The National Interest

Kyle Mizokami

Aircraft Carriers,

Don't blink. Beijing could realistically have four aircraft carriers by 2022—a remarkable feat of military construction.

Here's What You Need to Remember: The Chinese Navy is growing. What are they going to use it for?

The People’s Liberation Army Navy—more commonly known outside of China as the Chinese Navy—is modernizing at a breakneck pace. Chinese shipbuilders have built more than one hundred warships in the past decade, a build rate outstripping the mighty U.S. Navy. Most importantly, China now has two aircraft carriers—Liaoning and a second ship under sea trials—and a third and possibly fourth ship under construction. With such a massive force under construction it’s worth asking: where does PLA naval aviation go from here?

For most of its modern history China has been the target of aircraft carriers, not an owner of one. The Imperial Japanese Navy’s carriers conducted strikes on the Chinese mainland in support of ground campaigns in the 1930s, strikes that went a long way toward honing the service’s legendary naval aviation record. U.S. naval power protected nationalist Chinese forces at the end of the Chinese Civil War, and U.S. Navy carriers conducted airstrikes on Chinese “volunteers” during the Korean War. In 1996 during the Third Taiwan Crisis, the United States deployed a carrier battle group near Taiwan as a sign of support against Chinese military actions. It could be fairly said that aircraft carriers made a significant impression on China.

Today, China has two aircraft carriers: the ex-Soviet carrier Liaoning, and a second unnamed ship, Type 002, currently undergoing sea trials. Liaoning is expected to function strictly as a training carrier, establishing training, techniques, and procedures for Chinese sailors in one of the most dangerous aspects of naval warfare: naval aviation. Despite this, Liaoning’s three transits of the Taiwan Strait and visit to Hong Kong show the PLAN considers it perfectly capable of showing the flag.

The second ship, Type 002 (previously referred to as Type 001A) resembles Liaoning but with a handful of improvements, including an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar the carrier’s island and a larger flight deck. Experts believe Type 002 will carry slightly more fighters than her older sibling, up to thirty J-15 jets in all. Type 002 will be the first combat-capable carrier, although the lack of a catapult means its aircraft must sacrifice range and striking power in order to take off from the flight deck.

A third ship of yet another class is under construction at the Jiangnan Shipyard at Shanghai, with credible reports of a fourth ship of the same class under construction at Dalian. This new class, designated Type 003, is the first Chinese carrier constructed using a modern, modular construction method. The modules, known as “superlifts” each weigh hundreds of tons, are assembled on land and then hoisted onto the ship in drydock. Large American and British warships, including carriers such as the USS Gerald R. Ford and HMS Queen Elizabeth are assembled using the superlift method.

Although there are few hard details on Type 003, we do know some things. The new carrier will forgo the ski ramp method for CATOBAR, or Catapult-Assisted Take-Off But Arrested Recovery. The use of catapults will allow the carrier to launch heavier aircraft with great fuel and weapons loads, making the carrier more effective as a power projection platform. China has reportedly conducted “thousands” of test launches of a new electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS). Not only does an EMALs launch system enable the launch of heavier combat jets, it can also launch propeller-driven aircraft similar to the U.S. Navy’s E-2D Hawkeye airborne early warning and control aircraft and the C-2 Greyhound cargo transport. The ability to tune EMALs power levels also makes it easier to launch smaller, lighter unmanned aerial vehicles from catapults.

We don’t currently know the size and displacement of the Type 003s, and likely won’t be able to even make an educated guess for another year. They will probably be incrementally larger than Type 002 with an incrementally larger air wing and overall combat capability, though one still falling short of American supercarriers. The new carriers are expected to be conventionally powered and fortunately, China’s EMALS system will not reportedly require nuclear power.

At the same time, Chinese designers are believed to be hard at work on a fourth class of carrier, Type 004. According to Popular Science, a leak by the shipbuilder claims the new class, “will displace between ninety thousand and one hundred thousand tons and have electromagnetically assisted launch system (EMALS) catapults for getting aircrafts off the deck. It'll likely carry a large air wing of J-15 fighters, J-31 stealth fighters, KJ-600 airborne early warning and control aircraft, anti-submarine warfare helicopters, and stealth attack drones.” Such specifications will make them the equal of U.S. carriers, at least on paper.

Meanwhile, the PLAN is looking forward a next-generation carrier aircraft. The PLAN has twenty-four J-15 multirole fighters, with at least two aircraft lost and two damaged during accidents attributed to the J-15 itself. That’s not enough aircraft to equip two carriers, land-based training units and carriers currently under construction. A future aircraft could be a carrier-based version of the Chengdu J-20 or the J-31/FC-31, China’s two new fifth-generation fighters. An interim solution could be the so-called J-17, an improved J-15 roughly comparable to the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the EA-18G Growler.

The People’s Liberation Army Navy carrier fleet is a rapidly growing force shaping up to be a powerful, flexible tool of statecraft and war. Beijing could realistically have four aircraft carriers by 2022—a remarkable feat of military construction. All of this lead to a number of unsolved questions. To what end is Beijing building this force? How many carriers will the PLAN ultimately build? Is China growing a carrier force meant to protect its interests or expand them? We simply don’t know—but we will certainly find out.

Kyle Mizokami is a defense and national-security writer based in San Francisco who has appeared in the Diplomat, Foreign Policy, War is Boring and the Daily Beast. In 2009 he cofounded the defense and security blog Japan Security Watch. You can follow him on Twitter: @KyleMizokami. This piece was originally featured in September 2018 and is being republished due to reader's interest.

Image: Wikimedia 

Peter Suciu

M4 Carbine, Eurasia

Ever since the first firearms passed through the Khyber Pass region between Afghanistan and Pakistan there has been a “cottage industry” that has mass-produced highly accurate and functional copies of firearms.

Jammu and Kashmir Police Chief Dilbagh Singh has found an M4 Carbine among a number of illegal weapons that were seized following a recent raid, according to recent reports. A cursory inspection of the firearm might have led some to believe the gun was stolen from the United States military at some point. However, upon closer look at some of the stamps on the weapon didn't seem quite right, and the serial number didn't match any missing American weapons.

That is because it wasn’t an actual American-made M4. It was believed to have been illegally manufactured in Pakistan or Afghanistan, The India Times reported. Such weapons aren’t actually that uncommon. They are just a twist in copies that have been produced in the region for centuries.

Ever since the first firearms passed through the Khyber Pass region between Afghanistan and Pakistan there has been a “cottage industry” that has mass-produced highly accurate and functional copies of firearms. Two centuries ago that included what can only be described as “counterfeit” versions of the English Land Pattern musket—also known as the Brown Bess.

Crafty artisans and self-taught gunsmiths were able to take whatever metal they could get hold of, and with rudimentary tools created functional firearms that were close in design to the actual weapons used by the military powers. All that these makers of knock-offs required was a sole version to serve as a template from which the gunsmiths reversed everything from the shape of the individual parts to the action. In most cases, the work was done on dirt floors with the most basic knowledge of firearms technology.

Over time the tools improved, as did the quality of the weapons. In fact, today it is possible to find nineteenth-century firearms with stamps that seem near-identical to those found on actual British military weapons.

What is most impressive is that this trade didn’t fade away. The primitive tools have given way to milling machines, CNC machines and other tools that aren't that different from what some independent gun makers in the United States use.

The town of Darra Adam Khel in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan has even gained international fame and notoriety for its bazaars that are filled with gunsmiths and weapons merchants. The side-alleys and narrow streets are lined with small gun shops many of which have operated since 1897. According to recent reports almost three-quarters of the people in the town are involved in the gun trade and upwards of seven hundred guns are produced daily.

During the Soviet’s War in Afghanistan, it wasn’t Martini Henry or Lee Enfield rifles that were copied but rather AK-47s, AKMs and SKS rifles. Now throughout Khyber Pass region near the Afghan and Pakistan frontier, it is the M4 Carbines used by the United States military and other powers that are routinely being copied.

What is especially worrisome now is that these weapons aren’t just being used locally by tribal chiefs or even the Taliban—neither of which should even be considered a good situation—but the fact that the weapons are increasingly being smuggled out of the region and sold on the black market. This has included those M4s that are now being seen with disturbing regularity in India.

However, the weapons could be as dangerous to the shooter as to any intended target. As the Silah Report noted, while many could be fooled into thinking the knock-offs were the real deal, the upper and lower receivers aren’t forged to the proper specifications and may not have the same tensile body strength as the originals. Caveat emptor—but that has always been the case with any gun from the Khyber Pass region.

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

Image: Reuters

Rachel Bucchino

Gun Control, Americas

Experts say that it is fairly common for a president and vice president to have different positions. But just how far apart are they on gun control? 

During the Democratic presidential primaries, then-candidate Kamala Harris campaigned largely on gun control reform—as she was heavily exposed to gun violence during her time as a prosecutor—and asserted that if Congress didn’t act swiftly on reform, as president, she would.

When she was running for president, Harris pledged to unilaterally enact extensive gun control bills if lawmakers on Capitol Hill didn’t act within her first 100 days in office. Some of her priorities covered on the campaign train were to ban the importation of all AR-15 style assault weapons, mandate “near-universal background checks” and take away a gun dealer’s license and hold criminal liabilities on them if they broke the law, according to CNN.

With just over a month until President Joe Biden marks his one hundred days in office, it’s unlikely that he will take a similar stance in passing gun control bills by executive orders.

Instead, Biden pushed the Senate this week to stand behind two House-passed bills on background checks and an assault weapons ban following the two recent shootings. He did not say that he would sign the bills into law by using his presidential powers.

This is largely different from Harris’s rhetoric during the 2020 presidential race, beliefs that Biden disagreed with when the two were competing for the nomination.

When Biden was a presidential candidate, he emphasized that there was no “constitutional authority” to nix assault weapons by executive orders. His remarks surfaced during a 2019 debate, where Harris was asked about his points regarding presidential powers and gun reform, in which Biden interrupted, “Some things you can, many things you can’t.” 

Harris then followed up by saying, “I would just say, ‘Hey Joe, instead of saying, ‘No, we can't,’ let's say, ‘Yes we can.’” 

But it’s important to note that it’s unlikely that Harris and Biden would publicly disagree with one another, as the duo has carved a strong relationship ever since the president declared her as his running mate.

It’s unclear, however, how Harris will navigate conversations relating to gun control, as the issue served as the centerpiece on her own presidential campaign, while it hasn’t been addressed under the Biden administration.

“It is time for Congress to act and stop with the false choices. This is not about getting rid of the Second Amendment. It's simply about saying we need reasonable gun safety laws,” Harris told CBS News, adding that Biden hasn’t crossed off exercising his executive authority to pass bills relating to gun reform. 

But experts say that it is fairly common for a president and vice president to have different positions.

“It doesn't matter what positions a vice president held prior to becoming VP; she or he is subordinate to the president. A VP can pick a fight with the president, but this is a sure way to end up on a months long tour of diplomatic outposts no one has ever heard of,” Jonathan Krasno, a political science professor at Binghamton University, said.

Marjorie Hershey, a professor emerita of political science at Indiana University-Bloomington, noted that “the traditional practice of nominating a vice-presidential candidate who would ‘balance the ticket’ made it very likely that disagreements would exist.”

Experts referred to previous president-vice president relationships in which the two disagreed on ideology, including former President Ronald Reagan and then-vice president George H. W. Bush.  

“George H. W. Bush pilloried then Gov. Ronald Reagan's economic policy as ‘voodoo economics’ and took a different stance on abortion than did Gov. Reagan. As Vice President, he fully supported President Reagan's policies and actions in these matters,” Joel Goldstein, a vice presidential expert and professor of law emeritus at Saint Louis University School of Law, said.

Goldstein also said, “A vice president's advising role always includes giving the president [advice] that the president may not agree with and may not accept.” He went on to add that “one of the reasons many were critical of Vice President [Mike] Pence was the perception that he was too obsequious and unwilling to give such advice, perhaps because he did not believe President [Donald] Trump welcomed such advice.”

“Breaking with the boss isn't a great move, especially when the boss is pretty popular and has the ability to freeze you out of other important initiatives,” Krasno said. “Or when you hope to succeed him as president. No one has more vested interest in Biden's success than does Kamala Harris.” 

Ultimately, Harris can offer Biden input on his agenda, as he vowed that his political partner will be the “last voice in the room” before big decisions, but the final move will be made by the president. 

Biden hopes that the Senate will move on gun control reform, a matter that will likely be on the chamber’s chopping block since Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said Tuesday that he does not support the two House bills that were passed last week. With razor-thin margins in a 50–50 divided Senate, Democrats do not have enough votes to make them become law. 

Rachel Bucchino is a reporter at the National Interest. Her work has appeared in The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report and The Hill. 

Image: Reuters

Ethen Kim Lieser

North Korea Missile Test Biden,

South Korea’s National Intelligence Service (NIS) has suggested that North Korea’s provocative launch on Thursday of what are likely two short-range ballistic missiles may be timed to precede President Joe Biden’s upcoming press briefing.

South Korea’s National Intelligence Service (NIS) has suggested that North Korea’s provocative launch on Thursday of what are likely two short-range ballistic missiles may be timed to precede President Joe Biden’s upcoming press briefing.

Several individuals within the National Assembly’s Intelligence Committee told reporters that the NIS did, in fact, share such a view to key committee members via telephone following the launch.

“The National Intelligence Service seems to be viewing President Biden’s (upcoming) press conference as one of the possible reasons (behind the latest North Korean missile launch),” one of the committee members told the local newswire service Yonhap News Agency.

“(The NIS) is also considering the possibility that the reason lies in the North’s protest against the United Nations’ (recent) adoption of a resolution against North Korean human rights and the extradition of North Korean businessman Mun Chol-myong to the U.S.”

Another committee member said: “It can be assumed that North Korea tried to demonstrate its presence to the Biden administration, saying ‘we are here.’”

North Korea fired two projectiles, which are believed to be short-range ballistic missiles, into the East Sea from the town of Hamju, South Hamgyong Province. They flew roughly two hundred eighty miles with an altitude of thirty-seven miles, according to South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Before this launch, the isolated East Asian nation conducted its sixth and final nuclear test in late 2017 and had since maintained a self-imposed moratorium on nuclear and long-range missile testing. It would mark the Kim Jong-un regime’s first firing of ballistic missiles since the beginning of the Biden administration and would be in violation of the UN Security Council resolutions.

Earlier in the week, Biden appeared not to be overly concerned with North Korea’s launch of short-range missiles off its west coast on Sunday.

“We’ve learned nothing much has changed,” he told reporters on Tuesday before boarding Air Force One, adding that North Korea’s actions weren’t considered to be a provocation.

He later said in Washington: “According to the defense department, it’s business as usual. There’s no new wrinkle in what they did.”

The president’s senior officials also noted that the weekend launch was not in violation of UN Security Council resolutions.

“We’re also aware of military activity last weekend by DPRK that is not sanctioned under UN Security Council resolutions, restricting the ballistic missile program,” one senior administration official, who did not wish to be named, said in a press briefing.

Last week, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken acknowledged that the United States will utilize both pressure and diplomacy and will have an “open mind” when shaping its overall policy on the reclusive country. 

“We’re looking at everything. … There (are) different kinds of pressure points that might convince North Korea to make progress, and we are looking at diplomacy, and what different types of diplomacy might take,” he said during a virtual roundtable session with local reporters in Seoul.

“The goal is to really figure out how we can have the best chance in resolving the challenges posed by North Korea to us and unfortunately to its own people. … We have a very open mind about it and that open mind is being informed by allies like South Korea,” he added.

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

Michael Peck

F-35, Europe

The country's new £10 million hypersonics program will thrust Britain into the hypersonic race that is currently dominated by the U.S., Russia and China.

Here's What You Need to Know: There is more to developing a hypersonic aircraft than sticking a new engine in an old airframe.

Can an F-35 be turned into a hypersonic aircraft?

News last month that Britain is boosting its hypersonic weapons program didn’t come as a surprise. Many other nations are doing it.

What caught everyone’s attention was that there are plans to rework the jet engines on the 1990s Eurofighter Typhoon—which propel the aircraft to Mach 2—into hypersonic engines that could achieve Mach 5 or faster.

Which naturally led to a question: can existing fourth- and fifth-generation fighters—which operate at speeds of around Mach 2 or less—become Mach 5 speed demons?

The technology in question is the Sabre engine from British firm Reaction Engines. Sabre aims to combine the advantages of both conventional jet engines with rocket engines. Ground tests have shown that demonstrated that the engine is capable of flying faster than Mach 3, according to Defense News.

“SABRE’s unique feature is a precooler which reduces the temperature of the incoming compressed air,” explains British defense site Forces.com. “This means the engine does not need to cope with extreme temperatures which requires special materials.”

“At high altitudes, it is a rocket, but, at lower altitudes, it works like a jet engine - sucking in and compressing air.”

One option that the RAF is considering for development of hypersonic engines is to add pre-cooler technology to the EJ-200 gas turbine engine that currently powers the Typhoon.

Alas, that isn’t the same as sticking a hypersonic engine on an older fighter.

“You shouldn’t read into that we are somehow going to achieve a hypersonic Typhoon,” said Air Chief Marshal Stephen Hillier.

There is more to developing a hypersonic aircraft than sticking a new engine in an old airframe. To turn a fourth- or fifth-generation aircraft, such as the F-16 or F-35, would invoke a variety of airframe, aerodynamic and avionics issues.

Instead, Britain’s new £10 million ($12.2 million) hypersonics program will be used to thrust Britain into the hypersonic race that is currently dominated by the U.S., Russia and China. For example, hypersonic research is expected to bear fruit in engine development for the Tempest, Britain’s planned sixth-generation fighter.

With 80 percent of Western fighters expected to be fourth-generation for the foreseeable future, hypersonic missiles are a way to keep older jets relevant. “We are working with some other people to see whether we can generate a Mach 5 capability in four years,” said Air Vice Marshal Simon Rochelle, chief of air staff capability. “There will be others pursuing higher and fast speeds … but much beyond that speed you start to change the chemical properties, the physical properties and metallic properties within the actual weapon system.”

“Part of the reason for rapidly developing high-speed weapons was to enable those aircraft to maintain their edge," Rochelle said. “There is a challenge and competition now going on at range, at speed, at pace and we have to mobilize ourselves to be ready to take that on.”

In other words, hypersonic engines won’t turn a Typhoon, F-15 or F-22 into a Mach 5 jet. Instead, hypersonic missiles will do the work. It’s the same approach that allows sixty-year-old B-52s to remain formidable weapons, by arming them with smart bombs. The platform remains the same, but the payload is updated as technology advances.

Michael Peck is a contributing writer for the National Interest. He can be found on Twitter and Facebook.

This article first appeared in 2019.

Image: Reuters

Sebastien Roblin

Security,

If the Cold War went hot, F-84s would have brought nuclear war to European skies.

Here's What You Need to Remember: Thunderjets stationed in Europe, meanwhile, became the first single-engine aircraft modified to deliver a nuclear weapon—the 1,680-pound Mark 7 nuclear bomber with an adjustable yield as high as 61 kilotons. To avoid getting caught in the apocalyptic blast, the Thunderjet employed a Low Altitude Bombing System to semi-accurately “toss” their nuclear payload while climbing, then bank sharply to the side as the deadly warhead arced away.

In 1944, Alexander Kartveli, designer of the legendary Republic P-47 Thunderbolt fighter, began working on a jet-powered successor. Kartveli’s tubby-looking “Jug” proved a tough, hard-hitting ground attack plane and a fast, far-flying escort fighter in World War II. Unable to cram a turbojet in the Thunderbolt airframe, the Georgian engineer drafted a clean-sheet design dubbed the XP-84 Thunderjet with a J-35 turbojet spanning the fuselage from the intake in the nose to the tailpipe, with fuel stored in wingtip tanks.

Though a prototype briefly set a national speed record in 1946, early model Thunderjets (re-designated F-84s) required excessive maintenance and proved unstable due to weak wing spars for the thick wings and shaky wingtip fuel tanks. The Pentagon nearly canceled the jet prematurely when Republic finally introduced the F-84D model addressing the most glaring flaws by introducing sturdier wing spars, revised fuel tanks, a functioning ejection seat and a more powerful J-35A-17 engine.

Like the P-47, the Thunderjet was a “heavy”-feeling plane with high takeoff and landing speeds. It required longer mile-long runways and was less maneuverable than the Air Force’s earlier F-80 Shooting Star jet fighter. However, the F-84 was faster at 610 miles per hour, had a greater range of 800 miles, and was a hard-hitting and stable gun platform: in addition to its six extra-fast-firing M3 .50 caliber, it could lug thirty-two five-inch high-velocity rockets or two tons of bombs. Once the early models’ flaws were corrected, the Thunderjet also proved highly maintainable, its guts designed for easy access to mechanics.

However, Karteveli’s design used traditional straight rather than swept wings, which delay the formation of shockwaves when approaching supersonic speeds. This left the Thunderjet slower and less agile than the near-contemporary swept-wing F-86 Sabre and the Soviet MiG-15, which could attain speeds of around 680 miles per hour

Six months into the Korean War in December 1950, F-84Es of the 27th Fighter Escort Wing were dispatched to Taegu Air Base in South Korea to escort four-engine B-29 strategic bombers on raids targeting the Chinese border with North Korea. The F-84E model was lengthened fifteen inches to carry additional fuel and incorporated a radar-assisted gunsight

Thunderjets first encountered MiGs on January 21, 1952, when eight F-84s raiding Chongchan bridge were bounced by two flights of MiG-15s which shot an F-84 down. A MiG was claimed in return, but Soviet records reveal no corresponding losses. Two days later, F-84s and B-29s launched a massive raid targeting the airfield at Pyongyang. The MiGs, which excelled at high altitudes, were forced to dogfight strafing Thunderjets on the deck; three Communist jets were shot down and two more crippled.

However, thereafter the faster MiG-15s mostly engaged F-84s at high altitudes while escorting B-29s, repeatedly breaking through screens of up to fifty to 100 Thunderjets to ravage the B-29s they were escorting.

Henceforth, the UN forces in Korea switched heavy bombers to less-accurate night raids. F-86s focused on the MiG threat, while F-84s were relegated to ground attack missions, their tremendous firepower unleashed to strike frontline troops, blast rear-area depots, artillery batteries and convoys, cover helicopter search-and-rescue operations, and bombard key infrastructure targets. Over the course of the war, Thunderjets flew 86,000 missions and dropped 61,000 tons of bombs and napalm canisters—by one tally, accounting for 60 percent of ground targets destroyed by the U.S. Air Force during the war. The F-84’s robustness proved an asset, allowing it to survive punishing hits from heavy communist flak.

In June 1952, eighty-four Thunderjets obliterated 90 percent of the Sui-ho Dam complex, knocking out electricity throughout all of North Korea for two weeks. However, the raid, intended to pressure North Korean peace negotiators, backfired—inspiring anti-war opposition in the British parliament while conversely causing hawks in the U.S. to complain that the raid should have taken place sooner.

Nonetheless, in 1953, F-84s were hammering dams at Toksan and Chasan—causing huge floods that swamped bridges, railway lines and roads, and badly damaged crops. By then, the final F-84G model had arrived in theater, bringing with it an uprated J-35 engine and revolutionary new in-flight refueling capability. F-84s could connect their wingtip tanks to a probe trailed by a KB-29 tanker, allowing them to fly missions over Korea from bases in Japan.

Of 335 F-84Ds, Es and Gs lost to all causes during the Korean War, at least 135 were destroyed by flak. U.S. records claim a further 18 were shot down by MiGs, while Soviet and Chinese fliers claimed 65. A side-by-side comparison of loss records (broken down here) suggests a number closer to twenty-five F-84s lost in aerial combat (including a “maneuver kill,” two crashes due to battle-damage and one incident of mutual mid-air collision) in exchange for seven to eight MiGs.

But F-84s and MiG-15s continued to battle on other fronts of the Cold War. On March 10, 1953, a MiG-15 encountered a two-ship F-84 patrol apparently straying into Czech airspace near Merklin. Czech pilot Jaroslav Šrámek told an interviewer:

They banked sharply and flew off at full throttle. But because the MIG 15s were better the F-84s we were able to turn easily and manoeuvre into a position where I could fire a warning shot. The warning shot hit his backup tank on the right-hand side. Fuel started escaping from it. He tried to escape to the south. In view of the fact that I was higher than him I was able to catch him easily and my second round disabled him. After firing the shot I saw flames coming from his craft so I stopped and headed home."

Pilot Warren Brown ejected, and his crashed jet was found ten miles into the German side of the border.

The Republic of China Air Force received 246 F-84Gs which clashed repeatedly with their communist counterparts over the Taiwan Strait. In a series four 4-on-4 engagements in 1955 and 1956, ROCAF Thunderjets claimed five MiG-15 for no loss, though two Thunderjets were shot down in smaller-scale dogfights, and a third was lost to flak. However, on July 29, 1958, newer, ultra-maneuverable MiG-17s bounced four F-84s and shot down two over Nan’ao island, helping trigger the Second Taiwan Strait Crisis.

Of three-thousand F-84Gs built, Washington transferred over 200 each to Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, Norway and even Communist Yugoslavia as part of the MDAP military assistance program. Particularly prolific operators included France (335) and Turkey (489), while Iran, the Netherlands and Thailand received smaller numbers.

F-84Gs became the first fighter operated by the Air Force’s Thunderbirds aerobatics in 1953. Thunderjets stationed in Europe, meanwhile, became the first single-engine aircraft modified to deliver a nuclear weapon—the 1,680-pound Mark 7 nuclear bomber with an adjustable yield as high as 61 kilotons. To avoid getting caught in the apocalyptic blast, the Thunderjet employed a Low Altitude Bombing System to semi-accurately “toss” their nuclear payload while climbing, then bank sharply to the side as the deadly warhead arced away.

The sturdy and steady F-84 also served as a platform to test new concepts—most importantly pioneering aerial refueling of jet fighters. But some of the ideas didn’t exactly pan out. An attempt to modify the F-84 to be towed behinds the B-29s it was meant to escort (and this extend range by saving fuel) ended in a deadly collision. F-84s were also tested with rocket-boosters so that they could perform “zero-length” takeoffs from truck trailers should a nuclear war destroy all the airfields.

By 1954, the superior swept-wing F-84F Thunderstreak model entered service, largely replacing the Thunderjet and also spawning the RF-84F Thunderflash photo-reconnaissance model, with intakes in the wing roots instead of the nose. Powered by a more powerful but finicky J65 turbojet, the Thunderstreak could attain speeds just shy of 700 miles per hour.

By the late 1950s, the Air Force began retiring all models of the F-84 in favor of the supersonic F-100 Super Sabre and F-105 Thunderchief, though F-84s served in Air National Guard units until 1970 and Portuguese Thunderjets saw action in a colonial war in Angola until 1974. The last Thunderflash was finally retired by the Greek Air Force in 1991—a long career for a tough jet that had seemed outdated nearly as soon as it entered service.

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. He currently writes on security and military history for War Is Boring. This article first appeared in 2019.

Image: Wikipedia.

Michael Rubin

North Korea,

There is no magic formula to success on North Korea, but certain strategies are guaranteed to fail. Relying on Beijing’s good offices both encourage China to play a double game. 

Speaking at a press conference last week during his and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s visit to South Korea, Secretary of State Antony Blinken urged renewed diplomacy and highlighted the role he hoped China could play. “China has a critical role to play in working to convince North Korea to pursue denuclearization.  China has a unique relationship with North Korea. Virtually all of North Korea’s economic relationships, its trade go – are with or go through China, so it has tremendous influence.  And I think it has a shared interest in making sure that we do something about North Korea’s nuclear program and about the increasingly dangerous ballistic missile program,” Blinken said, adding, “I would hope that whatever happens going forward, China will use that influence effectively to work on moving North Korea to denuclearization.”

In theory, Blinken’s comments make sense. In reality, they are naïve. Simply put, Blinken sees the here and now, but appears ignorant of those who came before him and also sought to work through Beijing in order to compel North Korea’s denuclearization. It is history I explored in Dancing with the Devil, a study of past diplomacy with rogue regimes.

The story begins on October 8, 1983, when Chinese diplomats passed the American embassy in Beijing a North Korean message expressing Pyongyang’s willingness to participate in tripartite talks.  Amidst Reagan’s military build-up in South Korea, the North Korean leadership had decided to put aside its objection to South Korean participation that had been the basis for its rejection of President Jimmy Carter’s offer to mediate talks.

Optimism about North Korean sincerity was short-lived, as the next day North Korean agents sought to assassinate President Chun Doo Hwan and much of his cabinet during a visit to Burma. After the bombing, Reagan’s attitude toward North Korea diplomacy cooled. In January 1984, however, Chinese Premier Zhao Ziyang passed a North Korean message to Reagan again endorsing three-way talks between the Koreas and the United States. The offer was a transparent effort by Pyongyang and Beijing to enable North Korea to escape consequences for its actions, and successful. Diplomats seek talks and are willing to put the past behind in order to avoid making history an impediment. Once again, however, North Korea was insincere. In November 1987, two North Korean agents bombed Korean Air flight 858 en route from Baghdad to Seoul, killing 115. Pyongyang’s goal was to undermine the legitimacy Seoul would receive by hosting the Olympics.

After the Olympics ended, South Korean President Roh Tae Woo announced that Seoul would end its policy of trying to isolate the north. The White House embraced the ideas and the State Department called it “a major—indeed historic—reversal of traditional” South Korean policy. For diplomats, a fresh approach could not come quickly enough. In 1980, a spy satellite spotted construction of a nuclear reactor at Yongbyon, about 60 miles north of Pyongyang.  Four years later, satellites detected craters suggesting North Korea was experimenting with detonators used in nuclear bombs.

Whereas Reagan had kept concerns about Yongbyon secret to keep surprise attack an option, his former vice president and successor George H.W. Bush put diplomacy front and center.  Secretary of State James Baker explained, “Our diplomatic strategy was designed to build international pressure against North Korea to force them to live up to their agreements.” Diplomacy continued throughout the elder Bush’s term. On December 18, 1991, South Korean leader Roh Tae-woo announced that U.S. forces had completed removing its tactical nuclear arsenal from South Korea.  Just over a week later, North Korea agreed to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treary safeguards agreement and permit inspections of Yongbyon.  Over the next several weeks, North and South Korean officials signed a North-South Denuclearization Declaration in which the two Koreas foreswore plutonium reprocessing and uranium enrichment, and agreed not to test, manufacture, produce, possess, deploy, or use nuclear weapons. Both sides also agreed to inspections by a joint commission. Initially, it looked like Bush had found the magic formula.  Baker chalked Pyongyang’s acquiescence to patient diplomacy. “American diplomacy [was] directly responsible for an end to six years of intransigence by the North,” he wrote in his memoirs. 

But, while Baker congratulated himself, both Pyongyang and their benefactors in Beijing recognized Baker was desperate and concluded they could get more out of the Americans by keeping conflict alive rather and extracting more concessions. PAs North Korea defied the Denuclearization Deal, President Bill Clinton sought to leverage Beijing’s influence on Pyongyang. The problem here, however, was that Beijing was not altruistic; its cooperation came at a price. That price was to dilute demands on North Korea by watering down Security Council’s condemnation to the point of irrelevancy. China also deep-sixed Security Council action after North Korea announced that it would remove irradiated fuel rods from Yongbyon, a process that would both eliminate evidence about Pyongyang’s intentions and enable North Korea to separate plutonium.

And, as the 1994 Agreed Framework began to come apart at the seams, China’s rulers recognized they could milk the United States in exchange for the theater of keeping North Korea under control. The George W. Bush administration sought to trade “actions for actions” as it gave Pyongyang greater food aid in exchange for keeping its reactor offline. When critics such as John Bolton suggested that rewarding North Korea for defiance would incentivize bad behavior, the National Security Council argued that its dealings were different since China was now onboard. Even if China were more compliant, however, such willingness to play diplomatic ball came at a huge cost. In the waning weeks of his administration, Clinton had waived missile-proliferation sanctions on China in exchange for a Chinese promise not to proliferate technology. Chinese companies then proceeded to sell sensitive technology to Iran.

At the heart of successive State Department’s self-delusions about China was a misreading of Chinese interests: South Korean intellectuals repeatedly warned Foggy Bottom that China’s obsession with North Korean stability and Beijing’s desire to use North Korea as a buffer conflicted with both U.S. (and South Korean) interests.

Back to Blinken: The proposal to work through China to constrain and control North Korea might have made sense had successive administrations not repeatedly tried it and each time, dating back to Reagan four decades ago, failed. History did not begin with Biden’s inauguration. The United States never has a tabula rasa. There is no magic formula to success on North Korea, but certain strategies are guaranteed to fail. Relying on Beijing’s good offices both encourage China to play a double game, encouraging the occasional crisis to reap its own rewards, and enables Beijing to use the North Korea issue to drive a wedge between Washington and its chief regional allies: South Korea and Japan.

Michael Rubin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, where he specializes in Iran, Turkey, and the broader Middle East. He also regularly teaches classes at sea about Middle East conflicts, culture, terrorism, and the Horn of Africa to deployed US Navy and Marine units.

Paul Richard Huard

World War II Weapons,

The final verdict on the T-34 perhaps is less glowing than the legend that the Soviets weaved around the tank, but the T-34 tipped the balance in favor of the USSR when it came to armored battle and that's what matters. 

Here's What You Need to Remember: Iconic Russian tank wasn’t revolutionary, but it could blow Panzers to Hell. 

The T-34 in the hands of determined Soviet tankers routed the Germans at Kursk, the greatest tank battle of all time.

The T-34 was “undeniably revolutionary, but it was not the first in anything except how to combine thick sloped armor with a diesel engine, wide tracks and a big, relatively powerful gun,” Belcourt said. “They had all been done before, but never together.”

On June 22, 1941, Nazi Germany launched Operation Barbarossa, a massive attack on the Soviet Union that was the largest invasion in history.

More than three million German soldiers, 150 divisions and 3,000 tanks comprised three mammoth army groups that created a front more than 1,800 miles long.

The Germans expected to face an inferior enemy—the Slavs whom Adolph Hitler called untermenschen. Giddy from victories in Poland and France, Hitler and many in his military high command believed it was the destiny of Germany to invade Russia. “The end of the Jewish domination in Russia will also be the end of Russia as a state,” Hitler announced in his manifesto Mein Kampf.

For months Germans won victory after resounding victory. But then the attack stalled—and the appearance of a new Soviet tank stunned the Wehrmacht.

It was the T-34. The new armored vehicle had an excellent 76-millimeter gun and thick sloped armor and cruised at more than 35 miles per hour. It possessed many advanced design features for the time—and it could blow German Panzers to Hell.

The T-34 had its problems—something we often forgotten when discussing a tank with a legendary reputation. The shortfalls included bad visibility for the crew and shoddy Soviet workmanship.

“They were good, but they were not miracle weapons and they had their faults,” writes Philip Kaplan in Rolling Thunder: A Century of Tank Warfare. “But the T-34, for all its faults, is now often referred to by tank experts and historians as possibly the best tank of the war.”

World War II German Field Marshall Ewald Von Kleist was more succinct. “The finest tank in the world,” is how he described the T-34.

The origins of the T-34 are simple enough. The Red Army sought a replacement for the BT-7 cavalry tank, which was fast-moving and lightly armored for use in maneuver warfare. It also had Christie suspension, one reason for the tank’s increased speed.

But during a 1938-to-1939 border war with Japan, the BT-7 fared poorly. Even with a low-powered gun, Japanese Type 95 tanks easily destroyed the BT-7s. Tank attack crews also assaulted the BT-7s with Molotov cocktails, reducing the Soviet tank to a flaming wreck when ignited gasoline dripped through chinks between poorly welded armor into the tank’s engine compartment.

The T-34 was the solution. It kept the Christie suspension, replaced the gasoline engine with a V-2 34 V12 diesel power plant and offered the crew speeds that were 10 miles per hour faster than the German Panzer III or Panzer IV.

Furthermore, the T-34’s high-velocity gun was capable of killing any tank in the world at the time.

“In 1941 when Hitler launched Barbarossa, the tank was indisputably the best in the world,” Jason Belcourt, a veteran of the U.S. Army who served in the armor branch, told War Is Boring. “The combination of sloped armor, big gun, good speed and good maneuverability was so much better than anything the Germans had on tracks.”

By mid-1941, the USSR had more than 22,000 tanks—more tanks than all the armies of the world combined, and four times the number of tanks in the German arsenal.

By the end of the war, the Soviet Union had produced nearly 60,000 T-34 tanks—proving the point that quantity does have a quality all of its own.

At first, the Germans were at a loss when it came to countering the threat the T-34 posed. The Germans’ standard anti-tank guns, the 37-millimeter Kwk36 and the 50-millimeter Kwk 38, couldn’t put a dent in the Soviet tank with a shot to its front.

That left the Germans with a limited set of tactics. German tankers could attempt flank shots with their guns. The Wehrmacht could lay mines. Soldiers risked their lives in close assaults employing satchel charges and Molotov cocktails.

In what could be called an act of desperation, the Germans even used modified 88-millimeter anti-aircraft guns to stop attacking T-34s with direct fire.

But the Russians never had enough trained crews for the tanks the Red Army fielded. The Soviets wasted the T-34 and its crews in vast numbers.

By the time the Soviets trained enough crews to man the T-34s, the Germans had tanks with high-velocity guns and better anti-tank weapons like the Panzerfaust, a recoilless anti-tank weapon with a high-explosive warhead.

But the Russians always had more T-34s than the Germans had Panzers or Tigers.

“Where the tank was decisive was in the battle of production,” Belcourt said. “From June 1941 until the end of the war, the Soviets were always producing a tank that was often good and never worse than adequate.”

The final verdict on the T-34 perhaps is less glowing than the legend that the Soviets weaved around the tank—but is still complimentary. The T-34 tipped the balance in favor of the USSR when it came to armored battle; mass production of the tank outmatched anything the Germans could do when it came to manufacturing.

The T-34 in the hands of determined Soviet tankers routed the Germans at Kursk, the greatest tank battle of all time.

The T-34 was “undeniably revolutionary, but it was not the first in anything except how to combine thick sloped armor with a diesel engine, wide tracks and a big, relatively powerful gun,” Belcourt said. “They had all been done before, but never together.”

This first appeared in WarIsBoring here.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Sebastien Roblin

Military History, Pacific

America knows how to build really good, long-lasting warships. The USS Midway is a case in point.

Here's What You Need To Remember: The Midways arrived just as the Navy was exploring how to adapt to the dawning jet- and nuclear-age, and served faithfully throughout the Cold War era.

On March 20, 1945 the shipyard in Newport News, Virginia launched what would remain for a decade the largest warship on the planet. Named USS Midway after the decisive World War II carrier battle, she would be commissioned September 8 just a few weeks after the Japanese surrender.

Few of the over four-thousand-man complement departing on Midway’s first patrol could have imagined that same ship—admittedly, in drastically modified form—would be sailing into combat forty-six years later, her deck laden with supersonic jet fighters.

Midway was joined a month later by New York-built sistership USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (or ‘Rosey’), the first U.S. carrier to be named after a former U.S. president. The last ship of the class, USS Coral Sea, was launched in 1947.

The Midway-class was meant to be a "beefier battle carrier" compared to the twenty-four Essex-class carriers that entered service in the latter half of World War II. Naval engineers particularly sought to introduce an armored flight deck. British carriers with armored decks proved more resilient and quicker to recover from dive bombing and kamikaze attacks that crippled U.S. flattops. But armored flight decks were also considerably heavier, limiting deck size and number of aircraft carried.

The American engineers went big to get both deck armor and more planes. The Midway measured longer than three football fields and could carry an unprecedented 130 aircraft: four squadrons of gull-winged Corsair fighters and three of Helldiver bombers. Three-and-a-half inches of armor plating protected her flight deck, while eighteen five-inch 52-caliber guns were mounted to blast attacking aircraft from afar. Sixty-eight rapid-firing 40-millimeter and 20-millimeter cannons provided close protection.

The ships could attain 33 knots powered by twelve boilers turning four Westinghouse steam turbines, but consumed 100,000 gallons of fuel daily, necessitating refueling every three days.

Indeed, the Midway-class’s sheer size caused numerous problems. 130 aircraft proved too many to effectively coordinate, so their air wings were downsized back to 100. Their huge crews made life onboard especially crowded. And the carrier’ great weight left them riding low in the water, causing excessive seawater to slosh on deck and flood gunwells. The unwieldy vessels tended to plow through waves rather than riding above them—once resulting in one of Midway’s aircraft elevators being torn off during a storm.

The Midways arrived just as the Navy was exploring how to adapt to the dawning jet- and nuclear-age. In 1946, an XFD-1 Phantom jet landed on the Roosevelt’s deck, the first ever planned jet-powered landing on a carrier. A year later, the Midway test-launched a Nazi V-2 ballistic missile off her deck, the first such large rocket fired from a moving ship. Then in 1949, a P2V Privateer patrol plane carrying a 5-ton bomb load took off from the deck of Coral Sea boosted by JATO rocket packs—proving that a nuclear-capable aircraft could be based on a carrier. The following year, the Roosevelt became the first carrier to carry nuclear weapons.

Landing fast and heavy jets remained a major challenge, as demonstrated in a famous 1951 recording of an F9F Panther on the Midway striking the ramp while landing, slicing the front of the fuselage from the plane and sending it rolling down the deck. Amazingly, pilot George Chamberlain survived.

Safer, sustainable jet operations required a larger flight deck. In the mid-1950s, the Midways underwent SC-110 refits replacing their “strait” decks with a longer “angled” configuration incorporating additional steam catapults, increasing deck size and displacement considerably. The formerly open hangar deck below was enclosed, and new radars, a “mirror” landing system, and strengthened elevators to lift heavier aircraft were installed.

The class missed action over Korea, though Midway did assist in evacuating thousands of Chinese Nationalists in the wake of the Battle of Yijiangshan island. The three Midway-class carriers finally saw combat in Vietnam, by which time two-seat F-4B Phantom II fighters capable of flying twice the speed of sound were catapulting off their flight decks.

On June 17, 1965, two Phantoms from VF-21 detected bogeys” on radar, in an engagement described in Peter Davie’s U.S. Navy Phantom Units of the Vietnam War.

The Phantoms carried radar-guided AIM-7D Sparrow missiles which had a long minimum range—but were required to visually identify enemies before firing! Pilots Louis Page and David Batson used a tactic in which one Phantom charged towards the incoming jets, causing them to pull away and reveal their profile—four MiG-17s, slower but highly maneuverable Soviet-built jets. Batson and Page’s Sparrow missiles each splashed a MiG. A third was destroyed after its engines sucked in debris from its wingmates.

A year later on June 20, 1966, four Midway-based A-1H Skyraiders, old-fashioned piston-engine ground attack planes, was on a search-and-rescue mission when they were warned of two approaching MiG-17s. The Skyraiders flew in circles hugging the side of a mountain for cover. The MiGs swooped down spitting cannon shells at the lead Skyraider—but the two A-1s behind him pulled up and raked the jets with 20-millimeter cannons, shooting one down in one of the unlikelier kills of the conflict.

The Coral Sea, which was officially adopted by the city of San Francisco, also saw extensive action over Vietnam, though not all of her crew were happy about it. Some famously circulated a petition opposing the war, and three hundred participated in a peace march.

The two carriers remained involved to the very end, however. In 1972, aircraft from Midway and Coral Sea mined Haiphong harbor and blasted a North Vietnamese land offensive—measures which ostensibly pressured Hanoi into the ceasefire at the Paris peace conferences. Then on January 12, 1973, an F-4J based on the Midway shot down another MiG-17 in the last air-to-air kill of the Vietnam War.

That same year, the Coral Sea ferried Phantom jet fighters to Israel during the Yom Kippur war and Midway became the first U.S. carrier to have its home port deployed overseas to Japan, reducing operating costs and keeping sailors’ families closer.

The carriers were involved in additional adventures. When the government of South Vietnam fell in 1975, helicopters from the Midway and Coral Sea rescued over 3,000 Vietnamese fleeing northern troops. Famously, Vietnamese Major Buang flew to the Midway in a dinky O-1 observation plane with his wife and five children crowded inside, and dropped a message indicating he wanted to land. As the O-1 circled overhead, Captain Larry Chamber tossed helicopters overboard to make room and turned the ship into the wind. Finally, Buang landed the overloaded Cessna to the applause of the crew (see a recording here).

Coral Sea subsequently dispatched A-7 and F-4N jets to attack Khmer Rouge forces and recovered helicopters carrying U.S. Marines during the disastrous Mayaguez hostage-rescue operation.

By then, the Midways were growing long in the tooth, lacking the deck space for new F-14 Tomcat interceptors and S-3 Viking anti-submarine jets. This led to the decommissioning of the Roosevelt in 1977. On her final cruise, she experimentally carried the Marine Harrier jump jets of VMA-231.

Meanwhile, the Midway’s decks were further expanded until they resembled a weird jigsaw puzzle piece, though the Coral Sea retained a “straighter” configuration. Their carriers gun batteries were replaced with Sea Sparrow missile launchers and automated Phalanx close-in-weapon systems.

The Reagan administration’s military buildup kept the aging carriers on duty through 1980s, flying older F-4S Phantoms and A-7 Corsairs. However, they also received brand-new FA-18 Hornet multi-role jets with modern avionics that could land on shorter flight decks.

FA-18s from the Coral Sea repeatedly intercepted Libyan MiGs over the Mediterranean. Finally in 1986, they flew the Hornet’s first combat mission, using a HARM radar-homing missile to destroy an S-200 surface-to-air missile battery in Sirte, Libya, in retaliation for a terrorist attack in Berlin. The Midway, meanwhile received new hull blisters designed to stabilize her.

The Coral Sea, nicknamed “Ageless Warrior,” was finally retired in 1990 and scrapped in Baltimore. But the Midway, despite an unsuccessful hull-blister upgrade that actually worsened the “Rock’n Roll” carrier’s long-running instability and a deadly explosive accident in 1990, still had one more war left in in her. Deployed in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, she launched 3,339 combat sorties. Her A-6E Intruder jets were amongst the first to hit Iraqi targets in the conflict, and her helicopters even liberated a Kuwaiti island.

Finally, on April 11, 1992—forty-seven years after she had been launched—the Midway was decommissioned. Today she serves as a museum ship in San Diego.

As the Midway-class carriers expanded in size they never entirely shed their early design flaws. Yet they repeatedly adapted to new technological paradigms and rendered history-making service for nearly a half-century—a record any ship designer would envy.

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. He currently writes on security and military history for War Is Boring.

This first appeared in April 2019 and is bring reprinted due to reader interest.

Peter Suciu

F-15EX,

The first of the United States Air Force's Boeing F-15EX fighters arrived at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida earlier this month. Touted by the defense contractor to be a cost-effective aircraft for the service, the F-15EX is set to undergo combined developmental and operational tests.

The first of the United States Air Force's Boeing F-15EX fighters arrived at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida earlier this month. Touted by the defense contractor to be a cost-effective aircraft for the service, the F-15EX is set to undergo combined developmental and operational tests.

As part of the National Defense Strategy, the Air Force is required to purchase seventy-two combat aircraft per year, and the upgraded F-15EX has been seen as the best way to meet those goals. Last year, the Air Force awarded Boeing a $1.2 billion production contract to build and deliver eight F-15EX aircraft, with two arriving this year followed by an additional six in 2023. All will be deployed to Elgin AFB.

The Air Force could eventually receive a total of 144 F-15EX aircraft.

"It's a special day for the base and our mission," said Brig. Gen. Scott Cain, 96th Test Wing commander. "We’re very proud to be part of the next evolution of this historic aircraft. I look forward to seeing this unique test collaboration prepare the F-15EX for the warfighter."

The newly arrived aircraft bears its unit insignia EX1 marked with "ET" from the 96th TW’s, 40th Flight Test Squadron. The next aircraft, EX2, which is scheduled to arrive next month, will display the "OT" tail flash to represent the 53rd Wing’s 85th Test and Evaluation Squadron.

The aim of integrated testing, which will begin in the coming weeks, will be to ensure the EX is delivered to a potential warfighter as soon as possible, while further ensuring the aircraft meets its test objectives. Eglin AFB's testers will allow the teams to identify any system issues early on, so they can be addressed before the F-15EX's increased production and delivery to the squadrons.

The Operational Flight Program Combined Test Force, or OFP CTF, at Eglin AFB will manage test planning and oversee all the groundwork for the EX's test program, the Air Force announced.

“Combining these test capabilities on day one of flight test helps ensure F-15EX is ready to execute on air tasking order day one. We’re confident that along with our OFP CTF partners running test management, we will provide that capability faster to the warfighter than ever before,” said Lt. Col. Richard Turner, 40th FLTS commander, who flew the new EX to Eglin AFB.

The two-seat fighter with U.S.-only capabilities was developed as a next-generation variant of the combat-tested, 1980s-era F-15 fighter. It is still a fourth-generation aircraft, but its developers have highlighted the fact that the plane's new adapted technologies and upgradeability make it a viable, lethal, high-threat environment-capable attack platform. The F-15 has already subsequently evolved to encompass more roles, most notably with the deployment of the F-15E Strike Eagle in 1989, when it saw the addition of substantial air-to-ground capability, including a second cockpit for a weapons systems operator.

Additionally, the new F-15EXs are likely to remain flying for decades to come, while the Air Force has estimated F-15EX fighter shares about 70 percent of parts with the current F-15Cs and F-15Es that they will be replacing. Not only are the original production lines in St. Louis still in place, but the training facilities, maintenance depots, and other infrastructure can also be be readily shifted to F-15EX support.

Boeing also noted, "F-15EX requires no new logistics chains, training squadrons, infrastructure modification, program officers or even weapons integration. Units converting to F-15EX can transition within weeks or months, not years, or receiving new aircraft."

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

Peter Suciu

Gun Control,

Harris refused to directly answer and instead suggested that the only way any move couldn't be overturned by a future president was for Congress to pass any gun control legislation, which President Biden could sign into law.

Since the March 22 shooting at a grocery store in Boulder, Colorado that left ten people dead including a police officer, there has been speculation that President Joe Biden would take executive action if the Senate remains unable to pass any new gun control measures. However, Vice President Kamala Harris has indicated that the president is unlikely to make such a move at this time.

In an interview with "CBS This Morning" on Wednesday, the vice president called upon Congress to move to pass new gun control legislation.

"It is time for Congress to act," Harris said.

"And stop with the false choices," she added. "This is not about getting rid of the Second Amendment. It's simply about saying we need reasonable gun safety laws. There is no reason why we have assault weapons on the streets of a civil society. They are weapons of war. They are designed to kill a lot of people quickly."

Harris also urged the Senate – where she could cast a deciding vote in a tie – to approve two bills that were recently passed by the House of Representatives. This included the Bipartisan Background, which if passed would require new background check requirements for all gun transfers including those conducted by private parties; and the Enhanced Background Checks Act to close the so-called "Charleston loophole." The latter bill provides that if the current national background check system is not immediately able to determine if a buyer is able to legally obtain a firearm, and the FBI does not conduct an investigation within three days, the seller is allowed to proceed with a sale. The bill extends the initial background check review period to ten days.

"The point here is, Congress needs to act, and on the House side, they did," Harris told CBS News' Gayle King. "There are two bills which the president is prepared to sign. And so we need the Senate to act."

As it currently stands, however – with the Senate split 50-50 and West Virginia Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin opposed to the House bills – it is unlikely either will be approved by the Senate. King asked the vice president if in such a case, President Biden would instead use executive action.

Harris refused to directly answer and instead suggested that the only way any move couldn't be overturned by a future president was for Congress to pass any gun control legislation, which President Biden could sign into law.

"If the Congress acts, then it becomes law," said Vice President Harris. "And that is what we have lacked, that is what has been missing. We need universal background checks. You know various states have done it but there's no universal approach to this. We should first expect the United States Congress to act. I’m not willing to give up on what we must do."

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

Peter Suciu

China South China Sea,

The Chinese military is using the South China Sea to collect data on ongoing construction activities, to improve naval weapons and underwater communications. More importantly, what it learns in the region can be used to help the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) prepare for a future conflict in the region.

Beijing's expansion to the highly contested South China Sea has been about securing access to the region's vast natural resources including oil and gas. It holds an estimated 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 11 billion barrels of oil in proved and probable reserves, with much more potentially undiscovered; but there is also an abundance of near-shore placer minerals including titaniferous magnetite, zircon, monazite, tin, gold, and chromite.

Additionally, the region is home to a wealth of fisheries and remains a vital trade route in the Pacific Rim.

China has staked its claim to those resources via its militarized outposts in the Spratly Islands while it further expanded its reach in the Paracel chain via manmade islands.

According to a report from Radio Free Asia, Beijing isn't just interested in the abundant natural resources – which of course it most certainly is – but there is also what has been described as the South China Sea's "most valuable but least visible resource: data."

The Chinese military is using the South China Sea to collect data on ongoing construction activities, to improve naval weapons and underwater communications. More importantly, what it learns in the region can be used to help the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) prepare for a future conflict in the region. It can better understand how to conduct an amphibious landing in the region, but also how to conduct operations in an "ocean battlespace environment."

Those are the warnings from Ryan Martinson, professor of the U.S. Naval War College's China Maritime Studies Institute.

"China needs to collect this information because it is used to build and improve models for how these elements of the ocean battlespace environment change under particular circumstances," Martinson told Radio Free Asia.

Data gathered from Beijing's remote outposts can be used to aid the PLAN in the region, and that can help it prepare for a conflict with the United States or a regional adversary. This includes greater understanding of the tides, currents, wave height, temperature, wind and even salinity – all of which are subject to change.

"Being able to forecast these changes is very important to the PLAN because these elements directly affect naval operations, everything from basic navigation to weapons employment to ISR (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance)," Martinson told BenarNews in January, during its report that China had reclaimed additional territory o the northern side of Woody Island.

That has been Beijing's main base in the Paracel Islands, which has been fortified against erosion.

These efforts to understand the region in such detail isn't actually new. Soon after China occupied Woody Island – the largest of the Paracel chain – in the 1950s, it established a meteorological station. Beijing has not made this study a secret. In May 2012, Chinese state media reported that PLAN meteorologists have measured factors such as wind direction, wind speed, temperature and tides every two hours every day for the past 30 years.

"Tides are an especially important factor in amphibious operations," said Martinson. "If you are trying to land on an island or bring a ship close to an island, you need to know how tides affect the water depth around the island at any given time."

This is something that Allied planners knew quite well in the lead up to the D-Day landings in Normandy, France during World War II. The difference now is that Beijing is studying the tides and so much more to ensure it isn't caught off guard in a potential conflict.

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

Mark Episkopos

Russian Air Force, Eurasia

MAKS has long been a prime venue for Russian aircraft exporters to advertise their products to prospective foreign clients.

The 2021 edition of the biennial MAKS—Russian for “International Aviation and Space Show”—will be held at Zhukovsky International Airport, located on the outskirts of Moscow, from July 20–25.

MAKS has long been a prime venue for Russian aircraft exporters to advertise their products to prospective foreign clients. During MAKS 2019, Russian president Vladimir Putin treated Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to an ice cream cone while the two discussed prospective fighter import options. Erdogan was shown Russia’s Su-35 air superiority fighter, but the real prize for the Kremlin was the export version of Russia’s Su-57 fifth-generation fighter. Both the Su-35 and Su-57 are highly likely to make an appearance at this year’s show, with the Kremlin ramping up its efforts to negotiate a slew of export contracts for the latter. Russian officials have not identified the states currently engaging in Su-57 import talks, but the ranks of those who previously expressed interest include Algeria, India, and Turkey.

Although much of the exhibition will inevitably consist of current Russian aviation staples, leading manufacturers are reportedly planning a few surprises. Russian defense giant Rostec’s press office told reporters that it plans to show a “fundamentally new” aircraft. “We would like to present as vividly as possible all the achievements of Russia in both military and civilian aviation, including prospective models of aircraft, helicopters, engines, and other equipment, [including] advanced on-board systems,” Rostec’s press statement read. “There are also plans for new products, in particular, we will show a fundamentally new aircraft.” 

It was reported late last year that Russia’s aircraft industry is working on a light, affordable next-generation fighter to complement the Su-57 and upcoming MiG-41 stealth interceptor, but there is currently no indication that any such aircraft will be unveiled at MAKS 2021. Still, at least one of Rostec’s “fundamentally new” products has already been confirmed by Russian officials. Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov told reporters earlier this week that Rostec will unveil the “world’s first” aircraft with an electric engine at MAKS 2021: "This is the thing we were working on jointly with the Foundation for Advanced Research Projects, an electric plane based on the principles of superconductivity," Borisov told reporters. The Su-30SM2, an advanced variant of the Su-30 air superiority fighter equipped with an upgraded N035 Irbis radar, AL-41F1S engines, and new weapons options, is likewise slated to make an appearance.  

Dozens of other countries are expected to participate in the upcoming air show, though their planned contributions remain largely unclear. "Representatives of more than 40 countries from almost all continents, first of all Russia’s EAEU (Eurasian Economic Union) partners, of course, have expressed intention to participate in MAKS-2021," according to a press statement released by Russian Industry and Trade Minister Denis Manturov. “Moreover, foreign partners, despite the coronavirus pandemic, have announced plans to show their recent advances and send official delegations to participate in the show," Manturov added in his statement.  

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

Image: Reuters

Sebastien Roblin

North Korea, Asia

The regime likely wanted the MD 500s so it could use them to infiltrate across the demilitarized zone with South Korean markings.

Here's What You Need to Know: Pyongyang kept its substantial MD 500 fleet under wraps for decades.

On July 27, 2013, as a column of armored personnel carriers and tanks rumbled before the stand of Kim Jong-un to commemorate the end of a bloody war with the United States sixty years earlier, four small American-made MD 500E helicopters buzzed low overhead. You can see it occur at 3:13 in the this video. If you look closely, you can see they have been wired with antitank missiles on racks slung on the sides.

In fact, this was the first confirmation that Pyongyang has maintained the fleet of 87 U.S.-built helicopters it smuggled into the country more than a quarter century ago.

The MD 500 is a civilian version of the distinctive Army OH-6 Cayuse light observation helicopter, which entered U.S. military service back in the 1960s. The no-frills design has been nicknamed the “Flying Egg” due to its compact, ovoid fuselage. It was widely employed to evacuate casualties, escort friendly transport helicopters, scout for enemy forces up close, and provide light fire support to troops on the ground with miniguns and rocket pods. Exceptionally cheap—selling for $20,000 each in 1962!—they were agile and small enough to land in places other helicopters couldn’t.

However, they were also highly exposed to enemy fire: 842 of the initial 1,400 OH-6As were lost in action in Vietnam. Evolved MH-6 and AH-6 “Little Bird” special operations and mini gunship variants continue to see action with the U.S. military today in Africa and the Middle East.

Back in the 1980s, McDonnell Douglas received an order for 102 helicopters from the Delta-Avia Fluggerate, an export firm registered in West Germany under businessman Kurt Behrens. Between 1983 and 1985, the U.S. company Associated Industries transferred eighty-six MD 500D and -E helicopters and one Hughes 300 (an even smaller two-man type) via six shipments for export by Delta Avia to Japan, Nigeria, Portugal and Spain.

However, in February 1985, the U.S. Commerce Department revealed it had discovered some hair-raising anomalies in the company’s operations—and some fraudulent claims about the shipments’ destination. For example, fifteen helicopters unloaded at Rotterdam, ostensibly for special fitting, were then transported overland to the Soviet freighter Prorokov. The Prorokov then unloaded the helicopters in North Korea. Similarly, a freighter docked in Japan transferred two helicopters to a North Korean freighter in Hong Kong, with similar results. Furthermore, it turned out the Semler brothers running Associated Industries were secretly majority owners of Delta Avia.

Though eighty-seven helicopters had already been delivered, the remaining fifteen MD 500s were seized and the Semlers were tried in 1987 for violating a law forbidding export of nearly anything to North Korea. It was alleged that Fluggeratte was simply a front company to ship the aircraft to North Korea, and that it had been promised a profit of $10 million for completing the deal. It was also revealed that a London insurer was in the know, and that payments had been laundered through Swiss bank accounts.

McDonnell Douglas had been duped into shipping nearly a hundred scout helicopters to a country that still considered itself at war with the United States. However, the Semler brothers were let off with light sentences in exchange for guilty pleas, claiming they had been misled by Behrens as to the destination of the helicopters. They paid fines far below the value of the money they had received for shipping the helicopters. Behrens rather dubiously claimed the MD 500s did not fall under the export ban because they were not military types.

Later it was revealed that the CIA had been aware of the smuggling operation. It had been administered by a North Korean attaché in Berlin, and facilitated by a Soviet front trucking company in West Germany. However, the intelligence agency declined to inform civil authorities, because it didn’t want to reveal it had bugged the embassy.

Still, why would North Korea even want MD 500s? The civilian models certainly didn’t possess any advanced technology or specialized military gear that the North Korea or the Soviet Union would have been dying to get a hold of.

However, many countries would acquire both military and civilian MD 500s legitimately, due to their very low cost, and adapt them into military roles with gun pods and rockets. And it so happens that one of those countries was South Korea: Korean Air had delivered more than 270 MD 500s under a license for the Republic of Korea Army and Air Force.

Thus, it seems that North Korea likely acquired the MD 500s so it could use them to infiltrate across the demilitarized zone with South Korean markings, conducting surprise raids and inserting spies and saboteurs. North Korea maintains more than two hundred thousand commandos in its Special Operations Forces, more than any other country in the world. In the event of a conflict with its southern neighbor, Pyongyang would deploy thousands of operatives behind South Korean lines via tunnels, submarines, stealthy motor boats and helicopters to disrupt communication and supply lines and spread panic. Indeed, upon learning of the MD 500 caper, South Korean president Chun Doo-hwan angrily upbraided Washington for inadvertently making infiltration easier.

Pyongyang kept its substantial MD 500 fleet under wraps for decades, though a North Korean colonel admitted to the purchase in a 1996 interview with Der Spiegel. Keeping the aircraft functioning and supplied with spare parts would have posed quite a challenge. After the unveiling in 2013, a quartet of the American-built helicopters was again on display at the 2016 Wonsan air show, one of the choppers performing stunts for the audience.

The MD 500s seen over Pyongyang were modified to carry four Susong-Po antitank missiles. These are locally produced derivatives of the Russian Malyutka-P (NATO codename AT-3 Sagger-C), an older missile semiautomatically guided by the firer via a control wire. An earlier version of the AT-3 made a name for itself blowing up Israeli Patton tanks during the Yom Kippur War in 1973. This suggests North Korea envisions an attack role for the handy little choppers.

South Korea, for its part, may have its own plans for its large MD 500 fleet, which includes fifty antitank types armed with TOW missiles. Korean Air is proposing to transform these Little Birds into drone helicopters! This could be a handy way to employ the copters in a battle zone where their survivability rate might not be very high.

Pyongyang is not the only nation to attempt such shenanigans using shell companies. Iran famously acquired parts from the United States for its F-14 Tomcat fighters for decades. In 1992, shell companies established by the United Kingdom managed to purchase several T-80 tanks from Russia at a generous $5 million a piece, supposedly for service in Morocco. Instead, they were thoroughly taken apart and evaluated by the British, and then sent to the United States. More recently in 2015, U.S. citizen Alexander Brazhnikov was arrested after using shell companies in Ireland, Latvia, Panama and five other nations to smuggle $65 million in restricted electronics to the Russian defense ministry, nuclear-weapons program and intelligence services.

Still, none of these episodes quite match North Korea’s rare feat in shipping over eighty-seven factory-fresh helicopters from the United States.

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. He currently writes on security and military history for War Is Boring.

This article first appeared in 2013.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Mark Episkopos

NATO vs. Russia,

But if the Baltics have really been so vulnerable for so many years, why is it that the Russians have yet to attack?

Is NATO able to fend off a large-scale Russian invasion of the Baltic states? No, according to most experts.

A 2016 RAND Corporation report, “Reinforcing Deterrence on NATO’s Eastern Flank,” conducted a series of wargames simulating a Russian assault on the Baltic states. The report reached an “unambiguous” conclusion: Russia’s Western Military District (WMD) can steamroll NATO’s most vulnerable members at a moment’s notice, reaching the outskirts of Tallinn or Riga-- the capitals of Estonia and Latvia, respectively-- in sixty hours or less.

The report, authored by David Shlapak and Michael Johnson, attributed NATO’s crushing defeat to what is an entirely lopsided correlation of forces. The WMD (and to a lesser extent, Kaliningrad) units that would take part in the invasion not only vastly outnumber their NATO counterparts, but are qualitatively superior in most respects. The WMD has received a slew of modern hardware over the past decade, inducing the S-400 missile system, the new T-72B3M main battle tank (MBT), and BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicle (IFV’s).

The report argues that NATO’s light and under-equipped Baltic assets are little match for Russia’s motorized heavy divisions. The tactical disparity is so great, posit the authors, that NATO infantry wouldn’t even be able to retreat successfully from the Russian onslaught and would instead find themselves “destroyed in place.” Even when accounting for the effective use of NATO air power that could inflict noticeable losses on advancing Russian forces, NATO simply lacks the conventional means to resist a full-scale Russian invasion of the Baltic states.

The report further argues that this “Fait Accompli” presents western leaders and NATO high command with three unpalatable options:

1) a bloody and likely abortive counteroffensive to retake the Baltics;

2) to threaten nuclear retaliation, with all of the escalatory risks that entail;

3) or to “concede at least temporary defeat,” thrusting the future of the alliance into question.

The report ends with a proposed course of action by which NATO can avoid the Fait Accompli altogether: a military buildup of about “about seven brigades, including three heavy armored brigades—adequately supported by airpower, land-based fires, and other enablers on the ground and ready to fight at the onset of hostilities.” These forces are still not enough to defeat the Russian incursion outright but will deny Moscow a quick victory and impose severe losses on the invading army. The ensuing battle of attrition will favor the wealthier and more materially powerful west, establishing what the authors see as a sufficient deterrent against Russian aggression.

Five years later, the correlation of forces on NATO’s eastern flank has not drastically shifted. The Baltic states have gradually ramped up their defense spending and receive a steady stream of US military aid, but these modest measures are being offset by Russia’s continued military buildup on its western outskirts and in its Central European enclave of Kaliningrad. A 2021 paper, published by the Swedish Research Agency, largely replicated the 2016 RAND report’s conclusion that Russia’s military can overwhelm the Baltic region in a matter of days.

But if the Baltics have really been so vulnerable for so many years, why is it that the Russians have yet to attack?

Experts have noted that the likelihood of such an invasion remains exceedingly low under present circumstances, in large part because capability does not imply intent. It is indisputably true that Russia can annex the Baltic states with negligible short-term costs, but the avalanche of medium to long-term military, economic, and political consequences-- up to and including an escalatory spiral that could trigger WWIII-- far outstrips any of the dubious, ill-defined benefits that could possibly come from such an endeavor.

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

David Axe

Artillery, Asia

Much of Pyongyang’s artillery is in range of the Seoul Greater Metropolitan Area, which begins just 25 miles south of the Demilitarized Zone.

Here's What You Need to Know: A North Korean artillery barrage could inflict as many as 250,000 casualties in Seoul alone.

Pyongyang back on May 9, 2019 launched a second “projectile,” South Korean officials said.

The May tests of at least one apparently nuclear-capable short-range missile startled foreign observers and threatened to elevate tensions between the United States and its allies South Korea and Japan on one side and, on the other side, North Korea and its main patron China.

But a less dramatic test of North Korea’s heavy artillery that occured at the same time as the May 4 rocket launch arguably is more important.

“On May 4, under the watchful eye of Kim Jong Un, North Korea launched a series of projectiles featuring two types of large-caliber, multiple launch rocket systems and a new short-range ballistic missile,” Michael Elleman wrote for 38 North, a North Korea-focused think tank associated with the Washington, D.C.-based Stimson Center.

“A few days later, North Korea released photographs of tested projectiles, which provides a basis for preliminary evaluations,” Elleman continued. “The 240-millimeter and 300-millimeter diameter MLRS systems are not new to North Korea, nor do they alter the country’s battlefield capabilities.”

It’s true that Pyongyang long has operated large-caliber artillery systems. But Elleman is wrong to downplay the significance of the May 2019 artillery test. That’s because North Korea’s roughly 13,000 artillery pieces arguably pose a greater immediate threat than do Pyongyang’s nukes to South Koreans and Americans living in South Korea.

In firing the artillery at the same time as it launched a ballistic missile, North Korea reminded the world of its enormous conventional firepower. North Korea previously tested, in November 2018, upgrades to its non-nuclear artillery.

Much of Pyongyang’s artillery is in range of the Seoul Greater Metropolitan Area, which begins just 25 miles south of the Demilitarized Zone separating the two Koreas. Some 10 million people live in the Greater Seoul Metropolitan Area and another 15 million reside just outside of the metropolitan area. South Korea has prepared underground shelters for Seoul’s entire population.

“Though the expanding range of North Korea’s ballistic missiles is concerning, a serious, credible threat to 25 million [Republic of Korea] citizens and approximately 150,000 U.S. citizens living in the [Greater Seoul Metropolitan Area] is also posed from its long-range artillery.” U.S. Army general Vincent Brooks, head of U.S. Forces Korea, told a U.S. Senate committee in March 2018.

“North Korea has deployed at least three artillery systems capable of ranging targets in the [Greater Seoul Metropolitan Area] with virtually no warning,” Brooks warned. The 170-millimeter Koksan gun is the most numerous. It can fire a distance of 37 miles. North Korea also deploys truck-mounted launchers that can fire a volley of as many as 22 240-millimeter rocket out to a range of 37 miles.

The 300-millimeter KN-09 rocket artillery is the newest system. “The rocket was first tested in 2013, with subsequent tests performed in 2014 and 2016,” Elleman explained.

It has a reported range of [118 to 124 miles] and carries a light, conventional warhead. It is powered by a standard composite-type solid fuel. Photographs show that the rocket is steered during flight by four small canard fins mounted at the rocket’s front end, near the warhead section, which provides for precision strikes if the guidance unit includes a satellite navigation receiver to update the inertial navigation components.”

The KN-09 is fielded on a six-wheeled truck equipped with two launch pods, each having four launch tubes. Its primary mission is to strike rear echelon targets, some [31 to 62 miles] behind the primary line of battle.

"Even without using nuclear weapons, North Korea has the capacity to unleash a devastating level of violence against a significant portion of the ROK population through some mix of conventional artillery and possibly chemical munitions," according to a January 2019 report from RAND, a California think tank with close ties to the U.S. military.

A North Korean artillery barrage could inflict as many as 250,000 casualties in Seoul alone, RAND reported, citing a U.S. Defense Department estimate.

David Axe served as Defense Editor of the National Interest. He is the author of the graphic novels  War Fix, War Is Boring and Machete Squad. This first appeared in 2019 and is being reposted due to reader interest.

This article first appeared in 2019.

Image: Reuters

Ethen Kim Lieser

Delta Force,

"My hands were tingling from the rucksack straps cutting into my shoulders, pinching the nerves and arteries, and restricting the blood flow to my arms.”

The Delta Force, officially known as 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta (1st SFOD-D), is a U.S. special-missions unit that is primarily focused on counter-terrorism engagements.

Considered a tier-one counter-terrorist unit, it is specifically directed to kill or capture high-value units or dismantle terrorist cells. However, the Delta Force remains extremely flexible in its overall missions—having previously taken part in hostage rescues and covert missions working directly with the Central Intelligence Agency and even offering protective services for high-ranking officials.

Currently, the Delta Force receives its recruits from all across the Army, including many candidates from the Ranger Regiments and Special Forces Groups. To initially qualify, recruits must be enlisted in the Army, be male, have at least four years in service and two and a half years of service left on enlistment, and is within the rank of E4-E8. Keep in mind that there are no civilian-to-Delta enlistment programs available.

To get started, one must attend infantry One Station Unit Training (OSUT), which combines Army Basic Training and Infantry AIT (Advanced Individual Training) in one fourteen-week course. This will give you the fundamental skills to make a successful transition from a civilian into a soldier. If you pass that, then you will attend Airborne Training at Fort Benning. Special Forces troopers who eventually want to join Delta Force must qualify for and complete this particular training.

Next up is the Special Operations Preparation Course (SOPC), which can take four weeks and typically leads up to the Special Forces Assessment and Selection (SFAS) program. The SFAS must be passed before being admitted to Special Forces training.

If the boxes are all checked by now, then you will aim to pass the individual skills phase of training. During this period, soldiers are trained on specialized skills necessary to be successful in any Special Forces engagement. The training period is forty days long and covers land navigation, cross-country map exercise, and small unit tactics.

Taking up another sixty-five days is the Military Operational Specialty (MOS) training phase, which culminates with a mission planning cycle that will put your leadership skills to the test. Your experience, training, and specialty as a soldier will largely dictate what responsibilities you’ll have during MOS.

For the thirty-eight-day Collective Training Phase, soldiers are trained in Special Operations (SO) classes, Direct Action (DA) Isolation, Air Operations, Unconventional Warfare classes, and receive isolation training. This is considered one of the most mentally and physically challenging training one will have to go through in the U.S. military.

To offer some sense of what an individual must overcome to be admitted into the Delta Force, here’s what author Eric Haney had to say about one particular long-distance hike in his book Inside Delta Force.

“I had covered just slightly over thirty miles by now, but still had more than twenty to go. It was getting more and more difficult to do speed computations in my head. My hands were tingling from the rucksack straps cutting into my shoulders, pinching the nerves and arteries, and restricting the blood flow to my arms.”

He continued: “I was bent forward against the weight of the rucksack. It felt like I was dragging a train behind me, and my feet hurt all the way up to my knees. I don’t mean they were just sore, I mean they felt like I had been strapped to the rack and someone had beaten the balls of my feet with a bat. I tried to calculate the foot-pounds of energy my feet had absorbed so far today, but I had to give up the effort. I only knew that the accumulated tonnage of all those thousands of steps was immense. And it was only going to get worse.”

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

Kris Osborn

Taiwan and China, Asia

The PLA will soon be able to airlift full-scale Chinese Main Battle Tanks.

Here's What You Need to Remember: An ability to transport a Type T99 main battle tank would be massively significant to any kind of ground war effort, especially since the U.S. Army M1Abrams tanks need to deploy overseas by boat. Air deployment of a massive tank exponentially decreases deployment attack timelines and would enable a heavy mechanized force to strike on a vastly different timetable. 

The People’s Liberation Army will soon be able to airlift full-scale Chinese Main Battle Tanks on board an upgraded Y-20 cargo plane, now being outfitted with a first-of-its-kind domestically built engine. 

The new WS-20 engine, which has not as of yet been formally announced as having integrated onto the Y-20, was reportedly seen flying on the aircraft according to multiple news reports cited in the Chinese government-backed Global Times newspaper. 

“The Xi'an Aircraft Industry (Group) Company Ltd under the state-owned Aviation Industry Corporation of China, the maker of the Y-20, released a photo that showed a turbofan engine with a high bypass ratio that had never been seen before, Beijing-based Aerospace Knowledge magazine reported on Saturday,” the Global Times reports. 

A new WS-20 equipped Y-20 would, according to the paper, be able to operate with much more thrust and less fuel as well as be able to take off and land on shorter runways. An increased ability to operate in more austere circumstances certainly increases the tactical scenarios in which a Y-20 could help deploy troops, equipment, supplies, weapons and even large platforms such as tanks. 

An ability to transport a Type T99 main battle tank would be massively significant to any kind of ground war effort, especially since the U.S. Army M1Abrams tanks need to deploy overseas by boat. Air deployment of a massive tank exponentially decreases deployment attack timelines and would enable a heavy mechanized force to strike on a vastly different timetable. 

“With the domestically made engines, the Y-20 can become capable of long-range or intercontinental flight while carrying heavy equipment like main battle tanks without stopping at a transit airfield for refuelling,” the Global Times reports. 

The U.S. Army’s massive emphasis upon rapid reaction deployment possibilities, something which could be described as an ability to optimize expeditionary warfare, rests in large measure upon the logistical reality that heavy mechanized vehicles such as an Abrams simply cannot travel by air. This circumstance helps explain why the Army is fast-tracking an air-droppable Mobile Protected Firepower light tank vehicle. Should major threats or some kind of large scale land war quickly become urgently needed, getting armored forces to the fight would become an instant priority.

The development almost immediately brings Taiwan to mind, given that an ability to air-deploy Type T99 tanks could give attacking Chinese forces a rapid forcible entry option, and possibly be trail closely behind or accompany some kind of amphibious assault. Tank-carrying aircraft transiting from mainland China to Taiwan could of course travel much more quickly and much less visible than tank-transporting ships. This could even, quite possibly, be part of why the U.S. has been moving to sell Abrams tanks to Taiwan, a clear way to enable massive armored defense against a possible Chinese invasion.

Perhaps having Abrams tanks on the island of Taiwan could impede or slow up any Chinese ground invasion long enough to allow time for the U.S. military to intervene. 

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 Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.  

Michael Rubin

Rwandan Genocide,

It is beyond dispute that Hutu militants carried out a deliberate, coordinated, and pre-planned assault to eliminate the Tutsi as a group.

Both Democratic and Republican administrations consistently condemn Holocaust and genocide denial. It is ironic, then, that beginning with the Obama administration and continuing through Trump’s term, the State Department appears to be driving revisionism about the 1994 Rwanda genocide.

That the 20th century witnessed numerous genocides against ethnic and religious communities is one of the darkest marks of the century. While genocide did not originate in the 20th century, the willingness of the world to confront and acknowledge such crimes with the hope to ensure they never happen again differentiates that century from those that came before.

The reality that Adolf Hitler killed six million Jews is not up for serious debate. Nor do scholars and diplomats allow the fact that the Nazis also targeted non-Jews—homosexuals, Roma, the mentally and physically handicapped, Jehovah’s witnesses, and those of African descent—obfuscate the fact that, for the Nazis, the desire to eradicate Jews everywhere was the Holocaust’s defining feature.

The same holds true for the Armenian genocide. On October 29, 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives passed Resolution 296 by a margin of 405-11. The Resolution declared, “It is the policy of the United State to commemorate the Armenian Genocide through official recognition and remembrance; [and] reject efforts to enlist, engage, or otherwise associate the United States Government with denial of the Armenian Genocide or any other genocide….”

That it took the United States so long was the result both of Jewish interest groups which feared diluting the uniqueness of the Holocaust, historical ignorance about premeditated intent, and the strength of the Turkish lobby that fears Turkey might be held to account and forced to make reparations. Taken together, though, such reluctance was a black mark and compromised moral clarity. Turkish nationalists may bluster, but there is no denying the Armenian genocide as the first of the twentieth century. That anti-Turkish ethnic cleansing occurred in parts of the Balkans does not mitigate or excuse what Turks and their proxies did to Armenians.

That Turkey and Azerbaijan both launched a surprise attack on the Armenian-populated enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh on the 100th anniversary of Turkey’s invasion of independent Armenia and that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Azerbaijani dictator Ilham Aliyev engaged in racist, eliminationist rhetoric underlies the importance of not sweeping genocide under-the-rug; denying genocide only encourages its perpetrators to keep trying.

The State Department, however, appears not to learned its lesson when it comes to Rwanda. Beginning under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton but continuing through the Trump administration, the policy of the United States has been to refuse to recognize the 1994 Rwandan genocide as anti-Tutsi in nature. This is rooted both in the logic that others died in the violence and that the promise of a more clear accounting of genocide could be leverage to extract concessions from Rwanda.

Such a position is both extralegal and ahistorical. Article II of the Convention for the Prevention of Genocide defines genocide as the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” by engaging in acts such as “killing members of the group,” “causing serious bodily or mental harm” or “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”

As for the 1994 violence, it is beyond dispute that Hutu militants carried out a deliberate, coordinated, and pre-planned assault to eliminate the Tutsi as a group. Certainly, Hutus also died in the violence, but these victims were those whom Hutu extremists saw as political obstacles or those who refused to cooperate in the killings. These Hutu were honorable, but they do not change the goals of the genocide. The fact that non-Jews (including many Germans) died in the Holocaust and that non-Armenians died in the Armenian genocide is not cause to dismiss the true intent of either.

Likewise, recognizing the reality that events in 1994 constituted an anti-Tutsi genocide does not erase the fact that some Tutsis in the Rwandan Patriotic Front may have committed war crimes. Most of these were individual in nature and of the sort that occurs in nearly every armed conflict rather than state or group policy. As J. Peter Pham, former U.S. special envoy for the Great Lakes Region, explained to me, “Even the most anti-Paul Kagame analyst – and there are quite a number of claimants to that title, especially in Europe – has never claimed that the future Rwandan President of the Rwandan Patriotic Front organized a genocide of the Hutus.” Subsequent developments in the region—be they Kagame’s consolidation of power, the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo, or Hollywood anger at the terrorism trial of Paul Rusesabagina—do not change what Hutu génocidaires planned and executed.

The refusal of the United States, however, to acknowledge the anti-Tutsi nature of genocide has real-world policy implications. It empowers the cynical moral equivalency of those like Brian Endless, director of the African studies and Africa diaspora program at Loyola University Chicago, for example, who claims absent any research conducted in Rwanda that more Hutus than Tutsis died in 1994 as a means to undermine the moral capital of Kagame’s administration.

In effect, such efforts to deny genocide to spite Kagame would be analogous to promoting Holocaust denial because of animosity toward Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, or to suggest that Armenians killed more Turks in 1915 than vice versa out of frustration with Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan.

The continued refusal by Washington to designate properly the genocide is problematic for three reasons: First, lack of moral clarity undermines U.S. diplomatic capital in the region. Second, it opens the United States to charges that its policy is inherently racist for diminishing deliberately a genocide perpetrated primarily against Africans. Lastly, it enables Hutu extremists such as those in the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda to avoid the pariah status that Neo-Nazis and anti-Armenian Grey Wolves today share. To refuse to address the genocide with moral clarity only encourages deniers and revisionists who would turn to violence in pursuit of political power.

Perhaps diplomats fear that Kagame might seek political capital from formal genocide recognition. Historical accuracy, however, should trump handwringing about short-term politics. President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken have said they seek to return gravitas and morality to American foreign policy. Ending denial and revisionism about the 1994 Rwanda genocide in the State Department’s Bureau of African Affairs would be a good place to start.

Dr. Michael Rubin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, where he specializes in Iran, Turkey, and the broader Middle East. He also regularly teaches classes at sea about Middle East conflicts, culture, terrorism, and the Horn of Africa to deployed US Navy and Marine units.

Kris Osborn

U.S. Army, Americas

The military wants remote-controlled robots that could carry anti-tank missiles into battle.

Key point: The Robotic Combat Vehicle could be a game-changer. Here is how the Army hopes to use them for more dangerous tasks.

Tank-killing robots, armed with Javelin Missiles, wireless remote firing technology, .50-cal machine guns and long-range infrared targeting sensors are now arriving to the Army as part of the service’s ambitious program to engineer a new class of light, medium, and heavy robots for war.

Technological advances with autonomy, weaponization, sensing, and manned-unmanned teaming are fast impacting the tactical equation, and informing the Army’s strategic approach to anticipated future conflict.

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

Forward-operating Robotic Combat Vehicle - Light platforms, for example, will be able to advance on enemy positions, send back real-time video sensor information and, if directed by a human, attack.

Several weapons-makers RCV-L vehicles are now starting to arrive, such as an armed robot made by QinetiQ and Pratt Miller Defense, a tracked, hybrid-electric unmanned ground system engineered with a remotely operated, wireless gun targeting system.

A statement from Qinetic said their delivered RCV-L is the first of four planned vehicle deliveries to the Army’s Combat Capabilities Development Command Ground Vehicle Systems Center (GVSC).

“This unit is the first of four vehicles developed in support of the Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T) Soldier Operational Experiment, planned for 2022. The GVSC team now plans to add Autonomous Mobility as well as Government Furnished Software for the Tethered UAS Multi-Mission Payload and CROWS-J Lethality package,” the QinetiQ statement reads.

Increasingly networked and autonomous tank-killing robots would certainly impact any kind of tactical ground war, given the technical maturation of drone-manned-vehicle networking. A small, fast, highly-mobile tracked robot, armed with Javelin anti-tank missiles could of course more safely conduct reconnaissance operations and, when directed by human commanders, open fire on enemy tanks while soldiers retain command and control at a safe stand-off distance. By itself, a Javelin anti-tank missile can hit ranges out to at least several miles, a circumstance which extends the attack envelope for well-networked ground forces.

A large part of this will also be cross-domain air-ground-sea drone coordination, given the Army’s evolving emphasis upon massively decreasing sensor to shooter time.

Ground robots are increasingly being configured to network with aerial drones, manned vehicles, command and control centers and even satellites with vastly improved range, speed, connectivity and data processing.

The fundamental premise of this kind of tactical approach was recently demonstrated in a large-scale Army live-fire experiment in September called Project Convergence at Yuma Proving Grounds, Ariz. The exercise, succeeding in drastically reducing sensor-to-shooter time through the use of interconnected helicopters, drones, AI systems and armored ground vehicles. Several attack scenarios were entertained, including the use of mini-drones called air-launched effects, satellite networking and ground attack infantry carriers.

Through the live-fire event, the Army succeeded in decreasing sensor to shooter time from 20 minutes down to 20 seconds, advancing the concept that combat attack is no longer understood as a “kill-chain,” but rather, a vast, integrated “kill web.”

Kris Osborn is 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 Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University. This first appeared earlier and is being reposted due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters.