Agrégateur de flux

Summary and Key Points You Need to Know: The Mark 48 torpedo, developed by the Naval Sea Systems Command, is one of the most advanced and lethal undersea weapons in the U.S. Navy's arsenal. Introduced during the Cold War, it was designed to counter Soviet submarines and surface ships, featuring wire guidance, advanced sonar homing, and a high-speed electric motor that allows it to travel at over 55 knots with a range of up to 40 miles.

-The Mark 48 has undergone several upgrades, including the Advanced Capability (ADCAP) variant in the 1980s and the latest Mod 7, which addresses modern submarine defenses.

-Despite its effectiveness, the Mark 48 faces challenges from advancements in anti-torpedo systems and the rise of unmanned undersea vehicles (UUVs). Nevertheless, it remains a critical deterrent in the U.S. Navy’s submarine fleet.

The Navy’s Incredible Mark 48 Torpedo

The Undersea Warfare Center Division in Newport, Rhode Island, now the Naval Sea Systems Command, has a remarkable assignment: to develop effective weapons to further US national security interests undersea and protect existing US Navy assets from attack. This is the vibrant brain of the US submarine force on land. It is where some of the niftiest weapons and concepts for underwater combat are developed. 

One such weapon this unit developed during the Cold War was the Mark 48 torpedo. Indeed, it is likely the most ubiquitous and formidable weapon ever developed for warfare in the Deep Blue by the United States Navy. Designed for a time of the Cold War when the threat of submarine warfare was at its apogee, the Navy needed a weapon that could attack Soviet subs while simultaneously devastating surface ships if the Cold War ever turned hot.

The Navy developed the Mark 48 with greater range, speed, and enhanced guidance systems when compared to some of its predecessors, such as the Mark 37 or the Mark 45 torpedoes. 

Some Unique Advances 

Some of its excellent capabilities, such as the inclusion of wire guidance, are of note. Wire guidance allows for the launching submersible to have direct, real-time command over the torpedo after it is launched. The incorporation of advanced sonar homing furthered this weapon’s lethality by allowing for the Mark 48 to autonomously track and engage targets. 

Its propulsion system employs a reliable, high-speed electric motor. The motor allows for the torpedo to travel at speeds surpassing fifty-five knots (sixty-three miles per hour) when launched. A Mark 48 enjoys a range of up to forty miles. Some analysts suggest that the Mk 48 is one of the longest-range torpedoes that has ever served. 

The Mark 48’s electric motor provides both speed and protection, as it reduces the torpedo’s electric signature. Thus, one could claim that the Mark 48 is America’s first attempt at a “stealth torpedo.” 

Although, it is not entirely undetectable. Indeed, one submarine sonar operator reports that, when launched, the Mk 48 “starts at 160 [decibels underwater] and jumps to 230 db when enabled.” So, experienced sonar operators can hear these things underwater, when they’re launched.

There have been multiple variants of this successful weapon. One of the more recent ones came from the 1980s when the Reagan administration was intent on outpacing the Soviet Union militarily in the Cold War. Indeed, the Reagan administration was successful in this aim. One of the technologies to come out of this freewheeling era for the US defense community was the Mk 48 ADCAP (Advanced Capability). This variant of the Mk 48 included an even better range than its earlier models, greater guidance, and more sophisticated warhead capabilities.

The most recent adaptation of the Mk 48 torpedo, the Mod 7, includes systems meant to counteract advances in modern submarine defenses. 

Credible Undersea Deterrence

Enemies of the United States rightly fear the Mk 48. Therefore, its presence in the US submarine fleet has a deterrent effect on enemy navies. Sure, it might not stop a war with China from erupting. 

But China must always fear this system, it is one reason why Beijing is so committed to developing surveillance systems that can detect submarines; even when they are running deep beneath the waves and targeting them with advanced anti-submarine weapons. 

However, the Mk 48 is getting old, regardless of what advancements the Navy makes to the platform. Anti-torpedo systems have advanced remarkably in the last decade alone. So, the Mk 48 risks being made obsolete, no matter what counter-countermeasures the Navy develops to help keep the lethality of the Mk 48 where it needs to be. 

How UUVs Will Impact the Mk 48

Further, the Mk 48 is a complex system requiring tons of maintenance and updating. Then there’s the additional development in the rise of unmanned undersea vehicles (UUV).

These platforms, while still in their infancy, will evolve significantly over the coming decade. They will fundamentally transform the face of undersea warfare as much as their unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) cousins have transformed air warfare in the preceding twenty years. The Mk 48 will have significant challenges to overcome that these UUV systems will inevitably present.

Nevertheless, the Mk 48 is a testament to the brilliance of the Navy’s war planners. They were conceived in an age where nuclear world war was always one hair-trigger alert away. And they continue to define the arsenal of the US Navy’s submarine force today. Whatever the future may hold for these systems, they should not be underestimated. Nor should they be dismissed. 

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

Brandon J. Weichert, a National Interest national security analyst, is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, the Asia Times, and The-Pipeline. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His next book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine, is due October 22 from Encounter Books. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. 

China has initiated an anti-subsidy probe into dairy products imported from the European Union, once again placing the bloc’s agri-food sector at the forefront of trade tensions between Beijing and Brussels.

Summary and Key Points: Seventeen B-1B Lancer bombers from Ellsworth Air Force Base (AFB) in South Dakota may temporarily relocate to Grand Forks AFB in North Dakota next year as Ellsworth prepares to host the first B-21 Raider bombers.

-This move is expected to last about ten months, during which time Ellsworth will undergo significant construction projects, including a complete runway rebuild.

-The relocation would mark the return of bombers to Grand Forks for the first time since 1994. Approximately 800 airmen would accompany the B-1Bs, and the mission of the bombers would remain unchanged during the move.

B-1B Lancer Could Head to New Temporary Home Base Next Year Thanks to B-21 Raider Program

Seventeen of the United States Air Forces Rockwell B-1B Lancer bombers could be heading to a new, albeit temporary home next year. The bombers are likely to be relocated a bit further north – as in moving from Ellsworth Air Force Base (AFB), South Dakota, to Grand Forks AFB, North Dakota.

The bombers could be at their new home for ten months, during which time Ellsworth AFB will prepare for the arrival of the first Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider long-range strategic bombers.

Ellsworth is home to the twenty-eighth Bomb Wing (BW), which is assigned to the Global Strike Command's Eight Air Force, and is one of the two B-1B Lander wings. It has hosted the B-1B Lancers since 1986, which replaced the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress fleet. It currently operates twenty-seven Lancers.

Big Changes for Ellsworth

Ellsworth will be the first Main Operating Base and formal training unit for the B-21 Raider, while Whiteman AFB, Missouri, and Dyess AFB, Texas, are the preferred locations for the remaining home bases – and could receive aircraft as soon as they become available. Whiteman is home to the air service's fleet of Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit bombers, while Dyess is home to another B-1B bomb wing, the seventh BW. 

Construction projects for the bomber hangers and other facilities are well underway at Ellsworth. Construction on the base's 95,000-square-foot Low Observable Restoration Facility began in 2022, and it and other facilities are on track to be completed by the end of this year. The current plan also calls for a complete rebuild of the runway to accommodate the B-21 Raiders, with that work to be completed by October 2025.

The base, which is located near Rapid City, is already one of the largest employers in the state and according to a 2017 estimate it had an annual economic impact of over $350 million. Ellsworth AFB faced the possibility of closure in 2005, and it was even briefly on the Pentagon’s list of military bases that should be closed or relocated.

Bombers Back at Grand Forks

The deployment of the B-1Bs to Grand Forks would be the first since 1994, "when the last of the B-1Bs assigned to the former 319th Bomb Wing (since redesignated the 319th Reconnaissance Wing) left the base," The Jamestown Sun reported. "The Ellsworth B-1Bs do not carry nuclear weapons, and Grand Forks Air Force Base no longer has nuclear weapons storage capacity."

According to Air & Space Forces magazine, any final decision on the relocation will be based on the ongoing environmental review, which includes the impact of moving not only the aircraft but the personnel from Ellsworth to Grand Forks. In total, around 800 airmen from the twenty-eighth Operations Group would accompany the B-1B bombers. The bomber's mission would be unchanged during the relocation.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and 4 Points You Need to Know: The B-21 Raider, currently in low-rate initial production and undergoing flight testing, is exempt from a law that typically requires a waiver for purchasing untested weapons systems in large quantities.

-This exemption, meant to avoid conflicts of interest due to Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall's past ties with Northrop Grumman, raises concerns about the Air Force potentially rushing to procure the B-21 without adequate testing.

-Critics argue this approach violates best acquisition practices and could lead to costly design flaws, citing historical examples like the Navy's T-45 trainer program.

-The Air Force, heavily reliant on the B-21 as it phases out older bombers, faces significant risks if the Raider fails to meet expectations.

B-21 Raider's Exemption from Testing Laws Sparks Concerns of Rushed Procurement

The B-21 Raider, a stealth bomber in low-rate initial production and currently undergoing flight testing, is exempt from a law that requires a waiver for the purchase of certain quantities of untested weapons systems. That exemption raises worries that the U.S. Air Force might be rushing to purchase an unvetted aircraft. 

Specifically, the B-21 “is exempt from a Title 10 requirement that a defense secretary seek a waiver for a low-rate initial production (LRIP) buy of more than 10 percent of total production for a Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP),” according to Defense Daily. 

The exemption stems from the need to avoid a conflict of interests. The Air Force’s Rapid Capabilities Office manages the B-21 project, and the Office reports to the Air Force Secretary. Because Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall used to consult for B-21 designer Northrop Grumman, he is recused from all decisions relating to the B-21.

“The B-21 is managed as a highly sensitive classified program per 10 USC 2430, and is not a traditional Major Defense Acquisition Program,” the Department of Defense told Defense Daily. 

Fly Before You Buy

Title 10 is meant to limit the purchase of weapons like the B-21 that are yet to be properly vetted. As Sen. David Pryor explained on the Senate floor in 1994, “Fly Before You Buy is not a new concept. It was first promoted in the wake of the Vietnam War after thousands of American soldiers lost their lives because of weapons that failed to perform as expected.” The senator continued, “operational testing is of little or no use if it is conducted after the weapon system has been purchased. We simply cannot afford to buy now and fix later. Time and time again, DoD has purchased weapons before operational testing has shown that they work.”

The Navy’s T-45 trainer is one example of a system that was purchased before being tested. The Navy purchased over one-third of their T-45 needs before Boeing performed operational testing on the jet. Of course, the original T-45 was no good. The thing needed new wings and a new engine, and the already purchased T-45s needed to be refitted. Obviously, the military, like any customer, prefers that product design flaws are discovered before an item is shipped and accepted.

Some observers worry the Air Force is making a similar procurement mistake with the B-21.

“The Air Force is violating best acquisition practice in the case of the B-21 program,” said a senior fellow at the Stimson Center in an email to Defense Daily. “The first test flights of the program have only just begun, so it is too early to be talking about production in any quantity.” 

The fellow advocated for Northrop Grumman to build a few test aircraft, perform operational tests, and ship the B-21 to the Air Force only once the bomber performs as promised. “Buying aircraft in any significant quantity before testing is complete creates a huge amount of risk because the early aircraft will almost certainly include a large number of design flaws that will only be revealed through testing.”

Obviously, the Air Force has a lot riding on the B-21. Two of the service’s existing three bomber classes, the B-1 and the B-2, are being phased out to make room for the upcoming Raider. The B-21 needs to perform, otherwise the Air Force could find itself with a gap in bomber capabilities. 

About the Author: Harrison Kass 

Harrison Kass is a defense and national security writer with over 1,000 total pieces on issues involving global affairs. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, Harrison joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison holds a BA from Lake Forest College, a JD from the University of Oregon, and an MA from New York University. Harrison listens to Dokken.

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: Ukraine's surprise offensive into Russia's Kursk region, involving up to 10,000 troops, has dramatically shifted the dynamics of the ongoing conflict. The operation, which captured over 1,000 square kilometers and 82 settlements, aims to force Russia to realign its forces, drawing them away from Ukrainian frontlines.

-The psychological impact on both Ukrainian and Russian populations is significant, with Russia's inability to defend its territory undermining President Putin's standing.

-While the offensive doesn't alter Russia's numerical advantage, it signals a momentum shift in the war, potentially affecting the longevity of Western support for Ukraine.

Ukraine's Bold Offensive: How a Surprise Incursion into Russia is Changing the War

After more than two years on the defensive, Ukrainian forces have flipped the script, pouring over the Russian border and seizing control of more than 1,000 square kilometers of territory in a week. And unlike Ukraine’s previous and usually short-lived raids across the border, this time, Ukrainian forces are settling in for a fight, fortifying defensive positions throughout the occupied Kursk region in what Ukrainian officials are calling a “buffer zone” to protect against continued airstrikes launched into Ukraine from the area. 

This surprise offensive went on for days before Ukrainian officials shed any light on its objectives. We now know that the theory posited by many analysts throughout the week – that this incursion is meant to force a realignment of Russian forces after months of steady but grinding advances deeper into Ukrainian territory – is true. 

Behind the rifles of thousands of battle-hardened troops, Ukraine has taken hundreds of Russian soldiers prisoner and captured dozens of towns and villages, but the biggest blow of this ongoing offensive may be to the reputation and standing of Russian President Vladimir Putin. 

How Ukraine’s invasion of Russia began

In the early morning of August 6, Ukrainian forces numbering as many as 10,000 according to some reports, launched a surprise offensive in western Russia that had been planned and staged behind a veil of complete secrecy. The attack was such a surprise that it not only took Russia’s border troops completely off guard, but Ukraine’s Western allies as well – at least if statements made by various government officials are to be believed. 

Ukrainian troops and armored vehicles moved quickly, crossing the border on multiple vectors and rapidly capturing town after town. As news of the offensive reached the media, it was accompanied by social media posts uploaded by Ukrainian troops, showing them pulling Russian flags down.

In one video, vetted by the New York Times, a Ukrainian soldier can be seen standing on the shoulders of another, breaking a Russian flag off of its wooden post and tossing it aside. That video was confirmed to be taken in Sverdlikovo, just a few miles inside Russia. Another video, filmed about five miles further west in the town of Daryino, shows a similar scene, with one Ukrainian soldier tossing a Russian flag in the mud as another one flexes his muscles. 

“The first days of the Ukrainian operation in the Kursk region should be assessed as very successful, although its ultimate goals remain unclear,” Ruslan Pukhov, the director of the security research group CAST out of Moscow, told the New York Times. “In moral terms, the Russian Federation has taken a powerful blow.”

This effort was arguably only successful thanks to the immense degree of secrecy surrounding it, but in hindsight, it’s beginning to get easier to see how it came together. A drone battalion from Ukraine’s 22nd Mechanized Brigade was spotted near the Russian border in July after more than a year of fighting on the front lines some 80 miles to the West. Troops from the 82nd Air Assault Brigade, last known to be fighting elsewhere in the Kharkiv region, were spotted near the border soon thereafter. Before long, troops from the 80th Air Assault Brigade seemed to join them. 

This amassing of forces, despite its secrecy, didn’t go unnoticed by Russian intelligence. According to Andrei Gurulyov, a prominent member of Russia’s parliament and a former senior ranking officer in the Russian Army, a report on the buildup was submitted to Russian leadership nearly a month before the assault. 

“But from the top came the order not to panic, and that those above know better,” Gurulyov acknowledged on Russian State Television. 

Progress comes with a cost

While the attack has since become something of a morale lightning rod for the embattled Ukrainian population, for many of the troops taking their fight for survival to Russian soil, the combat was just like any other day in this conflict. 

“Grenades and mortars look the same wherever you are,” explained a 43-year-old Ukrainian soldier named Ivan, who’s fighting in Russia. 

Ivan’s experiences over the past few weeks serve as a grim reminder that even this successful operation has come at a significant cost. He and his unit were advancing into Russian territory at an average of an astonishing 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) a day, fighting their way across open fields and railway lines, and rotating in fresh troops under cover of darkness as each night fell. But after three days of fighting off their back foot, Russian forces finally started to get their bearings and unleashed an onslaught of air-dropped glide bombs onto the Ukrainian forces on the third night, despite the obvious collateral damage done to Russian territory. 

These glide bombs have proven highly effective for Russian forces in recent months. They’re similar in function to America’s own JDAM-ERs, made up of satellite guidance kits and expandable glide-wings mounted on inexpensive gravity bombs. They’re exceedingly difficult to intercept, offer a high degree of precision, and can be dropped from 40 miles out. 

Ivan’s unit instantly lost a dozen men when the first wave of bombs hit, with several others injured.

“Everything was burning. Arms here, legs there,” Ivan recounted. 

Ivan himself took shrapnel to the groin and chest, forcing him to be evacuated back to Ukraine for medical treatment and allowing him to share a few scant details about the ongoing operation with journalists from The Economist. But after nearly 30 months of fighting for its survival, Ukraine is no stranger to loss. Even as Russian glide bombs rained down, the offensive progressed – and the following day, on August 10 – some Ukrainian units had pressed a full 40 kilometers (about 25 miles) into Russia, rapidly approaching the city of Kursk, which serves as the capital of the Kursk Oblast. 

More Ukrainian soldiers have shined some light on how Ukraine has managed to capture more territory in a week than Russia has in months: A 28-year-old paratrooper from Ukraine’s 33rd Brigade named Angol made it 30 kilometers (a bit more than 18 miles) into Russia before being injured – he isn’t sure if he was hit by artillery, a glide bomb, or even friendly fire, such is the haze of battle on the front lines. 

According to Angol, even amid the heavy fighting, Russian troops were on the run, enabled by covering airstrikes and artillery fire as they fled their defensive positions, abandoning equipment, weapons, and ammunition as they ran. 

It seems the Russian troops defending the border believed the red line drawn by Putin, which has seen Western governments disallow the use of their weapon systems to attack Russian territory, would be enough to insulate them from the fighting. As thousands of battle-hardened Ukrainian troops tore through the region, they seemed to continue taking Russians by surprise even days into the offensive. 

“We sent our most combat-ready units to the weakest point on their border,” an unnamed member of Ukraine’s general staff deployed to the region told the press. “Conscript soldiers faced paratroopers and simply surrendered.” 

And surrender they did. By August 13, seven days into Ukraine’s surprise invasion, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced that 74 Russian settlements were now under Ukrainian occupation and that “hundreds” of Russian troops had surrendered. By the following day, the number of Russian towns and villages inside of Ukrainian control had expanded once again, to 82. 

In one engagement, Ukrainian forces captured 102 soldiers out of Russia’s 488th Guards Motorized Rifle Regiment at once. 

“They captured and cleared a sprawling, concrete and well-fortified company stronghold from all sides – with underground communications and personnel accommodation, a canteen, an armoury and even a bathhouse,” an unnamed source told Reuters.

According to Russia’s state media, more than 132,000 Russian civilians have now fled their homes in the Kursk region to avoid the fighting.

“Russia brought war to others, and now it is coming home,” Zelensky said in his speech. 

It’s worth noting that despite the hesitation of Western leaders to allow Ukraine to take the fight onto Russian soil, it’s evident that this offensive has involved the widespread use of American-supplied vehicles, arms, and munitions – in what some argue could be seen as a violation of yet another of Putin’s “red lines.” However, U.S. officials don’t see it that way. With countless long-range strikes launched into Ukrainian territory from the Kursk region, both Ukrainian and American officials have deftly taken to calling the offensive a “self-defense” action. 

“They are taking actions to protect themselves from attacks,” Sabrina Singh, the Pentagon’s deputy press secretary, said on Thursday.

And while Ukraine’s progress into Russia has slowed in recent days, those protective actions have not. On the night of August 14, Ukraine launched its largest long-range drone attack into Russian territory to date, engaging weapons storage facilities and warehouses across four different Russian Air Force installations. Some sources suggest these attacks were aimed at reducing Russia’s available inventory of glide bombs. 

Russia claimed to have shot down 117 drones and at least four missiles during the attack; the true outcome of these airstrikes remains somewhat murky. 

Why did Ukraine invade Russia?

It now seems evident that the offensive has multiple overlapping objectives. As the Atlantic Council contends, the attack’s most obvious goal is to force Russia to realign after months of grueling but steady progress.

“By attacking across the lightly defended border and seizing Russian territory, Ukrainian commanders believe they can force the Kremlin to withdraw troops from the front lines of the war in Ukraine in order to redeploy them for the defense of Russia itself,” the Atlantic Council’s Peter Dickinson postulates. 

This has seemingly been confirmed by former Ukrainian defense minister Andriy Zagorodnyuk, and to some extent, it seems to be working. 

“Russia has relocated some of its units from both Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions of Ukraine’s south,” Dmytro Lykhoviy, a Ukrainian army spokesman, told POLITICO on Tuesday.

The U.S.-based think-tank Institute for the Study of War (ISW) has been tracking and reporting on claims posted by pro-Russian military bloggers, who may regularly trade in Kremlin-sourced disinformation, but also often provide more detail into ongoing operations than official Russian channels. According to the ISW’s analysis, at least some Russian irregular warfare units have been pulled from the Donetsk front in eastern Ukraine to be redeployed in a defensive posture inside Russia.

“Russian military command has determined that possible disruptions to the offensive operations in northern Kharkiv Oblast and other less-critical frontline areas are an acceptable risk to adequately respond to the Ukrainian incursion in Kursk Oblast,” the ISW assessed. 

But despite these changes, thus far, there’s been little shift in Russia’s overall defensive posture, even as Ukraine appointed Major General Eduard Moskalyov as the new military commandant of captured Russian territory. 

“Their commanders aren’t idiots,” said The Econimist’s unnamed Ukrainian general-staff source. “They are moving forces, but not as quickly as we would like. They know we can’t extend logistics 80 or 100 km.”

What are the other implications of this offensive?

Ultimately, whether this offensive can force a redistribution of Russian forces across the conflict’s front lines depends on several factors, some of which are easier to quantify than others. 

The psychological impact of Ukraine’s rapid advance into Russia, on both the Ukrainian and Russian populations, can’t be overstated. For Ukraine, the rapid progress serves as a desperately needed morale boost after years of Russia gobbling up Ukrainian territory. On the other side of the border, however, this attack has brought the war home for the Russian people, and perhaps even more importantly, shined a spotlight on Putin’s inability to defend Russian soil and sovereignty amid a conflict his government still refuses to call a war. 

Even now, Moscow is referring to the new defensive effort inside Russia as a “counter-terrorism operation,” and Putin himself described the attack as nothing more than a “large-scale provocation” – both seemingly intentional ways of framing the offensive as less severe than a foreign military capturing Russian land. 

To some extent, the value of this operation may ultimately be dictated by how Russia chooses to respond. If Ukraine succeeds in fortifying captured positions and digging in, Russian forces will have no choice but to respond, reducing the depth of seasoned warfighters on other frontlines throughout Ukraine. If Russia doesn’t mass enough forces to push Ukraine back, however, the seized territory could quickly become a bargaining chip in future peace negotiations. 

From a geopolitical perspective, Ukraine’s attack – and Russia’s apparent inability to respond – has further reduced Russia’s military standing among global and even regional powers. Once seen as the world’s second strongest military force, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has demonstrated conclusively that its Cold War-era warfare doctrine struggles to function on the modern battlefield; that its centralized command structure adapts on the battlefield very slowly; and Russia’s emphasis on fielding small batches of high-profile platforms aimed at securing global prestige or lucrative foreign sales, has come at the cost of significant atrophy across the breadth of its conventional forces. 

While cynical to say as Ukraine continues to fight for its very survival, this entire conflict has already proven to be a massive strategic loss for Russia and certainly for Putin’s legacy. Once seen as a strategic mastermind and the only man who could return Russia to a romanticized vision of its former Soviet glory, there seems to be little hope of Putin emerging from this war as anything more than the man who sacrificed a sizeable portion of Russia’s military power and hundreds of thousands of lives, to capture about 20 percent of a nation the size of Texas that lies on Russia’s border. 

What does the invasion of Russia mean for the future of the Ukraine war?

Ukraine’s rapid success in taking Russian territory doesn’t change Russia’s massive numerical advantage in troops and military hardware; undo its territorial gains; or mean Western governments are giving Ukraine free reign on how to use its Western weapon systems. Nevertheless, it does mark a significant shift in the war’s momentum. And now, with Western-sourced F-16s starting to take to the sky – something many consider to be a momentum-shifting victory in itself – the timing couldn’t be better for Ukraine to once again shock the world, and the Russian military, with what it’s capable of. 

Since the conflict’s onset, Russia has been watching the clock wind down on Western support for Ukraine, knowing full well that it was only a matter of time before partisan bickering and concerns about dollars spent would sour public perceptions of the effort. All it needed to do was outlast the Western public’s attention span and financial tolerance, and once the flow of weapons and munitions dried up, Ukraine was as good as conquered. 

But now, with more than 132,000 Russians displaced from their homes, and drone and missile strikes raining down deeper into Russia and in greater numbers than ever before, that waiting game may have just been turned on its head. Now, the question becomes: which population will fold first, those providing support, or those being forced to flee their homes?

While the idea of Russian civilians on the run isn’t something anyone should celebrate, it reminds me of an old story I used to tell my Marines when we’d find ourselves in a bad situation of our own creation:

A group of construction workers would meet in the parking lot of their job site every afternoon to break for lunch, and every day, one of the guys would open his lunch box and sigh with disgust. 

“Egg salad sandwich again,” he’d lament, shaking his head and slamming the lunch box shut. 

Finally, one of his coworkers asked him, “If you hate egg salad sandwiches so much, why not ask your old lady to make you something different?” 

And he replied, “What are you talking about? I’m not married… I make my own sandwiches.” 

About the Author: Alex Hollings 

Alex Hollings is a writer, dad, and Marine veteran.

This article was first published by Sandboxx News.

Top 4 Points You Need to Be Aware on the B-21 Bomber: The B-21 Raider, a sixth-generation bomber being developed by Northrop Grumman for the U.S. Air Force, is designed to serve multiple roles, including battle management, intelligence collection, and interception.

-Smaller and more radar-resistant than its predecessors, the B-21 incorporates modular systems for future upgrades.

-The Air Force plans to procure at least 100 units by the decade's end, but past experiences with programs like the B-2 and F-22, where budget cuts drastically reduced production numbers, raise concerns.

-The Raider's procurement could face similar risks, despite its importance in countering potential threats from adversaries like China and Russia.

B-21 Raider: Crucial to U.S. Defense, but Will It Avoid the Fate of the B-2 and F-22?

The B-21 Raider is being developed by Northrop Grumman to serve the U.S. Air Force as a battle manager, intelligence-collection platform, and intercept aircraft. Initially debuted in late 2022, the sixth-generation bomber is expected to sport a range of enhancements over its predecessors. 

The service released images of the upcoming airframe in 2023, showing a bomber much smaller than the B-2 Spirit. Sandboxx News suggests that the B-21’s wingspan could be roughly 15% shorter than previous bombers, a significant advantage that will make the new aircraft harder for enemy radar to detect. The Raider will incorporate modular systems that will enable seamless upgrades as future technologies become available, imitating the F-35 Lightning II’s open-system architecture.

Considering the Raider’s capabilities, it is only logical that the platform comes with a hefty price tag. The Air Force hopes to introduce at least 100 of these bombers by the end of the decade. Some analysts want the service to acquire far more Raiders than that, believing the aircraft is crucial to maintaining operational readiness for potential conflicts with China, Russia, or other adversaries. 

Earlier this year, Northrop Grumman reported a $1.6 billion pre-tax charge on the Raider program. More recently, though, the Air Force said it is seeing a drop in the per-unit cost of the B-21 following negotiations with the manufacturer. In 2022, the Air Force said it would remain under the average procurement cost of $692 million per unit.

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall noted that the service is planning for other aspects of the Raider program, not just constructing the bomber. From building the facilities needed to operate and maintain the B-21, to training pilots and the crew members who will work on it, many more details need to be finalized and funded. 

“I’ve seen programs get into trouble because there was too much focus on the platform and not enough on all the things that are necessary to support it,” Kendall said. “Hopefully, we will have avoided that in the case of the B-21.”

The B-21 Nightmare: Ending Up Getting Cut Like the B-2 and F-22 

While B-21 Raider procurement plans appear promising, the Air Force has a history of cutting new platforms. 

In the 1990s, the U.S. halted the B-2 bomber program at just 20 planes. The Air Force originally wanted to build 75 of these airframes, but budgetary constraints and other priorities limited the output, and the B-2 program didn’t live up to its potential. A similar story played out with the F-22 Raptor, the world’s first fifth-generation jet. The Air Force initially wanted to procure 750 Raptors, but the total was cut in 2009 to 187 due to high costs, the arrival of the newer F-35, and the country’s shift to the War on Terror.

The Air Force and U.S. lawmakers should be wary of similarly cutting the Raider program. While drones and other systems associated with future wars cannot be ignored, America must also prepare for the current threat climate. Maintaining a superior stealth bomber fleet will be critical if a war with China erupts over the next decade.

About the Author: Maya Carlin

Maya Carlin, National Security Writer with The National Interest, is an analyst with the Center for Security Policy and a former Anna Sobol Levy Fellow at IDC Herzliya in Israel. She has by-lines in many publications, including The National Interest, Jerusalem Post, and Times of Israel. You can follow her on Twitter: @MayaCarlin. 

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Everything You Need to Know: The U.S. is advancing in the race to produce the world’s first sixth-generation stealth bomber with the B-21 Raider, as China and Russia develop their H-20 and PAK-DA programs.

-Despite concerns over costs, recent negotiations have lowered the Raider's per-unit price, making it more feasible. The B-21, smaller and stealthier than its predecessor, the B-2 Spirit, will serve as an intelligence platform, battle manager, and interceptor, with modular systems for future upgrades.

-The Raider’s introduction is crucial for U.S. national security, particularly as China progresses with its own stealth bomber development.

B-21 Raider: The U.S. Stealth Bomber Leading the Sixth-Generation Race

The race to produce the world’s first sixth-generation stealth bomber is on. As the United States moves to introduce its B-21 Raider, China and Russia continue to develop their H-20 and PAK-DA programs. 

The United States has long fielded superior bombers. The B-2 Spirit, B-52 Stratofortress, and B-1 Lancer are still lethal aircraft, providing the U.S. Air Force with long-range strike and deterrence capabilities. But the Raider’s timely introduction is crucial, and while some analysts argue that the B-21 program is too expensive to justify, the new bomber is worth the high price tag.

Cost is Decreasing

Following negotiations between the Air Force and manufacturer Northrop Grumman, the per-unit cost of the B-21 Raider has gone down. This was first reported back several months ago. 

The service’s secretary, Frank Kendall, told the Senate Appropriations subcommittee months ago that the cost decline indicates negotiations are headed in the right direction. The Raider program was expected to cost roughly $692 million per unit in 2022 when the bomber debuted. While the Air Force has yet to announce the specific decrease in price, the service has said that lower costs will not mean lower procurement rates.

While this news is positive for Raider advocates, Northrop has yet to comment on Kendall’s remarks. The manufacturer reported a hefty charge on the Raider program toward the end of 2023, citing increased production costs and other economic disruptions. Kendall has warned that “[I]’ve seen programs get into trouble because there was too much focus on the platform and not enough on all the things that are necessary to support it,” adding that “hopefully, we will have avoided that in the case of the B-21.”

Around this time, the Pentagon’s undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, William LaPlante, said that the Raider would be produced at an intentionally low rate in case of looming budgetary cuts. He also noted that lessons learned from the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program brought about new measures to ensure lower costs and a smoother production process.

What We Know About the B-21 Raider Program

The Raider is designed to be the Air Force’s intelligence collection platform, battle manager, and interceptor aircraft. In 2022, the Raider was officially unveiled at Northrop’s production facilities in Palmdale, California.

Smaller than its Spirit predecessor, the B-21 will be more difficult for enemy aircraft and radar to detect—an essential attribute.

The new B-21 Raider bomber is also expected to incorporate modular systems that will enable upgrades to the airframe as new technologies emerge—similar to the F-35 Lightning II.

Regardless of the Raider’s final price tag, this new bomber fleet is essential to U.S. national security. Its timely introduction is crucial, considering the progress Beijing has made toward its own H-20 stealth bomber. As U.S. defense secretary Lloyd Austin said during the unveiling of the Raider: “America’s defense will always be rooted in deterring conflict. So we are again making it plain to any potential foe that the risk and the cost of aggression far outweigh any conceivable gains.”

About the Author: Maya Carlin

Maya Carlin, National Security Writer with The National Interest, is an analyst with the Center for Security Policy and a former Anna Sobol Levy Fellow at IDC Herzliya in Israel. She has by-lines in many publications, including The National Interest, Jerusalem Post, and Times of Israel. You can follow her on Twitter: @MayaCarlin.

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Pausing our current technological progress would only help the world’s most privileged.

Au Sénégal, la famille Tall pleure son enfant dont le corps est retrouvé par parmi les migrants échoués sur les côtes de la République Dominicaine le 6 août 2024.

A dispute over a port in Somaliland has raised tensions in the Horn of Africa.

Malgré l'échec de son "plan Matignon", le Rassemblement national apparaît incontournable dans une Assemblée fragmentée, fort d'un contingent en nette progression. Mais le parti lepéniste, hostile au Nouveau Front populaire, entretient le flou sur ses intentions vis-à-vis du futur gouvernement.

ENTRETIEN - La députée LR et vice-présidente de l’Assemblée nationale pointe le flou de la rentrée, tandis qu’Emmanuel Macron n’a toujours pas nommé de premier ministre.

Quelle : © Europäische Union, 2024 - EP

Nigeria are narrowing down their options in the hunt for a new manager, with Herve Renard still a contender to replace Finidi George.

RÉCIT - Près d’un mois et demi après leur élection, les députés attendent toujours les choix de l’exécutif et une date de rentrée pour attaquer l’examen du budget.

RÉCIT - Après le revers des législatives, le parti présidentiel a perdu près de 70 députés. Nombre d’entre eux peinent encore à retrouver un emploi.

WHO (World Health Organisation) Regional Director for Europe Hans Kluge is confident that Europe can control mpox, but calls for more consistent support and solidarity for Africa.

La France insoumise menace aussi le président, qui tarde à nommer un nouveau premier ministre, d’une procédure de destitution.

En l’espace de sept ans, le nombre de groupes parlementaires a doublé dans l’Hémicycle, passant de 6 à 11 entre 2012 et 2024.

MBS, le prince saoudien qui s'engage à moderniser son pays, a été accusé de violations des droits de l'homme.