The National Interest

Kris Osborn

U.S. Navy, Asia

The aircraft carrier is still the most powerful platform for power projection, and the concept is still extraordinarily vital.

Here's What You Need to Remember: If an F-35C or F-18 can be refueled in flight by a carrier-operated drone refueler, they will not only have more dwell time over targets but they will be able reach target areas and project power from carriers operating at safer standoff ranges.

U.S. Navy aircraft carriers are said to be extremely vulnerable to modern missile attacks, since they represent huge floating targets that are less agile and mobile in high threat circumstances. In fact, some commentators have gone so far as to wonder if recently emerging long range anti-ship missiles may have rendered aircraft carriers obsolete.

This is not true, at least according to many prominent Navy leaders, weapons developers, futurists and influential members of Congress. All of these leaders clearly explain that America’s signature emblem of maritime power is going nowhere.

“The aircraft carrier is still the most powerful platform for power projection, and the concept is still extraordinarily vital. If it was not the Chinese wouldn’t be building aircraft carriers. So they are looking to catch up because they understand you’ve got to deploy power away from your shores,” Rep. Rob Whitman -(R) Va., ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces, told The National Interest in an interview.

While there will be adaptations to new threats, such as greater use of amphibious assault ships for airpower and much broader use of unmanned systems, the fundamental premise of carrier operations and emerging Ford-class aircraft carriers, appear here to stay.

Alongside advancing a clear sense that existing aircraft carrier power projection is something which should both remain and simultaneously adapt to emerging threats, Wittman was also enthusiastic about the additional mobility and multifunctional advantages of amphibious assault ships, now increasingly capable of projecting long-range airpower with the arrival of the F-35B stealth jet fighter.

As has been the case for years, the Navy will continue to study questions about future carrier configurations with a close eye upon new threats, weapons, and potential enemy tactics, yet many believe that a emerging consensus may be emerging. Such advocates argue that newer aircraft carriers, if properly defended and fortified by range-extending platforms such as carrier-launched drone refuelers, are likely to endure throughout this century.

The reasons for this may simply be too numerous, interwoven and complex to specify, yet several do immediately come to mind. Emerging layered ship defenses are now enabled by laser interceptors, electronic warfare applications able to jam missile targeting systems and new generations of longer-range precision interceptor missiles increasingly able to change course in flight to destroy incoming attacks.

All of this bears upon the almost “all too often discussed” threat equation presented in the Pacific by Chinese DF-26 and DF-21D carrier killer anti-ship missiles which can reportedly hit carriers at ranges of 2,000 and 1,000 miles respectively. The weapons are regularly test fired and cited in Chinese newspapers as being highly effective and able to deny access to vital strike ranges from which carriers might need to operate.

The rhetoric about these missiles, however, often overlooks several key variables of great significance to the tactical equation, such as the extent to which the MQ-25 Stingray carrier-launched refueler drone might actually double the strike range of carrier-launched aircraft. If an F-35C or F-18 can be refueled in flight by a carrier-operated drone refueler, they will not only have more dwell time over targets but they will be able reach target areas and project power from carriers operating at safer standoff ranges. Also, there is likely a reason why so many Navy leaders regularly say the service can operate carriers anywhere it needs to, meaning the breakthrough levels of ship defenses, coupled with the added protections from ships in a Carrier Strike Group, enable carriers to operate in high threat areas to a much larger extent than may be realized.

“I think that the aircraft carrier will continue to be a viable option, mainly because, you know, our effort is to keep any sort of conflict away from conus. And the only way to do that is to protect power. So nobody has come up with a substitute for that in today’s world,” Wittman said. “We can probably dock our ships in allied ports and stage many operations from friendly countries, however the 20th century concept of basing in foreign nations is something that’s not going to happen in the future.”

Kris Osborn is the defense editor for the National Interest. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Master’s Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University. This article is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Flickr.

Trevor Filseth

Child Tax Credit,

The advance payments of the Child Tax Credit are not regarded as a payment in themselves; they are considered an advance on a payment that is scheduled to be made in April 2022.

Here's What You Need to Remember: In recognition of the chaos caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the IRS has waived repayment in certain cases, and has offered installment plans in others. Still, to avoid being caught unaware, parents can update their information via a portal on the IRS’s website.

Over the coming weeks, millions of American families will receive the first of six monthly checks from the federal government. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the government made half of the Child Tax Credit (CTC) funds available in advance; this half will be paid out monthly from July until December, with the first payment slated for July 15. The other half of the credit must be claimed on a family’s tax returns in April 2022.

The American Rescue Plan, the legislation that provided for the most recent round of stimulus checks, also approved the advance payments of the Child Tax Credit. It also increased the amount of each; while prior to the pandemic, each child netted their parents $2000 per year, regardless of age, this number has now been increased to $3000 for children aged six and up and $3600 for those younger. Per month, this translates to $250 per child for older children and $300 for younger ones.

These advance payments will unquestionably make a difference in many Americans’ lives. Because they amount to transfers of cash with no strings attached, unlike most conventional welfare benefits, they have been compared to the COVID-19-era stimulus checks.

However, there is a substantial difference. The advance payments of the Child Tax Credit are not regarded as a payment in themselves; they are considered an advance on a payment that is scheduled to be made in April 2022. For this reason, if the amount that a family owes by April changes, they may be forced to pay back a portion of the advance on the following year’s taxes.

For instance, if a child turned six in May, he or she would only be eligible for the smaller amount per month, rather than the larger one. However, the IRS will not learn about this until April, when it comes time to file 2021 taxes. From July until December, it will have been sending $300 checks rather than $250 ones, and it will want its money back the following year.

Other considerations include income; if a family’s income exceeds $150,000 in 2021, it will have exceeded the payment cap, and the IRS will request that the family repays a portion of the credit.

In recognition of the chaos caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the IRS has waived repayment in certain cases, and has offered installment plans in others. Still, to avoid being caught unaware, parents can update their information via a portal on the IRS’s website. They can also simply request to cancel the advance payments, to ensure the proper amount of money is given in April.

Trevor Filseth is a current and foreign affairs writer for The National Interest. This article is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters

Richard Douglas

Guns,

The Glock 19 Gen4 is designed for function first.

Here's What You Need To Remember: Glock is renowned for reliable weapons that function in almost any circumstance, and the Gen 4 is no different. A new dual-recoil spring assembly increases the system’s life by reducing the wear and tear suffered by a gun using just a single spring.

Ever since the Glock 19 debuted in 1988, the famous “plastic gun” has been a hit with both private owners and law enforcement. Released in 2009, the fourth generation of the Glock 19 has continued in Glock’s tradition of unrivaled reliability and practicality. Let’s break down the specifics.

Accuracy

The Glock 19 Gen4 is designed for function first. This design philosophy means that the gun parts fit together more loosely than most, making it not as accurate as competition-level pistols. Nevertheless, the Gen4 is sufficiently accurate for self-defense and range shooting. I found some small variations at longer ranges (25–100 yards), but found I could shoot 4 inch groups at 25 yards. That accuracy is perfectly sufficient for self-defense. If you want more accuracy, you can look into purchasing an aftermarket barrel or mounting a micro red dot like the T1. I’d also recommend replacing the plastic sights with AmeriGlo GL-433 Hackathorn Sight Set. It’s more durable, easier to pick up and and quicker to sight.

Reliability

Glock is renowned for reliable weapons that function in almost any circumstance, and the Gen 4 is no different. A new dual-recoil spring assembly increases the system’s life by reducing the wear and tear suffered by a gun using just a single spring. The reinforced polymer frame, steel barrel and slide make the Gen 4 a hardy, durable weapon. I had no malfunctions after firing thousands of rounds through the Gen 4 (from a variety of ammo manufacturers). There’s word from other shooters with numbers as high as fifty-eight thousand rounds fired without any malfunctions. You’re not going to beat that kind of reliability.

Handling

The Gen 4 is a safe weapon with a unique feel. Like all Glocks, the Gen 4 doesn’t come with a safety switch like many other weapons. Instead, a small lever on the trigger itself must be depressed in order to fire the weapon. This makes it almost impossible for an accidental trigger pull to occur. It also comes with internal safety measures as well, making it a uniquely safe gun.

Glocks are known to be thick, somewhat blocky weapons. The Gen 4 has improved its ergonomics (compared to earlier generations), but if you don’t like how a Glock handles, you probably aren’t going to be won over by this one. Many who don’t like Glocks complained that earlier versions of the Glock 19 were too thick; the Gen 4 addresses this problem by offering different sized back straps to allow customization of the thickness of the grip. The grip comes with finger grooves—these fit my hand well, but some of my friends complained that their hands sat on top of the grips rather than between them. The trigger guard itself is thick and square. The trigger guard would smash my middle finger when firing. This issue is common enough that a light bruise on the middle finger has been called “Glock finger.” Some recommend using a Dremmel tool to shave it down to a more comfortable size. Other improvements include the option to switch the magazine release for left-handed shooters and updated stippling (which made a huge difference in rainy weather to grip).

Trigger

The Glock’s trigger is average. The pull is listed at 5.5 pounds. The pull is somewhat mushy. If the trigger pull is too heavy, switch the trigger connector to take some of the extra weight off the pull, making it easier for you to pull the trigger without yanking the gun (resulting in a less accurate shot). However, only professional shooters or very dedicated hobbyists will have a bone to pick with the trigger. The trigger functions well and is perfectly functional for self-defense and hobby shooting.

Magazine & Reloading

If ordered from the manufacturer, Glock will send three fifteen-round magazines with your Gen 4 (unless you live in a state where the law requires a maximum of ten rounds per magazine). You will also receive a speedloader. The magazine is ultra-reliable; I had no issues with rounds feeding into the chamber. Some found some difficulty with loading all fifteen rounds into the magazine at once, but I found that if I loaded the magazine and let it sit for two weeks, the spring at the bottom of the magazine softened sufficiently for me to load the magazine fully without any problems. The gun can also take the seventeen round Glock 17 magazine, as well as a variety of aftermarket magazines of differing sizes. I did have some issues with aftermarket magazine reliability, so I would stick with the manufacturer’s magazines for the Gen 4. Fifteen rounds should be perfectly sufficient for a self-defense situation. If not enough for your needs, you can always carry the two additional magazines that come with the gun.

Length & Weight

One of the most impressive features of the Gen 4 is its size. Measuring in at 7.28 inches long, 4.99 inches high, 1.18 inches wide, and under 21 ounces, the Gen 4 is a rare pistol that straddles the line between compact and full-sized. This means that you get the benefits of full-sized (less snappy when shooting, larger magazine capacity), and compact (light, easy to conceal-carry). This balance makes it a perfect all-purpose size weapon that can be used for self-defense, competition, or hobby shooting. Speaking of competition, the DDM4V11 is a great 3-gun competition rifle that you might be interested in.

Recoil Management

The Gen 4 was easy to control when shooting, and didn’t have an aggressive recoil when compared even to other full-size pistols. The dual recoil springs and Glock’s unique signature block palm swell (which directs the recoil energy straight back, rather than up or to the side) both contribute to making this an easy weapon to control when firing.

Price

The Glock Gen4 has an MSRP of $629.99, but can often be purchased for $550 or less. In fact, you can get it for $500 over at Palmetto State Armory. That makes this quality weapon fit right in the middle of pistol price ranges—not cutting features to save on cost, but not breaking the bank either. With its extreme durability, you’ll get your money’s worth.

Conclusion

The Glock 19 is a classic, and for good reason. It’s:

● Highly reliable

● Very customizable

● Easily concealable (good for personal protection)

In short: If you’re looking for a solid self-defense firearm, or just to have a good, reliable handgun to shoot on the weekends, go for the Glock 19 Gen4. You won’t be disappointed.

Richard Douglas is a firearms expert and educator. His work has appeared in large publications like The Armory Life, Daily Caller, American Shooting Journal, and more. In his free time, he reviews optics on his Scopes Field blog. This article first appeared earlier this year.

Image: Reuters.

Kyle Mizokami

Russia, Eurasia

Both Russia and China would have their own advantages and disadvantages in a war.

Here's What You Need to Know: A multirole fighter bomber, the Su-35 is superior to any operational Chinese fighter. Avionics, propulsion and weapons systems are all superior, as are the NPO Saturn AL-41 engines. Radar-absorbent materials are used in the construction of the airframe. The plane is a flying arsenal, featuring a stunning 14 hardpoints for carrying weapons, jammers, fuel tanks and added sensors.

In our last article, we discussed the possibility of Russia and China going to war. Relations between the two are currently fairly good, and war between the two countries is seemingly unlikely. That being said, the two have had their share of territorial disputes, and at this point it is probably not a good idea to consider any dispute with China dormant.

Both Russia and China would have their own advantages and disadvantages in a war. The Russian military has gone to war numerous times in the last twenty years, in Chechnya, Georgia and now Ukraine. Russian forces, although often ill-trained and ill-prepared, are resilient and capable. Russia also holds a technological edge over China—for now, anyway.

The flip side is that Russian equipment, on balance, is fairly old. Russia’s economy is also less than a fifth of China’s, which will chip away at her strategic position. Another issue is as old as Russian power: much of the country’s military lies west of the Urals and would need to be sent east by air and rail.

China’s main advantage would be that the bulk of the People’s Liberation Army would be relatively close to the theater of operations. The PLA is also larger than the Russian military with fewer distractions—such as NATO or a restive Caucasus—that require an armed presence.

On the other hand, Chinese forces have been unbloodied in war since 1979. The PLA’s grasp of the new warfare invoked by the Revolution in Military Affairs is notional and academic at best. And, despite the growing ranges of Chinese weapons, European Russia would be largely out of reach of the PLA.

Thus, the Russian side would seek to exploit its advantages in weaponry and experience. With regards to the former, here are 5 Russian weapons of war China should fear.

PAK FA Fighter

PAK FA—or Perspektivniy Aviacionniy Complex Frontovoi Aviacii—is Russia’s first fifth-generation fighter design. Helmed by the famous Sukhoi bureau, PAK FA has been in development since April 2002.

PAK FA will be a multi-role aircraft capable of both air superiority and attack missions. The aircraft will have both an active electronically scanned array radar and an electro-optical sensor to track and engage targets. It will be a stealthy plane by design, with flattened and faceted surfaces designed to lower the aircraft radar signature.

PAK-FA is capable of carrying up to six long-range air-to-air or air-to-ground missiles and bombs in an internal weapons bay, giving it potent killing power while remaining difficult to detect by radar. Production is set to begin in 2017, and Russia intends to purchase between 400 and 450 PAK FA fighters between 2020 and 2040.

Tu-95 Bear strategic bomber

The Tupolev Tu-95 “Bear” turboprop bomber is a nuclear cruise missile carrier, capable of being armed with conventional land-attack cruise missiles. The Bear has astonishingly long range, regularly making the flight from Ukrainka Air Base in Siberia to the California coastline.

Although an obsolete design, the Bear is still a capable platform for conducting standoff cruise missile attacks. The Bear doesn’t have to get anywhere near Chinese airspace to loose a salvo of up to eight Kh-101 cruise missiles against Chinese targets. The Kh-101 is Russia’s new stealthy, precision-guided conventionally armed cruise missiles with an estimated range of 2,700 to 5,000 kilometers.

Flying from Engels Air Base in European Russia, a Bear could easily travel 2,000 kilometers and then release a salvo of Kh-101s against targets across China, even as far south as Hainan Island.

Tu-160 Blackjack strategic bomber

Russia’s most advanced bomber, the Tu-160 Blackjack was developed towards the end of the Cold War and is in the process of receiving long-awaited upgrades.

The four engine, swing-wing Blackjack is Russia’s most capable bomber, able to operate at night and adverse weather conditions carrying a large internal payload of laser-guided bombs or cruise missiles. The Blackjack can carry 22 tons of ordnance in two weapons bays.

While the Tu-95 Bear would launch cruise missiles from outside the enemy air defense network, the Blackjack is designed to penetrate defenses flying at low altitude. The Blackjack is also armed with the new Kh-101 long-range cruise missile. The missiles are carried internally on a rotary launcher, preserving the Blackjack’s stealthy profile.

While the prospect of an aging, lumbering bomber lingering outside China’s national borders and flinging deadly modern cruise missiles is scary enough, the prospect of the world’s largest heavy bomber flying over Chinese territory, evading air defenses and striking targets should give Beijing pause.

Su-35 Flanker Fighter

Meant as a stopgap measure between the aging Su-27 fighters and the PAK FA, the Su-35 is a credible fighter in its own right. A blend of the older Su-27 airframe and modern aircraft systems and weapons, the Su-35 will form the sharp end of the Russian Air Force until the PAK-FA appears in significant numbers.

A multirole fighter bomber, the Su-35 is superior to any operational Chinese fighter. Avionics, propulsion and weapons systems are all superior, as are the NPO Saturn AL-41 engines. Radar-absorbent materials are used in the construction of the airframe. The plane is a flying arsenal, featuring a stunning 14 hardpoints for carrying weapons, jammers, fuel tanks and added sensors.

The proof of the Su-35’s superiority is that China itself is attempting to purchase Su-35s. Until the J-20 and J-31 start rolling off the assembly lines the only possible equal to the Su-35 would be… the Su-35.

T-14 Armata Tank

The next-generation tank for the Russian Ground Forces, Armata is a long-overdue replacement for the T-72/T-80/T-90 series of tanks. Armata is a totally new design, bigger, heavier, with more protection and better armament.

Should a Sino-Russian war include ground combat, Armata is Russia’s best bet for holding ground and conducting rapid counterattacks into Manchuria. Armata outclasses China’s frontline Type 99 tanks, which are based on the T-72.

Armata is longer than the T-72 series, with an extra road wheel to accommodate a full crew compartment and future growth. Armor appears to be composite laid out in a modular fashion, making it more easily repairable. Weapons consist of an improved 125-millimeter main gun, 12.7-millimeter remotely operated machine gun and 7.62-millimeter coaxial machine gun.

Armata is actually a family of vehicles, including the T-15 Heavy Infantry Fighting Vehicle. Heavily protected, the T-15 is designed to safely transport Russian infantry across battlefields laden with anti-tank weapons.

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

This article first appeared in 2015.

Image: Wikipedia.

Kris Osborn

China Taiwan,

China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is massively revving up war preparation exercises near Taiwan by flying fighter jets and surveillance places through Taiwan’s “self-proclaimed Southwest air defense identification zone.”

Here's What You Need to Remember: Any kind of actual Chinese amphibious assault upon Taiwan may very well encounter unforeseen complexities and potentially result in failure.

China is “ready for war” against the United States and Taiwan in the Pacific, according to statements from analysts quoted in a Chinese-government-backed newspaper.

The Global Times is reporting that China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is massively revving up war preparation exercises near Taiwan by flying fighter jets and surveillance places through Taiwan’s “self-proclaimed Southwest air defense identification zone.”

The Chinese aircraft include the use of J-10 and J-16 fighter jets along with Y-8 anti-submarine aircraft and two KJ-500 early warning planes. As part of this integrated warfare preparation, the PLA is also conducting beach landing attacks and amphibious assault operations in waters near East China’s Fujian Province.

The Global Times report quotes an analyst saying, “Taiwan secessionists and the U.S. are leaving the Chinese mainland and the PLA with no choice but to enhance war preparedness in case of ‘Taiwan secessionism.’” By contrast, the paper also quoted Taiwanese officials not backing down when faced with these visible Chinese maneuvers, saying “Taiwan would fight to the end if the Chinese mainland attacks.”

Given all this, any kind of actual Chinese amphibious assault upon Taiwan may very well encounter unforeseen complexities and potentially result in failure. Chinese war-planners, at least when assessed in light of comments from Chinese analysts quoted in the paper, may be operating with an inflated confidence for a number of reasons.

As a maritime combat circumstance, any Chinese-driven amphibious attack would not only need to establish air superiority but also overcome U.S. and emerging Taiwanese attack submarines likely to patrol the Taiwan Strait beneath the surface of the ocean. As if that were not complicated enough, an approaching Chinese amphibious force would confront long-range, precision-guided, ground fired rockets and missiles fired to destroy or greatly derail the attacking force. Also, the comment that Taiwan would “fight to end” if confronted with a Chinese invasion is given additional credibility by virtue of the island countries’ ongoing acquisition of U.S.-built Abrams tanks. Certainly, the existence of these kinds of tanks might be able to fully stop, if not heavily delay any kind of Chinese land incursion into Taiwan by exacting an unexpected toll upon attacking forces.

Certainly, many U.S. and allied surveillance planes would detect an approaching Chinese amphibious force well before it entered closer-in, highly threatening ranges, and would likely encounter the U.S. Navy on the way, depending upon its operational proximity and presence. Given the regularity with which the U.S. operates carriers and Carrier Strike Groups near both Taiwan and the South China Sea, moving Chinese amphibious attack assets would be almost certain to encounter air attack from carrier-launched fighter jets.

Perhaps with this kind of contingency in mind, the Chinese Global Times raises the issue that U.S. amphibious assaults ships and destroyers have been conducting drills and combat exercises near Taiwan. The U.S. Navy is operating a significant blend of Carrier Strike Groups and amphibious assault ships together, a tactical move which exponentially increases scope and scale of any possible U.S. counterattack.

“Taiwan secessionists and the U.S. are leaving the Chinese mainland and the PLA with no choice but to enhance war preparedness in case of ‘Taiwan secessionism,’” the Global Times writes.

Kris Osborn is the defense editor for the National Interest. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Master’s Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.

Image: Reuters.

David Axe

Aircraft Carriers,

What follows are not the success stories. They are the case studies in flattop failure.

Here's What You Need to Remember: Renamed Vikramaditya, the flattop was due to enter service in 2008. But the poorly-managed Russian shipyard was overwhelmed by the scale of the refit. The cost doubled and trials were bumped back to September 2012. And when the crew pushed the conventionally-powered ship to her theoretical top speed of 32 knots, her boilers overheated.

Imposing, flexible, able to sail fast and launch devastating airstrikes at long range, aircraft carriers are the ultimate expression of national power. And many of the world’s best-armed countries are acquiring them. China, Russia, India, Brazil, the U.K., France, America.

But just getting your hands on a flattop is hardly enough. For every example of a country that succeeds in deploying a functional carrier and matching air wing, there’s a counter-example: a flattop hobbled by mechanical problems, stricken by age, sidelined by bad design or stuck with warplanes that simply don’t work.

What follows are not the success stories. They are the case studies in flattop failure … and object lessons for all the countries building aircraft carriers today.

Mother Russia’s tugboat bait

The Admiral Kuznetsov, Russia’s only aircraft carrier, was launched in 1985 and joined the fleet in 1991. Since then the 55,000-ton, fossil-fuel-powered flattop has managed just four frontline deployments—all of them to the Mediterranean, and all of them just a few months in duration.

By contrast, American flattops typically deploy for at least six months every two years. The nuclear-powered USS Enterprise, commissioned in 1962, completed 25 deployments before leaving service in 2012.

One of Admiral Kuznetsov’s major problems is her powerplant. The vessel is powered by steam turbines and turbo-pressurized boilers that Defense Industry Daily generously described as “defective.” Anticipating breakdowns, large ocean-going tugs accompany Admiral Kuznetsov whenever she deploys.

Poor maintenance makes life difficult and dangerous for Admiral Kuznetsov’s 1,900 sailors. A short circuit started a fire off Turkey in 2009 that killed one seaman.

Her pipes are bad. “When it’s this cold, water freezes everywhere including pipes which may cause a rupture,” English Russia reported. “To prevent this, they just don’t supply almost 60 percent of the cabins with water (neither in winter nor in summer). The situation with latrines is just as bad. The ship has over 50 latrines but half of them are closed.”

Almost 2,000 men. Twenty-five latrines. Do the math. Training and morale are so poor that in 2009 Admiral Kuznetsov sailors apparently botched an at-sea refueling, spilling hundreds of tons of fuel into the Irish Sea.

And even when the ship functions as intended, her design limits her utility. Admiral Kuzentsov does not have steam catapults like American flatttops do. Instead, her Sukhoi fighters launch into the air off a bow ramp. The fighters must stay light, meaning they can carry only a few air-to-air missiles and a partial fuel load. Their patrol endurance is measured in minutes rather than hours.

English Russia summed up the Russian aircraft carrier’s fundamental limitations succinctly. “Actual aircrafts visit this ship pretty rarely.”

Moscow appreciates its flattop problem and has vague plans to replace Admiral Kuznetsov sometime in the 2020s, by which time planners can realistically expect to have deployed the decrepit old lady maybe two or three more times.

But the Russians promised us she would work

Admiral Kuznetsov’s ill repute did not deter the Indian and Chinese governments from acquiring second-hand Russian carriers. China’s Liaoning, a rebuilt sister ship of Admiral Kuznetsov, began limited testing in the summer of 2012, serving a mostly educational role while a Chinese shipyard slowly built a new carrier from scratch.

Outfitted with the same faulty powerplant and performance-limiting bow ramp, Liaoning is unlikely to venture far from shore or send her lightly-loaded J-15 fighters—copies of Russian Sukhois—into serious combat. In a rare pique, Chinese state media denounced the J-15s as “flopping fish.”

India’s experience has been even worse. In 2004 New Delhi inked a $1.5-billion deal for the 1982-vintage Russian flattop Admiral Gorshkov. In Russian service, the 45,000-ton vessel had carried a few helicopters and small Yakovlev jump jets; the Indians paid to have the flight deck expanded and a bow ramp fitted to accommodate up to 16 MiG-29 fighters.

Renamed Vikramaditya, the flattop was due to enter service in 2008. But the poorly-managed Russian shipyard was overwhelmed by the scale of the refit. The cost doubled and trials were bumped back to September 2012. And when the crew pushed the conventionally-powered ship to her theoretical top speed of 32 knots, her boilers overheated.

“India didn’t want to use asbestos as heat protection for the boilers,” Defense Industry Daily explained. “Instead, the boilers’ designer had to use firebrick ceramics. Which, as we see, didn’t work so well. Especially on a ship that Russia put up for sale in 1994, after a boiler room explosion.” Our emphasis.

More repairs. More delays. More money. “The problems revealed during sea trials last year have been fixed,” Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin vowed in late 2013, by which point Vikramaditya was expected to enter active service in India in the spring of 2014.

“Active service” being a relative term. If Russia’s own experience with its crappy carriers is any indication, the Indian ship will spend most of her time in port being repaired between brief forays into near waters. New Delhi is building a new carrier from scratch that should eventually complement the Russian hand-me-down.

The floating museum

Not all bad aircraft carriers are Russian. The U.K. and France have both sold to poorer navies decommissioned flattops that probably should have been permanently retired. In 2000 the Brazilian navy acquired the former Foch from Paris for $12 million.

Commissioned into French service in 1963, the 33,000-ton, non-nuclear Foch carried 40 fighters and helicopters. Unlike Russian flattops, Foch had a steam catapult, allowing her to boost heavily-laden planes off her deck.

The Brazilians renamed her Sao Paulo and, for the first four years, busily sailed the second-hand vessel in a series of regional exercises—practicing with her upgraded A-4 fighters, sailing with the American carrier USS Ronald Reagan and even qualifying Argentinian planes for deck operations. Sao Paulo was, and remains, Latin America’s only aircraft carrier.

But her age began to show, despite Brazil spending an additional $100 million on upkeep. On-board fires in 2005 and 2012 killed two sailors and left the flattop “barely functioning beyond flag-flying and light duties,” according to Warships International Fleet Review. “The Brazilian defense ministry admitted the ship’s effectiveness is extremely limited.” Today the A-4s rarely fly.

Sao Paulo’s replacement is still in the planning stages: a brand-new carrier to enter service sometime in the 2020s, around the same time that Russia, China, and India all hope to have new and better—that is to say, safe and functional—flattops of their own.

This first appeared earlier and is being reposted due to reader interest.

Image: Flickr

Alex Hollings

XF-85 Goblin,

The McDonnell Aircraft Corporation’s XF-85 Goblin was to be a fighter unlike any other.

Here's What You Need to Remember: The Air Force wasn’t as convinced that a flying aircraft carrier of this sort could work. Even if McDonnell could work all the issues out of deploying and recovering these parasite fighters, it was clear that only the most capable pilots would ever be able to manage such a feat, and even then, there was a high risk of failure.

The McDonnell Aircraft Corporation’s XF-85 Goblin was to be a fighter unlike any other. It was tiny–so small it was often referred to as a “parasite” fighter–and instead of taking off from runways, it was intended to be deployed from the inside of flying aircraft carriers.

When the United States was plunged into World War II by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the nation was not the military powerhouse it is today. The Japanese and Germans were indeed aware of America’s potential strength, but that was really more a measure of the nation’s industrial infrastructure and population. In 1939, two years before the attack on Pearl Harbor, America had only 174,000 troops in the entirety of its military. Of course, within just six years, the United States would emerge as the most potent military power on the planet.

By 1946, America’s military had grown to over 16,000,000 troops, demonstrated the destructive power of its atomic weapons on the world’s stage not once, but twice, and was beginning test flights on a bomber with the largest wingspan in history. The combination of America’s nuclear weapons and this new bomber, the aptly named B-36 Peacemaker–with its 10,000-mile range–left America without equal in the days immediately following World War II.

But even then, America knew there would be challengers on the horizon. The Soviet Union, already positioning themselves for conflict with the West in the waning days of the second Great War, was hot on America’s atomic heels. The U.S. needed more than a bomber with global range, more than atomic bombs with seemingly limitless destructive capabilities… it needed a way to ensure that bomber could reach its targets to successfully deter a whole world’s worth of competition.

But with such incredible range, no fighter on the planet could escort the mighty B-36 all the way to Moscow and back. So, the team at McDonnell Aircraft came up with a new idea: Have the massive bomber carry its own support fighters.

Flying aircraft carriers and parasite fighters

If any aircraft could handle carrying its own backup, it was the B-36. Conceived before intercontinental ballistic missiles came into vogue, the Peacemaker was the largest piston-engined bomber ever to roll through an assembly line. It could carry an astonishing 86,000 pounds of ordnance, 16,000 more than the modern heavy payload titan B-52 Stratofortress, and could fly from American airstrips to Moscow and back without needing to refuel. The bomber was so massive that one of them was even converted to operate on nuclear power, hanging a 35,000-pound reactor from a hook in its middle bomb bay.

With that kind of payload capability, the B-36 could potentially carry a number of small aircraft internally or on external pylons and still have plenty of room left over for nuclear or conventional ordnance.

Related: NB-36 CRUSADER: AMERICA’S MASSIVE NUCLEAR-POWERED BOMBER

But despite the B-36’s massive size, it still wasn’t big enough to lug any of America’s existing air superiority fighters across the Atlantic. Most existing fighters were ruled out for technological reasons as well. Aircraft like the legendary P-51 Mustang, which had entered service just six years prior, were already outdated as compared to new jet-powered fighters that were already entering service. America’s first jet-powered fighter, the Bell P-59 Airacomet, first took to the skies in 1942, and the Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star followed suit in 1944. If the B-36 was going to secure America’s future, its escort fighters couldn’t be stuck in World War II.

Initially, plans developed for the B-36 and similar bombers to carry their parasite fighters semi-exposed beneath their belly, allowing for a rapid drop into the fight when attacked. The Air Force soon scrapped that idea, however, citing concerns about increased drag, prompting McDonnel’s design team to return to the drawing board. When they came back, they had devised plans for a tiny, egg-shaped fighter with foldable, swept-back wings and notably, no landing gear.

Related: THE AIR FORCE’S PLAN TO TURN A BOEING 747 INTO AN AIRBORNE AIRCRAFT CARRIER

Theoretically, there’d be no need for landing gear, as this new parasite fighter would not only be deployed from the belly of the bomber, it would also be recovered by the same aircraft. A retractable hook on the nose of the plane would allow the pilot to close with a retractable trapeze beneath the bomber. The fighter would catch the trapeze with the hook and be pulled back into the aircraft. In order to support the concept further, Convair made plans to adjust its B-36 production to create a mix of aircraft intended to serve solely as bombers, and others that would carry a bevy of fighters to escort the bomber missions.

The concept wasn’t without precedent. Both the Royal Air Force and U.S. Navy had operated parasite fighters deployed from rigid airships to varying degrees of success and the Soviet Union had experimented with deploying fighters from their own TB-2 and TB-3 bombers. To some extent, the concept of flying aircraft carriers just seemed like the logical progression of airpower projection, and the assertion at the time was that making it work was just a matter of finding the right approach.

Goblins, Phantoms, and Banshees… Oh my

McDonnell Aircraft founder James McDonnell had a thing for the supernatural. In 1945, he unveiled the FH Phantom, the first jet-powered fighter ever to land on a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier. Then, in 1947, he gave the world the FSH Banshee, a fighter that would go on to earn prominence during the Korean War. In keeping with his fantasy-line of fighters, the tiny, bulbous parasite fighter McDonnell produced for the B-36 was dubbed the XF-85 Goblin.

Related: 5 CRAZY AIRPLANES AMERICA ALMOST BOUGHT

The single-seat fighter was 14 feet 10 inches long with a 21-foot wingspan that could fold up to fit into a B-36’s bomb bay. The aircraft weighed in at under 4,000 pounds and was powered by a single Westinghouse XJ34-WE-22 turbojet engine that produced a respectable 3,000 pounds of thrust. The turbojet would push the XF-85 Goblin to a top speed of 650 miles per hour, with an operational ceiling of 48,000 feet. To hold its own in a fight, the parasite fighter was armed with four .50 caliber MR Browning machine guns. Despite its small size and lightweight construction, the Goblin still had a fully functional ejection seat in case the aircraft was hit by enemy fire.

The U.S. Army Air Forces (predecessor to the soon-to-come U.S. Air Force) agreed to fund the construction of two prototype XF-85s. There were no B-36’s available for testing, so plans were made to utilize an EB-29B Superfortress that had been extensively modified to support the parasite fighter. A “cutaway” bomb bay was added for the XF-85 Goblin to rest inside, along with a trapeze just like the one intended for the Peacemaker. A front airflow deflector was incorporated, along with a variety of cameras used to assess the success of the concept.

On July 23, 1948, the XF-85 Goblin rode into the sky for the first time, but wouldn’t be deployed from the bomber itself. It was the first of five captive-carry flights meant to show that the bomber really could operate with a baby-fighter in its bomb bay. Once that was clear, the Goblin was lowered into the airstream without engaging the engine–again, to give the bomber pilot an opportunity to see how his aircraft would react to the shifting aerodynamic situation.

With those successful flights behind them, McDonnell test pilot Edwin Foresman Schoch, who had ridden in the Goblin for the captive-carry tests, was ready to see what this new parasite fighter could do. For the team at McDonnell, it felt like they were on the precipice of a new era in military aviation. The time of flying aircraft carriers was at hand; all they had to do was make it work.

The XF-85 Goblin was easy to fly (and to crash land)

Related: AMERICA’S CRAZY FLYING AIRCRAFT CARRIERS COULD HAVE ACTUALLY WORKED

On August 23, 1948, Schoch and his XF-85 were released from their Superfortress mothership 20,000 feet above Muroc Field (now Edwards Air Force Base) in California. As the tiny parasite fighter was released, Schoch set to work, executing a 10-minute proving flight at speeds ranging from 180 to 250 miles per hour, demonstrating the aircraft’s basic maneuverability and testing its controls.

However, as he closed with his EB-29 mothership, the bomber’s draft created heavy turbulence that the tiny aircraft could only manage through intense pilot focus. The air cushion created by two other observation aircraft in close proximity made the situation even worse, and as Schoch approached the trapeze with his nose-hook, the situation seemed unsafe, and he backed away. After a moment, Schoch made another attempt, but was once again forced to back off.

Finally, Schoch pushed through the turbulance, but miscalculated his approach, colliding with the trapeze and damaging the Goblin’s canopy. Despite having his helmet and mask torn off in the collision, Schoch kept his bearing and got the tiny fighter under control, guiding it into a belly landing in a nearby dry lake bed. It was a disastrous first flight, and further testing was suspended for nearly two months.

During that time, changes were made to the XF-85 Goblin to make it more manageable for recapture, including boosting the trim power and adjusting the aircraft’s aerodynamic profile. Two more captive-carry flights followed before Schoch would make another attempt at successfully managing both a release and a capture from a flying mothership, which he accomplished on October 14 of that same year.

Related: THE AIR FORCE JUST DROPPED NEW CONCEPT ART OF ITS NGAD FIGHTER

Further testing showed that the XF-85 Goblin itself was a pretty capable little airplane. It was considered very stable and user-friendly for the pilots onboard, and proved easy to recover from a spin. It seemed everything about the concept was working as it should, with the exception of the capture process.

On October 22, a bit more than a week after Schoch’s first entirely successful flight in the XF-85, the tiny fighter once again failed to hook on to the trapeze at the completion of its flight. After four attempts at managing the turbulence, Schoch finally managed to get the hook to the trapeze… only to have it break off as he made contact. For the second time, Schoch was forced to belly land the prototype aircraft in a dry lake bed.

Shoch would go on to belly land the XF-85 Goblin two more times after failing to successfully hook back up to the trapeze. Once on March 18 of 1949 and again on April 9.

The Goblin becomes fictional once again

The test flights of the XF-85 Goblin seemed to prove that the aircraft wasn’t going to be able to manage the job of serving as escort fighters for the B-36, but McDonnell still believed in the flying aircraft carrier concept itself. Aware that the Air Force wouldn’t want a parasite fighter that had a bad habit of crash landing every time it was deployed, they took proactive steps to come up with a new plan, a new fighter, and a new method of recovering the jets.

Their new fighter would be faster, nearly capable of breaking the sound barrier, and would be deployed and recovered using a trapeze system on a telescoping rod that could extend down below the turbulence created by the mother ship.

Related: X-20 DYNA-SOAR: AMERICA’S HYPERSONIC SPACE BOMBER

But the Air Force wasn’t as convinced that a flying aircraft carrier of this sort could work. Even if McDonnell could work all the issues out of deploying and recovering these parasite fighters, it was clear that only the most capable pilots would ever be able to manage such a feat, and even then, there was a high risk of failure.

But the real nail in the XF-85 Goblin’s coffin, as well as the entire concept of a flying aircraft carrier, was the broad adoption of in-flight refueling. While the concept had already been around for decades, it was only then becoming commonplace. While it did require some technical flying, the pilot requirements for in-flight refueling were still significantly lower than snagging the trapeze of a B-36 mother ship. The adoption of the Boeing KB-29P and its aerial refueling system in 1949 effectively spelled the end of flying aircraft carriers and their parasite fighters.

In all, only two XF-85 Goblins ever reached the skies a total of just seven times. Of those seven flights, the parasite fighter only made a successful capture with the hook and trapeze in three of them. The program was officially canceled on October 24, 1949.

This article first appeared at Sandboxx. This article is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Wikipedia.

Ethen Kim Lieser

Stimulus Check,

Recent reports and studies are indeed supporting claims that the credits would substantially reduce child poverty in the country.

Earlier this month, the first batch of advance monthly payments from the expanded child tax credits worth roughly $15 billion were sent out to about thirty-five million families across the United States.

For many of them, these modest payments of $250 or $300 for each child will considerably help them ease some of the financial struggles they have encountered amid the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.

But what will happen when next year rolls around and these recurring monthly payments suddenly come to a stop?

Valerie Jarrett, a former senior advisor to President Barack Obama, hopes that it won’t ever come to that.

“I strongly believe it should be permanent. It’s helping hardworking families,” she said in a recent interview on Yahoo Finance Live.

“There are countless families around our country that are still struggling. We have to make sure that we have resources available to bring our children out of poverty. So many working families, particularly working moms, have been stuck in this horrible limbo of not being able to afford child care for their children so that they can go back and work,” she continued.

Slashing Poverty

Recent reports and studies are indeed supporting claims that the credits would substantially reduce child poverty in the country. One report put together by the Annie E. Casey Foundation showed that a permanent expansion of the child tax credit could potentially lift more than four million children out of poverty.

“Every child needs food, health care and safe and stable housing. Millions of households with children already lacked these necessities before the pandemic,” the report contends.

“To continue on progress already made on recovery, the foundation recommends: making the expansion of the federal child tax credit permanent,” it continues.

In addition, the Center on Poverty and Social Policy at Columbia University has estimated that the credits will eventually cut U.S. poverty by more than half.

Jarrett added that “what President Biden is doing is redefining infrastructure, not just roads and bridges, but infrastructure to support working families so that they are able to go back to work and get the skills that they need to compete for the jobs of the future.”

She continued: “This more holistic approach to rebuilding our economy positions the United States to be globally competitive.”

Gaining More Support

In recent weeks, a notable group of Democratic lawmakers—including Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), and Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and U.S. Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), and Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.)—have demanded that the expansion of the child tax credit be made permanent.

“We have a real opportunity to not just throw money at a problem, but to ... lift up all children and families,” DeLauro told reporters during a recent press conference.

Ethen Kim Lieser is a Minneapolis-based Science and Tech Editor who has held posts at Google, The Korea Herald, Lincoln Journal Star, AsianWeek, and Arirang TV. Follow or contact him on LinkedIn.

Kyle Mizokami

North Korea,

North Korea has likely the largest special forces organization in the world, numbering two hundred thousand men—and women—trained in unconventional warfare. Pyongyang’s commandos are trained to operate throughout the Korean Peninsula, and possibly beyond, to present an asymmetric threat to its enemies.

Here's What You Need to Remember: The country maintains twenty-five special-forces and special-purpose brigades, and five special-forces battalions, designed to undertake missions from frontline DMZ assault to parachute and assassination missions.

One of the most vital parts of North Korea’s war machine is one that relies the most on so-called “soldier power” skills. North Korea has likely the largest special forces organization in the world, numbering two hundred thousand men—and women—trained in unconventional warfare. Pyongyang’s commandos are trained to operate throughout the Korean Peninsula, and possibly beyond, to present an asymmetric threat to its enemies.

(This first appeared in April 2017.) 

For decades North Korea maintained an impressive all-arms force of everything from tanks to mechanized infantry, artillery, airborne forces and special forces. The country’s conventional forces, facing a long slide after the end of the Cold War, have faced equipment obsolescence and supply shortages—for example, North Korea has very few tanks based on the 1970s Soviet T-72, and most are still derivatives of the 1960s-era T-62. The rest of Pyongyang’s armored corps are in a similar predicament, making them decidedly inferior to U.S. and South Korean forces.

What a War Between America and China Would Look Like. 

In response, North Korea has upped the importance of its special forces. The country maintains twenty-five special-forces and special-purpose brigades, and five special-forces battalions, designed to undertake missions from frontline DMZ assault to parachute and assassination missions. The Light Infantry Training Guidance Bureau, part of the Korean People’s Army, functions as a kind of analog to U.S. Special Operations Command, coordinating the special forces of the Army, Army Air Force and Korean People’s Navy.

What a War Between NATO and Russia Would Look Like. 

Of North Korea’s two hundred thousand “commandos,” approximately 150,000 belong to light infantry units. Foot mobile, their frontline mission is to infiltrate or flank enemy lines to envelop or mount rear attacks on enemy forces. North Korea’s hilly terrain lends itself to such tactics, as does the network of tunnels that the country has dug that cross the DMZ in a number of places. Eleven of North Korea’s special forces brigades are light-infantry brigades, and there are smaller light-infantry units embedded within individual NK combat divisions.

What a War Between China and Japan Would Look Like. 

A further three brigades are special purpose airborne infantry. The Thirty-Eighth, Forty-Eighth and Fifty-Eighth Airborne Brigades operate much like the Eighty-Second Airborne Division, conducting strategic operations including airborne drops to seize critical terrain and infrastructure. NKPA airborne forces would likely target enemy airfields, South Korean government buildings, and key roads and highways to prevent their sabotage. Each brigade is organized into six airborne infantry battalions with a total strength of 3,500. Unlike the Eighty-Second, however, NKPA airborne brigades are unlikely to operate at the battalion level or higher, and due to a lack of long-range transport cannot operate beyond the Korean Peninsula.

In addition, North Korea has an estimated eight “sniper brigades,” three for the People’s Army (Seventeenth, Sixtieth and Sixty-First Brigades), three for the Army Air Force (Eleventh, Sixteenth and Twenty-First Brigades), and two for the People’s Navy (Twenty-Ninth, 291st). Each consists of approximately 3,500 men, organized into seven to ten sniper “battalions.”  These units fulfill a broad variety of roles and are roughly analogous to U.S. Army Rangers, U.S. Special Forces and Navy SEALs. Unlike their American counterparts, it appears some these units are capable of fighting as conventional airborne, air assault, or naval infantry.

Sniper brigades are trained in strategic reconnaissance and so-called “direct action” missions including assassination missions, raids against high-level targets military and economic targets, sabotage, disruption of South Korea’s reserve system, covert delivery of weapons of mass disruption (including possibly radiological weapons), and organizing antigovernment guerrilla campaigns in South Korea. They will frequently be dressed in civilian, South Korean military, or U.S. military uniforms. One platoon of thirty to forty troops per Army sniper brigade consists solely of women, trained to conduct combat operations dressed as civilians.

Finally, the Reconnaissance Bureau maintains four separate reconnaissance battalions. Highly trained and organized, these five-hundred-man battalions are trained to lead an an army corps through the hazardous DMZ. They likely have intimate—and highly classified—knowledge of both friendly and enemy defenses in the demilitarized zone. A fifth battalion is reportedly organized for out-of-country operations.

Special forces are generally meant to operate behind enemy lines, and North Korea employs considerable, though often obsolete, means of getting them there. For ground forces, one obvious means of infiltrating South Korea is through the 160-mile-long and 2.5-mile-wide DMZ. Undiscovered cross-border tunnels are another means. By sea, Pyongyang has the ability to deliver an estimated five thousand troops in a single lift, using everything from commercial vessels to Nampo-class landing craft, its fleet of 130 Kongbang-class hovercraft and Sang-O coastal submarines and Yeono midget submarines.

By air, North Korea has a notional fleet of two hundred elderly An-2 Colt short-takeoff and -landing transports. Capable of flying low and slow to avoid radar, each An-2 can carry up to twelve commandos, landing on unimproved surfaces or parachuting them on their targets. The regime also has a fleet of about 250 transport helicopters, mostly Soviet-bloc in origin (and age) but also including illicitly acquired Hughes 500MD series helicopters similar to those flown by the Republic of Korea. Pyongyang also appears bent to acquire modern, long-distance transports such as this aircraft, manufactured in New Zealand. Aircraft such as the P-750 XSTOL would allow North Korean special forces to reach as far as Japan and Okinawa, both of which would serve as forward bases for U.S. forces in wartime.

In the event of war, North Korea would likely launch dozens of separate attacks throughout South Korea, from the DMZ to the southern port of Busan. Whether or not these forces can make their way through Seoul’s considerable air and sea defenses is another question. Valleys, passes and waterways that could be used by low-flying aircraft and watercraft are already covered with everything from air-defense guns to antitank guided missiles. Given proper warning, South Korean defenders would inflict heavy losses on North Korean commandos on the way to their objectives.

North Korean special forces have evolved from a nuisance force designed to stage attacks in the enemy’s rear into something far more dangerous. Their ability to distribute nuclear, chemical, biological, or radiological weapons could, if successful, kill thousands of civilians. They have even trained to attack and destroy a replica of the Blue House, the official resident of the South Korean president. Although many would undoubtedly die en route to their destination, once on the ground their training, toughness and political indoctrination make them formidable adversaries.

Kyle Mizokami is a defense and national-security writer based in San Francisco who has appeared in the Diplomat, Foreign Policy, War is Boring and the Daily Beast. In 2009, he cofounded the defense and security blog Japan Security Watch. You can follow him on Twitter: @KyleMizokami.

Image: Reuters. 

Kyle Mizokami

Guns,

Sig Sauer’s new P-320 pistol is enjoying a considerable streak of publicity, in large part due to the U.S. Army’s adoption of it as the service’s new handgun.

Here's What You Need to Remember: The new pistol would also make a very good choice for civilians as a carry or all-around handgun.

Sig Sauer’s new P-320 pistol is enjoying a considerable streak of publicity, in large part due to the U.S. Army’s adoption of it as the service’s new handgun. One new variant of the rapidly growing P-320 line is the X-Carry, a compact handgun designed for concealed carriers and those that want smaller firearms with the handling qualities of full-sized pistols. The P320 X-Carry carries on a tradition of compact firearms that don’t compromise on performance.

(This first appeared several months ago.)

One of the first compact firearms was the Colt Commander, a variant of the Colt 1911A1 .45 ACP service pistol.

A 1911A1 service pistol, more than eight inches long, could be difficult to draw and manipulate in the cab of a truck or armored vehicle. It also needed to be smaller and less obtrusive in case the soldier carried a full-sized rifle in the field.

For this weapon, the Commander maintained the same size grip and ammunition magazine as the full-sized Colt Government but was half an inch shorter in length. Designed for use by vehicle crews, officers, and senior noncommissioned officers, the gun was designed for the confines of mechanized warfare. It was a reasonable tradeoff between compactness and barrel length, and required minimal retraining to transition between the two gun types.

Recommended: A New Report Reveals Why There Won't Be Any 'New' F-22 Raptors

Recommended: How an ‘Old’ F-15 Might Kill Russia’s New Stealth Fighter

Recommended: How China Plans to Win a War Against the U.S. Navy

The P-320 X-Carry carries on the Commander tradition, a pistol with the grip qualities of the original P-320 but with a shorter overall length.

Introduced in January 2017, the X-Carry is basically a P-320 behind the trigger, with virtually the same grip module and grip length as the larger, full-size P-320 X-5. The X-Carry grip module does have an extended beavertail which helps seat the user’s hand in the gun quickly and more easily. The P-320 series use a common internal chassis inserted into the grip module that contains the fire control group in a stainless steel sled. Unlike other firearms the P-320’s chassis, not the lower receiver, is legally considered the firearm.

The P-320 X-Carry differs from the larger X-5 in several ways.

With an overall length of 7.4 inches, the P-320 X-Carry is more than an inch shorter than the X-5. The P-320 has a barrel length of 3.9 inches, as opposed to 5 inches for the larger gun, which results in the P-320 also being 1.1 inches shorter. The X-Carry’s lack of a flared external magwell means it is also a third of an inch narrower than the X-5. The X-Carry is also slightly shorter, again likely because of the absence of a magwell. The X-Carry is also significantly lighter than the X-5, at 27 ounces a whole half pound lighter than the larger, full-sized gun.

Unlike previous Sig Sauer pistol offerings, the P-320 X-Carry is a striker-fired handgun. The gun features ambidextrous slide stops and magazine releases for left handed shooters. Unlike other versions of the P-320 it has a straight, flat-faced trigger that the manufacturer claims will help shooters avoid inadvertently shooting to the right or left, a common problem rooted in improper finger placement on the trigger.

Sig Sauer’s X-Guns are all chambered in nine millimeter Luger. The X-Carry takes a double-stacked 17-round magazine, and each pistol ships with three such magazines. Most modern handgun designs are readily adaptable to other calibers however, and it is probably inevitable that the company will release .40 Smith & Wesson and .45 ACP versions of the X-Carry.

Materials-wise the P-320 X-Carry breaks down primarily into polymer and steel. The grip module is made of polymer finished with stainless steel. The slide is made of stainless steel finished with Sig Sauer’s Nitron coating to resist rust and corrosion, and the barrel is made of carbon steel.

Although the X-Carry has a very good pair of night sights, one of the most interesting features of the pistol is the ability to change out and replace them with a powered optical sight for rapid target acquisition. The X-Carry’s rear sights are actually mounted on a steel sled that, once removed, make room for a Sig Sauer Romeo 1 reflex sight.

The X-Carry carries on the tradition of compact pistols ergonomically similar to their older, larger siblings. The X-Carry was recently adopted by the Danish Armed Forces, and it seems likely that other European armies on the lookout for a new service pistol may choose it as well. The new pistol would also make a very good choice for civilians as a carry or all-around handgun.

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

Image: YouTube

Caleb Larson

Motorcycles, Europe

Robust, reliable, and widely copied—thanks to quality German engineering.

Here's What You Need to Know: It's one of the more successful motorcycle designs ever built.

During the Second World War, Nazi Germany fielded a large variety of troop transport vehicles. Several of the successful builds were conventional four-wheel jeep-like cars like the Kübelwagon, which enjoyed commercial success after the war in a modified design that was offered on the civilian auto market by Volkswagen. The similar Schwimmwagen was an aquatic “bathtub on wheels.” Both vehicles were prized for their off-road capability and were considered robust and reliable. But, the German industry also built a reliable motorcycle that was even greater success.

Two-Wheeled Wonder

Both BMW and Zündapp designed a motorcycle in the late 30s after a solicitation by the German Army. Their designs, were quite similar, sharing about 70% of parts. However, they were not exactly the same. Both designs featured a relatively powerful 750cc two-cylinder engine that had a decent 26 horsepower output.

Both motorcycles were praised for their substantial off-road performance. They could tackle steep and rugged terrain, ford bodies of water such as streams, and even had a sidecar. While sidecars normally reduce the capability of motorcycles by adding substantial additional weight, both designs could function in two-wheel drive mode and were not overly burdened by their sidecars.

Two wheel drive was possible thanks to a drive shaft connecting the motorcycle’s powered rear wheel with the sidecar’s wheel. The additional powered wheel helped compensate for the relatively heavy base weight, which increased when all three seats (driver, sidecar passenger, and back passenger) were used by fully equipped soldiers. The sidecar also had a pindle-style mount for a general-purpose machine gun, augmenting the motorcycle’s firepower.

Both designs served the German Wehrmacht in North Africa and Europe, a testament to their high reliability and usefulness.

Postscript

The successful design spawned a several near-duplicates. The Soviet Union produced the Dnepr M-72, a reverse-engineered copy of the BMW design that was acquired from Germany via the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression pact between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. It replaced several older and more dated Soviet designs. The design was exported to China, where it was built as the Chang Jiang, a very close copy of the Soviet design.

The United States was also impressed by the German design, which was lauded for being highly reliable and very low maintenance, despite the austere and demanding wartime conditions it was put through. The U.S. Army approached Harley-Davidson, and the firm created the Harley-Davidson XA. Though the design met Army criteria, few machines were made, as the Jeep became the favored general purpose vehicle.

Today, the Russian-built Ural series of motorcycles are still produced in Russia and while updated with more modern materials and components, are based on the original late 1930’s German design—making the design not far from 100 years old, and perhaps one of the more successful motorcycle designs ever built.

Caleb Larson is a defense writer for the National Interest. He holds a Master of Public Policy and covers U.S. and Russian security, European defense issues, and German politics and culture.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Michael Peck

Israel,

Thus was born Operation Moked (“Focus”), a preemptive strike aimed at destroying the Arab air forces on the ground—and one of the most brilliant aerial operations in history.

Here's What You Need to Remember: Had Israel attempted this against North Vietnam in 1967, the outcome would also have been very different. For that matter, had Operation Moked failed to achieve surprise, or if the Israeli pilots had missed their targets, Israel would have gone down in history as reckless and foolish.

At 7:10 a.m. Israeli time, sixteen Israeli Air Force Fouga Magister training jets took off and pretended to be what they were not. Flying routine flight paths and using routine radio frequencies, they looked to Arab radar operators like the normal morning Israeli combat air patrol.

At 7:15 a.m., another 183 aircraft—almost the entire Israeli combat fleet—roared into the air. They headed west over the Mediterranean before diving low, which dropped them from Arab radar screens. This was also nothing new: for two years, Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian radar had tracked Israeli aircraft—though never this many Israeli aircraft—taking off every morning on this same flight path, and then disappearing from their scopes before they returned to base. But that morning, instead of going home, the Israeli armada of French-made Mirage and Super Mystere jets turned south toward Egypt, flying under strict radio silence and just sixty feet above the waves.

Recommended: Why an F-22 Raptor Would Crush an F-35 in a 'Dogfight'

Recommended: Air War: Stealth F-22 Raptor vs. F-14 Tomcat (That Iran Still Flies)

Recommended: A New Report Reveals Why There Won't Be Any 'New' F-22 Raptors

It was June 5, 1967, and the Six-Day War was about to begin. The conflict, which would shape the Middle East as we know it today, had been simmering for months between Israel and its neighbors. Outnumbered by the combined Arab armies, and surrounded by enemies on three sides and the deep blue Mediterranean on the fourth, Israel had resolved to strike first and win quickly.

That meant controlling the skies. But the Israeli Air Force could pit only two hundred aircraft, almost all French models (the United States wouldn’t sell aircraft to the IAF until 1968), against six hundred Arab planes, including many Soviet-supplied MiG fighters. Israeli leaders also worried over Egypt’s thirty Soviet-made Tu-16 Badger bombers, each of which could drop ten tons of bombs on Israeli cities.

Thus was born Operation Moked (“Focus”), a preemptive strike aimed at destroying the Arab air forces on the ground—and one of the most brilliant aerial operations in history. The plan had been worked out and practiced for several years. IAF pilots flew repeated practice missions against mock Egyptian airfields in the Negev Desert, while Israeli intelligence collected information on Egyptian dispositions and defenses.

Would all the effort pay off? The answer would become clear minutes after the Israeli aerial armada banked over the Mediterranean and arrived over Egypt.

Jordanian radar operators, troubled by the unusual number of Israeli aircraft in the air that day, sent a coded warning to the Egyptians. But the Egyptians had changed their codes the day before without bothering to inform the Jordanians.

Not that the warning would have made a huge difference. “Rather than attacking at dawn, the IAF decided to wait for a couple of hours until 0745hrs, 0845hrs Egyptian time,” writes author Simon Dunstan. “By this time, the morning mists over the Nile Delta had dispersed and the Egyptian dawn patrols had returned to base where the pilots were now having their breakfast, while many pilots and ground crew were still making their way to work.”

Meanwhile, the commanders of the Egyptian armed forces and air force were away from their posts on an inspection tour, flying aboard a transport as the Israeli aircraft came in (scared that their own antiaircraft gunners would mistake them for Israelis and blast them out of the skies, the commanders had ordered that Egyptian air defenses not fire on any aircraft while the transport plane was in the air).

The Israeli aircraft climbed to nine thousand feet as they approached their targets: ten Egyptian airfields where the aircraft were neatly parked in rows, wingtip to wingtip. Almost totally unhindered by Egyptian interceptors and flak, the Israeli aircraft, in flights of four, made three to four passes each with bombs and cannon. First hit were the runways so planes couldn’t take off, followed by Egyptian bombers, and then other aircraft.

It was here that the Israelis deployed a secret weapon: the “concrete dibber” bombs, the first specialized anti-runway weapons. Based on a French design, the bombs were braked by parachute, and then a rocket motor slammed them into the runway, creating a crater that made it impossible for Egyptian aircraft to take off.

The first wave lasted just eighty minutes. Then there was a respite, but only for ten minutes. Then second wave came in to strike an additional fourteen airfields. The Egyptians could have been forgiven for thinking Israel had secretly managed to amass a huge air force.

The truth was that Israeli ground crews had practiced the rearming and refueling of returning aircraft in less than eight minutes, which allowed the strike aircraft of the first wave to fly in the second. After 170 minutes—just under three hours—Egypt had lost 293 of its nearly five hundred aircraft, including all of its Soviet-made Tu-16 and Il-28 bombers that had threatened Israeli cities, as well as 185 MiG fighters. The Israelis lost nineteen aircraft, mostly to ground fire.

The day still wasn’t over for the Israeli Air Force. At 12:45 p.m. on June 5, the IAF turned its attention to the other Arab air forces. Syrian and Jordanian airfields were hit, as was the Iraqi H3 airbase. The Syrian lost two-thirds of their air force, with fifty-seven planes destroyed on the ground, while Jordan lost all of its twenty-eight aircraft. By the end of the 1967 war, the Arabs had lost 450 aircraft, compared to forty-six of Israel’s.

Six hours or so after the first IAF aircraft had soared into the morning sky, Israel had won the Six-Day War. Not that the tank crews and paratroopers on the ground wouldn’t face some hard fighting in the Sinai, the Golan and Jerusalem. But destroying the Arab air forces didn’t just mean that Israeli troops could operate without air attack; it also meant that Israeli aircraft could relentlessly bomb and strafe Arab ground troops, which turned the Egyptian retreat from Sinai into a rout.

To say that Operation Moked is unique is incorrect. On June 22, 1941, the Luftwaffe pounded Soviet airfields during Operation Barbarossa, Hitler’s surprise invasion of the Soviet Union. The Soviets may have lost almost four thousand aircraft in the first three days of the offensive—many destroyed on the ground—at a cost of less than eighty German aircraft.

But Operation Moked stands out for its meticulous preparation and split-second timing. It is a mark of respect that Israel’s air offensive has become the gold standard for preemptive air strikes to destroy an enemy air force.

Saddam Hussein began Iraq’s 1980 invasion of Iran with an Israeli-style strike on Iranian airfields. It failed miserably.

Had Israel attempted this against North Vietnam in 1967, the outcome would also have been very different. For that matter, had Operation Moked failed to achieve surprise, or if the Israeli pilots had missed their targets, Israel would have gone down in history as reckless and foolish. That’s exactly what happened to the IAF six years later, in the 1973 October War.

But the gamble paid off. Yet there was nothing magical about the Israeli triumph. Careful preparation, abetted by Arab carelessness and a bit of good luck, had been rewarded.

Operation Moked changed the course of the 1967 war—and of history.

Michael Peck is a contributing writer for the National Interest. He can be found on Twitter and Facebook. This article is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Wikipedia.

Kyle Mizokami

Guns,

Is this the gun the army should have purchased?

Here's What you Need to Remember: Safety is a major consideration on the American Pistol. Unlike a Glock, the gun can be disassembled without pulling the trigger.

One of the newest pistols on the U.S. gun market was created to compete in the U.S. Army’s Modular Handgun System. Although it would never actually compete against winner Sig Sauer, the Ruger American Pistol is now available to civilian shooters who want a reliable, safe, well-designed pistol backed up by the Ruger name.

(This first appeared several months ago.)

In a field of storied American gun manufacturers, some of whom date back to the nineteenth century, one of the strongest is actually fairly new to the scene. The Sturm Ruger company was founded in 1949 by Alexander Sturm and Bill Ruger. Sturm Ruger became well known for revolvers, including the Ruger Security Six and the Ruger Redhawk, and rifles such as the Hawkeye, Mini-14 and Ruger 10/22.

In the mid-1980s the advent of the “Wonder Nines”—large capacity polymer-framed handguns—caught Ruger and many American gun makers flat-footed. Although outside of Ruger’s traditional field of expertise, the company quickly responded with the now-discontinued P-series handguns. In the mid-2010s the U.S. Army’s Modular Handgun System (MHS) contract promised sales of one hundred thousand handguns to the Army alone, and the rest of the services would likely fall into line behind the Army. Ruger designed the Ruger American Pistol for the MHS contract but ultimately declined to actually enroll in the competition. The pistol was released to the civilian market in 2015.

Recommended: China's H-6K: The 'Old' Bomber That Could 'Sink' the U.S. Navy

Recommended: Why an F-22 Raptor Would Crush an F-35 in a 'Dogfight'

Recommended: Air War: Stealth F-22 Raptor vs. F-14 Tomcat (That Iran Still Flies)

The Ruger American Pistol is like most pistols these days a locked-breech, short-recoil pistol. Unlike most pistols, the serialized part—the part technically considered a firearm—isn’t the lower receiver but actually a removable chassis made of billet stainless steel that contains the fire control group. This provides strength and durability to help with higher pressure +P loads, which the pistol is rated to use on a regular basis. The billet in turn is seated in the polymer frame. This is similar to the Sig P320 chassis in execution. Theoretically, this lends itself to using different sized frames should the user want to switch things up although such frames have yet to materialize.

The Ruger is a striker-fired pistol with a 5.5 pound trigger. It is available in both nine millimeter Luger and .45 ACP, with the former taking a seventeen-round magazine and the later a ten-round magazine. The base service model has a 4.2 inch barrel, an overall length of 7.5 inches, and a weight of thirty ounces. New compact versions of both feature a slightly shorter barrel and overall length while retaining the same size magazine. The Ruger American Pistol is equipped with low profile Novak sights and a Picatinny rail underneath the barrel that allows for the mounting of lights and laser aiming devices.

Ergonomics on the American Pistol are excellent. The gun has aggressive slide serrations and checking on the front strap and backstrap for a firm grip. The pistol also comes with three different backstraps to adjust to the shooter’s hand, an increasingly common feature and a key requirement for the Army’s Modular Handgun System. Left handed shooters will appreciate that the Ruger American Pistol is fully ambidextrous, with slide stop, safety, and magazine release all fully usable by left or right handed shooters.

Safety is a major consideration on the American Pistol. Unlike a Glock, the gun can be disassembled without pulling the trigger. It also features an internal automatic sear block to prevent accidental discharge, backed up by a trigger safety that requires the trigger to be pulled for the gun to be fired. Like most striker-fired pistols, it lacks a manual safety mechanism as standard feature although a safety is available where and when required. The pistol also has a loaded chamber indicator that tilts upward to alert the user a round is in the chamber.

Ruger built the American Pistol to perform in the harsh environments a U.S. Army service pistol could find itself in, immersing it in water, sand, dust, and mud. The pistol was exposed to salt fog, humidity, high temperatures, and was even dragged from the back of a vehicle. In reliability tests, Ruger has tested the American Pistol to twenty thousand rounds without issues; an outside test ran the pistol to 5,500 rounds with only one misfeed which the user blamed on the ammunition used. One final data point: Ruger has experienced relatively few product recalls in recent years compared to other firearm manufacturers.

The Ruger American Pistol is a fully modern handgun that incorporates the best features available for a reasonable price. A young handgun with room to grow, it will almost certainly become available in other calibers and sizes over time. It will be interesting to see what new directions Sturm Ruger will push this new pistol in.

Kyle Mizokami is a defense and national security writer based in San Francisco who has appeared in the Diplomat, Foreign Policy, War is Boring and the Daily Beast. In 2009 he cofounded the defense and security blog Japan Security Watch. You can follow him on Twitter: @KyleMizokami.

Image: Reddit

Mark Episkopos

Russia Stealth Fighter,

The manufacturer, Rostec subsidiary Sukhoi, says it slashed Checkmate’s costs with AI-assisted production methods and by recycling some of the technologies previously developed for the Su-35S and Su-57, but only time will tell how accurate these early price assessments are.

Russia’s Checkmate fighter jet is primarily an export product, with Rostec staking the plane’s success on a steady stream of market demand. But who would buy the new fighter, and why?

Judging by its stated specifications and features, Checkmate is a fast, stealthy, high-flying, and light multi-role fighter with an impressively large payload for its class.

And yet, what really sets it apart is its staggeringly low price of $25-30 million per model. This makes Checkmate arguably a far better value proposition than the two competitors that it’s being positioned against: the French Dassault Rafale and Swedish JAS-39 Gripen. But there are some caveats to consider, with the first and most obvious being the Checkmate’s wildly optimistic price tag.  At $25-30 million per model, the Checkmate would cost less than half that of the less advanced Su-35S while also being substantially cheaper than Russia’s other fifth-generation fighter, the Su-57.

The manufacturer, Rostec subsidiary Sukhoi, says it slashed Checkmate’s costs with AI-assisted production methods and by recycling some of the technologies previously developed for the Su-35S and Su-57, but only time will tell how accurate these early price assessments are. Even if technically true, $25-30 million could simply be the baseline price before customer-specific weapons/avionics configurations, modifications, and conversions are factored in. This is not to suggest that Checkmate can’t be competitive in export markets—to the contrary, the fighter is still in a position to offer solid value to certain customers even if the price tag turns out to be slightly higher than expected.

The fighter’s much-anticipated reveal was preceded by a weeks-long marketing campaign, headlined with a slick teaser video that singled out four potential customers: India, Vietnam, Argentina, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The messaging seemed to change slightly on the day of the presentation, with Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov telling reporters that “firstly, the aircraft will be oriented toward African countries, India, and Vietnam.” It’s unclear why Africa wasn’t more heavily emphasized in Rostec’s earlier marketing blitz over the course of July. Algeria and Egypt fit the profile of major arms importers who would potentially be interested in the Checkmate. Both have reportedly purchased Russian military aircraft in recent years, and are open to doing so again. The UAE has mulled over purchasing Russian fighters for years, first the Su-35 and later the Su-57—the Checkmate represents the Russian defense industry’s latest attempt to expand its presence in a Middle-Eastern market that is still dominated by American military hardware. The Vietnamese Air Force showed interest in the Su-57 as early as 2017, but those negotiations appear to have stalled. The versatile and significantly more affordable Checkmate could be a more palatable option for Hanoi over the heavier, more specialized Su-57. India is in the midst of developing two indigenous fighters, the Tejas Mark 2 and Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), which may dampen New Delhi’s appetite for procuring a foreign fighter with partially overlapping capabilities.

Russian officials are projecting confidence in Checkmate’s market performance, with Borisov estimating an initial demand for as many as three hundred fighters. Versatile and affordable, Checkmate has the trappings of a successful export product. All that remains to be seen is whether or not the fighter can live up to Rostec’s ambitious performance and pricing claims.

Mark Episkopos is a national security reporter for the National Interest.

Image: Reuters

Ethen Kim Lieser

Stimulus Check Update,

Similar to previous recent batches, a large number of checks—about 1.3 million—targeted individuals for whom the IRS previously did not have information to issue the stimulus payments but who recently filed a tax return.

The Internal Revenue Service, the Treasury Department, and the Bureau of the Fiscal Service have announced that they have issued another sizeable batch—to the tune of 2.2 million additional $1,400 stimulus checks worth more than $4 billion—to eligible Americans under President Joe Biden’s American Rescue Plan.

Amid the roughly four months of continuous disbursement of these stimulus payments, the newest tranche boosts the total number of checks sent out to date to approximately one hundred seventy-one million—representing a hefty value of about $400 billion.

The latest estimates now suggest that about 90 percent of the $450 billion total earmarked for the third round of stimulus, which were approved in March, already have been sent out to eligible Americans.

Recent Tax Filers Targeted

Similar to previous recent batches, a large number of checks—about 1.3 million—targeted individuals for whom the IRS previously did not have information to issue the stimulus payments but who recently filed a tax return.

“Although payments are automatic for most people, the IRS continues to urge people who don’t normally file a tax return and haven’t received Economic Impact Payments to file a 2020 tax return to get all the benefits they’re entitled to under the law, including tax credits such as the 2020 Recovery Rebate Credit, the Child Tax Credit, and the Earned Income Tax Credit,” the IRS stated.

“Filing a 2020 tax return will also assist the IRS in determining whether someone is eligible for an advance payment of the 2021 Child Tax Credit,” it continued.

The IRS has suggested that non-filers apply for an extension and file by the October 15 deadline.

‘Plus-Up’ Checks

Do be aware that the IRS has disbursed within the last six weeks more than nine hundred thousand so-called “plus-up” or supplemental checks. In all, the agency has made more than nine million of such payments worth nearly $19 billion this year.

These top-off funds are for taxpayers “who earlier in March received payments based on their 2019 tax returns but are eligible for a new or larger payment based on their recently processed 2020 tax returns,” the IRS noted, adding that these payments will continue to go out on a weekly basis.

“These ‘plus-up’ payments could include a situation where a person’s income dropped in 2020 compared to 2019, or a person had a new child or dependent on their 2020 tax return, and other situations,” it added.

The IRS also has continued to remind individuals to check their eligibility for the stimulus checks, as the income levels for this third round have changed. Those who earn as much as $75,000 in adjusted gross income, or couples making $150,000, qualify for the full $1,400, but an individual with an income of $80,000, or a couple with $160,000, will receive nothing.

Ethen Kim Lieser is a Minneapolis-based Science and Tech Editor who has held posts at Google, The Korea Herald, Lincoln Journal Star, AsianWeek, and Arirang TV. Follow or contact him on LinkedIn.

Kris Osborn

Aircraft Carriers,

Despite years of delays, cost overruns, and technical development hurdles, the ship will, it is safe to say, usher in a new era of maritime warfare for the U.S. Navy. 

The Navy’s USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier may be prepared to survive ocean bombing attacks, depending upon how it performed in its first scheduled “explosive event” on the Atlantic Ocean for Full Shock Trials, a process intended to ensure the ship is ready for massive, high-end combat on the open ocean.

Various kinds of bombs, missiles, and other weapons are used to attack the Ford and the surrounding ocean to assess the ship’s ability to stay afloat while under enemy fire. The process is a vital step for the first-in-class ship as it prepares for its upcoming maiden deployment in the next several years. Despite years of delays, cost overruns, and technical development hurdles, the ship will, it is safe to say, usher in a new era of maritime warfare for the U.S. Navy.

Certainly, many lessons were learned throughout the developmental process and then subsequently applied to follow-on Ford carriers now under construction, and it seems all of the innovations and breakthrough technologies are either operational or in the final stages of war preparations. Some were critical of Navy developers regarding the USS Ford, claiming it may have simply been too ambitious to attempt to integrate so many new technologies onto a ship at once. However, there are several key things to consider. First, the ship is now a success with the arrival of its electric weapons elevators finishing up and its breakthrough technologies all operational. Secondly, while certainly ambitious, one could easily make an argument that a collection of breakthrough technologies were needed to meet the anticipated future threat environment.

The breakthroughs are significant. The ship can now successfully operate with an Electromagnetic Catapult which is not only scalable but also capable of generating a smoother, less “shot-gun” like take-off thrust. This not only improves mission reliability but also decreases wear and tear upon the aircraft. It also supports the massively upticked attack tempo possibilities developers wanted to build into the Ford. The sortie rate is already considerably higher than Nimitz-class carriers as the deck space is much larger, enabling a 33-percent increase in sorties.

This means an enemy target area can be blanketed, overwhelmed, and simply blitzed with a series of massive, high-op-tempo air attacks, one right after another. 

The Ford is also built with a new generation of computing, electronics, and onboard power-generation capacity. This enables a much greater degree of computer automation with increased efficiency and also allows for a sizable reduction in crew size.  The ship is also built with a new generation of Arrested Landing Gear to improve the carrier landing process.

There is yet another key factor to consider, meaning that carriers are increasingly likely to function in a more independent fashion or more semi-autonomously apart from Carrier Strike Groups to support more dispersed, disaggregated operations aligned with the service’s Distributed Maritime Operations strategy. What this amounts to is that carriers are themselves being increasingly armed with new ship defenses and weapons to prepare for the prospect of more substantial warfare engagements. The additional onboard power capacity could also support newer weapons systems such as lasers, which are already arming surface ships. 

Kris Osborn is the defense editor for the National Interest. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Master’s Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.

Image: Wikipedia.

Kris Osborn

Russian Navy, Europe

Russia does not appear to have much in the way of carrier-launched aircraft, a circumstance which of course limits its ability to project power and conduct serious or large-scale attack operations with multiple sorties.

Will Russia’s lone aircraft carrier sail once again into open waters, ready for combat and prepared to launch massive, high-speed air attacks? That’s perhaps not entirely clear, at least in terms of its actual performance ability, yet Russian news reports do say the carrier is now being overhauled and upgraded to re-enter service in 2023.

“The overhaul and upgrade of the Admiral Kuznetsov will be completed in the first half of 2023. The avionics, flight deck with the ski jump, electric equipment, the power plant will be replaced. The carrier will receive a new fully domestic takeoff and landing control system. The airpower will remain the same. The carrier will have no attack weapons, it will be armed with Pantsir-M antiaircraft complex.” said Vice President of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC), Vladimir Korolev, according to a TASS report quoted by NavalNews.

While only one carrier, a single platform of this kind can by itself project substantial forward operating power and hold areas at risk from great distances out over the ocean. Certainly, the Russian Navy is quite small compared to the U.S. Navy and likely not in a position to compete in any kind of open-water maritime engagement. But that by no means indicates that it is not a threat. Certainly, Eastern European NATO countries could be vulnerable to carrier-launched air attacks coming from the Black Sea, and there are other parts of the world that could of course be held at risk from an off-shore carrier.

However, what about its upgrades? Would it be vulnerable to hostile attack with an advanced, layered ship defense system or Carrier-Strike-Group-like formation of surrounding ships? The Russian paper says the carrier will get new electric equipment along with a new powerplant and a new take-off and landing control system. TASS goes on to say the carrier will have “no attack weapons,” and instead be armed with Pantsir-M anti-aircraft weapons. So while there do appear to be some air defenses for the ship, it is by no means clear if it has anything substantial by way of ship defenses.

Regardless, there are other pressing questions such as what kind of aircraft can it launch? Russia does not appear to have much in the way of carrier-launched aircraft, a circumstance which of course limits its ability to project power and conduct serious or large-scale attack operations with multiple sorties.

Upgrades to the existing platform, while still unknown in many respects, are unlikely to rival the suite of new technologies built into the new Navy Ford-class carriers such as an electromagnetic powerplant, new 104 megawatts worth of power generating capacity, and electric weapons elevators for fast reloading. 

Kris Osborn is the defense editor for the National Interest. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Master’s Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.

Image: Reuters.

Charlie Gao

U.S. Navy, Asia

The U.S. Navy has a plan.

Here's What You Need to Know: Skillful use of these aircraft may determine how an engagement plays out, or it could prevent one from happening in the first place.

With things heating up in the South China Sea (SCS), much attention has been paid to the ships and submarines that could potentially square off against each other in the region. This ignores a key asset of most navies that is already on the “front lines” and shaping military interactions—Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA). Skillful use of these aircraft may determine how an engagement plays out, or it could prevent one from happening in the first place.

MPA have been around almost as long as combat aircraft. Navies quickly realized the potential of aircraft when it came to patrolling the sea, as they could move far more quickly than boats and had the significant advantage of altitude.

But modern MPA use advanced sensors to detect to see far more than what can be seen with the naked eye—Magnetic Anomaly Detectors (MADs) can detect underwater submarines, and radar systems are used to detect ships that might just be specks on the horizon. Infrared/thermographic cameras allow MPA to identify vessels even at night.

MPA can also deploy sonobuoys, floating sensors that either detect noises or send out pings to find submarines. ELINT sensors can detect the radar emissions of enemy MPA or ships. All of these sensors means that MPA are incredibly useful in peacetime as well as wartime.

One way they could deter potential escalation is through detecting potential violations of EEZ or civilian ships in contested waters ahead of time through the use of radar and infrared. Since modern MPA have all-weather detection capability, they can watch for fishing vessels day and night, and give a navy an advanced warning of such violations so they can be headed off before a more violent encounter up close.

MPA also can provide critical information in tracking enemy submarine posture. While this is a more intensive and not “guaranteed” way to track submarines—as the battle between submarine stealth and submarine detection is ongoing—determining the patrol routes and positions of enemy submarines is critical information. Such intelligence may allow nations to avoid potential losses to convoy raiding (if it occurs) and set up anti-submarine warfare plans before the event of war.

In their traditional role in the detection of surface ships, MPA are critically important in the SCS region. Due to the relatively short distances between islands, MPA flying out of Japan or Taiwan could potentially track the movement of ships from base to base in China.

Basic MPA surveillance radars like the Seaspray 5000 have publicized ranges of around 200 nm. The more advanced AN/APS-115 and AN/APS-137D(V)5s mounted on Japan, and Taiwan's P-3C MPA undoubtedly have better performance. Even with a 200 nm range, an MPA flying over the East China Sea could easily track ships moving south along China's coast.

This could yield significant strategic intelligence on the development and deployment of Beijing’s People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). In addition, the ELINT suite onboard these aircraft could provide insight into the capabilities of Chinese radars.

However, MPA still face considerable limitations from the human component. Crews get tired and need to be rotated out, and MPA—like other aircraft—are expensive to fly and operate. Therefore, the future will see navies using UAVs to accomplish the MPA mission, assisting manned MPA and also surveying without them independently.

The U.S. Navy has already made significant steps in this direction with the acquisition of MQ-4C Triton UAVs, which can augment the P-8A in surveillance and patrols. As multiple UAVs can accompany a single manned aircraft, the amount of area patrolled can increase drastically with the integration of UAS, bringing even more benefits.

Most militaries in the region appear to have recognized the importance of MPA in securing their maritime borders. While not in the SCS, Japan's Defense Forces have one of the best MPA fleets, the star of which is their purpose-built Kawasaki P-1, which boasts advanced sensors and even artificial intelligence to reduce the crew workload.

Taiwan is also no slouch, acquiring twelve American P-3C Orions MPA in 2017. Other militaries in the region (such as Vietnam, Singapore, and the Philippines) field lighter MPA, mostly converted civilian light propeller planes as opposed to heavier purpose-built aircraft. While these converted aircraft are sufficient for tracking surface ships, purpose-built aircraft are far superior for tracking submarines, due to features like the extended tail on the P-3C, which houses the magnetic anomaly detector.

China's premier MPA is the Y-8Q, which is a rough analog to the P-3C in function. Like the P-3C it has a distinctive tail boom for detecting submarines, and a powerful surface search radar in a radome under the cockpit.

Charlie Gao studied political and computer science at Grinnell College and is a frequent commentator on defense and national-security issues.

This article first appeared in August 2018.

Image: Flickr.

Kyle Mizokami

Russian Navy,

After more than twenty years of American submarine supremacy, a new challenger has arisen from the deep.

Here's What You Need to Remember: The United States has pursued submarine warfare halfheartedly since the end of the Cold War, and even less so since 9/11. As the United States turns its full attention back to big power warfare and submarine warfare in particular, American submarines will likely once again outsail their Russian rivals.

The United States Navy’s submarine force emerged from the Cold War as the undisputed masters of the undersea realm. The elite, all-nuclear submarine force watched as its Soviet submarine force rivals rusted away pierside, the newly founded Russian Federation unable to maintain them.

After more than twenty years of American submarine supremacy, a new challenger has arisen from the deep. Slightly familiar and almost two decades in the making, it’s an unusual challenge to U.S. naval superiority, but nevertheless one with a long, lethal pedigree. How does this new old upstart, Russia’s Yasen-class submarine, compare with the new backbone of the U.S. submarine force, the Virginia class?

The Yasen (“Ash Tree”) class of submarines was conceived as early as the mid-1980s by the Malakhit Central Design Bureau, one of the Soviet Union’s three main submarine bureaus. Construction of the first submarine, Severodvinsk, began in 1993 in Russia at the Sevmash Shipyards, but lack of funding delayed completion for more than a decade. Severodvinsk was finally launched in 2010, and commissioned into the fleet in 2013.

The Yasen class measures 390 feet long and displaces 13,800 tons. It has a crew of just ninety, far fewer than its American equivalents, suggesting a high level of automation is built into the submarine. In shape it resembles the earlier Akula class, but much longer behind the conning tower and a hump to accommodate vertical launch tubes. According to the authoritative Combat Fleets of the World, Severodvinsk has a OK-650KPM two-hundred-megawatt nuclear reactor, good for the life of the boat, which drives it to speeds of up to sixteen knots surfaced and thirty-one knots submerged. Other reports peg it slightly faster, at thirty-five knots. It can run quiet underwater at twenty knots.

Severodvinsk’s sensor suite consists of a Irtysh-Amfora sonar system, with a bow-mounted spherical sonar array, flank sonar arrays and a towed array for rearward detection. It has a MRK-50 Albatross (Snoop Pair) navigation/surface search radar and features a Rim Hat electronic support/countermeasures measures suite.

Armament for the submarines consists of four standard-diameter 5,333-millimeter torpedo tubes and four 650-millimeter torpedo tubes. The torpedo tubes can accommodate homing torpedoes and 3M54 Klub missiles, which are available in both antiship, land attack and antisubmarine versions. For even more firepower, the Yasen boats are each equipped with twenty-four vertical launch missile tubes behind the conning tower, each capable of carrying P-800 Oniks ramjet-powered supersonic antiship missiles.

The Virginia-class submarines were conceived as an affordable follow-on to the short-lived Seawolf class, which, although extremely capable, were also extremely expensive. In that sense, they have been highly successful, and Virginias are gradually becoming the mainstay of the U.S. Navy’s submarine force.

At 377 feet, the Virginias are only thirteen feet shorter than the Yasen class, but displace only half as much water. They have crews of 113, and are powered by one General Electric SG9 nuclear reactor, driving a propulsor/pump-jet instead of a propeller. Speeds are reportedly twenty-five knots on the surface and thirty-five knots underwater, and the submarines are reportedly as quiet at twenty-five knots as the Los Angeles class is alongside the pier.

Like its Russian counterpart, a Virginia’s main sonar is a spherical, bow-mounted type. However, starting with the Block III series of submarines, the BQQ-10 sonar is replaced with the U-shaped Large Aperture Bow sonar. Complementing them are arrays on the port and starboard flanks, also known as Light Weight Wide Aperture Arrays, comprising two banks of three fiber-optic acoustic sensors. LWWAA is particularly attuned to detecting diesel electric submarines. Rearward detection is covered by the TB-29(A) towed passive array. Finally, a high-frequency sonar array mounted on the sail and chin allows a Virginia to detect and avoid sea mines.

The Virginia class has only four 533-millimeter torpedo tubes, capable of firing the Mk.48 Advanced Capability (ADCAP) heavyweight homing torpedo for use against surface ships and submarines and the UGM-84 Sub-Harpoon antiship missile. Early versions of the class carried twelve Tomahawk land-attack missiles in vertical launch tubes, replaced in Block III by two cylinder launchers carrying the same number of missiles. Block V Virginias will expand the number of launchers to carry up to forty Tomahawks per submarine.

In a head-to-head confrontation between a Virginia Block III—the version under construction when Severodvinsk was commissioned—who would win? Both submarines are the pinnacle of their country’s submarine technology and, pitted against one another, would be fairly well matched. Severodvinsk may be slower, but it can dive deeper. The Virginia may be faster, but according to Combat Ships of the World, the hull has only been tested to 488 meters. Virginia likely has the edge in sonar detection, thanks to the new Large Aperture Bow sonar.

In terms of weapons, the two sides are fairly evenly matched, although Severodvinsk has the antisubmarine version of the Klub missile, allowing the Russian ship to quickly engage enemy submarines with a missile-delivered lightweight torpedo, much like the retired American SUBROC system.

The Virginia class is quieter and has a better sonar rig than its Russian opponent. In the world of submarine warfare, that’s an unbeatable combination. It can move and detect in ways that would give away Severodvinsk. One thing to be said for Severodvinsk is that it is more capable of quickly responding to a sudden target opportunity via her supersonic Klub ASW missiles. As for near term prospects, the usability of the Virginia’s sonar improves on a regular basis via software updates. Severodvinsk may not be able to update its sonar suite, and making the Russian submarines quieter may not be easily implemented. Overall, the edge has to be given to the Virginia class.

In the long run, the rivalry between the two submarines will likely see the inclusion of unmanned underwater vehicles and a host of other new technologies. The United States has pursued submarine warfare halfheartedly since the end of the Cold War, and even less so since 9/11. As the United States turns its full attention back to big power warfare and submarine warfare in particular, American submarines will likely once again outsail their Russian rivals.

Kyle Mizokami is a defense and national security writer based in San Francisco who has appeared in the Diplomat, Foreign Policy, War is Boring and the Daily Beast. In 2009 he cofounded the defense and security blog Japan Security Watch. You can follow him on Twitter: @KyleMizokami.

This article first appeared several years ago and is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters.

David Axe

U.S. Marine Corps, Americas

Marine units with anti-ship missiles could spread out across islands in order to control strategic ocean checkpoints.

Here's What You Need to Know: The Navy is developing several new anti-ship missiles, including a new version of the venerable Tomahawk ship-launched cruise missile as well as the Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile, a variant of an air-launched cruise missile.

The U.S. Marine Corps wants new missiles so its forces can help the U.S. Navy to sink enemy ships.

And it wants them soon, according to Megan Eckstein, reporting for USNI News.

"There’s a ground component to the maritime fight," Gen. Robert Neller, the Marine Corps commandant, said at a February 2019 conference in San Diego.

"We’re a naval force in a naval campaign," Neller said. "You have to help the ships control sea space. And you can do that from the land."

Neller said land-based sea-control forces would complement, not replace, Marine aircraft operating in the anti-ship role.

Marine units with anti-ship missiles could spread out across islands in order to control strategic ocean checkpoints. "So there’s a lot of geographical chokepoints, and you know what they are, and the potential adversaries know what they are," Neller said. "So if you get there first and you can control that space, then you have an operational advantage."

"Fortifying the offshore island chain while deploying naval assets in adjoining waters could yield major strategic gains on the cheap," James Holmes, a professor at the Naval War College in Rhode Island, advised in 2014. "Doing so is common sense."

The Marines' new missile should be compatible with Navy ships, Neller stressed. "This is the same type of stuff you’d want to put on a ship." The Corps could team up with the Navy to test the new weapon, Neller pointed out.

The need is urgent, according to the commandant. "The urgency is just the situation security-wise we find ourselves in the world." China rapidly is modernizing and growing its maritime forces and exerting more and more pressure on U.S. allies in disputed waters in the China Seas.

Beijing considers the string of islands stretching from Japan south to The Philippines -- what it calls the "first island chain" -- to be China's historical sphere of influence.

By one recent count, the Chinese navy, coast guard and maritime militia operate 650 large, military vessels -- slightly more than the U.S. Navy, Coast Guard and Military Sealift Command operate.

The Navy is developing several new anti-ship missiles, including a new version of the venerable Tomahawk ship-launched cruise missile as well as the Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile, a variant of an air-launched cruise missile.

In the meantime, the Navy has added an anti-ship mode to some of its Standard surface-to-air missiles. The sailing branch also is pulling out of storage old Harpoon anti-ship missiles and could arm some attack submarines with them.

An upgraded Harpoon Block 1C with an active radar seeker and a 490-pound warhead can strike ships over a distance as far as 70 miles. The LRASM and Tomahawk both can hit targets hundreds of miles away with even larger warheads.

It's worth noting that the Boeing-made Harpoon can equip land forces, too. Finland is buying the Cold War-vintage missile for its coastal-defense units. A Boeing official told USNI News that the company has talked to the U.S. Army and Marine Corps about a possible sale.

In the meantime, both the Army and Marine Corps have experimented with their existing High Mobility Artillery Rocket System launchers in an effort to transform them into anti-ship weapons. The 12-ton, wheeled HIMARS can fire a wide range of guided and unguided rockets.

During the Rim of the Pacific war game in and around Hawaii in July 2018, an Army HIMARS battery struck the decommissioned U.S. Navy amphibious ship Racine with five unguided 227-millimeter-diameter rockets. An aerial drone provided the coordinates for the 50-mile strike.

Still, an unguided 227-millimeter rocket with a 200-pound warhead -- HIMARS can carry six at a time -- is less than ideal as an anti-ship weapon. Alternatively, a HIMARS can carry one guided 610-millimeter Army Tactical Missile System with a 500-pound warhead and a 190-mile range.

In 2016, the Army began modifying the seekers on some ATACMS in order to improve their ability to hit ships. The Marines quickly could adopt the same kind of missile.

Fighter jets could help the Marine missile batteries to locate targets. In a 2018 demonstration in Arizona, an F-35 stealth fighter detected a test target and transmitted the target's location to a HIMARS battery.

The Marines also have borrowed a tactic from the Army for rapidly repositioning rocket batteries. In December 2018, Marine KC-130 transport planes hauled two HIMARS launchers from Camp Pendleton in California to Dugway Proving Grounds in Utah, where a war game was underway.

At least one of the HIMARS rolled off its KC-130J, quickly fired a training rocket, then loaded back into the KC-130J for its return flight.

In wartime, a Marine rocket battery could quickly deploy to one island aboard Marine or Air Force transports and lob a few rockets at Chinese ships while the transports idled nearby. "After firing each volley, the missile battery would move to a new hide site and await orders to fire again," the California think-tank RAND explained in a 2017 report.

At the same conference where Neller spoke, Brig. Gen. Christian Wortman, head of the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab, reportedly said the Marines would get their new missile in the "near term."

"There’s a couple capabilities out there and we’re going to test them," Neller said.

David Axe served as Defense Editor of the National Interest. He is the author of the graphic novels  War Fix, War Is Boring and Machete Squad.

This article first appeared in 2019.

Image: Flickr.