Diplomacy & Crisis News

Mark Episkopos

Tempest Stealth Fighter, Europe

As the Tempest project moves further along in the development stage, the fate of the UK’s massive F-35 jet procurement plans hangs in the balance.

Here's What You Need to Remember: The Tempest project is betting big on future-oriented experimental avionics systems, with BAE Systems working on a “wearable cockpit” interface that replaces both analog and digital inputs with augmented reality (AR) display, supported by an integrated network of artificial intelligence (AI) features.

London is doubling down on plans to indigenously produce its upcoming BAE Systems Tempest jet fighter, a next-generation successor to the United Kingdom’s Eurofighter Typhoon fleet. In a March 2021 Command Paper to Parliament, the British Ministry of Defense (MOD) reiterated that the Tempest fighter will be a major procurement priority into the coming decades. “Tempest will exploit our unique industrial base to create a 6th generation combat air enterprise centred in the UK,” the paper reads. “This fully digital enterprise will transform delivery, achieving pace and lowering cost and disrupting traditional approaches to defence procurement.”

The Tempest project’s current partners include Italy and Sweden. The government, which has always been clear that the financial solvency of the Tempest project hinges on securing a steady stream of foreign investment, is also currently exploring partnership opportunities with Japan.

As with most other next-generation fighters, the Tempest fighter will offer its own form of sensor fusion. The fighter’s ambitious Tempest’s Multi-Function Radio Frequency System (MFRFS) data collection protocols will be “four times as accurate as existing sensors in a package 1/10th the size,” according to defense contractor and Tempest partner Leonardo. The MFRFS will filter the battlefield information it collects through its onboard processor suite, generating a dynamic picture of the battlefield that can include everything from enemy movements to terrain layout. Like the F-35 jet, the Tempest fighter can also act as a flying command and control center by feeding some of that information to nearby friendly units. The Tempest project is betting big on future-oriented experimental avionics systems, with BAE Systems working on a “wearable cockpit” interface that replaces both analog and digital inputs with augmented reality (AR) display, supported by an integrated network of artificial intelligence (AI) features.

The Tempest’s project’s preoccupation with unorthodox prototype technologies extends to its weapons loadout. At a Rome seminar on missile defense, Italy’s General Enzo Vecciarelli suggested that the Tempest fighter could incorporate directed-energy weapons to counter hypersonic missiles. “On Tempest there will be a large amount of energy available and I don’t rule out the use of directed energy,” Vecciarelli said. It was previously confirmed that the Tempest fighter will also carry hypersonic missiles of its own, in addition to being able to operate drone swarms.

As the Tempest project moves further along in the development stage, the fate of the UK’s massive F-35 jet procurement plans hangs in the balance. As a “Level 1” partner in the F-35 program, London previously stated it will purchase as many as 138 units of Lockheed Martin’s fifth-generation stealth fighter. London, however, has so far only ordered forty-eight F-35 jet fighters. The MOD says it plans to “grow the [F-35] Force, increasing the fleet size beyond the 48 aircraft that we have already ordered,” but is dragging its feet on whether or not it remains committed to an acquisition target of 138 F-35 fighters.

The Tempest fighter is projected to reach Initial Operating Capability (IOC) by 2035.

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

This article first appeared earlier in 2021 and is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters.

Caleb Larson

Anti-Tank Weapons, Europe

The guns were quickly made obsolete.

Here's What You Need to Know: Though the gun used some pretty unique ammunition, it lacked stopping power—an essential requirement for an anti-tank gun.

The advent of the tank in 1916 during the First World War spurred the development of anti-tank warfare. Large-sized landmines were a static defense that depended on successfully estimating what paths through no-man’s land tanks would use—a pure guessing-game. Field artillery was another possible solution, though getting big guns to accurately bear down on armor proved to be difficult. Something more mobile was needed—an anti-tank rifle.

During that war, the Germany Army took a page out of African big-game hunter’s books and started issuing the enormous T-Gewehr to troops as a stopgap measure for taking out British armor, making the T-Gewehr the world’s first anti-tank rifle.

Though the rifle was moderately successful at harassing or killing tank crews when initially issued, improvements in British and French armor later in the war made the T-Gewehr and its massive 13.2 millimeter TuF round obsolete. After Germany’s World War I defeat and the post-war restrictions imposed by the victorious allies via the Versailles Treaty, further development of both the T-Gewehr and the TuF round were halted.

New War, New Rifle

In the 1930s, Germany went to the drawing board once again in hopes of creating a better anti-tank rifle. To that end, the 7.92×94mm round was used. The round itself was rather unique. Using a steel core, the round was intended to penetrate tank armor, though the bullet’s small diameter was unlikely to result in much damage to the tank.

Rather, the bullet was intended to make tankers evacuate. Just behind the steel core, a small tear gas capsule was incorporated into the bullet. If all went according to plan, the capsule would be deposited inside the tank, and the ensuing gas cloud would force the tank crew to bail.

It didn’t work as intended. The bullet had insufficient penetration power for all but the thinnest of armor, and the capsule could not reliably be delivered into a tank. Later rounds eliminated the capsule and exchanged the steel core for a tungsten carbide penetrator, improving somewhat better penetration.

Panzerbüchse 38/39

The Panzerbüchse 38 and 39 were similar single-shot rifles, both built to fire the 7.92×94mm round. The improvements to the Panzerbüchse 38, an unwieldy 35-pound rifle, resulted in the lighter Panzerbüchse 39. Since the rifles were single-shot, two 10-shot cases were carried next to the breech to allow shooters to more quickly reload.

Regardless, both rifles lacked sufficient penetrating power, even with improved tungsten-carbide ammunition. Their shortcomings evident, the rifles were reassigned rifle grenade duty. In this capacity, the rifles could fire anti-personnel and both light and heavy anti-armor grenades using a purpose-built wooden bullet.

Though both the Panzerbüchse 38 and Panzerbüchse 39 had been produced in much higher numbers than their T-Gewehr predecessor, they were quickly made obsolete just a couple years after their introduction thanks to improvements in armor protection.

Caleb Larson is a defense writer with 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.

This article first appeared in June 2020.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Mark Episkopos

K2 Black Panther, South Korea

The K2 features a variety of design improvements. These include a sophisticated fire control system, linked with shot stabilization technology to optimize accuracy in the uneven terrain.

Here's What You Need to Remember: Where the K2 distinguishes itself from many of its contemporaries is in its forward-looking munitions choices. In addition to the standard MBT catalog of high-explosive rounds and kinetic energy penetrators, the K2 features Korean Smart Top-Attack Munition (KSTAM) top-attack rounds.

South Korea’s K2 Black Panther is, by most measures, the most expensive main battle tank (MBT) in the world. As one of only a handful of currently-serving fourth-generation MBTs, it is also among the most sophisticated. 

In the 1990s, Seoul set out to procure a next-generation MBT. The South Korean Army’s K1 series of tanks is already markedly superior to its decrepit, outdated North Korean counterparts, but the procurement has value as a long-term investment with a potential export windfall.  

The initial batch of K2 tanks rolled out in 2014, making South Korea one of the first and only owners of a fourth-generation MBT—second only to Japan’s introduction of the Type 10 MBT in 2012.  

The tank weighs fifty-five tons and is meant to be powered by the domestically-produced Doosan 1,500 horsepower engine, outputting a top speed of seventy kilometers per hour. 

Earlier K2 units boasted an unmanned turret scheme similar to Russia’s T-14 Armata, but the serial production model features a more traditional manned turret design. The main armament is a Hyundai 120mm smoothbore gun, with a forty-round ammunition capacity and autoloader capability. Where the K2 distinguishes itself from many of its contemporaries is in its forward-looking munitions choices. In addition to the standard MBT catalog of high-explosive rounds and kinetic energy penetrators, the K2 features Korean Smart Top-Attack Munition (KSTAM) top-attack rounds. These munitions, available in two variants-- the KSTAM-I and KSTAM-II-- are fired in a high trajectory with a range of eight km. The munition deploys a parachute mid-flight, firing an explosive penetrator downwards at a tank’s vulnerable top armor. 

The K2 features a variety of design improvements suited for pitched engagements in the Korean Peninsula. These include a sophisticated fire control system, linked with shot stabilization technology to optimize accuracy in the uneven terrain. The Black Panther also boasts impressive fording capability, being able to traverse waters as deep as four meters, as well as a suspension system allowing the chassis to make dynamic profile adjustments for added maneuverability in rough or terrain.  

South Korea’s venture into cutting-edge tank production has not been without growing pains. It was reported last year that South Korea outfitted its third K2 batch with a German transmission system, despite Seoul’s longstanding efforts to transition to an indigenous supply chain. In the 2010s, concerns over the reliability of a domestically-made transmission system slowed the pace of K2 deliveries to South Korea’s Armed Forces. 

Transmission system woes have also cast a pall over Seoul’s ambitious export plans. South Korea has aggressively staked out a market share for the K2, starting with a 2008 technology transfer and design assistance agreement with Turkey. The deal, worth $540 million, faced an uncertain fate following engine and transmission system-related delays. Nevertheless, the K2 continues to attract foreign interest—Warsaw announced that it had entered into negotiations with Hyundai for a K2 licensed production deal, while the Norwegian Army is currently deciding whether to sign a contract for the K2 or Germany’s Leopard 2A7V.  

At $8.5 million per model, the K2 is widely regarded as the most expensive currently-serving tank in the world. Still, the Black Panther arguably provides meaningful performance value for its price, and—with the notable exception of the T-14 Armata—is not terribly out of step with the costs of other fourth-generation MBTs. It remains to be seen whether or not South Korea’s big-ticket bet on next-generation tank technology pays off militarily and financially, but one thing is clear: the K2 is one of the most capable MBTs in service today.  

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

This article first appeared earlier in 2021 and is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Wikipedia.

Kris Osborn

U.S. Navy Lasers, Americas

It's like what CNO Adm. Michael Gilday said: "Speed matters." 

Here's What You Need to Remember: Also, lasers could, in some instances, enable surface warships to encroach on enemy positions given that deck-mounted guns could be supplemented by laser weapons capable of attacking at the speed of light and pinpointing narrow target areas with precision-guidance technology.

The Navy is moving quickly to arm its growing fleet of destroyers with a variety of scalable, high-powered lasers intended to incinerate enemy drones, helicopters and fixed-wing targets. These destroyers will intercept incoming anti-ship missiles and even perform surveillance optics and targeting for ship-mounted weapons systems. 

Ship-fired lasers can introduce an entirely new, and highly impactful, tactical advantage to U.S. Navy warship offensive and defensive operations. Of course, they cost less than expensive interceptor missiles but they are also inherently scalable, meaning they can be tailored to either disable or destroy targets. 

Should an incoming enemy anti-ship missile be traveling over heavily trafficked ocean areas, then a kinetic “explosion” dispersing fragments would likely cause civilian casualties. A laser weapon, however, can simply incinerate the target with much less fragmentation and explosive “energetics.” 

The Navy is integrating on its ships a laser system called HELIOS, an acronym that stands for High-Energy Laser with Optical-dazzler and Surveillance. It has added the system to DDG-51 destroyers, which can use the offensive and defensive weapons capability. Lasers like HELIOS provide these destroyers with a substantial optical component, meaning they can act as a sensor to track targets and help with necessary surveillance missions. Also, lasers could, in some instances, enable surface warships to encroach on enemy positions given that deck-mounted guns could be supplemented by laser weapons capable of attacking at the speed of light and pinpointing narrow target areas with precision-guidance technology.

Speed is increasingly vital to ocean warfare. New technologies are entering the sphere of Naval warfare all the time, greatly changing the tactical equation. That is why the Navy’s much-discussed Distributed Maritime Operations calls for a more dispersed, yet networked fleet able to leverage a new generation of long-range sensors and weapons. 

Modern Maritime warfare, as described in the U.S. Navy’s recently released Chief of Naval Operations Navigation Plan strategy document, is becoming increasingly dispersed, networked and driven by new levels of artificial-intelligence-enabled autonomy.

“Ubiquitous and persistent sensors, advanced battle networks, and weapons of increasing range and speed have driven us to a more dispersed type of fight . . . keeping ahead of our competitors requires us to rapidly field state-of-the-art systems,” CNO Adm. Michael Gilday noted in the document. “Speed matters.”

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 reprinted for reader interest.

Image: Flickr

Kyle Mizokami

Israeli Air Force, Middle East

The IAF has been instrumental in Israel’s defense for decades. 

Here's What You Need to Remember: At total mobilization, the IAF enjoys a comfortable ratio of 91 personnel for every one aircraft, far above the Egyptian Air Force’s 30 to one ratio and the Royal Saudi Air Force’s 38 to one.

The Israeli Air Force was founded on May 28, 1948, exactly two weeks after the founding of the State of Israel. A motley force of veteran World War II pilots and obsolete aircraft, it has matured into one of the most powerful air forces in the world.

The Israeli Air Force (IAF) has been instrumental in Israel’s defense, providing air superiority over Israel, close air support over Israeli ground forces, and performing strikes against targets deep in the enemy’s homeland. Over the past three decades it has also taken on a counterterrorism role, using airstrikes to assassinate terrorist leaders and destroy caches of weapons from the Tunis to the Sudan.

The IAF has an estimated 648 aircraft of all types, manned and serviced by 35,000 active duty personnel. An additional 24,500 reservists can be called up during wartime. At total mobilization, the IAF enjoys a comfortable ratio of 91 personnel for every one aircraft, far above the Egyptian Air Force’s 30 to one ratio and the Royal Saudi Air Force’s 38 to one.

F-15A/C Baz (“Falcon”)

Israel received its first F-15 Eagle fighters as part of the “Peace Fox” program. Four F-15As—the precursor to the F-15C—were delivered on December 10, 1976. At the time, Israeli Defense Forces Chief of Staff Mordecai Gur said of the fighter, “A state with F-15s no longer resembles a state without them.” Israel would eventually be equipped with 58 F-15 fighters.

A lot was riding on the F-15, which the IAF anticipated would give Israel air supremacy over its territory and air superiority over the entire Middle East. They weren’t wrong. On June 2nd 1979, six F-15s escorting air strikes against the PLO in Lebanon shot down five MiG-21s in a single engagement. In September, four more MiG-21s were lost to F-15s. Between 1976 and the end of the 1982 Lebanon war, Israeli F-15s shot down 58 enemy planes with zero losses.

Israeli F-15A fighters have been progressively upgraded to the F-15C standard. Israeli F-15 Baz fighters continue to provide air superiority for Israel. Baz fighters would undoubtedly fly top cover for any Israeli air strikes against Iran.

F-15I Ra’am (“Thunder”)

Israel’s version of the F-15E Strike Eagle, the F-15I Ra’am is a multi-mission aircraft capable of air superiority and strike missions. Israel announced its intention to procure the Ra’am in 1994, a result of its lack of long-range strike aircraft capable of hunting down Iraqi Scud missiles during the 1991 Gulf War.

(Recommended: ISIS's 5 Most Lethal Weapons of War)

Twenty five Ra’am fighters were purchased, with deliveries completed by 1998. Air to air armament includes short-range Python missiles and medium-range AMRAAM missiles. Air to ground armament includes laser guided bombs, Joint Directed Attack Munitions, and Popeye missiles. Israeli modifications include an electronic warfare suite, GPS, communications, the helmet display system and a data collection and transfer system.

In the event of an Israeli air strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the 25 Ra’am fighters will be tasked with striking Iran’s farthest and most heavily defended targets.

F-16I Sufa (“Storm”)

The F-16I Sufa is a derivative of the F-16 Block 52 multirole fighter. A two seat fighter also capable of strike missions, it is probably best described as “Ra’am Lite.”

Like other F-16 Block 52 fighters, the F-16I includes conformal fuel tanks added to the fuselage to increase range. Israeli technology on the Sufa includes the heads-up display, satellite communications, and the Litening II targeting and navigation pod. Armament includes the Python 5 short-range air to air missile, laser guided bombs, and JDAM satellite guided bombs.

Israel is thought to have 99-100 Sufa fighters. Israel also has 243 older F-16 A/B/C fighters, making Israel’s F-16 force the largest outside of the U.S. Air Force. In any Israeli attack on Iran, the F-16I fighters will likely fulfill two roles: first knocking out Iran’s air defenses and then supplementing the F-15I in striking targets on the ground.

AH-64 Seraph (“Winged Serpent”)

The Israeli Army is equipped with 42 AH-64A Apache attack helicopters. The “A” model is the original Apache helicopter, quite a bit older than the U.S. Army’s newest AH-64E Guardian. The AH-64As were purchased in the late 1980s, making the oldest at least 25 years old.

The Seraph has been used in anti-terrorism campaigns and recent conflicts, providing a hovering surveillance platform capable of executing its own anti-personnel strikes. Israel has used the Seraph to conduct strikes in urban areas, against terrorist targets hiding among civilian populations. The Seraph has assassinated Hamas and Hezbollah leaders, and provided fire support to ground forces in the wars against Hezbollah in 2006 and Hamas in 2008 and 2014.

Israel embarked on a program to modernize the electronics of its A models, bringing them to an “AH-61Ai” standard. This is alleged to be the equivalent of modernizing them to the more recent AH-64D standard. The upgrades include new electronic warfare, anti-missile protection systems, battle management and communications systems. The AH-64i is armed with the Spike long-range air to ground missile system.

Jericho III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile:

The Jericho III is the third missile to serve as Israel’s land-based nuclear deterrent. The Jericho III is believed to have a range between 4,800 and 6,000 kilometers, and is capable of carrying a 1,000 kilogram warhead payload. A range of 4,800 kilometers would enable it to strike from Morocco to eastern India, while an 6,500 kilometer range would enable it to target as far as western China.

The missile is reportedly solid-fueled, meaning it can be launched with minimum preparation, and reportedly based in silos capable of resisting attack. The Jericho III, as well as the older generation Jericho II missiles, may be based at Palmachim Air Base.

Jericho III is believed to carry a single nuclear warhead or three low-yield multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles. The precise yield of Israel’s ICBM warheads is unknown but unconfirmed reports peg them at 20 kilotons. By way of comparison, the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 16 kilotons.

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.

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

Image: Reuters

James Holmes

South China Sea, South China Sea, China, United States

Global prosperity hinges on freedom of navigation.

Here's What You Need to Remember: The CCP is not seeking an empire in the South China Sea, strictly speaking. An empire exercises dominion over foreign territories from an imperial center. Beijing wants far more than a maritime empire. It covets ownership.

It feels like 2014 again. That’s when it came to light that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) had embarked on a seemingly quixotic project: manufacturing islands out of reefs and atolls in the South China Sea and then fortifying them to extend its sway vis-à-vis Southeast Asian rivals impertinent enough to insist on their maritime rights. The region was a fixture in headlines that year and into the next while Washington and Beijing traded barbs accusing each other of “militarizing” the situation.

This week the Trump administration renewed the controversy, issuing a revised “U.S. Position on Maritime Claims in the South China Sea.” In the key paragraph Secretary of State Mike Pompeo proclaimed that “the world will not allow Beijing to treat the South China Sea as its maritime empire. America stands with our Southeast Asian allies and partners in protecting their sovereign rights to offshore resources, consistent with their rights and obligations under international law. We stand with the international community in defense of freedom of the seas and respect for sovereignty and reject any push to impose ‘might makes right’ in the South China Sea or the wider region.”

Now, empire is a freighted word for sure. Communist China defines itself in opposition to European and Japanese imperialism, a scourge CCP leaders decry for inflicting a “century of humiliation” on Asia’s leading power. Unsurprisingly, then, China’s embassy in Washington DC leapt to deny Pompeo’s accusation.

And indeed, the CCP is not seeking an empire in the South China Sea, strictly speaking. An empire exercises dominion over foreign territories from an imperial center. Beijing wants far more than a maritime empire. It covets ownership. It wants to make the South China Sea what Romans once called the Mediterranean Sea—namely mare liberum, or “our sea.”

CCP magnates make no effort to conceal their aims. Since 2009, in fact, officialdom has frankly and regularly avowed that its paramount goal is “indisputable sovereignty” within a “nine-dashed line” enclosing the vast majority of the South China Sea. This is an extravagant claim. Think about what sovereignty is. A sovereign government exercises a monopoly on the use of armed force within borders inscribed on the map. It ordains and others obey. The law of the sea, which proscribes national ownership of maritime space—with few, specific, and narrowly drawn exceptions, none of which justify Beijing’s claims—will be no more in the South China Sea if Xi Jinping & Co. get their way.

The waters and land features within the nine-dashed line will be Chinese territory.

And an awful precedent will have been set. Surrendering the South China Sea would embolden other coastal states to repeal the law of the sea by fiat if they felt strongly about offshore seas and possessed sufficient physical might to enforce their will. Hence Secretary Pompeo’s warning against letting the primeval principle that might makes right—that the strong seize what they want in international affairs and the weak accommodate themselves to the strong—prevail.

Freedom of the sea is a pressing interest for the United States and any seafaring society. It should be nonnegotiable.

But there are reasons apart from international law why Americans should care whether the Chinese Communist Party rules a faraway expanse of which they know little. First, access. As Alfred Thayer Mahan pointed out a century ago, the paramount goal of maritime strategy is to ensure commercial, diplomatic, and military access to important trading regions such as East Asia. Commerce is king. Military access assures political access assures commercial access and the blessings trade brings. At the same time access is a crucial enabler for maritime strategy. Commerce generates wealth sufficient to fund a navy to protect commerce. Acquiescing in Beijing’s maritime claims would encumber freedom of movement for merchantmen and warships—threatening to interrupt this virtuous cycle and hurt American prosperity.

It’s never a good time to put prosperity at hazard. Doing so in a pandemic year—a year rife with economic uncertainty—would amount to strategic malpractice. What happens in Southeast Asia has direct implications for Americans.

Second, geopolitics. If U.S. foreign policy has aimed at securing commercial access since the age of Mahan, it also aims at keeping the “rimlands” of East Asia and Western Europe from falling under the dominion of some hostile power or alliance. North America occupies a fortunate geographic position, buffered against Eurasian enmities by the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. If some geopolitical competitor unified one of the rimlands under its rule, however, it might wrest away martial resources sufficient to reach out across the ocean and do the United States harm in its own hemisphere.

To keep the rimlands fragmented among competing powers and hold danger at bay, U.S. diplomats and seafarers have to be able to get to the rimlands. Consequently, the U.S. Navy, affiliated joint forces, and allied military services must rule what geopolitics sage Nicholas Spykman termed the “girdle of marginal seas” adjoining the Eurasian perimeter. The South China Sea figures prominently among these marginal waterways—and thus to America’s rimlands strategy. Washington cannot let it go.

And third, friends and allies. The United States has no strategic position in the Western Pacific without local partners and the harbors and bases they supply. It must keep its commitments to treaty allies such as the Philippine Islands lest they resign themselves to Chinese Communist supremacy and close their soil to U.S. forces. America could find itself locked out of the region. Its commercially and geopolitically driven foreign policy would falter as a result. Manila is a primary target of CCP abuse in the South China Sea, having seen waters apportioned to it under the law of the sea purloined by China’s maritime militia, coast guard, and navy. Deterring new aggression while reversing past transgressions must be central to U.S. strategy.

Clearly, then, failing to honor longstanding security guarantees to the Philippines and other allies would place U.S. foreign policy and strategy in jeopardy in manifold ways. If Americans prefer a world of wealth and safety, they have ample reason to take an interest in Southeast Asian affairs. Abandoning the region to a Roman fate risks sacrificing our own future.

James Holmes is J. C. Wylie Chair of Maritime Strategy at the Naval War College and author of “Visualize Chinese Sea Power,” in the current issue of the Naval Institute Proceedings. The views voiced here are his alone.

This article is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters.

Caleb Larson

World War II, Americas

The Marmon-Herrington CTLS was quite small and had room for just two—a gunner and a driver.

Here's What You Need to Know: The CTLS served during the Aleutian Islands campaign, one of the only times when the United States was invaded by a foreign force.

Light tanks are usually considered relics of the past. Take Nazi Germany’s Sonderkraftfahrzeug, which used one variant to destroy enemy bunkers via remote control. Or the present-day Bundeswehr’s Weisel reconnaissance tankette that is still in service despite its small size and limited firepower. We won’t see any American tankettes rolling off assembly lines anytime soon, but this lesser-known American tankette did a brief stint in Alaska during World War II. 

Marmon-Herrington CTLS

In an effort to find an amphibious light tank, the United States Marine Corps turned to the truck and tractor manufacturer Marmon-Herrington and solicited a light tank design. In compliance with the Marine Corps’ design specifications, the Marmon-Herrington CTLS was quite small and had room for just two—a gunner and a driver.

The tiny tank was lightly armed as well. Though production model’s armament varied somewhat, the Marmon-Herrington CTLS in American service were generally armed with either a turret-mounted .50 caliber machine gun or a .30 caliber machine gun as its main gun, and had two .30 caliber M1919 machine guns mounted side by side in the hull glacis. The smaller guns were set into ball turrets and had overlapping fields of fire, whereas the turret mounted gun swiveled using a hand crank and had a more limited field of fire, as it could not rotate a full 360 degrees.

Due to the Marine Corps’ amphibious capability requirement, the Marmon-Herrington CTLS sacrificed armor protection for lighter overall weight. At maximum thickness, frontal hull armor was only half an inch thick, or 12.7 millimeters, leaving the tank decidedly under-protected and resistant only to some small-arms fire. However, the CTLS’ mobility benefited from being relatively light weight and had suspension that was quite similar to the American M4 Sherman tank of World War II fame. But one of the design’s major shortcomings was its treads which lacked robustness and were prone to failure.

Into Battle

Despite being manufactured from the outset to Marine Corps specifications, the little tank was rejected by the Marine Corps due in part to insufficient armor protection and limited amphibious capabilities. But, the CTLS enjoyed a second life in the hands of United States Army tankers, who received the tanks after the Pearl Harbor attack as a stopgap measure.

In Army hands, the CTLS served during the Aleutian Islands campaign, one of the only times when the United States was invaded by a foreign force. During the campaign—an invasion of some of Alaska’s Aleutian Islands by the Japanese—a small number of CTLS tanks were used to dislodge the Japanese from American territory.

Postscript

The CTLS had a longer service life as an export tank than in American service. Several hundred of the CTLS were exported to China, and a number served in Indonesia until the early 1950s. Though the tank was under-gunned and underpowered, the CTLS holds the special distinction of being the only tank used by the United States to fight off an invading force on American territory.

Caleb Larson is a defense writer with 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.

This article first appeared in June 2020.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Mark Episkopos

Ballistic Missile Defense, Russia

Russia announced a successful test launch of an anti-ballistic missile, but nothing has been confirmed in terms of exact specifications.

Here's What You Need to Remember: Russian defense observers argue that the new interceptor missile will further widen what they believe to be the already considerable gap between Russian and U.S. missile defense capabilities.

Russia’s Aerospaces Forces have tested a new interceptor missile, one of Moscow’s latest investments into its rapidly growing missile defense network.  

“The combat team of the Aerospace Force’s air and anti-ballistic missile defense troops conducted another successful test-launch of a new missile of the Russian anti-ballistic missile defense system at the Sary-Shagan proving ground (the Republic of Kazakhstan),” read a statement issued by Russia’s Defense Ministry.

The statement was accompanied by a video from the launch, published on the Defense Ministry’s Youtube channel. The clip showed the missile being transported, loaded into a silo, and launched. “The ABM system’s new interceptor missile reliably proved its inherent characteristics while the combat teams successfully accomplished the task, striking a mock target with the required accuracy,” Aerospace Force Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense Formation Major Gen. Sergei Grabchuk told reporters. The Defense Ministry’s statement indicates that this was not the missile’s first test, though concrete production and delivery timelines remain elusive. Following an earlier test of what appears to be the same missile, Deputy Commander of the Air and Missile Defense of the Aerospace Forces Andrey Prikhodko told Russian media that the missile “considerably surpasses those of weapons operational today” in such categories as range, accuracy, and service life. Russian defense sources believe that the new interceptor missile can handily outperform the anti-missile capabilities of the S-400 missile defense system—in particular, Russian experts maintain that it can reliably intercept hypersonic ballistic missiles.  

The missile is launched at an initial speed of one thousand kilometers per hour, rapidly accelerating to supersonic speeds. Elsewhere, Russian sources stated that the missile travels in excess of three kilometers or more than four times the speed of a Kalashnikov assault rifle. Still, nothing has been confirmed by way of the weapon’s concrete specifications.

Russian defense observers argue that the new interceptor missile will further widen what they believe to be the already considerable gap between Russian and U.S. missile defense capabilities. “Comparing Russian and American missile defense capabilities, it is not difficult to notice that, in contrast with Russian missile defenses, US missile interceptors have the speed of a turtle. The [new missile interceptors] ensures the highly effective interception of any target, possibly including those of the hypersonic kind,” a Russian defense analyst told the aviation publication Avia.pro.

The Pentagon has noted the need to invest in modernized missile defenses in the face of growing Russian and Chinese capabilities, as well as looming challenges from such regional actors as North Korea. During an event hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in February, Air Force Gen. John Hyten stressed the need for a new, integrated missile defense infrastructure to defend the United States from sophisticated ballistic missile threats into the coming decades. Hyten joined other senior U.S. officials, including Vice Admiral Jon Hill and Air Force Gen. Glen VanHerck, in stressing that the ongoing  Next Generation Interceptor project is a crucial next step in guaranteeing the long-term integrity of U.S. missile defenses. It is expected to enter service by 2028.  

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

This article first appeared earlier in 2021 and is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters.

Caleb Larson

B-25 Bomber, Americas

The B-25 was an American workhorse.

Here's What You Need to Know: The bomber's solid design helped turn the tide for the United States world-wide.

The B-25 was first designed in 1940 and was intended to be the United States’ medium bomber workhorse. On paper, the B-25 was not particularly spectacular: it had two engines, a pencil-like fuselage, and a fairly modest bomb loadout. Still, the B-25 was not without its merits.

A staggering number of B-25s were built during World War II. The design proved flexible, and a large number of aircraft variants were built to suit the needs of the different armed services—and other countries, as the B-25 platform was widely shared with the Allies as a part of the Lend-Lease war material sharing agreement. B-25s were shipped to Britain, the Soviet Union, and after the war to the Canadians, Dutch, and Australians, to name a few.

The B-25 Mitchell design was far from perfect, but highly regarded by flight crews as durable and reliable, forgiving to pilots even with one engine out and full of bullet holes. It was not out of the ordinary for B-25 to have logged enormous amounts of repaired damage throughout their flight lifetimes.

One of the few drawbacks from the crew standpoint was the B-25’s engine noise. The airplane’s engines were relatively close to the fuselage, and in a unique arrangement the plane’s exhaust was directed toward the cockpit. Some B-25 pilots and crew members would experience varying degrees of hearing loss after the war thanks to excessive engine noise.

Though the B-25 was used by the United States in every theater of war, it was most useful in the Pacific Theater. As the war progressed, the B-25 was outfitted with more and more forward-facing heavy machine guns. The bomber’s medium-level bombing proved to be useful for troops and against targets deep in thick jungle, where the B-25’s low-level bombing and strafing runs were particularly potent. The B-25 also experienced success by adapting this low-level strafing tactic in an anti-shipping role.

Guns Blazing

The B-25 design was evaluated as a potential gunship platform, a role the airframe could have excelled at, had it been adopted. As a gunship, the modified B-25 could bring an awesome amount of firepower to bear on a target. One of the gunship prototypes had four .50 caliber heavy machine guns mounted in the nose, as well as an enormous 75 millimeter cannon. Additionally, the prototype could carry four more .50 machine guns in two flank-mounted pods, two in a manned turret just aft of the cockpit, one on both sides of the waist, and two for the rear gunner, bringing the number of onboard guns to an astounding fourteen.

Empire State Building

The B-25 was also involved in an accidental crash with the Empire State Building in New York. Flying through heavy fog, a B-25 crashed into the north side of the building, en route to Newark Airport in New Jersey, killing all passengers on board and eleven people in the building. 

Doolittle Raid

Perhaps one of the B-25’s best-known chapters was in the Doolittle Raid of World War II fame. Four months after America’s Day of Infamy attack on Pearl Harbor, Lieutenant Colonel Jimmy Doolittle led a 16-plane raiding party on an attack on mainland Japan. The raid was successful, and though it caused very little in terms of actual material damage, it did much to boost American spirits early in the war. It also was a sharp psychological blow to the Japanese, who had considered mainland Japan to be too far out of reach to be bombed. As a result of the Doolittle Raid, Japan diverted ships and soldiers closer to the mainland to better protect Japan from American air attacks.

An American Icon

Though nothing fancy, the B-25 was a true American workhorse that just kept soldiering (or rather, flying) on. Its solid design helped turn the tide for the United States world-wide, but most especially in the Pacific. Hats off to an American icon.

Caleb Larson is a defense writer with 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.

This article first appeared in June 2020.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Caleb Larson

World War II, Europe

The Sonderkraftfahrzeug was an odd motorcycle-tank hybrid.

Here's What You Need to Know: Nazi Germany found a vehicle well-suited to the Eastern Front.

Germany likes small things. Be it the Wiesel tankette, a tiny two or three-man scout tank armed with a 20-millimeter autocannon main gun, or this odd motorcycle-tank hybrid, the Sd.Kfz. 2. The Special-purpose Vehicle, or Sonderkraftfahrzeug as it was known in German, was intended to be a compact heavy mover for the German Wehrmacht during the Second World War.

The Sd.Kfz. 2 was most used in Russia on the Eastern Front. In that intense conflict, the Sd.Kfz. 2 was used mostly as a support vehicle for towing or moving small amounts of troops or equipment in its small crew compartment or in a compact two-wheeled trailer.

It was also occasionally used to position airplanes on runways. Especially in the later stages of World War II, efforts were made by Germany to conserve as much jet fuel as possible, and using the Sd.Kfz. 2 to position jets was a conservation measure.

The Sd.Kfz. 2 was well-suited to the Eastern Front and the heavy muck that troops and vehicles had to wade through. In addition to a relatively low weight, the Sd.Kfz. 2 benefited from the large interleaving road wheels that rode on tracks, giving the Sd.Kfz. 2 low ground pressure. This neat video gives a good idea of just how capable the little tankette was off-road and is worth the watch.

Though low ground pressure was beneficial, the design suffered from mechanical complexity. The innermost road wheels were not quickly removable. In order to service them an outermost wheel would also have to be removed, hampering maintenance. In addition, the interleaving wheels could sometimes become filled with freezing mud and muck endemic to the austere Russian landscape and freeze, jamming the Sd.Kfz. 2’s tracks.

Variants

One of the more interesting Sd.Kfz. 2 variants was a demolition vehicle based on the Sd.Kfz. 2 chassis that could be driven both by remote control and by a driver. The Springer as it was called, lacked the motorcycle-like front wheel and handlebars of its Sd.Kfz. 2 parent and had a small one-man crew compartment that had additional armor protection.

To fulfill its demolition role, the Springer carried a 330 kilogram (or about 730-pound) explosive charge towards a target. Once near, the driver exited the little tankette and guided it via remote control towards its target. As the Springer would explode along with its payload, it could only be used once making it impractical for widespread use.

Postwar, an unknown number of Sd.Kfz. 2s were built as a cheaper tractor alternative. These low-cost vehicles were desperately needed to help alleviate the post-war food shortage in Germany that persisted until 1948.

Caleb Larson is a defense writer with 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.

This article first appeared in June 2020.

Image: Ben Norwood / Wikimedia Commons

The number of tobacco users continues to decrease globally, going from 1.32 billion in 2015 to 1.30 billion last year, the World Health Organization (WHO) said onTuesday.  

How the U.S. and its allies are rewriting the rules on spending and trade.

Children in the Central African Republic (CAR) have suffered a spike in grave violations since the end of 2020, according to a new UN report on the situation in the country, issued on Monday. 

A nuclear Iran would pose serious challenges to the United States and such an outcome should not be accepted as inescapable.

Dual test kits, which cost less than $1, are now available for pregnant women to stem mother-to-child HIV and syphilis transmission, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced on Monday.  

Une bande de copains joyeux, fauchés, un peu provocateurs, prêts à s'inventer un autre avenir que celui des bons bourgeois : la bohème avec ses légendes, héritée du XIXe siècle, fait si bien rêver que le XXIe n'en finit pas de la recycler. Romantique, insolente, est-elle un geste de liberté ou un (...) / Art, Capitalisme, Culture, Histoire, Idées, Intellectuels, Littérature, Mouvement de contestation - 2016/10

Haiti has a long history of natural, political, and human catastrophes. What do Haitians do now?

The Port-au-Prince neighborhood of Bel Air. Photo credit: Marcello Casal, Jr., Agencia Brazil, CC BY 2.0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EscombrosBelAir7.jpg

A State Department warning to Americans to avoid travel to Haiti follows the kidnapping of 17 foreign aid workers and family members in a long line of tragic stories from Haiti in 2021. Beginning decades ago but accelerating this year with political unrest, natural disasters, and economic and social problems, any prospects for progress in Haiti seem to be demolished by the next catastrophe.

The political earthquake of the year was the July 7 assassination of President Jovenel Moïse. Moïse replaced an interim president in 2017, who had replaced a president who stepped down for constitutional reasons, who himself came to power after 2010 earthquake that killed hundreds of thousands of Haitians and left more than a million homeless. The fallout from this summer’s assassination of Moïse continues, with the arrests of Columbians and former Haitian police officers, questions about former Ministry of Justice official Joseph Badio, and the current interim prime minister’s connections to Badio.

In August, Haiti suffered an actual earthquake, a 7.2 magnitude quake that killed more than 2,000 people and left more than 650,000 people in need of humanitarian aid.

This natural disaster built on years of similar ones. A partial list includes historic storms in 1935, 1954, and 1963, a series of devastating storms in the 1990s, four major storms in 2008, and Hurricane Matthew that destroyed 200,000 homes in 2016. Weeks after this summer’s assassination of Moise and two days after the earthquake, Haiti was hit by Hurricane Grace. Damaging flooding and landslides also hampered relief efforts for earthquake victims.

These political and natural disasters amplified the ongoing economic and social problems in Haiti. USAID assessed that more than one-third of Haitians live with “severe acute food insecurity.” Even before 2021’s troubles, the World Bank called Haiti the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere and one of the poorest in the world, with a negative growth in 2019 and 2020. Sixty percent of the country live in poverty and nearly a quarter in extreme poverty.

Together, these conditions have facilitated the rapid growth of violent gangs in Haiti. Gangs are not new to Haiti, but they are alleged to act with unofficial “governing powers” in some regions and with extrajudicial violence with the cooperation of government officials.

Drack Bonhomme is founding director of Haiti’s international relations think tank and graduate school, L’Ouverture Institute for Diplomacy & Global Affairs (LIDGA). Bonhomme spoke about these natural, political, and social crises at The Catholic University of America’s Institute for Policy Research (IPR).

“The kinematics of Haiti are catastrophic, the picture is really disastrous,” Bonhomme began. The indigenous people called the island Haiti, meaning mountainous land, and now “the problems are like mountains.”

Bonhomme described natural disasters – especially Hurricane Hazel in 1954 – as devastating the economy. Hazel damaged sugar and coffee production as well as tourism. In subsequent decades, disease and natural disaster, including HIV/AIDS and the 2010 earthquake, have had a continuing series of negative impacts.

Haiti’s political troubles also have deep roots, including the family dictatorship of François and Jean-Claude Duvalier. Haiti today faces an “unprecedented constitutional crisis,” said Bonhomme, where “the three branches of government are non-existent.”

Bonhomme believes the limited international responses to Haiti’s current problems are worsened by the all-consuming nature of the Covid-19 pandemic. The international community is too busy with the pandemic, Bonhomme said, to focus on more traditional questions like natural disasters and political crises.

But he believes there is more that Haiti can do to help itself. First is working with donors and aid agencies to help Haitians figure out a way forward themselves – as the Marshall Plan offered reconstruction aid in postwar Europe based on what each country’s own plans were. Second is to draw more from the successful diaspora. The Haitian constitution limits the ways diaspora can contribute, other than remittances, to the re-development of the country.

But Bonhomme is optimistic. “The Haitian people are very resilient, a religiously spiritual people,” he concluded. There is a “hope within the soul of the Haitian people, they keep looking for the light…and that sense of hope is still shining inside of them.”

Watch Drack Bonhomme’s full presentation

As the humanitarian crisis grows in Ethiopia’s conflict-affected north, the UN announced on Monday that $40 million in funds have been made available to scale up emergency operations. 

More than 45,000 boys and girls were released from detention during the COVID-19 pandemic, proving that child-friendly justice solutions “are more than possible”, according to new data released on Monday by the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF). 

/ Chine, France, Mondialisation, Matières premières, Forêt, Environnement - Environnement - Forêts / Chine, France, Mondialisation, Matières premières, Forêt, Environnement - Environnement - Forêts