is expected to carry.

An Impressive Array of Weaponry

The B-21’s wide variety of weapons will outfit the new bomber to fulfill a number of mission profiles. Everything from penetrating weapons to precision-guided munitions and nuclear bombs will be compatible with the B-21.

Penetrating weapons are used for attacking hardened targets like a bunker or a cave dwelling. One example we can expect to find on the B-21 is the GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP). The 30,000-pound bomb is referred to as a “bunker buster” and, as the name suggests, is absolutely massive. By comparison, the next-largest available bunker busters in the Air Force inventory are the 5,000-pound GBU-28 and GBU-37. 

Designed by Boeing, the MOP measures 20.5 feet in length with a 31.5-inch diameter. With a 5,300-pound warhead, the MOP can penetrate to depths of 200 feet.

When a little bit more finesse is needed, the B-21 can deploy a precision-guided munition like the AGM-158B or the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile Extended Range – or something equipped with a Joint Direct Attack Munition kit. Precision-guided munitions, or “smart bombs,” are built to minimize collateral damage and to maximize effectiveness against very specific targets. One example is the AGM-158, a stealth weapon with long-range capabilities and a 1,000-pound armor-piercing warhead. With inertial navigation and GPS, the AGM-158 homes in on a target using a data link throughout its flight trajectory. 

And of course, the Raider will be capable of carrying nuclear weapons. The B-21 will be a primary component of the U.S. nuclear deterrent triad. It will lead the airborne leg of the triad, which includes nuclear options over air, land, and sea. The B-21 will carry the B-61, a thermonuclear gravity bomb with a unit cost of $28 million. At 715 pounds, the B-61 has a blast yield believed to be between 0.3 and 340 kilotons.

Stealth Capabilities

The varied arsenal of the B-21 will be especially concerning to America’s adversaries given the B-21’s stealth capabilities. With a radar cross section lower than the B-2’s, the B-21 is expected to be able to penetrate sophisticated air defense systems. The B-21 will thus be able to deliver its arsenal without being detected first – and that’s what should make the B-21 special. 

Many bomber airframes are capable of dropping the weapons that the B-21 will be able to drop. There’s no unique capability there. But no other bomber has the B-21’s expected stealth capabilities. 

About the Author: Harrison Kass, Defense Expert 

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons/Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The Yak-41 (Yak-141) was a Soviet attempt at creating a supersonic VTOL (vertical takeoff and landing) aircraft, developed in the 1980s but ultimately shelved after the Soviet Union collapsed. Despite rumors, there is little evidence to suggest that the Yak-41 directly influenced the development of the F-35B, the VTOL variant of the U.S. military's Joint Strike Fighter.

-While Lockheed Martin did partner with Yakovlev in the early 1990s, the connection is more likely coincidental than foundational.

-The Yak-41 remains a footnote in aviation history, while the F-35B is a significant leap in modern military aviation.

Did the F-35B Benefit From the Soviet Yak-141?

Some rumors/conspiracy theories die hard – Walt Disney isn't preserved at his theme park, and NASA didn't fake the moon landing (nor is the earth flat), but try convincing those who believe such wild stories. This is also true in the world of military hardware.

It is a KNOWN FACT that Chinese hackers stole U.S. military technology, including details about Lockheed Martin's F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II stealth fighters, and Beijing likely used the knowledge in the development of its Chengdu J-20 "Mighty Dragon" multirole fighter.

However, there remains just a rumor – and not a believable one at that – of how a largely forgotten Soviet aircraft contributed to the development of the F-35B – the vertical/short takeoff and landing (VSTOL) variant of the Joint Strike Fighter.

This would be the Yak-41 (aka Yak-141), an aircraft that is really little more than a footnote today, and for good reason. It never really moved past the early prototype stage.

The Yak-38 is the Starting Point

To understand anything about the Yak-41/Yak-141 requires a bit of explanation about the YAK-38, the Soviet's attempt to develop a fixed-wing aircraft that could take off and land vertically.

Since the Second World War, military planners have considered the advantages of VSTOL aircraft, which could take off and land vertically or on short runways, and the British military led the effort with the development of the AV-8B Harrier from lessons learned in the Korean War. By the late 1960s, it emerged as the only truly successful VSTOL design of the Cold War era.

The Soviets weren't deterred and moved forward with its own aircraft.

The A.S. Yakovlev Design Bureau JSC was charged with developing a Soviet VSTOL, yet whereas the Harrier had begun essentially as a clean slate, the Yak-38 was developed from the land-based experimental demonstrator Yakovlev Yak-36. In the end, the two shared little in common – yet, it is evident that the Soviets were forced to make numerous compromises.

The redesigned Yak-38 was outfitted with a pair of R-27 turbojets with intakes squashed together in an open nose, with the rear nozzles capable of rotating to provide vectored thrust. Compressed air thrusters on the tail, on the tips of its undersized wings, and at the end of its unicorn-like nose boom provided directional maneuvering.

In total, it took five years of testing to get the Yak-38 to the point where it could transition between vertical liftoff and horizontal flight. The two dedicated lift jets behind the cockpit in addition to a single RD-27 vector thrust engine resulted in higher fuel consumption, limiting range to around two hundred miles at best, and less if it performed a vertical takeoff.

Though some 230 were produced, its service history was underwhelming – and it was considered a difficult aircraft to control.

The Yak-41 Was Born

Despite the lack of success with the Yak-38, the Soviets pressed on with the Yak-41 (NATO reporting name "Freestyle"), which was developed in the 1980s. According to Army Recognition, the Yak-41 was "the pinnacle of the Yakovlev Design Bureau's VTOL aircraft development" becoming "the world's first supersonic VTOL aircraft, achieving speeds up to Mach 1.7," and was developed for use on the "Soviet Navy's Kiev-class carriers."

It was designed around a tri-engine configuration that included its main RD-41 after-burning turbofan engine, with a pair of RD-38 lift engines that provided the transition between vertical and horizontal flight. In addition to its advanced engine, the Yak-41 was outfitted with multi-tracking radar that could engage multiple targets, while its armament was to have consisted of a variety of ordnance including air-to-air missiles, guided bombs, and an internal cannon.

The aircraft took its maiden flight on March 9, 1987, and it soon set around a dozen world records. It was arguably leaps and bounds more advanced than the Yak-38, and may have even been comparable in capabilities to the Harrier. It might have been just the aircraft the Soviet Navy needed for its aircraft cruisers.

That is until one of the two prototypes was lost in an accident while landing on the aircraft cruiser Admiral Groshev in September 1991. That put the program on hold.

Then the Soviet Union broke up just months later, and in the years that followed Russia was in no position to move forward with the aircraft.

The F-35 Connection

So was the F-35B actually based on Soviet technology? That probably depends on who you ask and what you want to believe. With the end of the Cold War, and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Yakovlev entered into a partnership with that little American firm known as Lockheed Martin.

As a Task & Purpose report from April 2018 outlined, "The two companies allegedly signed an agreement in 1991 (but not revealed until 1995) that outlined funding for additional Yak-141 prototypes, including a plan to fly the remaining operational prototype the Farnborough Airshow in September 1992."

Perhaps Lockheed Martin garnered some insight from the Yak-41, but the Soviet-designed aircraft was hardly a success at that point. Yet, the rumors continue to circulate to the contrary. Some of it may be Russian propaganda efforts – not that Russians would ever engage in such activities. But some of it may just be from aviation buffs who can't see that similar aircraft can be developed independently.

Finally, interest was renewed in the largely forgotten Yak-41/Yak-141 until last year, when it was announced the Soviet aircraft would be introduced in the popular online multiplayer game War Thunder – the same title that has earned notoriety for its fans constantly leaking classified secrets on gaming forums. That has only further served to reignite the rumor that the F-35 was based on Soviet tech.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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

Summary and Key Points: The Su-34 Fullback is a versatile fighter-bomber used by the Russian Aerospace Forces. It combines bombing and air-to-air combat capabilities in one platform.

-Equipped with advanced electronic warfare countermeasures and a wide array of munitions, the Su-34 is designed to perform multiple mission sets, including tactical bombing and air superiority roles. However, the Su-34 has suffered significant losses in the Ukraine conflict, highlighting its vulnerabilities despite its robust design.

-The aircraft's effectiveness is maximized with adequate air and ground support, but it remains exposed to threats without such protection.

Su-34 Fullback: Russia’s Dual-Purpose Fighter-Bomber in the Spotlight

The Russian Aerospace Forces operate a large fleet with several different types of aircraft. One of the most interesting jets in that fleet is the Su-34 Fullback. 

A bomber and fighter jet in one, the Su-34 is the go-to choice for Russian commanders for taking out hard targets on the ground. But the aircraft has been taking heavy attrition in the war in Ukraine, showing its weak points. 

Su-34 Fullback: Two Aircraft in One 

Designated as “Fullback” by NATO, the Su-34 is a twin-engine fighter-bomber jet with a crew of two – a pilot and a weapons officer. The aircraft can operate in all weather conditions and conduct attack, bombing, and fighter missions.

 The Russian Aerospace Forces have been using the Su-34 Fullback mainly in a tactical bombing role. With this requirement in mind, Sukhoi designers gave the Fullback an enhanced cockpit with additional armor to withstand anti-aircraft ground fire. Moreover, the fighter-bomber sports advanced electronic warfare countermeasures to jam or defeat enemy anti-aircraft missiles. 

The Su-34 Fullback can hit speeds of around Mach 2 (about 1,500 miles per hour) and has an operational range of 2,500 miles without any refueling. It is designed to sustain heavy pressure (up to 9 Gs) and has a pressurized cabin. 

But where the Su-34 Fullback really shines is in the weapons department. The aircraft can carry up to 18,000 lbs of munitions in 12 hardpoints, including R-77 active radar-homing beyond-visual-range air-to-air missiles; R-73 heat-seeking air-to-air missiles; R-27 radar-homing air-to-air missiles; Kh-59, Kh-58, Kh-38, Kh-29, and Kh-25 air-to-surface missiles; and Kh-65 and Kh-36 cruise missiles. The fighter-bomber can also carry Kh-35 and Kh-31 anti-ship missiles and an extensive selection of conventional bombs. In addition, the Su-34 carries a 30 mm Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-30-1 cannon with 120 rounds for ground attack and dogfighting. 

With these munitions, the Su-34 Fullback can strike targets up to 160 miles away, and the Russian Aerospace Forces have used it extensively in operations in Ukraine. However, Su-34 squadrons have taken serious losses in the conflict, losing at least 26 fighter-bombers so far. Overall, the Russian Aerospace Forces operate around 150 of these aircraft, each of which costs about $85 million. 

The concept of incorporating multiple mission sets into one aircraft isn’t new. The U.S. F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter jet, for example, is capable of conducting six mission sets at the same time with the right munitions. The idea behind such aircraft is to streamline mission sets and encourage a more efficient aircraft fleet. The U.S. military envisioned the F-35 Lightning II doing the job of several older aircraft that would eventually be retired.

Overall, the Su-34 is a capable aircraft that can accomplish several mission sets. It is most valuable when it has sufficient air and ground support to pursue its tactical bombing missions without worrying about enemy fighter jets or anti-aircraft systems. In the absence of such support, it is vulnerable. 

About the Author: 

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

In my previous article, I described how the growth of artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency means that data centers require access to evermore quantities of reliable energy to power them. A quick glance at the electrical generation capacity of North America, much of Europe, and Asia leads you to a simple conclusion: more generation capacity—and cleaner generation capacity at that—is needed.

Currently, 3.5 percent of the world’s carbon emissions are the result of power consumption by data centers. Data centers need a consistent power that solar and wind simply cannot guarantee. A stable 24/7 capacity can only be provided by relying on fossil fuels, hydroelectric and geothermal power, or nuclear energy. Burning more fossil fuels for power generation is not an option. Of the remaining “green” options, geothermal and hydroelectric power are only feasible in a few select geographic regions, leaving us with nuclear power as the only real choice to power the lion’s share of the massive growth expected in data centers around the world, not to mention the general surge in the world’s energy needs.

Politically, nuclear power is a sensitive issue in the West, with many voters’ perceptions of nuclear power shaped by the frightening scenes of the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters. Yet, Western countries continue to push new climate initiatives that require increased electrical generation capacity, whether electric vehicle mandates or fossil fuel heating phaseouts. 

Noticeably missing from these initiatives are realistic plans to address the electricity generation needs of the country. Most experts agree that nuclear power has to be part of a green solution. More troubling is that adversaries of the West are building nuclear power stations at a blinding pace in order to secure their energy future. Yet, in the West, our grid is being overtaxed, and even traditionally secure sources of generation capacity are faltering. For instance, due to climate shifts, Canada’s prized hydroelectric power industry is failing to produce enough electricity, leaving Canada to import electricity from the United States for the first time in a decade. This is a less-than-ideal position for a country with a long history of selling its cheap surplus electricity, and it also raises questions about the ability of non-nuclear green sources to produce the energy needed.

The West is slowly waking up to this reality, with leaders at the COP 28 summit calling nuclear power the only viable option to attain their carbon reduction goals, culminating in an agreement by twenty-five countries, including the United States, to triple nuclear generation capacity by 2050. Development efforts between GE and Hitachi are leading to safer and cheaper reactors, and plans to build them in the West are beginning to gain steam, though few boots and shovels have struck dirt. Perhaps a symptom of general bureaucracy that has come to plague large infrastructure projects, but more likely a sign nuclear power still lacks the general social acceptance for wide-scale expansion.

Uranium price and supply challenges threaten to ground these efforts, further spooking investors away from nuclear reactor construction projects and their prohibitively long payback periods. Yet these challenges have had the upside of aiding fledgling domestic producers in the United States to gain market share. Congress has moved further to secure domestic production with the passage of HR. 1042, uranium imports from Russia, a significant producer of power station-grade enriched uranium, were banned. These steps help secure future energy security for the United States in the same way that our oil and gas production currently does. 

With public acceptance being the largest roadblock to the implementation of nuclear power on the scale needed to meet energy needs, education, and communication need to be paramount for our leaders. For a large majority of the public, there is no understanding of nuclear fission or radiation, seeing it as some type of invisible, dangerous alchemy. As such, the disposal of nuclear waste is highly unnerving to a public that is terrified of nuclear waste due to misconceptions born out of the media’s depictions of radiation and nuclear disasters. With a more informed understanding of the risks and benefits of nuclear power, I believe that public opinion would largely be in favor of nuclear power.

Clean, safe, and reliable nuclear power is not only needed but very attainable if we focus on education and public investment in the technology.    

Adrian Kranz is president of Paratrade Corporation and a contributing writer for the Newport Global Summit.

Image:  Wlad74 / Shutterstock.com.

Summary and Key Points: The Ukrainian military's advance into Russia's Kursk Oblast is forcing the Russian military to redirect forces from Ukraine to defend its territory. Ukrainian ground forces and fighter jets are making significant gains, with airstrikes targeting Russian infrastructure and command centers.

-The Russian military, short on well-trained units, is deploying inadequately prepared formations, such as those from the Russian Aerospace Forces, to counter the Ukrainian offensive.

-This reallocation of personnel highlights Russia's ongoing struggle with high casualty rates and limited capability to effectively respond to the Ukrainian incursion.

Ukraine's Kursk Invasion Has Russia on Edge 

The Ukrainian foray into Russia continues to net significant gains, reshaping the conflict with every passing day.

The Ukrainian military is fighting in Russia’s Kursk Oblast with ground forces and fighter jets. Kyiv’s progress is forcing the Russian military to relocate forces from Ukraine back to Russia to deal with the threat.

Fighting Inside Russia 

Ukrainian units have operated with great impunity within Russia, and Russian military leadership is becoming increasingly anxious about Ukrainian advances in Kursk Oblast. Images circulating online show Russian troops digging trenches around the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant near Kurchatov. The facility is located approximately 50 miles from the border with Ukraine. 

“After initial disarray and disorganization, Russian forces have deployed in greater force to the region, including likely from elsewhere along the contact line. They have also begun to construct additional defensive positions in an effort to prevent Ukrainian advances,” British Military Intelligence assessed last week. 

Meanwhile in the skies, the Ukrainian Air Force flies sorties over Russian territory, striking targets with unusual ease. In an example of this air campaign, a video surfaced showing a Ukrainian MiG-29 Fulcrum dropping a French guided munition with a bunker-busting warhead through the roof of a Russian command and control bunker somewhere close to the frontlines in Kursk. In another instance, a Ukrainian fighter jet uses a pair of U.S. glide munitions to destroy a granary facility held by the Russians. Ukrainian missiles have destroyed several bridges in Kursk in an attempt to trap Russian units and prevent reinforcements from coming in. 

The Russian military is short on capable, well-trained units to deploy. As a result, it is sending newly organized formations that are ill-suited to fight the battle-hardened Ukrainian mechanized brigades spearheading the foray into Kursk. 

The Specialized Motor Rifle Regiment is one example of a unit deployed by the Russian military that is not fit for the task. Formed in May, the unit is comprised of Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) personnel. 

“Reportedly personnel forming the VKS-manned Motor Rifle Regiment include those previously in specialist roles such as early-warning radar operators at Long Range Aviation Heavy Bomber regiments,” British Military Intelligence stated in its latest assessment of the war.

“Diverting personnel from these previously high priority areas likely demonstrates continuing personnel shortages. By employing them in an infantry role, hey are also being misused, which could reduce Russian capability to re-take territory in Kursk Oblast,” British Military Intelligence added. 

This is like the U.S. Air Force sending a battalion of F-22 Raptor maintainers and drone pilots to do the job of a U.S. Marine Corps infantry battalion. 

“Russia continues to develop new units and recruit more personnel to sustain its mass attritional warfare approach against Ukraine,” British Military Intelligence added.

According to the latest estimates released by the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense, the Russian military has lost over 600,000 men, averaging more than 1,000 casualties a day. 

“The high casualty rates that result mean that Russia needs to continuously replenish front line infantry personnel, which will almost certainly continue to limit Russia’s ability to generate higher capability units,” British Military Intelligence concluded. 

About the Author: 

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The Imperial Japanese Navy's carrier Shinano was an ill-fated warship, originally intended as a battleship but converted into an aircraft carrier during World War II.

-Despite being the largest aircraft carrier of its time, Shinano was plagued by design compromises and was sunk by a U.S. submarine just seven hours into its maiden voyage.

Bottomline: The ship's flawed concept of serving as a resupply vessel for other carriers, combined with Japan's inadequate anti-submarine warfare strategy, highlighted the weaknesses that contributed to its swift demise. Shinano's failure serves as a cautionary tale in naval warfare design.

Shinano: The Largest Aircraft Carrier That Never Saw Battle

Over the last hundred years, the navies of the world have constructed, operated, and taken to war hundreds of aircraft carriers. Some carriers have been truly outstanding designs, while many more were simply adequate and lost to history. One ship that achieved fame not out of greatness but sheer incompetence was the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) carrier Shinano. Originally constructed as a battleship, she was redesigned to support the air war in the Pacific before being sunk, with considerable irony, by a submarine before she could even see battle.

In May 1940 the Yokosuka Naval Yard laid down the third hull of the Yamato-class battleships. The largest battleships ever built, the Yamato-class featured nine eighteen-inch guns and were considerably larger and more powerful—on paper anyway—than even the U.S. Navy’s Iowa-class battleships. The Yamato and her sister ship Musashi were completed as designed, but work on the third ship, Shinano, halted shortly after the outbreak of hostilities with the Allied powers—principally the United Kingdom and Holland.

By June 1942 Shinano was complete up to her main deck but Japan no longer had use for battleships. A series of reversals at sea, particularly the Battle of Midway, had dealt a serious blow to Japanese carrier aviation. (The Battle of Midway alone saw the loss of four Japanese fleet carriers.) At the same time, it was becoming increasingly clear that aircraft carriers had eclipsed the battleship as the dominant weapon at sea. Japan needed more aircraft carriers, and fast.

The IJN decided to redesign Shinano to help make up Japan’s carrier losses. At 840 feet long at the waterline, Shinano was set to become the world’s largest aircraft carrier, with a huge flight deck to support air operations and a cavernous hangar to store and repair fighters, dive bombers, and torpedo planes. Such a ship could carry well over a hundred fighters, the equal in aircraft to nearly two American carriers.

Unfortunately, an opposing plan emerged that envisioned Shinano not as a true aircraft carrier but new type of vessel, a carrier support ship. Under the new plan Shinano would act as a floating resupply ship for other aircraft carriers, carrying fuel, munitions, fuel, and other supplies. Aircraft from other carriers would land on Shinano, load up on fuel and weapons, and then take off on combat missions. Incredibly, under this scheme Shinano would not have any planes of its own, nor would she have the ability to store any.

After considerable infighting, the Imperial Navy decided on a compromise design. Shinano would be fitted out as a 68,000-ton aircraft carrier similar in construction to the smaller Taiho. The carrier would have a hangar and carry four dozen fighters for self-defense. Her primary mission, however, was to supply new planes to carriers that had sustained combat losses, repair damaged aircraft, and resupply fleet carriers at sea.

The conversion effort began in the summer of 1942 but proceeded very slowly. Inexplicably, work only sped up after the Battle of the Philippine Sea in June 1944, when two more fleet carriers and a light carrier were lost to enemy action. The ship was finally launched in October 1944. As completed, Shinano displaced 62,000 tons, had an overall length of 872 feet, and was up to 119 feet long. She had a crew of 2,400 and carried up to forty-seven fighters for self-defense.

A large target for enemy aircraft, Shinano was well equipped to fend off aircraft and shrug off hits above the waterline. Her anti-air defenses included sixteen 5-inch guns, 145 25-millimeter anti-aircraft guns, and 336 5-inch anti-aircraft rocket launchers. Armor ranged from 15.75 inches at the main belt to just 3.94 inches amidships. Unlike American carriers, she had an armored flight deck, with 2.95 inches of armor protecting the innards of the ship from dive bombs penetrating from above.

Ironically, although well equipped to fend off aerial and surface attacks Shinano was ultimately done in by a subsurface attack. On November 28th, 1944, just seven hours into a voyage from Yokosuka to Matsuyama for fitting out, Shinano was attacked by four torpedoes launched from the submarine USS Archerfish. The ship, undermanned and incomplete, could not affect damage control procedures properly. Watertight doors had been left open and poorly welded segments of the ship gave way to flooding, and the huge ship went down exactly seven hours after coming under torpedo attack.

Much of the criticism of Shinano’s design is predicated not on the ship’s battle history—the carrier participated in only one, lopsided “battle”—but in how the carrier support ship design would have fared given what we know about the Pacific War. As a ship designed to prolong the ability of Japan’s carriers to fight without returning to port, it was designed to support Japan’s tradition of keeping men, ships, and planes on the frontline until they were killed and destroyed. As we know now, this was a major contributor to Japan’s eventual defeat and the U.S. Navy’s opposite policy, of regularly rotating forces off the front line, was a major contributor to America’ victory. Shinano was designed to support a losing strategy.

Shinano’s loss to submarine action highlighted another shortcoming in the design and the larger Imperial Japanese Navy: the lack of a strong anti-submarine warfare doctrine and adequate anti-submarine ships and resources. Despite a highly successful undersea warfare campaign waged by the submarines of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, Japan never built up a strong anti-submarine warfare response comparable to that fielded by the Allies fending off Germany’s U-boat fleet. Although Shinano was well prepared to fight the air and surface battle, she was lost to the one battle she was utterly unprepared for—the subsurface battle.

Built as a compromise ship by an indecisive navy, Shinano was perhaps the worst designed carrier ever built—a mistake made exponentially worse by the dire wartime situation Japan found itself in. It is worth noting that Shinano was the first and last carrier support ship ever designed, as other naval powers have avoided the class. Shinano was a somber lesson to future naval powers: there is no middle ground in carrier construction, and weakness in one of the realms of naval warfare will haunt major powers in wartime, claiming even the largest warships.

About the Author: Kyle Mizokami, Defense Expert 

Kyle Mizokami is a writer based in San Francisco who has appeared in The Diplomat, Foreign Policy, War is Boring and The Daily Beast. In 2009 he cofounded the defense and security blog Japan Security Watch. 

Summary and Key Points You Need To Know: The A-10 Thunderbolt II, known as the Warthog, is equipped with the GAU-8 Avenger, a 30mm rotary cannon capable of firing 4,200 rounds per minute, making it a devastating force against enemy tanks and armored vehicles.

-Developed in the 1970s to counter Soviet tanks, the Avenger underwent extensive testing and improvements before proving its effectiveness in Operation Desert Storm, where it destroyed hundreds of Iraqi tanks and vehicles.

-Despite its battlefield success, the A-10's future is uncertain, with debates on whether newer technologies might replace it. However, the power and fear induced by the Avenger gun remain undeniable.

The A-10 Warthog's GAU-8 Avenger: A Tank's Worst Nightmare

If you are operating an enemy tank, the deep, buzzing belch of cannon fire from an A-10 Thunderbolt II may be the last thing you ever hear.

The A-10, better known as the Warthog, has a rotary cannon called the GAU-8 Avenger that can sustain 600 revolutions and fire 4,200 rounds per minute. The gun can make short work of armored vehicles.

Let’s take a look at the awesome power of this gun.

Looking for the Perfect Weapon

In the early 1970s, the U.S. Air Force analyzed various wars between Israel and Arab countries that featured tank-on-tank warfare. The service branch came away from that research looking for an airplane and a gun that could buzz enemy tanks and plink them into oblivion. They reckoned such a platform could help defeat the Soviet army’s thousands of tanks. 

General Electric won the bid for a 30mm ultra-fast cannon. The gun would fire armor-piercing and high-explosive rounds that were a match for any tank, armored vehicle, and artillery piece. Enemy bunkers were also on the list of installations the gun could destroy. Each bullet had the length of a pint bottle. 

Working Through the Avenger’s Issues

By 1974, the GAU-8 Avenger was ready for testing. The seven-barrel, gatling-style gun fired from as high as 25,000 feet and as low as 100 feet. It underwent 60 test flights and shot 39,000 rounds in various maneuvers and stunts at up to 5-Gs. Hydraulic motors spun the rifled barrels. 

However, the gun had some issues. Flashes from the firing kept the pilot from seeing where he was flying. The gas dirtied the windshield, too. Gas could also reach the airplane’s engines, causing the power plants to suffocate. Engineers spent 10 years addressing and fixing those problems.

The huge gun weighs 620 pounds, but once you add the feed system and drum, it weighs 4,029 pounds. The Avenger has a full load of 1,150 rounds of ammunition in the drum. The entire apparatus is nearly 21 feet long, and its range is 4,101 feet.

Desert Storm Dandy

It was during Operation Desert Storm that the A-10 and its gun shone brighest. The gun fired 783,514 rounds during 8,077 combat sorties. It eliminated 900 Iraqi tanks, at least 2,000 other armored vehicles, and around 1,200 artillery pieces.

A-10 pilot John Marks was interviewed by Smithsonian Magazine about shooting the Avenger during the First Gulf War. “The thing shook the airplane when you pulled the trigger. You could smell the spent casings even with the oxygen mask on. The sound is muffled with all the gear we wear, but you still hear it. The high rate of fire and typical range mean the rounds hit just before or about the time you release the trigger,” Marks recalled.

The GAU-8 is mounted laterally off-center because the recoil could move it off target during a strafing run. But the barrel is “underneath the airplane’s center of gravity,” according to Matt Snape of Hotcars.com. “This centers the recoil forces, preventing changes in aircraft pitch or yaw when fired,” Snape wrote.

Despite the power of the gun and the A-10’s combat-proven effectiveness, the Air Force tried to retire the airplane in 2015, 2016, and 2017 budget cycles, and it wanted to trim the numbers ASAP. 

The A-10 and the Future

The Air Force and the Congressional Research Service will be investigating lessons learned from the war in Ukraine. Russia has lost hundreds of tanks and armored personnel carriers to anti-tank guided missiles, artillery, and drones.

Could the Air Force do away with the A-10 and focus instead on these systems and tactics during an armored fight?

Or is it better to depend on that amazing gun to eliminate even more enemy tanks and infantry fighting vehicles? These are difficult questions to answer, but one thing we know for sure is that the Avenger gun is a force on the battlefield. It puts fear into the enemy.

About the Author: Dr. Brent M. Eastwood 

Brent M. Eastwood, PhD, is the author of Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare. He is an Emerging Threats expert and former U.S. Army Infantry officer. You can follow him on Twitter @BMEastwood.

All images are Creative Commons. 

It was back to the future on Tuesday night as Michelle and Barack Obama spoke at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. The former was the clear winner over the latter in the speech sweepstakes, but she made no move to wrest the nomination from her longtime friend, Vice President Kamala Harris. Instead, she focused on pillorying Donald Trump as the scion of “the affirmative action of generational wealth.” Her husband evocatively likened Trump to the “neighbor who keeps running his leaf blower outside your window every minute of every day.”

Absent some of the more fevered conspiracy theories on the right actually occurring—Joe Biden seizing back the nomination, Michelle Obama tossing her hat in the ring—the convention in Chicago has been drained of much of its suspense. Even the much-ballyhooed protests against the Gaza war seem to have fizzled out, if not turned into sheer farce, now that Vice President Kamala Harris has captured the hearts and minds of the Democratic party.

As the convention focused on denouncing Trump as a threat to American freedoms—democracy is apparently now passe—a fresh reminder of the foreign policy stakes arrived with the disclosure that the Biden administration has approved a secret strategy called “Nuclear Employment Guidance” that aims to deter a simultaneous attack from China, North Korea, and Russia.

How much either Tim Walz or Harris will focus on foreign affairs in their speeches is an open question. But the geopolitical context that any new president will confront is rapidly shifting, and not always in good ways. Perhaps the coordination between Russia, China, and North Korea that foreign policy realists were wont to warn about was likely to occur, but American foreign policy does not seem to have done much to forestall the prospect. Instead, the state of belligerence towards China may, in some measure, have become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Absent a crisis abroad—an attack on Taiwan or war with Iran—it is economics that remains at the forefront of the Harris campaign. If her own campaign is anything to go by, she has a firm mastery of the importance of finances. She reported a whopping $220 million at the close of July in cash on hand in contrast to the $151 million that the Trump campaign disclosed. This reversal of fortune is allowing Harris to hammer home her anti-corporate, pro-labor message in a variety of swing states. Meanwhile, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s finances appear to be in dire straits as he commands a mere $3.9 million with $3.5 million in debts. Small wonder that his campaign is openly flirting with endorsing Trump as long as the former president is willing to promise, for whatever that promise is worth, a post (Secretary of Health and Human Services?) in a new administration to Kennedy. The most likely prospect is that Kennedy, who has not rated a mention at the convention, will drift into insignificance. It’s an amazing testament to the fall of the once-proud Kennedy family.

If there is a star of the convention, it appears to be the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025. Trump has sought to disown it, but Democrats are highlighting its proposals as a foundation for a new Trump administration. An oversized copy of the “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise”  is being held up by several speakers, including Pennsylvania state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta who deemed the document a “radical plan to drag us backwards, bankrupt the middle class and raise prices on working families like yours and mine.” The term “radical,” once the province of the Left, seems to be vying with “weird” as the favorite Democratic term of obloquy for Trump.

As Harris and her running mate Tim Walz prepare to make their respective big speeches tonight and tomorrow, it would not be surprising to see them flag Project 2025 as a danger to the republic. On July 23, Harris stated in Milwaukee that Trump and “his extreme Project 2025 agenda will weaken the middle class. Like, we know we got to take this seriously, and can you believe they put that thing in writing?” Most book authors could only dream of such publicity, but Trump and Co. appear to be running away from Project 2025 as quickly as they can.

About the Author: Editor of the National Interest, Jacob Heilbrunn

Jacob Heilbrunn is editor of The National Interest and is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center. He has written on both foreign and domestic issues for numerous publications, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Foreign Affairs, Reuters, Washington Monthly, and The Weekly Standard. He has also written for German publications such as Cicero, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, and Der Tagesspiegel. In 2008, his book They Knew They Were Right: the Rise of the Neocons was published by Doubleday. It was named one of the one hundred notable books of the year by The New York Times. He is the author of America Last: The Right’s Century-Long Romance with Foreign Dictators.

Image Credit: Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The D-21 was America’s first foray into drone technology, developed by Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works in the 1960s in response to growing Soviet anti-aircraft defenses.

-This supersonic surveillance drone, capable of flying at Mach 3.2, was initially launched from the SR-71 Blackbird before transitioning to the B-52H bomber.

-The D-21's primary mission was to gather intelligence on China’s nuclear program, but the project ultimately failed, with all four missions (1969-71) unsuccessful.

-Despite this, the D-21 significantly influenced future U.S. drone technology, and China's later WZ-8 drone bore a strong resemblance to the D-21.

The D-21 was America’s First Attempt at Drones

When one thinks of unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, the MQ-1 Predator or the MQ-9 Reaper probably come to mind. 

But America’s drones have a much longer operational history.

Way back in the 1960s, Lockheed Martin designed the D-21 supersonic surveillance drone at their Skunk Works facility. Created in response to the downing of Gary Powers and his U-2 spy plane, the D-21 was the U.S. military and intelligence community’s solution to the rapidly advancing Soviet anti-aircraft defenses ringing the Communist bloc states.  

The D-21 Specs

Designed to fly at an astonishing Mach 3.2, or 2,455 miles per hour, the D-21 employed a ramjet engine. This insanely fast early drone would be launched from an SR-71 Blackbird and continue to its target at supersonic speeds. 

If it were shot down, no one would be lost, and the Americans would have a degree of deniability. 

Because of the D-21’s unique design, though, launching from an equally radical airframe such as the SR-71 Blackbird proved to be a problem. So the Pentagon switched to a B-52H bomber. A rocket booster would launch the drone from the wing of the Stratofortress. 

China’s Nuclear Weapons Program

When the D-21 went active, the People’s Republic of China was rapidly developing an illicit nuclear weapons program. At this time, China was very similar to how we might today view North Korea: It was a backward and isolated land ruled by a vicious cult of personality. 

But China wanted nukes, and the Americans were rightly concerned about this prospect, especially given China’s close alliance at that time with the Soviet Union. 

China’s main nuclear test site was at a place called Lop Nur. To get a better read on what was occurring there, the Americans deployed their D-21 surveillance drone. Four major intelligence collection missions were launched against this target over the course of two years (1969-71). 

A Failure?

The program failed. According to Maya Carlin, two of the four drones were lost somewhere over China, while the other two malfunctioned and delivered no usable intelligence.

The Pentagon canceled the program in 1971. Unsurprisingly, the Chinese down the line unveiled their own supersonic drone, the WZ-8, which looked suspiciously like the D-21. 

The Chinese had captured one or both of the D-21s that were lost over the Middle Kingdom and reverse-engineered them. This, of course, was a portent of things to come.

Lockheed Martin’s design for the D-21 would go on to significantly influence future drone technology for the U.S. military. Even modern drones have been inspired by the lessons learned from the D-21. While the missions technically ended in failure, the program was not a complete waste of time. 

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock.

From the Vault

Russia Freaked Out: Why the U.S. Navy 'Unretired' the Iowa-Class Battleships

Battleship vs. Battlecruiser: Iowa-Class vs. Russia's Kirov-Class (Who Wins?)

Summary and Key Points You Need to Know: Submarines are among the most potent assets in a nation's arsenal, capable of lurking in the ocean's depths to strike enemy targets with precision. The U.S. Navy, boasting the world's most formidable submarine fleet, is set to enhance its capabilities with the new SSN New Jersey, a Virginia-class fast-attack submarine.

-Designed to find and sink enemy warships, the SSN New Jersey, officially SSN 796, will join the Navy's fleet as the 23rd Virginia-class sub. With a $3.5 billion price tag and powered by nuclear energy, these submarines can operate for years without refueling, and the Navy plans to keep them in service well into the 2070s.

-Virginia-class subs, introduced in 2004, are equipped with an impressive arsenal, including Tomahawk cruise missiles and Mk48 torpedoes, making them a crucial component of U.S. naval power.

What Makes the Virginia-Class Submarine So Special? 

Submarines are some of the most powerful weapon systems in a country’s arsenal. They lurk in the depths of the ocean, ready to pounce on enemy shipping and deliver high-precision missiles, including nuclear weapons, to enemy targets thousands of miles away. 

The U.S. Navy has the most powerful submarine fleet in the world, with scores of vessels. And in a few weeks, the Navy will accept its newest submarine.

The SSN New Jersey 

On April 6, the Navy delivered the SSN New Jersey at the U.S. Naval Weapons Station. 

As a fast-attack submarine of the Virginia class, the SSN New Jersey will have a simple mission in the event of a conflict: find and sink enemy warships. 

Officially named SSN 796 New Jersey, the nuclear-powered submarine will join the most populous class of submarines in the U.S. Navy. The Navy currently operates three classes of fast-attack submarines (Los Angeles, Seawolf, and Virginia) for a total fleet of approximately 50 submarines. 

The Navy is planning to purchase a total of 66 Virginia-class submarines. As of February, 22 subs are in service, with the USS New Jersey soon to be the 23rd. In addition, 11 other submarines of the class are under construction, and four more are authorized by Congress.

The submarine has been years in the making. Its keel was laid in March 2019, and it comes with a price tag of approximately $3.5 billion. The new submarine will be the third warship to be named after the state of New Jersey. 

Powered by nuclear energy, the Virginia-class submarines can stay afloat for years without the need for refueling and are mainly limited by their victuals.

The Navy plans to operate the class well into the 2070s.

The Virginia-class Submarines 

Introduced with the SSN 774 Virginia in 2004, the Virginia class is the latest class of fast-attack submarines in the U.S. Navy. Built by General Dynamics Electric Boat Division and Huntington Ingalls Industries, the Virginia class is a powerful weapon system. 

At almost 380 feet long, the class has a beam of 34 feet and a displacement of approximately 7,800 tons submerged. The submarine can operate at depths of over 800 ft (about 250 meters). It can reach speeds of more than 25 nautical knots (over 28 miles per hour), and it relies on one nuclear reactor with one shaft for its propulsion. In terms of manpower, Virginia-class submarines have a crew of 132, with 15 officers and 117 enlisted personnel. 

But where the Virginia class shines is in its armament. There are five blocks, or modifications, with different combinations of weapons. Submarines carrying the Block I through IV weapons modifications have 12 Vertical Launching Tubes for Tomahawk cruise missiles and four 21-inch torpedo tubes that can fire Mk48 torpedoes or UGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles.

Considering the restrictions imposed by the limited space, the Virginia-class can pack a healthy 25 torpedoes/anti-ship missiles and over a dozen cruise missiles. Block V will add more missiles through the Virginia Payload Module.

About the Author  

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 Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: Submarines have evolved into fast, stealthy, and highly maneuverable platforms, with the Seawolf-class submarine from the U.S. Navy leading the pack as the fastest and most advanced, capable of exceeding 35 miles per hour and diving up to 2,000 feet.

-Following closely is the Virginia-class, a versatile submarine designed for modern warfare, with a top speed of 28 miles per hour. Russia’s Yasen-M class, known for its ability to carry hypersonic missiles, cruises at 40 miles per hour and dives to nearly 2,000 feet.

-China’s Shang-class submarine showcases the country’s growing naval prowess, reaching speeds of 34 miles per hour and diving to over 2,200 feet.

-Finally, the UK's Vanguard-class, central to the Royal Navy’s nuclear deterrent, offers reliable performance with a speed of 28 miles per hour and a diving capability of over 1,300 feet. These submarines represent the pinnacle of underwater warfare technology.

Top 5 Fastest Submarines in the World: Speed, Stealth, and Power

Submarines may be an older technological platform, but each iteration gets better than the last. 

Submarines are meant to be stealthy. More than that, though, subs must possess a high degree of speed and the ability to dive fast. They also must be highly maneuverable. 

The list below, while far from comprehensive, uses those qualities to determine the five best fast submarines in the world.

5. Vanguard-Class Submarine

Once the greatest naval power in the world, the British Royal Navy today is a shadow of its former glory. Nevertheless, the British still possess some capabilities that make them competitive at sea. The Vanguard-class nuclear-powered submarine is an excellent heir to the legacy of the great imperial navy that came before it. 

Designed to fight the Cold War, these boats for now are still the primary submarine of the Royal Navy. 

A Vanguard-class submarine displaces just shy of 16,000 tons when submerged. She’s powered by one Rolls Royce pressurized water-cooled nuclear reactor that supplies steam to two sets of General Electric geared turbines delivering 27,500 horsepower to one shaft. 

Her speed is a respectable 28 miles per hour. She can also dive in excess of 1,300 feet. The numbers don’t lie. The Vanguard class is a solid sub. 

4. Shang-Class Submarine

China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy is steadily advancing its submarine capabilities to rival those of the Americans, Russians, and other advanced navies. The nuclear-powered Shang-class leads the way. 

The Shang class has a 7,000-ton displacement and can carry around 100 crewmembers. Its top cruising speed is about 30 knots, or 34 miles per hour, and these boats can dive down to 2,296 feet.

As for this submarine’s maneuverability, one analyst has written that, “China can ensure that [the Shang-class] submarine has a breakthrough in underwater navigation performance, and the nuclear power propulsion system has sufficient power to match the hull tonnage. Under better circumstances, [the Shang-class] is entirely possible to achieve relatively excellent underwater speed and underwater maneuverability.” 

3. Yasen-M-class Submarine

Russia may be more of a continental power rather than a maritime power, but the Russian Navy can build some remarkable underwater systems. 

The Yasen-M class is especially impressive. Recently, the Russians converted this class of “tough” Russian subs (as Business Insider labeled them in 2023) into hypersonic missile carriers, making the Yasen-M the only active submarine in the world capable of deploying these next-level weapons. In June, the Russians deployed one of these boats in a flotilla to Cuba, skirting the U.S. Eastern seaboard in the process. 

The Yasen-M can cruise up to 35 knots (40 miles per hour) and can safely dive to about 1,968 feet. She displaces around 13,800 tons. 

In all, the Russians have one of the speediest, most lethal undersea platforms in existence today. Americans underestimate the Yasen-M at their own peril.

2. Virginia-class Submarine

When America went looking for a replacement for the iconic Los Angeles-class attack submarine, it first landed on the highly complex but expensive Seawolf class. 

Sadly, that submarine’s cost and the lack of a Soviet enemy made Congress rethink its decision to make the Seawolf class the new primary attack submarine for America’s Navy. Sent back to the drawing board, the Navy produced the Virginia class. 

A Virginia-class submarine goes about 28 miles per hour. Because the boats are relatively new, the Navy is not as forthcoming with certain design details. For example, the Navy is coy about this sub’s maximum operating depth, listing it as “more than 800 feet.” It carries 15 officers and 117 enlisted personnel as well. 

A highly maneuverable and fast submarine, the Virginia-class is one of the finest attack submarines ever built. 

1. Seawolf-class Submarine

Now for the blue label of modern submarines, the U.S. Navy’s Seawolf class. As noted above, this boat was meant to replace the Los Angeles-class attack subs beginning in the early 1990s, until Congress got cold feet. 

At roughly $4.3 billion per unit, one can hardly blame them. But given the kind of threat environment the U.S. faces today, a fleet of these submarines might have been the best long-term investment the Navy could have made.

Alas, there’s no going back. The Navy currently possesses only three of these submarines, and there are no plans to reconstitute the production line. Besides, the Navy prefers the Virginia-class submarine, which, while a versatile and fast boat as you just read, has limits to its speed and maneuverability that the Seawolf class does not share.

This boat can go in excess of 35 miles per hour. The Seawolf class is highly maneuverable and can dive up to 2,000 feet, with a maximum crush depth ranging from 2,400 to 3,000 feet beneath the waves. 

The Seawolf-class submarine threat is widely believed to keep the Chinese and Russians up at night. It is not only the fastest submarine in the world today, it is also the best submarine ever built. 

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock.

From the Vault

Russia Freaked Out: Why the U.S. Navy 'Unretired' the Iowa-Class Battleships

Battleship vs. Battlecruiser: Iowa-Class vs. Russia's Kirov-Class (Who Wins?)

Summary and Key Points You Need to Know: The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) operates the largest fleet of F-16s outside the U.S., with over 300 airframes, including the specialized F-16I Sufa variant.

-Designed to meet the specific needs of Israel's Air Force, the F-16I includes significant upgrades such as conformal fuel tanks for extended range, an advanced helmet-mounted cueing system, and an enhanced electronic warfare suite. These modifications make the Sufa a critical component of Israel's military, allowing it to carry out complex air-to-ground missions effectively.

-The F-16I has been a key asset in operations such as the 2021 conflict with Hamas in Gaza and is expected to remain in service for years to come.

F-16I Sufa: The Thunderstorm in Israel’s Air Defense Arsenal

The Israel Defense Forces fly the largest contingent of the F-16 outside of the U.S. Air Force, with more than 300 airframes in their arsenal.

Nicknamed Sufa, or thunderstorm in Hebrew, the two-seat variant of the F-16 – the F-16I Sufa – was specifically designed to meet the requirements of Israel's Air Force.

While the platform has some shortcomings, Israel’s Sufa variant boasts unique modifications that make it a critical part of the Jewish state’s military program. 

F-16I upgrades the original

 Originally developed by General Dynamics (now Lockheed Martin), the F-16 Fighting Falcon took its first flight in 1976. The fighter jet was designed to rectify some of the shortcomings in the aircraft that flew in the Korean and Vietnam Wars. The Falcon’s increased thrust-to-weight ratio and smaller frame made it an air-superiority platform, with improved air-to-air training for fighter pilots. Similar to the F-15, the Fighting Falcon was also a premier airframe for withstanding higher g-forces. 

An initial contract between Lockheed-Martin and Israel allocated up to 110 new F-16Is by 2003. According to former Lockheed Martin Vice President John Bean, “[The Sufa program] illustrates the strong bond between Lockheed Martin and Israel; we hope to strengthen that relationship through our continuing commitment to this program." 

The first fleet arrived in Israel in 2004 and featured a range of specialized modifications, including changes to the Falcon’s avionics, instrumentation, and weapons support systems. The F-16I is fitted with Israeli-designed conformal fuel tanks that extend the jet’s flight range by increasing the fuel it can hold by 50%. The placement of the tanks also allows the wings’ inner store stations, which are typically utilized for external tanks, to be available for weapons storage. This variation alone doubles the Sufa’s air-to-ground weapons capacity.

The F-16I’s Elbit Dash IV display shortens the lock-on process time for engagements, and the aircraft uses a helmet-mounted cueing system. This Israeli development can link aircraft information such as height and speed to the system, enabling weapons to target enemy aircraft using sight only. Dash IV allows the pilot to locate targets at high angles off the nose of the fighter, providing 360-degree information to the pilot everywhere they look. 

A key aerial asset

Arguably the most significant modification made to the F-16I Sufa is in its electronic warfare suite and avionics. Approximately half of the Falcon’s avionics were replaced with Israeli innovations including the aerial towed decoy. The Sufa’s electronic warfare suite incorporates radar warning systems and jamming capabilities, including the Elisra SPS 3000 self-protection jammer.

The F-16I Sufa has been active in Israel’s air force missions for nearly two decades, and the platform remains a critical asset. It continues to carry out important tasks. During a 2021 Israel-Hamas flare-up in Gaza, Sufas comprised the majority of the aircraft responsible for striking the terror group’s underground tunnel network and other weapons depots. With the help of the F-15I Ra’am and F-35I Adir stealth fighters, Operation Guardian of the Walls was successful.

The F-16I Sufa will likely remain in Israel’s aerial arsenal for years to come.

About the Author: Defense Expert, Maya Carlin

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

Image Credit: All Images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Top 5 Points on the F-35 You Need to Know: The F-35 Lightning II program, the most advanced jet in the skies today, has faced numerous challenges and is now the most expensive defense program in history, with an estimated lifetime cost of over $2 trillion.

-The program's complexity arises from its three variants (A, B, and C), each tailored to meet the specific needs of the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, replacing multiple older aircraft.

-Despite efforts to reduce costs, sustainment and operational expenses have risen significantly, partly due to the extended operational life of the F-35 and inflation.

-The program's high costs are justified by its ability to streamline multiple mission sets into a single, versatile aircraft, making it a logistical asset for the U.S. military.

-The F-35 program’s complexity stems from its three variants (A, B, and C), each designed to meet the specific needs of the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, replacing multiple older aircraft.

F-35 Lightning II: The $2 Trillion Fighter That’s Reshaping U.S. Air Power

The F-35 Lightning II is the most advanced jet in the skies today. However, its journey to the skies hasn’t been easy. Indeed, the F-35 program had to overcome several challenges and setbacks to be where it is today. To a certain extent, these challenges continue to this day.

According to the latest assessment by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the F-35 Program will cost more than $2 trillion during its lifetime. This astounding cost makes it the most expensive defense program in recent history and one of the most expensive in military history in general.

Specifically, the GAO report estimates $1.6 trillion in sustainment costs, which include operational demands and maintenance – this is about 45 percent higher than the previous estimate in 2018 ($1.1 trillion). It also estimates approximately $445 billion in acquisition costs, which include the development and procurement of the stealth fighter jet.

One of the main reasons for the hefty half a trillion dollars increase in sustainment costs is the fact that the U.S. military plans to operate the F-35 fighter for an additional decade, or until 2088. Another reason is the higher inflation.

The fact that the GAO had to revise its estimate within six years coupled with the ongoing production and delivery of the aircraft, could indicate that the F-35 Program’s cost might further increase in the near future.

Lockheed Martin and the F-35 Joint Program Office have tried to bring costs down but without significant success. Nevertheless, for many, the high cost and challenges surrounding the F-35 Program have a reasonable explanation.

F-35 Stealth Fighter: It Can Do It All? 

Much like the Russian Babushka wooden dolls that fit several similar toys of different sizes in each other, the F-35 Lightning II isn’t just one aircraft and isn’t intended to replace just one aircraft.

The F-35 comes in three versions: A, B, and C. Although they are essentially the same aircraft in terms of capabilities, each is designed differently to meet the different demands of the U.S. military’s services. Essentially, Lockheed Martin designed three different aircraft in one, and that is reflected in some of the costs.

The F-35A is the conventional take-off and landing aircraft that operates from runways; this is the version used by the Air Force and most of the 19 countries that comprise the F-35 Program.

The F-35B is the Short Take-Off, Vertical Landing (STOVL) version of the aircraft and can take off and land like a helicopter but still fly like a fighter jet; this version is used by the U.S. Marine Corps, as well as several foreign partners.

Finally, the F-35C is the aircraft carrier version of the aircraft and is designed to withstand the extreme pressures of carrier operations; this iteration is used only by the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps.

In addition, the three versions of the F-35 Lightning II are going to replace several older aircraft, including the A-10 Warthog close air support aircraft, AV-88 Harrier STOVL fighter jet, and also probably the F-16.

As such, they include capabilities that would normally be spread over several aircraft. This streamlining of mission sets in a single aircraft is a logistical miracle for the U.S. military and will benefit it in a time of war.

About the Author

Stavros Atlamazoglou is a Greek Army veteran (National service with 575th Marines Battalion and Army HQ). Johns Hopkins University. You will usually find him on the top of a mountain admiring the view and wondering how he got there.

This article was first published by Sandboxx News.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The United States Navy’s Ohio-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, crucial to the nation's nuclear deterrent, are rarely seen or discussed publicly due to their stealth missions.

-However, in June, the U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa revealed the location of the USS Tennessee (SSBN-734) in the Norwegian Sea, accompanied by the USS Normandy (CG-60) and P-8A Poseidon aircraft, along with an E-6B Mercury “doomsday plane.”

-This unusual disclosure is believed to be a strategic response to recent Russian naval activities, including the deployment of Russian naval vessels to the Caribbean and exercises in the Mediterranean. The reveal serves as a reminder of the Ohio-class submarines' destructive capabilities.

Why the U.S. Navy Unveiled the Location of a Nuclear-Armed Submarine

The United States Navy's Ohio-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines remain a key component of the nation's nuclear triad and serve as a nuclear deterrent. The warships are often spoken/written about – yet rarely seen. As part of the "Silent Service," the submarines spent much of their patrols under the sea, with their locations rarely disclosed.

However, on back in June, the U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa/U.S. 6th Fleet posted on X – the social media platform formerly known as Twitter – to announce that USS Tennessee (SSBN-734) was operating in the Norwegian Sea, while the nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed sub was joined by the Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Normandy (CG-60) and P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft. In addition, an E-6B Mercury strategic communications plane was also reported to be flying over ahead.

The unusual disclosure--the submarine was surfaced and not under the waves operating in stealth--of the movements of any of the U.S. Navy's 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines is already highly unusual. However, the fact that an E-6B jet – one of the Navy's 16 modified Boeing 707s that serves as an airborne strategic command post and like the U.S. Air Force's E-4B is often known as a "doomsday plane" – makes it especially noteworthy.

The "boomers" as the submarines are known can disappear for months at a time. That is exactly what they were designed to do, as the boats remain the most destructive weapon system employed by the U.S. military. Given that there are just 14 in service – along with four more modified Ohio-class subs that serve as cruise missile submarines (SSGNs) – revealing the location of any isn't something taken lightly.

Yet, since 2020, the U.S. has disclosed the locations as a reminder of the Ohio class's destructive capability.

"Any decision to highlight the presence of one of these submarines, which are key components of America's nuclear deterrent arsenal and typically keep well out of sight while deployed, inherently sends a message to potential adversaries, such as Russia," TheWarZone reported.

So why did NAVEUR-NAVAF offer up the location of the SSBN-734?

The most likely answer is that it was a direct response to the Russian Navy's deployment of the guided-missile frigate Admiral Gorshkov and the Yasen-M-class nuclear-powered guided-missile submarine Kazan to the Caribbean earlier in June. The Russia flotilla – which also included the replenishment tank Academic Pashi and a tug boat Nikolay Chiker – made a rare port-of-call visit to Havana, Cuba, at the time

In addition, the Russian Navy had been conducting drills in the Mediterranean, involving its missile cruiser Varyag following another port visit to the Libyan city of Tobruk. The cruiser, which also took part in joint exercises with the Egyptian Navy, is quite far from her home port, as she is the flagship of the Russian Navy's Pacific Fleet.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. 

From the Vault

Russia Freaked Out: Why the U.S. Navy 'Unretired' the Iowa-Class Battleships

Battleship vs. Battlecruiser: Iowa-Class vs. Russia's Kirov-Class (Who Wins?)

Summary and Top Points You Need to Know: Russia’s sole aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, is widely regarded as a national embarrassment, plagued by technical issues, accidents, and frequent breakdowns. Originally commissioned in 1991, the carrier was meant to project Soviet naval power, but it has since become a symbol of Russia's declining military capabilities.

-Despite its numerous problems, Russia continues to invest in the carrier, likely due to national pride and a desire to maintain carrier operational capabilities.

-However, many analysts believe that the ship is beyond saving and that Russia would be better off investing in a new generation of carriers.

Why Russia Clings to Its Problematic Aircraft Carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov

Russia’s only aircraft carrier, the smoke-spewing, broken down Admiral Kuznetsov, is described by the Russian Navy as a “heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser.” While that might sound impressive, it is not. Admiral Kuznetsov is a continuing embarrassment for the proud Russian military.

The only reason one can assume that the Russians want to keep this national embarrassment around is to train crews for the future, supposedly better, aircraft carrier fleet that Moscow has been planning to build since 2017. 

Still, the carrier is a smoldering embarrassment that any other nation would have scrapped years ago. Indeed, Admiral Kuznetsov was more of an experiment than anything else – one undertaken at a time when the Soviet government was on its way to history’s dustbin. 

A Brief History of the Admiral Kuznetsov

Originally laid down in 1982 and commissioned in 1991, the same year that the USSR collapsed, Admiral Kuznetsov was a product of the Soviet Union’s ambitions for a greater navy. The carrier was intended to project Soviet air power and provide a strategic advantage in any potential conflict.

Even at the start of this project, though, Moscow had to make compromises – if not for budgetary constraints or technological limitations, then for strategic disinformation purposes. For instance, its qualification of being a, “heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser” was done expressly to skirt international rules. Russia is a mostly landlocked nation. It has just four warm-water ports, with possibly its most important one, the naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea, existing along the Black Sea. Since Turkey controls the entry point to the Black Sea for Russia, Moscow must adhere to Turkish rules.

One of Turkey’s rules has been to deny access to aircraft carriers in the Black Sea under the Montreux Convention. With a displacement of nearly 62,000 tons, Admiral Kuznetsov is the largest warship ever built by Russia. But it can also transit the Turkish Strait, because it comes just under the requirements of the Montreux Convention. 

Admiral Kuznetsov has a sloped ski-jump flight deck, which enables conventional takeoffs and landings of its naval aircraft, including Su-33 and MiG-29K fighters. Of course, the ski-jump is highly limiting, which is why the United States prefers to use catapults to fling its aircraft into the air. The Soviets and later the Russians simply did not have the technical skills or funding to install such capabilities on this model of carrier. 

The carrier itself has been plagued by technical issues, accidents, and maintenance problems throughout its more than 30 years in service to Russia. These problems have severely limited the carrier’s usefulness to Russia and has ensured Admiral Kuznetsov is little more than a sunk cost for Russia’s navy.

Russia’s Love Affair with a Failed Aircraft Carrier

Russia’s decision to maintain the aging Kuznetsov can be attributed to national pride as well as a fear of a capabilities gap. Russia already is behind the Americans, and now the Chinese, when it comes to carrier operations. Should Moscow let the decrepit Admiral Kuznetsov be retired, it could mean a lost generation of carrier capabilities for their navy. 

Then again, the wayward carrier spends most of its time in the shipyard, begging the question of whether those capabilities are already lost to Russia. Money might be better spent actually building a new generation of decent carriers.

As if unable to let go, Moscow is apparently investing to extend the service life of this failed carrier by another 25 years. The modernization efforts will include upgrades to the carrier’s air defense systems, propulsion, and flight deck, among other investments.

Despite their insistence that the carrier will be modernized, though, there is much evidence to suggest that the carrier is dead and cannot be modernized anymore. Regardless of what speculation exists on the internet and among analysts, Admiral Kuznetsov is an objectively awful flattop that should have been scrapped 30 years ago.

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. All photos are of various submarine styles. 

From the Vault

Russia Freaked Out: Why the U.S. Navy 'Unretired' the Iowa-Class Battleships

Battleship vs. Battlecruiser: Iowa-Class vs. Russia's Kirov-Class (Who Wins?)

Summary and Key Points You Need to Know: The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long viewed Taiwan as a breakaway province, despite never having governed the self-ruling island. Recent reports suggest that China's People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) may employ a strategy involving three aircraft carriers in an anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) approach to deter foreign intervention during a potential invasion of Taiwan.

-These carriers, supported by long-range missiles, would be positioned east of Taiwan in the Philippine Sea, out of range of Taiwan's anti-ship missiles.

-However, analysts argue that despite PLAN's growing capabilities, a successful invasion of Taiwan remains highly challenging.

-Taiwan's defenses, combined with potential U.S. and allied intervention, could severely complicate China's plans, making a quick victory unlikely and sustainable resupply for China's forces difficult.

Three Aircraft Carriers to Conquer Taiwan? 

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has never actually controlled Taiwan, which is a self-ruling island that was under Japanese occupation until the end of the Second World War when it was then returned to Nationalist Chinese control. Yet, Beijing maintains that it is a breakaway province that will be returned to mainland rule and by force if necessary.

Taking the island, which has a mountainous jungle interior that not even the occupying Japanese never fully subjugated during World War II. Needless to say, it would be difficult, as the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) would have to mount numerous amphibious landings – crossing the Taiwan Straits.

It is now speculated that Beijing's efforts to build aircraft carriers while countering the U.S. Navy's fleet of flattops would be key to such a plan.

According to a new report from the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC), cited by the Taipei Times on Tuesday, China's "Taiwan Strategy" may call for the use of three carriers, which would engage in a strategy of anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) around the island.

"In the quarterly report, the council cited declassified documents from the Ministry of National Defense that categorized China's carriers as a threat if used for A2/AD, and said that China might coordinate its naval, air force, and rocket force capabilities to operate beyond the first island chain and deter foreign forces from getting involved in a conflict involving Taiwan," the Taipei Times news piece laid out.

Three Carrier Strategy

The PLAN is currently conducting sea tests on its third – and second domestically-built – aircraft carrier, the Type 003 Fujian, while efforts have been made to further improve the Type 001 Liaoning and Type 002 Shandong. According to the MAC report, the carriers wouldn't be employed in the invasion and instead could be positioned in the Philippine Sea, well outside of Taiwan's Xiangfeng missiles, which have a range of 200km to 250km.

The carriers would support PLAN forces east of the self-ruling island to serve as a deterrent to foreign aid. The carriers and other warships would be supported by China's so-called "carrier killer" DF-21D and DF-26B anti-ship missiles that could be positioned to strike any approaching U.S. fleet.

"The Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force would deploy medium and long-range conventional ground-attack and anti-ship ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles to foreign forces in the area between the first and second island chains," the report added.

A War of Attrition

While the report warned what Taiwan might face, Institute for National Defense and Security Research fellow Su Tzu-yun highlighted that even as the PLAN is being transformed into a "blue water navy," it may not be enough for it to successfully invade Taiwan and establish a beachhead that could lead to control of the island.

Taipei has anti-ship missiles that could be employed against an approaching armada, while the Taiwanese Navy would need to rely on submarines to counter the PLAN's carriers – further emphasizing the need for the self-ruling island nation to continue the development and production of its domestically-built submarines.

Su further noted that any attempt to employ an A2/AD strategy would require that the carriers would be "sandwiched" between Taiwan and a U.S. fleet from Hawaii and Guam.

"Thoughts to the contrary are simply wishful thinking on the part of the Chinese," the Taiwanese analyst added.

The PLAN would need to see quick success, as its carriers and other warships would need supplies within just a week or two.

"Since the passage of supply ships through the Bashi Channel or Miyako Strait would be too dangerous, and China has no overseas bases, supplying the carriers would be impossible," explained Su. "Any advantage brought by the carriers would be quickly lost."

It is also unclear if the MAC report lays out what role South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and Australia – not to mention India – might react if Beijing were to mount an attack on Taiwan. It is unlikely that some of Taipei's allies and regional partners would simply sit by, while other regional rivals of Beijing might see it as an opportunity to gain an upper hand in the South China Sea and far beyond.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Here Comes the Light Fighter? The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, a fifth-generation air superiority fighter, remains unmatched in its capabilities, yet it was developed during an era when the U.S. military's focus shifted away from near-peer conflicts.

-As global threats evolve, particularly with the rise of China and the resurgence of Russia, the U.S. Air Force is looking towards the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program to replace the F-22. However, the NGAD faces significant challenges, including its high cost, which could limit fleet size and affect long-term viability.

-There is a growing emphasis on adaptability and modularity in future aircraft designs, potentially leading to a "light fighter" concept that could be more cost-effective and flexible in addressing future threats.

NGAD Becomes Light Fighter? 

The United States Air Force remains the sole operator of the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, which despite no air-to-air kills against a manned aircraft has been described as the world's top air superiority fighter. The aircraft, developed at the tail end of the Cold War and entered production following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, could be described as the right fighter just at the wrong time. It wasn't what the U.S. military needed as it became engaged in the Global War on Terror (GWoT) and it seemed that the days of conflict with a near-peer adversary were a thing of the past.

How the times have changed.

The GWoT wasn't ever won and arguably continues as elements like ISIS-K continue to operate – including an alleged planned attack earlier this month on a Taylor Swift concert in Vienna. Yet, even before Russia mounted its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine more than two-and-a-half years ago, it seemed that the "Evil Empire" – the term the late great Ronald Reagan (got it right this time) used to describe the Soviet Union – was returning, or at least in the mind of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

At the same time, China increasingly rattles sabers as it seeks to take its (self-perceived) rightful place on the world stage. To the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership in Beijing, this was to be China's century.

Perhaps the F-22 is what is needed now, except we must remember that it was developed back when Reagan was still eating jellybeans in the Oval Office. This brings us to today, when the Air Force has been exploring a replacement for the Raptor.

Enter the NGAD

The Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program has sought to develop a systems of systems, including a manned sixth-generation fighter supported by unmanned "loyal wingmen." It would seem exactly what is needed for a potential – yet unthinkable – conflict with a near-peer adversary such as China or Russia, and more importantly serve as a deterrent to ensure that such a conflict doesn't start.

The issue is the cost.

Each NGAD manned fighter could cost upwards of as much as three times that of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, bringing the total price tag to around $300 million per aircraft. That has led to concerns that the air service would have to reduce the number of aircraft in its fleet, which in turn means that losing any in accidents would be devastating, while critics have warned that combat losses would impact the Air Force's ability to effectively fight future wars.

Damned if You Do, Damned if You Don't

Another concern is that the aircraft developed today may not be the aircraft needed tomorrow. The F-22 Raptor was born out of the Air Force's Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program, which began in 1981! In other words, many of the pilots flying the Raptor today weren't even born when fighters were being designed.

To push that point home, cable TV was still a new thing and VHS was "cutting edge" technology to watch movies in the home. Given the leap forward in technology in recent years, Pentagon officials are right to express concerns that an expensive fighter will be viable in decades to come.

Department of the Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall warned earlier this year that efforts are underway to streamline the NGAD fighter's design, and that could include a "less complex" aircraft equipped with a potentially "smaller engine" that could lower future costs.

"The family of systems concept of Next Generation Air Dominance is alive and well," Kendall told Defense News in an interview. "I can tell you that we are looking at the NGAD platform design concept to see if it's the right concept or not. … We're looking at whether we can do something that's less expensive and do some trade-offs there."

NGAD as a Light Fighter

The NGAD likely will continue, but as noted by Harrison Kass for The National Interest, the evolution of the aircraft could be to a "light fighter." Kass based his analysis on comments made by U.S. Air Force General David Allvin at the Global Air and Space Chiefs' Conference hosted by the UK's Air and Space Power Association in London late in July – where Allvin suggested there needs to be a shift away from a "built to last" philosophy that was commonplace in the Cold War to a "built to adapt" philosophy of today.

"On paper such a shift makes sense. Technology is improving at exponential rates. Modularity is becoming an expectation, allowing airframes to upgrade incrementally with new software and new avionics as technology becomes available. Making rigid technological commitments to a multi-billion-dollar platform that could become outdated in years rather than decades seems foolhardy. An emphasis on adaptability would ensure any new airframe could stick around for a little while," wrote Kass.

The details of such a light fighter are vague, to say the least, and certainly not written in stone. Yet, it should be stressed that Allvin holds an Astronautical Engineering degree from the U.S. Air Force Academy as well as a Master of Science, and Master of Airpower Art and Science degrees.

Given his insight, it may be possible to glean some insight into what the future light fighter could resemble.

"The Light Fighter would be built on adaptability, not ruggedness," wrote Kass. "Allvin envisioned a jet that would rely on open systems architecture, modular design, digital engineering, and 3d-printing/additive manufacturing – techniques and concepts to improve an airframe repeatedly over time."

So could we see a sixth-generation light fighter in the future? Time will tell, of course, but it is also as likely that the NGAD could go another direction – focused more on an entirely unmanned system controlled remotely. Perhaps the days of pilots in the cockpits of fighter planes will be a relic of the past… much like those old VHS players that were the rage when the F-22 was still on the drawing board.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules is one of the most iconic and versatile aircraft in the U.S. Air Force's fleet. Developed in response to the Air Force's need for a heavy-lift transport plane capable of operating in the challenging environments of Asia, the C-130 has proven its value in a variety of roles.

-From transporting cargo and troops to medical evacuations, reconnaissance, and even serving as the AC-130 gunship, the C-130 has been indispensable. Its ability to take off and land on short, unprepared runways and its long-range capabilities make it a critical asset.

-The latest variant, the C-130J Super Hercules, features advanced systems and continues to serve not only the U.S. but also the militaries of many allied nations.

The Legendary C-130

The Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules is probably the most iconic long-serving transportation plane in the U.S. Air Force’s fleet. 

The quadruple-propeller-driven C-130 was a direct response to a critical Air Force need in the mid-20th century. Namely, the Air Force needed a heavy-lift capacity that could reliably operate in the austere environments of Asia. 

The Rise of the C-130

Two major wars in Asia defined the Cold War era – the Korean War and the Vietnam War. 

The geography of Asia is very taxing on technology and military equipment. A key feature of the C-130 Hercules is its reliable capability to land and take off from short, unprepared runways in the thick jungle environments of Asia. 

Indeed, the C-130 was a direct result of lessons the Air Force learned from fighting in Korea. These lessons would be applied to the Vietnam War, where the C-130 acquitted itself with honor.

The Air Force needed a tactical airlifter that could operate near the frontline, too. The C-130 “Herc” performed this vital task. C-130 has a high wing for cargo loading, a rear-loading ramp, and turboprop engines for efficiency and power. Using the turboprop rather than a jet engine made better sense, given the environments where the C-130 would operate. 

Throughout its long service to the Air Force, the C-130 has performed countless mission sets. These birds have been used to transport cargo for the Air Force into combat zones. They have been used for medical evacuations. Paratroopers jump out of these birds, search and rescue operations are undertaken, and reconnaissance missions are part of its repertoire. 

There’s even a similarly iconic gunship variant of the C-130, the AC-130 Specter Gunship. (It’s basically a flying battleship.) Oh, and the C-130 is often used for aerial firefighting missions.

Talk about an impressive list of missions. 

U.S. Special Operations Forces relies on another variant of this bird known as the MC-130. It’s specially built to provide covert insertion/extraction and resupply missions. 

Going the Distance 

C-130s are not just powerful. They can also fly immense distances. With midair refueling as an option, a C-130 Herc can travel 2,361 miles. 

The C-130 is the backbone of U.S. military operations because of the logistical advantages it provides. The Air Force has judiciously upgraded these important planes to keep up with the changing global threat environment. Currently, the Air Force is on the C-130J Super Hercules variant of its fleet. These planes have advanced navigational systems, greater fuel efficiency, and digitized cockpits, to name just a few advances. 

Even more important for the Air Force is the fact that their C-130 is used by the militaries of multiple allied states. Its simpler design and turboprop engines mean it will remain in use for many years to come. The C-130 is one of the most important planes the Air Force has ever used.

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock.

From the Vault

Russia Freaked Out: Why the U.S. Navy 'Unretired' the Iowa-Class Battleships

Battleship vs. Battlecruiser: Iowa-Class vs. Russia's Kirov-Class (Who Wins?)

« Cette voix, ma voix, vous racontera les faits vécus par celle qui est sortie du même ventre que vous. Donnez-moi du thé pour me réchauffer la langue, fermez la porte pour que mes paroles ne sortent pas d'ici. » Fatima parle à ses sœurs. Elle raconte comment, quand on décide de partir au loin, qu'on (...) / Immigrés, Maroc - 2023/07

Summary and Top Points You Need to Know: Fighter jets are iconic symbols of military aviation, representing cutting-edge technology and air superiority. While many fighters have become legendary, aviation history also includes several poorly designed and underperforming jets. This roundup highlights five of the worst fighter jets: the Yakovlev Yak-38, Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23, Convair F-102 Delta Dagger, Heinkel He 162, and Vought F7U Cutlass.

-These aircraft suffered from issues ranging from poor handling and stability to inadequate power and reliability. Despite their flaws, these jets are a reminder that innovation in aviation is often accompanied by trial and error.

Five of the Worst Fighter Jets in Aviation History: From the Yak-38 to the Gutless Cutlass

The fighter jet might be the most iconic aircraft type in the annals of aviation. When your average civilian thinks of an aircraft, the fighter jet is often the image that appears, with its sleek silhouette, roaring engines, and relative instability.

Fighters have progressed since their introduction over 100 years ago. From the simple biplanes of World War One to supersonic, super-cruising, ultra-maneuverable, stealth-capable fifth-generation fighters, the fighter jet is a constantly evolving concept. It is far more than an aviation icon. It is a foundational weapon, integral to war planning and military force structure. Militaries around the world spend vast percentages of their overall budget on fighter design and development. Indeed, the most expensive weapons system in world history is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Fighter platforms are worth the praise and the military investment, especially top airframes like the F-15 Eagle or the F/A-18 Hornet. But aviation history is littered with botched fighter projects. Let’s consider five of the worst fighters of all time. 

Yakovlev Yak-38

The Soviet Union spent the Cold War competing with the West to develop the most capable military technology. When the British unveiled the Harrier GR.1 in 1967 – a “jump jet” capable of vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) – the Soviets scrambled to counter. Their answer was the Yakovlev Yak-38, a VTOL aircraft that performed relatively well. But the integration of the Yak-38’s rear thrust engine and two lift turbofans made the jet deathly difficult to handle. If either of the lift fans failed, the Yak-38 would spin out of control. And because the lift fans were sensitive to dirt and dust (like the kind found in Afghanistan), the lift fans were prone to failure. 

The Yak-38 was also a tactical failure, with just four hardpoints and an operational range limited to just 320 kilometers. When the Soviet Union fell, the Yak-38 was abandoned, whereas the Harrier is still in service today.

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23

Soviet/Russian aerospace manufacturer Mikoyan-Gurevich has a long history of design accomplishments. The company abbreviation, “MiG,” is synonymous in the West with “enemy aircraft,” and for good reason. But MiG has also produced its fair share of duds.

The MiG-23 was supposed to be another feather in MiG’s cap, like the MiG-15 or the MiG-21 before it. But the sweep-wing MiG-23 proved to be a nightmare, with poor handling, poor stability, and an engine that overheated often and died early.

The MiG-23’s maintenance costs were much higher than expected, and the jet’s combat record much poorer. Deployed in Syria and Iraq, the MiG-23 suffered in encounters against F-4s, F-14s, and F-15s. Even the MiG-21, which the MiG-23 had been designed to replace, bested the MiG-23 in combat. The MiG-23 was unceremoniously retired (except in Syria and North Korea) in favor of the MiG-27.

Convair F-102 Delta Dagger

The Convair F-102 Delta Dagger, part of the “Century Series,” was America’s first all-weather supersonic jet fighter, and the first American fighter to feature a delta wing. Entering service in 1956, problems arose immediately.

The F-102, designed to be a high-speed aircraft, failed to reach Mach 1 – the fuselage had to be redesigned to cope with transonic wave drag. After the redesign, the jet was capable of reaching Mach 1.22, but other issues cropped up, requiring a variety of fixes. The Air Force did not apply uniform fixes to the F-102 fleet, so different F-102s had different capabilities.

The F-102’s biggest problem, however, was its safety rating. Out of the 1,000 F-102s produced, 259 were lost to accidents, resulting in the death of 70 pilots. 

Heinkel He 162

Nazi Germany deserves credit for debuting jet technology with the Messerschmitt Me 262. Late in the war (and late in the regime), the Nazis experimented with a death-gasp effort to produce more fighter jets. The result was the Heinkel He 162, aka the “Volksjager,” or People’s Fighter.

The He 162, like the Volkswagen car, was designed to be built as cheaply as possible, and with semi-skilled labor. Why? Because by the end of the war, the Nazis were struggling to keep their war economy humming; they were essentially depleted. Accordingly, the He 162 was built largely from wood, as metal alloys were unavailable. The design was completed in about two months, and as you might assume, the jet flew poorly. Three-hundred He 162s were rushed into action, but it was far too late. Nazi Germany collapsed and the He 162 faded into obscurity without having made an impact on the war. 

Vought F7U Cutlass

The Vought F7U Cutlass was visually distinct. This was a design from the dawn of the jet age, when designs were not standardized and there was room for experimentation. The F7U was a result of said experimentation: It was tailless, with swept wings.

In my opinion, the F7U is very cool looking, and it marked the first time the Americans had built an aircraft with swept wings and an afterburner. The unusual design offered extraordinary ability and agility, but it suffered from a variety of problems. The engine was underpowered, earning the F7U the nickname “Gutless Cutlass.” Similarly, many of the systems were novel and proved unreliable. A poor safety record inspired pilots to stay away, and the jet was retired in 1959.

About the Author: Harrison Kass, Defense Expert 

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

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.