The National Interest

Robert Beckhusen

Security, Europe

It was a failure.

Key Point: The Object 279 was never more than a prototype.

In a war that never happened, formations of heavy and rather odd-looking Soviet tanks would have powered through atomic explosions in breakthrough attacks into West Germany.

Enter the Object 279 tank, a curious oddity from the late 1950s which was obsolete — despite its design principles deliberately reflecting the fear of a nuclear battlefield — by the time it was produced.

It was certainly not a success, as the Soviet Union only manufactured a handful of prototypes.

But the fact that it appeared at all is indicative of an obsession among a small number of Red Army military planners dating back to World War II. As the Nazis and Soviets battled for hegemony, both sides fielded increasingly heavier tanks — with bigger guns — which could absorb fire while destroying their heavily-armored enemies at long range.

Medium tanks, such as the legendary T-34, would ultimately pioneer the main battle tanks which armies deploy today. However, the Kremlin continued building thousands of heavy tanks into the 1960s until Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev effectively put a stop to it.

The Object 279 was part of this tradition.

The Object 279’s most visible features include the sharp, saucer-shaped chassis and four distinct, enormous tracks. The latter was to give the 60-ton tank more traction in difficult or soft terrain, always a problem for heavier tanks prone to bogging down. A 1,000-horsepower engine powered the beast.

The design’s obvious downside? One could only imagine the difficulty repairing the two inner tracks running underneath the chassis’ belly, let alone the complex transmission. Equally bizarre is the shape of the chassis to protect the vehicle and its four crew members from shock waves generated by an exploding nuclear bomb.

The Object 279 came with serious armor — 319 millimeters thick in the turret and 269 millimeters at the thickest point in the hull, significantly greater than the far more widespread T-72 which entered service in the 1970s.

An impressive, stabilized 130-millimeter rifled cannon and 14.5-millimeter machine gun rounded out the turret.

But the quad-tracked juggernaut’s technical specifications are somewhat moot, as the prototypes came at the worst possible time.

Back up. During World War II, the Soviets refined their heavy tank designs, culminating in the IS-2 — an intimidating and impressive vehicle which entered service in 1944. IS-2s most notably spearheaded the Red Army assault into Berlin, blasting German Tiger tanks and reducing fortified positions into rubble.

The success of the IS-2 was never replicated again in a Soviet heavy tank. A follow-up, the IS-3, was a nightmare to maintain and underwent near constant upgrades to resolve numerous design problems in the welding and wheel bearings.

“Even in 1946 a committee was formed to fix the problems of what had become the flagship Soviet tank, and to prevent Western intelligence agencies from finding out how bad the tank really was,” Stephen Sewell wrote in a 2002 edition of Armor magazine.

“Militarily the IS-3 offered little more than propaganda value, as it was an embarrassment and seldom offered to Soviet allies.”

When the IS-3 did find itself outside the USSR, it rarely saw combat. Protesters during the 1956 Hungarian uprising destroyed a few, and the Israelis annihilated dozens of them in Egyptian service in 1967.

The IS-4 hardly fared better, and another tank called the T-10 endured a torturous development period as capable medium tanks such as the T-55 and the soon-to-come T-64 competed for budget dollars.

In reality, classic heavy tanks stopped making sense by the mid-1950s. Speedy, maneuverable and reliable tanks — with new high-powered guns — would win the wars of the future. Devastating guided missiles capable of punching through heavy armor had also begun entering service.

Khrushchev, who loved missiles, had enough of the Soviet army’s penchant for heavy tanks.

“If tanks were going to remain, they must fire missiles and use a drum-canister inside the tank for storage. [Tank designer L.N.] Kartsev argued that this was a dumb idea, and that the USSR was more likely to need gun tanks than missiles,” Sewell wrote, referencing a 1960 conversation between the two men.

“While he and Khrushchev argued, it was apparent that Khrushchev was listening to him. But after seeing the old-fashioned T-10, Khrushchev was adamant: no more heavy tanks.”

The Object 279 died with them. But in an irony which its designers would have appreciated, today’s main battle tanks — what were once medium tanks — have grown a lot heavier.

This first appeared in WarIsBoring here.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Stephen Silver

Technology, Americas

For months, no usual production took place for new movies or TV shows. The only handful of exceptions were shows that were filmed overseas or shows that are animated or otherwise produced in a method that’s not live action. Therefore, there’s going to be a dearth of live action TV shows on networks and cable channels as soon as this fall. Could such delays affect the subscriber count of the most popular streaming service, Netflix? One analyst believes so.

It hasn’t quite happened yet, but a content crunch is on the way, when it comes to movies and TV shows, as a result of coronavirus.

For months, no usual production took place for new movies or TV shows. The only handful of exceptions were shows that were filmed overseas or shows that are animated or otherwise produced in a method that’s not live action. Therefore, there’s going to be a dearth of live action TV shows on networks and cable channels as soon as this fall.

Could such delays affect the subscriber count of the most popular streaming service, Netflix? One analyst believes so.

Michael Pachter, media analyst with Wedbush Securities, as cited by Media Play News, said in a recent note that Netflix is likely to soon begin losing subscribers, if there’s not a return to normalcy soon.

“We suspect that this phenomenon has already begun and led to the company’s lackluster guidance for Q3 net sub additions,” Pachter wrote in an August 24 note, as cited by Media Play. “Once the pace of its delivery of new content begins to wane, we expect Netflix to see higher churn and much slower subscriber growth.”

There are reasons to believe, however, that Netflix is in good position to weather the coronavirus storm. The company has a massive amount of original content on its docket, and is in better position, if necessary, to spread its offerings over a longer period of time.

In addition, as pointed out in the note by Pachter, Netflix has the option of purchasing movies from Hollywood studios, who are both hungry for revenue and not able to release the movies in theaters, in order to add to their original content war chest.

Netflix has already done this with “The Trial of the Chicago 7,” a movie directed by “The West Wing” creator Aaron Sorki. That movie was set for theatrical release by Paramount, but Netflix acquired it and will release on it service in October. However, as Pachter also noted, Netflix’s competitors, such as Apple TV+ and HBO Max, have also been in the market for such acquisitions.

Netflix, at the end of the second quarter, said that it added twenty-two million subscribers in the first half of the year, although its earnings missed. The company said in its shareholder letter for the quarter that “our main business priority is to restart our productions safely and in a manner consistent with local health and safety standards to ensure that our members can enjoy a diverse range of high quality new content,” and that its strategy for doing so would differ from country to country and region to region. The company has reportedly resumed some productions overseas.

Meanwhile, Netflix has several high-profile movies, including Charlie Kaufman’s “I’m Thinking of Ending Things,” the entire “Back to the Future” trilogy, and the two most recent “Muppets” movies, becoming available in the month of September.

Stephen Silver, a technology writer for The National Interest, is a journalist, essayist and film critic, who is also a contributor to 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.

Image: Reuters

Rachel Bucchino

Economics, Americas

But would those making below that number see their taxes remain steady?

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his running mate Senator Kamala Harris (D-California) appeared in their first joint interview, with the former vice president saying everyone should pay “their fair share” and that he will raise taxes on Americans who make more than $400,000 if elected in November.

“I will raise taxes for anybody making over $400,000,” Biden said in an interview with ABC’s anchor David Muir that aired Sunday. “Let me tell you why I’m going to do it. It’s about time they start paying a fair share of the economic responsibility we have. The very wealthy should pay a fair share—corporations should pay a fair share.”

Biden also said businesses that bring in “close to a trillion dollars and pay no tax at all” will see a tax hike.

Tax proposals have growing importance for the upcoming election, as the coronavirus pandemic triggered an economic crisis, leaving more than thirty million Americans unemployed.

When Biden noted that he’d raise taxes on businesses, Muir questioned this policy, as most businesses have shuttered or struggled financially because of the impacts of the pandemic. 

“Is it smart to tax businesses while you’re trying to recover?” Muir asked.

“It’s smart to tax businesses that in fact are making excessive amounts of money and paying no taxes,” Biden responded.

Although Biden has towered in national polls over President Donald Trump, some polls have revealed greater favorability and confidence in Trump’s handling of the economy. The president has warned in the past that Biden’s tax policy would create the “biggest tax increase in history.”

In the interview, Biden emphasized that small businesses or individuals who make $400,000 per year or less won’t experience any new taxes.

“We have to provide them with the ability to reopen. We have to provide more help for them, not less help,” he said.

Biden’s tax policies would boost tax revenue by about $3.8 trillion over the next 10 years, according to an economic analysis conducted by the Tax Foundation. The Foundation noted, however, the spike in taxes would only bring in about $3.2 trillion in actuality “when accounting for macroeconomic feedback effects.”

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

Peter Suciu

Security, Eurasia

The fifth-generation multi-role fighter was designed by United Aircraft Corporation as an aerial platform to destroy all types of air, ground and naval targets. And it might come with an impressive new feature. 

The combat capabilities of Russia’s Su-57 fifth-generation fighter have been compared to the United States Air Force’s F-22 Raptor. The Russian aircraft’s speed and armament could allow it to respond quickly to potential threats—and if necessary back out just as quickly from fights it cannot win. But now the Su-57 could have another advantage: a remotely piloted mode that could enable the advanced fighter to be operated safely away from potentially hostile skies. 

“Indeed, we are considering the options of the remotely piloted mode on many platforms and, of course, such work is being carried out on the Su-57,” Yuri Slyusar, CEO of the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) told the Zvezda TV Channel on Monday as reported by state media.  

The fifth-generation multi-role fighter was designed by UAC as an aerial platform to destroy all types of air, ground and naval targets. Much like the American-built F-22 Raptor or F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Su-57 fighter jet features stealth technology—in this case from the broad use of composite materials, while the aircraft is also capable of supersonic cruising speed and is equipped with an advanced onboard radio-electronic system that includes a powerful onboard computer. That computer has been described as a second pilot, but how it might be used remotely is still unclear. Another innovation is the armament that is placed inside the airframe’s fuselage. 

The Su-57 also features a radar system that is spread across its body. Russia’s aircraft is the only fighter in the world to feature this “Directed Infrared Countermeasure System” (DIRCM), which also includes a missile-spoofing turret that was designed to protect the fighter from infrared-guided missiles. However, analysts have questioned exactly how effective the system could be for a fighter as it has primarily only been used on transports and helicopters and never has been placed on the ventral side of an aircraft.

Since the Su-57 first took to the skies in January 2010, it has been shown to combine the functions of an attack plane and a fighter jet while the use of the composite materials and its innovative technologies along with aerodynamic configuration has ensured that it would have a low level of radar and infrared signature. In theory, this should make for quite the adversary in the skies—more so given that the plane’s armament could include hypersonic missiles.

However, in practice, the Su-57 has been plagued with problems during its development and by some accounts, the plane underperformed when it was deployed to Syria for field testing. In fact, last month Russian military chief of the general staff Valery Gerasimov only confirmed that the aircraft had even been deployed to Syria and said little about its performance, so that is hardly a rousing endorsement of the aircraft’s capabilities. 

The bigger problem is that Russia likely won’t receive the Su-57 in any significant numbers—at least not any time soon. Perhaps a total of four will be handed over to the Russian military this year. That is a far cry short of the seventy-six-plane order and at just four planes per year (if Russia can even maintain that many), it could take three to four years to form a single squadron. That begs the question as to why a remote control option would even be necessary—it certainly isn’t an issue of shortage of pilots as much as fewer than required aircraft at this point. 

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

Image: Reuters

Erica Weintraub Austin, Porismita Borah

Health, Americas

Collectively, by turning around those who believe otherwise, we can save lives.

An estimated 24,000 to 62,000 people died from the flu in the United States during the 2019-20 flu season. And that was a relatively mild flu season, which typically starts in October and peaks between December and February.

The latest computer model predicts 300,000 deaths from COVID-19 by Dec. 1.

With the advent of flu season, and COVID-19 cases rising, a public health disaster even worse than what we’re now experiencing could occur this fall and winter. Two very dangerous respiratory diseases could be circulating at once.

This will put the general population at risk as well as the millions of people who have pre-existing conditions. Hospitals and health care workers would likely be overwhelmed again.

We are scholars from the Edward R. Murrow Center for Media & Health Promotion Research at Washington State University. As we see it, the only way out of the reopening and reclosing cycles is to convince people to get the flu vaccine in early fall – and then the COVID-19 vaccine when it’s available. Right now, up to 20 COVID-19 vaccine candidates are already in human trials. Chances seem good that at least one will be available for distribution in 2021.

But recent studies suggest that 35% might not want to get a COVID vaccine, and fewer than half received a flu vaccine for the 2019-2020 season.

Getting Coverage

To arrest the pandemic’s spread, perhaps 70% to 80% of the population must opt in and get the vaccine. They also need the flu shot to avoid co-infection which complicates diagnosis and treatment.

Achieving herd immunity is a steep climb. We conducted a national online survey, with 1,264 participants, between June 22 and July 18. We found that only 56% of adults said they were likely or extremely likely to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Westerners were most accepting (64%), followed by Midwesterners (58%), with Southerners (53%) and Northeasterners (50%) least likely.

Anti-vaxxers, promoting unlikely scenarios and outright falsehoods about vaccine risks, are not helping.

With all this in mind, we would like to share some myths and truths about how to increase rates of vaccinations.

Facts Don’t Convince People

People who support vaccination sometimes believe their own set of myths, which actually may stand in the way of getting people vaccinated. One such myth is that people respond to facts and that vaccine hesitancy can be overcome by facts.

That is not necessarily true. Actually, knowledge alone rarely convinces people to change behavior. Most decisions are informed – or misinformed – by emotions: confidence, threat, empathy and worry are four of them.

Another myth is that people can easily separate accurate information from the inaccurate. This is not always true, either. With so much misinformation and disinformation out there, people are often overconfident about their ability to discern good from bad. Our research during the H1N1 epidemic showed that overconfidence can lead to faulty conclusions that increase risk.

Also, it’s not always true that people are motivated to get accurate information to protect themselves and their loved ones. People are often too busy to parse information, especially on complicated subjects. They instead rely on shortcuts, often looking for consistency with their own attitudes, social media endorsements and accessibility.

And, to complicate matters, people will sometimes disregard additional fact checking that contradicts their political beliefs.

Assuming that people who get the flu vaccine will also get the COVID-19 vaccine is a mistake, too.

In our survey, 52% of respondents said they got a flu or other vaccine in the past year, but only 64% of those who got a vaccine in the past year said they were somewhat or extremely likely to get the COVID-19 vaccine. On the other hand, 47% who did not get a recent vaccine said they were somewhat or extremely likely to get the COVID-19 vaccine.

Ways that Do Help

Here are five things you can do to encourage your family, friends and neighbors to vaccinate and to seek out reliable information:

1. Help them discern trustworthy news outlets from the rest. Is the outlet clearly identified? Does it have a good reputation? Does it present verifiable evidence to back up claims? It is hard to know whether a site is advancing a political agenda but check the “about” or “sponsors” type of links in the menu on the homepage to gain a bit more information. People should be particularly suspicious if the source makes absolutist claims or evokes stereotypes. An anger-provoking headline on social media might be nothing more than manipulative clickbait, intended to sell a product or profit in some way from a reader’s attention.

2. Make trustworthy news sources accessible and consistent by putting them on your social media feeds. Community service centers are a good one. Partner with opinion leaders people already trust. Our survey respondents viewed local news and local health departments more useful than other outlets, although favorite sources vary with their age and political orientation.

3. Provide clear, consistent, relevant reasons to get the vaccines. Don’t forget the power of empathy. Our survey says only 49% thought a COVID-19 vaccine would help them, but 65% believed it would help protect other people. Avoid the temptation to use scare tactics and keep in mind that negatively framed messages sometimes backfire.

4. Remember that skepticism about vaccines did not happen overnight or entirely without cause. Research shows that mistrust of news media compromises confidence in vaccination. Many are also skeptical of Big Pharma for promoting drugs of questionable quality. The government must too overcome mistrust based on past questionable tactics, including “vaccine squads” targeting African Americans and immigrants. Honesty about past mistakes or current side effects is important. Some information about vaccines, widely disseminated in the past, were later revealed to be wrong. Although the evidence for the efficacy of vaccines is overwhelming, any missteps on this subject breed mistrust. One recent example: Two major studies about COVID-19 treatments were ultimately retracted.

5. Let them know that science is the answer, but it requires patience to get it right. Scientific progress is made gradually, with course corrections that are common until they build to consensus.

And emphasize the things we are certain of: The pandemic is not going away by itself. Not all news outlets are the same. Both flu and COVID-19 shots are necessary. And vaccines work. Collectively, by turning around those who believe otherwise, we can save lives.

Erica Weintraub Austin, Professor and Director, Edward R. Murrow Center for Media & Health Promotion Research, Washington State University and Porismita Borah, Associate Professor, Washington State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Image: Reuters

Daniel R. DePetris

Security, Asia

It loooks likely to be the same old story all over again.

Editor’s Note: As Election Day rapidly approaches, and with it, a potential change of presidential administration, the Center for the National Interest’s Korean Studies team decided to ask dozens of the world’s top experts a simple question: If Joe Biden wins come November, what do you expect his North Korea policy to look like? The below piece is an answer to that question. Please click here to see even more perspectives on this important topic.

U.S. policy on North Korea across multiple Democratic and Republican administrations has rested on three central pillars: (1) North Korea can under no circumstances be recognized or treated as a nuclear weapons state; (2) over time, economic pressure will eventually bring the Kim dynasty to the negotiating table; and (3) Pyongyang’s denuclearization is the sine qua non of success. From everything we know about Joe Biden and his nearly half-century long career in Washington, none of the basic parameters are likely to change.

Every president enters the Oval Office thinking he can close the North Korea nuclear file for good. President George W. Bush and his national security team frowned upon the Clinton administration’s diplomacy with Pyongyang and perceived it to be weak and unprincipled. Over time, Bush realized that isolating the North with economic and diplomatic sanctions was producing zero policy benefits for the United States and spent his second term as a deeply active participant in the Six Party Talks process. But eight years later, President Bush left office with Washington’s North Korea policy in worse shape than when he came in.

This trend continued with presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump. During his opening months, Obama promised a new era of U.S. diplomatic engagement with long-time adversaries. Trump, a showman if there ever was one, sold himself as the master negotiator who would personally make great deals for the United States and solve problems no other U.S. president had the intelligence or talent to solve. In both cases, North Korea was at the top of the list, and in both cases, Obama and Trump wound up disappointed. Obama largely gave up on diplomacy with Pyongyang after the 2011 Leap Day Deal collapsed in less than a month. Trump, despite three in-person meetings with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and an unknown number of letters exchanged, largely lost interest in the endeavor as election season approached.

If Biden prevails in November, he will inherit a North Korea problem that is the product of three decades of failed U.S. policy. If comments during his long tenure in the Senate or his remarks during the 2020 Democratic presidential primary are any indication, Biden’s North Korea policy will be a highly traditionalist one. North Korea’s complete and verifiable denuclearization will remain the top U.S. policy objective on the Korean Peninsula. Economic sanctions on the North will likely increase as the Biden administration tries to poke and prod China and Russia into fully implementing the various U.N. Security Council Resolutions already on the books. Joint U.S.-South Korean military drills will return on schedule, which will heighten Pyongyang’s sense of vulnerability and perhaps enable Kim to meet the moment with some long-range missile tests of his own. The Biden State Department will devote a significant amount of time trying to impress upon Beijing the necessity of cracking down on ship-to-ship transfers, border smuggling, and whatever other sanctions violations the Chinese and North Koreans have perfected. None of it will be particularly effective. Any North Korea policy that depends on Beijing’s cooperation is a policy that is pre-set to deflate into irrelevance, particularly so when China and the U.S. are already at each other’s throats over a wide range of issues.

As for direct U.S.-North Korea diplomacy? Well, don’t expect any Biden-Kim summits anytime soon, if ever. Dialogue will be attached to a series of conditions the North Koreans will have to meet beforehand, including but not limited to showing some good faith to the international community that they are willing to abide by prior denuclearization commitments.

I can only hope that a potential Biden administration proves this assessment wrong. Otherwise, the U.S. might as well prepare for another four years of the same old story.

Daniel R. DePetris is a columnist at the Washington Examiner and a contributor to the National Interest.

Image: Reuters

Priya Sethi

Security, Asia

ROK forces must also be prepared to provide humanitarian assistance and emergency relief.

Here's What You Need To Remember: U.S. forces will be crucial in enabling international humanitarian agencies to enter affected areas and in providing protection for aid operations. Located miles from the Military Demarcation Line, U.S. forces are able to mobilize immediately to stage and support humanitarian relief operations. They maintain the airlift and aerial reconnaissance capabilities to quickly assess affected areas and to provide immediate, large-scale delivery of supplies.

Speculation on the eventuality of a North Korean government collapse has fueled analysts and policy makers for years. From the famine and economic crisis in the 1990s to recent political purges within the Kim Jong-un government, the potential for collapse always seems to be around the corner. Regardless of how changes take place on the peninsula, North Korea’s entrenched security structures, humanitarian complexities and depleted infrastructure will induce significant instability challenges for regional actors. As calls to support unification and prepare for contingency of an unexpected collapse continue, it is an opportune time for U.S. forces, located on the Korean peninsula, to help the ROK (Republic of Korea) military prepare for stabilization and humanitarian relief efforts.

U.S. forces should leverage their operational experience from recent military campaigns and its unique relationship within the ROK-U.S. Alliance to provide capacity building and security assistance in stability operations, disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration and humanitarian assistance. Strengthening capacity and coordination now will propel ROK military planning from a demand-driven response to an informed, supply-led posture in confronting anticipated instability challenges.

Stability Academy

The ROK military has roughly 500,000 active-duty troops and can activate hundreds of thousands of reserve soldiers. This additional manpower forms Stabilization units that mobilize in support of the active duty troops and homeland defense. However, ROK Stabilization units consist mostly of reservists with limited combat and stability training with which to manage and mitigate against potential drivers of instability. To effectively plan and prepare for instability, U.S. forces should establish training opportunities in which both ROK reservists and active-duty military attend in either peacetime or in conflict conditions to exercise the skills and training needed.

An annual stability operations training for reservists would focus on further developing infantry and artillery skills to enhance their capability in managing combat threats while stabilizing an area. In addition, building expertise and specialty skills in critical stability tasks such as medical training, water and sanitation, and disaster relief would mitigate capability gaps and build a stronger cadre of forces dedicated to stabilization efforts. By using the personnel and facilities already available in South Korea, U.S. forces can utilize and expand integrated training camps, simulations and tabletop exercises for ROK units to develop and build response strategies and capabilities.

Another opportunity U.S. forces should consider is developing a rapid deployment academy for mobilized stabilization divisions preparing to engage in a collapse or conflict environment. U.S. forces could add on to the ROK units’ predeployment training to encourage a greater emphasis on stability operations and civil affairs, building off the U.S. operational experience from recent campaigns. This military-to-military engagement gives the U.S. forces on the peninsula a significant training opportunity to build the capacity of their ROK counterparts.

Security Assistance

A critical area of U.S. security assistance will likely be assisting ROK-led efforts in the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR) of NK forces. In a conflict scenario, NK generals and military elite will be the primary actors to establish control or encourage factional fighting, influencing the potential for insurgency or resistance. Co-opting NK military leaders and security forces not only thwarts a potential driver of insurgency, but also indicates to the rest of the population a willingness by elites to participate in demobilization. The ROK-U.S. Alliance should work to develop a standards-based methodology and doctrine for DDR activities to ensure a successfully coordinated program across military and civilian sectors. The U.S. can assist their ROK counterparts to develop tactics, techniques and procedures that meet established objectives and end-states in disarming or demobilizing North Korea’s military. U.S. forces can assist in building disarmament facilities and weapons caches to disarm the NK security forces, and work with ROK forces to secure political prisoners and elites in accordance with joint and combined doctrinal procedures. The United States can also support the ROK government in establishing incentives and amnesty programs for former combatants and the professional community of scientists, doctors and engineers to encourage participation in demobilization and reintegration.

In addition, U.S. forces can provide liaison teams and partnering units to support the ROK military conduct key stabilization tasks, such as engineering and short-term infrastructure repair. U.S. security assistance can provide expertise to ROK engineer units to prepare for route clearance and construction missions, and set the conditions for critical infrastructure repair, such as roads, bridges and power distribution centers. A major initial operation for the ROK government will involve restoring fuel and electricity services and distributing power generation systems to population centers. U.S. engineer units should partner with ROK units now to plan effectively and to build the capabilities to execute such initial repair efforts.

Humanitarian Relief

ROK forces must also be prepared to provide humanitarian assistance and emergency relief. The U.S. can assist by providing advisory support to build capacity in disaster relief delivery and crisis planning. The U.S. should encourage the ROK government and private sector to build greater stockpiles of portable water, medical supplies, food rations and temporary shelters that the military can reach upon for immediate distribution. In addition, the Korean Integrated Humanitarian Coordination Cell (KIHAC), established to coordinate humanitarian relief activities, should be better integrated with the ROK military and interagency to ensure a synchronized response. U.S. forces can utilize its Civil-Military Operational Cell (CMOC) security assessment and planning capabilities to influence KIHAC integration with government and nongovernmental organizations.

Additionally, U.S. forces will be crucial in enabling international humanitarian agencies to enter affected areas and in providing protection for aid operations. Located miles from the Military Demarcation Line, U.S. forces are able to mobilize immediately to stage and support humanitarian relief operations. They maintain the airlift and aerial reconnaissance capabilities to quickly assess affected areas and to provide immediate, large-scale delivery of supplies. Similar to the military’s plans and models for receiving and integrating troops and equipment, U.S. forces should use their logistics and sustainment hubs to facilitate and secure the delivery and transport of humanitarian aid to ROK military posts. Taking advantage of U.S. staging points and movement networks allows for a more effective and efficient supply distribution and forward movement of international aid agencies.

The Korean peninsula is a ripe environment for U.S. forces to support preparation for instability challenges. Its strategic position and enduring relationship with the South Korean military and government provides opportunities to advise, train and assist the ROK military. While speculation will continue on how collapse or unification scenarios may take place, the recommendations and planning considerations here can strengthen the capacity of the ROK military and offer solutions to more effectively employ U.S. forces against future needs.

Priya Sethi is a civilian defense consultant, currently working in Seoul, South Korea as a U.S. Army planner. This first appeared several years ago. 

Image: Reuters.

Stephen Silver

Technology,

The politics are tricky and it might not be Apple itself that makes them.

It’s occasionally been a point of contention, especially during the Trump era and its fitful trade war with China, that Apple continues to mostly make and assemble its products in China. It’s also often led to confusion—especially last November, when President Trump joined with Apple CEO Tim Cook to visit a plant in Texas, which the president implied was both an Apple manufacturing facility, and newly open as a result of his administration’s policy. Neither was true, as the plant was neither new, nor an Apple-owned facility, although Mac Pro computers are produced at the Flex-owned company, and Apple had opened an office complex in the Austin area.

Now, there are rumors that Apple products may be made in North America, although not in the United States, and once again, not by Apple itself.

Reuters reported on Monday that two Chinese companies that work on Apple products, Foxconn and Pegatron, are considering building factories in Mexico. And Foxconn, per the report, would use the new facility to make iPhones for Apple.

The report added that there had been “no sign of Apple’s direct involvement in the plan yet,” and such a move would not be “Apple” building iPhones in Mexico. A decision is expected later this year, and it’s not clear if the plan would be affected by an election loss by President Trump, and the likely changes in trade policies that would follow under a new administration.

These possible company plans are under consideration, per the report, because “the U.S.-China trade war and coronavirus pandemic prompt firms to reexamine global supply chains.” It’s part of a concept called “nearshoring,” in which manufacturing by U.S. companies still takes place outside of the country, but closer to home, rather than overseas.

Any changes would likely be years out. This year’s iPhone manufacturing timeline has been closely watched by analysts and other Apple observers, as fears have continued that Apple’s iPhone line could be delayed due to the coronavirus. Apple admitted, on its most recent earnings call, that this year’s iPhones will arrive a few weeks later than usual, which likely places their release somewhere in the month of October.

Foxconn already has five factories throughout Mexico, although it has never made iPhones in that country. Foxconn made a controversial deal a few years ago in which they agreed to build a factory in Wisconsin, in exchange for massive government subsidies. However, the plans have been repeatedly delayed, and the project is not expected to bring about the promised number of jobs for the Southeastern Wisconsin region.

Stephen Silver, a technology writer for The National Interest, is a journalist, essayist and film critic, who is also a contributor to 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.

Image: Reuters

Ethen Kim Lieser

Health, World

What happens if people also get the coronavirus?

These days, most Americans are inundated with up-to-the-minute data detailing the horrific effects of the novel coronavirus.

But what often gets ignored amid this ongoing pandemic is that the flu season is right around the corner—which can be a lethal virus in its own right.

More than eight months into the global pandemic, roughly 810,000 deaths have been reported due to the coronavirus, according to the latest data from Johns Hopkins University.

That indeed is a substantial figure, but what current data show is that the seasonal flu also has the potential to be extremely deadly.

In a 2017 collaborative study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and global health partners, between 291,000 and 646,000 people worldwide die from influenza-related respiratory illnesses each year.

These figures are considerably higher than the World Health Organization’s previous estimates of 250,000 to 500,000 deaths.

In the United States, on average, between nine and forty-five million Americans catch the flu each year, which leads to anywhere between 12,000 to 61,000 deaths. According to the CDC, between October 2019 and April 2020, there were an estimated thirty-nine to fifty-six million influenza infections and 24,000 to 62,000 fatalities.

“These findings remind us of the seriousness of flu and that flu prevention should really be a global priority,” Dr. Joe Bresee, associate director for global health in CDC’s Influenza Division, said in a news release.

The highest flu mortality rates are witnessed in the world’s poorest regions and among older adults. People aged seventy-five years and older and those living in sub-Saharan African countries experienced the highest number of fatalities, followed by individuals residing in Eastern Mediterranean and Southeast Asian countries.

Despite the WHO’s recommendation to utilize flu-vaccination programs to help protect people in high-risk populations, few developing countries have the resources or capacity to manufacture and distribute such vaccines.

“This work adds to a growing global understanding of the burden of influenza and populations at highest risk,” CDC researcher Danielle Iuliano said in a news release. “It builds the evidence base for influenza vaccination programs in other countries.”

In the United States, where flu-vaccination programs are widely available, fewer than half of adults and about 60% of children typically get the flu shot each year, according to CDC’s 2018-2019 data.

The shot’s effectiveness ranges from 20% to 60% each season—depending on the types of strains circulating. The available vaccines are aimed at preventing at least three different strains of the virus, and most cover four. Last year’s formulation was estimated to be about 45% effective in preventing the flu overall, with about a 55% effectiveness in children.

In preparation for a potentially dangerous one-two punch of flu cases and coronavirus infections, the four manufacturers of U.S. flu vaccines have already confirmed that they will ship roughly 200 million doses across the United States this year—which is 19% higher than last season.

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.

Image: Reuters

Ahsan Butt

Security, Asia

But if the two countries are interested, there are a few viable solutions to the decades-old conflict.

Last week, a senior Indian national security reporter dropped a bombshell that, at first glance, should have turned more heads. The story revealed “persistent” rumors in New Delhi of a secret diplomatic backchannel currently underway between India and Pakistan. The speculation is that these talks, purportedly involving senior officials holed up in Washington and London, have included discussions on everything from “the fate of Kashmir” to “the future of Afghanistan”. 

The report was instructive for several reasons, not least its author. Praveen Swami’s chumminess with the Indian security establishment has been scrutinized in the past, but in this instance, his cozy relationship with the military brass adds credibility to the claims. In all likelihood, this report is not coming from nowhere. If nothing else, it could be a senior leader in the BJP government or security apparatus publicly musing or floating the possibility to gauge the idea’s reception.  

Any news that portends warmer ties between India and Pakistan or progress on a Kashmir settlement should be welcomed. That said, the same pathologies that have doomed past efforts at rapprochement in South Asia still exist. Without excising those, peacebuilding in the region will always be a precarious enterprise, a Jenga-like structure vulnerable to the diplomatic equivalent of someone breathing too hard.

Hardliners in Pakistan and India 

Casual observers of South Asia may be surprised by just how often India and Pakistan embark on a process of normalizing ties. There has been at least one such attempt in each of the last four decades: between Zia-ul-Haq and Rajiv Gandhi (1980s), Nawaz Sharif and Atal Behari Vajpayee (1990s), Manmohan Singh with both Pervez Musharraf and briefly Asif Ali Zardari (2000s), and Nawaz Sharif and Narendra Modi (2010s). More than one of these efforts has involved detailed negotiations over Kashmir. 

The cynic might interject that such fleeting optimism only serves to intersperse insurgencies, terrorist attacks, and threats of nuclear war. True enough. But it bears repeating that, under the right circumstances, the leaderships of India and Pakistan are not impervious to the seductive scent of a landmark peace deal or treaty.  

Yet each of those attempts failed, and handily at that. The reasons were predictable: hardliners on both sides scuttling painstaking progress, unwilling to expend political capital and risk their domestic standing, reputations, and careers.   

In Pakistan, the main problem has been the security establishment. Tellingly, even hawkish Pakistani generals, from Zia to Musharraf to now (reportedly) Bajwa, have shown that they are not, in principle, against deal-making with India. Rather, what they object to is deals negotiated by civilians.

Over the past two decades, the army and intelligence services have upended, undercut, and undermined the efforts of elected politicians to thaw relations not once (1999), not twice (2008), but thrice (2016). Having arrogated to itself the role of national custodian, the security establishment does not trust politicians to represent Pakistan with India. Each time the hapless civilian leaders dare to do so, like clockwork, a major terrorist attack or act of war on Indian soil happens to take place.  

In India, the issue has not been one specific actor, but a wider ideology: nationalism, a powerful and pernicious force. Indian nationalists often protest that they hardly give the time of day to Pakistan and have bigger fish to fry.  

But their western neighbor remains a resonant symbol that evokes suspicion, mistrust, and contempt from the Indian body politic, security establishment, and society writ-large, with the notable exception of the south and, perhaps, the northeast. “Pakistan,” both as a word and as an idea, is used as a rhetorical cudgel across the political spectrum: right-wingers will tell their opponents to “go to Pakistan” while liberals will urge their opponents to not turn India into a “Hindu Pakistan.” Even amongst sophisticated Indian observers, the understanding of Pakistan and Pakistani society remains largely a caricature.

The Last Best Chance? 

The mid-2000s serve to highlight the severe costs that these two dynamics impose on South Asia. It was an opportune time for negotiation: the United States was deeply involved in the region and had leverage and credibility with both parties. The pair’s nuclear tests were almost a decade old, sufficient time for decisionmakers to adjust to new geostrategic realities. Each government wished to pursue an accommodationist course. The Mumbai terror attacks, which poisoned the idea of cooperating with Pakistan for a generous swathe of the Indian intelligentsia and policymaking community, had not yet occurred.

Sure enough, in 2006, Pakistan and India came tantalizingly close to demilitarizing the Siachen glacier—the highest, coldest, and most punishing battlefield in the world, occupied by Indian and Pakistani troops since the early 1980s. At the last minute, according to a book by India’s former Foreign Secretary, M. K. Narayanan (the Indian National Security Advisor) and Gen. J. J. Singh (the Army Chief) lobbied against the deal, dashing hopes of an agreement.  

Worse followed in 2007. Back-channel talks, having taken place over several years in locations such as Bangkok, Dubai, and London between emissaries from Manmohan Singh and Pervez Musharraf, were so advanced that the two had “come to semicolons” in a draft agreement on Kashmir. A visit by the Indian prime minister to Pakistan to announce the deal, and begin its implementation, was in the works. But Musharraf, a dictator who rose to power in a coup, began to lose his grip on the country and responded as all authoritarians are wont to do: desperation and force. By the end of the year, he was no longer Army Chief. By the next year, he was out of public life altogether.

The year 2006 showed that the ugly image of Pakistan in India’s collective strategic thinking can be self-defeating. The year 2007 showed that Pakistani military leaders will seldom enjoy the broad-based and institutionalized political support that freely and fairly elected governments are built on. When mired in sensitive diplomacy, such support can be worth its weight in gold.  

Kashmir Today 

A far cry from the mid-2000s, the noxious atmosphere in South Asia today is hardly facilitative of constructive dialog. Barely eighteen months ago, India and Pakistan flew fighter jets into each other’s airspace for the first time since 1971. Exactly a year ago, Modi’s BJP government executed a suffocating clampdown on Kashmir. Since then, Imran Khan has referred to Modi’s regime as “fascist” and likened Modi to Hitler, while Indian leaders and security officials have spoken of designs to annex Pakistani Kashmir.  

Under such conditions, an inclination to despair may seem natural. In truth, objective conditions show the advisability of talking on Kashmir.  

From Pakistan’s perspective, the conflict has exacted an enormous toll: blowback from the militarization and Islamization of its foreign policy in the form of a deadly insurgency that brought the state to its knees, pariah status in major global capitals for its sponsorship of terrorism, and economic ruin impelled by avaricious defense budgets.  

Meanwhile, India’s hardball strategy under Modi, both on Kashmir and the region more generally, has largely failed. Domestically, space for mainstream politics in the Valley has essentially vanished, recruitment of homegrown militants continues unabated, and the Kashmiri street remains bitterly angry. Regionally, New Delhi’s ties with Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka have deteriorated. Most importantly, its aggressive behavior last August invited retaliation from China, boxing it into a crisis where India has few palatable options.  

International Relations research suggests that leaders of regional rivals tend to bury the past only when it serves some larger geopolitical purpose and helps solidify their domestic rule. The good news is that these are exactly the conditions that obtain in India and Pakistan today. The bad news is the two governments may not see it that way and certainly evince little indication that they are prepared to make tough concessions on territory, terrorism, and trade.  

If India and Pakistan are interested, however, then there are viable solutions to the Kashmir conflict. The near-settlement under Musharraf and Manmohan—which calls for (1) demilitarization and (2) self-governance for the entire historical state of Jammu and Kashmir, (3) free movement of people and goods across the border, and (4) joint management of Kashmir by Indians, Pakistanis, and Kashmiris—is a sound departure point.  

From Kosovo to the Cook Islands, from Gibraltar to Monaco, it is evident that sovereignty in international politics is layered and nuanced, not a simple binary of independent statehood or bust. Whether India and Pakistan can operate with sufficient boldness and deftness within that maneuverability is, of course, another question entirely.

The Payoff  

Though Kashmir grabs the headlines, it is in many ways a distraction from the fundamental social and political challenges facing Indian and Pakistani citizens both: abysmally low standards of living and climate change.  

Nationalist Indians gloat about their economy being the fifth largest in the world but in the UN Human Development Index, which accounts for health, education, and per capita wealth, India ranks in the bottom third of countries (129th to be exact). India lags tiny war-torn Latin American countries like Guatemala and El Salvador and only narrowly edges poor sub-Saharan African states like Namibia and the Congo.

Nationalist Pakistanis brag about being the only nuclear power in the Muslim world but their HDI ranking is even worse: 152nd, eclipsed by Zimbabwe, Cameroon, and Angola—not to mention every other country in the region, including Nepal (147), Myanmar (145), Bangladesh (135), India (129), and Sri Lanka (71).

Meanwhile, South Asia as a whole is poised to be the region most devastated by climate change. The World Bank has estimated that eight hundred million people could face “sharply diminished living conditions” by 2050. Those on social media will note the poignant irony in Lahoris and Delhiites tweeting the same complaints about the quality of the air they breathe, a telling synchronicity: joint problems require joint solutions.

The Most Dysfunctional Region in the World 

South Asia is, by far, the most geopolitically dysfunctional part of the globe. The abject juxtaposition of nuclear weapons and grinding poverty is emblematic of the priorities of its governments. The subcontinent has the least dense network of regional institutions anywhere. While East Asia has the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Europe has the EU and NATO, Africa has the African Union, and the Americas have Mercosur and NAFTA—or whatever Donald Trump is calling it these days—South Asia has nothing comparable.  

Even when other countries are mired in troubled relations, as in northeast Asia, they manage to compartmentalize. Notwithstanding their tensions, China is Japan’s biggest trading partner; Japan is China’s third-biggest. Even in regions deeply divided by religion, nationalism, and history, as in the Middle East, a number of Israel’s Arab neighbors have either signed peace treaties with it (Egypt, Jordan) or not-so-surreptitiously signaled benign neutrality (Saudi Arabia).  

Last year, Ethiopia’s leader won the Nobel Peace Prize for a peace deal with Eritrea in a conflict that is, or was, as long-lasting as that between India and Pakistan. Argentinians and Brazilians talk a good game, especially when it comes to football, but ultimately, they enjoy supremely warm ties: no country sends more tourists to Brazil than Argentina and vice versa, Brazil is the biggest source of tourism to Argentina.  

In almost every region the world over, the free movement of goods, families, tourists, students, pilgrims, musical bands, sports teams, ideas, films, and books is a banal, quotidian fact of life. The governments of India and Pakistan owe their citizens, and those of Kashmir, an explanation of why such a reality is uniquely alien to them.

Ahsan Butt is an Associate Professor at the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University and a nonresident fellow at the Stimson Center. He is the author of Secession and Security: Explaining State Strategy Against Separatists. He tweets @ahsanib.

Image: Reuters

Stephen Silver

Technology, Americas

You will want to keep your subscription for these.

The fall of 2020 is upon us, and while not as many Americans are stuck at home at this point as they were in the spring, those with kids at home might need a break. And for those that do- there’s plenty of new stuff coming to Netflix in the month of September.

• The “Back to the Future” trilogy (September 1.) The “Back to the Future” movies are one of those things that gets traded frequently among streaming services, and all three movies, directed by Robert Zemeckis and starring Michael J. Fox and Christopher Lloyd, hit Netflix again at the start of September.
   
• “Glory” (September 1.) Director Edward Zwick’s 1989 film, starring Denzel Washington and dealing with the first black regiment in the Civil War, hits Netflix at the start of the month after long being unavailable on streaming services.
   
• “Grease” (September 1.) “Grease” is the word, as the famous 1978 musical that starred John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John comes to Netflix.
   
• “The Muppets” and “Muppets Most Wanted” (September 1.) The Muppets may be a Disney property, but for some reason the two most recent big-screen Muppets movies are heading to Netflix in September, after they were previously on Disney+.
   
• “Love, Guaranteed” (September 3.) The star of “She’s All That,” Rachael Lee Cook, resurfaces in this Netflix romantic comedy, co-starring Damon Wayans Jr., is about a lawyer representing a client who sues a dating website that had guaranteed love.
   
• “I’m Thinking of Ending Things” (September 4.) Netflix has snagged the latest movie from writer/director Charlie Kaufman, who wrote “Being John Malkovich” and “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,” and directed “Synecdoche, New York” and “Anomalisa.” The new film, based on the novel by Iain Reid, is described as a psychological thriller, and it stars Jesse Plemons, Jessie Buckley, Toni Collette and David Thewlis.
   
• “Cuties” (September 9.) This film was already the subject of a huge controversy over its poster, but the movie, directed by Maïmouna Doucouré, has drawn some positive advanced buzz. “Cuties” is a French film, which debuted at Sundance back in January, about a Senegalese Muslim girl who joins a twerking dance crew.
   
• “Challenger: The Final Flight (September 16.) The latest high-profile space project looks back at the Challenger disaster from 1986, in the form of a docuseries.
   
• "The Devil All the Time” (September 16.) Another psychological thriller, directed by Antonio Campos, stars Batman, Spider-man AND the Winter Soldier. That means Robert Pattinson, Tom Holland and Sebastian Stan, along with Riley Keough and Jason Clarke.
   
• “Ratched” (September 18.) The latest Netflix series from the prolific Ryan Murphy looks at the backstory of the Nurse Ratched character from “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” starring Murphy perennial Sarah Paulson as the title character.

Stephen Silver, a technology writer for The National Interest, is a journalist, essayist and film critic, who is also a contributor to 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.

Image: Reuters

Stephen Silver

Technology,

Apple just keeps on winning.

The global market for smartwatches, despite the pandemic, posted 20% revenue growth in the first half of 2020, even as shipments remained flat. In addition, Apple now holds more than 50% of the global market share in the category. 

That’s according to new research released this week by Counterpoint Research, which found that the smartwatch category is growing, contrary to the smartphone category and other markets which have suffered during the coronavirus pandemic. 

Around forty-two million smartwatches were shipped in the first half of the year, around the world with the U.S. and Europe posting single-digit gains while other markets, including India, saw larger ones. 

“Apple continued to dominate the smartwatch market both in volume and value. Apple captured a record half of the market in terms of revenue due to strong demand for the Apple Watch S5 models,” Sujeong Lim, a Counterpoint senior analyst, said in the announcement. 

Apple now holds 51.4% of the global market in terms of revenue, with Garmin second at 9.4%, Samsung third with 7.2%, and Imho fifth with 5.1%. Apple’s% in the first half of 2019 was just 43.2%, and at that point, Samsung was second and Garmin was third. 

Google’s wearOS is the second most popular smartphone operating system, behind Apple’s watchOS. Counterpoint also said that cellular-equipped smartwatches are becoming more popular, now accounting for about one in four of global smartwatches shipped. 

“Huawei benefitted from significant demand for its smartwatches, especially the Watch GT2 series in Asian markets. Garmin, the second-largest brand in terms of revenue globally, continued to make strides cornering the sports enthusiast and athlete market,” Neil Shah, Counterpoint’s vice president of research, said in the announcement. 

“The brand saw healthy demand (+31% YoY) for its Forerunner and Fenix line, making up one of the broadest portfolios of smartwatches in the market. Europe and North America remain the key markets for Garmin.”

Garmin was once best known in the United States for standalone car GPS devices, a category that largely disappeared with the advent of smartphones. And Chinese-made Huawei products, of course, are not allowed in the United States. 

Apple, which unveiled the latest watchOS software earlier this summer at its “virtual” World Wide Developers Conference, is expected to release the newest Apple Watch this fall, while the rumor mill has indicated that perhaps the company is eying the release of a cheaper “Apple Watch SE.” 

Samsung, meanwhile, unveiled its latest smartwatch, the Galaxy Watch 3, at its Unpacked event on August 5. That device, which can take ECG and blood pressure readings, will cost around $400. 

Stephen Silver, a technology writer for The National Interest, is a journalist, essayist and film critic, who is also a contributor to 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.

 Image: Reuters

Ethen Kim Lieser

Environment, World

Can the planet recover from such rapid change?

A total of twenty-eight trillion tons of ice have disappeared from the surface of the Earth since 1994, according to U.K. scientists who analyzed satellite surveys of the planet’s poles, mountains and glaciers.

Scientists from Leeds and Edinburgh universities and University College London, whose findings were published in the journal Cryosphere Discussions, described the ice loss between 1994 and 2017 as “staggering.”

“There can be little doubt that the vast majority of Earth’s ice loss is a direct consequence of climate warming,” the team stated in the review paper.

There is now potential for the melting glaciers and ice sheets to cause sea levels to rise dramatically—perhaps even as high as three feet by the end of the century.

“To put that in context, every centimeter of sea-level rise means about a million people will be displaced from their low-lying homelands,” Andy Shepherd, director of Leeds University’s Center for Polar Observation and Modelling, told The Guardian.

The scientists also noted that the rapid rate of ice melt is seriously reducing the planet’s ability to reflect solar radiation back into space. With less white ice, the dark sea and exposed soil are absorbing more heat, which can further increase overall temperatures.

“In the past, researchers have studied individual areas—such as the Antarctic or Greenland—where ice is melting. But this is the first time anyone has looked at all the ice that is disappearing from the entire planet,” Shepherd said.

“What we have found has stunned us.”

Team member Tom Slater from Leeds University tried to put the massive ice loss into perspective.

“To put the losses we’ve already experienced into context, 28 trillion tons of ice would cover the entire surface of the U.K. with a sheet of frozen water that is 100 meters thick,” he told The Guardian. “It’s just mind-blowing.”

The team’s findings match up well with the recent worst-case-scenario predictions set forth by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—though they could be on the conservative side, according to a peer-reviewed study published in the journal Climate Atmospheric Science.

That paper offered an even grimmer forecast, in which by the year 2300, ice sheets covering West Antarctica and Greenland will have shed trillions of tons of mass. In this catastrophic scenario, sea levels could swell by more than sixteen feet, which would redraw the globe’s coastlines.

Combined, Greenland and West Antarctica hold enough ice to lift oceans by about forty-three feet. In contrast, the much more stable East Antarctica has enough ice to potentially have a 160-foot impact.

Today, about 770 million people, or about 10% of the global population, live on high-risk land that is less than sixteen feet above the high-tide line.

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.

Image: Reuters

Peter Suciu

History,

It survived torpedoes, bombs, shells, and two atomic blasts.

Here's What You Need To Remember: The Nevada is an unambiguous reminder of our Navy's heritage of resilience.

To say that the USS Nevada (BB-36) was "tough" would be a colossal understatement.

The warship was rushed into service during the First World War, survived Pearl Harbor, and during the Second World War supported the D-Day landings in Normandy and then the invasions of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. After the war, she served as a target during the July 1946 atomic bomb tests at Bikini in the Marshall Islands – but even that wasn't enough to sink her. Finally, off the Hawaiian Islands the U.S. Navy sunk the tough old warship with gunfire and torpedoes.

Now after more than 70 years researchers have discovered the wreck of the USS Nevada located 65 nautical miles southwest of Pearl Harbor. The ship is lying at a depth of 15,400 feet, and was found by underwater archeology specialists SEARCH and marine robotics company Ocean Infinity. The mission to find the famed U.S. Navy battleship was jointly coordinated between SEARCH's operations center and one of Ocean Infinity's vessels, Pacific Constructor.

The Ocean Infinity ship had set sail for a range of commercial tasks in the Pacific earlier this year before the outbreak of the novel coronavirus. As a result of the global pandemic the ship has remained at sea, and apparently used its time wisely!

"We are greatly appreciative to Ocean Infinity and SEARCH Inc. in relocating and providing information on an extremely historic vestige of our nation's past," said Rear Admiral Samuel Cox, U.S. Navy (Retired), director of the Naval History and Heritage Command.

"Nevada is an unambiguous reminder of our Navy's heritage of resilience," Cox added. "Nevada has a proud place in Navy's history – commissioned in 1916, she served in both World Wars, and was present at the Pearl Harbor attacks in 1941; the only battleship to get underway after the attack. During the attack, the ship and crew sustained at least six, and possibly, as many as 10 bomb hits and one torpedo hit, but remained in the fight. With our sailors' quick thinking, the crew grounded the ship, preventing her from sinking. The ship was repaired and immediately returned to the fight, proving the resiliency and toughness of our sailors then, as are today."

The USS Nevada had a long and distinguished career. The ship provided escort duties to convoys heading "over there" during the First World, and was then among the escort ships that sailed with the ocean liner George Washington, which carried U.S. President Woodrow Wilson to the Paris Peace Conference.

During the attack on Pearl Harbor, she had been stationed next to the famous USS Arizona but was the only battleship to get underway. A total of 60 of its 1,500-member crew were killed in the attack, while more than 100 more were wounded, but the crew was able to ground the vessel, which prevented it from completely sinking. Nevada was repaired and was the only battleship to be present at both Pearl Harbor and at Normandy for the D-Day landings.

The Nevada then played a key role in the invasions of Iwo Jima and Okinawa and survived a Japanese kamikaze attack on March 27, 1945, that left 11 of her crew dead and 41 wounded. A shell attack during the invasion also killed two of the crew and further damaged the ship.

As an aging warship, the Navy decided to use Nevada, along with about 100 other veteran vessels for target practice at the Bikini Atoll. On July 1, 1946, a 23-kiloton bomb dropped by a B-29 left the vessel seriously damaged and scorched by fire but still floating! A follow up underwater detonation sank other warships, but not Nevada. It was only on July 31, 1948, that the damaged vessel was finally sunk after being used in a Navy gunfire exercise.

"Nevada is an iconic ship that speaks to American resilience and stubbornness," said Dr. James Delgado, senior vice president, and lead maritime archeologist for SEARCH.

"Rising from its watery grave after being sunk at Pearl Harbor, it survived torpedoes, bombs, shells, and two atomic blasts," added Delgado. "The physical reality of the ship, resting in the darkness of the great museum of the sea, reminds us not only of past events but of those who took up the challenge of defending the United States in two global wars. This is why we do ocean exploration to seek out these powerful connections to the past."

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

This article first appeared on May 14, 2020 and is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Wikimedia

Mark Episkopos

Security,

Russian Ministry of Defense released brief promotional footage to show off development of ambitious weapons projects.

Here's What You Need To Remember: The Kremlin can be expected to ramp up their ongoing strategic weapons projects in a bid to diversify both their nuclear and conventional deterrent over the coming years. 

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s February Address to the Federal Assembly made waves for its international political implications, and rightly so. But less covered, though arguably no less important, were Putin’s updates on several of Russia’s most ambitious weapons projects: Poseidon and Tsirkon.

As previously covered by The National Interest, Poseidon is a nuclear-powered underwater drone armed with a 2-megaton atomic payload. Its explosion is meant to generate a radioactive tsunami, capable of destroying coastal cities and other infrastructure several kilometers inland.

Poseidon is “successfully undergoing tests,” Putin announced last week. Later that day, the Russian Ministry of Defense released brief promotional footage to drive the point home. The video, entitled “proving grounds testing of the Poseidon system,” shows little of the Poseidon system in action. Instead, it depicts Russian sailors hustling about what appears to be the Sarov test submarine, before cutting to several green-tinted, above-surface shots of the submarine. Nonetheless, Defense Minister Shoigu declared the tests a success and the system is reportedly on track for its anticipated 2019 launch.

Putin added that Poseidon boasts an “unlimited range.” Presumably, this means that the underwater drone can traverse virtually infinite distances before reaching its target. With a maximum speed of 200 kilometers and effective depth of “thousands of feet” below the surface, the Kremlin believes that Poseidon travels too fast and too deep underwater to be reliably intercepted. While impressive on paper, it remains to be seen to what extent traveling at such breakneck speeds compromises Poseidon’s detectability as it enters within detonation range of its coastal target.

While others have expressed skepticism concerning Poseidon’s supposed invincibility and even its military value, what makes it such a potent addition to Russia’s nuclear arsenal is precisely that it can succeed strategically even if it fails tactically. Poseidon’s mere deployment off hostile coasts is almost guaranteed to cause mass political confusion, thereby serving as a cover for a different military or political operation even if it is ultimately intercepted.

Putin went on to highlight another “promising innovation”: “Tsirkon, a hypersonic missile that can reach speeds of approximately Mach 9 and strike a target more than 1,000 km away both underwater and on the ground. It can be launched from water, from surface vessels and from submarines, including those that were developed and built for carrying Kalibr high-precision missiles, which means it comes at no additional cost for us.”

This is more or less a condensed summary of what is already known about 3M22 Tsirkon, with one notable exception. Past reports have pegged Tsirkon’s speed at around Mach 6 with one CNBC source alleging Mach 8, but Putin is now publicly stating a speed of “approximately Mach 9” or around 6,900 miles per hour. There are a few factors that may account for this discrepancy: “approximately Mach 9” may be a generous way to describe the high end of Mach 8, Tsirkon’s speed may have increased from developmental progress made over the years, or there may be more than one version of Tsirkon. 

Meanwhile, Putin’s emphasis on cost-effectiveness reflects one of Tsirkon’s guiding design principles as a versatile, multi-purpose weapon that seamlessly integrates with a wide range of existing delivery systems including even certain bomber aircraft.

Unlike with Poseidon, Russian officials have not offered a concrete timetable on Tsirkon’s development. But as Cold-War era arms control regimes continue to disintegrate, the Kremlin can be expected to ramp up their ongoing strategic weapons projects in a bid to diversify both their nuclear and conventional deterrent over the coming years. 

Mark Episkopos is a frequent contributor to The National Interest and serves as 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 2019 and is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters

Peter Suciu

Security,

These upgrades will ensure the ability to pack a heavy punch. 

Here's What You Need To Remember: A volley of the YJ-12s could pose a significant threat to even the most sophisticated air defense system. 

The Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has increased the potency of its Luhai-class Type 051B destroyer, Shenzhen (DD 167), with 16 container launchers for YJ-12 supersonic anti-ship missile. The warship, the only one of its class, first entered service in 1999 and was commissioned by the PLAN Navy South Sea Fleet as its flagship. It was originally armed with the YJ-83 subsonic sea-skimming anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM), which have been described as being comparable to the U.S. Navy's Harpoon.

The YJ-83 boasted an impressive range, but it lacked the strategic impact of the YJ-12 – which has both speed and range. Forbes noted that a volley of the YJ-12s could pose a significant threat to even the most sophisticated air defense system. It also has a large warhead that could make it potentially quite devastating even to capital warships such as aircraft carriers.

Also known as the CM-302 in its export name, the YJ-12 employs a ramjet engine that allows it to cruise at supersonic speed Mach 2 to 3, or a maximum range of 280 to 400 kilometers per hour. The missile reportedly utilizes an inertial guidance system that is coupled with a global navigation satellite system (GNSS). The new missiles are also reportedly being refitted to the PLAN's Sovremenny-class destroyers, which are based on Russian designs from when China upgraded its defense capabilities with Russian technology.

At the time of its introduction of the Shenzhen, it was the largest surface combatant vessel ever commissioned by the PLAN, but despite its increased size and displacement, the destroyer did not feature any significant improvements in weapons systems and sensors and was largely seen to be deployed with rather "meager armament," which include a single HHQ-7 short-range anti-aircraft missile launch, just four twin 76mm guns, and the eight YJ-83 anti-ship missiles.

All this explains the efforts of the Chinese to refit and upgrade the warship. It had been spotted undergoing a modernization refit at the Zhanjiang Naval Base in 2015, which included some significant improvements in its weapons and sensors. In recent years the warship's Type 381A radar was upgraded to the Type 382 and additional Type 364 radar systems.

Last November the Shenzhen returned from its most recent major refit, which included the installation of an HHQ-16 vertical launch system consisting of four sets of eight units and allows it to host 32 ship-to-air missiles to shoot down incoming hostile aircraft and missiles. This replaced the single HHQ-7 SAM launch on the bow deck.

Forbes noted that China's first-generation of modern warships, including the Shenzhen, are unlikely to be as capable as newer and larger types, these upgrades will ensure the ability to pack a heavy punch. 

The Shenzhen has participated in numerous military operations, but it also worth noting that it has made port calls to numerous countries, making it a star in naval diplomacy. It now has even more to show off.

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

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

Image: Wikimedia

Kris Osborn

Security,

The US Army wants the F-35 to support its ground troops, but Congress loves the A-10.

Here's What You Need To Remember: Regardless of the conclusions arrived upon by the ongoing assessment, it is likely both the A-10 and F-35 will perform CAS missions in the immediate years ahead.

The US Army wants the F-35 to support its ground troops.

It’s that simple. We hear volumes of information about the Marine Corps vertical-take-off-and-landing F-35B, Navy carrier-launched F-35C and Air Force F-35A - but what does the Army think of the emerging Joint Strike Fighter?

Does the Army think the 5th-Gen stealth fighter would bring substantial value to targeting and attacking enemy ground forces in close proximity to advancing infantry? What kind of Close Air Support could it bring to high-risk, high-casualty ground war?

“When you are in a firefight, the first thing infantry wants to do it get on that radio to adjust fire for mortars and locate targets with close air support with planes or helicopters. You want fires. The F-35 has increased survivability and it will play a decisive role in the support of ground combat,” Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley told reporters at the Association of the United States Army Annual Symposium.

Gen. Milley’s comments are quite significant, given the historic value of close air support when it comes to ground war. His remarks also bear great relevance regarding the ongoing Pentagon evaluation assessing the F-35 and A-10 Warthog in close air support scenarios.

Over the years, close-air-support to Army ground war has of course often made the difference between life and death - victory or defeat. The Army, Milley said, wants next-generation close-air-support for potential future warfare.

“We fight with the Navy, Marines and Air Force. Our soldiers have never heard an Air Force pilot say ‘I can’t fly into that low-altitude area,’ These guys take incredible risk. If there are troops on the ground, they are rolling in hot,” Milley said.

While Milley of course did not specifically compare the A-10 to the F-35 or say the Army prefers one aircraft over another, he did say the F-35 would be of great value in a high-stakes, force-on-force ground war.

Long-revered by ground troops as a “flying-tank,” the combat proven A-10 has been indispensable to ground-war victory. Its titanium hull, 30mm cannon, durability, built-in redundancy and weapons range has enabled the aircraft to sustain large amounts of small arms fire and combat damage - and keep flying.

At the same time, as newer threats emerge and the high-tech F-35 matures into combat, many US military weapons developers and combatant commanders believe the JSF can bring an improved, new-generation of CAS support to ground troops. Thus - the ongoing Office of the Secretary of Defense comparison.

Recommended: What Will the Sixth-Generation Jet Fighter Look Like?

Recommended: Imagine a U.S. Air Force That Never Built the B-52 Bomber

Recommended: Russia's Next Big Military Sale - To Mexico?

Recommended: Would China Really Invade Taiwan?

Accordingly, the Pentagon-led F-35/A-10 assessment is nearing its next phase of evaluation, following an initial “first wave” of tests in July of this year, Vice Adm. Mat Winter, Program Executive Officer, F-35 program, recently told a group of reporters.

“Mission performance is under evaluation,” Winter said.

Pre- Initial Operational Test & Evaluation test phases, are currently underway at Edwards AFB and Naval Air Station China Lake, officials said.

“Mission performance is being evaluated in the presence of a robust set of ground threats and, to ensure a fair and comparable evaluation of each system’s performance, both aircraft are allowed to configure their best weapons loadouts and employ their best tactics for the mission scenario” a statement from the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation said.

Upon initial examination, some might regard a stealthy, 5th-Gen F-35 as ill-equipped or at least not-suited for close air support. However, a closer look does seem to uncover a handful of advantages - speaking to the point Milley mentioned about survivability.

Long-range, computer-enabled F-35 sensors could enable the aircraft to see and destroy enemy ground targets with precision from much higher altitudes and much farther ranges than an A-10 could; the speed of an F-35, when compared to an A-10, would potentially make it better able to maneuver, elude enemy fire and get into position for attack; like the A-10s 30mm gun, the F-35 has its own 25mm cannon mounted on its left wing which could attack ground forces; given its sensor configuration, with things like a 360-degree Distributed Aperture System with cameras, the F-35 brings a drone-like ISR component to air-ground war. This could help targeting, terrain analysis and much-needed precision attacks as US soldiers fight up close with maneuvering enemy ground forces.

An F-35 might be better positioned to respond quickly to enemy force movement; in the event that enemy air threats emerge in a firefight, an F-35 could address them in a way an A-10 could not, obviously; an F-35 would be much better positioned to locate enemy long-range fires points of combat significance and destroy hostile artillery, mortar or long-range-fires launching points. Finally, while the A-10 has a surprising wide envelope of weapons, an F-35 could travel with a wider range of air-ground attack weapons - armed with advanced targeting technology.

Also, fighter-jet close air support is by no means unprecedented. F-22s were used against ISIS, F-15s were used against insurgents in Iraq - and the F-35 recently had its combat debut in Afghanistan.

There are, however, some unknowns likely to be informing the current analysis. How much small arms fire could an F-35 withstand? Could it draw upon its “hovering” technology to loiter near high-value target areas? To what extent could it keep flying in the event that major components, such as engines or fuselage components, were destroyed in war? How much could A-10 weapons and targeting technology be upgraded?

Regardless of the conclusions arrived upon by the ongoing assessment, it is likely both the A-10 and F-35 will perform CAS missions in the immediate years ahead.

When it comes to the Army and the F-35, one can clearly envision warfare scenarios wherein Army soldiers could be supported by the Marine Corps F-35B, Navy F-35C or Air Force F-35A.

“We don’t fight as an Army - we fight as a joint force. What makes us different is the synergistic effect we get from combining various forces in time and space,” Milley said.

Kris 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 CNN and CNN Headline News.

This first appeared in Warrior Maven here.

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

Image: Wikimedia

 

Charlie Gao

Security,

The PKM replaced the lighter RPK-74 as the standard squad automatic weapon of the Russian Army in the 2000s and has only received a few modifications to the design in almost fifty years.

Here's What You Need To Remember: The PKM is sometimes described as “an AK flipped upside down and made in a different caliber,” which is not totally incorrect. Both weapons use the long-stroke gas piston operation, where gas is tapped from the barrel to drive a piston that actuates the action. On the AK, the gas tube that houses this piston is above the barrel. On the PKM, it is below the barrel.

Mikhail Kalashnikov is known for creating the AK rifle, but his contributions to Soviet firearms design didn’t end there. In 1961 he designed the PK machine gun, which was modernized into the PKM in 1969. Like the AK, this machine gun serves on to the current day. However, in many ways, it can be considered a better design than his rifle, despite it serving a different role.

The PKM is sometimes described as “an AK flipped upside down and made in a different caliber,” which is not totally incorrect. Both weapons use the long-stroke gas piston operation, where gas is tapped from the barrel to drive a piston that actuates the action. On the AK, the gas tube that houses this piston is above the barrel. On the PKM, it is below the barrel.

However, the PKM features a gas regulator to adjust the amount of gas being tapped off from the barrel to drive the action. Normally the regulator is placed on the “1” setting, with “2” and “3” providing more gas to cycle the action when conditions are rough. This allows it to have a gentler recoil impulse, unlike the AK which is slightly overgassed to be reliable in all conditions without adjustment.

While the reason for this design choice may be simplicity, presumably a machine gunner would have more time to train on their weapon than a rifleman, western rifles contemporary to the AK such as the FN FAL featured a gas regulator as well. We also see the move from a standard single overgassed setting to a gas regulator within the HK416 series, from the original HK416 to the HK416A5 and A7. This all suggests that a quickly adjustable gas regulator is the way to go to lower recoil on a firearm.

The safety design of the PKM is also far more ergonomic than the AK. The AK safety is often considered to be an inferior design as it requires the shooter to take their firing hand off the grip of the weapon to activate and deactivate it (though this can be partially remedied with extended surfaces). The PKM safety, on the other hand, is a well-positioned thumb safety, similar to those found on the M16 that can be easily flicked by the firing hand without shifting the grip much.

The PKM also shines in how lightweight it is. While the AK was lighter than the FN FAL and G3 rifles that came out around the same time it did, the American M16 was far lighter than the AK. On the other hand, the PKM is one of the lightest full-caliber machine guns in the world. It weighs 7.5 kg to the FN MAGs 11 kg. It’s even lighter than the recent FN Minimi 7.62 Mk3 and M60E6, which weight 8.8 kg and 9.3 kg respectively. Despite it being lightweight, the PKM is practically as effective as the heavier guns.

The PKM replaced the lighter RPK-74 as the standard squad automatic weapon of the Russian Army in the 2000s and has only received a few modifications to the design in almost fifty years. One of them is the evolution to the slightly heavier PKP which ditches the quick change barrels of the PKM for a heavier, forced-air-cooled fixed barrel. The tank version of the PKM, the PKT has armed every Russian tank from the T-62 to the latest T-14 Armata as well as countless IFVs and APCs.

PKMs still arm many western-aligned nations as well. Finland issues PKMs as the standard squad machine gun. Poland has created a 7.62x51mm NATO version of the PKM in the UKM-2000, which arms their infantry alongside the standard PKM.

While the AK is Kalashnikov’s most famous design, the PKM is definitely his best.

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

Image: Wikipedia.

Peter Suciu

Security, Europe

Hypersonic missiles have been seen as a potential game changer, with some in the U.S. military warning that there is really no defense against the missiles due to their speed.

Here's What You Need To Remember: The Russian Air Force has recently conducted testing of a new hypersonic aircraft missile for a modified version of the Tu-22M3M aircraft.

The Russian Air Force has recently conducted testing of a new hypersonic aircraft missile for a modified version of the Tu-22M3M aircraft. According to Russian state media, the work on the new missile began several years ago and its testing was completed simultaneously with the work on the upgraded bomber.

"Recently, a new hypersonic missile was tested on the Tu-22M3," a source in Russia's military-industrial complex told TASS. "The missile will be part of the armament range of the upgraded Tu-22M3M along with a number of other latest aviation weapons."

The source added that the missile is not part of the line of X-32 missiles, but did not provide the characteristics of it, except to confirm that it is "completely different."

The X-32 (Kh-32) is a supersonic air-launched cruise missile that has a range of 600 to 1000km, and it has been the primary missile on the Tu-22M3M bombers since 2016. The Tu-22M3M supersonic bomber is the latest upgrade of the Tu-22M3 with expanded combat potential. The upgrade provided new electronic equipment including navigation, communication, sights, engine controls, fuel mechanisms and electronic warfare. These upgrades increased the navigation precision, simplified maintenance and preflight preparation.

According to past reporting in The National Interest, the Tu-22M3M boasts 80 percent new avionics over the original Tu-22M. An important part of the upgrade package was the inclusion of up to three of the Kh-32 missiles, which are classified as anti-ship missiles, but were also developed to be effective against critical infrastructure targets including bridges and power plants. That missile allowed the Tu-22M3M to occupy a unique position between strategic and operational-tactical roles.

Hypersonic missiles have been seen as a potential game changer, with some in the U.S. military warning that there is really no defense against the missiles due to their speed.

Given that fact and the potential the missiles could possess weapons as offensive, it is easy to see why Russia has moved forward with multiple platforms. The Russian defense industry has developed two types of aircraft hypersonic missiles TASS reported. This includes the Kinzhal, the latest Russian airborne system that consists of a MiG-31K aircraft as a delivery vehicle and hypersonic missile. The Kinzhal is the airborne version of the Iskander tactical missile system.

The hypersonic Kh-47M2 Kinzhal missile was also designed to be compatible with the Tu-22M3. It is one of several flagship weapons unveiled by Russian President Vladimar Putin during this state-of-nation address at the beginning of 2018. Putin and subsequent Russian commentary has stressed the missile's speed and capacity to maneuver in mid-flight, which render it non-interceptable by any existing missile defense system. It has an alleged range of 2,000 to 3,000km, which makes it a threat to critical land infrastructure and large surface targets such as aircraft carrier strike groups.

Another hypersonic missile that is currently in the Russian arsenal was created for the Su-57 fifth-generation fighter, but the missile name and characteristics are unknown.

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

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

Image: Reuters

Mark Episkopos

Security, Americas

It remains to be seen to what extent the F-35 can maneuver.

Key point: The F-35A demo team has gotten better and better, playing a key role in selling the much-maligned platform to the public.

Fresh off a major personnel shakeup, the new F-35A demonstration team has an ambitious performance lineup in store for the 2020 season.

In a potential preview of the team’s fresh routines for its upcoming shows, a highly-circulated 2019 video depicts Capt. Andrew "Dojo" Olson performing an impressive series of maneuvers never-before-seen by a F-35 demo pilot.

The videos, first posted to Instagram, show snippets from one of Olson’s training session at Luke Airforce Base (AFB) in Arizona. The first video shows Olson approaching from the left, flying straight up in what is vaguely reminiscent of the first half of a stall turn; but then, Olson pulls back and executes a remarkably tight loop before descending in a slow, flat spin. The remaining clips show Olson flying at a high angle of attack (AOA), performing tighter oops, and demonstrating what appears to be part of a falling leaf maneuver.

It was revealed late last year that Capt. Olson left the F-35A demo team, having given his last performance at Nellis AFB, Las Vegas, in November 2019. These videos, and others like it that are regularly covered by The National Interest, show just how far the F-35A demo team has come in refining their routines since their initial debut at the Paris Airshow in 2017.

Olson played a central role in the PR campaign to restore public faith in the F-35 project on the heels of reported engine problems, onboard systems malfunctions, and widespread cost concerns, going out of his way to convince a skeptical defense commentary sphere that the F-35A demo team has barely begun to scrape the surface of the fighter’s performance potential: “This year we’re going to fully unleash the full maneuvering envelope of the F-35. This airplane just takes the flight controls, and puts it on a whole different level. We’ll be able to do some similar maneuvers that [F-22] Raptor does, and without thrust vectoring, just with the advanced flight controls that put the aircraft into a post-stall flight regime and keep it fully controllable,” he said in an interview given last year to the The Aviationist, while also stressing the F-35’s under-the-hood features that are otherwise overlooked in the airshow format: “The stuff you see at the airshow is really awesome, but it doesn’t even touch the tip of the iceberg of what this airplane is...you’re talking stealth, you’re talking sensor fusion, and then ‘information fusion… we can paint the battlespace for everybody and share that situational awareness with our fourth gen brothers and sisters and be a more effective fighting force.”

As if that wasn’t enough, Olson has also become the face of a surprisingly successful social media and branding campaign to marshall grassroots enthusiasm for the F-35 program.

It remains to be seen to what extent the maneuvers depicted in these clips, as well as the rest of Olson’s 2019 lineup, will be absorbed into the F-35 demo team’s 2020 routine, beginning with their first airshow at the Marine Corps Air Station at Yuma, Arizona, in March 13-14, and subsequent March 21-22 performance at Luke AFB.

Olson will go on to become an F-35 instructor at Luke AFB, but not before helping the incoming F-35 demo team ease into their new jobs. It’s clear that Olson’s successor, who was yet to be named by the 388th Fighter Wing, has quite the shoes to fill-- not just in a highly demanding technical capacity, but as a brand ambassador for the F-35 program.

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 February 2020.

Image: Two F-35 Lightning II’s bank after receiving fuel over the Midwest Sept. 19, 2019. (U.S. Air Force photo/Master Sgt. Ben Mota)