Diplomacy & Crisis News

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

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

Eurofighter Typhoon initial history and specifications

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

According to the official RAF info page on the Typhoon:

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

The warbird has the following specifications and vital stats:

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

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

Operational history and performance

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

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

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

The Way Forward

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

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

About the Author: Christian D. Orr, Defense Expert

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

Image: Soos Jozsef / Shutterstock.com

/ Nigeria, Capitalisme, Industrie, Entreprise - Afrique / Nigeria, Capitalisme, Industrie, Entreprise - Afrique

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

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

The Rafale: an enduring French legacy

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

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

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

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

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

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

That time a Rafale took on an F-22 and won

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

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

Rafale is a strategic asset for France

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

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

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

Image: Arjan van de Logt / Shutterstock.com

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

Thousands of Losses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Strategic Consequence

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

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

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

Image: Andrii Marushchynets / Shutterstock.com

Are the signs in Eastern Europe pointing to peace? On the surface, one could interpret several recent trends in this way. 

On one hand, Ukraine is under enormous pressure, both on the battlefield and on the international stage. Russian troops are slowly but surely advancing in the Donets Basin and Russian attacks on Ukraine's energy infrastructure are having an ever-stronger effect.

In the United States, President-elect Donald Trump has announced that he wants to end the war as quickly as possible. In Western and Central Eastern Europe, a phalanx of populist parties has emerged, for whom international law, European solidarity, and democratic values, and thus the fate of Ukraine, are of secondary importance at best. 

Not only radical left and right-wingers, but also some centrist politicians, such as German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, are conducting election campaigns as would-be peacemakers, whose level-headedness is allegedly preventing an escalation of the war.

On the other hand, Putin's rule in Russia is coming under economic pressure. Inflation is rising and the ruble is falling. Russia's human and material losses on the Ukrainian front are enormous and Moscow can only partially compensate for them. In the Middle East, South Caucasus, and Central Asia, Russia is being ousted as a power factor, and with that, Putin's reputation as a geopolitical strategist is being lost. 

In both Ukraine and Russia, recent polls now show majorities in favor of a quick ceasefire in the Donets Basin.

Does this finally give Europe a chance to end the war permanently? Hardly, because most of the well-meaning approaches and well-intentioned proposals in this direction lead to deadlocks. 

For one thing, several ceasefire plans and more far-reaching ideas for a settlement do not take into account the involved parties’ basic preferences. They run counter to both, Russia's ambitious hegemonic aspirations and/or Ukraine's fundamental security interests. The echoed statement “Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine” is not only a noble political maxim but also a guarantee of survival for Kyiv. Russia is seeking not only to curtail the Ukrainian nation but to abolish it as an independent cultural community and sovereign nation-state.

On the other hand, many peace projects either consciously or unconsciously develop conflict resolution strategies that imply rewarding Russian military aggression and punishing Ukrainian nuclear abstinence. Similar to the consequences of careless treatment of the natural environment, the international acceptance of a Russian victory in Ukraine would plant a time bomb under the international security system. A partial ceasefire might be possible today for a certain period. 

However, the codification of territorial gains for Russia and/or sovereignty losses for Ukraine would encourage their repetition and imitation by later Russian or other revisionist governments.

Furthermore, a treaty-regulated territorial and/or political reduction of the Ukrainian nation-state would become a warning sign for other countries around the world that are relatively weaker than their neighbors. Whether democratically elected or having come to power undemocratically, many governments would rethink their national security strategies. Regional arms races would be likely, and new atomic weapons programs and an end to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as well as to the conventions on chemical and biological weapons would become a distinct possibility.

Many proponents of a partial capitulation of Ukraine are now posing as friends of peace and opponents of war. However, the price of a Russian Siegfrieden (victorious peace), currently the only possible temporary end to the war, would not only be blatant injustice to Ukraine. It would also mean the undermining of the international system of states.

Mankind would enter a kind of “New Old World”: Borders would again be shifted by the might of the stronger, weaker states would be militarily suppressed by imperial powers, and expansionist governments would commit genocide with impunity. Only those who are willing to pay this high price have the right to demand an end to arms supplies to Ukraine, a reduction of sanctions against Russia, and the transfer of Ukrainian spoils of war to Moscow: occupied territories, deported children, expropriated real estate, etc.

Many apparent friends of peace do not recognize their rhetorical support for Russian imperialists and the warmongers of this world. Most of the alleged war opponents in Europe forget or keep quiet about the fact that they are talking about rewarding a campaign of conquest, thus making future wars more likely. Allowing an aggressor to reap the fruits of his aggression is considered to be de-escalatory, and not a mistaken pacifist strategy that makes new use of force more attractive.

In addition to their ignorance of the high level of collateral damage to the world and the security policy of a Russian victory, many advocates of negotiations suffer from political cretinism regarding Russia’s imperial intentions. Today's Moscow leadership may not yet have fully fascist qualities, but it wants much more than a mere restriction of sovereignty and cession of territory in Ukraine. The ultimate goal is to abolish the independent Ukrainian nation-state as far as possible.

Ukraine is also a political testing ground, geostrategic instrument, military deployment zone, and resource reservoir for Russia in pursuit of its broader goals in Eastern Europe and beyond. Since 2022, both Moscow's hostility and its objectives vis-à-vis the West have steadily expanded. 

The subjugation of Ukraine is now less of a prize than the first step in a fundamental revision of European and world politics that Moscow is seeking. This does not yet mean an immediate continuation of kinetic warfare beyond Ukraine's borders. Moscow's repeated threats against the West with conventional weapons and ones of mass destruction are less-so announcements of action than part of a hybrid toolbox for corroding democratic societies, states, and organizations.

At certain stages, diplomatic activities are also suitable instruments of subversion for Moscow rather than an alternative approach to conflict resolution. 

As the Swedish political scientist Charlotta Rodhe recently put it, the “Russian negotiation theater” has more performative and manipulative than practical functions. A minimal goal of negotiations can be to stall the negotiating partner, and a maximal goal can be to extract concessions that would otherwise have to be won by purely military means. 

Foreign advocates of negotiations today act as welcome "useful idiots" for the Kremlin, facilitating Moscow's hybrid warfare and unconsciously hindering an actual and sustainable peace solution by strengthening Ukraine.

Russia's attack on Ukraine is not only a war of conquest and extermination but also acts as a wedge for Moscow. The debates about helping Ukraine and ending the war are fragmenting Western parties, parliaments, governments, and alliances. The flood of refugees from Ukraine is boosting anti-Western populist parties such as the Alternative for Germany and the Sarah Wagenknecht Union in the Federal Republic of Germany. 

Last but not least, a Russia that conquers Ukraine militarily, diplomatically, or by a combination of the two, would use it as a springboard and resource for Moscow's activities further west, whether kinetic or hybrid.

In particular, European states, but also other Western and non-Western countries, should have a range of national interests in a just peace to end the Russian-Ukrainian war. This will only be possible, however, if there are new successful Ukrainian offensive operations based on good equipment with modern weapons. 

As long as this basic condition is not met, the search for a balance and compromise with Moscow will only further fuel Russia's already adventurous foreign policy ambitions, rather than containing them.

Dr. Andreas Umland is an analyst at the Stockholm Center for Eastern European Studies (SCEEUS) of the Swedish Institute of International Affairs (UI).

Image Credit: Shutterstock.com.

A historian writing about the 2022 war in Ukraine would probably spend a lot of ink and pages on unmanned aerial systems and their impact on the fighting.

Thousands of Drones

Both Russia and Ukraine are using thousands of drones to support their ground forces on a scale never before seen in warfare. The Russian military, in particular, has been heavily relying on the deployment of drones to achieve kinetic results both on the contact line and against Ukrainian urban centers.

For example, in November, the Russian forces launched approximately 2,300 one-way attack drones of varying types against Ukrainian military positions and urban centers. That is a record number of kinetic drone attacks, and the volume of drone attacks keeps increasing every month.

“Monthly [drone attack] numbers have been increasingly consistently throughout 2024, with significant increases—greater than 200 on the previous month—since July 2024,” the British Military Intelligence assessed on Monday.

Equipped with explosive charges of varying destructive capabilities, ranging from grenade- to missile-level, one-way attack drones are very useful and can take out an enemy command and control posts and incapacitate heavy main battle tanks.

“It is likely that through September-November 2024, as many as 50-60% of the total launches were ‘decoy’ [One Way Attack Uncrewed Aerial Systems] OWA UAS,” the British Military Intelligence stated.

But the Ukrainians are also using drones quite effectively. For example, the Ukrainian military has killed and wounded scores of North Korean troops in the Kursk Oblast with suicide drones,

“The rate of increase from October to November dropped in comparison to previous months. December 2024 launch figures show approximately 850 launches so far. However, it is likely that weather has impacted operations in December, evidenced through some nights with significantly larger waves following a period of low or no activity,” the British Military Intelligence stated.

Moscow has received thousands of unmanned aerial systems from Iran, as well as the know-how to replicate Iranian drones in Russia.

“With no impact on launch sites of production, it remains likely that Russia can sustain numbers at least in excess of 1,500 per month. Russian OWA UAS maintain coverage of targets across the entirety of Ukraine, enabling Russia to maintain pressure while allowing Long Range Aviation Missile stocks to replenish,” the British Military Intelligence concluded.

The First Drone War

In many ways, the war in Ukraine is the first drone war. To be sure, unmanned aerial vehicles have been around for decades—the U.S. Intelligence Community and military pioneered their use in intelligence gathering and precision strike missions in the 1990s and 2000s.

But, until the large-scale invasion of Russia in Ukraine, there hadn’t been such a prolific employment of drones by two conventional militaries against one another. Today, in the trenches of Ukraine, ordinary foot soldiers can rely on the support of several drones when advancing or defending, while they have to keep an eye out for enemy surveillance and one-way attack unmanned aerial systems.

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

Image: Drop of Light / Shutterstock.com

Repressive rule is creating a climate of isolation and grievance.

The Russian forces continue to make tactical gains in the direction of Pokrovsk, in the Donbas.

A key point on the Ukrainian defensive line, Pokrovsk is a logistical hub that supports both offensive and defensive operations in the region. The Russian forces have been trying to capture it for months, throwing tens of thousands of troops and thousands of heavy weapon systems against it.

The Fight for Pokrovsk

“Russian forces are gradually advancing south and southwest of Pokrovsk, but it remains unclear if Russian forces will be able to exploit these gains to envelop the town or if they intend to advance to the administrative boundary of Donetsk Oblast,” the Institute for the Study of War assessed in its latest operational estimate of the war in Ukraine.

One of Russia’s main claims in the war is that the Donetsk Oblast should gain its independence (alongside Luhansk, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, and Crimea Oblasts) and secede from Ukraine.  

“It remains unclear which effort the Russian military command will prioritize, as Russian President Vladimir Putin may have tasked the Russian military with securing territorial gains rather than seizing significant settlements,” the Institute for the Study of War added.

But capturing Pokrovsk might not be the Russian military’s ultimate goal. With the prospect of peace negotiations in the background, it is likely that the Kremlin wants more land to strengthen its bargaining power.

“Putin appears to be increasingly characterizing Russian advances in terms of square kilometers instead of highlighting the seizure of particular settlements as he had previously done. Putin may have instructed the Russian military command to delay the seizure of Pokrovsk in favor of making further gains through open fields and small settlements, particularly as Russian forces advance closer to the Donetsk-Dnipropetrovsk Oblast administrative boundary,” the Institute for the Study of War added.

Based in Washington, DC, the think tank has been providing timely and critical analysis on the strategic, operational, and tactical developments of the conflict.

Russian Casualties

Meanwhile, the Russian forces continue to take heavy losses on the ground. Over the past twenty-four hours, the Russian military, paramilitary units, and pro-Russian separatist forces had approximately 1,630 troops killed or wounded in the fighting. In addition, the Russian forces lost approximately forty-seven tactical vehicles and fuel trucks, forty-four unmanned aerial systems, thirty infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, ten artillery pieces and multiple launch rocket launchers, nine main battle tanks, and three pieces of special equipment.

Overall, the Russian forces have lost almost 780,000 troops in the fighting, with approximately 200,000 killed and 580,000 wounded. These casualties reveal the reality of Putin’s disastrous decision to invade Ukraine.

The Russian leader believed that his “special military operation” would last for three days to two weeks. Putin was convinced that his forces would sweep through Ukraine, while a friendly Ukrainian people would welcome them with open arms and flowers. Well, there were arms, but of a different kind than what Putin and his Kremlin advisers expected.

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

Image: Jose HERNANDEZ Camera 51 / Shutterstock.com

Just a few weeks ago, the Atlantic Council posted a caustic headline that bleated, “In a war against China, the US could quickly exhaust its weapons.” Their solution is “A new Indo-Pacific defense initiative.” 

Sadly, the Atlantic Council is only half correct. 

Indeed, had you been reading anything I’ve written for the last three years you’d already know about the staggering drain of critical weapons stores the U.S. military has been made to endure (due to increased demand being met with a hopelessly sclerotic national defense industrial base). 

No more multilateral bureaucracies, please

The solution, contrary to what the bureaucrats in DC think, is not to create more multilateral regional bureaucracies. Already, the attempt to create a “NATO of the Indo-Pacific” in things like the much-ballyhooed Quadrilateral (Quad) partnership consisting of the United States, India, Japan, and Australia or the meandering Australia-United Kingdom-United States (AUKUS) nuclear submarine construction consortium has floundered.

In fact, these attempts at regional defensive alliances, while admirable, are looking as wasteful as the old Southeast Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO) alliance that the Americans crafted during the Cold War.

America’s problem is not a lack of allies in the region. Nor is its problem a lack of multilateral bureaucracy that mirrors the byzantine (and outdated) NATO alliance in Europe. The quandary America faces is simple: its defense industrial base, especially its military shipyards, is broken. Pouring more money into the industrial base is not the solution. We’re so far beyond that, it’s not even funny. 

Washington needs to ask itself: why, precisely, was the United States able to create all these complex, multilateral regional alliances in the previous century? 

Restoring America’s dying industry and failing economy must be the priority

It was industrial might and economic heft. America’s industries today are, as noted, shells of their former selves. Shipyards cannot keep up with existing demand, let alone meet the increased demand of wartime that would inevitably occur within a few weeks of any major great state conflict. 

More importantly, the overall industrial base cannot reliably keep the U.S. military (or its allies) supplied under present conditions. Should a general war erupt between the United States and a near-peer competitor, such as China, the Americans will be gutted. 

With a new administration set to take power soon, regardless of which candidate wins this Tuesday, the new government in Washington must prioritize getting its industrial base in order—no matter the burden or the cost. 

At the same time, with the rise of the so-called “BRICS” bloc (it’s really just a Chinese-led Eurasian geoeconomic counterweight to the United States), with the U.S. economy sputtering along, and a Greek-style debt crisis appearing to be at hand (regardless of who wins the White House), the U.S. economy is nowhere near as attractive as it was a century ago when things like NATO were founded. 

Even if the United States can somehow avoid a massive debt crisis in the next decade, the BRICS challenge to the U.S. dollar is real. And that means America’s massive debt—as well as its profligate deficit spending—is enough to weaken the American ability to attract allies in their bid to counter China.

Here’s why nuclear war is a real threat

What this means is that, as the Chinese and Americans inch closer to war, with America’s conventional strength waning and China’s rising, the prospect of nuclear war increases exponentially.

For example, the United States will find itself likely boxed out of the critical strategic area of the South China Sea under current conditions. Whatever may happen in the long run, the Americans will be hard-pressed to break into any region that China is contesting due to Beijing’s relative military superiority in that area of operation.

And should China be foolish enough to open any potential war on Taiwan with a series of surprise attacks on U.S. military facilities throughout the Indo-Pacific (such as Guam) or by attacking, and possibly sinking, U.S. aircraft carriers, the chance for uncontrolled escalation into nuclear warfare is very real, particularly due to the aforementioned limits of America’s conventional forces today.

If, however, the Chinese can contain their rage and keep things just below the threshold of war, the prospects of nuclear warfare diminish. Neither Donald Trump nor Kamala Harris will risk war with China, especially nuclear war, if U.S. assets are not attacked by Chinese forces. This is why a blockade against Taiwan is China’s most likely move. It delays and stymies the American military response while giving Beijing’s forces escalation dominance in the near term. 

The way forward (not war)

Instead of building more and more alliances, the Americans should spend the next decade engaged in realistic diplomacy while doing whatever it takes to enhance the country’s defense industrial base, its indigenous human capital base, its ailing infrastructure, its domestic industries, and restoring trust as well as confidence in its failing institutions. 

Once that is achieved, the Americans will again be on top of the world, as there is simply no other regime out there capable of competing with a restored America governed according to its constitution.

To better defend Taiwan and defeat China, America must nation-build at home.

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

Image: Shutterstock.

To most naval history buffs, the term “battlecruiser” evokes thoughts of warships of a bygone era, an era that ended with World War II and was arguably most famously represented by the pride of Britain’s Royal Navy at the time, the HMS Hood (Pennant No. 51). To Star Trek fans, meanwhile, the term is more likely to conjure up the image of a fearsome future spaceship that enforces the will of the Klingon Empire.

Whether one chooses to interpret it as a throwback to the past or as going “Back to the Future” (sorry, I couldn’t resist using a second sci-fi franchise reference here), the only remaining nation in the world using battlecruisers is Russia. Say “Privyet (Hello)” to the Kirov-class battlecruisers.

What Exactly Is a Battlecruiser?

For present-day contextual purposes, the Naval Encyclopedia roughly defines “battlecruiser” thusly:

“If the term ‘battlecruiser’ is frequently use by historians to describe them, both official records and NATO designations only mentions ‘heavy missile cruisers’. The only ship for the USN that could roughly match this was the unique 1960 USS Long Beach, matching its superior radar and command capabilities, nuclear power, but its missile armament and overall displacement and size did not matched [sic] the Soviet ships. None of the subsequent cruiser [sic] ever arrived close, especially not the almiost [sic]-contemporary Ticonderoga class, which were more destroyers with more advanced capabilities. The last true USN cruisers were the West Virginias in the 1970s. They were half the tonnage of a Kirov.”

From there, we get some early history in addition to technical context:

“Heavy nuclear missile cruisers of project 1144 ‘Orlan’—a series of Soviet/Russian multi-purpose steam/nuclear (CONAS) guided missile cruisers for oceanic operations and fleet coordination, built at the Baltic Shipyard from 1973 to 1996: Kirov, Admiral Lazarev, Admiral Nakhimov and Peter the Great. Chief designer was B. I. Kupensky. The end design became the largest and most powerful non-aircraft carrier combat surface ships with nuclear power plant [sic] in the world, and record holder in terms of armament. According to NATO classification, the project received soon the term “battlecruiser” due to its huge size, armor and powerful armament, but it still remained a ‘large missile cruiser’ in the Soviet inventory. As of 2020, only one, Peter the Great is operational, while ‘Admiral Nakhimov’ is under modernization, expected completion in late 2023.”

Kirov-Class Battlecruiser Additional Early History and Specifications

As already indicated, the Kirov—named for Bolshevik revolutionary and Joseph Stalin toady Sergei Mironovich Kirov (March 27, 1886—December 1, 1934) —was the lead ship of the class laid down on March 27, 1974, launched on December 26, 1977, and commissioned on December 30, 1980 (coincidentally a mere three weeks of the inauguration of U.S President Ronald Wilson Reagan, who would initiate a foreign policy that would accelerate the collapse of the Soviet Union).

The Kirov and her sister ships bore/bear the following specifications and vital stats:

• Displacement: 28,000 tons fully laden
• Hull length: 252 m (827 ft)
• Beam Width: 28.5 m (94 ft))
• Draft: 9.1 m (30 ft)
• Propulsion: 2-shaft CONAS, nuclear propulsion with steam turbine boost; 140,000 shp
• Max speed: 32 knots (59 km/h; 36 mph)
• Crew Complement: 727 core crew of commissioned officers and enlisted sailors; eighteen aircrew, fifteen flagstaff
• Armament:    
  
  • 2 × AK-100 100 mm (3.9 in)/L60 DP guns.
  • 8 × AK-630 hex Gatling 30 mm/L60 PD guns            
  • twenty P-700 Granit (SS-N-19 Shipwreck) antiship missiles
  • 12 × 8 (96) SA-N-6 Grumble (S-300PMU) surface-to-air missiles (SAMs)

NOTE: For the basis of comparison & contrast, World War II battlecruiser HMS Hood had a hull length of 860 ft 7 in (262.3 m), a displacement of 47,430 tons, and packed a main armament of eight 15-in (381 mm) guns and a secondary armament of fourteen 4-inch (102 mm) guns.

Operational History and Current Performance Issues

The Kirovs were originally conceived to counter the U.S. Navy’s submarines with its large payload of SS-N-14 anti-submarine missiles, and were later intended to operate alongside prospective nuclear-powered aircraft carriers for global power projection—but that never came to fruition (and we all know what a sick joke the Russians’ lone aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, has turned out to be). Meanwhile, in a classic example of the Law of Unintended Consequences, the commissioning of the Kirovs spurred the U.S. Navy into recommissioning its Iowa-class battleships (true, old-school battleships with the 16-inch guns to prove it).

The Kirov class has turned out to have a pretty inauspicious past and present. My colleague Brandon J. Weichert elaborates in a September 13, 2024 article for The National Interest titled “Russia’s Kirov-Class Nuclear-Powered Battlecruiser ‘Has Outlived Its Usefulness’”:

“The Kirov-class battlecruisers played a major role in the Cold War, projecting Soviet power in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Their operational history has been marred by several incidents and accidents, including the accidental explosion of the Kirov’s nuclear reactor in 1990, which, naturally, led to its decommissioning … Due to their age and operational limitations, these warships have seen limited deployment in recent years, reducing their overall utility to the Russian Navy—especially in a time of war. Russia needs every platform it can get. The Kirov-class battlecruiser simply doesn’t deliver.”

About the Author: Christian D. Orr, Defense Expert

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

Image: Shutterstock

According to Harrison Kass, “The State Department has approved the sale of Boeing’s new F-15EX to Israel. The $18 billion sale consists of 50 brand new F-15EXs and upgrades to 25 existing Israeli F-15s.” But the probability that Boeing can deliver on this order is very much in doubt, especially in the wake of all the problems the corporation has struggled with—both in its civil aviation division as well as its spaceflight department.

Clearly, there are systemic problems within the company and the Israelis should be questioning the wisdom of their decision to purchase these systems from the embattled American aerospace firm.

The strategic stakes 

Israel has been engaged in a massive regional war since the horrific Iran-backed Hamas terrorist attacks on October 7, 2023. From the Gaza Strip to Syria to Lebanon—and even Iran itself—Israeli forces have been engaged in round-the-clock conflict in an attempt to crush Hamas and prevent future rounds of terrorism from these malign actors.

As Israel’s closest ally, the United States continues to provide unfettered aid to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). This, of course, has come with its own bit of controversy in the West, in which many have come out against Israel for its military action.

So, not only is Israel entering into an agreement with a very weak Boeing but it is, more generally, relying upon a United States that has become more skeptical of its alliance with Israel. It’s not a tenable scenario. What’s more, it’s not even a good move.

The F-15 in general is a phenomenal American warplane, and the F-15EX Eagle II promises to be an extraordinary platform. Its designers have dubbed it a “fourth-generation+” bird. Others, meanwhile, have described the F-15EX as a flying “missile truck” because of its impressive armaments package.

Yet, the F-15EX is still a fourth-generation warplane in an era when fifth-generation warplanes are already flying.

Israel needs fifth-generation warplanes 

For instance, the Israelis possess a force of specialized F-35 Lightning II planes (the F-35I). These birds were used with great success against distant Houthi targets in Yemen. However, there is now grave concern that the recent Iranian missile attack against the Nevatim Air Base in Israel where many of these units were housed may have either damaged or destroyed the F-35I arsenal (this is heavily disputed by Israeli sources).

Even if these claims that the F-35Is were damaged are true, Israel should take the time and spend the money to reconstitute that force as it is far more capable than the F-15EX.

Further, Israel should insist that America sell its vaunted F-22A Raptor to the Israelis. There are a few reasons why this hasn’t yet happened. The first is that the U.S. Congress will not allow the F-22 to be sold to any foreign power because it is so much more advanced than anything else in the world. The second reason is that the production line supporting the F-22 was canceled prematurely in 2010 by former President Barack Obama for budgetary reasons.

Selling this system to Israel, though, would allow for that production line (a costly affair) to be reconstituted—at cost. Plus, the Israelis would have decisive advantages over their regional foes if they had a force, however small, of F-22s at their disposal. This would put the Israelis light-years ahead of their regional foes and make them more dependent on the United States at a time when Israeli leaders have reason to question the sustainability of their country’s relationship with the United States.

There’s a problem

Boeing is having trouble fulfilling the order of F-15EXs. At two per month, for an order of fifty, the war might be over before that force is fully prepared for war. If that’s the case, it begs the question as to why the Israelis would even waste their time (and money) on a system that is inherently less capable than either of America’s two fifth-generation warplanes. Israel should either buy more F-35s from the United States or use all its diplomatic leverage and economic incentives to induce Washington to sell Tel Aviv the F-22.

The F-15EX Eagle II is simply not worth the time, money, or effort that Israel is putting into purchasing the system at this critical juncture for the tiny country.

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

Image: Shutterstock.

Pity the poor Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fifth-generation stealth fighter. This latest & greatest brainchild of Lockheed Martin’s legendary “Skunk Works” division just can’t seem to escape controversy, in terms of reliability issues and seemingly never-ending cost overruns. At least the ones owned by the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. By contrast, the Israeli Air Force (Zroa HaAvir VeHahalal) pilots have used their F-35I Adir (“Mighty One”) in combat multiple times quite successfully, and multiple Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) officers whom I’ve interviewed on the subject (including Air Commodore Angus Porter, the air attache for the Australian Embassy in the United States) have told me straight up, “We love them!”

That said, the latest stateside kvetch about the F-35 is the relative lack of proverbial “bang for the buck” relative to its exorbitant cost, or more literally, the mileage that this controversial warbird generates relative to the U.S. taxpayer dollars spent on it. Let us explore this further, shall we?

The Latest Growing Pains

The crux of the story comes courtesy of my colleague Maya Carlin, in an October 20, 2024 article for The National Interest titled “The Navy’s F-35 Has an Embarrassing Flaw It Would Rather Not Admit”:

“The F-35C variant offers a combat radius of 600 nautical miles [690 mi; 1,111 km], slightly surpassing the F/A-18 Super Hornet’s 570 nautical miles for air-to-air missions. However, its reduced payload and reliance on carriers for refueling require carriers to operate closer to adversaries, exposing them to advanced Chinese A2/AD [Anti-Access/Area Denial] systems with missiles reaching 2,200 nautical miles [2,531 mi; 4.074 km].”

To put that fuel inefficiency in a dollars & sense perspective, the approximate unit cost of an F-35 is $109 million; which equates to $181,666,666 per nautical mile. (Boy, and you thought gas prices for automobiles were bad enough!)

Head-to-Head with Other Stealth Fighters

To put the Lightning II’s range shortcomings in numerical perspective, let’s see how it compares with the ranges of other fifth-generation fighters, both foreign and domestic:

• Lockheed Martin (Skunk Works again) F-22 Raptor (USA): Ferry range of 1,600 nmi (1,800 mi, 3,000 km) or more with 2 external fuel tanks; a combat range of 460 nmi (530 mi, 850 km) clean with 100 nmi (115 mi; 185 km) in supercruise, 595 nmi (685 mi; 1,102 km) in so-called “clean subsonic” mode
• Chengdu J-20 Weilong (“Mighty Dragon”; NATO reporting name “Fagin”; China): Ferry range of 5,500 km (3,400 mi; 3,000 nmi) with 2 external fuel tanks; a combat range of 2,000 km (1,200 mi, 1,100 nmi)
• Sukhoi Su-57 (NATO reporting name “Felon”; Russia): 3,500 km (2,200 mi, 1,900 nmi) subsonic, 4,500 km (2,796 mi; 2,429 nmi) from 2 outboard fuel tanks; 1,500 km (930 mi; 810 nmi) at supersonic speed

The Way Forward?

In spite of all of these controversies, the F-35 continues to attract foreign military sales (FMS) customers who continue to line up in droves to buy the fighter. Besides the aforementioned RAAF and Israeli Air Force, the following foreign entities have enthusiastically purchased the fighter:

-Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF); twelve F-35As delivered, according to the World Directory of Modern Military Aircraft (WDMMA; using 2021 figures), with an additional 134 airframes on order

-Belgian Air Component (Luchtcomponent); one F-35A delivered out of thirty-four ordered

-Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF); eighty-eight F-35As, with deliveries taking place from

-Royal Danish Air Force (Flyvevåbnet); ten F-35As delivered out of twenty-seven ordered

-Finnish Air Force (Ilmavoimat); sixty-four F-35As ordered as of 2022

-German Air Force (Luftwaffe); thirty-five F-35A ordered as of 2023

-Hellenic (Greek) Air Force (Polemikí Aeroporía); twenty F-35As on order, with delivery expected between late 2027 to early 2028 from 2026 to 2032

-Italian Air Force (Aeronautica Militare) and Navy (Marina Militare); ninety F-35As and F-35Bs delivered, with an additional twenty-five on the way

-Royal Netherlands Air Force (RNoAF; Luftforsvaret); forty F-35As delivered

-Polish Air Force (Siły Powietrzne); thirty-two F-35A “Husarz” ordered, with deliveries starting sometime this year and concluding in 2030

-Republic of Korea Air Force (ROKAF; Daehanminguk Gong-gun) and Navy (ROKN; Daehan-minguk Haegun); twenty F-35Bs planned

-Republic of Singapore Air Force; twelve F-35Bs on order as of February 2024 with first four specimens to be delivered in 2026

-Swiss Air Force (Forces aeriennes suisses); thirty-six F-35As ordered, with deliveries commencing in 2027 and culminating in 2030

-United Kingdom Royal Air Force (RAF) and Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm; thirty-four F-35Bs delivered, 138 more on order

Meanwhile, the Czech Air Force, Romanian Air Force (RoAF; Forțele Aeriene Romane), and Portuguese Air Force are all in the process of finalizing F-35 purchase deals.

All in all, not too shabby for such a seemingly overpriced and fuel-inefficient, short-range warbird, eh?

About the Author:

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

Image: Shutterstock.

If the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 taught us one thing (or should have) it was that the United States is far too reliant on China for its most basic supplies. Everything from antibiotics to car parts to syringes—and almost everything else we take for granted today—mostly is derived from supply chains emanating in the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) that rules China with an iron fist knows this weakness and has plans to exploit it when a geopolitical crisis erupts between Washington and Beijing (which is coming sooner than most realize).

Despite knowing about this weakness for decades, and that weakness being laid bare for the world to see during the pandemic years ago, Washington has done little more than pay lip service to the need for diversifying America’s supply chains. There have been some moves to detach U.S. supply chains from China. But those movements are minuscule compared to the kind of drastic action that is required to overcome this supply chain vulnerability.

Trade Vulnerabilities 

Now, it might be too late to mitigate these vulnerabilities with a geopolitical crisis so close at hand. Should a conflict erupt between China and the United States, America would find itself cut off from those basic goods that the civilian economy—and even the U.S. military—relies upon. Expect antibiotic shortages, complications to basic consumer goods, food supply shortages, and even aircraft part cutoffs to utterly decimate the U.S. economy.

The United States has never experienced a situation like this. It would be the equivalent of what Germany went through during Britain’s blockade of the country during World War I (and that’s a best-case scenario). No one is prepared. Just look at what happened recently with the potential port worker’s strike that was narrowly averted. Had that gone through as planned, life in the United States would have ground down to a halt.

A war with China, in which Beijing eviscerated the supply chains leading back to America, would be like that.

Americans would struggle to find basic supplies. Prices would go up as would inflation. Most experts believe that the United States would enter a “long depression” if the supply chains linking the United States and China together were severed due to a war between the two great powers.

Americans are barely getting by today as it is. 

A war with China would utterly collapse the economic order here in the United States. What’s more, it’d further destabilize the social and political order, leading to even greater levels of domestic extremism from both sides of the political aisle (further weakening the United States globally).

As of 2023, China was ranked as the world’s top exporter. Most sources believe that China exported around $3.73 trillion worth of goods globally. In fact, that was widely considered to be a 4.6 percent increase in the exportation of goods since 2021 for Chinese firms. According to the Observatory of Economic Complexity, from 2017-2022, China’s reported exports have steadily increased, indicating a clear trend. 

China’s top trading partner is the United States, which accounts for around $551 billion of Chinese exports. So, any severing of trade ties due to a war with America would harm Beijing, too. Yet, China’s deft moves to shore up new alliances with the Global South under the imprimatur of the informal BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) economic alliance is likely an attempt by Beijing to open new markets for the inevitable day when they can no longer trade with the United States.

Meanwhile, the United States exported $2.3 trillion worth of goods to the world, with Canada being the largest recipient of US goods. Although, 55 percent of essential goods for Americans are produced by China, which means that China severing ties will have a disproportionately negative impact on the United States. 

Avoid a crisis in the near term

All this, of course, would impact the war effort in any potential conflict with China. But China’s ability to shift exports to the Global South will play a decisive role in ameliorating any economic damage from the war. 

Certainly, it’d be devastating for China’s economy in the near term. The real question is: how devastating would it be for America’s? It is my opinion that, in the near term, the damage to America would be far greater than it would be to China.

The best solution is for cooler heads to prevail and to avoid this outcome for as long as possible—all while following the recommendations of people like former U.S. trade representative Robert Lighthizer to make ourselves as free of Chinese trade as possible in the long run. 

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.

Image: Paul R. Jones / Shutterstock.com

The presidency of James Earl “Jimmy” Carter Jr., from January 20, 1977, to January 20, 1981, was not a particularly happy or prestigious period in the history of the United States of America. In terms of domestic affairs (stagflation, “malaise,” “misery index“) and foreign affairs (the Iran hostage crisis, especially the tragically abortive military rescue operation, Operation Eagle Claw AKA Desert One), Americans had a rough time.

However, in the spirit of being fair & balanced, then-President Carter did have his accomplishments too, particularly the Camp David Peace Accords of 1979. Moreover, he did serve honorably as a U.S. Navy officer, graduating with the U.S. Naval Academy class of 1947 (ranking sixtieth out of a class of 821 midshipmen), earning a commission as an ensign, and serving seven years of active duty and an additional seven years in the Naval Reserve as a submarine officer under the hard-charging, take-no-prisoners Admiral Hyman G. Rickover. So then, perhaps it is fitting that a U.S. Navy submarine bears Carter’s name. Say hello to the USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23).

USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23) Early History and Specifications

USS Jimmy Carter is a nuclear-powered general-purpose attack submarine, hence the U.S. Navy hull classification of “SSN.” As noted by USCarriers:

“The Jimmy Carter (SSN 23) is the third and last Seawolf-class submarine and the first ship of the U.S. Navy named in honor of the 39th president of the United States who is the only submarine-qualified man that went on to become the nation’s chief executive. He was the nuclear engineer officer on the Pre-Commissioning Unit Seawolf (SSN 575) in the 1950s.”

Built by General Dynamics Electric Boat (GDEB), SSN-23 was ordered on June 29, 1996 (coincidentally just before the 1996 Summer Olympics commenced in Atlanta, a city in Carter’s home state of Georgia), laid down on December 5, 1998, launched on May 13, 2004, christened on June 5, 2004, and commissioned on February 19, 2005. The warship bears the following specifications and vital stats:

· Displacement: 12,139 tons fully laden

· Hull length: 138 m (452.8 ft) overall

· Beam Width: 12.1 m (39.7 ft)

· Draft: 10.9 m (35.8 ft)

· Propulsion: 1x S6W PWR 220 MW (300,000 hp), HEU 93.5%, 1x secondary propulsion submerged motor, 2x steam turbines 57,000 shp (43 MW), 1x shaft,1x pump-jet propeller

· Max Speed (submerged): greater than 25 knots (46 km/h; 28.7 mph)

· Test Depth: 490 m (1,600 ft)

· Crew Complement: 15 commissioned officers, 126 enlisted seamen

· Armament: 8× 26.5 inch torpedo tubes, sleeved for 21-inch weapons (up to 50 Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles/Harpoon anti-ship missiles/Mk 48 Advanced Capability (ADCAP) heavyweight guided torpedoes carried in torpedo room)

In addition, the Jimmy Carter was fitted with a special 100-foot-long, 2,500-ton module called the Multi-Mission Platform. The U.S. Navy acknowledged that the MMP space can accommodate undersea drones, SEALs, and much more.

Operational History

USS Jimmy Carter’s active-duty career got off to a rather inauspicious start: on October 14, 2005, the submarine was en route from Naval Submarine Base New London, Connecticut, to its new homeport at the Bangor Annex of Naval Base Kitsap, Washington, when it was forced to return to New London when an unusually high wave damaged the boat. Luckily, the damage was repaired quickly, and the big sub re-departed New London the following day, finally making port at Bangor the afternoon of November 9, 2005.

Soon enough, the former POTUS’s namesake would make history in a more positive fashion, albeit in a mission whose specifics are still shrouded in secrecy. My colleague Peter Suciu elaborates in a September 9, 2024 article for The National Interest:

“Yet, the submarine has been seen returning to port flying the ‘skull and crossbones,’ a tradition among submarine crews that its mission was conducted successfully. The boat has Battle Efficiency awards and a Presidential Unit Citation, suggesting it has conducted some important – and likely even dangerous – missions. This may have included tapping undersea fiber-optic communications and conducting intelligence-gathering missions.

We may not know what missions the boat was involved in, but it should be noted that the motto of the USS Jimmy Carter is ‘Semper Optima’ (‘Always the Best’) – and it certainly does seem to be very good at what it does.”

Where Are They Now?

“They” as in the vessel and its real-life, flesh & blood namesake, that is.

SSN-23 remains in active service, homeported at the Bangor Annex of Naval Base Kitsap in the State of Washington.

As for former President Carter himself, he’s still alive and recently celebrated his one-hundredth birthday. However, he’s in poor physical health; on February 18, 2023, the Carter Center (located in Atlanta) announced that following a “series of short hospital stays,” the former POTUS decided to “spend his remaining time at home with his family in Plain, George, to “receive hospice care instead of additional medical intervention” for an unspecified terminal illness.

Godspeed, Mr. President.

About the Author:

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

Image: DVIDS

One hundred and ten years ago, during what was to become the bloodiest conflict the world had seen to that point, the fighting stopped for Christmas. It wasn’t planned, but on the evening of December 24, 1914, the guns along the Western Front were mostly silent, and fittingly, “Silent Night”—or “Stille Nacht” in German—was heard being sung on both sides of the lines.

The First World War had begun less than six months before, but soldiers on both sides of the lines had already dug into trench warfare. Winter had arrived, and military planners looked to spring to break the stalemate.

At that point, the horrors of gas warfare, constant artillery barrages, and futile attacks across no-man’s-land had yet to be seen in full. However, there were already trench lines running nearly from the English Channel to the Swiss border that stopped any forward movement.

Silent Night

As both sides didn’t expect an attack at Christmas, the guns fell silent until the singing started. Soldiers stopped shooting, and on Christmas morning, some soldiers came out of the trenches waving white flags.

However, the celebrations weren’t as widespread as contemporary media depictions may suggest. Yet, they took on something of a legend.

Today, there is a common image—thanks to the stories that came about ten years ago to mark the centennial of the truce in 2014—of soldiers crossing no man’s land to greet one another. The irony is that while it has been written about countless times in the past century, during the war, the military leaders of the UK, France, and Germany attempted to keep a tight lid on the news getting out.

The last thing any commanders wanted was for their respective soldiers to suddenly have the desire to stop fighting and make a de facto peace with the enemy.

Any mention of the truce went largely unreported for more than a week. It was only on New Year’s Eve that The New York Times reported that an unofficial truce had broken out. Moreover, accounts only circulated as families at home found out, not through the daily newspapers but from firsthand accounts in letters from the front lines. The British newspapers, The Mirror and Sketch, eventually printed front-page photographs of the soldiers mingling.

The French press all but blocked the truce, confirming only that it was limited to the British sectors—which it was not—and that it was short-lived, which it largely was. While not as common as in the British sectors, there were accounts of it occurring with some French and Belgian soldiers taking part.

Coverage in Germany was as muted, but when it was reported, it openly criticized those taking part. That fact isn’t surprising as Germany, at that point, believed itself to be winning, having conquered most of Belgium and made significant inroads into France.

That, too, may explain why the French and Belgians were less eager than their British allies to participate. Soldiers from those countries were less likely to shake hands with the invaders of their homelands!

How The Myth Took Hold Like many myths, the truce became larger than life in the years after the war. The first fictionalized account was the 1933 German play Petermann schließt Frieden oder Das Gleichnis vom deutschen Opfer (Petermann Makes Peace). Written by war veteran Heinz Steguweit, who was an early member of the Nazi Party, the play was far from uplifting as it ended with a German soldier shot dead by a sniper while singing Christmas carols!

However, the Nazis also stamped out any attempt to acknowledge it occurred, and with the clouds of war on the horizon, few wanted to remember even one happy moment where peace broke out.

The Christmas Truce of 1914 was chronicled briefly in the 1969 musical satire Oh! What a Lovely War.

A similar scene served as the backdrop for Paul McCartney’s 1983 music video “Pipes of Peace,” in which the former Beatle played both a British and German soldier who meet in no man’s land. The video was noted for offering a fairly accurate depiction of the trenches at that stage in the war. The song wasn’t released as a single in the U.S. but did reasonably well in the UK charts, reaching the number one spot for two weeks.

The video inspired a 2014 ad campaign from the UK-based Sainsbury grocery store, which was released to mark the centennial of the truce. The campaign featured British and German soldiers singing “Silent Night” before both teams shook hands, played football, and stopped fighting. 

The 2005 French film Joyeux Noël is most notable for depicting the events from the perspective of German, Scottish, and French soldiers. While it is heavily fictionalized, it also offers a realistic look at the situation in December 1914.

The Legacy of the Truce

Sadly, the war didn’t end on December 25, 1914. Moreover, the worst was yet to come—those artillery duels, mustard gas, and senseless offensives. It wouldn’t be until 1918 that the guns would fall silent, and there was peace on the Western Front.

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 and over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

Image: Lucas Alvarez Canga / Shutterstock.com. 

“Well, I’m a Son of Satan’s Angels/And I fly the F-4D/All the way from the Hanoi railroad bridge to the DMZ/I’m one of ol’ Hoot Gibson’s boys and mean as I can be/I’m a Son of Satan’s Angels and I fly the F-4D”—Dick Jonas, Lt. Col, USAF (Ret.), former Vietnam War F-4 Phantom II pilot turned professional singer

Even if the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom weren’t immortalized in song by the people who flew her, she would still go down in history as arguably the single best and most famous third-generation jet fighter.

(NOTE: McDonnell Douglas merged with Boeing in 1997; however, unlike, say, the merger of Lockheed with Martin Marietta to form Lockheed Martin in 1995, or the 1994 merger of Northrop and Grumman to form Northrop Grumman, only one of the predecessor companies’ names, i.e. Boeing’s, was retained.)

F-4E early history and specifications

The F-4 Phantom made her maiden flight on May 27, 1958, and officially entered into operational service with the U.S. Navy in 1961, with the Air Force and Marine Corps following suit shortly thereafter.

Nomenclature-wise, the Phantom II was the "sequel" (in a manner of speaking) to the short-lived 1940s vintage FH Phantom, which made history in her own right during her brief service life as both the first U.S. jet aircraft to take off from and land on an aircraft carrier. Subsequently, it became the first U.S. jet fighter in operational service with both the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps.

The F-4E was the last variant of the venerable Phantom to be built, produced between 1965 and 1973. The F-4E has the following specifications and vital stats:

·        Fuselage Length: 63 ft 0 in (19.2 m)

·        Wingspan: 38 ft 5 in (11.7 m)

·        Height: 16 ft 5 in (5 m)

·        Max Takeoff Weight: 61,795 lb (28,030 kg)

·        Max Airspeed: Mach 2.23 (1,280 kn; 1,470 mph; 2,370 km/h)

·        Service Ceiling: 60,000 ft (18,000 m)

·        Combat Range: 370 nmi (420 mi, 680 km)

·        Armament: 20 mm (0.787 in) M61A1 Vulcan cannon mounted internally under the nose, 640 rounds; Up to 18,650 lb. (8,480 kg) of ordnance on nine external hardpoints; 4× AIM-9 Sidewinder (U.S. versions) or Python-3 (Israeli Kurnass version) air-to-air missiles on wing pylons

Regarding the Phantom II’s combination of speed and weight, Vietnam veteran pilot Dick Anderegg joked that this overgrown speed demon provided “proof that if you put enough thrust behind a brick you can make it fly” (a comment echoed by Dick Jonas in his book RBAAB: The Red-Blooded All-American Boy). She set a whopping sixteen world speed and altitude records between 1959 and 1962; five of those records would stand until the F-15 Eagle—another McDonnell Douglas product—came along in 1975.

Operational History (In Brief)

The Phantom II served the United States Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps faithfully from the Vietnam War in the mid-1960s and early 1970s all the way to the 1991 Persian Gulf War AKA Operation Desert Storm (with the F-4G Wild Weasel V variant providing the warbird’s aerial combat swan song [bad pun intended]).

During the Vietnam War in particular, after initially starting off behind the power curve against North Vietnamese MiG-17 “Frescoes” and MiG-21 “Fishbeds” (thanks to the ridiculous rules of engagement imposed by President Lyndon B. Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara), USAF F-4 MiG Combat Air Patrol (MiGCAP) missions ended up with a far more desirable 5.5:1 kill ratio while their USN counterparts finished with an even more impressive 6.4:1 figure.

The venerable fighter-bomber also acquitted herself in aerial combat at the hands of the Israeli Air Force during multiple Arab-Israeli conflicts including the War of Attrition (July 1967-August 7, 1970) and the Yom Kippur War of 1973, before being finally retired by the Israeli Air Force in 2004. Renamed the Kurnass (“Sledgehammer”), Israeli Air Force Kurmass drivers ended up hammering 116.5 enemy aircraft out of the sky. 

Where Are They Now?

There are now a total of three remaining users of the Phantom: NATO members and therefore American allies Greece and Turkey (though Turkey’s status as a U.S. ally nowadays is only nominal at best)…and, ironically, Iran, one of the worst enemies of the U.S. and Israel alike, which dubs America and Israel as “The Great Satan” and “Little Satan” respectively. (I was going to include South Korea on this list, but upon further review, it turns out that the Republic of Korea Air Force retired its Phantoms this past June.)

According to the World Directory of Modern Military Aircraft, the Hellenic Air Force, Turkish Air Force, and the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force (IRIAF) have a total of thirty-three, forty-eight, and sixty-three Phantoms; all three of these users have the RF-4E all-weather tactical reconnaissance variant, and the Iranian air for e also has some F-4Ds and F-4Es in service.

In the case of the Iranians, the jets are holdovers from happier times when Iran was still under the rule of Mohammed Reza Shah, a staunch ally of both the United States and Israel. Iran continues to fly the Phantom due to the fact that international arms sanctions have made finding more modern replacement warbirds rather difficult. The IRIAF has certainly continued to make judicious use of the F-4E in combat; BBC News reports the Iranians used the planes in combat as recently as 2014, in strikes against the Islamic State terrorist group. 

About the Author

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

Image: Giannis Papanikos / Shutterstock.com

A month ago, tech entrepreneur Elon Musk made very clear in a post on X that he wasn’t a supporter of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. Musk shared a video of a Chinese drone formation and offered his opinion, “Meanwhile, some idiots are still building manned fighter jets like the F-35.”

That sparked a backlash from the aviation community, which defended the fifth-generation stealth fighter and argued that while drones are likely part of the future of military aviation, it is unlikely they could replace the role of the jet fighter in modern warfare.

Lockheed Martin UK Responds

Earlier this week, Paul Livingston, chief executive of Lockheed Martin’s UK division (the F-35’s manufacturer), also defended the F-35 in an interview with The Telegraph newspaper.

He told the publication of record, “I think Elon is an amazing brain and he’s done some incredible things, particularly with SpaceX. Who doesn’t admire that stuff? But there’s an understanding of the threat that he won’t have, because he doesn’t have the clearances to understand that. On this subject, he’s wrong.”

Thus, as Livingston suggested, Musk’s opinion of the fighter may be based largely on open-source and public information. That fact isn’t likely to change.

Even as the billionaire behind SpaceX has become a close ally of President-elect Donald Trump, Musk is unlikely to receive a higher security clearance due to his admission of past drug use. Musk is reported to hold a “top-secret” clearance, which has taken years to obtain.

Are Other “Idiots” Building Manned Fighters?

Livingston further defended the F-35—widely seen as the most successful fifth-generation fighter built to date, with more than 1,000 now in service around the world—and pointed out that Beijing is building its own stealth fighter.

This could beg the question of whether there are “idiots” in Beijing and Moscow pushing for manned fighters. If the United States were on the wrong path, perhaps Beijing wouldn’t have pulled out all the stops at last month’s fifteenth China International Aviation and Aerospace Exhibition in Zhuhai, where it unveiled the twin-seat variant of its Chengdu J-20 Mighty Dragon stealth fighter, known as the J-20S.

The event also saw the debut of the Shenyang J-35A, a carrier-based variant of the FC-31, further showcasing China’s growing fifth-generation aircraft capabilities.

“The Chinese are still building their J20 jets,” Livingston noted. “Maybe Elon thinks they’re idiots as well because those are manned fighters?”

Four F-35s Can Do A Squadron’s Worth of Work

The Lockheed Martin executive also highlighted the capabilities of the Lightning II, describing the jets as “flying computers” while touting their multirole capabilities.

“Before the F-35, if I was going to fly a mission into a peer nation’s territory to strike against a well-protected target, I would need a minimum of 16 aircraft,” Livingston told The Telegraph. “You would have jamming aircraft—which, by the way, says, ‘Hello, we’re coming’—then you’d send in suppression of enemy air defence aircraft, because you’d have to kill the radars off, then you’d send fast strike aircraft in.”

The F-35, Livingston said, can get the same job done much more effectively and efficiently.

“I can now do that same mission with four F-35s and no support. And they don’t need protection afterwards, because they can fight their way out,” he added.

Drones Are The Future

Musk has also taken the view that the F-35 is an “expensive and complex jack of all trades, master of none,” while arguing, “Crewed fighter jets are an inefficient way to extend the range of missiles or drop bombs,” adding, “A reusable drone can do so without all the overhead of a human pilot.”

Livingston doesn’t dispute that drones could play a significant role in air warfare, but he doubts whether the human element can ever be fully removed.

“Drones are going to be part of the future and they will be able to provide some level of air dominance, because there’s no doubt that once you take a human out of an aircraft the cost for your effects comes down,” the UK executive said in the interview. “But you’ve got to look at where we are today. And first of all, a drone has got to be able to see a threat, right?”

The Pentagon Sticking With The F-35

Even as Musk has publicly criticized the F-35, it would appear the U.S. Department of Defense is sticking with the manned fifth-generation fighter. Last Friday, Lockheed Martin was awarded a nearly $12 billion contract to produce an additional 145 Lightning IIs for the U.S. military and its international allies.

“This modification adds scope for the production and delivery of 145 F-35 full rate production (FRP) Lot 18 aircraft (48 F-35A aircraft for the Air Force; 16 F-35B aircraft and five F-35C aircraft for the Marine Corps; 14 F-35C aircraft for the Navy; 15 F-35A aircraft and one F-35B aircraft for F-35 non-U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) program partners; and 39 F-35A aircraft and seven F-35B aircraft for Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customers),” the Pentagon stated in the contract announcement.

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 and over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

Image: Mike Mareen / Shutterstock.com. 

During the fiercest period of submarine warfare in human history, the United States relied heavily upon the Gato class—the first mass-produced submarine of World War II. The Americans built seventy of the Gato class (and derived the Balao and Tench class from the Gato), making her the most numerous of America’s World War II submarines. The diesel-powered Gato proved to be a capable vessel and is credited with destroying significant portions of the Japanese merchant marine, and to a lesser extent, the Imperial Japanese Navy.

Introducing the Gato class

Unlike modern attack submarines, which are designed to operate more independently, the Gato class was built as a supplement to the fleet, known as “fleet submarines.” A fleet submarine is a submarine that has the requisite speed and endurance to operate as part of the main naval fleet, which for the Americans during World War II, was built around the battleship.

The Gato was tasked with shooting out ahead of the main fleet and scouting the enemy position. When appropriate, the Gato would engage the enemy, incrementally degrading the enemy's abilities before the main fleet would arrive to encounter a hindered enemy force.

Because so many Gato submarines were made, the Navy had time to tinker and experiment; four different modifications of the class were offered. Variations included adjustments to the navigation bridge, a bulwark around the cigarette deck, periscope plating shears, and machine gun positioning. Generally, the Gato displaced 2,424 tons when submerged and measured about 311 feet long. The beam measured 27 feet while the draft measured 17 feet. For propulsion, the Gato relied on four diesel engines, two 126-cell Sargo batteries, and four high-speed electric motors churning two propellers. The propulsion system was good for 5,400 shp when surfaced and 2,740 shp when submerged. The Gato could hit top speeds of 24 miles per hour when surface (and just 10 miles per hour when submerged). The vessel could operate for a range of 11,000 nautical miles, could stay submerged for forty-eight hours at a time, and could stay on patrol for seventy-five days. The test depth was 300 feet. For armament, the Gato featured ten 21-inch torpedo tubes (six forward and four aft) and a stock of twenty-four torpedoes. When needed, the Gato could swap its torpedoes for mines (Mk 10 and Mk 12). Additionally, the Gato had one 76-mm/50-caliber deck gun, plus a 40-mm and 20-mm cannon.

After the war

When World War II ended, the Gato was essentially obsolete. With a test depth of just 300 feet, the Gato was already behind the times—despite being just two to four years old—a consequence of the rapid technological development made during World War II. The surviving Gato submarines were still put to use, however. Some of the Gatos were used as radar pickets while others were converted to transport oil. One Gato, meanwhile, was converted to fire the Regulus cruise missile. Still more Gatos were sent abroad, for operation in foreign navies (Brazil, Turkey, Greece). Today, the last remaining Gatos are on display in museums around the United States.

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: Gerald Peplow / Shutterstock.com

The fourth-generation Grumman F-14 Tomcat is one of the most famous American-made jet fighter aircraft of all time, thanks to both the “Top Gun” fictitious film franchise and the venerable warbird’s real-world historical combat performance.

(NOTE: In 1994, Grumman Aerospace Corporation merged with Northrop Corporation to form Northrop Grumman.)

So, imagine the tremendous irony that one of the last three remaining users of the Tomcat is one of the worst enemies of the United States, that being Iran, more specifically the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force (IRIAF), which dubs America as “The Great Satan.”

Iranian-Owned F-14 Initial History and Specifications

According to the World Directory of Modern Military Aircraft, the IRIAF has a total of twenty-six Tomcats, specifically the original F-14A variant, which made her maiden flight on December 21, 1970. The planes were sold to Iran when it was still under the rule of Mohammed Reza Pahlavi (October 26, 1919-July 27, 1980). Mohammed Reza Shah was a staunch ally of both the United States and Israel, and the order for the Tomcats was placed in January 1974; deliveries commenced in January 1976 (when Gerald R. Ford was the U.S. president). 

The Why

So why does the IRIAF still have the battle-proven but now oh-so-antiquated Tomcat in its fleet? (Ditto for the third-generation McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II?) Well, a reason is the fact that Iran has been an international pariah ever since the Iranian Revolution of 1979 overthrew the shah and installed an Islamist and anti-American regime headed by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (May 17, 1900-June 3, 1989) as supreme leader.

Since then, as a state sponsor of terrorism, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been hobbled by sanctions that make it difficult for Tehran to acquire new systems as well as spare parts for existing systems.

Be that as it may, the Iranians have used their now-ancient F-14s quite effectively in combat. The warbird has an all-time air-to-air kill ratio of 135:4 according to MiGFLUG, and the overwhelming majority of those victories were scored not by U.S. Navy Tomcat drivers (sorry, Maverick!), but rather by the IRIAF during the Iran-Iraq War (September 22, 1980-August 20, 1988).

The Way Forward?

As for the prospect of Iran finding a replacement for both its F-14 and F-4 fleets (as well as the Soviet-designed fourth-generation MiG-29 “Fulcrum”), well … the Russians are trying to help them out of that jam, in accordance with Vladimir Putin’s new “axis of evil” with Iran, China, and North Korea, in the form of sales of the Sukhoi Su-35 “Super Flanker.” According to Aero-News Journal, a deal was inked between Tehran and Moscow back in November 2023; this deal would have also included Mi-28 attack helicopters and potentially the S-400 air defense system).

However, that deal has hit a snag. Back on April 21, 2024, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty announced that the Iranian government began denying the previous report:

“Reports in the Iranian media that the country is to receive the latest generation of aircraft in the next few days are incorrect, according to the Fararu news website. The media had referred to a report by the SNN news agency, which is close to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The agency itself denied the report on its Telegram page after consulting with the Defense Ministry, which last year announced that Iran had acquired Mi-28H combat helicopters and [Yakovlev] Yak-130s from Russia in addition to the SU-35 fighter jets.”

To make matters more confusing, the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida had reported the previous week that Iran had indeed already received some of the Su-35s roughly a year prior but was unable to operate them due to a dearth of spare parts. Evidently, the Iranian Defense Ministry is a prime example of the proverbial left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.

About the Author

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

Image: BeAvPhoto / Shutterstock.com

“The Punisher,” the action-packed Marvel Comics franchise featuring vigilante protagonist Frank Castle, is a hugely successful comic book franchise. However, one real-life “Punisher,” the XM25 25x40 mm grenade launcher, the would-be successor to the M203 40 mm grenade launcher and M320 grenade launcher, turned out to be a failure.

Now there are two new weapons systems that aspire to succeed where the XM25 “Punisher” failed: the Squad Support Rifle System (SSRS) and the PGS-001.

The Basic Premise

According to Joseph Trevithick of The WarZone in a November 17, 2024, article titled “One Of These Futuristic Grenade Launchers Could Succeed Where The Army’s ‘Punisher’ Failed,” both the SSRS and the PGS-001 are finalists in a U.S. Army’s xTechSoldier Lethality challenge. This challenge is the army’s ploy to devise a high-tech 30 mm Precision Grenadier System (PGS) that troops could use to engage targets ranging from enemy personnel behind cover to light armored vehicles to unmanned aerial vehicles. The counter-drone requirement in particular is something that actually predates but has also now been given a far greater sense of urgency by the ongoing war in Ukraine.

Additional requirements for the PGS program include:

-An air-bursting “Counter Defilade Round” that can “precisely and quickly defeat personnel targets” behind cover.

-An overall length of 34 inches (60.96 centimeters) or less.

-A maximum weight of 14.5 pounds (6.57 kilograms).

-A minimum effective range of 1,640 feet (500 meters).

As Army Contracting Command prescribed in a contracting notice from February 2023:

“The PGS will be a man portable integrated weapon system that enables precision engagements to destroy personnel targets in defilade and in the open with increased lethality and precision compared to the legacy M203/M320 grenade launchers … The PGS will provide overmatch to comparable threat grenade launchers in near peer formations in future operating environments (jungle, urban, woodland, subterranean, desert, day/night/obscured). The PGS is envisioned to consist of a weapon, a fire control, and a suite of ammunition which enables the user to engage targets in defilade/cover, hovering UAS targets, conduct door breaching, engage close combat targets, and light armored targets.”

Finalist # 1: The SSRS

The SSRS is a joint venture between Barrett Firearms, best known for their legendary .50 caliber M82-series rifles, and MARS, Inc. The tandem showed off a model at the Association of the U.S. Army’s (AUSA) main annual conference in October 2024. The model had the following features and specifications:

· Caliber and Capacity: 30x42mm projectiles in a five-round box magazine (NOTE: this is a major step up from the single-shot capacity of the M203)

o Ammo Types: high-explosive, incendiary, armor-piercing, dedicated training rounds, “close quarters battle” (CQB) shell (buckshot-like canister round)

· Weight: Just under 14 lbs (6.35 kg)

· Pistol grip, trigger assembly, and fire control selector switch that all mimic AR-15/M16/M4-series rifles

· Topside attachment rail for optics such as the Vortex Optics XM157

Finalist # 2: The PGS-001

The PGS-001 comes courtesy of FN America, the U.S.-based subsidiary of famed Belgian small arms company Fabrique National Herstal (best known for the FAL 7.62x51 mm battle rifle and the P-35 Browning Hi-Power 9mm semiautomatic pistol). The company unveiled its model of the PGS-001 at last year’s AUSA.

As far as can be ascertained, the FN offering also fires some type of 30 mm projectile. However, Trevithick notes that known specifics are less readily available than in the case of the Barrett/MARS offering, but the layout is similar to the SSRS and is also able to accommodate the XM157 optic. The PGS-001 distinguishes itself from the SSRS via its large muzzle brake, which would help mitigate recoil (especially useful for firing rapid follow-up shots), but at the price of significant muzzle blast and flash.

The Way Forward?

The SSRS and PGS-001 are considered the two finalists. Trevithick notes that there is still at least an outside possibility for some dark horse contenders such as:

-American Rheinmetall Munitions Squad Support Weapon Achieving Precision Grenadier System Objectives.

-Knight Technical Solutions (not to be confused with Knight’s Armament Company) Multipurpose Intelligent Grenade System (MIGS) (a six-shot revolver-type design).

-Plumb Precision Products P3-M110 17.5 mm (though quite frankly, that caliber sounds more than a bit undersize for the Army’s requirements).

Time will tell.

About the Author: Christian D. Orr

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

Image: Shutterstock.