Diplomacy & Crisis News

Kris Osborn

U.S. Navy,

As Navy innovators work intensely to pioneer new methods of undersea communication, many might wish to reflect upon the decades of technical challenges associated with bringing any kind of undersea real-time connectivity to submarine operations.

As Navy innovators work intensely to pioneer new methods of undersea communication, many might wish to reflect upon the decades of technical challenges associated with bringing any kind of undersea real-time connectivity to submarine operations. Historically, certain kinds of low-frequency radio have enabled limited degrees of slow, more general kinds of communication, yet by and large submarines have had to surface to at least periscope depth to achieve any kind of substantial connectivity.

The advent of new kinds of transport layer communications, coupled with emerging technologies woven into unmanned systems, are beginning to introduce potential new avenues of data processing and transmission intended to bring greater degrees of real-time undersea data transmission to fruition.

Sea water diminishes the power of electrical transmission, challenges identified many years ago by the Navy and some of its partners who have been working on under communication for decades such as Northrop Grumman. Northrop’s efforts date back to the World War II era and, along with the Navy and other industry contributors, helped pioneer the innovations that helped adapt RF communications architecture to sonar today. Considering this history, there are some interesting synergies woven through various elements of undersea warfare radio communications.

A 2014 essay by Carlos Altgelt, titled “The World’s Largest “Radio” Station,” details some of the historic elements of how the U.S. Navy pursued Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) undersea connectivity. Through its discussion of low-frequency ELF connectivity, the essay explains the technical challenges associated with undersea communication, which seem to align with how Northrop Grumman innovators describe how undersea communications will need to largely evolve in the areas of acoustics and optics.

As Altgelt notes: “As a result of the high electrical conductivity of sea water, signals are attenuated rapidly as they propagate downward through it. In effect, sea water ‘hides’ the submarine from detection while simultaneously preventing it from communicating with the outside world through conventional high-frequency radio transmissions. In order to receive these, a submarine must travel at slow speed and be near the surface, unfortunately, both of these situations make a submarine more susceptible to enemy detection.”

Alan Lytle, vice president of Strategy & Mission Solutions, Maritime/Land Systems & Sensors division, Northrop Grumman, told The National Interest about several innovations intended to address some of these challenges. For example, regarding a need to “see” and “detect” more undersea, Lytle said Northrop Grumman’s µSAS synthetic aperture sonar can combine with advanced machine-learning algorithms, to automatically detect threats on the bottom.

Some of the technical challenges and communications form part of the inspirational basis for newer kinds of undersea drones engineered with advanced levels of autonomy, such that they can find, track, detect and even detonate or explode enemy targets, such as sea-mines, without needing human intervention.

As part of this manned-unmanned teaming equation, the Navy seeks to further harness its growing fleet of air, surface, and undersea drones, according to Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday’s CNO NAVPLAN 2021.

 “They (unmanned systems) will expand our intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance advantage, add depth to our missile magazines, and provide additional means to keep our distributed force provisioned,” Gilday writes.

Gilday’s text brings a few things to mind, as he mentioned drones in the specific context of ISR, something which of course pertains to undersea connectivity and reconnaissance missions. His reference to a “distributed” force also seems quite deliberate, as longer range, higher-fidelity, secure undersea connectivity is crucial to the Navy’s Distributed Maritime Operations strategy, which envisions a disaggregated, yet networked force intended to leverage newer, longer-range kinds of surveillance technologies. This is precisely the kind of tactical circumstance in which unmanned undersea drones can play an integral part, especially when empowered with higher-speed, GPS-like undersea connectivity.

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.

Kris Osborn

Underwater Drones,

Sensors enabled by newer computer applications can see farther and much more clearly underwater.

Could newer kinds of AI-enabled undersea drone data processing and analysis introduce new breakthrough possibilities when it comes to solving the longstanding challenge of achieving high-speed, real-time connectivity?

Submarine commanders and weapons developers explain that UUV undersea functionality is dependent upon limited battery power and would therefore be further enabled by an ability to “process the data at the source of the sensor” to distinguish and transmit only the most critical information needed by human decision-makers.

“That’s the concept, how do you get all of that information back to a human to analyze. Maybe you don’t want to do that? Maybe you want to allow the UUV to do some initial analysis and make some modifications to its behavior autonomously?” Alan Lytle, Vice President of Strategy & Mission Solutions, Maritime/Land Systems & Sensors division, Northrop Grumman, told The National Interest in an interview.

Organizing and optimizing information at the source, Lytle says, requires less power and makes real-time undersea transmission more effective, something which might remove the need to have a forward-operating undersea drone gather data, which can only then be analyzed upon return to the host platform to be downloaded.

“You significantly improve the mission effectiveness of the UUV if you can process data at the source of the sensor, the power and bandwidth required to send back key critical information is significantly lower,” Lytle explained.

This is where AI comes in, as Northrop Grumman developers are working to develop and refine advanced algorithms able to take in “gathered” information, perform analytics and make determinations regarding moments of relevance or significance to commanders. Lytle’s point about forward-operating sensing and computing applies here, as AI-enabled computer systems could take in acoustic or optical sensor data, bounce it instantly against a vast database to make identifications, draw comparisons and perform analysis at the point of collection so as to streamline data transmission and selectively feed the information most crucial to human decision-makers.

Northrop Grumman’s sensing and AI-related computing efforts in this capacity seem to align with Chief of Naval Operations Michael Gilday’s 2021 NAVPLAN, given that his text makes reference to ongoing work to deploy resilient systems able to “operate with infrequent human interaction.”

“Through analysis, simulations, prototyping, and demonstrations, we will systematically field and operate systems that possess the endurance and resilience to operate with infrequent human interaction,” Gilday writes.

Newer, more advanced computer algorithms allow submarine commanders to operate sensors with much greater degrees of resolution and return-signal image fidelity. Sensors enabled by newer computer applications can see farther and much more clearly underwater.

“With our latest systems, you can get down to less than one-inch resolution. It is the difference between being able to discern a World War II aircraft that crashed into the sea bed, or see much more precisely such that submarine personnel could view bullet holes in the fuselage that must have caused it to be shot down,” Lytle said.

From a tactical circumstance, given that attack submarines and nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines are likely to conduct large amounts of clandestine patrols, it seems as though an ability to avoid having to surface would bring an extraordinary operational advantage. This is particularly critical given that nuclear-armed submarines certainly can’t risk giving up their position. Additionally, attack submarines are increasingly being developed for undersea ISR missions as they can more effectively access areas along enemy coastlines, where more detectable surface ships might be less effective. As part of this operational equation, Virginia-class attack submarines continue to receive cutting-edge upgrades adding new quieting technologies making them much harder to detect.

 “A large part of success in the undersea theater is the deterrence value. There is a tremendous conventional deterrence value, because an enemy does not know where the submarine is or know where the unmanned underwater system is... and if you don’t know exactly where it is, you have to search this massive swath of ocean. What we are trying to enable is an operational circumstance wherein the boat never has to come to periscope depth,” Lytle says.

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: Creative Commons.

Peter Suciu

History, Americas

It was intended to hold up to 11,000 gallons of fuel that would allow it to remain in the air for up to 24 hours at a time.

Here's What You Need to Remember: By the time the first prototype was built it was apparent the XB-19 was already obsolete given the quick advancements that occurred during the war. While it was the largest bomber of the era, it simply wasn't the most advanced and by the time it finally took flight the XB-35 and XB-36 bombers were already being developed.

What was the largest American bomber built during World War II? Most would answer the B-29 Superfortress, the four-engine heavy bomber designed by Boeing and which was used to carry the atomic bombs that ended the war. However, that answer isn't technically the correct one.

It is a trick question.

An even bigger bomber, the Douglas XB-19, was developed and a single prototype was built. While it was flown a handful of times during test flights beginning in June 1941, it never entered active service. The experimental aircraft had a wingspan of 212 feet, while it was 132 feet in length – dwarfing every other World War II aircraft with the exception of the Hughes H-4 Hercules (Spruce Goose). The XB-19 displaced 130,230 pounds and had a maximum take-off weight of 164,000 pounds.

The four-engine bomber was advanced when it was developed in the late 1930s and it began as a top-secret, top priority project. However, due to inconsistent funding, the production of the prototype dragged on for more than three years.

Yet even when it was completed the all-metal prototype was different from other bombers as it featured an unfinished silver metal skin, heavily-glazed nose section and stepped cockpit flight deck. Its fuselage was a smooth, teardrop-shaped design that featured a deep belly for the internal bomb bay, and it tapered exceedingly at the rear. The aircraft was among the first bombers to feature a tricycle landing gear as opposed to the "tail-dragger" design that was incorporated on many of the bombers of the era.

It was intended to hold up to 11,000 gallons of fuel that would allow it to remain in the air for up to 24 hours at a time. As a result, it was equipped with bunks and even a galley kitchen.

Due to the size of the aircraft and to accommodate the five M2 .50 caliber machine gun positions, six M1919.30 caliber machine gun positions and two 37mm autocannons the XB-19 carried a crew of 16, but also had provisions for two additional flight mechanics. A six-man relief crew could also be accommodated for long flights.

Outdated On Arrival:

By the time the first prototype was built it was apparent the XB-19 was already obsolete given the quick advancements that occurred during the war. While it was the largest bomber of the era, it simply wasn't the most advanced and by the time it finally took flight the XB-35 and XB-36 bombers were already being developed.

In 1943 the aircraft's Wright R-3350 engines were replaced with Allison V-3420-11 V engines and efforts were made to turn the XB-19 into a transport aircraft. However, the modifications were never completed and the XB-19 made its final flight in August 1946.

After the war, there were efforts to preserve the sole prototype, but those proved futile as there was nowhere to properly display the airframe as the National Museum of the United States Air Force hadn't been constructed at that point. As a result in 1949, the aircraft was scrapped.

Today only two of its enormous main tires remain on display – one is at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force while the other is at the Hill Aerospace Museum.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. This article is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Wikipedia.

Peter Suciu

U.S. Navy Destroyer, Americas

Now the Navy is reportedly taking another look at the Arleigh Burke-class for guidance as it begins the development of a “next-generation destroyer.”

Here's What You Need to Remember: According to the Navy’s 2020 thirty-year shipbuilding plan, the service would start to acquire new vessels beginning in 2025, but it could take a while to get such a ship designed, and it is unlikely the DDG Next would be able to meet the time constraints.  

The U.S. Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class of guided missile destroyers was developed during the Reagan era and first entered service when President George H. W. Bush was in office. It has had the longest production run of any post–World War II U.S. Navy surface combatant. To date sixty-eight out of a planned eighty-nine have entered service, and the with the decommissioning of the last Spruance-class destroyer in 2006, the Alreigh Burke-class was the sole active U.S. Navy destroyer until the Zumwalt-class was commissioned in 2016.  

Now the Navy is reportedly taking another look at the Arleigh Burke-class for guidance as it begins the development of a “next-generation destroyer.” Last week while speaking at the Defense One’s State of the Navy event, Adm. Michael Gilday said that the Navy’s future destroyer—dubbed DDG Next—would likely be smaller than the Zumwalt-class but would be more heavily armed with a larger missile magazine than the Arleigh Burke-class. 

“When you talk about large surface combatants, people in their mind’s eye, they’re thinking battleship,” Gilday was quoted of telling the virtual audience at the Defense One event.

“That’s not where we’re going. We’re talking about a ship that’s going to be probably smaller than a Zumwalt, right? I don’t want to build a monstrosity,” Gilday added. “But I need deeper magazines on a manned ship, deeper than we have right now.”

Not Too Big, Not Too Small 

The Cold War era Arleigh Burke-class of warships have an overall length of 500 to 510 feet and a displacement that ranges from 8,230 to 9,700 tons—significantly smaller than the 610 feet and nearly 16,000-ton displacement of the USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000).  

Gilday suggested that the DDG Next would be based on the DDG Flight IIIs, the most recently updated version of the Arleigh Burke-class, including its weapons capabilities. However, the Flight III variants are limited in terms of what can be added to the ships. The best option would be to use those systems but on a newly built platform.  

“The idea is to come up with the next destroyer, and that would be a new hull,” said Gilday. “The idea would be to put existing technologies on that hull and update and modernize those capabilities over time.”

While many of the weapons could be from the Flight III variants, the DDG Next would also get a little bit of technology from the Zumwalt-class, notably its power generation capabilities, which could be used to sustain directed energy weapons that could make the warship and the wider U.S. Navy’s entire fleet far more survivable in a future conflict. 

The Thirty Year Plan 

According to the Navy’s 2020 thirty-year shipbuilding plan, the service would start to acquire new vessels beginning in 2025, but it could take a while to get such a ship designed, and it is unlikely the DDG Next would be able to meet the time constraints.  

However, it seems that the Navy has a vision for a ship that could be just the right size, and more importantly which could be developed quickly using the technology of today while being upgradeable as new hardware comes online. 

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. This article is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Flickr.

Caleb Larson

Marines, World

Here's a breakdown of the strengths, weaknesses, and roles of five notable Marine Corps from around the world.

Here's What You Need to Know: True strength ultimately lies not in equipment or money, but in people and relationships.

America’s most famous Marine, retired Marine Corps General James Mattis, coined the phrase, “no better friend, no worse enemy” to describe the United States Marine Corps. The USMC is world-renowned, but does any other country have a Corps that can compare? A breakdown of the strengths, weaknesses, and the roles of five notable Marine Corps from around the world.

United States

If sheer size were the deciding factor, the USMC would win in a heartbeat. With an end-strength of around 186,000 (FY 2017 numbers), and around 38,000 Marine Reservists, some estimate that the USMC is as large as the next ten Marine Corps combined.

The USMC is widely considered to have the longest and hardest basic training of all the American services. At thirteen weeks long, it is indeed grueling. Recruits go through four phases of initial training, where they learn swimming survival basics, conduct rifle qualification, among other things, and peppered throughout with a great deal of physical training. Lastly, the recruits must pass The Crucible, a fifty-four-hour field training exercise in which everything the recruits have learned will be tested. Given little food and little sleep, the recruits are challenged with mental and physical obstacles.

Despite being the smallest and least funded of the armed services, the Marine Corp fields several weapon systems unique to itself. One of these is the versatile Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft. Using two rotatable rotors, the Osprey can hover like a helicopter, eliminating the need for a runway, and rotate it’s rotors in-flight, functioning like a fixed-wing aircraft and combining the best of helicopters and airplanes.

For a branch dedicated to the common good of the Corps, the Marines are surprisingly individualistic when compared to other branches. The Marine Corps wear the visually distinct, but highly concealing, MARPAT pattern. the MARPAT pattern is reserved exclusively for Marines and certain Navy personnel that work closely with the Marine Corps.

The Marine Corps has also started issuing a new rifle, and perhaps the best rifle in the world, the M27. The M27 was developed in tandem with the German firm Heckler & Kock as a successor to the M4/M16 family of rifles. Featuring a short-stroke piston action, the M27 is more reliable than its M4/M16 predecessors. It is also much more accurate, with an effective range of nearly 800 meters and a Minute of Arc of 2 (a measure of accuracy), compared with the M16 MOA of 4.5.

Nearly all Mission Occupational Specialties, or MOS, in the Marine Corps exist to support the infantryman. Marine air supports Marines on the ground, and organic armor and artillery simplify their support, as they do not necessarily need to coordinate with other services during combat.

At the end of the day, it’s the people that make the USMC so unique. It is the most lopsidedly male of the armed services, and the youngest—without an age waiver, you can’t join over 28 years old. Despite their youth and small size, they are formidable.

Russia

Like their American counterparts, the Russian Naval infantry’s insignia features a fouled anchor, signifying the trials and hardships that Marines face on sea and land. Russian Naval Infantry, as their Marine Corps is known as, serve in a similar role as American Marines— Russia’s expeditionary force in readiness, specializing in ship-to-shore assault operations.

Although Russian landing craft are multitude, much of their landing equipment is legacy Soviet, including a neat amphibious tank, the PT-76. Originally designed in the early 1950s, the PT-76 continues to be in active use, despite its early vintage. Due in part to a modest armor package and hollow rubber capped roadwheels, it is positively buoyant, and can ford most bodies of water, excepting rough sea conditions. Two hydrojets propel the tank in both forward and reverse, and a retractable trim vane helps to streamline the hull in the water, in addition to providing a modest amount of additional armor on land.

In the mid 1990s, American Marines and Russian Naval Infantry conducted joint exercises together in both the United States and in Russia. The Exercise Cooperation from the Sea was a disaster relief exercise that simulated the aftermath of natural disasters and aimed to improved joint relief interoperability. This series of exercises, which ended in 1998, saw U.S. Marines in Vladivostok and elsewhere in Russia, while Russian Naval Infantry got the better deal— conducting joint exercises in Hawaii.

In addition to the singularly unique VSS Vintorez and AS Val rifles, some Naval Infantry operators deployed to Crimea in 2014 were photographed with the not-often-seen OTs-14, a derivative of the AK-74. This odd-looking and rarely-seen bullpup is an even further compacted derivative of the ASK-74, and has a surprisingly long barrel for its compact size.

As a part of the Naval Infantry’s mission as a force-in-readiness, worldwide deployment is something that they are familiar with. In Syria, elements of Naval Infantry reportedly contributed heavily to the Syrian Army’s retaking of Palmyra from ISIS. According to Bellingcat, an investigate journalism site that specializes in open resource intelligence and deep fact-checking, members of Russia’s 61st Naval Infantry Brigade actively “participated in combat activities in the Luhansk Oblast in 2014.”

Seen cumulatively, the Naval Infantry’s combat experience in Ukraine and Syria contributes to its perception as a highly trained and combat effective fighting force. The 61st in particular is regarded by some as the most combat-experienced units in the Russian military.

Royal Marines

The special relationship between the United States and United Kingdom extends to both countries' Marine Corps. Technically known as the Corps of Royal Marines, the Royal Marines are the UK’s light infantry force-in-readiness, albeit at a much smaller scale than their American counterparts, numbering some seven thousand.

Unlike the Marine Corps, the Royal Marines are arranged into battalion-sized units, each with a slightly different mission profile, ranging from cold weather combat, shore assault and raids, to direct-action operations and maritime operations.

Unlike the Marine Corps, the Royal Marines do not operate any heavy armored units. Instead, they favor lightly-armored, highly mobile platforms like Land Rover Wolf, a highly-modified Land Rover Defender, or the MWMIK Jackal vehicle. An open-top 4x4 or 6x6, the Jackal is designed for reconnaissance, fire support, and rapid assault, and trades protection for mobility and battlefield awareness.

The Royal Marine standard-issue rifle is the SA80 chambered in 5.56x45 NATO. A bullpup, SA80 assault rifle is compact platform that has had a multitude of development and reliability issues since becoming the standard issue rifle of the British Armed Forces.

In a recent move, the Royal Marines announced a significant restructuring. In addition to new uniforms distinct from those of the Army (a move done by the USMC in 2002), and trading the problematic SA80 platform for the Colt C7, the Royal Marines are moving towards employing a higher number of smaller units, in line with the approach taken by the United States Marine Corps, which maintains a number of special-operations capable units.

In addition to the smaller units, the Royal Navy is acquiring Littoral Strike ships (quite similarly to the USMC), to further enhance their world-wide, ship-to-shore amphibious capability.

Despite the significant structural changes to an organization firmly rooted in tradition, a Royal Marines spokesperson said that “there are no plans to change anything that denotes the strong history and identity of the Royal Marines, including the Green Beret.” The Royal Marines are here to stay.

South Korea

The South Korean Marine Corps is large when compared to the rest of the world— as of 2018, they numbered 29,000 strong. It is also a relatively young Corps, founded in 1949. Despite their size and age, the Republic of Korean Marine Corps, or ROKMC, packs a serious punch.

ROKMC was trained by the United States and thus fills a similar role as the United States Marine Corps, equipped with armor intended to support the infantry, although they depend on the Navy and Air Force for aerial support. Like the USMC, the ROKMC is also subordinate to the Navy, which it depends on for lift capabilities.

Because of the Korean peninsula’s extensive coastline, the ROKMC plays a crucial role in the ROK armed forces. Their main mission profile is as a quick-reaction force and a strategic reserve that could support Army operations elsewhere on the peninsula. Due to both their coastline and close relationship with the United States military, the ROKMC maintains hundreds of American-derived Assault Amphibious Vehicles.

The ROKMC had developed in tandem with North Korea’s nuclear program. In 2016, as a response to North Korea’s nuclear- and conventional-missile progress, the ROKMC announced the formation of a three-thousand-strong quick-reaction “Spartan 3,000” unit. These three thousand could deploy anywhere on the Korean peninsula in under twenty-four hours in the event of a conflict with the North. Their stated purpose is “destroying key military facilities in the North's rear during contingencies,” which would almost certainly be one of the most dangerous of missions if war broke out between North and South Korea.

China

The Chinese Marine Corps (PLANMC) has an essentially different mission profile than that of the United States Marine Corps. Whereas the USMC is technically subordinate to the Navy, it is a distinct branch of the United States Armed Forces. Numbering around 186,000 the USMC is comparatively massive. Until a 2017 restructuring, the PLANMC numbered a minuscule 10,000.

Post-reorganization, the PLANMC tripled to around 30,000 and is a Marine Corps in the traditional sense, operating from naval ships and bases, providing port and ship security, and an assault capability. All essentially in support of the Navy. Their uniforms support this mainly littoral mission profile, which being blue and white, would be counterproductive as camouflage.

China’s relatively recent acquisition of an over-seas base Djibouti and ongoing disputes in the South China Sea point to an expanding role for the PLANMC, which seems to be gearing towards operations farther removed from China’s immediate border. The PLANMC would likely be China’s readiness force in the event of a conflict in the South China Sea, and has made a showing in joint operations with other countries, including Russia.

Significantly, the PLANMC has no combat experience to speak of. Until 2018, both American and Chinese Marines participated in joint-combat exercises in the Pacific, when the PLANMC was disinvited from participating, due to their destabilizing moves in the South China Sea.

Still, China is aware of its military’s inexperience, and appears to be trying to be making up for this deficiency by partnering more closely with the Russian Navy and Naval Infantry through their bilateral Joint Sea naval operations, where they practice and gain experience in offshore operations.

No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy

No conversation about Marines or Naval Infantry is complete without mentioning the United States Marine Corps, undeniably the largest, best-equipped, and most self-sufficient Marine force. This is due in large part to the sheer size of the DoD budget, and USMC organic armor and air elements. Still, at the end of the day, the secret strength of the USMC is its relationships. If war would break out with North Korea, China, or Russia, American Marines would no doubt be augmented by Royal Marines, the ROKMC, or other NATO allied Marine forces. Therein lies their true strength, not equipment or money, although important, but people and relationships.

Caleb Larson holds a Master of Public Policy degree from the Willy Brandt School of Public Policy. He lives in Berlin and writes on US and Russian foreign and defense policy, German politics and culture.

This article first appeared in November 2019.

Image: Reuters

Peter Suciu

B-2 Stealth Bomber,

"It's really hard to communicate to the average American citizen the strategic security umbrella and blanket that the B-2 provides."

Here's What You Need to Remember: Since its introduction, the B-2 has gone through weapons upgrades, and in 2018, the bomber test-dropped an upgraded, multi-function B61-12 nuclear bomb, which was designed to improve accuracy, integrate various attack options into a single bomb and change the strategic landscape with regard to nuclear weapons mission possibilities.

There is no denying that the U.S. Air Force's B-2 Spirit bomber – the nation's only stealth bomber in service today – can do things other aircraft simply can't do. It has the ability to fly 6,000 nautical miles without refueling, travel at high subsonic speeds, and essentially reach any part of the world within hours. This is why during the opening stages of Operation Enduring Freedom it was called upon to deliver a mighty punch to Taliban forces in Afghanistan.

Since its introduction in 1997, the Northrop Grumman B-2 has often been the first to fight. It was designed to penetrate anti-aircraft defenses and can deploy both conventional and thermonuclear weapons. It is also the only acknowledged aircraft that can carry large air-to-surface standoff weapons in a stealth configuration.

The B-2 can carry up to sixteen B-61 or megaton-yield B-83 nuclear gravity bombs on the rotary launchers inside its two bomb bays. The aircraft's avionics are even hardened versus the electromagnetic pulses generated by nuclear blasts.

More Miles Ahead

Currently, there are twenty of the B-2s in service, and the Air Force plans to operate them until 2032 at least, when the Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider is expected to replace it. By that time the B-2 could have served a total of thirty-five years, which is barely middle age for an aircraft today.

In fact, the early Cold War-era B-52 Stratofortress is actually considerably older than the B-2 Spirit and could remain in service far longer – possibly into the 2050s.

So why might the B-2 have a shortened "dog years" of life left in it?

The main reason is that the B-2 was pushed hard during operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and after two decades the Spirit requires intense effort to keep the aircraft flying and effective. However, the fact also remains that the Air Force needs the B-2 bomber at this point and must do everything it can to keep the airframes flying high.

This task of ensuring that the twenty B-2s in the Air Force's bomber fleet continue to dominate and remain operational falls to the Air Force's Life Cycle Management Center Program Office. It is leading a number of initiatives to upgrade and sustain the bomber.

"We are committed to keeping the B-2 flying and ensuring they remain effective for the crucial strategic defense, strategic deterrence mission set," said Col. Cory Brown, the B-2 Program Manager. "We are fielding new software [on the plane], developing classified networks, making sure the low observable [stealth] nature of the plane remains effective, and addressing unscheduled maintenance drivers."

Next Gen Programs

The B-2 Program Office has recently undertaken the Next Gen Zonal Radar Program, which will provide a handheld device to maintainers, which could more effectively evaluate low observable (LO) nature of materials on the aircraft. That could be vital to ensuring the plane's stealth capabilities aren't compromised. It will be available in fiscal year 2021 (FY21).

The program office also undertook a project to redesign a panel on the nose of the bomber, which improved the panel's LO signature but also saved the government more than $40 million.

Brown's team is now working to update the monitors on the aircraft that are used to allow pilots to plan missions. A request for proposal (RFP) was released to Northrop Grumman on Aug. 31, and the goal of the Program Office is to retrofit the entire fleet of twenty aircraft by no later than 2026.

Weapons of the Future

Since its introduction, the B-2 has gone through weapons upgrades, and in 2018, the bomber test-dropped an upgraded, multi-function B61-12 nuclear bomb, which was designed to improve accuracy, integrate various attack options into a single bomb and change the strategic landscape with regard to nuclear weapons mission possibilities.

The Program Office has continued to prepare the aircraft for future weapons.

"We are in the mist of fielding a current operational baseline that will bring B61-12 – next nuclear bomb – software capability to the platform," said Brown. "We will continue to modernize the software baseline to be able to carry future weapons on the aircraft."

The Positive Spirit

While the bomber may only have another decade or so left, Brown and his team are committed to ensuring that the bomber will be able to be relied upon until the B-21 Raider can take over.

"It's really hard to communicate to the average American citizen the strategic security umbrella and blanket that the B-2 provides," added Brown. "It's one leg of a nuclear triad that you would have a hard time arguing that it is not one of the reasons we've had many years of peace where two great nations haven't come together and collided, with a loss of life on a huge magnitude. It's because you have capabilities like the B-2 to ensure that nobody thinks that the United States doesn't have the will or the way to protect its interests."

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. This article is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Wikimedia Commons.

Kris Osborn

F-16 Fighter,

The Air Force tested whether air-dropped bombs were able to share target-sensitive data with each other in flight to adjust attack specifics, find GPS-jammers, and optimize the speed and precision with which attack operations can be conducted.

Air Force weapons developers see new opportunities with an emerging high-tech program intended to enable in-flight weapons networking or “collaboration” to optimize targeting and flight-path trajectory.

Earlier this year, the Air Force Test Center tested “Collaborative Small Diameter Bombs,” an innovation drawing upon computer algorithms to facilitate in-flight networking with weapons on route to targets. The program, according to an Air Force report, is called Golden Horde. It is built upon the technical concept of Networked, Collaborative and Autonomous, or NCA, weapons.

The test, flying an F-16 fighter jet armed with the bombs, was not a complete success, Air Force Research Lab Commander Brig. Gen. Heather Pringle sees new improvement opportunities with the program.

The Air Force tested whether air-dropped bombs were able to share target-sensitive data with each other in flight to adjust attack specifics, find GPS-jammers, and optimize the speed and precision with which attack operations can be conducted.

“It was another great learning opportunity, as you mentioned. So on the positive side, nine of 13 test objectives are met,” Pringle told The Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies in an interesting video interview. 

An Air Force description of the Golden Horde technology describes it as a “new capability including a home-on-GPS-jam seeker that gathers information about the battlespace, a software defined radio for communication between weapons and a processor preloaded with collaborative algorithms.” 

While the assessments with the F-16 fighter test revealed certain shortcomings or glitches with some of the technology, something which the Air Force has now corrected, Pringle said. 

The technology is intended to work by loading pre-mission software onto the weapons to enable advanced autonomy such that in-flight weapons can detect, and even avert, enemy countermeasures to locate targets and, if needed, redirect munitions in flight.

The weapons used in the test, Pringle told Mitchell, “couldn’t accept updated flight profile information from the autonomous onboard processor. And so ultimately, the initial flight profile that was in it is where it ended up. So there were no updates. And the flight never changed. But we have done the forensics on it, we’ve corrected what needed to happen..”

The technical and tactical concept of the weapons collaboration, Air Force assessments explain, are designed to enable sensors integrated into the weapons themselves to discern new information, assess it in relation to front-loaded mission specifics, and perform the analytics needed to make in-flight course adjustments. While fully bringing this to fruition may require even more advanced AI-enabled autonomy, it represents the cusp of very significant breakthrough technology.

Pringle emphasized that additional testing is now underway to address and rectify some of the glitches, and build upon success. She mentioned assessments with as many as four collaborative small diameter bomb weapons and efforts to explore time on targets.

“This program is still progressing and we’re really excited about where it is going in 2021,” Pringle added.

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: Flickr.

Peter Suciu

History, Europe

The room was part of the Catherine Palace near St, Petersburg and it was last seen in the Baltic port city of Königsberg in East Prussia.

Here's What You Need to Remember: A full reconstruction of the Amber Room was created at Tsarskyoye Selo based on eight-six black and white photographs taken of various fragments of the room. The construction process, which began in 1979, was finally completed in 2003 at a cost of $11 million.

It was dubbed the “Eighth Wonder of the World,” a golden-hued, jewel-encrusted chamber that was made of several tons of gemstones, gold and amber. The opulent “Amber Room” disappeared during the Second World War and was considered a casualty of the conflict, but now divers off the coast of Poland believe they may have found the lost Tsarist-era treasure.

The room was part of the Catherine Palace near St, Petersburg (Leningrad during the war), and it was last seen in the Baltic port city of Königsberg (modern Kaliningrad) in East Prussia. After that point its location was lost to time, and it was long assumed the panels that once graced the walls of the palace were destroyed.

However, it has been suggested that instead the Amber Room may have been loaded onto a ship, and now divers believe it could be on the steamer Karlsruhe, which set sail from Königsberg in early 1945 laden with cargo and subsequently sunk after being attacked by Soviet airplanes.

Divers from Baltictech Group have found the wreck after more than a year of searching.

“We have been looking for the wreckage since last year when we realized there could be the most interesting, undiscovered story lying at the bottom of the Baltic Sea,” said Tomasz Stachura, one of the team divers, according to the UK Guardian newspaper. “It is practically intact. In its holds, we discovered military vehicles, porcelain and many crates with contents still unknown.”

The steamer had been taking part in Operation Hannibal, which was one of the largest sea evacuations in history. The operation helped more than a million German troops and civilians escape from East Prussia as the Soviet’s Red Army advanced in the closing months of the war.

According to documentation the vessel left the port with a large cargo and 1,083 people on board.

“All this, put together, stimulates the human imagination,” added Tomasz Zwara, another of the divers on the team. “Finding the German steamer and the crates with contents as yet unknown resting on the bottom of the Baltic Sea may be significant for the whole story.”

Origin of the Amber Room

While the Amber Room has been closely associated with Imperial Russia, it was truly an international effort. It was first designed in the early 18th century by German baroque sculptor Andreas Schlüter and constructed by Danish amber craftsman Gottfried Wolfram for the Prussian Monarchy in 1701. It was first housed at Charlottenburg Palace, home to the first king in Prussia, Friedrich I.

Czar Peter the Great of Russia admired the room so much during a visit that in 1716, the Prussian ruler presented it as a gift to his Russian counterpart and it cemented a Prussian-Russian alliance against Sweden.

The Amber Room was shipped to Russia in some eighteen large boxes and installed in the Winter House in St. Petersburg as part of a larger European art collection. However, in 1755 Czarina Elizabeth had the room moved to the Catherine Palace in Pushkin, then named Tsarskoye Selo (Czar’s Village). Italian designer Bartolomeo Francesco Rastrelli was called upon to redesign the room to fit into its new, larger space and this included the installation of additional amber that was shipped from Berlin.

A Wonder of the World

When the room was expanded in the Catherine Palace it came to total more than 180 square feet, and it consisted of six tons of amber panels, backed with semi-precious stones and gold leaf. It was valued at approximately $176 million dollars in today’s money.

It was not a room for the Russian people in any way.

It was used as a private meditation chamber for Czarina Elizabeth, a gathering room for Empress Catherine the Great and later a trophy space for “amber connoisseur” Czar Alexander II.

While only few lucky visitors to court ever saw the room, its reputation spread across Europe. It even became associated with the decadence of Imperial Russia. Yet, the room survived the Russian Revolution and subsequent Civil War, and unlike with the later Chinese Cultural Revolution, which would have destroyed such a wonder, the new Soviet rulers saw the beauty in the room and apparently never considered destroying it.

The Amber Room and World War II

During the Second World War, with the German Army approaching the village, officials and curators of the Catherine Palace tried unsuccessfully to disassemble and hide the Amber Room, but the dry amber was too fragile and began to crumble. Instead an attempt was made to hide the room behind thin wallpaper.

However, the Germans who occupied the palace saw through the crude camouflage.

Under a pair of experts, once again the Amber Room was disassembled. The amber panels, mirrors, cherubs and nymphs were all carefully packed up. On October 14, 1941, Rittmeister Graf Solms-Laubach, who was in charge of the disassembly and packing, ordered the twenty-seven crates shipped to Königsberg and reinstalled in the castle museum on the Baltic Coast.

The museum’s director, Alfred Rohde, was also an amber aficionado of sorts, studied the room’s panel history while it was on display for the next two years.

When the tide of the war turned, Rohde was ordered to dismantle the Amber Room yet again, and he successfully had the contents crated up before the city and castle were bombed in August 1944. That is where the trail has ended, apart from one small panel that was found in western Germany in 1997 after an attempted sale. The Italian stone mosaic was known to have been part of the room. It had been owned by the family of a soldier who had helped pack the Amber Room at Königsberg in January 1945, and this “soldier’s souvenir” sheds some light on the fate of the Amber Room, confirming that it was packed up.

However, it has been suggested that the contents never actually left the castle courtyard and were destroyed during the bombing, while others suggested it was buried in a mine. The most common theory is that it was loaded onto a ship, and perhaps it will be found on the sunken steamer Karlsruhe.

A Modern Replica

A full reconstruction of the Amber Room was created at Tsarskyoye Selo based on eight-six black and white photographs taken of various fragments of the room. The construction process, which began in 1979, was finally completed in 2003 at a cost of $11 million. The new room was dedicated by Russian President Vladimir Putin and then-German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder to mark the 300-year anniversary of St. Petersburg in a unifying ceremony that echoed the peaceful sentiment behind the original Amber Room.

It is on display to the public at the Tsarskoye Selo State Museum Reserve outside of St. Petersburg.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. This article is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Wikipedia.

Kris Osborn

Submarines,

How to subs communicate with the rest of the fleet and overall military. While not an easy challenge to solve, the U.S. Navy has a few ideas. 

Sub-hunting spy planes armed with torpedoes, maritime drones armed with missiles, high-resolution, surface scanning cameras, and fast-moving surface ships dragging sonar sensors while conducting surface reconnaissance are all fast-growing threats to U.S. Navy submarines.

Part of the challenge is finding ways to minimize Navy submarine vulnerability to enemy detection and attack by simply remaining at safer depths, yet in order to achieve a high-degree of high-speed connectivity, submarines need to break the ocean surface by coming to “periscope depth,” which is closer to the surface.

The U.S. Navy is working with a number of industry partners such as Northrop Grumman to identify, evolve and refine new kinds of undersea communications technology.

“Today, the submarine comes to periscope depth and conducts the majority of its transmissions at this depth. Capabilities we’re developing at Northrop Grumman will allow the submarine to never have to come up to the surface, because it is at its most vulnerable when at periscope depth,” Alan Lytle, vice president of Strategy & Mission Solutions, Maritime/Land Systems & Sensors division, Northrop Grumman, told The National Interest in an interview.

Interestingly, while most people might immediately associate Northrop Grumman with high-profile programs such as its B-2 and B-21 stealth bombers, the company’s history with undersea warfare goes back nearly 100 years, including substantial World War II efforts. Years ago, Northrop Grumman was involved in adapting radio frequency (RF) technologies to undersea acoustic systems and developed the first electric torpedoes for Navy submarines.

“We have been working in the undersea domain for well over 50-years, and our support for the Navy stretches back even further,” said Jenny Roberts, director of strategy, investments & integration, Maritime/Land Systems & Sensors division, Northrop Grumman.

Roberts, who formerly worked as a director for undersea influence at the Navy’s Undersea Warfare Division, says Northrop Grumman innovators seek to align closely with the sense of mission and purpose now driving the U.S. Navy’s push to stay in front of undersea warfare technology.

“We bring together the power of the corporation’s continuous innovation to provide capabilities our Navy customers need for mission success,” Roberts explained to The National Interest. As part of the ongoing effort to synchronize efforts with the Navy, Northrop Grumman developers are placing a special premium on innovation in the areas of undersea warfare and cross-domain networking.

For instance, perhaps a surface drone, submarine, ship, or fighter jet can identify and share time-sensitive targeting data across domains in near real-time, integrating crucial threat information exponentially faster than ever before. The ultimate goal of this is to massively truncate sensor-to-shooter timelines. Perhaps an undersea drone could identify an enemy subsea target, pass the data back to an undersea-warfare commander who in turn instantly sends coordinates to a helicopter armed with Very Light Weight Torpedoes. This innovative kill-chain concept was demonstrated by Northrop Grumman in a Navy exercise.

“To deter future conflict or to ensure we win if future conflict arises, we need to provide capabilities which expand the influence of the undersea force, including connectivity across all domains,” Lytle added.

In light of this, Northrop Grumman developers discuss their efforts to link undersea and space domains in the context of the Pentagon’s fast-evolving Joint All Domain Command and Control initiative. JADC2, as it is called, seeks to engender a kind of multi-node connectivity between otherwise disparate pools of information across multiple domains.

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.

Sebastien Roblin

History, Americas

Following two decades of experimentation, Marine Corps tank units had their moment of truth at the Battle of Tarawa in November 1943.

Here's What You Need to Remember: Despite the heavy losses suffered by Marine tanks units, it was clear they had spared the lives of thousands of Marine riflemen, making them “the most effective supporting weapon” according to the commander of the 9th Marine Division.

After nearly eighty years of continuous service, in March 2020 the Marine Corps announced it planned to retire its three remaining tank battalions in a bid to re-model the force for a great-power conflict. This article is the second part of a series that looks at the unique history of the Marine armored branch.

Following two decades of experimentation, Marine Corps tank units had their moment of truth at the Battle of Tarawa in November 1943. As recounted in an earlier article, though most of the invasion force’s medium tanks were lost in the first few hours of a disastrous amphibious landing, three Sherman tanks survived and became the bulwark behind which hard-pressed Marines rallied and cleared out Japanese fortifications.

The tank had proven its value in supporting Marine amphibious landings, but its use clearly needed perfecting. The process by which the Marines modified their tanks and tactics to the realities of the Pacific is brilliantly detailed in Steven Zaloga’s U.S. Marine Corps Tanks of World War II.

Stuart light tanks, for example, lacked adequate armor and firepower, so Marine tank battalions—six of which with 46 tanks each saw action by the war’s end—converted to diesel-engine M4A2 Shermans, though some smaller support units still fielded M3 and M5 Stuart light tanks.

Tank-infantry cooperation in Guadalcanal and Tarawa had been crude, with several tanks lost attacking without infantry support. Problematically, grunts lacked reliable means of talking with tankers short of clambering on the hull and knocking on the hatch.

That changed with the installation of “tank telephones” on the hull. Some Marine tanks even began lugging SCR-300 infantry radios as well as spigoted water tanks on their backs to keep the grunts hydrated, as difficulties supplying freshwater infamously bedeviled landing operations. Shermans with hydraulic dozer blades also proved useful for burying fortified caverns, clearing roads and even pushing knocked-out tanks out of the way.

Japanese infantry and artillery could reap a terrible toll on attacking infantry—but their 37-millimeter anti-tank guns could not penetrate the Sherman’s three inches of armor. Even high-velocity Type 1 47-millimeter anti-tank guns introduced in 1943 (2,300 built) could only reliably pierce a Sherman’s side or rear armor. Some heavy anti-aircraft guns, like the 75-millimeter Type 88, could overmatch an M4’s armor, but these were not designed for field mobility and were mostly reserved for the defense of the home islands.

Great Tank Battles of the Pacific Theater

In June 1944 U.S troops began a series of amphibious assault on the Mariana Islands in order to secure bases from which B-29 strategic bombers could strike Japan. The 2nd and 4th Tank Battalion landed on Saipan June 15 with their turret tops painted red or yellow so they could be distinguished from Japanese tanks by U.S. Navy pilots. That proved a wise precaution, because little island became the site of the largest tank battle of the Pacific Theater.

First, on the evening of June 16, Shermans defeated a night attack by Japanese Special Naval Landing Force marines and their Type 2 amphibious tanks. Then at dawn, forty-four Type 97 and Type 95 tanks from the 9th Tank Regiment swarmed over a ridge and stormed the beachhead. In the hours-long brawl that followed 33 were knocked out by Marine Shermans, bazookas and anti-tank artillery including towed 37-millimeter guns and 75-millimeter-gun armed half-tracks. You can see footage of the aftermath here.

In July, the 4th tank battalion wiped out another company-sized tank unit on Tinian, while the 3rd destroyed the last two companies of the 9th Tank Regiment (29 tanks) as it engaged in another futile counterattack at Guam.

Despite their bravery, Japanese tankers faced impossible odds—with little over an inch of armor at best, the 18-ton Chi-Ha were effortlessly penetrated by Marine anti-tank weapons, but could only threaten a 30-ton Sherman’s side or rear armor. The 8-ton Type 95 Ha-Go lacked even that scant hope—and 75-millimeter armor-piercing shells from Shermans were known to punch clean through one side of a Ha-Go’s thin armor and out the other.

Turning up the Heat

But Japanese fortifications proved more resilient to 75-millimeter shells, so Marines increasingly turned to flamethrowers, horrifying weapons capable of flushing out the most fanatical defenders. However, infantry flamethrowers could not reach much further than 30 to 40 meters, limiting an operator’s life expectancy.

Initially, the Marines tried installing M1A1 infantry flamethrowers to fire out the ‘pistol ports’ in tanks, but this proved unwieldy when combat-tested in the battle of Arawe.

Later, mechanics in Hawaii swapped out the main guns on twenty-four M3A1 light tanks with Canadian-built Ronson Mark IV flamethrowers fed by 170-gallon fuel tanks. The projectors on these M3A1 Satan tanks had a range of 75 meters, but limited turret traverse to 180 degrees.

Two companies, each with twelve Satans and three gun-armed M5 escorts, saw action on Saipan and Tinian, where they were used with some success to evict defenders holed up in fortified caverns. But the Ronson’s bulk made the light tank’s interior impossibly cramped, so thereafter the Marines focused on two types of Sherman-mounted flamethrowers.

Roughly half the M4A2 tanks in each battalion ha their hull machineguns replaced with shorter range (65 meters) E4-5 “auxiliary” flamethrowers while retaining their 75-millimeter main gun. Mixed in were smaller numbers of more-effective Sherman POAs with Ronson flamethrowers fed by 290-gallon tanks installed in place of the main gun.

The Marines developed a “corkscrew and blowtorch” tactic, in which gun-armed Shermans cracked open bunkers with 75-millimeter shells before using flame-tanks to douse the insides with burning fluid.

Beefing Up Protection at Peleliu

In the ensuing Marine landing at Peleliu on September 15, 1944, Shermans of the 1st Tank Battalion easily eradicated another armored counterattack by fifteen Type 95 tanks threatening to overrun Marines attempting to secure an airstrip.

But Japanese infantry were well-fortified in the volcanic island and used a network of underground passages to attack from unexpected directions. While Marine riflemen took the worst of the ensuing grim battle of attrition, 45 of the 1st battalion’s 46 tanks were knocked out at some point (nine of them permanently) and two-thirds of the unit’s 31 officers were killed or wounded.

An even tougher fight lay ahead for the Marines on Iwo Jima, to which were committed the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Tank Battalions.  Confronting them were five battalions of anti-tank guns, the 26th Tank regiment with twenty-two dug-in Type 97 tanks, and scores of anti-tank mines with ceramic cases that didn’t trip metal detectors.

Though the Sherman’s frontal armor considerably over-matched Japanese anti-tank gun, they still needed protection from close assaults by Japanese infantry who, lacking portable ranged anti-tank weapons, resorted to suicidally lunging at tanks with grenade bundles, satchel charges or mines on the tip of a pole.

Type 99 magnetic mines designed to latch onto a tank’s metallic hull posed the greatest threat. As a countermeasure, Marine tankers bolted wooden planking onto their side hulls, and later sandwiched in a coating of concrete for additional protection. At Okinawa, units even girded their suspension bogies with wooden slats to protect against satchel charges.

As Japanese infantry often planted charges on the hatches, Marine mechanics welded-on wire ‘bird cages’ to prevent direct contact, and lined the hatches and turret top with spiky penny nails.

As more anti-tank artillery was encountered, Marine tankers piled on sandbags or welded on spare tracks onto the front, side and rear-decks of their tanks, placing additional inches of material between them and 47-millimeter shells racing towards them at two-and-a-half times the speed of sound.

Despite the heavy losses suffered by Marine tanks units, it was clear they had spared the lives of thousands of Marine riflemen, making them “the most effective supporting weapon” according to the commander of the 9th Marine Division. But the armor branch had one sharp fight ahead of it in Okinawa that April as recounted in the next article in this series.

Sébastien Roblin holds a Master’s Degree in Conflict Resolution from Georgetown University and served as a university instructor for the Peace Corps in China. He has also worked in education, editing, and refugee resettlement in France and the United States. This first appeared earlier and is being reposted due to reader interest.

Image: Wikipedia.

Peter Suciu

Tanks,

Tehran's domestically built Karrar Tank is bad news for Russian arms sales.

Here's What You Need to Remember: The Karrar is essentially a clone of the Russian-designed T-90S MBT and is reportedly far more advanced than the Zulfiqar, the MBT that was named after the sword of the first religious, spiritual and political Shia leader, Hazrat Ali. It was first conceived by Iranian Army Brigadier General Mir-Younes Masoumazadeh and based on the American M48 and M60 and Soviet T-72 tanks.

In 2016 Russia's Uralvagonzavod announced that it would allow Iran to license-build the T-90S main battle tank (MBT) domestically once restrictions on technical cooperation were lifted. In addition, the Russian military firm said it will also help the Islamic Republic's Army modernize its existing T-72 fleet.

However, even four years ago Tehran had other ideas – which included building its own tanks without help from Moscow. Now it looks as if that has finally occurred.

Last week the Commander of the Iranian Army Ground Forces, Brigadier General Kiomars Heidari, spoke on Iranian state TV and said that the Defense Ministry and the Armed Forces have jointly developed a domestically-built T-90 MBT. This new tank is undergoing final tests before being delivered to the Army Ground Force.

Heidari said the tank is equipped with a new gun stabilizer and chemical defense systems, and was conceived as a weapon for modern warfare. The Iranian Army Ground Force will reportedly take delivery of the first batch of the tanks in the Iranian month of Mehr – September 22 to October 21.

The efforts to build the tank domestically have been ongoing since Iran announced it would do so without Russian help. The Islamic Republic Ground Corps had announced it would receive at least 800 of the new tanks, which despite no assistance from Russia, do closely resemble the T-90S. The tank was dubbed the "Karrar" (Striker) when the program was announced in 2017 – but in the most recent announcements on state TV, that name wasn't used.

The Karra was stated to have a crew of three, would feature composite armor with Explosive-Reactive Armor (ERA) panels on both the turret and hull, just like the T-90. Its main armament is a 125mm 2A46M smoothbore gun with a stabilizer for its main armament. Given the fact that it is so similar visually, it is easy to see what it has been previously described as "Russian technology with a bad paint job."

The Karrar is essentially a clone of the Russian-designed T-90S MBT and is reportedly far more advanced than the Zulfiqar, the MBT that was named after the sword of the first religious, spiritual and political Shia leader, Hazrat Ali. It was first conceived by Iranian Army Brigadier General Mir-Younes Masoumazadeh and based on the American M48 and M60 and Soviet T-72 tanks. The Zulfiqar entered production in 1996 and there were two main variants produced. In May 2010 the Iranian Army announced that it produced a new and upgraded Zulfiqar III.

In building the Karrar – or whatever the tank is actually known as today – the Iranians have shown that they were, in fact, serious about moving away from its reliance on Russian imports to bolster its military arsenal. While it has shown that it can domestically-build a tank on par with the T-90, it is still essentially just a copy of a very solid design, not an original concept build from the ground up.

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

This article first appeared last year and is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Wikipedia

More From The National Interest: 

Russia Has Missing Nuclear Weapons Sitting on the Ocean Floor 

How China Could Sink a U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier 

Where World War III Could Start This Year

John Rossomando

Defense Budget,

Obama-era defense cuts crippled America’s ability to keep up with our adversaries. Further cuts will only further erode the U.S. military’s ability to deter increasing threats from China and Russia.

President Joe Biden’s 2022 likely budget proposal threatens to cut or flatline the defensive budget at a time when Beijing is ramping up military spending and production, Sen. Jim Inhofe warns.

Biden appears to be backing his party’s line.

The spending request seeks trillions for the domestic priorities of the Democratic Party’s constituencies but heeds the Center of American Progress’ call for “fiscal discipline” at the Pentagon.

Members of the House Progressive Caucus oppose nuclear modernization, missile defense, and support a no-first-use policy, which says the United States would not use nuclear weapons first in a war, thus abandoning strategic ambiguity aimed at keeping adversaries guessing. 

“As the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons in a conflict, the United States must play a leading role in ensuring that the most destructive weapon ever created is never used again,” Democratic lawmakers said in a March 3 statement. 

“In making necessary changes to the U.S. nuclear posture and force structure, your Administration can best reflect the hard, cold reality that there is no such thing as a winnable nuclear war,” the statement continued.

The caucus also advocates eliminating the replacement for the fifty-year-old Minuteman III missile, which the military says has reached the end of its useful lifespan. President Biden signaled during the campaign that he shares many of these issues and might consider a no-first-use policy on nuclear weapons.

The lawmakers called for diplomacy, but without the threat of overwhelming military force, totalitarians have no reason to make concessions. 

Both China and Russia are quickly modernizing their nuclear weapons, while America’s nuclear arsenal is so old—the newest weapons were built in the 1980s—there is no guarantee they will work. America’s allies depend on American nuclear deterrence for their security and as a hedge against nuclear blackmail.

“China gets it. Beijing also talked a big game at the first bilateral showdown in Anchorage two weeks ago—but has backed that talk up by increasing the PLA defense budget by 6.8 percent this year,” Inhofe wrote in Newsweek. “If the United States responds with a budget cut instead of a corresponding investment, it would send a terrible signal to Beijing.”

Beijing’s budget is significantly less on paper at $183.5 billion, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Estimates by other think tanks put defense spending around $261 billion. China’s buying power could be much higher because it relies on state enterprises. The U.S. Defense Department has significant contractor costs.

This has allowed the Chinese to churn out new planes, warships, and missiles at a cheaper comparative cost, and at a rate that can’t be matched by the eroded U.S. military-industrial base. Cost overruns at the Pentagon in projects like the F-35 fighter jet, the Ford-class aircraft carrier, and the Zumwalt-class destroyer have been a perpetual complaint from Capitol Hill and elsewhere.

Furthermore, many items including China’s spending on its militarized Coast Guard and its People’s Armed Police paramilitaries remain off-budget. It is difficult to accurately compare U.S. and Chinese defense spending.

Obama-era budget cuts left America unprepared for the return to great-power competition that will mark the 2020s and beyond. It could take an additional $400 billion in investments to play catch up to our adversaries, according to Inhofe. He noted that during the Obama years, Chinese defense spending exploded by 83 percent while the former president slashed defense spending by 20 percent.

Budget cuts were implicated in the disastrous collisions of the USS John S. McCain and USS Fitzgerald with merchant vessels in 2017. Sailors lacked adequate training and “bruising” deployments combined for the perfect storm.

The U.S. Navy’s cruiser fleet struggles with its fleet of aging 1980s vintage Ticonderoga-class cruisers, which face constant breakdowns. Funding to upgrade the fleet has been scarce, so it is unclear what might replace them.

Even if there was adequate funding, the Navy lacks adequate shipyard space to build new ships and maintain the ones it has. Meanwhile, China boasts the world’s largest shipbuilding capacity.

Biden is considering reducing the number of aircraft carriers, which will overtax the already overstretched U.S. fleet.  One proposal would result in the decommissioning of the Nimitz-class carrier USS Harry S. Truman, which was commissioned in 1998.  

Obama-era defense cuts crippled America’s ability to keep up with our adversaries. Further cuts will only further erode the U.S. military’s ability to deter increasing threats from China and Russia.

John Rossomando is a Senior Analyst for Defense Policy and served as Senior Analyst for Counterterrorism at The Investigative Project on Terrorism for eight years. His work has been featured in numerous publications such as The American Thinker, Daily Wire, Red Alert Politics, CNSNews.com, The Daily Caller, Human Events, Newsmax, The American Spectator, TownHall.com and Crisis Magazine. He also served as senior managing editor of The Bulletin, a 100,000-circulation daily newspaper in Philadelphia and received the Pennsylvania Associated Press Managing Editors first-place award in 2008 for his reporting.

Image: Wikipedia.

Mark Episkopos

Russian Navy, Europe

Initially projected to rejoin the Navy in 2018, the Nakhimov’s handoff was subsequently postponed to 2022. Now its been pushed back even more.

The post-refit handover of Russia’s Admiral Nakhimov battlecruiser has reportedly been postponed.

A defense industry source told Russian news outlet TASS earlier this week that the delivery of Admiral Nakhimov has been pushed back “due to problems with suppliers.” The source did not give a concrete timeline, but told TASS that the handover is “postponed until 2023 at best.”

One of the largest and heaviest surface combatant ships in the world, the Kirov-class nuclear-powered battlecruiser Admiral Nakhimov was commissioned in 1988 under a different name: Kalinin. The Kirov class has its roots in a prominent strain of Soviet 1970’s military thinking. Initially conceived as a battlecruiser— that is, a lighter and faster variant of battleship— to counter the U.S. navy’s latest submarines with its large payload of SS-N-14 anti-submarine missiles, the Kirov line grew into another, no less important role: namely, containing the threat from U.S. carrier strike groups (CSG’s). Armed with twenty onboard P-700 Granit anti-ship missiles, Kirov-class vessels were meant to threaten U.S. aircraft carriers and other large surface ships. There was yet another, broader strategic goal: Kirov-class battlecruisers were intended to operate alongside a class of dedicated modern aircraft carriers, heralding a new era of Soviet global power projection.

The grand strategic visions driving the Kirov-class project collapsed alongside the Soviet Union. The ill-fated Admiral Kuznetsov became the only carrier of its line, and is now undergoing major repairs following a series of catastrophic incidents including an onboard fire and collapsed drydock. Meanwhile, the four Kirov-class cruisers—Admiral Ushakov, Admiral Lazarev, Kalinin, and Petr Velikiy— fell into disrepair over the 1990s. Two of these, Petr Velikiy and Kalinin, were deemed to be in a salvageable state. Kalinin was renamed to Admiral Nakhimov in 1992, and has been docked since 1999. Modernization work on Nakhimov began in earnest only in 2013. As part of its deep refit, Admiral Nakhimov will be upgraded to carry 3M22 Tsirkon winged, anti-ship hypersonic cruise missiles, Kalibr cruise missiles, and Otvet anti-submarine missiles, as well as the Fort-M (a naval S-300 variant) and Pantsir-M air defense systems. The Russian navy is likewise reportedly planning to outfit Admiral Nakhimov, as well as its counterpart Petr Velikiy, with a naval version of the S-400 missile system. These prodigious armament updates will be accompanied by a modernized radar and onboard electronics suite. If successful, this refit will place Admiral Nakhimov high among the ranks of Russia’s most capable large surface warships.

Initially projected to rejoin the Navy in 2018, the Nakhimov’s handoff was subsequently postponed to 2022. Sevmash CEO Mikhail Budnichenko repeated the 2022 projection at Russia’s ARMY 2020 military exhibition. That date was also reaffirmed by Russia’s United Shipbuilding Corporation (UAC) head Alexei Rakhmanov. “We are planning to complete the ship’s repairs in 2022,” said Rakhmanov during Shipbuilders’ Day celebrations in 2020. Russian officials have not formally confirmed this latest alleged delay to 2023 or later, nor has its cause been identified as of the time of writing.

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

Image: Wikimedia Commons.

Peter Suciu

U.S. Air Force, Americas

Rumors are often ill-founded, especially when they start to mention alleged alien technology.

Key point: The Klingons may have had their Bird of Preys and the Romulans their Warbirds, but such technology does not yet exist. So no, you won't see a B1-B bomber suddenly dissappear from sight.

Although the point of a “cloaking device”—a hypothetical technology common to science fiction—is to make something invisible to the naked eye, even in movies and TV the technology isn’t exactly perfect. Instead of making an object, such as an aircraft, completely invisible there is often a faint but still noticeable shimmer or blur. 

At least that’s how it works in Star Trek, which was the first to conceptualize the technology in its 1966 episode “Balance of Terror” where the selective bending of light made a spacecraft essentially invisible to sensors and visual detection. Yet it wasn’t until the 1968 episode of the series “The Enterprise Incident” in which the technology was actually given a name, and since then the concept of cloaking devices has been seen in countless science fiction narratives in film, TV and video games.

Recently UFO conspiracy theorists offered visual “proof” that the technology exists, which is ironic considering that a cloaked craft shouldn’t be something you’d actually see. 

Look and You Shall Find It 

The UK’s Daily Express reported last year that UFO hunters widely shared an image from Google Earth that they believed clearly showed alien technology—and possibly even an alien craft—at Dyess Air Force Base (AFB), Texas. The image has caused a stir in the UFO community, the British tabloid reported.  

Next to a parked B-1B Lancer Bomber appears a visual anomaly, which “extraterrestrial expert” Scott Waring—who first apparently discovered the image—suggested was a cloaked U.S. Air Force aircraft or perhaps even a cloaked alien spaceship. He shared the images on the UFO Sightings Daily website. 

“I was looking for UFOs and alien bases using Google Earth today and came across something that just blew me away,” he told the tabloid.  

Waring, who also claimed that he “worked” on B-1 bombers at Ellsworth Air Force Base, said he determined the blur in the image wasn’t the result of photo manipulation but was, in his opinion, a cloaked B-1 bomber. Waring added that if you rotate the map 360 degrees viewers can even see a second B-1 that is also cloaked. 

“It makes sense, you see the black paint already on the B1 is cloaking technology that absorbs radar so it won’t reflect a signal back and be seen, thus it’s nearly invisible. It really makes sense to use alien technology on a B-1 and create the most perfect aircraft ever.”

The Truth is Far Simpler 

The fact that someone looking for a UFO would find one is a point we’ll leave aside, but skeptics were quick to address the UFO expert’s claims. The truth is out there, but it is far simpler than perhaps most UFO enthusiasts would like. 

The skeptics noted that “Google Earth image sometimes store old images in their cache,” so when a new image was taken it overlaps and creates a ghostly image. Such “ghosting” commonly occurs in film-based photography and such phenomena are also a regular occurrence with Google Maps. Thus it is likely—almost certain—that a B-1 was simply in different places on the tarmac when a second photo was taken and hence left a ghost image. 

But even beyond the obvious reasons for why the image shouldn’t be taken at face value; and there are other reasons that easily debunk the cloaking theory. The most obvious is that the B-1B is far from the most “perfect” aircraft, and despite its sleek profile it isn’t exactly what would be considered cutting edge either.

Development on the aircraft begin the late 1960s while Star Trek was still on the air, and while the bomber has been going through numerous updates and upgrades it seems difficult to believe a cloaking device would be among the first choices to put on such an old airframe. Moreover, Waring showed some ignorance as the B-1B isn’t technically a stealth aircraft—certainly not to the level of latter aircraft. 

That begs the question, why wouldn’t such “cloaking” technology be applied to more modern aircraft such as the B-2 Spirit, F-22 Raptor or certainly the F-35 Lightning II. For what the F-35 costs some might even question why it doesn’t have a cloaking device. It is also convenient that a UFO expert would suggest that the technology must be alien as well, instead of assuming that perhaps the military had developed a special camouflage to conceal aircraft on the ground.  

Since the beginning of the development of military aircraft, it was common to paint the airplanes to match the terrain to make them harder to see, but apparently, such thinking seemed lost on those who are certain the truth is out there.

The final consideration that UFO experts should ask is why would you keep the plane in a cloaked state on the runway? Such technology would likely require vast amounts of energy, and then there is always the fact that someone might walk into it—something that has been used as a joke in science fiction—or worse, not be able to find the plane. As then Admiral James T. Kirk said in the 1986 film Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, when exiting a cloaked spaceship, "Everybody remember where we parked." 

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. This article first appeared earlier and is being reposted due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters.

Caleb Larson

Nuclear Weapons,

At nearly one and a half tons, the B83 is the largest nuclear bomb that the United States currently keeps.

Here's What You Need to Remember: In any case, the end of the line may be approaching for the B83. Its smaller and less-powerful little sibling, the B61 was recently upgraded. Though costly, the upgrades will keep the B61 in service for at least another twenty years.

The B83 is one of two so-called “dumb” or unguided nuclear bombs that the United States maintains as a part of its post-Cold War Enduring Stockpile arsenal. Along with intercontinental ballistic missiles and other smaller nuclear-capable bombs, stocks of the B83 are kept in case of emergency. It replaced a number of older American free-falling weapons, and is big.

At nearly one and a half tons, the B83 is the largest nuclear bomb that the United States currently keeps. Its nuclear tiled is 1.2 megatons—significantly more powerful than either of the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. It’s big, it’s powerful, and it’s had a colorful history.

Bombs Away

Though often thought of as a domain best left to Hollywood, asteroid impacts could pose a real danger to the United States. Like the blockbuster film Armageddon showed, a large enough interstellar object could end life on Earth as we known it. The threat of impact is great enough, that NASA designed a spacecraft with just one purpose—to deflect objects on a collision course with Earth.

The launch vehicles would be launched in a staggered succession, allowing NASA several “shots” at any Earth-bound projectile in case the first interceptors failed to detonate, went off course, or experienced any other operational hiccups.

The so-called nuclear interceptor would carry a total of six packages that would each carry the nuclear components from a B83. At a close enough distance, the hope was a large enough nuclear explosion would pummel the threatening interstellar body away from Earth—though this would be no guarantee of survival.

Bunker Buster

The B83 was also tentatively evaluated as a nuclear bunker-busting munition. Modifications were made to the projectile’s nose to allow it to survive impact with earth and reinforced concrete, though using nuclear weapons is fraught with political considerations. The design may have never been finalized. Either way, the Massive Ordinance Penetrator (aptly named considering its 30,000 pound, or over 13,500 kilogram weight) is the primary bunker busting bomb in the United States’ arsenal.

Postscript

In any case, the end of the line may be approaching for the B83. Its smaller and less-powerful little sibling, the B61 was recently upgraded. Though costly, the upgrades will keep the B61 in service for at least another twenty years. And the B83? It might be reserved in the future exclusively for use with the Space Force.

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. This article is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Wikipedia.

Peter Suciu

F-14 Tomcat,

The F-14, which made its first deployment in 1974, arrived as a supersonic, twin-engine, variable-sweep wing, two-place fighter.

Here's What You Need To Remember: Only a handful of the planes, which were purchased by the Imperial Iranian Air Force in the 1970s, remain in operation but according to reports these aircraft have flown escort missions in Syria proving that even after nearly 50 years the Tomcat still has sharp claws.

During its three decades in service with the United States Navy the Grumman F-14 Tomcat more than lived up to the role, it was designed for, drawing blood in combat and even getting its moment in the spotlight in the film Top Gun. Designed to incorporate the air combat experience learned during the Vietnam War, the F-14 was the first of the American "Teen Series" fighters that included the F-15 Eagle, F-16 Fighting Falcon and the F/A-18 Hornet.

The two-seat carrier-based multi-role fighter was developed after the United States Congress halted the development of the F-111B along with the Tactical Fighter Experimental (TFX) program. While the goal of that program was to supply both the United States Air Force and the United States Navy with the planes to fit each of their respective needs, the Navy was opposed.

Instead, the Navy called for a request for proposals for its Naval Fighter Experimental (VFX) program, which required a tandem two-seat, twin-engine air-to-air fighter. Grumman was awarded the contract in January 1969. The result was the F-14 "Tomcat" – named so partially to honor Navy Admiral Thomas "Tomcat" Connelly who had called upon Congress for the Navy to develop a carrier-based fighter.

The F-14, which made its first deployment in 1974, arrived as a supersonic, twin-engine, variable-sweep wing, two-place fighter that was designed to engage enemy aircraft in all weather conditions as well as at night. It was designed to track up to 24 targets simultaneously. The plane featured an advanced weapons system that includes a powerful Hughes AWG-9 radar, which used in conjunction with the Phoenix AIM-54A missiles, can pick out and destroy a chosen target from a formation at a distance of over 100 miles. Additional armaments include a variety of other intercept missiles, rockets, bombs and an internal M61A1 Vulcan 20mm Gatling-style rotary cannon.

With its variable-sweep wing the F-14 could match the speeds of other aircraft as needed – and for takeoff and low-speed flight, the wings would shift to the front, while for supersonic speeds the wings could tuck backward. Because of its versatility, it served as an air superiority fighter, fleet defense interceptor and even tactical reconnaissance platform.

The Tomcat drew its first blood in August 1981 during the "Gulf of Sidra incident," in which two F-14s were attacked by a pair of Libyan Su-22 Fitters. Both Fitters were shot down, but the events would be replayed nearly eight years later when in January 1989 another pair of F-14s shot down two Libyan MiG-23 "Floggers" again over the Gulf of Sidra.

The United States Navy continued to rely on the F-14 throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, where it was utilized in strike escort and reconnaissance roles in Operation Desert Storm as well in Operation Deliberate Force and Operation Allied Force in the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. The F-14's final combat mission took place in February 2006 when two Tomcats were used in a bombing mission in Iraq.

While the F-14 was retired from service with the Navy, and supplanted by the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, the Tomcat remains in use with the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force. Only a handful of the planes, which were purchased by the Imperial Iranian Air Force in the 1970s, remain in operation but according to reports these aircraft have flown escort missions in Syria proving that even after nearly 50 years the Tomcat still has sharp claws.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and website. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. This article is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters.

Caleb Larson

Nuclear Weapons, Americas

 Extreme weather conditions made the plan infeasible.

Here's What You Need to Know: In the middle of the Cold War, the U.S. Army developed a program to secretly deploy hundreds of nuclear-armed Minuteman ICBMs deep below Greenland’s ice cap.

One of the most well-known US military bases in the Arctic is Thule Air Base, in Greenland’s frigid northwest. Less well-known is the now-defunct Camp Century. Just 150 miles from Thule,  the area surrounding Camp Century is bitterly cold. Nighttime temperatures dip to -70°F and wind whips ice and snow through the air at 125 miles per hour.

Camp Century was opened in 1960 rather openly— the US Army released a short documentary film outlining the new construction techniques used to build the camp. Publicly at least, the camp was supposed to be used for conducting scientific research in the Arctic.

In reality, Camp Century was cover for a top-secret weapons project. The Danish government was opposed to housing nuclear weapons on their soil, and was thus not informed about Camp Century’s true purpose.

At Camp Century, engineers developed and improved subterranean Arctic building techniques. Modified tractors cut deep trenches nearly 30 feet into the ice. These trenches were then covered with steel semicylinders and topped with snow and ice that froze them firmly into place, providing shelter for the small underground city.

Transporting or airdropping diesel to fuel power generators would have been prohibitively expensive, and impossible during extreme weather conditions. The solution was to install a portable nuclear reactor that addressed all of Century’s electricity needs.

Heating Up:

Building upon lessons learned from Camp Century, Project Iceworm was to be built on a massive scale. Iceworm would have been the world’s largest ICBM launch site— over 52,000 miles of tunnels cut deep into the Greenland ice sheet. Iceworm’s footprint would cover an about the size of the state of Indiana, and a whopping three times the size of the host country, Denmark.

600 modified “Iceman” Minuteman missiles would be transported underground on large road-sized tunnels via railcar to launching sites cut even deeper into the ice. The Iceman missiles would be constantly shifting to other sites to keep their exact locations a secret. The subterranean placement and a mandatory 4-mile distance between launch sites would offer a degree of protection and increase survivability in the event of an attack by the Soviet Union.

Greenland’s proximity to the Soviet Union would have given American Minuteman missiles an enormous strategic advantage. Greenland is much closer to Russia than the continental United States, and the Iceman ICBMs would have been able to strike almost any target within the Soviet Union at a moment’s notice. The sheer size of the planned Iceworm complex and the missile’s relatively wide distribution would help to ensure the United States’ second-strike capability and to strengthen the land-based leg of the US nuclear triad.

Doomed to Die:

Alas, Project Iceworm was not practically feasible. Initial surveys had indicated that the Greenland ice sheet was rigid and ideal for tunneling. Later data gathered during the Camp Century experiment showed that the ice sheet was actually very elastic. Tunnels would have to be constantly maintained and be in danger of collapse every few years.

The extreme weather conditions also made steel building materials brittle and prone to cracking. Communications problems between the Pentagon and Camp Century were also an issue: sending or receiving messages during extreme weather events was problematic.

Ticking Time Bomb:

In the 1960s global warming was not a part of Pentagon strategic thinking. After shuttering Camp Century in 1967, The Army Corp of Engineers left behind thousands of gallons of radioactive water used to cool the portable reactor, and an unknown amount of sewage to be forever entombed in Greenland’s ice shelf.

In 1997, the Kingdom of Denmark conducted an inquiry into Camp Century, revealing the deceptive nature of the camp and the remaining hazardous waste enclosed in the ice.

Estimates from the scientific community predict that by 2090, the ice under Camp Century will begin to melt, releasing radioactive and human waste into the ocean. It remains to be decided if either the United States or Denmark, or perhaps even the now-autonomous Greenland will be responsible for cleanup.

Caleb Larson, a defense writer and journalist for the National Interest, holds a Master of Public Policy degree from the Willy Brandt School of Public Policy. He lives in Berlin and writes on US and Russian foreign and defense policy, German politics and culture.

This article first appeared in September 2019.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Edward Chang

Harriet Fighter Jet,

When the final chapter in the Harrier story is written, the Marines will bid farewell to an underappreciated aircraft that became much better over time and came through when it mattered most.

Here's What You Need to Remember: Unlike during Desert Storm, where Harriers expended only unguided ordnance, most of the expenditures during Iraqi Freedom were of the guided variety. As in Afghanistan, Harriers would provide CAS during the entire occupation, up until the U.S. withdrawal in 2011.

Since the intervention by the United States and coalition partners began in 2014, the Middle East's skies have become crowded with the very best in modern air power. The air is full of flashy fourth-generation fighters (like the Air Force's F-15s and F-16s and the Navy's F/A-18E/Fs), and newer fifth-generation fighters (like the F-22). But also flying proudly with these other planes is a Marine Corps mainstay generally not considered a fourth-generation platform and unlikely to win any beauty contests—the McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II. That plane has, time and again, proven itself a highly effective multirole combat aircraft.

The Harrier II is unique among American military aircraft as one of few to have been adapted from a foreign design. The AV-8B's origin traces back to the British Hawker Siddeley Harrier, which was designed in the 1960s. Though not the first vertical/short take-off and landing (V/STOL) aircraft built, it was the first fully operational and successful example. V/STOL capability was revolutionary because it created an aircraft that could operate from short or less-than-ideal runways, or from no runway at all.

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

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

V/STOL caught the eye of the U.S. Marine Corps and, by 1971, the service was flying harriers. Designated the AV-8A, the American export model was similar in most respects to the British Harrier GR.1. A single-seater, the Marines intended for the Harrier to conduct ground attack, close air support (CAS), reconnaissance, and fighter missions. Despite giving the appearance of radical design, the AV-8A was quite unsophisticated on the inside, possessing bare-bones navigation and attack systems. Its armament was limited to AIM-9 Sidewinder infrared-guided air-to-air missiles and unguided air-to-ground ordnance such as rockets and general-purpose bombs.

Despite its drawbacks, the Marines were happy with the Harrier, and it continued to serve from both forward bases and aboard amphibious warfare ships. At the same, the Marines sought to improve deficiencies in payload and range and, in the mid-1970s, began development on what would become the Harrier II. By the end of the decade, the project had come entirely under the direction of American aircraft manufacturer McDonnell Douglas. Designated as AV-8B, the improved Harrier entered service in 1985 and, by 1987, all A and C-models (an upgrade of the A) were withdrawn from service.

Like its predecessor, the AV-8B was initially capable of day attack only but added the AN/ASB-19 Angle Rate Bombing System (ARBS), which was equipped with a laser spot-tracker and television, plus the AN/ALR-67 radar warning receiver (RWR). By 1991, a night attack version emerged, equipped with a nose-mounted Forward-Looking Infrared (FLIR), night-vision goggle (NVG)-compatible cockpit, and a digital moving-map display.

The latest variant of the AV-8B in operation is the Harrier II+, first introduced in 1993. Like other fighters currently in U.S. service, such as the Air Force’s F-15E Strike Eagle or the Navy’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, the Harrier II+ is a leaps-and-bounds improvement from the AV-8A and even the original “Day Attack-Only” AV-8B. In addition to the features on the “Night Attack,” the “Plus” added the AN/APG-65 radar, the same radar initially fielded on the F/A-18 Hornet. Along with the Sidewinder, it also fires the AIM-120 AMRAAM, giving the Harrier II beyond-visual-range (BVR) air-to-air capability.

The AV-8B is, of course, an attack aircraft, first and foremost. It is geared with a single GAU-12 Equalizer 25mm cannon and six hardpoints that can carry up to 9,200 pounds of ordnance—two hardpoints and over 4,000 pounds more than the original Harrier. In addition to rockets and unguided bombs, the Harrier II now employs the AGM-65E Maverick laser-guided ground-attack missile, GBU-12 and GBU-16 Paveway laser-guided and Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) satellite-guided bombs. Precision strike is conducted through the AN/AAQ-28(V)1 LITENING targeting pod, which offers high-resolution target imagery from altitudes up to 50,000 feet and a laser designator. This followed the evolutionary roadmap established by attack aircraft like the Air Force's A-10 Thunderbolt II. Like the A-10, the Harrier II was initially a dedicated CAS platform which eventually adopted precision-strike capabilities that tremendously expanded its mission set. More recent upgrades also include integration into the Link 16 data exchange network, which allows the AV-8B to transmit and share data with other platforms. The LITENING pod also permits Harrier pilots to transmit real-time imagery to troops on the ground via the ROVER system, allowing the latter to see what the former is seeing from the air.

Furthermore, the Harrier II is powered by the Rolls-Royce Pegasus F402-RR-408 thrust-vectoring turbofan, producing 23,500 lbs. of thrust, making it both more powerful and reliable than the original Pegasus powerplant. It is a subsonic aircraft, with an airspeed of less than Mach 1 (673 mph.) and has a combat radius of only 300 nautical miles. The limitation in range, however, is mitigated by V/STOL, which permits the Harrier to be deployed far forward without relying exclusively on air bases or carriers like other fixed-wing aircraft. Much like helicopters, it can instead utilize Forward Area Refueling/Rearming Points (FARPs).

The Harrier has earned the reputation of being a “widow-maker,” owing to the eyebrow-raising number of losses and fatalities incurred in both American and foreign service. A sizable percentage of these losses happened during take-off and landing, suggesting the Harrier’s V/STOL capability posed unique risks not present in conventional aircraft. But as Lon Nordeen, author of three books on the AV-8B, points out, airplanes like the A-4 Skyhawk and A-7 Corsair suffered even higher mishap rates, implying there was not anything inherently problematic with the Harrier. It also goes without saying take-off and landing are generally the most dangerous phases of flight for any aircraft, regardless of design. Still, the Harrier was statistically one of the most dangerous aircraft to fly in the military during its time in service.

The AV-8B made its combat debut in the 1991 Gulf War. Harriers were aboard the amphibious assault ships USS Tarawa and Nassau and airfields ashore. It was intended to play a backup role but was forced into the fight when it responded to an urgent call for CAS on the first day of the war. From then on, the five deployed AV-8B squadrons were at the forefront of the Coalition air war, due to both the competency of Marine pilots and the tactical flexibility V/STOL offered. It was not a bloodless conflict for the Harriers, however as five AV-8Bs were lost and two pilots killed. Still, it proved so useful that General H. Norman Schwarzkopf considered it one of the most important weapons of the war.

Of course, America's conflict with Iraq never ended, and Harriers would take part in patrolling the southern no-fly zone during the 1990s into the early-2000s. During that same timeframe, AV-8Bs participated in humanitarian and peace-keeping operations in Somalia, Liberia, Rwanda, the Central African Republic, Albania, Zaire, and Sierra Leone, flying air cover and armed reconnaissance sorties. It next saw combat over Kosovo in 1999, operating from amphibious assault ships as part of a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU). The Harrier offered deployed MEUs an immediate, integrated source of fixed-wing air power otherwise unavailable due to lack of access to land bases or the unavailability of an aircraft carrier.

But the Harrier's heaviest experience with combat was yet to come. They were among the first combat aircraft available in-theater during the invasion of Afghanistan in the fall of 2001, in response to the 9/11 attacks. Soon, AV-8Bs were operating from air bases in Afghanistan, providing CAS to troops on the ground as they purged the Taliban and continued to do so for over ten years. It was also during this war the Harrier suffered one of its most shocking losses. On September 14, 2012, the Taliban executed an attack on Camp Bastion in the Helmand Province, destroying six AV-8Bs belonging to Marine Attack Squadron 211 (VMA-211), killing two Marines (including VMA-211’s Commanding Officer), and rendered the squadron combat ineffective.

In 2003, Harriers based aboard four “Harrier carriers” and in Kuwait supported Marines in their advance toward Baghdad during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The AV-8Bs exhibited significant lethality and, thanks to improvements like the LITENING pod, were able to provide around-the-clock air support for ground forces. Unlike during Desert Storm, where Harriers expended only unguided ordnance, most of the expenditures during Iraqi Freedom were of the guided variety. As in Afghanistan, Harriers would provide CAS during the entire occupation, up until the U.S. withdrawal in 2011.

Earlier that same year, AV-8Bs embarked aboard USS Kearsarge attacked targets in Libya while enforcing the U.N. no-fly zone over the country. Attached to the 24th MEU, Harriers also successfully defended a downed Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle pilot from advancing hostile Libyans. Five years later, Harriers also formed the main effort of a small air campaign to roll back the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in the same country.

In fact, the Harrier II is serving at the forefront in the war against ISIL. When the U.S-Coalition intervention, Operation Inherent Resolve, commenced in summer 2014, AV-8Bs were once again among the first air assets to participate, flying reconnaissance missions and eventually transitioning to striking ISIL targets in both Iraq and Syria. As in previous wars, they flew from both ships in the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf as well as land bases in the region. These missions continue today, as the U.S. maintains its presence in the region to defeat ISIL and ensure a favorable post-ISIL state of affairs. Harriers have also participated in less-visible operations in Yemen by bombing al-Qaeda in the country—again emphasizing its flexibility and adaptability to a wide range of operations in diverse environments and levels of warfare.

Currently, the Marine Corps flies ‘Night Attack’ and ‘Plus’ Harriers in five active-duty squadrons plus one training squadron. They are divided among two home bases; Marine Corps Air Stations Yuma, Arizona, and Cherry Point, North Carolina. The Harrier II is in the process of being replaced by the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II. Though mired in “development hell,” the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), as the F-35 was conceptually called, promises to be a monumental leap in sophistication, to say nothing of its stealth capability. With V/STOL having proved its worth, the Marines pushed for the development of the B-variant possessing this capability, while also planning to purchase a number of the carrier-capable C-variant as well. Superior in armament, speed, combat radius, and avionics, the Lightning is undoubtedly a far more capable platform. But given difficulties in fielding the F-35, the AV-8B is slated to serve at least several more years—a decade longer than intended.

When the final chapter in the Harrier story is written, the Marines will bid farewell to an underappreciated aircraft that became much better over time and came through when it mattered most.

Edward Chang is a freelance defense, military, and foreign policy writer. His writing has appeared in The National Interest and War Is Boring.

This first appeared last month. 

Caleb Larson

Tanks, Eurasia

Does Moscow have enough time to complete its ambitious plans?

Here's What You Need to Know: These platforms hold much promise and seem to be well designed, but are as of yet untested.

While the T-14 Armata MBT has been widely discussed, it’s parent platform, the Armata Universal Combat Platform has not. Initially lofty claims were made that these vehicles would replace much of Russia’s Soviet-inherited armor, but due to higher than expected production costs, these the number of units produced has remained low. Here are a few of the current or planned variants of the Armata Universal Combat Platform.

T-15 Heavy Infantry Fight Vehicle Armata

The T-15 is an infantry fighting vehicle, designed to keep up with Main Battle Tanks and bring infantry rapidly into the fight. Importantly, the T-15 is designed to be fast, and well protected— the T-15 is readily identified by its steeply sloped frontal and side armor. Unlike the T-14 MBT, the T-15’s engine in located in the front, further protecting its estimated payload of 9 troops.

The T-15 further benefits from the overlapping active and passive protection used on the T-14, making both the T-14 and T-15 tough nuts to crack.

The first and outermost protection is the Afghanit Active Protection System that uses radar to detect and track incoming projectiles. The APS system can pop smoke to create a smokescreen between itself and the incoming projectile, or attempt to shoot the projectile down. If something manages to get past the APS, it would have to contend with Malakhit explosive-reactive armor, essentially blocks of explosives on the outside of the hull that explode outwards to disrupted the path of the projectile or make it detonate before coming into contact with its hull. The hull too is well-protected, a blend of composite armor and steel that is estimated to be equivalent to between 1,200-1,400mm of Rolled Homogenous Armor.

The T-15 is no lightweight when it comes to firepower either, hence the HIFV— Heavy Infantry Fighting Vehicle designation. It appears there are several remote weapon station variations— one with a respectable 30mm autocannon, coaxial 7.62 PKT machine gun, and four improved Kornet-M antitank missiles. Alternatively, the T-15 can be equipped with a much larger 57mm autocannon  and several antitank guided missile and machine-gun variants. The current direction of IFV and APC development seems to favor the 57mm for its better penetration against light armored targets, better defense against drones, and higher rate of fire.

In keeping the the Soviet high power-to-weight ratio design philosophy, the T-15 is nimble and has a multifuel 1,500hp engine with two externally mounted rear fuel tanks, giving it an impressive 31+ horsepower per ton (by comparison, the M1 Abrams power-to-weight ratio is 24-27hp/ton depending on the variant).

Kurganets-25 IFV/APC

The Kurganets family comes in Infantry Fighting Vehicle and Armored Personnel Carrier variants. First seen during the 2015 Victory Day Parade in Moscow, the Kurganets-25 variants are likely intended to replace the wide variety of aging Soviet APCs and IFVs.

The Kurganets-25 has a much higher stance than its legacy Soviet predecessors it will eventually replace, which are typically much lower-profile. Outwardly, the Kurganets-25 more closely resembles the American M2 Bradley IFV or British Warrior, both of which feature higher up, more upright stances. The more upright Kurganets stance design would theoretically afford greater protection from IEDs due to higher ground clearance and may be a lesson taken from the American experience in the Middle East.

Despite its significantly less powerful 800hp engine— also located in the front of the vehicle— the Kurganets has a high 32hp/ton power-to-wieght ratio due to its lower weight.

It is amphibious as well, with a retractable wavebreaker and two waterjets that are located quite low on the rear of the hull. Although primarily a land power, amphibious capabilities would allow its crew of three plus 9 passengers to access a wider range of areas.

At least one of the Kurganets turret configurations is shared with the T-15, which simplifies manufacturing. The turret in question is an unmanned 30mm turret equipped with Kornet-M antitank missiles and would be used on the IFV variant, while the APC variant is more lightly armed with a 7.62mm remote weapons station, and does not appear to have the Afghanit Active Protection System.

2S35 Koalitsiya SPG

The 2S35 Koalitsiya, also showcased during the 2015 Victory Day Parade, is a Self Propelled Gun (i.e. a mobile artillery) that is designed to replace the  2S19 Msta currently in use with Russian ground forces.

Although the platform is planned to be based on the Armata Universal Combat Platform, the examples seen in 2015 appear to have used the same chassis as the 2S19 Msta it is slated to replace, although the turrets were a new design.

Due to a great amount of automation, the crew has been reduced from 5 for the Msta to a minimal 3 for the Koalitsiya— just a commander, driver, and gunner. This is accomplished through the use of an autoloader, making the turret of the 2S35 longer than that of the Msta.

The main armament is a 152.4mm howitzer, similar the that of the Msta, but featuring a different style muzzle brake to reduce recoil, and internally inclosed recoil dampeners. An export version will apparently come equipped with a 155mm gun to accept more commonly available ammunition types.

As is the Koalitsiya can fire a wide variety of ammunition too, standard high explosive, antitank, jamming ammunition, as well as guided projectiles, such as the Krasnopol fin-stabilized, laser guided artillery shell which coasts to its target using its multiple control surfaces. Maximum range estimates outclass SPGs of both the UK and the United States, possibly a high as 70 kilometers, or just over forty-three miles.

The Koalitsiya is very similar in capabilities to its predecessor— so why bother? Automation. A crew of just three would, in theory, allow for the incredible sixteen+ rounds per minute rate of fire  that the manufacturer claims is possible. If true, this would perhaps be the highest RPM of any self-propelled gun in existence. By comparison, the current American M109 SPG variant has a sustained rate of fire of just 4 rounds per minute, although an upgrade now in the works aims to increase that number to 6-10 rounds per minute, also through the use of an autoloader. A longer barrel is also being considered to walk out the 155mm howitzer’s range, as are rocket assisted projectiles.

An a crew of just three sounds great, but there has been some speculation about what would happen in the case of a misfire, which would probably require opening the gun breech manually, was are there still-unanswered questions about reliability, especially on a such a fresh platform that has not yet proven itself in combat.

Time is Money

Ultimately, these platforms hold much promise and seem to be well designed, but are as of yet untested. Like the T-14 MBT, these Armata Universal Combat Platforms suffer most from significantly lower than planned production numbers. Until they can be produced in higher numbers, cost per unit will remain high, discouraging increased production.

Caleb Larson holds a Master of Public Policy degree from the Willy Brandt School of Public Policy. He lives in Berlin and writes on U.S. and Russian foreign and defense policy, German politics, and culture.

This article first appeared in October 2019.

Image: Reuters

Peter Suciu

Russia,

From 2015 to 2019, Russia accounted for 21 percent of total arms exports.

Here's What You Need to Remember: Despite the ongoing pandemic, this year's Army 2020 event was not noticeably scaled down from its previous iterations. More than 1,316 exhibitors and just fewer than 12,000 total participants reportedly attended the event, suggesting roughly the same engagement as last year's ARMY 2019. All this suggests that Russia will likely maintain its second-place position in the global arms market and has nowhere to go but up.

The first two decades of the 21st century have been good ones for military contractors. The United States has remained the top arms seller, and in a five-year period from 2015 to 2019 exported military hardware to 96 countries, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). The United States accounted for 36 percent of the total global arms exports in that period.

Following in second place was Russia, which accounted for 21 percent of arms exports.

This week, Tass reported that the Russian state arms seller Rosobornexport, which is part of the tech conglomerate Rostec, delivered military hardware worth $180 billion to its foreign customers over the past two decades.

"The company’s financial indicators - the order book and the delivery volume - have risen fivefold since 2000. Over these years, Rosoboronexport has concluded more than 26,000 contracts with partners and delivered products worth a total of over $180 billion to 122 countries of the world," said Rostec CEO Sergei Chemezov via the company's press office.

Rosoboronexport CEO Alexander Mikheyev added that the sales have allowed Russia to maintain its second place on the global arms market. "Our foreign partners have received hardware worth over $85 billion for their Air Forces," he noted. "The deliveries for our customers' air defense and land troops have topped $30 billion for each of these military branches and have amounted to over $28 billion for their Navies."

To drive the sales of its military hardware Russia has increasingly "upped its game" quite literally – and now holds its annual International Army Games. First staged in August 2015, it has involved close to 30 countries taking part in dozens of competitions over two weeks. Organized by the Russian Ministry of Defense, the games feature 31 competitions, most of which involve military hardware. These include a "Tank Biathlon," "Seaborne Assault" and multiple dog and equestrian events. The games are primarily held in Russia at the Alabino training ground and Kubinka airfield just outside Moscow.

Army-2020 International Trade Event

The International Army Games coincide with the annual Army-2020 International Military and Technical Forum, which is essentially a tradeshow for all things Russian military hardware. The most recent event was held this past August, where Russia's state arms sellers offered almost 50 new weapons systems to the world market.

This year's event included demonstrations of the T-14 "Armata" tank; the Su-57 fight-generation fighter jet, which was offered for export for the first time; and the entire family of Kalashnikov new-generation assault rifles.

Mikheyev told Tass in August that Rosoboronexport would also continue its deliveries of Mi-35M, Mi-171E, Mi-171Sh, and Mi-17V-5 helicopters, aircraft engines, Orlan-10 drones, T-90S and T-90SK tanks, BTR-82A armored personnel carriers, BMPT tank support fighting vehicles, Kornet anti-tank missile systems, Repellent anti-drone systems, Tor-M2E surface-to-air missile launchers, Pantsyr-S1 anti-aircraft missile/gun systems, Igla man-portable air defense systems, small arms, ammunition, and other items.

Despite the ongoing pandemic, this year's Army 2020 event was not noticeably scaled down from its previous iterations. More than 1,316 exhibitors and just fewer than 12,000 total participants reportedly attended the event, suggesting roughly the same engagement as last year's ARMY 2019. All this suggests that Russia will likely maintain its second-place position in the global arms market and has nowhere to go but up.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. This article is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters.