Diplomacy & Crisis News

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. and its allies are preparing for potential escalation in the Red Sea following the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh. To bolster defenses, U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin announced the deployment of additional military assets, including the USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier, F/A-18 Super Hornets, EA-18 Growlers, and F-22 Raptors.

-The Raptors, known for their stealth, maneuverability, and firepower, will reinforce existing forces in the region.

-As tensions rise, the F-22s could see combat in what might be one of their last operational deployments before being replaced by the Next Generation Air Dominance fighters.

The F-22 Raptor Is Standing By for Trouble

Israel, the U.S. and its allies are currently gearing up for a broader war in the Red Sea. Iran is expected to launch a multi-axis retaliation for the assassination of the former political leader of Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh. 

In order to guard against any potential rocket or missile barrage, U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin announced that defenses in the region would be strengthened. The Navy’s Nimitz-class USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier is already en route to the Red Sea with its fleet of F/A-18 Super Hornets and EA-18 Growlers. These aircraft will reportedly be joined by Air Force F-22 Raptors. Often considered the best fifth-generation fighter platform on the planet, the F-22s will reinforce defensive air support in the region and join existing forces to deter Iran-affiliated groups from further escalation.

“If Israel is attacked, we certainly will help,” Austin told reporters following the killing of Haniyeh. “You saw us do that in April. You can expect to see us do that again. But we don’t want to see any of that happen. We’re going to work hard to make sure that we’re doing things to help take the temperature down and address issues through diplomatic means.” 

The Secretary is certainly backing words with action by deploying Raptors to the Middle East. A squadron of F-22s will join three combat aircraft squadrons already positioned in the region, including squadrons of A-10 Thunderbolt Close Air Support aircraft, F-15E Strike Eagle fighters, and F-16 Fighting Falcons.

The Raptor

While the F-35 Lightning II platform is newer, the Raptor remains unmatched in several key areas. Perhaps most significant is the jet’s smaller radar cross section, which makes the platform extremely difficult for enemy aircraft to detect. The F-22 is also far more maneuverable than its fifth-gen successor, with greater firepower and a superior thrust-to-weight ratio. Raptors are powered by two Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 turbofan engines, compared to the Lightning II’s single power source.

Each Raptor features three internal weapons bays. In a stealth configuration, the F-22 can carry two AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles and six AIM-12 AMRAAM radar-guided air-to-air missiles. At the same time, the jet is capable of packing two AIM-120 AMRAAM and two GBU-32 JDAM bombs in its center weapons bay. Equipped as such, the Raptors are well suited for the current Middle East crisis.

Could F-22s See Combat in the Middle East?

The Air Force is expected to eventually replace its remaining Raptors with the service’s upcoming Next Generation Air Dominance fighters, so this could be one of the Raptors’ last chances to see combat. Last year, the platform achieved an air-to-air kill when a jet from the 1st Fighter Wing downed a suspected Chinese spy balloon off the coast of South Carolina.

Depending on how Tehran and its regional proxy groups retaliate for the Haniyeh killing, the F-22 could add to its stats.

About the Author: Maya Carlin

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The USS Theodore Roosevelt, part of Carrier Strike Group 9, is now stationed in the Gulf of Oman as part of Operation Prosperity Guardian amid rising tensions in the region.

-The carrier and its air wing, including F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, are prepared for potential expanded operations due to escalating conflicts, particularly involving Yemen-based Houthis.

-As regional tensions with Israel and Iran increase, the carrier group may face heightened challenges, continuing its mission to maintain stability and freedom of navigation in the Red Sea and surrounding waters.

USS Theodore Roosevelt Headed to the Red Sea

The Nimitz-class carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt is on station in the Gulf of Oman as part of Operation Prosperity Guardian. Its strike group and embarked air wing are with it. Rising tensions in the region mean the formation might engage in operations beyond their normal remit. The sailors and airmen of the carrier strike group will likely have their hands full in the weeks to come.

Other U.S. Assets Deployed to the Mideast

U.S. Navy aircraft carriers are massive vessels crewed by thousands of personnel. Their true power, however, comes from the forces with which they travel. Theodore Roosevelt is escorted by the other ships in Carrier Strike Group 9 (CSG 9). These include the guided missile cruiser USS Lake Erie and the guided missile destroyers USS John McCain, Halsey, and Daniel Inouye. Together, these ships represent a formidable force armed with 5 inch guns, torpedoes, and a variety of missiles. 

In addition to the ships of the strike group, Roosevelt is home to the aircrew of Carrier Air Wing 11 (CVW 11). The wing’s tactical air component includes four squadrons of F/A-18E/F Super Hornets as well as a squadron of E/A-18G. These aircraft, specifically the Super Hornets, represent the true striking power of the formation, capable of carrying a variety of air-to-air and air-to-surface ordnance such as AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles and GBU-12 Paveway laser-guided bombs. 

A CVW consists of more than just jets. Also on the Roosevelt are a squadron of E-2D Hawkeye Airborne Early Warning aircraft and two squadrons of MH-60 helicopters. Support and logistics are provided by a C-2 Greyhound squadron. 

An Overview of Recent Escalations in the Region

The Red Sea and the Gulf of Oman have been dangerous waters since Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel. The U.S. initially deployed the carrier USS Eisenhower to the region to help ensure stability. Its strike group was swiftly drawn into operations against a somewhat unexpected enemy: the Yemen-based Houthis. 

Since Israel began combat operations against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, the Houthis have carried out their own campaign in support of the Gaza-based terror group. This has primarily consisted of missile, rocket, and drone attacks against ships transiting the Bab el-Mandeb Strait in the Red Sea. While the group has said it only targets vessels affiliated with Israel and the U.S. or supporting those two against Hamas, they have been indiscriminate in the ships they strike. The Teddy Roosevelt strike group will take up where Ike left off, defending shipping in the region and carrying out strikes in Yemen against Houthi targets. 

As tensions between Israel and Iran ratchet up, there is increased risk of a wider regional war. Should such a conflict break out, the crews of CSG 9 might be called on to fight in some capacity. Meanwhile, they carry out the Navy’s mission to maintain freedom of the seas. 

About the Author: Maya Carlin 

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Les adeptes de cette doctrine millénariste se posent en victimes du Parti communiste chinois. Très actif aux États-Unis mais aussi en France où il n'hésite pas à relayer les meetings de certaines personnalités politiques d'extrême droite, leur mouvement a le soutien d'élus du Congrès américain et (...) / Chine, Industrie culturelle, Bouddhisme, Politique - 2024/08

Summary and Key Points: The Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is an upgraded, larger, and more capable variant of the original F/A-18 Hornet, featuring advanced thrust-vectoring engines, improved maneuverability, and increased fuel capacity.

-Although slightly slower than its predecessors, the Super Hornet excels in carrier operations and incorporates technology initially developed for fifth-generation aircraft like the F-35 and F-22.

-Despite the arrival of the F-35, the U.S. Navy will continue to operate the Super Hornet until at least the 2030s.

F/A-18 Super Hornet: The U.S. Navy’s Reliable Powerhouse

A redesigned variant of the F/A-18C and D Hornet, Boeing F/A-18E, and F/A-18F are larger and more capable than its predecessor. It is a carrier-capable fighter that is powered by a General Electric (GE) F414-GE-400 twin-engine and can travel at supersonic speeds. This engine produces 13,000 pounds of force (lbf) of dry thrust and 22,000 lbf of thrust when its afterburners are engaged.

And this bird has greater thrust than its predecessors.

The United States Navy is the main user of this variant. It was introduced to the fleet in 2000. America’s Navy says the Super Hornet will continue to operate at least until the 2030s when the F-35 Lightning II will replace it. 

F/A-18 Variants: Differences with Its Predecessors

Designers of the Super Hornet stretched out its airframe to make the warplane longer than the original variants. The Super Hornet’s wing area was increased by a whopping twenty-five percent, too.

Thus, this warbird is twenty percent larger than the original Hornet (hence, the term “Super” Hornet). 

With larger wings and larger capacity, this bad bird can carry more weapons and pods. More weapons mean greater staying power whilst in combat. Overall, this means increased lethality. 

That’s a win for the Navy.

To improve airlift and enhance the bird’s stealthiness, Boeing replaced the original Hornet’s oval air intakes with rectangular air intakes. Boeing made further tweaks to the original design to make the Super Hornet more maneuverable than its predecessors. 

In terms of fuel, this warbird carries thirty-three percent more internal fuel which, according to Simple Flying, increases “its range by forty-one percent and endurance by fifty percent. As a result, it is also significantly heavier.” For instance, the Basic Empty Weight (BEW) and Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW) are 7,000 pounds and 15,000 pounds higher than the legacy model. 

Mentioned earlier was the fact that the F/A-18 Super Hornet has greater thrust than its Hornet predecessors. Yet, it should be noted here that greater thrust does not equal faster speeds. Indeed, the Super Hornet has a maximum speed of Mach 1.60, or about 1,227 miles per hour whereas the original Hornet can reach Mach 1.80, or 1,381 miles per hour. That might seem like a distinction without a difference, but the facts don’t lie. 

The Super Hornet is slower than its predecessors.

Interestingly, many pilots who have flown both the original Hornets and the Super Hornet swear by the Super Hornet, even though it is around twenty knots slower than the original bird. The reason that the bird is slightly slower than the original has to do with the expansion of the size of the wings and the fact that the Super Hornet carries more into battle.

Still, Mach 1.60 is nothing to shrug about. 

To clarify any possible confusion, the reason that the Super Hornet has greater thrust is because of the need to take off from carriers. Carriers have a very limited flight deck, so being able to go from zero to takeoff speeds in short order is a key element for any bird operating on an aircraft carrier. The slower speed also helps with landing a plane on a moving flight deck. Carrier landings are notoriously difficult, even for the best-trained pilots. 

In other words, the Super Hornet is a comprehensively great upgrade to the original Hornets, despite the relatively slower speed.

Other Tidbits on Super Hornet 

Interestingly, the Super Hornets had impressive technologies incorporated into them that had originally been designed for the F-35 and the F-22A Raptor. So, while these birds are still nowhere near as sophisticated as the fifth-generation warplanes mentioned above, including capabilities originally only found on those fifth-generation warplanes, has made the Super Hornet, a fourth-generation bird, a highly capable platform—especially when compared to the enemy aircraft that Super Hornets might encounter in combat.

Here again is proof that the Super Hornets are probably the best naval air superiority fighter to date. While the Navy has taken delivery of multiple F-35 carrier variants, the fleet has not yet transitioned to these birds being their primary warplane. Their efficacy in combat compared to their older Super Hornet cousins remains to be seen. 

With the fleet opting to operate the Super Hornet throughout the 2030s, one can foresee that the Super Hornet will continue impressing all the way until the Navy finally decides to retire these beasts.

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

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

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

From the Vault

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

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

Summary and Key Points: The Nimitz-class aircraft carriers are powerful, fast at flank speed, and maneuverable, but their effectiveness is increasingly challenged by China's sophisticated anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) systems.

-These systems can track and threaten U.S. carriers far beyond the range of their air wings, forcing the U.S. Navy to keep these valuable assets out of combat zones.

-Despite the carriers' capabilities, the growing threat of Chinese A2/AD technology means that the Nimitz-class carriers may be rendered less effective in a potential conflict in the Indo-Pacific region.

The Nimitz-class Carriers Are Fast. But Not Fast Enough to Defeat Chinese A2/AD

The Nimitz-class aircraft carrier is a great, lumbering beast with little in the way of real protection other than its airwing. And while this author has been highly critical of America’s infatuation with the flat top, American carriers are quite fast and maneuverable. 

Flank Speed

The Nimitz-class carrier can sustain speeds as fast as 35 miles per hour, otherwise known as its flank speed. 

Okay, so that sounds slow. You’re thinking about driving near that school zone, or around a tricky bend on an old country road. But we’re talking about a warship carrying a variety of warplanes, helicopters, and machines, and with a crew of nearly 6,000, that displaces an impressive 97,000 tons. 

So, yeah, going 35 miles an hour at sea is highly impressive. 

According to my colleague, Peter Suciu, “the Nimitz-class carriers populating the current fleet can move anywhere within a 700-square mile area within 30 minutes. After 90 minutes, that area grows to over 6,000 square miles” when traveling at flank speed. 

Two powerful Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors, producing 260,000 shp/194 MW, churn four steam turbines. These, in turn, propel four shafts and four propellers. As Suciu outlines, it takes approximately 10 minutes for a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier to reach its flank speed. Once it does, it might as well be an oversized rocket. The entire boat shakes with power. It becomes an unstoppable beast on the sea. 

It's all very impressive.

But does it matter? 

China’s A2/AD

The Chinese have developed one of the world’s most sophisticated anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities. China’s A2/AD systems can reach hundreds of miles away from the shores of China and its manmade islands in the South China Sea. These capabilities include long-range ballistic missiles and even deadlier hypersonic weapons. They are linked to highly sophisticated and accurate tracking systems. 

Sure, the Nimitz class is fast and can cover a lot of ground. But it is not invincible. The Chinese have proven they can track an American aircraft carrier from its point of origin all the way to its arrival in the Indo-Pacific theater. 

Beyond that, the Chinese have shown, with relatively ancient systems like their Song-class diesel-electric submarine, that getting within torpedo range of an American nuclear-powered submarine is relatively easy. This is precisely what a Song-class sub did to USS Kitty Hawk in 2006. 

Of course, USS Kitty Hawk did not belong to the Nimitz class. Nevertheless, China can hold America’s carrier force under threat. Especially considering any fight between the two sides would likely be waged close to China’s shores, giving Beijing’s forces serious strategic and tactical advantages over the Americans and their allies. 

The Nimitz-class 

America’s Nimitz-class aircraft carriers are modern technological marvels. But they are not invincible. The very fact that they are so advanced and impressive has forced America’s enemies to develop realistic countermeasures against these carriers. 

Thus the advent of A2/AD – it was built to neutralize America’s carrier force. 

Even if the U.S. doesn’t lose any carriers in a potential war with China, these carriers are far too valuable for Washington to risk in conflict. Given that China’s A2/AD systems can threaten an American flattop far beyond the range of that carrier’s airwing, U.S. carriers will have to be kept beyond the horizon.

This means that the Chinese military will have decisive advantages over the Americans in any fight for control of the western Indo-Pacific. Such a fight will favor China. It doesn’t matter how fast or maneuverable America’s impressive Nimitz-class carriers are. Until the Pentagon develops meaningful countermeasures against Chinese A2/AD systems, the carrier force will be rendered combat-ineffective. 

Right now, it doesn’t look as though the Americans have figured out how to make the Nimitz class useful in any war with China. 

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

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

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

From the Vault

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

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

Summary and Key Points: The Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider, a successor to the B-2 Spirit, is set to be the most advanced stealth bomber in the U.S. Air Force.

-Building on decades of stealth technology, the B-21 features enhanced low observability, advanced networking, and open systems architecture, allowing for future upgrades.

-Unlike its predecessor, the B-21 is designed for cost-effectiveness, with plans for at least 100 units. It is expected to be a cornerstone of U.S. air power for decades, offering superior capabilities in modern warfare.

The Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider is the Best Stealth Aircraft

Aerospace and defense giant Northrop Grumman continues to develop its B-21 Raider long-range strategic bomber. The B-21 is the planned replacement for the aging B-1B Lancer and B-2 Spirit bombers.

Information is still sparse on the Raider, which is named for the men who took part in the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo in the spring of 1942. But there are several facts about the B-21 that we do know.

The B-21 is Building on the B-2's Success

The stealthy B-21 will not be the first Air Force bomber to feature a flying wing design to reduce its radar signature. Efforts to build an aircraft without a fuselage date back almost 100 years. Northrop Grumman’s B-2 Spirit was the first such design mass-produced, even if just 20 aircraft were manufactured.

Seen as the first successful flying wing aircraft, the B-2’s low-observable characteristics help it penetrate an enemy's most sophisticated defenses and threaten its most heavily defended targets. With these capabilities, the B-2 has ensured a strong, effective deterrent and combat force well into the 21st century.

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

The Raider Bomber is Better

Everything the B-2 Spirit did right, the B-21 Raider promises to do better. There were reports its advanced stealth technology – much of which remains classified – could give the aircraft a radar signature as small as an insect. That's likely hyperbole, as no one expects to track a butterfly on radar.

The B-2's development began when disco was all the rage and Jimmy Carter was in the White House, while the B-21 Raider's development is truly a product of the 21st century. It takes into account numerous lessons learned from the F-117 Nighthawk, B-2 Spirit, F-22 Raptor, and F-35 Lightning II – and likely from programs yet to be disclosed.

As The Heritage Foundation reported, the B-21 Raider "is built around the most sophisticated and easily maintained stealth technology ever developed."

Even the aircraft's maker was only slightly more forthcoming, describing the B-21 as benefiting "from more than three decades of strike and stealth technology. It is the next evolution of the Air Force strategic bomber fleet. Developed with the next generation of stealth technology, advanced networking capabilities and an open systems architecture, the B-21 is optimized for the high-end threat environment. It will play a critical role in helping the Air Force meet its most complex missions."

Some 8,000 employees of Northrop Grumman and various other defense contractors of all sizes, spread across 40 states, have been secretly building the Air Force's new stealth bomber. Great efforts have been taken to prevent China and other potential adversaries from gaining access to its technology.

Cost-Effective as Well as Stealthy

Even the best aircraft is only good if it can be employed in significant numbers. The simple lack of B-2s has been the Spirit’s greatest weakness. The Air Force is seeking to guarantee the production of at least 100 Raiders.

To that end, the air service has emphasized cost containment while simultaneously allowing for maximum flexibility. The future backbone of the Air Force's bomber fleet has been noted for an open systems architecture that would allow future capabilities to be integrated into the aircraft, and fast.

With the B-21, the Air Force plans not only to have the best stealth bomber in service for years to come. By the end of the 2030s, it also plans to operate a strong number of these aircraft.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu 

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: This summer, Finnish and Spanish F/A-18 Hornets are taking part in NATO's air policing missions over Romania. Finland deployed seven Hornets in June for their first NATO mission since joining the alliance, operating alongside the Royal Air Force and Romanian Air Force.

-As Finland's deployment ended, Spain sent eight F/A-18+ Hornets to continue the mission, reflecting NATO's ongoing efforts to secure its southern flank in the Black Sea region.

The F/A-18 Is Getting Closer to Russia These Days 

The Boeing F/A-18 Hornet is a familiar sight over the skies of the Black Sea. This summer Hornets will continue to operate from Mihail Kogalniceanu Air Base, Romania, although the national insignia on the aircraft will change. 

In early June, seven Finnish Air Force Hornets were deployed on the first NATO Air Policing and Air Shielding mission in Romania since the Nordic nation joined the international alliance last year.

According to NATO, the "deployment was carried out in three rotations and involved over 250 personnel from all Finnish Air Force units." The staged deployments allowed the Finnish personnel to gain as much experience as possible, "operating under the direction of NATO's military command structure."

The Finnish personnel completed their rotation and returned home on July 29, 2024.

"The operation was interesting and rewarding. We will take home a lot of lessons learned about participating in a NATO mission and operating in a new environment." said Maj. Toni Vanhatalo, commander of the third rotation of the Finnish Air Force detachment. "Being under the direction of NATO's command structure required some minor changes in the planning of flight operations, but we adapted well, and also gained some lessons for developing our operations at home. Cooperation with Allies was smooth and continuous training activity improved our capabilities."

During their deployment to NATO's southern flank, the Finnish Air Force F/A-18 Hornets operated alongside Royal Air Force Eurofighter Typhoons and took part in exercise Ramstein Legacy 24 in Romania and Bulgaria. They flew with Romanian Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcons to perform escort drills with U.S. Air Force B-52 Stratofortress bombers deployed to the region.

Spanish Hornets Have Arrived

On Tuesday, just days after the Finnish F/A-18s departed from Romania, eight F/A-18+ Hornets from Spain landed in Romania to begin a four-month deployment. A total of 150 Spanish Air Force personnel – including pilots, maintainers, and technical staff – deployed to Romania as part of NATO's Black Sea Air Policing mission. 

Designated the C-15 in Spanish service, these F/A-18s date to the 1980s but have received significant service life upgrades that extended their operational lifespan and capabilities. The Spanish Air Force's Hornets were previously used in NATO missions in Kosovo in 1999, as well as during 2011's Operation Unified Protector to enforce UN Security Council resolutions during the Libyan Civil War.

In 2022, Madrid announced it would phase out its C-15 fleet, replacing those fighters with the Eurofighter Typhoon. Several of the modern combat aircraft have already entered service. The Spanish Air Force deployed five Eurofighter Typhoons, along with a 60-person team, to the same Romanian air base earlier this year.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu 

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

Summary and Key Points: The X-44 MANTA was an experimental aircraft developed by the U.S. Air Force based on the F-22 Raptor, designed without traditional tail surfaces to reduce radar visibility and enhance maneuverability using thrust-vectoring engines.

-The program aimed to create a highly stealthy and agile fighter, potentially superior to the F-22.

-However, the project was canceled in 2000 before reaching production. Elements of the X-44 design influence today's Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program, but the original MANTA will never be realized.

The X-44 Manta Was Never Destined for Dominance, Sadly 

When one thinks of an aircraft with no tail, they normally think of plane in distress. One could be forgiven for not understanding that aircraft can be built purposely without a tail. That’s precisely what the United States Air Force did when they developed the X-44 MANTA concept plane. As with so many things in the US military, “MANTA” is an acronym that stands for, “Multi-Axis No-Tail Aircraft” (this is not to be confused with the US Navy’s new unmanned underwater vehicle, the Manta). 

Based off the F-22A Raptor, the X-44 was intended to be the next step in advanced US military warplanes. The MANTA took what was back then the radical design of the F-22 and augmented it. Primarily, by removing the aircraft’s conventional vertical and horizontal tail surfaces. 

Engineers at the time rightly believed these components significantly contributed to radar visibility (a key element of both the F-22 and X-44 projects were to make the birds as stealthy as possible). Instead, the X-44 MANTA’s designers added in thrust-vectoring engines. This new engine not only made the X-44 stealthier than even its advanced F-22 big brother, but it also made the experimental bird more maneuverable. 

Indeed, the removal of the MANTA’s tail surfaces and the replacement of those surfaces by the thrust-vectoring engines were one of the most innovative concepts for that era. According to Jim Matthews writing in a 2008 article for the Smithsonian Magazine, “Thrust vectoring enables the pilots to fly up and over in a very tight arc [and] gives [pilots] the nose authority to turn the jet while the wings are stalled, similar to a controlled flat spin.”

Comparisons to the F-22

Today, the F-22A is powered by Pratt & Whitney F119 turbofans, each providing 35,000 pounds of thrust. The F-22’s vector thrust nozzle can “direct exhaust thrust up or down as much as twenty-four degrees.” This is an impressive capability that few modern warplanes possess. The MANTA had these abilities and more. The X-44, if you can believe it, was more impressive than the F-22. 

The bird was almost invisible on radar because of these modifications. 

A downside of not having tail surfaces is that the pilots who manned these birds, had they gone into production and been deployed, would have needed to be highly trained. Flying tailless birds, even with the assist of vector thrust engines, is a difficult undertaking. What’s more, going into combat with such a plane would have tested even the best fighter pilots. 

The X-44 MANTA had an impressive weapons package. MANTA housed a single 20mm internal cannon, two AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles. Additional armaments of AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles as well as two 1,000-GBU-32 Joint Direct Munitions were included as well. As I wrote previously, had the X-44 been mass produced, it would have likely been even better than the F-22A Raptor (which has been called the “Michael Jordan of fighter planes”). 

An Inauspicious End to a Great Program

In 2000, the X-44 program was canceled. The bird never made it beyond the conceptual stage. In an alternative reality somewhere, mixed squadrons of F-22 Raptors and X-44 MANTAS fly into battle, firing the onboard lasers that the Air Force got to work.

Sadly, the United States government today is actually broke—contrary to what our elites seem to think. Trying to build this system today would not make economical sense. Not to fear, though, the Air Force is pushing ahead with their Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) platform which is loosely based upon the X-44 MANTA. To think, this platform could have already been flying by now had the Air Force just stuck with its guns twenty-four years ago.

Sadly, we’ll never get to see these birds fly again. Not even in its sixth-generation warplane form under the auspices of NGAD. There’s simply no way Congress will allow for that program to continue as the rest of the country feels the economic pinch.

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock.

From the Vault

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

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

So a young acquaintance asks what kinds of ships there are in a navy. That’s kind of a basic question. You would think it lends itself to a pithy answer intelligible to nonspecialists.

You would be wrong.

And that’s troublesome. Physicist Richard Feynman, a personal hero, maintained that if you can’t explain something to a sixth grader, you either don’t know the material well enough yourself or you have a problem communicating concepts. Ideas are not that complex. You need to deepen your knowledge, refine your teaching, or both. That’s sage counsel from a Nobel laureate. Let’s heed it.

Or try to.

The obvious way to approach queries about fleet design is by resorting to listmania. In other words, you could run through the litany of ship types found in naval inventories, from hulking aircraft carriers down to tugboats.

Do that and watch your questioner’s eyes glaze over.

There are many ship types, and distinctions between them can be obscure. For example, try explaining the difference between a U.S. Navy guided-missile cruiser and destroyer in a hurry. A cruiser is bigger than a destroyer, right? Well, not necessarily. The latest variant of the venerable Arleigh Burke-class destroyer displaces about as much as the Ticonderoga-class cruisers now leaving service. Burkes and Ticonderogas sport variants of the same combat system, known as Aegis—a combination radar, computer, and fire-control system. And they carry the same types of armaments, albeit cruisers feature substantially more vertical-launch missile siloes and thus more firepower than destroyers.

To further blur the distinction between ship types, the three Zumwalt-class stealth destroyers now being repurposed as surface strike platforms actually outweigh cruisers, and by a hefty margin. And they will pack hypersonic missiles whereas cruisers do not.

Etc. Distinguishing between surface combatants is far from straightforward. Feynman frowns.

Anyone trying to explain fleet design to nonspecialists runs afoul of such intricacies. Meeting the Feynman standard is hard. So rather than try to list all the ship types constituting a fleet, why not classify fighting ships by function? Simplifying is more promising. During the age of sail, in fact, it was downright easy. Ships of war were assigned to “rates” corresponding to the complement of guns they bore. Firepower determined their place in fleet operations. Naval historian extraordinaire Julian Corbett broke down wooden-walled fleets into three broad categories:

-Capital ships. These brawny combatants boasted the armament to mete out heavy gunfire barrages. They also had the defensive staying power—chiefly rugged hull construction—to absorb punishment while dueling rival capital ships. Capital ships constituted the navy’s battle fleet. They were big, specialized, and expensive. For that reason even the most lavishly appointed navy could only afford these apex predators in limited numbers.

-Cruisers. These were relatively inexpensive, less well-armed warships that nonetheless mounted sufficient gun power to police the sea lanes once the battle fleet had either vanquished the enemy fleet or blockaded it in port. Cruisers outgunned whatever remained of the hostile navy, letting them dominate less contested seas. Best of all, they were affordable in bulk. As a result the cruiser contingent had geographic reach that capital ships could never match given their small numbers. Cruisers could fan out, asserting control at many places on the nautical chart.

-Flotilla. This was a swarm of still smaller, more lightly armed, cheaper vessels that discharged the administrative duties all navies must discharge—chiefly in near-shore waters.

Corbett’s taxonomy of fighting ships remains a valuable point of departure for thinking through what various ship types are and do. But the neat lines separating those segments are indistinct nowadays. Even in Corbett’s day—over a century ago—he bewailed the revolution in seaborne weaponry that had overtaken naval warfare. It accompanied the changeover from wooden hulls and sail to steel hulls and steam and diesel propulsion. Even rudimentary submarines and surface patrol craft could now deploy heavy-hitting weapons such as sea mines and torpedoes. They could do heavy damage to cruisers and capital ships. No longer were small combatants an afterthought in naval warfare, as they had been for centuries when they were radically outgunned. This was now a battleworthy contingent.

A superempowered flotilla upended the Corbettian scheme of things—compelling battle fleets to take elaborate precautions to defend themselves when they ventured within reach of subs, torpedo craft, and minelayers. The new flotilla turned naval commanders’ world upside down, and Corbett’s with it. No longer was the age of sail—the chief source of historical data and insight into war at sea—a trustworthy guide to fleet design.

All of that being said, the fundamental naval functions endure. Some segment of a navy denies a foe access to important seaways if unable to defeat it outright. Sea denial is a quintessential flotilla action. Another fights for maritime command when the balance of forces favors it. There’s your battle function. A third exercises command once it’s in hand and the worst threats are at bay. Deny, win, and exploit control. There are your three basic ship types. Many types of hulls make up each contingent.

How would Corbett rate the U.S. Navy as a fighting force? I think he would find fault with it owing to imbalances in fleet design. It yaws overwhelmingly toward the battle fleet at the expense of other worthwhile endeavors such as sea denial. This is an artifact of navy culture. The U.S. Navy has grown accustomed to commanding the sea since 1945, as though command is a birthright. The service sees itself as being perpetually on offense. Thinking in terms of sea denial—by definition a strategy of the weaker pugilist—does not come easy to American naval chieftains.

Accordingly, the flotilla is a backwater in U.S. fleet design. About the only surface combatant that fits neatly into the flotilla category is the littoral combat ship, a vessel designed to operate in coastal waters under reduced threat. And the leadership has soured on the littoral combat ship, retiring youthful hulls at the same time shipyards complete the last few. If American commanders opt for sea denial, accordingly, they will be forced to harness heavier ships such as destroyers and submarines rather than purpose-built flotilla craft. This could change as technology matures. It will be reasonable to classify uncrewed surface and subsurface vessels as part of the flotilla as they join the fleet.

The result would be a hybrid, more balanced fleet. Gee-whiz technology could be salvation in the Western Pacific, where America is unlikely to be the stronger contender on day one of a conflict.

The capital-ship contingent predominates within the U.S. Navy—again, a force constructed with offense rather than defense in mind. Aircraft carriers, cruisers, and destroyers boast that combination of offensive and defensive power needed to fight peer navies for command of the sea. Supporting the battle fleet is a combat logistics fleet made up of tankers, stores ships, and the like. Supply vessels don’t fit ideally into any of the three functions, but they are an indispensable enabler for everything the navy does. No navy prospers without regular supplies of fuel, ammunition, and stores of all kinds. That’s why no carrier or surface action group is complete unless accompanied by one or more of these workhorses.

And exploiting command? The cruiser contingent is no longer made up of cruisers in Corbett’s sense of light combatants fielded in large numbers to control the sea. Frigates and corvettes are the modern counterparts to his cruisers. The U.S. Navy is attempting to add a new frigate to the fleet, known as the Constellation class. A frigate is a lighter combatant than a cruiser or destroyer, with more modest sensors and weapons. It should be adequate for policing the sea against remnants of the hostile navy. But with only twenty Constellation-class hulls on the navy’s wish list, and with the program plagued by construction delays, it’s foreordained that capital ships will pull double duty once they have won maritime command.

Corbett was right: capital ships are too expensive to fit out in large numbers, and the U.S. Navy is top-heavy with them. It will not have enough ships in the inventory to control all vital sea lanes by itself, and to otherwise exploit the blessings of maritime command. It must fill in the force structure with low-cost craft—chiefly unmanned, one supposes—while seeking help from fellow U.S. armed services and allies.

Faster, please.

It's worth noting that Julian Corbett could have added a fourth naval function to the list. Indeed, he should have. He was a full-throated advocate of expeditionary operations, meaning operations that that navies execute to shape events on land, whether by landing troops, projecting force inland from the sea by means of fire support, or some other means. The U.S. Navy’s amphibious fleet—a fleet of transports used to deposit U.S. Marines on foreign shores—constitutes the core of the American naval expeditionary force.

Once the capital-ship fleet has wrested control of sea, sky, and coastal zones from an antagonist, it’s safe enough for amphibious groups to move in close enough to do their work. Some “amphibs” or “gators” bear a strong resemblance to aircraft carriers, featuring long, flat flight decks populated by helicopters and sometimes fixed-wing combat aircraft. Think Top Gun: Maverick. And in fact these “big-deck” amphibious warships are similar in proportion to frontline World War II flattops. Other amphibs look like humble transports. Many such vessels can ballast down, taking on seawater in order to partly submerge. Ballasting down allows landing craft to launch from bays in their sterns or return to the ship.

Corbett insisted that wars are won on land because people live on land. Controlling the sea while radiating power ashore is how the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps contribute to ultimate victory, working alongside the Army and Air Force as well as allies. Winning demands combined effort.

So there’s my rough guide to ship types. Does it meet the Richard Feynman sixth-grader standard? You be the judge.

About the Author: Dr. James Holmes 

James Holmesi s J. C. Wylie Chair of Maritime Strategy at the Naval War College and a Nonresident Fellow at the University of Georgia School of Public and International Affairs. The views voiced here are his alone.

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The Israel Aerospace Industries Kfir ("Lion Cub") is a multi-role fighter developed after Israel's access to the French Mirage 5 was blocked due to an arms embargo. Israel reverse-engineered the Mirage, resulting in the Nesher and later the Kfir, powered by a General Electric J79 engine.

-The Kfir entered service with the Israeli Air Force in 1975 but was soon overshadowed by American F-15s and F-16s.

-It remains in service with several other countries despite its brief prominence in Israel's military.

The Israel Aerospace Industries Kfir (“Lion Cub”) is an all-weather multi-role fighter with a peculiar history. 

Before the development of the Kfir, the Israeli Air Force relied heavily on the Dassault Mirage IIIC, a French delta-winged fighter. In the 1960s, the Israelis and French enjoyed a harmonious relationship. The Mirage IIIC was in fact tailored to the needs of the IAF, and the Israelis found the aircraft satisfactory, at least with respect to air superiority missions. 

But the Mirage IIIC’s limited range meant the jet could not conduct many of the ground-attack missions the Israelis wanted to execute. The Israelis sought a more versatile airframe, so they pushed their French allies to begin developing the Mirage 5.

The Mirage 5

Dassault, the French aerospace manufacturer responsible for the Mirage IIIC, began working on a modified version – an aircraft that would become the Mirage 5. 

Dassault removed the avionics that were located behind the IIIC’s cockpit, allowing for increased fuel capacity and reduced maintenance costs. The result was a fair-weather, ground-attack version of the Mirage IIIC. 

By 1968, Dassault had built 50 Mirage 5s – all intended for Israel, which had paid for the airframes. But geopolitical circumstances changed swiftly. Newly inaugurated French President Charles de Gaulle made efforts to repair relations between France and the Arab world. De Gaulle retracted the French claim on Algeria, and he cut ties with Israel. 

The French government imposed an arms embargo against Israel, which would never receive the Mirage 5s they had already paid for. Israel did not sit idly by – it could not afford to lose its air superiority advantage to adversaries who were being equipped with increasingly sophisticated Soviet fighters. 

Industrial Espionage

The Israelis used spies to gather the technical specifications for the Mirage 5 airframe and engine. With the stolen tech specs, Israel was able to reverse-engineer the Mirage 5, resulting in the IAI Nesher. The Nesher itself was upgraded, resulting in the Kfir.

The Kfir used a Bedek-built General Electric J79 engine, which provided 11,900 pounds of thrust dry, and 17,900 pounds of thrust with afterburners. The engine allowed for a maximum speed of 1,520 miles per hour and a combat range of 477 miles. The Kfir’s service ceiling was 58,010 feet, with a rate of climb measuring 45,900 feet per minute.

For armament, the Kfir carried two Rafael-built 30mm DEFA 553 cannons with 140 rounds of ammunition each; a variety of unguided air-to-ground rockets; missiles including the AIM-9 Sidewinder, Shafrir Aam, Shrike Anti-Radiation Missile, and AGM-65 Maverick; plus, plenty of bombs. In all, the Kfir could carry a payload exceeding six tons.  

Entering Service With the IAF

The Kfir entered service with the Israeli Air Force in 1975. Two years later, the aircraft entered combat for the first time, striking a training camp in Lebanon. In 1979, the Kfir earned its only air-to-air victory when it shot down a Syrian MiG-21. Despite the lengths to which the Israelis went to obtain and develop the Kfir, the jet was not the IAF’s primary fighter for very long. By the time Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, it relied on the U.S. for air power, and the IAF imported the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon for air superiority roles. The Kfir was relegated to secondary status, conducting unescorted strike missions. By the 1990s, the Israelis began retiring the Kfir. 

The Kfir is still in service today in air forces that rely on outdated airframes, including Colombia, Ecuador, and Sri Lanka. 

The Kfir is curious for its notable development. Its less remarkable operational history is somewhat anticlimactic. 

About the Author: Harrison Kass

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The B-2 Spirit bomber, crucial for deep-penetration nuclear strikes, is limited by its small fleet of about 20 aircraft, making them too valuable to risk in large numbers.

-With the rise of advanced anti-aircraft systems from adversaries like China and Russia, the need for a more capable bomber, the B-21 Raider, has become critical.

-However, budgetary constraints threaten the production of sufficient B-21s to maintain credible deterrence, repeating the same mistake made with the B-2 fleet.

-The Pentagon's push for more B-21s faces significant challenges.

The Great B-21 Numbers Game 

The B-2 Bomber is the only bomber in the US Air Force’s inventory that is capable of penetrating deep into an enemy’s territory, delivering a nuclear payload, and surviving. Its stealth technology has made it a prized asset in the US military’s arsenal. Yet, there are only about 20 of these beauties. Having first entered service in 1997, even as enemy anti-aircraft/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities have become significant threats to America’s ability to project power globally, the United States Congress has not authorized anymore to be built. 

This means that the B-2s are far too valuable to risk in any large numbers. Despite the advantages its stealth technology gives, nations like China and Russia have steadily developed increasingly sophisticated ways to detect and threaten the safety of US stealth planes—notably older models, such as the B-2.

For the B-2 to be a reliable strategic asset in today’s highly contested world order, the Pentagon needed significantly more units than a mere 20. Today, there is a newer, more advanced, stealth plane on the rise: the B-21 “Raider.” This warplane is like the B-2, only better. Yet, there is a debate raging in defense circles as to how many the Pentagon could afford and reliably build, given its budgetary constraints and its other commitments. 

Basically, the Pentagon is doing to the B-21 what it did to the B-2 for the last 30 years: short-changing it. Therefore, Washington’s bureaucracy is undercutting America’s strategic advantages. 

The US Defense Budget: Constrained, Drained, and Broken

Even though the US defense budget is just a couple hundred billion shy of $1 trillion, the US military is more constrained than it has ever been. At a time when the United States is more threatened by near-peer rivals than it has been in decades. Weapons systems like the B-21 “Raider” are essential for the US military, if it is to maintain its deterrence against enemies like China and rivals, like Russia. 

Part of the problem is that the costs for the weapons systems that the Pentagon needs to maintain credible deterrence are onerous on the taxpayer. Having fallen behind China and Russia in key new defense technologies, like lasers or hypersonic weapons, the ability for America to threaten its rivals falls on existing technologies, like the B-21. But the B-21, despite being easier and cheaper to build than an entirely new technology, remains an expensive system.

And that’s why the Pentagon is receiving pushback on its request for 300 B-21s. They’ll be lucky at this point if they can get 20. These are insufficient numbers to maintain credible deterrence. If either China or Russia no longer believe America’s deterrence is reliable, they will seek to exponentially expand their challenge to the United States. It will provoke the very war that America’s strategy of deterrence and denial has been designed to prevent. 

Like the B-2, the B-21 is one of America’s only surefire ways that it can threaten targets belonging to China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea, that are hardened by A2/AD defenses as never before. America allowed for the impressive B-2 bomber to languish in its arsenal for decades by only building a handful of these marvels. The B-21 is more relevant today than the B-2 will ever be. What’s more, B-21 is one of the few systems that can actually wreak havoc on enemy countries, if—and when—the next great power war erupts. 

America's Defenses are In a Bad Place

The Pentagon must be given the funds it needs to build at least 300 B-21s—and it must be done quickly before the next great power war commences (even if it means cutting other programs that the Air Force favors to meet this increased demand for the B-21). 

About the Author

Brandon J. Weichert is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, as well as at American Greatness and the Asia Times. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower (Republic Book Publishers), Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Air Force's B-21 Raider stealth bomber program is progressing as planned, with prototypes undergoing successful flight and technology testing. Developed by Northrop Grumman, the B-21 is designed with advanced stealth capabilities, long-range efficiency, and high maintainability.

-It's expected to be operational within the decade and will play a crucial role in penetrating advanced air defenses, such as those of China.

-The Air Force plans to acquire at least 100 of these strategic bombers, which will complement the existing B-52 fleet.

The Vital B-21 Raider Stealth Bomber: A Must Have for USAF

The program to deliver the U.S. military’s most advanced strategic bomber is on schedule, according to senior U.S. officials. The Air Force expects the B-21 Raider strategic stealth bomber to be operational within the decade. 

The B-21 Raider is on Track 

“The B-21 Raider program is on track and continues flight testing at Northrop Grumman’s manufacturing facility on Edwards Air Force Base, Calif,” the Air Force said in a press release. 

“The B-21 will have an open architecture to integrate new technologies and respond to future threats across the spectrum of operations, greatly enhancing mission effectiveness and joint interoperability in advanced threat environments, strengthening U.S. deterrence and strategic advantage.”

A senior Air Force official recently said much the same during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

“We are in the flight test program, the flight test program is proceeding well,” Andrew Hunter, assistant secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, said. “It is doing what flight test programs are designed to do, which is helping us learn about the unique characteristics of this platform, but in a very, very effective way.”

The B-21 Raider is a sixth-generation strategic stealth bomber under development by Northrop Grumman. Prototypes are undergoing intense flight and technology testing. Meanwhile, the Department of Defense has cleared the aircraft for full-scale production. 

The B-21 Raider and Its Capabilities 

As one of the most technologically advanced aircraft in the U.S. military, the B-21 Raider carries highly sensitive tech. As such, little is known about the aircraft’s specific capabilities. The U.S. military has instead provided a broad overview of what the B-21 Raider should achieve. 

“Let's talk about the B-21's range. No other long-range bomber can match its efficiency. It won't need to be based in-theater. It won't need logistical support to hold any target at risk,” Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said during the B-21’s unveiling ceremony in December 2022. 

“Let's talk about the B-21's stealth. Fifty years of advances in low-observable technology have gone into this aircraft,” Austin added at the time. “And even the most sophisticated air-defense systems will struggle to detect a B-21 in the sky. Let's talk about the B-21's durability. You know, we really don't have a capability unless we can maintain it. And the B-21 is carefully designed to be the most maintainable bomber ever built.”  

Current estimates put the cost for a single B-21 Raider at around $750 million, although the Air Force is trying to lower that figure. But the aircraft promises to endow the U.S. military with capabilities that are absolutely necessary in future combat. For example, in a potential conflict with China, this jet could penetrate Beijing’s Anti-Access/Area Denial umbrella and deliver conventional and nuclear munitions to targets deep within Chinese air defenses. 

The Air Force has made plans to purchase at least 100 B-21 strategic stealth bombers. It wants to pair the high-tech strategic bomber with the venerable B-52 Stratofortress. 

About the Author

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The United States Air Force's fleet includes some of the world's most advanced aircraft, essential for maintaining air superiority. The F-22 Raptor, F-35 Lightning II, B-2 Spirit, B-21 Raider, and B-52 Stratofortress are key platforms.

-Each offers unique capabilities, from the F-22's unmatched stealth and maneuverability to the B-52's long-range nuclear delivery.

-As global threats evolve, these aircraft continue to be central to U.S. defense, with future advancements in the B-21 and continued reliance on the B-52 highlighting the ongoing need for air dominance.

5 Most Powerful Warplanes: Inside the U.S. Air Force's Most Advanced Aircraft Fleet

As a core pillar of any Western air force, gaining and maintaining air superiority has regularly been prioritized in America’s military doctrine.

The Pentagon has invested billions of dollars into developing advanced airframes across each service and the U.S. has benefitted from having air superiority over its adversaries for decades.

Although nations including China and Russia, have modernized their own aerial capabilities in recent years, certain U.S. platforms flown by the Air Force and Navy represent some of the world’s best aircraft across the globe. 

The F-22 Raptor

As the world’s first fifth-generation fighter to ever fly the skies, the F-22 Raptor is largely touted as the most advanced platform in service today.

The Raptor was the first operational fighter to combine stealth, supermaneuverability, supercruise, and sensor fusion in a single platform. Back in 1997, the Air Force’s infamous jet took its first flight with the service and continues to wow aviation buffs more than two decades later.

The Raptor’s smaller radar cross-section and twin thrust-vectoring F119 turbofan engines are perhaps the fighter’s greatest assets. Its thrust-vectoring capacity allows the Raptor to outperform any other jet in a dogfight since it can redirect the flow of energy that enables the airframe to do the remarkable acrobatics it is known for. 

Ordnance-wise, the F-22 can sport two AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles in its twin internal side weapon bays in addition to six AIM-120 AMRAAM radar-guided air-to-air missiles or 2 AIM-120 AMRAAM and two GBU-32 JDAM munitions in its central weapons bay.   

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

America’s newest fifth-generation fighter, the F-35 Lightning II, is undoubtedly the most coveted tactical jet worldwide.

Foreign militaries are hankering to get their hands on the formidable and stealthy fighter that essentially embodies the functions of three planes in a single platform.

The “Joint Strike Fighter” was initially designed to replace the U.S. Marine Corps’ F/A-18 and AV-8B Harrier, the U.S. Navy’s F/A-18, and the U.S. Air Force’s A-10 and F-16 airframes. Depending on the variant, the highly versatile fighter can do it all, including conventional takeoff and landing and aircraft carrier landings. 

The Lightning II is best known for its “beast mode” capabilities. Essentially, the fighter can load up on munitions on its external weapons pylons and turn the craft into a “bomb truck.” Beast mode does, however, compromise the stealth ability of the airframe.

While in stealth mode, the F-35 is limited to the weapons it can carry internally, protected by a radar-evading fuselage. In beast mode, however, the F-35 can sport nearly four times more ordinance by using its external mounts, which carry upwards of 22,000 pounds of weaponry. Although the Lightning II is a relatively new fighter, over 900 airframes have been exported, indicating the jet’s remarkable popularity across the globe. 

The B-2 Spirit

While the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit stealth bomber is over 30 years old, the strategic platform remains a powerhouse in the sky. The aging airframe will eventually be replaced by the newer and more advanced B-21 Raider, however, the aircraft represents the most lethal bomber across the globe today.

Since its introduction into service during the Cold War, the B-2 has proved itself in numerous combat operations in locales ranging from Libya and Kosovo to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Spirit was designed to penetrate anti-aircraft defenses and remains the only acknowledged platform that can sport large air-to-surface standoff weapons in a stealth configuration.

According to the Air Force, the blending of the Spirit’s low-observable technologies with high aerodynamic efficiency and greater payload gives the airframe a significant advantage over near-peer bombers. “The B-2's low observability is derived from a combination of reduced infrared, acoustic, electromagnetic, visual, and radar signatures.

These signatures make it difficult for the sophisticated defensive systems to detect, track and engage the B-2. Many aspects of the low-observability process remain classified; however, the B-2's composite materials, special coatings and flying-wing design all contribute to its stealthiness."

The B-21 Raider

As the first component of the U.S. nuclear deterrent’s $1 trillion overhaul, the Raider is expected to single-handedly elevate the U.S. military’s aerial dominance. The Northrop Grumman-designed platform will carry both conventional and nuclear arms, giving it an “edge that will last for decades,” according to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.

Similar to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Raider will operate like an “airborne data hub.” Many of the details surrounding the B-21 Raider remain classified.

The B-52 Stratofortress

Although the U.S. Air Force’s fleet of B-52 airframes has been in service for almost 70 years, the formidable platform continues to represent the mainstay of the service’s bomber fleet. Even with the eventual addition of the B-21 Raider into the mix, the Stratofortress will continue to serve as a significant deterrent to China and other U.S. adversaries.

The bomber has an honorable track record, operating during the Vietnam War, Operation Desert Storm, the Second Gulf War, and Afghanistan. The current B-52 can fly nearly 9,000 miles before needing to refuel. Along with its nuclear delivery capabilities, the platform can launch stand-off cruise missiles.

This very old platform is expected to fly the skies into the 2050s. 

As tensions continue to soar between the U.S. and China, prospects for a future kinetic conflict increase. American airframes possess a range of sophisticated and unique capabilities; however, Beijing has been rapidly modernizing its Air Force over the last decade. The U.S. isn’t the only producer of fifth-generation airframes anymore, making its next generation of planes even more vital.

Expert Biography

Maya Carlin, a Senior Editor for 19FortyFive, is an analyst with the Center for Security Policy and a former Anna Sobol Levy Fellow at IDC Herzliya in Israel. She has by-lines in many publications, including The National Interest, Jerusalem Post, and Times of Israel.

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The Royal Navy's Vanguard-class nuclear submarines serve as the UK's strategic nuclear deterrent, carrying Trident II D5 missiles. Introduced in 1994, the four Vanguard-class subs are the largest built in the UK and the third-largest vessels in the Royal Navy. Their only mission is to fire a vast amount of nuclear weapons at any targets - if ever called upon to do so. 

-These subs will eventually be replaced by the Dreadnought-class.

-The Vanguard-class also features advanced sonar systems and torpedoes for anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare. Despite aging, they remain crucial to the UK's defense strategy.

Vanguard-Class Submarines: UK's Nuclear Deterrent Powerhouses

The Royal Navy’s four Vanguard-class nuclear-powered submarines (SSBNs) currently form the UK’s strategic nuclear deterrent force. Each of the boats is armed with Trident II D5 nuclear missiles. They are also the largest submarines ever constructed in the UK and are the third-largest type of vessel in the Royal Navy.

The Vanguard-class was introduced in 1994 as part of the British military’s Trident nuclear program and includes just four boats: Vanguard (S28), Victorious (S29), Vigilant (S30), and Vengeance (S31). The submarines were constructed between 1986 and 1999 at Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria by the former Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering (now BAE Systems Marine).

All four of the submarines are based at HM Naval Base Clyde, west of Glasgow, Scotland. The Vanguard-class boats were originally intended for a service life of twenty-five years, and will be replaced as the new Dreadnaught-class of ballistic missile submarines is set to enter service.

Each submarine is powered by a Rolls-Royce PWR2 nuclear reactor, with two GEC turbines; and has a single shaft and a single pump-jet propulsor and two WH Allen turbo generators.

Vanguard-Class: Largest Subs in the Royal Navy

At nearly 150 meters in length and more than 16,000 metric tons, the Vanguard-class remains the largest submarine type ever constructed in the UK, and it has remained the third-largest type of combat vessel in service with Royal Navy. The submarines have twice the displacement of the Polaris submarines of the Resolution-class. Due to the size of the boats, a special production facility had to be built to handle the construction of the Vanguard and her sister submarines.

The increased size of the subs was necessary to accommodate the Trident D5 missile, yet the complement of the class is small at just 132 officers and sailors, compared to the Polaris boats, which required a crew of 149. The 16-tube missile compartment on the new Trident submarines is based on the 24-tube system utilized on the United States Navy’s Ohio-class Trident submarines. Missile maintenance occurs in the United States, while the UK Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston was responsible for all the design, construction and installation, as well as maintenance of the warheads.

The Trident nuclear missiles can be fired at targets up to 4,000 miles away and at their maximum speed travels at more than 13,000 miles an hour.

The Vanguard-class was also designed with several significant improvements, which included a new design of the nuclear propulsion system as well as a new tactical weapon system or self-defense purposes, both before and after a missile launch. Under “normal” conditions, the submarines are equipped with one to three warheads depending on mission, yet each Vanguard-class submarine is capable of carrying 192 warheads.

In September 2009, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown told the UN General Assembly that the UK was ready to reduce its Vanguard-class submarine force by one. Brown had said that the offer was being made to encourage other nuclear-powered countries to move towards a nuclear-weapons-free world. However, such a move never came to pass.

Missiles and Torpedoes

While designed to serve as a nuclear deterrent, the Vanguard-class boats are also equipped with four 21-inch (533mm) torpedo tubes and can carry up to 16 Spearfish heavyweight torpedoes, which can be guided by copper wire or by autonomous active or pass sonar.

At full speed, the Spearfish can attack a target up to 14 miles away, while at low speed the range is increased to more than 30 miles. The torpedoes can deliver a 660 pound explosive charge, and that provides the boats with both anti-submarine (ASW) and anti-surface warfare (ASuW) capabilities.

The boats are also fitted with what the Royal Navy calls “world-beating sonar,” which is reportedly so sensitive that it can “hear” vessels more than 50 miles away. That can help ensure that the Vanguard-class can live up to its moniker and remain the foremost part of an advancing naval force.

About the Author

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He regularly writes about military hardware, and is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes.

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The UK’s Vanguard-class submarines, introduced in the 1990s, are the backbone of the Royal Navy's nuclear deterrent force.

-These submarines carry the UGM-133 Trident II missiles and were developed to replace the older Resolution-class vessels.

-Each Vanguard can carry up to 16 Trident II missiles, with a limited load of 48 nuclear warheads.

The submarines are powered by nuclear propulsion, allowing them to operate for extended periods.

-The Vanguard-class will be replaced by the Dreadnought-class submarines in the early 2030s.

The Enduring Power of the UK’s Vanguard-Class Submarines

The United Kingdom’s Vanguard-class submarines may be aging, yet these nuclear-powered vessels remain the backbone of the Royal Navy. Sometime in the next decade, the UK’s upcoming Dreadnought-class submarines are expected to replace their Vanguard predecessors. However, the Trident missile system incorporated on the Vanguards will be carried over to the new class.

A brief history of the Vanguard-class:

During the Cold War, the UK’s leading submarines were four Resolution-class ships. Each of these vessels was fitted with the UGM-27 Polaris missile, a solid-fueled, nuclear-armed weapon designed originally for the U.S. Navy.

Since the Polaris was launched underwater from a moving platform, it was basically impossible for enemy ships to intercept and take out. As part of the 1963 Polaris Sales Agreement, the UK was able to incorporate this invaluable weapon missile system. While the Resolution ships (and the Polaris missile) were considered top-of-the-line for many years, a subsequent series of submarines and accompanying missiles were conceptualized by the early 1980s.

Ultimately, then-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher officially requested to purchase the American-made Trident I missiles in 1980. However, the introduction of an enhanced Trident II variant altered this request. In 1982, an agreement between the UK and the U.S. culminated in the delivery of the UGM-133 Trident II.

The Vanguard-class submarines were designed to launch this formidable weapon, developed by Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering at BAE Systems Maritime-Submarines.

In 1994, the Vanguard-class was officially introduced, including Vanguard (S28), Victorious (S29), Vigilant (S30) and Vengeance (S31). When the class was introduced, all four ships were intended to live out service lives of twenty-five years. Each ship is based at HM Naval Base Clyde, west of Glasgow, Scotland.

Their mission is to ensure nuclear deterrence and, if called upon, fire their warheads at nearly any target on Earth. 

The four Vanguard ships are powered by nuclear propulsion, which allows them to sail for periods stretching up to two months without needing to refuel. Although the Vanguard submarines were built bigger to accommodate the Trident missile, a smaller crew of just 132 sailors and officers can fit on board.

The Vanguard submarines can pack a punch:

Each Vanguard can carry up to 16 Trident II missiles, which can sport up to 12 MIRVs. However, the START I treaty agreements limit this number to eight.

As detailed by Naval Technology, the Vanguard ships can technically sport 192 nuclear warheads, but the Royal Navy has limited this number to 48 missiles. “Trident II is a three-stage solid propellant missile with supersonic speed. Weight is 59,000kg.

The US Navy gives the range of the D5 as ‘greater than 7,360km’ but this could be up to 12,000km, depending on the payload mix. The accuracy of strike on the target is given by the Circle of Equal Probability (CEP) value, which is the radius of the circle within which half the strikes will impact.” The Vanguard ships additionally feature sophisticated sensors, including the Thales Underwater Systems Type 2054 composite sonar system. This upgraded system is reportedly so sensitive that it can detect other ships positioned more than 50 miles away.  

While the Vanguard ships remain a critical component of the Royal Navy, three Dreadnought successors are already under construction and will likely commission sometime in the early 2030’s.

About the Author: Maya Carlin 

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

Main Image: Creative Commons

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Air Force's "elephant walks," where aircraft taxi in close formation before takeoff, have become symbolic demonstrations of military readiness.

-A notable example occurred in January 2020 at Hill Air Force Base with 52 F-35 Lightning II fighters. This exercise showcased the unit's combat readiness, with each F-35 costing $44,000 per flight hour.

-The exercise not only tested operational capabilities but also sent a powerful message about the U.S. military's air power to adversaries like China and Russia.

F-35 Stealth Fighter Flex: The Elephant Walk of Elephant Walks 

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

The first elephant walks occurred during the Second World War when large fleets of allied bombers massed for attacks – and observers on the ground noted that as the aircraft lined up, it resembled the nose-to-tail formations of elephants walking to a watering hole. Today, the U.S. Air Force employs elephant walks to show the capability of a unit as well as the teamwork that is required to conduct such an operation.

It also can help pilots prepare for the launching of fully armed aircraft in a mass event if needed.

The Walk of the F-35 Lightning IIs

While during World War II, dozens and even hundreds of bombers could be lined up, recent elephant walks are far smaller but no less impressive, especially considering the capabilities of modern aircraft.

Such was the case in January 2020, when the United States Air Force's Active Duty 388th and Reserve 419th Fighter Wings conducted the Combat Power Exercise at Hill Air Force Base (AFB), Utah with 52 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II 35As – the conventional takeoff and landing variant of the U.S. military's Joint Strike Fighter.

The elephant walk of the F-35 Lightning IIs was employed to demonstrate the "ability to employ a large force of F-35As" as well as to test the air wing's readiness for personnel accountability, aircraft generation, ground operations, flight operations, and combat capability, according to a Hill statement from the time.

Elephant Walk Photo Worth a Few Million Dollars

Though the U.S. Air Force's press photos may have looked to many like little more than a number of aircraft lined up, the exercise had actually been planned for months. As TheDrive.com reported, "The amount of hardware on the runway in terms of billions of dollars is staggering."

As previously reported, the elephant walk was quite costly to pull off, as the F-35 Lightning II costs $44,000 per hour to fly.

If each of the 52 F-35 fighters in the elephant walk flew for just a single hour, it was still a $2 million-plus exercise. If the jets flew for two hours, the cost likely exceeded about $4 million.

Yet, it could be described as priceless.

The ability to launch 52 of the fifth-generation F-35 stealth fighters was as much to send a message to detractors of the program within the United States as it was to reaffirm the capabilities of the U.S. Air Force to near-peer adversaries such as China and Russia.

It highlighted the improved readiness rate of the F-35 fleet at the time, which had been lagging for years when the elephant walk was conducted in 2020.

The service had only just reached a mission-capable rate of 75 percent the prior October, up from just 66 percent a year earlier.

No doubt an adversary would have loved to have the chance to take out the Lightning IIs on the ground – which is about the time that the aircraft can be described as truly vulnerable.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu 

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The USS Pierre (LCS-38), the final Independence-class Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), has been launched, marking the end of this controversial program.

-Despite being touted for their speed and versatility in near-shore waters, the LCS fleet has faced criticism due to frequent breakdowns and the cancellation of planned mission modules.

-The U.S. Navy has already started retiring some of these ships ahead of schedule, and there are discussions about transferring them to allies for roles like drug interdiction or regional defense.

End of the Line for the Independence-Class Littoral Combat Ship – Final Vessel Launched

The United States Navy's Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program has been seen as one of the sea service's biggest missteps since the end of the Cold War – perhaps only second to the Zumwalt-class destroyers. Both the LCS and the stealth destroyers were seen as failures for being the wrong ships at the wrong time, and while the U.S. Navy cut the Zumwalt-class program to just three ships – which made it a very costly mistake – the service has continued to accept delivery of brand new LCS vessels even as the oldest were retired years ahead of schedule.

This week, Mobile, Alabama-based Austal USA announced that it launched the future USS Pierre (LCS-38), the final vessel of the Independence-variant of the LCS program. Christened in May, LCS-38 is the nineteenth vessel of the class to be built by Austal and is on track to begin sea trials later this year.

"Meeting this ship milestone in such a safe and timely manner demonstrates how well our Austal USA launch team, transporter operators, and tug pilots have learned to work together over the last thirteen years, seamlessly executing this technical launch process," said Austal USA Vice President of New Construction, Dave Growden. "Our industry teams work methodically alongside our Navy partners to improve this innovative process with each launch evolution, guaranteeing the Navy a quality product delivered on time and budget."

After the future USS Pierre enters service, she will be homeported in San Diego.

LCS 38 is only the second U.S. Navy warship to be named for the South Dakota capital, while the first USS Pierre was a PC-class submarine chaser that was commissioned in 1943 during the Second World War, and decommissioned in 1958.

End of the Line for the LCS in Sight

The launch of the future USS Pierre comes just days after Lockheed Martin subsidiary Fincantieri Marinette Marine delivered the Freedom-variant USS Nantucket (LCS-27) to the United States Navy at its shipyard in Marinette, Wisconsin.

Two additional Freedom-class LCSs are now under construction – the future USS Beloit (LCS-29) and future USS Cleveland (LCS-31) – the final warships of the program. Both are expected to be handed over to the U.S. Navy by the end of the year. With their delivery, it will mark the end of the construction phase for the troubled LCS program – although it is unclear how long the fleet of LCSs will remain in service.

It was three years ago that the U.S. Navy began to retire the oldest of vessels of the respective variants – even as some of the ships have served in the fleet for less than half the expected twenty-five-year service life. To date, five have been decommissioned, while two more Independence-class variants are expected to be retired from service this year. In addition, the United States Navy has considered offering some of its LCS to allies and partners via the Pentagon's foreign military sales.

Littoral Combat Ship: The Little Crappy Ships That Can't

Though the warships were touted to emphasize speed and could operate in littoral or near-shore waters, such as those of the South China Sea, the LCS suffered from breakdowns while Congressional lawmakers cut the funding for the planned mission modules that were meant to provide flexible capabilities for the warships.

That has left the U.S. Navy with a lightly armed vessel that isn't ideally suited to a confrontation with a near-peer adversary such as China. As a result, there have been calls to transfer them to partner nations in South America, where the warships could be employed in a drug interdiction role, or to the Middle East where they could bolster the navies of regional allies.

It was only in April, that testing began on a Mine Countermeasure Mission Package (MCM MP) aboard the Independence-variant USS Canberra (LCS-30), which could finally give the LCS program purpose. The MCM package, made up of an integrated suite of unmanned maritime systems sensors, was developed to locate, identify, and destroy mines in littoral waters.

However, it would seem that module is too little and it comes too late for the warships that have earned the scorn of sailors and senior naval officials alike.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

Summary and Key Points: The F-16XL was an advanced variant of the F-16 designed for supercruise capabilities and increased payload, initially considered as a potential replacement for the F-111 Aardvark.

-Despite its enhanced features, including greater range, payload capacity, and reduced radar signature, it lost out to the F-15E Strike Eagle.

-The F-16XL's technology contributed to later advancements in fighter jets, including the F-22 Raptor.

Two prototypes were used in various NASA experiments before being retired to museums.

F-16XL: The Fighter Jet That Could Have Been

America’s formidable fourth-generation F-16 fighter platform made headlines last year when the White House gave Ukraine the green light to fly them in war.

Since February 2022, Kyiv has asserted that without more advanced aerial capabilities, it would be unable to thwart Russia’s advances.

Initially, the Biden administration was adamant that it would not provide F-16 Fighting Falcon airframes to aid Ukraine’s defensive efforts. However, the training of Ukrainian pilots on these airframes was ultimately okayed.

American Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said that the U.S. would actually head up the coalition of nations that will train Ukraine’s pilots and crews to properly operate the Fighting Falcons last month. 

A brief history of the F-16 platform

The General Dynamics F-16 was designed nearly five decades ago to fulfill the U.S. Air Force’s need for an air superiority fighter.

Following the Vietnam War, military officials understood the need for airframes better equipped to maneuver with minimum possible energy loss

By the 1970’s, the Fighting Falcon was born out of the Lightweight Fighter program.

The compact, multi-role jet is highly maneuverable and can operate in both air-to-surface and air-to-air combat.

Over the years, the F-16 platform has achieved an honorable combat record and continues to fly for the USAF as well as a litany of foreign militaries. 

Where are the F-16XLs today?

While the F-16 has an honorable legacy, not all of its subsequent variants have made it to the service phase.

Shortly after winning the Lightweight Fighter program contract, General Dynamics worked on several prototypes, including two variants it later delivered to NASA’s Langely Research Center.

Referred to by their serial numbers #849 and #848, these jets were both used in a litany of experiments that only concluded in the late 1990s.

Notably, F-16XL #849 participated in a 1995 sonic boom study where it flew 200 feet behind a NASA SR-71 to ascertain the boundary of a SR-71’s supersonic shockwave.

As Peter Suciu explained on additional F-16XL studies conducted by NASA: “The two-seat F-16XL was extensively modified by NASA Dryden for the Supersonic Boundary Layer Control research project in the mid-1990s. A turbine-driven suction system was installed in the aircraft’s fuselage while a modified, thickened left-wing pulled in boundary layer air flowing over the wing to enable laminar, or smooth, airflow over the wing. The aircraft last flew in 1996 and is reportedly no longer airworthy.”

While these variants are now sitting in storage at the Air Force Flight Center Museum at Edwards and on display at the Museum Air Park, they are highly respected by aviation buffs and industry experts alike. 

F-16XL: F-16 on Steroids? 

The resulting F-16XL design was conceptualized to potentially replace the F-111 Aardvark. Ultimately, however, McDonnell Douglas’ F-15E jet was awarded the contract. The two constructed F-16XL fighters were then relegated to Edwards Air Force Base.

The main concept driving the F-16XL was supercruise (sustained supersonic cruising without afterburner) capability. The culminating prototype did indeed have a longer range while still saving on fuel.

Despite the F-16XL’s trajectory, the fighter is widely recognized by aviation experts as a powerhouse.

According to Military.com, this variant would carry twice the payload of the original Fighting Falcon variant and fly as much as 44% further.

Furthermore, the F-16XL could accomplish this without external fuel tanks and while sporting a full suite of air-to-air weapons including four AMRAAMs and two AIM-9 Sidewinders. 

Additional capabilities have been outlined by Air and Space Forces: “As for penetration and survivability, the F-16XL can dash supersonically with a load of bombs at either high or low altitude. It can climb at high rates with the bombs aboard. And it has a speed advantage of up to eighty-three knots over the F-16A at sea level at military power setting and 311 knots on afterburner at altitude while carrying a bomb load.

Two additional capabilities of the F-16XL contribute to survivability. First is improved instantaneous maneuver ability coupled with greatly expanded flight operating limits (with bombs), and second is reduced radar signature resulting from the configuration shaping.” 

Did the Air Force Make a Mistake? 

While the Strike Eagle platform that did eventually enter service with the USAF proved to be highly capable, the F-16XL would have undoubtedly enhanced the service’s prowess if accepted alongside the F-15 back in the day.

Nonetheless, the F-16 has contributed to modern aerial concepts. In fact, the variant would even aid in the development of the supercruise capability of the first-ever fifth generation airframe to take to the skies- the F-22 Raptor. 

About the Author: Maya Carlin 

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The F-16XL was an experimental variant of the F-16 Fighting Falcon, designed with cranked-arrow delta wings to enhance lift, range, and payload.

-Developed under the U.S. Air Force's Enhanced Tactical Fighter program, the F-16XL competed against the F-15E Strike Eagle to replace the F-111 Aardvark.

-Despite its innovative design, the F-16XL lost to the F-15E due to cost and survivability considerations.

-Though not adopted, the F-16XL's design influenced future F-16 variants.

F-16XL: The Innovative Fighter That Could Have Changed U.S. Air Power

The F-16XL is an experimental variant of the F-16 Fighting Falcon, a single-engine multirole fighter aircraft originally developed by General Dynamics (now Lockheed Martin) for the United States Air Force. America’s F-16XL was designed to explore the benefits of a cranked-arrow delta wing, which was intended to improve the aircraft’s lift, range, and payload capabilities. 

Designers of this unique bird developed it with an additional two fuselage sections near the front and back of the aircraft, thereby extending its length to around 56 inches.

Not only were the cranked-arrow wings a new and innovative turn by the designers of the XL, but they also added a new wing skin of carbon fiber that reduced the bird’s weight by 600 pounds. Here, by the way, you can see the mosaic that is military aerospace engineering. Because obviously the designers were borrowing cutting-edge concepts from other projects, such as stealth planes, with the carbon fiber skin, and toying with them in the context of a souped-up F-16. 

Between the new wings and the lighter overall weight, the XL could outfly a conventional F-16 by leaps-and-bounds. Not only that, though, the new design allowed for so much spare room that the F-16XL could carry 27 hardpoints for armaments!

Engineering is so cool, isn’t it?

The XL has Its Origins in an Even Zanier Concept Plane: The SCAMP

In fact, the F-16XL was based on earlier, even more radical F-16 prototype design, the F-16 SCAMP (Supersonic Cruise and Maneuver Prototype) from 1977. The SCAMP was a truly brilliant concept. 

On first glance, bean counters might be upset that, as Alex Hollings wrote for Military.com, “The effort wasn’t about fielding another production fighter—General Dynamics had no intention of trying to sell SCAMP once it was complete.” But it was actually a rare example of deft stewardship of the taxpayer’s money by the Pentagon.

Rather than SCAMP being the next warplane for the Air Force in the late 1970s, instead, as Hollings assessed, “the entire premise behind the program was to quickly (and cheaply) field a platform [the USAF] could use to test the concept behind supersonic cruising, or as we’ve come to call it today, ‘supercruising.’”

From there, the F-16 SCAMP became the basis of the F-16XL. 

The Air Force’s Enhanced Tactical Fighter Program

The F-16XL was designed to explore the benefits of a cranked-arrow delta wing, which was intended to improve the aircraft’s lift, range, and payload capabilities. This bird was considered to be part of the Air Force’s Enhanced Tactical Fighter (ETF) program.

America’s EFT program was an initiative for the Air Force in the early 1980s. It was aimed at developing a replacement for what was then the aging F-111 Aardvark. The program sought to procure an aircraft that could perform both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions effectively.

Two main contenders emerged: the General Dynamics F-16XL and the McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle. As you’ve read the F-16XL was a derivative of the F-16 Fighting Falcon while the F-15E was a derivative of the F-15 Eagle that was merely designed to carry a larger payload and have extended range compared to its predecessors. 

Ultimately, by 1984, the Air Force selected the F-15E Strike Eagle over the F-16XL. 

Key factors in the Air Force’s decision included the F-15E’s lower development costs, perceived future growth potential, and advantage of having two engines for increased survivability and payload capacity. When the F-16XL lost out to the F-15E Strike Eagle, the two F-16XL prototype aircraft were transferred to NASA for greater aeronautical research. 

Replacing the F-111 Aardvark

As for why the Air Force was originally interested in the F-16XL as a replacement for the aging F-111 Aardvark, that comes down strategic and tactical needs. The F-111’s mission sets involved attack, strategic bombing, reconnaissance, and electronic warfare (EW). The F-111 was also known for its innovative variable-sweep wing design, which allowed it to adjust its wing configuration for optimal performance at different speeds and altitudes. 

So, the designers of the F-16XL knew that they needed to create a bird that was as versatile as had been the F-111 Aardvark. It would seem as though the designers of the XL focused on the Aardvark’s unique wing design. Hence, why General Dynamics built the F-16XL had its own unique wing configuration—the aforementioned cranked-arrow delta wing.

A Worthwhile Cause

The F-16XL made its inaugural flight on July 14, 1982. After that, the innovative bird went through a wide range of testing and evaluation by the USAF. Although the Air Force ultimately chose to go with the F-15E Strike Eagle as the replacement for the ailing Aardvark, the development of the F-16XL was not an entirely useless exercise. 

After all, the Air Force would incorporate the warbird’s innovative design and other features into later versions of the F-16, such as the F-16C/D the F-16 E/F Desert Falcon variants which continue proving their worth today (only now being slowly supplanted by America’s fleet of fifth-generation warplanes). 

It’s too bad that the F-16XL was not embraced by the Air Force, as it was undeniably a better plane than the F-15E and would have been more innovative than the F-15E. Ultimately, the Air Force chose to go with the F-15E because of how its production line was established and maintained. 

Still, it’s fun to imagine what might have been. A light, supercruising, F-16 with 27 different kinds of armaments on it would have been one lethal warbird.

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. 

From the Vault

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

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

The Russian military and pro-Russian separatist forces continue to lose thousands of men to the fighting in Ukraine every day.

However, the Russian political and military leadership is willing to take big losses to achieve its goals in Ukraine.

Russian Casualties in Ukraine: Steady As It Goes

In July, the Russian forces suffered approximately 36,000 men killed, wounded, and captured. These casualties are in line with those of June (around 35,000) and slightly lower than those of May (around 40,000).

“The average daily Russian casualties (killed and wounded) in Ukraine has fallen over the past two months from a conflict high of over 1,262 per day in May to 1,140 in July 2024,” the British Military Intelligence assessed in one of its latest estimates of the war.

“Despite this reduction, the last three months have been the costliest for the Russian forces since February 2022, according to Ukrainian General Staff reporting,” the British Military Intelligence added.

The Ukrainian Ministry of Defense has been one of the main sources of Russian casualty data. Despite the obvious bias, Kyiv has largely provided accurate reporting since it has been largely corroborated by Western military and intelligence sources. However, the casualty data coming out of Kyiv seem to be more accurate when it concerns manpower losses than materiel losses. For example, the Ukrainian military estimates that the Russian military has lost over 8,000 main battle tanks, whereas Western assessments put that number closer to 3,000 tanks—still a significant blow to Moscow’s combat power as it represents the Russian military’s entire prewar arsenal.

A good portion of the losses of the prior two months were the result of a large-scale offensive against Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest urban center in the east. The operation failed, and the Ukrainian military regained much of the lost territory.

“The reduction in daily average is likely indicative of Russian forces consolidating positions on the Kharkiv axis. Although this new approach has increased the pressure on the frontline, an effective Ukrainian defense and a lack of Russian training reduces Russia’s ability to exploit any tactical successes into wider operational gains,” the British Military Intelligence stated.

In the absence of the requisite combat power and ability to leverage tactical successes, Moscow is forced to pursue a strategy of attrition. Russian president Vladimir Putin seems to be content with sacrificing over 1,000 of his men on a daily basis in order to exhaust the Ukrainians. The dictatorial nature of Russian politics and the lack of any meaningful opposition to Putin means that this strategy of attrition will continue.

“Russia’s casualty rate will likely continue to average above 1,000 a day throughout August 2024 as Russia continues offensive operations on a wide front from Kharkiv in the north to Robotyne in the south of Ukraine,” the British Military Intelligence concluded.

With the current rate of casualties and a possible Ukrainian counteroffensive during the fall, it is likely that the Russian forces are going to reach 700,000 casualties by the end of the year.

About the Author: 

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.