The National Interest

Caleb Larson

M24,

For several decades, the U.S. Army’s standard sniper rifle was the M24, essentially a slightly modified version of the Remington 700 rifle, known for its high accuracy. In addition to tight shot groupings even at greater rangers, the M24 sniper rifle is also incredibly robust, retaining accuracy well past when it was expected to.

For several decades, the U.S. Army’s standard sniper rifle was the M24, essentially a slightly modified version of the Remington 700 rifle, known for its high accuracy. In addition to tight shot groupings even at greater rangers, the M24 sniper rifle is also incredibly robust, retaining accuracy well past when it was expected to.

One Army Major who was involved with the rifle’s testing said the following about the rifle: “Interesting side note was there was a 10,000 round requirement for the barrel to maintain the original accuracy. In fact, after some 10,000 round tests, we discovered the accuracy improved. A few barrels were tested past 20,000 and accuracy never went below the original accuracy requirement.” The Army adopted the rifle in the late 1980s, and though it remains an excellent medium-distance rifle, it has since been outclassed by more modern rifle designs.

Beginning in the early 2010s, the Army began to move away from the M24 platform in favor of the M110, a suppressed semi-automatic platform. The Army has also issued the M2010 Enhanced Sniper Rifle (a bolt-action design) in some numbers to Army sniper teams. Lessons learned from the long-distance engagements that defined some of the fighting in Afghanistan necessitated a weapon system that could hit targets farther out than the 800 meter distances the M24 was capable of.

The M2010 is chambered in the .300 Winchester Magnum cartridge. Though the cartridge’s bullet is the same diameter as the 7.62x51mm NATO, the case is 16mm longer and can hold more propellent allowing for engagements at approximately 50 percent greater ranges than what had been possible with the M24.

Like the Army, the United States Marine Corps has fielded a variant of the Remington Model 700 Rifle, the M40. Though the Army’s M24 and the Marine Corps’ M40 are chambered in the same 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge, the Army’s M24 long action allows for the rifle to fire longer rifle cartridges with the same bullet diameter like the .300 Winchester Magnum, whereas the Marine’s M40’s short action cannot fire cartridges longer than the original NATO cartridge.

In any case, after over 50 years of service, the Marines are moving away from the M40 platform in favor of Barrett Firearms’ Multi-role Adaptive Design rifle. The MRAD is a highly adaptable platform that can quickly be reconfigured for a variety of cartridges, allowing for high shooter customization. It can in essence be tailor-made to whatever mission requirements would be and offers a considerably greater range than either the M24 or M40. You can read more about the powerful rifle here.

Despite the M24’s long and storied history, the rifle will likely be seen less and less in the U.S. military, as the rifle just can’t compete with the improvements in weight, range, and accuracy afforded by alternative precision rifle platforms. Still, over thirty years in Army service was a good run, and a testament to the M24 sniper rifle’s solid design.

Caleb Larson is a Defense Writer based in Europe. He holds a Master of Public Policy and covers U.S. and Russian security, European defense issues, and German politics and culture.

Charlie Gao

Submarines, Asia

Against Chinese submarines, Seoul's technology edge is not significant.

Here's What You Need to Know: The KSS-III is looking to be heavier and larger than the KSS-II and KSS-I.

While South Korea is not known for its submarine fleet, it possesses a decent sized, quietly capable fleet. The ultimate goal of the Republic of Korea Navy (ROKN) is to produce their own diesel-electric attack submarine. The current fleet is relatively modern and possesses a strong overall capability for a diesel-electric fleet. But how does it stack up against the sub fleet of China and North Korea? Like many South Korean projects (eg. KDX-I, KDX-II, KDX-III for destroyers), the sub fleet is produced in a series of three. The KSS-I and KSS-II are German designs. The KSS-III will be the indigenous diesel-electric attack submarine. Some rumors have been floating around about a KSS-N nuclear submarine, but there is no concrete information on whether this proposal is being taken seriously. All submarines are relatively recent purchases, with the KSS-I being delivered in a series of two deals from 1993 to 2001, and the KSS-II being delivered from 2007 to the current day.

Consider the KSS-I, alternately referred to as the Chang Bogo-class, or Type 209/1200 in the German export designation is a simple diesel-electric attack submarine. The number “1200” in the German designation indicates the tonnage of the submarine. Armed with eight standard 533mm torpedo tubes, the primary weapon of the KSS-I is the German SUT torpedo, it is an export torpedo originally developed in the 1970s. The torpedo is electrically driven and wire-guided, with a max speed of 35 knots and a range of around 40km.

The ROKN operates the Mod 2 variant of the SUT, which allows the firing submarine to receive data from the seeker of the torpedo, potentially increasing accuracy and allowing it to act as a remote sensor for the submarine. The ROKN ordered two batches of 48 SUT Mod 2s along with their Type 209 submarines. The KSS-I was later modernized to utilize sub-launched Harpoon missiles as well as the indigenous Korean “White Shark” active-homing fire-and-forget torpedo. Nine KSS-1s are operated by the ROKN, with no plans to acquire more.  Further modernization of the type is being considered, including attaching additional sonar arrays and possibly converting them from diesel-electric to air-independent propulsion. The design continues to be produced for export, Korean companies acquired a license to build the submarine and are selling three of the type to Indonesia.

The KSS-II, or Son-Won-Il-class in ROKN service, or Type 214 continues the trend of the ROKN fielding German submarine designs. Unlike the KSS-I, the first ship of which was built in Germany, all KSS-IIs are built by Korean companies: Daewoo and Hyundai. The major advantage of the KSS-II is that it utilizes air-independent propulsion (AIP), allowing it to be more stealthy and stay underwater longer than earlier designs. It accomplishes this through the use of Siemens polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells. The AIP system augments the existing diesel-electric powerplant, only running when the submarine is submerged. As installed on the KSS-II, the AIP system gives an underwater endurance of two weeks. Armament is generally similar to the KSS-I, with the submarine being able to use torpedoes and anti-ship submarine-launch missiles. The type also fields the ISUS 90 command and control system that amalgamates all sensor input and command and control functions. As standard per its class, the KSS-II is fitted with bow and flank sonar modules. The final KSS-II was completed in September 2017, being the ninth boat of its class.

After the completion of the KSS-II, South Korea wanted to craft its own design. The KSS-III is looking to be heavier and larger than the KSS-II and KSS-I.

It’s estimated that the KSS-III will weigh around 3000 tons, more than twice as heavy as the KSS-I. A lot of the weight probably comes from the expanded armament of the KSS-III: it’s designed with a vertical launch system that can fire the Korean Hyunmoon ballistic missile or a myriad of other missiles, possibly including the American Tomahawk. This would give the ROKN a significant sub strike capability, posing a threat against China or other larger navies they may be facing. Nine KSS-IIIs are planned to be procured in three batches of three, with increasing levels of indigenous technology in each batch. Notably, the number of VLS cells is expected to increase from six to ten in later batches of the KSS-III. No KSS-IIIs are complete, however, the keel for the first KSS-III was laid in 2016. Other KSS-IIIs are being produced at the same time, with steel being cut for the third KSS-III in July 2017.

The KSS-II and KSS-III designs compare favorably to any submarine the Korean People’s Navy can field. They possess advanced AIP propulsion designs allowing them to run quieter and longer and can fire more modern torpedos. They also have a superior sensor fit, having flank sonars, which have not been reported as being equipped on any North Korean submarines. Against Chinese submarines, the technology edge is not as significant. In general, the armament fit of the KSS-series appears to be superior, with the SUT Mod 2 having a longer range and targeting flexibility compared to the Yu-4 and Yu-6 which arm China’s Type 039 attack submarines. However, the latest Chinese submarines, the Type 039A class, appear to incorporate advanced sonar signature reduction techniques which may impede the ability for the Korean submarines to detect them.

Charlie Gao studied Political and Computer Science at Grinnell College and is a frequent commentator on defense and national security issues.

This article first appeared in June 2018.

Image: 

Caleb Larson

B-52 Bomber,

The United States’ venerable B-52 bomber fleet could be getting a new hypersonic missile currently in development by the Air Force — the Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile — to allow them to stay relevant in a future fight.

The United States’ venerable B-52 bomber fleet could be getting a new hypersonic missile currently in development by the Air Force — the Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile — to allow them to stay relevant in a future fight.

In comments given to the Air Force Association’s winter meeting, Global Strike Command Head Gen. Timothy Ray said that “Certainly, we’re in the in the conversation for the HACM as that gets developed,” Breaking Defense reported. “I’m not in a place where I can give you the dates and times. But as the Air Force looks at … how we continue to go down that path, I believe the HACM will give us an additional set of capabilities that will be both fitted for bombers and for fighter aircraft. So I think it’s a pretty special capability to keep our eye on.”

The Air Force previously reported on the HACM, explaining that it would ultimately be a hypersonic air-breathing cruise missile. In contrast to other hypersonic boost-glide missiles which rely on solid-fuel rockets to reach sub-orbital space, the HACM’s advanced scramjet air-breathing engine technology would make it dependent on atmospheric oxygen for combustion and therefore propulsion, give it a shorter, lower altitude flight profile.

In tandem with the HACM, the Air Force also has a more conventional rocket-powered hypersonic vehicle, the Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon, or ARRW. The Air Force intends the ARRW to be launched from the B-52 as well as the B-1B Lancer bombers, both of which will carry the missile externally on hardpoints. Will Roper, the former Assistant Secretary of the Air Force also suggested that the new missile could be carried by Air Force F-15s as well.

In addition to the new weaponry, the B-52 will also be getting new engines. Though the Air Force has not yet selected a firm to replace their aged B-52 engines, the hope is that newer, more efficient engines will reduce fuel consumption and improve performance, allowing the B-52 to fly well into the 2050s — fully a century after its first flight.

Despite the efforts to keep the B-52 in the sky for several more decades, the Air Force’s newest bomber is also well underway. The highly stealthy B-21 Raider bomber’s maiden flight should be sometime later this year or early next year, somewhat delayed due to the ongoing pandemic.

The Air Force is currently phasing out their B-1B Lancer bombers, and regardless of when exactly the B-21 is ready for service, the Air Force will ultimately maintain a mixed fleet of brand-new, highly stealthy bombers, and enormous Cold War-era hypersonic-toting bombers. Irregardless of the B-52’s age — it won’t go away anytime soon.

Caleb Larson is a Defense Writer based in Europe. He holds a Master of Public Policy and covers U.S. and Russian security, European defense issues, and German politics and culture.

Ethen Kim Lieser

Gas Prices,

In recent weeks, oil prices have surged to more than $65 a barrel. And gas prices in step already have risen about 35 cents a gallon on average over the past month, according to the AAA motor club—and could reach the much-feared $4 a gallon territory in some states by this summer.

The rise in gasoline prices across the United States has been ramping up in recent weeks, but it appears that industry executives are still reluctant to pump more oil out of the ground.

This is indeed bad news for travelers who want to hit the road on the cheap this spring and summer.

In recent weeks, oil prices have surged to more than $65 a barrel. And gas prices in step already have risen about 35 cents a gallon on average over the past month, according to the AAA motor club—and could reach the much-feared $4 a gallon territory in some states by this summer.

These quickly swelling prices, however, have been anticipated for weeks.

Last month, when the artic freeze was pummeling much of the United States, the fuel price tracking website GasBuddy projected that the national average for gas prices could surge as much as 10 to 20 cents per gallon from the average price of $2.54 per gallon.

It contended that such an increase in prices at the pump could lead the national average to rise to $2.65 to $2.75 per gallon—the highest prices seen since 2019 and the highest seasonal prices in more than five years. More than forty states are already seeing gas prices higher than last year, with half seeing double-digit increases.

“The quicker the affected refineries are able to come back online, the better, and perhaps less painful for motorists than if they remain out of service for even longer,” Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, said in a statement, adding that the national average could surge to $3 per gallon closer to Memorial Day weekend as refineries eventually begin to switch over to EPA-mandated cleaner summer fuels.

“Oil prices have continued to rally as global oil demand recovers from the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic, and now the extreme cold weather shutting refineries down, us motorists just can’t seem to catch a break. We probably won’t see much, if any relief, anytime soon.”

Some areas will witness a more negative impact. “Expect gas prices to rise more closer to the markets these refineries serve, primarily Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, the Carolinas, and potentially even up the coast, as the Colonial pipeline carries refined products from the affected refineries as far as New Jersey,” De Haan added.

The prediction was indeed correct. Since Monday, the national average for a gallon of regular gasoline has climbed by five cents to $2.82. Rising crude prices, tightening gas supplies, and increased gas demand continue to drive pump prices to higher ground.

According to the latest compiled data from the Energy Information Administration, total domestic gas stocks decreased by 11.9 million bbl to 231.6 million bbl, as demand increased from 8.15 million b/d to 8.73 million b/d last week.

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.

Mark Episkopos

North Korea, Asia

Too big and will fail for sure: The DPRK’s army consists of 1.2-1.3 million active personnel with around 6 million more reservists.

Here's What You Need to Know: This is one really old and bloated military force.

North Korea’s defense budget occupies a staggering 23% of its GDP, by far the highest proportion of any 21st-century country. The DPRK’s massive military outlays have gone, in no small part, towards sustaining the fourth-largest standing army in the world. There is little question that North Korea’s prodigious ground forces are, and will be, the backbone of its capacity to wage conventional war on the Korean Peninsula. In the years following the Korean War, the North’s Korea People’s Army (KPA) was markedly smaller, but better-equipped and exponentially more modernized than its southern counterpart. These roles have all but flipped in the decades of North Korean military stagnation and economic neglect that accompanied the collapse of its Soviet benefactor.

A closer look at North Korea’s current ground forces paints the picture of a bloated army, crippled by technical backwardness and severe logistical deficits.

Despite the regime’s insulated nature, the combined efforts of South Korean and U.S. intelligence have generated reliable and fairly consistent data concerning the KPA’s makeup. The DPRK’s army consists of 1.2-1.3 million active personnel with around 6 million more reservists, 6,000 tanks, up to 15,000 artillery pieces, 6,500 - 10,000 armored vehicles, just under 300 military helicopters, and 2,100 rocket launchers.

At first glance, these numbers would seem to put the KPA in the running for one of the world’s strongest armies; in most categories, the DPRK boasts roughly twice the units of South Korea’s armed forces. But the KPA’s sheer numbers belie an altogether different reality: the bulk of KPA equipment is grossly outdated, with a great swathe being borderline inoperable.

For instance, the KPA’s tank force is largely made up of Soviet T-54/55, T-62, and domestic T-62 variants that are more befitting of a military museum than a contemporary battlefield. It remains unclear how many of these antique models, some of which are over seven decades old, are in active service. Even assuming that many or even most of them are in an operable state, the KPA’s tanks are of dubious battlefield value when compared with the much newer and significantly more powerful K-1 and K-2 series tanks fielded by the ROK’s armed forces.

The same dynamic is evident in the KPA’s artillery roster. North Korea’s M-30 and D-20 are mid-20th century Soviet howitzers being held back by their low range and cripplingly poor accuracy. The 170-millimeter Koksan, the KPA’s largest artillery piece, suffers from an abnormally high dud rate and is unlikely to inflict meaningful damage on critical South Korean infrastructure or military equipment before being neutralized by ROK counter-battery fires.

Elsewhere, as with armored combat vehicles and attack helicopters, the ROK occupies both qualitative and quantitative superiority. The KPA’s deficit in the latter is surprisingly stark, with the ROK army boasting downwards of 700 helicopters in active military service.

Not even the KPA’s numerical personnel superiority is without significant caveats. There are credible, well-sourced reports that large swathes of the KPA are plagued by basic equipment shortages, crippling malnourishment and, more recently, a lethal Covid-19 outbreak.

The KPA’s decrepit state follows a similarly grim pattern to that of North Korea’s moribund air force and obsolete parts of its navy. By widespread expert consensus, the DPRK stands to lose decisively in a contemporary conventional war with the ROK.

Pyongyang’s massive conventional defense outlays continue to yield negligible military value. They have succeeded only in propping up a bloated and increasingly unviable military-industrial complex that cannot be meaningfully reformed without a comprehensive decommission and modernization effort.

Mark Episkopos is a frequent contributor to The National Interest and serves as a research assistant at the Center for the National Interest. Mark is also a PhD student in History at American University.

This article first appeared in September 2020.

Image: Reuters

Stephen Silver

Israel Military,

A leading major general in the Israeli Defense Forces said this week that in Israel’s wars in the future, the nation will likely come under fire from rockets and missiles-as many as 2,000 a day.

A leading major general in the Israeli Defense Forces said this week that in Israel’s wars in the future, the nation will likely come under fire from rockets and missiles-as many as 2,000 a day.

The comments came from  OC Home Front Command Maj.-Gen. Uri Gordin at the B’Sheva Conference in Jerusalem, and were reported by The Jerusalem Post.

“[Our] enemies on the different fronts need to know that if needed, we will activate a powerful military that has never been seen before,” Gordin said, per the newspaper.

“They know they cannot defeat us on the battlefield so they try to move the war to a second front and that is our homes and in our cities.”

In the first decades following its independence in 1948, Israel mostly fought conventional air and ground wars against its enemies, including in the 1948 War of Independence, and 1967 Six-Day War, and the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

More recently, however, Israel has often suffered periods of sustained rocket attacks, most often from Hezbollah (located in Lebanon) and Hamas (in Gaza.) This has led specifically to Israeli military action in Gaza in 2008-2009, 2012 and 2014.

Since 2011, Israel has had in place a missile defense system called the Iron Dome. Developed with the assistance of the United States, starting in 2004, the Iron Dome system has been incredibly successful, at least according to the Israeli military. It’s been claimed that the Iron Dome has stopped 95 percent of incoming rockets. 

The National Interest recently explained how the Iron Dome system works:

“The detection technology is the first tier of three. A radar detects the presence of a missile over or near a given area. Then that information is relayed to a control center computer where the missile trajectory is calculated. If the system determines the missile will not hit a populated area, the missile is allowed to land, but if the missile is a threat countermeasures are put into action.”

While Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former President Barack Obama were often at odds during the years they were both in office, Netanyahu did thank Obama, during his address to Congress in 2015, for support of missile defense, including “his support for more missile interceptors during our operation last summer when we took on Hamas terrorists.”

Israel has claimed that the Iron Dome has stopped a total of 2,500 missiles since it became operational a decade ago. Gordin said in his speech that Israel will be hit with 2,000 rockets and missiles a day in the event of a war. According to the Post, Israel believes Hezbollah has about 150,000 rockets and missiles in its arsenal.

 Stephen Silver, a technology writer for The National Interest, is a journalist, essayist and film critic, who is also a contributor to The Philadelphia Inquirer, Philly Voice, Philadelphia Weekly, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Living Life Fearless, Backstage magazine, Broad Street Review and Splice Today. The co-founder of the Philadelphia Film Critics Circle, Stephen lives in suburban Philadelphia with his wife and two sons. Follow him on Twitter at @StephenSilver.

Seth J. Frantzman

Israeli Navy, Middle East

Israel is speeding ahead with country-wide vaccinations and its military forces are ready for action.

Israel’s navy embarked on several unique missions in mid-March. First, along with the rest of the Israel Defense Forces, the navy has become one of the world’s first vaccinated navies. It also embarked on its annual Noble Dina exercise with the Greek navy, which saw the French and Cypriot navies participate for the first time.

The naval drill had to be cancelled last year due to the coronavirus pandemic. Now Israel hopes to be back on the high seas more often with partner countries. This is important because Israel is outfitting its new Sa’ar 6 corvette ship which will defend its exclusive economic zone off the coast from threats. In recent years there has been an uptick in tensions in the eastern Mediterranean. Israel is partnering more often with Greece and Cyprus, on energy deals for instance. In addition, Greece and Cyprus are working more closely with Egypt. Together all these countries are working with France. The elephant in the room is often Turkey, which has cold relations with Israel, Greece, Cyprus, France and Egypt. Israel doesn’t seek to provoke Turkey, but it is clear that these drills are bringing together a series of countries that share interests in the eastern Mediterranean. It appears that in future years the United Arab Emirates or Egypt could participate as Israel partners more closely with Arab states.

The Head of Exercises of the Israeli navy Lieutenant Commander Amichai Rahamim said that Noble Dina is an important drill that has taken place for many years with Greece. The inclusion of France and Cyprus for the first time with naval and air assets was important. The drill took place west of Cyprus. It included surface vessels, a missile boat, submarines, helicopters and planes. “It is focused not only on a surface exercise, also mule-threat exercise of air and underwater and surface threats,” said the commander. “The main task is to combine and cooperate multi-nationally against the threats and practice our forces and ships in answering these threats and building the cooperation against these threats.” 

Enhancing interoperability is important for Israel. Israel’s navy was traditionally a smaller service in Israel and Israel has never been a major naval power. However, in recent years it has sought to acquire more submarines and the Sa’ar 6 ships. These will be packed with Israel’s latest technology. Defending the economic zone is important for Israel, as is working with the French and the United States, more powerful navies that have forces in the region.

“[O]nce we conduct this exercise, we learn a lot and together we are stronger. Our friends over here in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Cyprus and Hellenic navies that are close to us and neighbors at sea. It is important to practice with them as well as with the French and U.S. navy which act in the Mediterranean,” says Rahamim.

Naval tensions have grown in recent weeks between Israel and Iran. On February 26, the Israeli-owned Helios Ray was attacked in the Gulf of Oman and Israel has blamed Iran. Reports on March 11 in The Wall Street Journal also say that Israel has attacked up to a dozen Iranian cargo ships destined for Syria. Israel also blamed Iran for an oil spill off the coast in February. The context therefore is that there are rising tensions and naval units are important for Israel and its security.

Six ships took part in the drill. Israel sent the INS Romach, a missile boat, and a submarine. Israel’s head of Naval Operations, Rear Admiral Eyal Harel said that “over the past week, the Navy led a large-scale exercise in which it implemented capabilities in underwater warfare, search and rescue, convoy escort and surface combat. These exercises are of paramount importance in strengthening the Navy’s connection with foreign fleets who share common interests.” The ships practiced at sea between March 7 and 11.

Seth J. Frantzman is a Jerusalem-based journalist who holds a Ph.D. from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is the executive director of the Middle East Center for Reporting and Analysis and a writing fellow at Middle East Forum. He is the author of After ISIS: America, Iran and the Struggle for the Middle East (Gefen Publishing) and Drone Wars: Pioneers, Killing Machines, Artificial Intelligence, and the Battle for the Future (Forthcoming, Bombardier Books). Follow him on Twitter at @sfrantzman.

Image: Reuters.

Caleb Larson

KF-X,

Despite South Korea’s reputation as a technological powerhouse within Asia, the country has not fielded any stealth fighters — until now.

Despite South Korea’s reputation as a technological powerhouse within Asia, the country has not fielded any stealth fighters — until now. South Korea’s own and only aerospace manufacturer, KAI, is currently working on prototyping the KF-X airplane, or Korea Fighter eXperimental, a jet that though not as stealthy as some advanced 5th generation fighters like the F-35 and F-22, would nonetheless be much stealthier than any of it 4th generation predecessors.

KF-X: Explained 

The KF-X will ultimately replace both the F-4 and F-5 fighter jets, both aged American designs that would not be likely to survive against more modern fighter airplanes or anti-aircraft weaponry. And, like the assistance provided by the United States in securing both of these Cold War-era jets, KAI has reported received some technical assistance from Lockheed Martin for their stealth project.

The KF-X project has been underway since 2015 and is projected to cost 8.8 trillion won or about 7.9 billion USD. In order to offset costs, project costs are split 80-20 between Seoul and Jakarta, with South Korea being the larger partner. And despite the KF-X project’s relative newness, the first prototype stealth fighter could take its maiden flight as soon as 2022.

South Korea’s Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Lee Seong-yong recently visited the KAI plant where the indigenous stealth fighter is being assembled to check on the fighter’s progress Yonhap News Agency reported, where he asked the firm to “work on the project with a sense of duty.”

F-35, Lite? 

The KF-X resembles the American F-35 stealth fighter to a certain degree: both fighters have a prominent nose chine, contoured to scatter enemy radar and preserve the fighter’s stealth profile. Though the two jets share some characteristics, the F-35 would likely be much stealthier than its South Korean counterpart.

Still, the stealth characteristics that the KF-X would likely feature — like radar-deflecting serpentine air intakes and a radar-absorbent coating — would afford the new fighter a reduced radar signature when compared to the F-15s and F-16s that South Korea currently flies.

Though the KF-X does indeed have several radar-mitigating characteristics going for it, one of the big hindrances the platform faces to maintaining its stealth is externally carried weapons. As it lacks an enclosed bomb bay, any ordinance carried on the airframe are potential radar reflection points.

The Future

Ultimately Seoul would like to acquire a total of 120 of the stealthy fighters, which should be delivered in their entirety by 2032, at which point South Korea would become just the second Asian country behind China to field an indigenously-built stealth fighter. One thing that both the Chinese and South Korean new fighter projects have in common? Both programs owe some of their success to the United States’ own research into stealth, albeit in very different ways.

Caleb Larson is a Defense Writer based in Europe. He holds a Master of Public Policy and covers U.S. and Russian security, European defense issues, and German politics and culture.

Image: YouTube Screenshot. 

Caleb Larson

P-8 Poseidon,

A recent announcement from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency — responsible for equipping, training, and advising American overseas allies — cleared the way for the German government to acquire five P-8A Poseidon aircraft as well as associated P-8A support and training equipment. The deal, which you can read here, is worth $1.77 billion.

A recent announcement from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency — responsible for equipping, training, and advising American overseas allies — cleared the way for the German government to acquire five P-8A Poseidon aircraft as well as associated P-8A support and training equipment. The deal is worth $1.77 billion.

The DSCA elaborated on the certification, saying “The proposed sale will improve Germany’s capability to meet current and future threats by providing critical capabilities to coalition maritime operations. Germany currently operates the Lockheed P-3C Orion, but that aircraft is reaching end-of-life and will retire in 2024. Germany plans to replace it with the P-8A Poseidon.

The proposed sale will allow Germany to modernize and sustain its Maritime Surveillance Aircraft (MSA) capability for the next 30 years. Germany will have no difficulty transitioning its MSA force to P-8 and absorbing these aircraft into its armed forces. The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.”

The P-8 is a powerful multi-mission maritime patrol airplane that can conduct surveillance and reconnaissance missions, as well as search and rescue and anti-submarine warfare. The Boeing airframe is similar to the 737NG and share 86% commonality with the commercial airliner airframe, making it financially more economical to operate. Compared to its commercial counterpart, the P-8's airframe is strengthened for better low-altitude handling, and has two turbofan engines, whereas the older Orion has four turboprops.

Germany currently operates 8 P-3C Orions for maritime patrol and surveillance. The airframe design entered American service in the 1960s and has since grown long in the tooth. Berlin had previously examined overhauling and upgrading their Orions, though deemed the effort too costly and technically challenging to be feasible.

This recent acquisition comes on the heels of a freedom of navigation announcement by the German government, which plans to sail a German Navy frigate through the South China Sea later this summer. The area through which the German frigate would sail is claimed in large part by China but not recognized by the international community.

The German Navy has not sailed through the area since 2002, and the planned voyage has been hailed as a strong assertion of Germany’s commitment to international law. Significantly undercutting Berlin’s message, however, is the fact that ship will not pass within 12 nautical miles of islands claimed by China, in essence acknowledging Beijing’s claims to contested islands.

So despite Berlin upgrading their maritime patrol capability and planning an important freedom of navigation gesture, is Germany truly flexing its maritime muscles, or tacitly acknowledging Beijing’s claims in the South China Sea?

Caleb Larson is a Defense Writer with The National Interest. He holds a Master of Public Policy and covers U.S. and Russian security, European defense issues, and German politics and culture.

Caleb Larson

B-21 Raider,

Although many details of the Air Force’s secretive B-21 Raider stealth bomber program remain unknown, a recent Air Force press release provides some clues as to the stealth bomber’s dimensions, an important piece of information that can help to deduce some of the bomber’s characteristics.

Although many details of the Air Force’s secretive B-21 Raider stealth bomber program remain unknown, a recent Air Force press release provides some clues as to the stealth bomber’s dimensions, an important piece of information that can help to deduce some of the bomber’s characteristics.

In the press release, the Air Force showcased a prototype Environmental Protection Shelter, essentially a large canopy used to cover aircraft while performing maintenance outdoors. 

“Environmental Protection Shelters help extend the life of the aircraft and reduce required maintenance by limiting UV exposure, limiting snow accumulation and melt, and limiting icing/de-icing operations experienced by the aircraft over time,” an Air Force official explained. “These shelters also help us generate sorties more quickly by eliminating the need to always have to move aircraft in and out of hangars.”

In the photograph, a pickup truck is parked next to the shelter. Comparing the truck’s approximate 20-foot length to concrete grids on the ground, the shelter is roughly 150 feet long and 80 feet deep. As the shelter is expected to fully cover the B-21, the bomber’s length would not exceed 150 feet.

Ultimately, three Main Operating Bases will service the B-21 Raider: Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota, Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, and Dyess Air Force Base, Texas. More temporary Environmental Protection Shelters would airmen to perform maintenance at more remote, forward operating locations. “Major maintenance activities will still be performed indoors in hangars, but the B-21 Raider design will also provide us the flexibility to perform routine maintenance right on the flightline,” an Air Force official explained.

If these dimensions are correct, than the B-21 will be somewhat smaller compared to the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber. The B-2 is 172 feet long and about 70 from nose to rear wingtips, which extend past the bomber’s rear tail point.

Like the B-21, the B-2 also uses temporary shelters at remote locations that help protect the bomber’s temperature-sensitive outer radar-absorbent coatings from the elements, though the B-21’s more open, uncovered shelter design suggests the new bomber’s stealth coating is more robust and less maintenance-intense that the B-2's. Though outwardly similar to the B-2, the new stealth bomber is said to have significantly reduced radar cross-section, afforded by a stealth coating two generations more advanced than its predecessor.

Interestingly, the Air Force also specified that in addition to the Environmental Protection Shelter prototype, they are also designing a General Maintenance Hangar and a Low Observable Maintenance Hangar specifically to maintain and repair stealth coating that is bonded to the airframe's metallic skin.

Though the stealth bomber’s general shape will likely be similar to that of the B-2, the two bombers would be substantially different. Some aviation experts have suggested that the B-21’s diamond-shaped rear fuselage section could be optimized for stealth at higher altitudes, whereas the B-2 has been touted as an all-altitude stealth bomber.

It is somewhat unclear when exactly the B-21 would enter into service with the Air Force, as previous flight tests have been delayed in part due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. Once they do, however, they’ll be the stealthiest bomber in the sky.

Caleb Larson is a Defense Writer based in Europe. He holds a Master of Public Policy and covers U.S. and Russian security, European defense issues, and German politics and culture.

Fergus Ryan

TikTok,

So how do policymakers deal with a Chinese-owned social media app that isn’t really a social media app but a modern-day interactive TV station, whose editorial decisions are made by an opaque algorithm developed and maintained in Beijing?

There’s one thing we’re all getting wrong about TikTok: it’s not really a social media app. As TikTok Australia’s general manager told the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Interference through Social Media in September last year, the app is ‘less about social connection and more about broadcasting creativity and expression’.

Put another way, think of TikTok more as the modern incarnation of a media publisher—like a newspaper or a TV network—than as a social forum like Facebook or Twitter. That’s because TikTok is much more assertively curatorial than its competitors. It’s not a forum, it’s an editor. Its algorithm decides what each user sees, and it’s the opacity of that algorithm that presents the most worrying national security risk.

It may sound like an insignificant distinction, but TikTok’s emphasis on an ‘interest graph’ instead of a ‘social graph’ took the app’s competitors completely by surprise, and has largely gone over the heads of most lawmakers. The app, owned by Chinese technology company ByteDance, hit 2.3 billion all-time downloads in August 2020, so it’s high time policymakers understood exactly what makes TikTok tick.

An essay by Eugene Wei should be at the top of their reading list. A San Francisco–based start-up investor and former Amazon and Facebook employee, Wei dissects TikTok’s strategy and shows how its recommendation engine keeps users glued to their screens. It does it not by connecting them with friends or family, but by closely analysing their behaviour on the app and serving them more of what they’re interested in.

Wei’s opus, which approaches 20,000 words and is only the first in a three-part series, explains how TikTok is not the same as the major social media platforms we’re more familiar with. Put simply, on Facebook and Twitter, the content that users see is largely decided by who they follow. On TikTok, however, the user doesn’t have to follow anyone. Instead, the algorithm very quickly learns from how users interact with the content they’re served in the app’s ‘For You’ feed to decide what it should deliver to them next.

The approach is similar to that of Spotify and Netflix, whose recommendation algorithms take note of which songs and movies you listen to or watch in full and which you skip to decide what new content to suggest. As Wei puts it, ‘TikTok’s algorithm is so effective that it doesn’t feel like work for viewers. Just by watching stuff and reacting, the app learns your tastes quickly. It feels like passive personalization.’

It’s a strategy, Wei argues, that allowed a team of Chinese engineers—who didn’t necessarily have a good understanding of the cultures in the places where the app is available—to take the world by storm.

TikTok didn’t just break out in America. It became unbelievably popular in India and in the Middle East, more countries whose cultures and language were foreign to the Chinese Bytedance product teams. Imagine an algorithm so clever it enables its builders to treat another market and culture as a complete black box. What do people in that country like? No, even better, what does each individual person in each of those foreign countries like? You don’t have to figure it out. The algorithm will handle that. The algorithm knows.

But that’s not the only thing the algorithm knows. In a recent Protocol China exposé, a former censor at ByteDance said the company’s ‘powerful algorithms not only can make precise predictions and recommend content to users—one of the things it’s best known for in the rest of the world—but can also assist content moderators with swift censorship’.

The former employee, who described working at ByteDance as like being ‘a tiny cog in a vast, evil machine’, said that even live-streamed shows on the company’s apps are ‘automatically transcribed into text, allowing algorithms to compare the notes with a long and constantly-updated list of sensitive words, dates and names, as well as Natural Language Processing models. Algorithms would then analyze whether the content was risky enough to require individual monitoring.’

There’s no doubt that TikTok and its parent company have these abilities to monitor and censor. The question is, will they continue to use it? Certainly, the blunt censorship that typified TikTok’s earlier approach to content moderation and is par for the course on ByteDance’s domestic apps is unlikely to continue, especially after the public scrutiny over TikTok’s censoring of content related to the Tiananmen Square massacre, Black Lives Matter protests and Beijing’s persecution of Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities.

But there’s ample room for ByteDance to covertly tweak users’ feeds, subtly nudging them towards content favoured by governments and ruling parties—including the Chinese Communist Party. After all, it’s an approach that would be in line with the strategy that China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and state media are already deploying.

Beijing is exploiting pre-existing grievance narratives and amplifying pro-CCP Western influencers in the knowledge that Western voices are more likely to penetrate target online networks than official CCP spokespeople. The strategy, referred to as ‘Borrowing mouths to speak’ (借嘴说话), is reminiscent of the Kremlin’s approach and is perfectly suited to being covertly deployed on Chinese-owned and -operated social media apps.

Just as experiments have shown that TikTok’s algorithm can hurtle users from a politically neutral feed into a far-right firehose of content, so too can it easily be used to send users down any extreme rabbit hole. By design, the app groups people into ‘clusters’ (otherwise known as filter bubbles) based on their preferences. TikTok’s executives stress that they have measures in place to ensure people don’t become trapped in those filter bubbles. TikTok’s recommendation system ‘works to intersperse diverse types of content along with those you already know you love’, the company claims. The goal, they say, is to ensure that users are exposed to ‘new perspectives and ideas’, but who decides which new perspectives and ideas?

What’s to stop Beijing from pressuring TikTok to encourage communities of Xinjiang denialists to flourish on the platform, for instance? As our report revealed, there’s already evidence that this is happening. Our analysis of the hashtag #Xinjiang showed a depiction of the region that glosses over the human-rights tragedy unfolding there and instead provides a more politically convenient version for the CCP, replete with smiling and dancing Uyghurs.

The power of social media apps has been underestimated before. When Facebook started as a ‘hot or not’ website in a Harvard dorm room at the turn of the millennium, who would have expected it would go on to play a role in inciting violence 13,000 kilometres away?

So how do policymakers deal with a Chinese-owned social media app that isn’t really a social media app but a modern-day interactive TV station, whose editorial decisions are made by an opaque algorithm developed and maintained in Beijing?

It’s past time governments realised the unique problem TikTok presents and they must now tailor solutions to deal with it properly.

Caleb Larson

de Havilland Sea Vixen,

The dawn of the Jet Age saw a number of pioneering achievements in aerospace, from the first airplane to break the sound barrier, to the first Mach 3+ flight to name a few. And while these were both American achievements, products of the legendary U.S. Air Force X-series aerospace program, this lesser-known British plane has managed to well, slip under the radar, like the de Havilland Sea Vixen. 

The dawn of the Jet Age saw a number of pioneering achievements in aerospace, from the first airplane to break the sound barrier, to the first Mach 3+ flight to name a few. And while these were both American achievements, products of the legendary U.S. Air Force X-series aerospace program, this lesser-known British plane has managed to well, slip under the radar, like the de Havilland Sea Vixen. 

From the Drawing Board to the Sky

In the aftermath of the Second World War, the Royal Navy needed a jet-powered airplane that could fly — and fight — in all types of weather, day or night. This necessitated several design factors. As the airplane would be jet-powered, it would need swept wings, unlike the straight-winged aircraft that previously flew during the War. As it would fly over the ocean, two engines would be necessary in case one engine was lost. And, the jet would need a crew of two in order to operate on-board radar, navigate, and to fly the plane.

Starting with some previous designs that the de Havilland Aircraft Company had come up with, their prototype was decidedly odd-looking — a twin-boom tail design with engines on either side of the fuselage. At first, the design was a success: their prototype actually exceeded performance expectations and earned the distinction as the first British two-seat fighter to break the sound barrier. Though the prototype seemed to be a solid airframe, disaster struck in 1952.

1952 Farnborough Airshow

During the 1952 Farnborough Airshow, one of de Havilland's prototypes disintegrated while performing a maneuver in flight: the engines separated from the airframe, one of which crashed into a crowd of spectators. The cockpit, still containing the crew, fell out of the sky onto the runway, killing both instantly and injuring more spectators. In total, 31 people died, with an additional 60 suffering injuries from the broken-up airframe.

In the aftermath of the accident, an investigation revealed that the airframe had been subjected to higher stresses than anticipated. The wing’s leading edges buckled and were shorn off, causing the plane to tumble and disintegrate. A redesign was necessitated.

de Havilland Sea Vixen

In addition to a strengthened airframe, the de Havilland Sea Vixen had redesigned landing gear to better handle the stresses of landing at sea and a slightly modified fuselage. Besides the immediately-noticeable twin-boom tail, one of the de Havilland Sea Vixen’s most notable features was its very unconventional cockpit layout. Rather than the pilot and navigator sitting in a tandem-style configuration, they sat side by side. However, the navigator’s seat was buried inside the right side of the airframe behind the nose and offered zero visibility. The pilot on the other hand sat in a left-offset seat just next to the navigator.

Postscript

The de Havilland Sea Vixen would serve in Royal Navy service until the early 1970s when it was retired in favor of the American McDonnell Douglas Phantom. Less than 150 Sea Vixen airframes were built, with a high number of airframe losses. However, the Sea Vixen achieved one other first: the first British fighter to be armed entirely with rockets, air-to-air missiles, and bombs, without an onboard gun. Still, it is probably for the best that it served for only 12 years.

Caleb Larson is a defense writer based in Europe. He holds a Master of Public Policy and covers U.S. and Russian security, European defense issues, and German politics and culture.

Caleb Larson

Barretta APX,

Baretta APX: Despite offering the Army a solid pistol design--and enjoying several advantages--Beretta lost. Here’s why.

Baretta APX: Despite offering the Army a solid pistol design--and enjoying several advantages--Beretta lost. Here’s why.

The Competition

The XM17 Modular Handgun System competition was a joint U.S. Army-U.S. Air Force initiative to find a new service pistol common for both branches that would replace the Beretta M9. Though the M9 had been a good handgun choice when introduced into American service in the mid-1980s, advancements in sidearm design encouraged both the Army and Air Force to seek a better, more modern replacement.

The Contenders

The XM17 competition drew upon some of the oldest and most respected firearm manufacturers from around the world, including Glock, SIG Sauer, Smith & Wesson, CZ, FN Herstal, and of course Beretta.

Each of these firms submitted exceptional pistol designs, a number of which have achieved sales success numbering in the hundreds of thousands — a testament to how competitive the MHS completion would be.

Beretta

As the incumbent, Beretta was thought to have several advantages over the other firms in the running.

For one, Beretta had intangible advantages, including several decades of experience working with the U.S. military.

Initially, Beretta wanted to offer the U.S. Army an updated version of their M9, the M9A3. The update saw improved and customizable grips added to the M9 platform, removable sights, and a three-slot Picatinny rail for better shooter customization. Despite improvements over the M9 however, the Department of Defense opted for completely new pistol designs, rather than just improvements to the existing M9.

APX

Beretta’s APX seemed like a solid choice. The polymer-framed design was light-weight and had an aggressively serrated metallic slide. The pistol offered several different grip backstrap sizes, as well as ambidextrous slide stops and a reversible magazine release button.

One of the APX’s more unique features was its purported low bore axis, which Beretta claims direct recoil into a shooter's hand than most pistols, resulting in less muzzle rise between shots and therefore more accurate followup shots.

Down for the Count

Despite the advantages, Beretta enjoyed as the incumbent, and the high quality of their APX pistol design, they were ultimately unsuccessful, losing the Modular Handgun System competition to SIG Sauer and their M17 and M18 pistols.

Though Beretta's design was indeed a high-quality design, SIG Sauer’s bid offered something that no other entrant did: a combined pistol-ammunition package deal. SIG offered the Army not only their pistol design but also specialized Winchester-manufactured ammunition that offered advantages in stopping power and lethality over existing U.S. Military 9x19mm ball ammunition. The ammo-sweetened deal just couldn’t be beaten, and the Army declared SIG the winner of the Modular Handgun System competition.

Postscript

Though Beretta’s APX pistol design was ultimately unsuccessful with the Army and Air Force, it did find some success on the civilian market and internationally. In addition to private civilian shooters, the Baretta APX has been adopted by several police departments and law enforcement agencies in the United States and abroad.

Caleb Larson is a Defense Writer based in Europe. He holds a Master of Public Policy and covers U.S. and Russian security, European defense issues, and German politics and culture.

Caleb Larson

LRASM,

The LRASM would outclass the Harpoon anti-ship missile’s range, be hard to detect — and could be put in the hands of US Marines to sink Chinese ships.

Earlier last month, the Navy and Air Force inked a contract with Lockheed Martin for the company’s Long Range Anti-Ship Missile, also known as LRASM.

The agreement, worth $414 million, is for the fourth and fifth lot of missiles and is the biggest LRASM contract in the history of the Lockheed missile program, reportedly totaling 137 missiles, training and logistics support, as well as additional LRASM support equipment.

In the Lockheed Martin press release, David Helsel, the LRASM director at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control explained that the Navy/Air Force award “reflects LRASM’s increasing significance to our customers’ missions. Focused teamwork around a shared vision with our customers and our dedicated supply partners remains key to this program’s success.”

LRASM, Explained: 

The LRASM is a stealthy, ship-killing missile-based partially off of the earlier JASSM-ER missile and uses a “multi-modal sensor suite, weapon data link, and enhanced digital anti-jam Global Positioning System” to discriminate specific targets among groups of ships. It can receive targeting updates via a data link in real-time, or use its onboard sensors to find targets. Lockheed explains that the advanced missile is specifically designed to seek and destroy specific ships — sometimes on its own — in highly contested electronic warfare environments that could see GPS signals degraded, and where surveillance and reconnaissance would be difficult to conduct or unreliable.

The LRASM is the latest in a rash of newer, more lethal anti-ship weapons by several branches, but particularly by the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, prompted in part by what is perceived as aggressive Chinese force posture in the Pacific region, as well as the PLA Navy’s increasing number of ships and so-called carrier-killer weaponry.

Why the U.S. Marines Need LRASM: China 

The Marine Corps and Navy are not only investing in increasingly sophisticated weaponry but also reevaluating how they conduct warfare. The USMC’s top Marine, Gen. David Berger has nudged and pushed the Corps back towards their amphibious roots as of late and even thinks that groups of highly-trained Marines could help the Navy hunt down and sink Chinese submarines.

The Corps is also undergoing doctrinal upheaval at the moment, in what is the biggest force posture and restructure of the past 25 years. Pivoting from the grinding land warfare campaigns of the Middle East, Marines are preparing for a fight in the Pacific, somewhat reminiscent of their World War II-era island-hopping campaign.

This time around, however, Marines would not simply assault and capture enemy-held islands, but turn them into tiny bastions of American firepower, holding enemy surface ships and submarines at bay and denying the use of the islands by the enemy.

The LRASM could first compliment, then replace the Harpoon anti-ship missile, long the United States’ standard ship killer. And the LRASM’s long stand-off range — thought to be around 350 miles — would push Chinese ship much farther out to sea than the Harpoon’s 150-mile range would be able to: enemies beware.

Caleb Larson is a Defense Writer with The National Interest. He holds a Master of Public Policy and covers U.S. and Russian security, European defense issues, and German politics and culture.

Stephen Silver

Shock Trial,

In the shock trials, per a recent USNI report, “the Navy will set off a bomb in the water near the new warship and measure how well it could take a hit.”

The USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), named for the 38th president, is a leading naval aircraft character, currently in the Atlantic Ocean. As The National Interest reported back in 2019, the Gerald R. Ford contains 10 elevators, which can carry up to about 200,000 pounds of weapons from the main deck magazine to the ship’s flight deck preparation area.

Last week, USNI News reported from aboard the ship about life aboard the Gerald R. Ford under its new commanding officer, Capt. Paul Lanzilotta, as the ship begins preparations for its shock trials later this year. The visit took place on March 9.

Following 12 years of construction, the Gerald R. Ford was delivered to the Navy in May of 2017, replacing the U.S.S. Enterprise.

Lanzilotta is a 26-year veteran of the Navy and took over as Gerald R. Ford’s commanding officer in February. Previously, he spent nearly two years as the commanding officer of the U.S.S. Arlington.

The new commander, per the USNI News report, is overseeing contractors from Newport News Shipbuilding, who are finishing up construction on the ship’s  Advanced Weapons Elevators. They’re also conducting what’s known as Combat Systems Ship Qualification Trials (CSSQT.)

In the shock trials, per the USNI report, “the Navy will set off a bomb in the water near the new warship and measure how well it could take a hit.”

“During World War II, it was discovered that although such “near miss” explosions do not cause serious hull or superstructure damage, the shock and vibrations associated with the blast nonetheless incapacitate the ship, by knocking out critical components and systems,” a MITRE assessment from 2007, called “Navy Ship Underwater Shock Prediction and Testing Capability Study,” stated.

“Any complex system requires constant attention and maintenance. And the steam catapult system obviously still serving today overseas, deployed, doing the work of the republic every single day (on the Nimitz-class carriers), that requires a lot of manpower and a lot of man-hours and woman hours on the flight deck,” Captain Lanzilotta told USNI.

“When we stop flying here at the end of the day – so last night we finished – I don’t know, XO: what was it, midnight-30? Almost one in the morning? On a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, you would then have two to three hours of preventative maintenance to do on all that kit before you can close up shop for the night and get a bite to eat and get some rest for the next day of flight operations. On this ship, our sailors literally put (EMALS) in standby mode, and get the same bite to eat and go to bed. Those are hard-to-measure benefits, but in my mind they’re huge.”

 Stephen Silver, a technology writer for The National Interest, is a journalist, essayist and film critic, who is also a contributor to The Philadelphia Inquirer, Philly Voice, Philadelphia Weekly, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Living Life Fearless, Backstage magazine, Broad Street Review and Splice Today. The co-founder of the Philadelphia Film Critics Circle, Stephen lives in suburban Philadelphia with his wife and two sons. Follow him on Twitter at @StephenSilver.

Stephen Silver

ICBM,

The Pentagon is reportedly working on a new generation of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs.) The Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) missile program is seen as the successor of the existing Minuteman III ICBMs, with the new ICBMs eying 2029 for initial deployment.

The Pentagon is reportedly working on a new generation of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs.) The Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) missile program is seen as the successor of the existing Minuteman III ICBMs, with the new ICBMs eying 2029 for initial deployment.

However, with a new administration in power in Washington and taking the usual new look at defense strategy, there have been multiple recent calls in the media to put the brakes on new ICBMs.

William B. Hartung, director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy, wrote for Defense One this week that because the new ICBM is a “legacy system,” and the Biden Administration has hinted at wanting to cut spending on such systems, it’s time to cancel their development.

“There is one costly system that is not generally thought of in these terms but should be: the new ICBM — formally known as the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, but more accurately characterized as a money pit that adds nothing to our defense,” Hartung wrote. “ICBMs make the world a more dangerous place because a president would have a matter of minutes to decide whether to launch them in a crisis, thereby increasing the risk of an accidental nuclear war due to a false alarm.”

Hartung added that the Center for International Policy had recently published a report which referred to the “nuclear triad” of “air-, sea-, and land-based nuclear delivery vehicles” as “a relic of the 1950s and 1960s that was developed as much or more due to interservice rivalry and the fight for shares of the nuclear weapons budget as it was based on a well-thought-out strategic rationale.”

The Arms Control Association, earlier this month, made a similar argument while arguing that the new president has long spoken of the dangers of nuclear weapons.

“Biden can start by directing his team to put on hold the Pentagon’s scheme to develop, test, and deploy beginning in 2029 a new fleet of 400 land-based, intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). If pursued, the new missile would cost in excess $264 billion over its anticipated 50-year life cycle,” Daryl G. Kimball wrote on the association’s website. “This GBSD program pause would deemphasize the role of ICBMs, allow for a serious evaluation of the option of extending the life of the existing force of 400 Minuteman III ICBMs at a lower cost, and provide for the pursuit of deep mutual reductions in the bloated U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals.”

And writing for Slate, last week, journalist Fred Kaplan denounced “Congress’ ICBM caucus.”

"There is no good reason to buy the GBSD and several good reasons not to,” Kaplan wrote. “This past year we’ve been immersed in an abyss that’s disturbing enough, not least because it’s been real, and so it may be a fine time to ask how many nuclear weapons we really need—and to make those who say we need to build more explain very clearly just why.”

 Stephen Silver, a technology writer for The National Interest, is a journalist, essayist and film critic, who is also a contributor to The Philadelphia Inquirer, Philly Voice, Philadelphia Weekly, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Living Life Fearless, Backstage magazine, Broad Street Review and Splice Today. The co-founder of the Philadelphia Film Critics Circle, Stephen lives in suburban Philadelphia with his wife and two sons. Follow him on Twitter at @StephenSilver.

Peter Suciu

MK17,

The Mk 17, which saw extensive use during the Global War on Terror (GWoT), has stood out for a few other notable reasons.

In 2004, the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) issued a solicitation that called for a new weapon for special operators. However, the Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle wasn't just to be a single rifle, but actually, a platform that would be designed around two different calibers yet maintain a high commonality of parts while having identical ergonomics.

The weapon was to replace the various AR-15 derived 5.56x45mm rifles as the updated M-14s that were then in service with the special operators. Among the entries included the Heckler & Koch HK416 modular system, but in the end, the FN Herstal (FHM) Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle – or SCAR – won out.

The gas-operated, short-stroke gas piston drive, self-loading assault/battle rifle with a rotating bolt had an advantage in that it was designed and constructed with modularity at the forefront. Two distinct versions were selected – the FN SCAR-L (light), which is chambered in the 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge; and the SCAR-H (heavy), chambered in the 7.62x52mm NATO cartridge. The two versions share a 90 percent commonality among parts, while both were also available in Close Quarters Combat (CQC), Standard (STD) and Long Barrel (LB) versions ranging from 13-inch to 20-inch barrels.

Enter SCAR

The SCAR-H was adopted by the SOCOM as the Mk 17, while the SCAR-L was originally adopted as the Mk 15 – and deliveries of both commenced in 2009, and subsequently delivered to all branches of the U.S. SOCOM including the U.S. Navy SEALs, U.S. Army Rangers, Army Special Forces, MARSOC (Marine Forces Special Operations Command) and AFSOC (Air Force Special Operations Command).

In testing, however, it was found that the SCAR-L/Mk 16 offered only marginal improvements over the most current versions of the AR-15 platform and in the end wasn't actually suspended. At the same time, SOCOM saw the increased potential of the Mk 17, which is now manufactured in the United States by FNH USA, the American-based subsidiary of the Belgian-based company.

The selective-fire weapon has still maintained a modular design, which affords U.S. special operators with a variety of configurations and each rifle can be reconfigured even in the field in just a matter of minutes, and no previous weapon used by the U.S. military provided such ease of modification.

How it Performs in Combat

The Mk 17, which saw extensive use during the Global War on Terror (GWoT), has stood out for a few other notable reasons. It can be configured to fire .308 Winchester but also 7.62x39mm ammunition, and even accept standard 30-round AK-47/AKM magazines. The rifle is fitted with a full-length Picatinny rail for the mounting of various optics while a lower rail can be used to mount other accessories such as flashlights, laser pointers, vertical grips and bipods. The flash hider of the Mk 17 can also reportedly be used to cut barbed wire.

One complaint has been the potential failure of the plastic hinges that attach the folding stock to the polymer lower receiver, but the side-folding buttstock – which can be adjusted to length – can be completed removed or replaced.

As the U.S. military is refocused on near-peer adversaries, it isn't clear what the future holds for the SCAR Mk 17, but it seemed to have been the right weapon at the time – even if its little brother, the SCAR Mk 16, didn't quite live up to the promise.

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

Panzerfaust,

As anti-tank weapons go, one, in particular, didn't have an extraordinary range, it had limited stopping power, aiming was rather crude and it was one shot only – yet the German-designed Panzerfaust ("armor fist") has become somewhat legendary.

As anti-tank weapons go, one, in particular, didn't have an extraordinary range, it had limited stopping power, aiming was rather crude and it was one shot only – yet the German-designed Panzerfaust ("armor fist") has become somewhat legendary.

The History

Only introduced in 1943, the Panzerfaust was very much a sign of the state of the war effort, which had turned against Nazi Germany and its once seemingly unstoppable military faced assaults on all fronts. Inexpensive to produce and simple to operate, the Panzerfaust gave a single infantryman a weapon that could take out enemy armor.

It wasn't exactly a new innovation, however, and rather was an evolution of technology that dated back to the 1880s – when it was first found that hollow space in an explosive projectile did more damage than a solid block. The jet of hot air helped intensify the explosive attributes of the projectile. While the knowledge was understood by American and German scientists very little was actually done with it in weapons development.

Then in the 1930s, German engineers began to experiment with ways it could be employed but yet it still wasn't until the war effort began to turn in favor of the Allies that a weapon was developed to utilize the breakthroughs in shape-charge technology.

At the time Germany had already copied the American M1 "bazooka" anti-tank rocket launcher and also "super-sized" it accordingly by increasing the size of the tube and projectile. The Panzerschreck ("tank's bane") was an 88mm reusable anti-tank rocket launcher, which proved capable of taking out American and British armor and even Soviet tanks; but it was heavy, required a team of two to operate and while reloadable, the rockets were also heavy. Moreover, the Panzerschreck produced a cloud of smoke and required the teams to shift quickly after firing – not an easy task with a weapon that weighed 24 pounds empty and was nearly as long as the soldier was tall.

The German military desperately needed a simpler platform.

The result was the Faustpatrone ("fist cartridge"), a truly crude weapon that was comprised of a shaped charge of a 50-50 mix of TNT and tri-hexogen mounted on a short wooden shaft with spring metal stabilizing fins. It was launched from a preloaded, low-grade steel launch tube filled with a black powder propellant. The Faustpatrone had a range of just 100 feet, yet it could penetrate more than five inches of steel.

A Gruesome Death for Any Allied Tank Crew

It was soon improved as the Panzerfaust, which had a larger warhead and could penetrate up to eight inches of armor. While still crude in design, it was easier and a lot cheaper to produce than the Panzerschreck, and each Panzerfaust cost only around 20 Reichmarks (around $40). It was essentially a recoilless rifle that could launch a small but powerful shape charge at distances up to 200 yards, and if it scored a direct hit it was deadly. The warhead didn't just explode, it could send a jet of hot metal into the tank's cabin – which could kill the crew or even set off the fuel and/or ammo.

It was simple to operate but required that the operator be close to the tank. The weapon was thus proved more effective as the fighting reached Germany's towns and cities, where Allied and Soviet tanks had to navigate narrow streets. Armored crews quickly learned that if the enemy targeted their tanks at close range it was likely over before they knew what hit them. In the closing months of the war as many as 70 percent of Allied tanks were destroyed by Panzerfausts, a testament to the weapon and those daring enough to actually use it.

A number of variations of the Panzerfaust were produced, which increased the size of the warhead and increased the range of the weapon. In the end, however, even with 6.7 million produced, the Panzerfaust couldn't turn the tide of the war. The semi-experimental Panzerfaust 150M served as the pattern for the Soviet's RPG-2 – and during the Cold War most nations began to see how a cheap to produce, one-shot anti-tank weapon could give infantry the fist against enemy armor.

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

Leyte Gulf,

Ask any armchair historian to name the largest naval battle in history and a typical response is the "Battle of Leyte Gulf," fought in October 1944 off the coast of the Philippines. It involved hundreds of ships, had nearly 200,000 participants and it spanned some 100,000 square miles. Battleships, Aircraft Carriers, and Cruisers all duking it out--oh my.

Ask any armchair historian to name the largest naval battle in history and a typical response is the "Battle of Leyte Gulf," fought in October 1944 off the coast of the Philippines. It involved hundreds of ships, had nearly 200,000 participants and it spanned some 100,000 square miles. Battleships, Aircraft Carriers, and Cruisers all duking it out--oh my.

The Battle of Leyte Gulf also involved the United States' Third and Seventh Fleets, which comprised some eight large aircraft carriers, another eight light carriers as well as 18 escort carriers and a dozen battleships. The Allied forces won a decisive victory over the Japanese forces, which lost a fleet carrier, three light carriers and three battleships.

In terms of sheer numbers, it is easy to see why Leyte Gulf should have the distinction of being the largest naval battle in history. But some historians will argue it really was a combination of four major subsidiary battles that happened to take place at the same time. Moreover, Leyte Gulf didn't have the largest number of participants or even ships that were engaged in one battle.

There are several other notable battles that have also been called the largest or greatest naval battle in history. Check out the below and make your own mind.

Battle of Lepanto

On the shortlist of greatest battles in naval history is the Battle of Lepanto, which was fought between the Holy League, which included the forces of the Spanish Empire, the Papal States, the Republic of Venice and other Italian states; and the Ottoman Empire on October 7, 1571. It didn't involve quite as many men as Leyte Gulf – the Holy League mustered around 40,000 sailors and another 20,000 soldiers while the Ottoman Empire had some 84,000 men including 37,000 slaves who acted as oarsmen.

However, the Battle of Lepanto involved some 500 warships, mostly galleys, and in the end, nearly a third of the Ottoman force was killed, over half its warship sunk and a substantial number captured. It marked a major turning point for Europe and has been hailed as the greatest naval battle of the late Middle Ages.

Battle of Yamen

Fought in March 1279, the Battle of Yamen took place in the South China Sea between the Mongol Yuan Dynasty and the Song Dynasty. It could go down as the most one-sided naval battle as well – and with an outcome that on paper seems improbable.

The Song had more than 1,000 ships, which were carrying around 200,000 people while the Yuan had just 50 warships and only around 20,000 soldiers. A closer look at the numbers tells another story. Most of the Song vessels were transports, carrying court officials and servants/slaves. The actual fighting capacity was just a fraction of the total strength.

To make matters worse, the Song commander Zhang Shijie ordered his fleet to be chained together – to prevent any from fleeing. While prepared for a skirmish and not a full-blown battle, Zhang Shijie quickly was overwhelmed and lost seven ships and most of his best fighters. Unable to support the middle or retreat, a slaughter ensued. At least 100,000 Song were killed, and for days after the battle thousands of corpses floated to the surface. Those included the boy emperor Zhao Shi. Within a year the Song Dynasty, which had ruled China for nearly three centuries, came to an end.

Battle of Salamis

Described as one of the most decisive military engagements of all time, the Battle of Salamis took place near Athens in 480 B.C.E. during the Greco-Persian Wars. It was another battle where on paper it seemed to be one sided affair – upwards of 1,200 Persian galleys (other estimates claim just 800) against 370 Greek triremes.

However, the Greek commander successfully drew the Persian fleet into the small Saronic Gulf. Without room to maneuver, the Persian fleet was overwhelmed by the more agile Greek ships. The Persians lost some 300 ships while the Greeks lost just 40.

Battle of the Red Cliffs

A millennia before Salamis, another decisive naval battle took place in China. It was the Battle of Red Cliffs or Battle of Chibi. Fought not on open water, it was actually an amphibious battle fought along the Yangtze River. It involved some 800,000 troops under the forces of northern warlord Cao Cao, against 50,000 troops under the allied forces of the southern warlords Sun Quan, Liu Bei and Liu Qi.

Yet again the numbers would suggest a very one-sided affair, but the southern forces had better ships and knew how to best navigate the river. The allied forces then set many of their boats on fire and rammed Cao's fleet, destroying much of his invasion force. He was unable to conquer the lands south of the Yangtze River. It has become famous as an example of Chinese history where the smaller and weaker successfully defeated a larger and stronger force.

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

Military History,

When studying military history, battles and campaigns can often be confused. Generally speaking, a battle is seen as a continuous engagement between two warring forces whereas a campaign is a large-scale, long-duration military strategy that can meet its planned goals and objectives through combat and noncombat operations.

When studying military history, battles and campaigns can often be confused. Generally speaking, a battle is seen as a continuous engagement between two warring forces whereas a campaign is a large-scale, long-duration military strategy that can meet its planned goals and objectives through combat and noncombat operations.

Thus a battle can be part of a campaign, and yet some battles have been far longer than the original goals of a planned campaign.

With that said, here are my picks for the three longest and bloodiest battles in all of history

The Battle of the Hürtgen Forest

Long overshadowed by Operation Market Garden and the Battle of the Bulge, the Battle of Hürtgen Forest took place during the Second World War in the massive timberland on the Belgian-German border from September 12 to December 16, 1944. What began as a side objective for the U.S. First Army just days before the Market Garden offensive into the Netherlands soon became a slugfest as the Germans dug in and refused to give any ground.

It resulted in the longest battle on German ground fought during World War II, and was the longest single battle the U.S. Army ever fought. For three months little progress was made, and then on December 16 the Germans began the Ardennes Offensive – the Battle of the Bulge – and the American effort to break through ended. Even after the German offensive was halted in early January it took until February 17 – more than five months after the battle began – for the forest to be cleared. Between 30,000 and 55,000 Americans were killed or wounded, making it among the bloodiest battles in American history.

The Battle of Verdun

No battle sums up the carnage and futility of the First World War better than the Battle of Verdun. For just shy of 10 months from February 21 to December 15, the German Army attempted to break through the French lines – and while it experienced early success including the capture of Fort Douaumont in the first three days, the advance slowed and resulted in an endless exchange of back and forth assaults that left more than 400,000 dead and at least double that wounded.

Lasting 302 days, it was the longest and most costly land battle in history. In France, the battle also has come to symbolize the determination of the French military but also to put an emphasis on the destructiveness of the war. Even today the scars remain and parts of the battlefield are still off-limits due to unexploded mines and munitions.

The only good to come from the battle was that it has become a symbol of Franco-German reconciliation.

The Battle of the Atlantic

Lasting from September 3, 1939 to May 8, 1945, the Battle of the Atlantic was the longest continuous battle and military campaign of the Second World War. While it peaked from mid-1940 after the fall of France to end of 1943, it was also the largest battle by territory of the war – spread from the North Sea to the Arctic to the Gulf of Mexico.

While arguably more than a single engagement, the military significance of the battle cannot be overstated. The Germans failed to stop the flow the strategic supplies to Britain, which allowed the build-up of troops and supplies needed for the D-Day invasion.

It involved hundreds of warships and involved hundreds of thousands of men. Some 175 Allied warships and upwards of 50 German and Italian warships, and some 783 submarines were lost. In total more than 36,000 Allied sailors, as well as an equal number of merchant seamen, were killed; while more than 30,000 German sailors also lost their lives during the Battle of the Atlantic.

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.