Agrégateur de flux

Summary: In joint exercises between the Royal Thai Air Force's JAS 39 Gripen fighters and the People's Liberation Army Air Force's (PLAAF) Su-27s, the Gripen demonstrated superior performance, excelling in beyond visual range (BVR) combat. The Thai fighters achieved 88% of their kills at 19 miles or greater, highlighting their effectiveness in long-distance engagements. The PLAAF's Su-27s faced challenges, with Thai pilots downing 41 Su-27s while losing only nine Gripens. The outcome underscored the Gripen's capabilities and revealed the PLAAF's learning curve in missile avoidance strategies.

JAS 39 'Shot Down' Chinese Fighters in Joint Exercises 

Though Thailand has remained the oldest U.S. ally in Asia, the ties have been "complicated" by a 2014 military coup, and Bangkok sought to strengthen its relations with China while it has made several defense procurements.

Beginning in August 2015, Thailand further held the "Falcon Strike" joint exercises with the People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) – with the Falcon Strike-2023 joint exercise between Chinese and Thai air forces lasting 21 days in Thailand, where participating troops from both countries carried out training subjects including air support, land assault, joint air defense, and large-scale deployment, which effectively enhanced their combat and joint operational capabilities.

Thailand employs aircraft of Western origins and adopts combat tactics based on a Western model, which analysts have warned could be good additions to the PLAAF's domestic training program.

However, it was during the inaugural event that was noted for highlighting the capabilities of the Royal Thai Air Force's Swedish-built JAS-39 "Gripen" multirole fighter.

Sweden's Sleek JAS 39 Gripen Fighter in the Crosshairs

The JAS 39 Gripen (Griffin) was initially designed to replace the variants of the Saab 35 Viggen and Saab 37 Draken combat aircraft. Development began in the late 1970s when the government in Stockholm began to explore the development of an aircraft that could be capable of fighter, attack, and recon missions. After evaluating a number of existing foreign aircraft including the American F-16 and F-18 fighters, the Swedish Parliament decided in June 1982 to move forward with the Swedish project.

Development of the Gripen was part of a joint effort by an industrial consortium that consisted of Saab, Saab Microwave Systems (formerly Ericsson), Volvo Aero Corporation, Saab Avitronics, and FFV Aerotech, the Gripen was the first Swedish multirole combat aircraft – capable of conducting interception, ground-attack, and reconnaissance. The single-engine, multirole-combat aircraft was designed with a single pilot, but the B and D versions were also developed featuring a longer canopy for a crew of two.

The fourth-generation multirole fighter was first flown in December 1988, and it entered operational service with the Swedish Air Force in 1997. A total of 204 aircraft in three batches had been ordered by Swedish Air Forces, which to date has taken delivery of 74 aircraft.

A total of 158 Gripens were produced as of 2016, and it was exported around the globe. Current operators include Brazil, the Czech Republic, Hungary, South Africa and Thailand, while the United Kingdom's Empire Test Pilots' School also operates Gripens in a training capacity.

It was the dozen in service with the Royal Thai Air Force that likely took Beijing by surprise.

The Oldest Asian Air Force

The Royal Thai Air Force, which was established in 1913 as one of the earliest air forces of Asia, is actually older than the PLAAF – and while not as large, is still one of the most capable and equipped in the region. It has historically employed U.S. hardware and is seeking to procure F-35 fighter jets from Lockheed Martin to replace some of its aging F-16 models.

However, as noted, it has a dozen Swedish-made Grippens in service – an aircraft that is considered one of the best non-stealth fighters in the world today. That fact was brought home in the first-ever joint exercise between the Chinese and Thai air forces.

According to a report from Aviation International News, an early December 2019 report from inside China revealed previously unreleased technical details of PLAAF's Russian-built Su-27s losing a majority of engagements in a November 2015 joint exercise with the 701 Fighter Squadron of the Royal Thai Air Force (RTAF), which operates eight Saab JAS-39C and four JAS-39D Gripens.

David Axe had previously written for The National Interest that the PLAAF flew the Shenyang J-11, an aircraft derived from the Soviet-designed Sukhoi Su-27, and manufactured by the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation (SAC). It is unclear if the PLAAF fighters were in fact Su-27s or the similar J-11s – but the outcome was the same.

"The JAS-39 performance was at its worst inside the within visual range (WVR) envelope. Over a two-day period, PLAAF pilots shot down 25 Gripens at a loss of only one Su-27. The Su-27 has an advantage over the performance of the JAS-39 due to its more powerful Salyut AL-31F engines, and the Swedish aircraft was handicapped in that it was equipped with the older-generation AIM-9L Sidewinder instead of the current-generation Diehl IRIS-T missile," the trade magazine of record reported.

The situation changed greatly once the exercise transitioned to beyond visual range (BVR) combat, where the superiority of the JAS-39 became readily apparent. Thai pilots flying the Swedish aircraft shot down 41 Su-27s over a period of four days with a loss of only nine JAS-39s.

The Royal Thai Air Force's Gripens achieved 88 percent of its kills at 19 miles or greater, while the Su-27 had just 14 percent of its kills at this range. The RTAF also had 10 kills at a distance of more than 31 miles compared with zero long-distance kills by the Su-27. Chinese pilots were simply not experienced in avoiding missile shots, while they failed to take evasive actions for missiles with different ranges.

Moreover, as AIN also reported, "In subsequent exercises, the PLAAF fared better by sending the Chengdu J-10A - and then in 2019 the J-10C - in place of the Su-27."

Perhaps Beijing's pilots learned valuable lessons as well. That should be the bigger concern – especially as Thailand holds future Falcon Strike exercises.

Author Experience and Expertise

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. Contact the Author: Editor@nationalinterest.org. 

As the U.S. presidential elections loom later this year, current polls point to the possibility of another term for Donald Trump. Given the tumultuous impact of Trump’s previous presidency, this prospect raises significant concerns for the Middle East. His signature approach, characterized by unorthodox personal diplomacy and off-the-cuff statements, has contributed to regional instability. Despite the changes in the region during his absence, Trump’s possible return poses unique challenges. The “Trump Effect” on diplomatic relations is further complicated by the escalating U.S.-China rivalry. Trump’s direct and provocative tone could force Middle Eastern states to choose sides and potentially exacerbate conflicts. Fortunately, regional actors are more accustomed to Trump’s unique style and have better diplomatic relations. Nevertheless, Trump’s return could have significant repercussions for the Middle East, as the United States is still the most powerful actor in the region.

In certain respects, Trump’s approach to the Middle East was not much different from Obama’s or Biden’s. The U.S. military presence in the region, counter-terrorism policies, and support for regional allies are issues on which all three presidents have pursued similar policies. Where Trump differed was on Iran, on which he sought economic and diplomatic containment, unlike Obama and Biden, who tried to reach a diplomatic agreement with Tehran regarding its nuclear program. However, even with this exception, all three presidents aimed, at least notionally, to reduce the U.S. imprint in the region.

Nevertheless, Trump’s handling of the region’s problems problems was radically different. Most issues in the Middle East require skillful statecraft that maintains a delicate balance of interests with no clear, definitive solutions. Trump was a bull in a china shop. He conducted personal diplomacy, the content of which was unknown to American diplomats and sometimes even to his own inner circle. He made conflicting promises to different leaders. He made erratic statements and took unexpected and radical steps. And with his indifference to issues not directly related to U.S. economic interests, he gave the impression that U.S. leadership in the region was in free fall. In this way, Trump fanned the flames of the Qatar crisis in 2017, Turkey’s aggressive foreign policy, the Turkish-UAE rivalry, the Saudi-Iranian rivalry, and the Israeli-Palestinian crisis.

Trump’s re-election in November 2024 will not turn back the clock in the Middle East. The region has changed a lot without him in Washington. Middle Eastern leaders have grown more accustomed to his unique character and style. Nevertheless, this may not be enough.

The Trump Effect

When Donald Trump came to the White House in 2017, the region was already plagued by terrorism, civil wars, and middle-power rivalries. While he did not greatly alter U.S. policies, his “unique and disruptive style” had a gasoline effect on the region.

Trump conducts diplomatic relations through personal contacts, often keeping the State Department and his aides in the dark. Of course, this appeals to Middle Eastern leaders, who like to conduct business through personal contacts. However, personal diplomacy can lead to policy inconsistencies. More importantly, someone as mercurial as Trump can intentionally or unintentionally give confusing impressions or vague promises. During the 2017 Qatar crisis, Saudi and Emirati leaders thought they had Trump’s blessing on sanctions against Doha. Similarly, in 2019, President Erdoğan exchanged messages with Trump and received a partial green light for a new military operation against the Kurds—an operation at odds with stated U.S. policies. Believing they had convinced Trump of their cases, Middle Eastern leaders took risky and destabilizing steps.

Trump’s impromptu statements can be extremely dangerous for stability and diplomacy. His tweeted support for sanctions during the three-year-long Qatar crisis further complicated the crisis. His threats to cripple the Turkish economy have also had a devastating effect on Turkey. He could tweet an unsubstantiated idea that Saudi Arabia would fund the reconstruction of Syria as if it had been agreed upon. This may be his way of negotiating, but it rarely had the effect he intended.

With little attention to the details of any policy issue and overconfidence in his instincts, Trump can make major decisions without much planning, such as recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and its claim over the Golan Heights. Likewise, he can easily break his own promises and policy statements. In the first months of his presidency, Trump bombed Bashar al-Assad despite having previously expressed sympathy for the Syrian leader. He even asked his aides to assassinate Assad, as he later ordered the killing of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani.

Great Power Rivalry

The intensification of the U.S.-China rivalry could draw Trump’s attention in a very dangerous way. Whether in the nineteenth century or during the Cold War, rivalry between the great powers has always had hazardous repercussions in the Middle East. As China’s political influence in the region grows, Trump may adopt a “you are either with us or against us” approach. This rivalry could polarize the region, create new blocs, and turn frozen conflicts into armed confrontations.

For years, Beijing was only an economic partner and not interested in the region’s political problems. More recently, China has increased its political activism in the region. China imports more than half of its crude oil from the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. Chinese firms have also undertaken $126 billion worth of construction projects in the region. China is also investing in Egyptian ports and the Suez Canal. Chinese investments in Egypt from 2017–2022 increased by 317 percent. But compared to the sheer scale of economic ties, China has been a political dwarf in the Middle East. It seems that Beijing has recently decided that political influence is necessary to protect its economic interests. More importantly, regional actors are welcoming China, known for its commitment to stability and the status quo, as an alternative great power. While hedging their bets in the struggle for global hegemony between the United States and China, regional powers also use their burgeoning relationship with China as leverage in their relations with the United States.

China’s mediating role in the Iran-Saudi normalization last year was an important event that demonstrated China’s political capacity. But, China’s activism in the region did not start in 2023. Chinese warships visit ports in the region. The Chinese military has even conducted exercises with the Egyptian army. Strengthening economic ties are also intensifying diplomatic contacts between China and the region. Chinese leaders and delegations now visit Middle Eastern capitals and fairgrounds more frequently.

In response to China’s activism, the Biden administration aims to consolidate its traditional influence in the region through diplomatic engagement and political-economic projects. President Biden is putting diplomatic pressure on Abu Dhabi to abandon China’s 5G technology and stop the construction of the secret Chinese port in the UAE. Biden has actively supported normalization between Israel and Arab countries as a way to strengthen U.S. influence in the region. As a landmark project, the India-Middle-East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) is expected to facilitate the region’s integration into the Western economic-political system. Although the October 7 attack and the Israel-Hamas war have shelved Biden’s Middle East policies, he has mostly emphasized diplomacy and economic incentives to balance the growing Chinese influence in the region.

But Trump’s style could be much more direct and provocative. Through open threats, blackmail, and gunboat diplomacy, he could force Middle Eastern states to choose sides. An intensified great power rivalry could create new fault lines and new blocs. Even if Biden is re-elected, the U.S.-China rivalry will likely grow in the Middle East. But under Trump’s leadership, this rivalry may be much more difficult to contain and manage.

The Devil We Know

By now, regional actors will be more accustomed to Trump and his style. Middle Eastern leaders can, therefore, act more wisely in a second Trump era. First, they have realized that Trump may not back up his words with action. This may make them think twice before jumping on Trump’s tail. Indeed, in response to U.S. inaction against Iran’s harassment of maritime traffic in the Gulf, the UAE opened a dialogue with Iran while Trump was still in the White House. Similarly, regional actors may be more cautious before escalating tensions, as in the Qatar crisis.

Second, the regional actors have now better experience in regional diplomacy and negotiation since Trump left power. Hence, even if a second Trump presidency causes a lack of leadership in the Middle East, the regional actors might establish regional mechanisms to maintain stability. The intensification of regional diplomacy after the October 7 Hamas attacks and the Gaza war also indicates that there is an inclination for dialogue and cooperation. As the tensions escalated, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman talked with Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi. The Turkish Foreign Minister, Hakan Fidan, visited Cairo to meet with his Egyptian counterpart. For an Organization of Islamic Countries Summit over the Israel-Hamas crisis, Raisi traveled to Riyadh and met with Prince Salman and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi. All these indicate that the regional actors want to maintain the status quo by containing and managing regional instabilities through diplomacy. In this respect, compared to Trump’s first term, the region might act more responsibly in a second era.

Middle Eastern leaders are now familiar with Trump’s approach. However, familiarity with unpredictability does not necessarily equate to prudent management of it. The United States is still the most powerful actor in the region, with a vast network of military bases and more than 40,000 troops. Therefore, Donald Trump’s possible return to the presidency could bring a sense of unpredictability and volatility to the Middle East. The intensifying great power rivalry between the United States and China adds another layer of complexity. Under Trump’s leadership, this rivalry could escalate further, creating new fault lines and potential conflicts. Whatever Trump intends to accomplish in office, it will be his execution that should concern all alike in the Middle East.

M. Hasim Tekines worked in the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He now regularly writes about Turkey and Middle Eastern politics.

Image: Lev Radin / Shutterstock.com. 

Summary: The Sukhoi Su-37 was a single-seat, twin-engine aircraft designed as a technology demonstrator to enhance the capabilities of the Su-27M. Developed with thrust-vectoring nozzles, advanced radar, and upgraded avionics, the Su-37 showcased remarkable maneuverability and air combat capabilities. Despite being a highly agile dogfighter, it required skilled pilots and faced challenges in handling. The program came to an end in 2002 when the prototype crashed due to a software malfunction. The legacy of the Su-37 lives on in the modernizations of the Su-27, such as the Su-30MKI and Su-35BM.

The Sukhoi Su-37 – The Flying Terminator

Last May, images of a "platoon" of Russia's highly-touted BMPT "Terminator" armored fighting vehicles circulated on social media. The Terminators, which were developed to support Russia's tanks and other armored fighting vehicles (AFVs) in urban environments, had reportedly been sent to the Donbas region of Eastern Ukraine.

Yet, rather than living up to the hype the name brings – something along the lines of an unstoppable fighting machine seen in the 1984 science fiction classic The Terminator or its 1991 sequel epic Terminator 2: Judgment Day, the actual vehicle has apparently seen all the success of the other forgettable sequels (which we won't even bother to name here).

However, it isn't the only "Terminator" in the Russian arsenal – as there is also the Sukhoi Su-37 (NATO reporting name "Flanker-F"), a single-seat twin-engine aircraft designed by the Sukhoi Design Bureau that served as a technology demonstrator.

An Improved Su-27

The aircraft was developed to enhance pilot control of the Su-27M (later renamed Su-35), a further development of the Su-27. A sole example was built to test a variety of new features and upgrades to improve the capabilities of the Su-27.  It was originally the eleventh Su-27M (T10M-11) produced by the Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aircraft Production Association before having thrust-vectoring nozzles installed.

As previously reported, some of the initial tests of the Su-37 were simply on new radar systems, and these proved incredibly capable. The new radar, N011M Bars, could lock onto and track twenty targets – whereas the old radar on the Su-27 could only handle fifteen. Pilots interfaced with this new radar as well as upgraded avionics using four full-color LCD multi-function displays that provided additional functionality, as well as greater clarity in bright sunlight.

However, by far the most significant improvement, however, was the addition of thrust vectoring nozzles to the engine. The Su-37 was initially equipped with two experimental Lyulka-Saturn AL-31FP engines – a derivative of the AL-31F turbofan of the Su-27 – until the newer AL-37FU engines were available. In 2001, the prototype was fitted with AL-37FU engines, updated avionics, and a fly-by-wire control system.

Claims were made that the Su-37 had virtually no angle-of-attack limitations, which would have made the aircraft an agile dogfighter. Moreover, its maneuverability was touted for being able to evade enemy missile attacks, while the thrust vectoring nozzles could be deflected both synchronously and differentially depending on a performed maneuver. Aircraft could perform aerobatics at speeds nearing zero.

The prototype was demonstrated at numerous air shows around the world, making its debut at the Farnborough Airshow in September 1996, where it employed the "Super Cobra" maneuver, a variation of Pulgachev's Cobra whereby the pilot pulls the aircraft to near vertical without gaining any altitude, slowing their airspeed to nearly zero and causing a pursuing aircraft to overshoot. In the Super Cobra, Russian Pilot Yevgeni Frolov would begin the maneuver but carried it past the vertical, until he then pushed the nose straight up and held the position momentarily before allowing it to fall back to level flight.

The Su-37 appeared at the Paris Air Show in 1997, where it was reportedly amazed spectators and was actively presented to export customers. Even with its capabilities, the aircraft received no production orders.

Su-37 as a Multirole Fighter

In addition to being touted as a capable dogfighter, and its primary role was air superiority, the Su-37 had secondary air-to-ground capability.

It was equipped with 12 wing and fuselage hardpoints and could carry missiles with a maximum weight of 8,000 kg. The fighter aircraft could carry a mix of short-range R-73E and R-77 missiles for air combat and various IR and radar-homing missiles for a ground attack role. The Su-37 was further fitted with a GSh-301 30-mm cannon, with 150 rounds.

Crash and Burn

Though it was a highly maneuverable aircraft, it reportedly required a skilled pilot at the controls – and it wasn't easy to fly.

In 2002, the Su-37 prototype crashed due to software malfunction, while its horizontal stabilizer broke off in flight, likely due to exceeding g-limits multiple times throughout its life.

The crash brought an end to the Su-37 program.

Yet, Sukhoi later introduced several modernizations of the Su-27, notably the Su-30MKI and Su-35BM and each made use of the technology developed for the Su-37, including the thrust vectoring engines, improved radar systems, and avionics.

Author Experience and Expertise

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 at Editor@nationalinterest.org. 

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Summary: This article discusses Ukraine's acquisition of 60 F-16 fighters from the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway to bolster its defense against the Russian invasion. It provides an overview of the F-16's history, specifications, and capabilities. The debate over the F-16's suitability for Ukraine's current situation is explored, considering factors like training, maintenance, and the threat posed by Russia's S-400 missile systems. While some view the F-16s as a significant upgrade for Ukraine's air force, others raise concerns about their effectiveness in the ongoing conflict. The article highlights the potential long-term impact and NATO's technological alignment with Ukraine through the F-16 acquisition.

Ukraine’s 60 New F-16 Fighters—Can They Make a Real Difference?

When Russia first invaded Ukraine back in February 2022, the U.S. and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies immediately pledged support for Kyiv.

From main battle tanks (MBTs) and munitions to cash funds and anti-tank weaponry, the U.S. has provided billions of dollars worth of military equipment to aid Ukraine’s defensive efforts.

While NATO allies have agreed to send over many of the items requested by Kyiv, some were more challenging to provide. For more than a year, Kyiv asked the White House to deliver modern fighter jets to the front lines.

The Biden administration repeatedly refused this request. However, a surprise policy reversal in 2023 was a turning point. The U.S. president told allies that he would support an international coalition to train Ukrainian pilots on Western fighter jets, paving the way for fourth-generation airframes to make their way to the frontlines eventually.

Today, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway are offering Ukraine 60 F-16s in the near future.

Will these airframes actually make a difference in a war that has been characterized as a never-ending stale-mate?

An overview of the Fighting Falcon

The F-16 was derived from the 1970s Lightweight Fighting Program and has remained a critical component of America’s aerial arsenal over the years. Following lessons learned during the Vietnam War, U.S. officials required an airframe with more robust combat performance.

After much trial and error, the YF-16 prototype was developed by General Dynamics and rolled out in 1973. Over the next year, America’s NATO allies Belgium, Denmark, and the Netherlands reached an agreement with the U.S. to order the winner of the LWF competition. By 1976, the YF-16 was declared the winner. The airframe’s lower operating costs, maneuver performance and greater range made it a standout.

Additionally, using the Pratt & Whitney F100 turbine engine for power was a plus since its use in the F-15 would mean lower engine costs for both programs.

F-16 Specs & Capabilities

The compact, multi-role fighter jet is highly maneuverable and can perform both air-to-combat and air-to-surface missions. Each Fighting Falcon features the Boeing joint helmet-mounted system and other enhanced technologies like up-look reticles and optical/inertial trackers.

In terms of ordnance, the F-16 is well-stocked. The F-16 possesses nine hardpoints for weapons payloads, one at each tip, one centerline under the fuselage, and three under each wing.

These fighters can carry an array of air-to-surface missiles, including Maverick, HARM and Shrike. Additionally, the fighters are equipped with Boeing Harpool and Kongsberg Penguin anti-ship missiles. To complement its hefty weapons-carrying capabilities, the Fighting Falcon is quite the racehorse.

The fighter can fly over 1,500 miles per hour with an operational ceiling of 50,000 feet. Moreover, the airframe has an operational range of over 500 miles.

How useful will F-16s be for Ukraine?

Initially, analysts pointed to extensive training time and delivery processes as reasons not to deliver F-16 Fighting Falcons to Ukraine. Additionally, these fourth-generation fighters require much more maintenance than the average Soviet-era fighter Kyiv’s pilots are used to flying.

Last year, a report by the U.S. General Accounting Office ranked the F-16 as one of the most challenging U.S. Air Force planes to maintain. Another key factor analysts point to when explaining why Fighting Falcons are not suited for Russia’s current invasion in Ukraine is the wrath of Moscow’ S-400 Surface-to-air missile systems (SAMs), which could leave the F-16 “completely unmatched.”

Proponents of providing Fighting Falcons to Ukraine claim that while these jets will not abruptly alter the course of the war, they are a major step up for the older planes Kyiv is currently flying and will, in the long run, prove to be a significant asset for the country’s defensive efforts. Down the line, if Kyiv uses these fighters to aid specific operations, it will have a better chance of success. Specifically, Ukraine’s pilots could use F-16s to gradually take apart Russia’s air defense umbrella around the battlefield to make room for more open-air operations.

As detailed by Reuters, the addition of F-16’s “locks Ukraine onto a technological path that NATO is currently on, what Ukraine has now is a dead end; It’s not going anywhere. If you want to have an air force in 10 years, it’s going to have to be F-16s or something similar.”

Since Ukraine launched its highly anticipated counter-offensive this summer, little significant movement has been documented on the ground. In fact, since February 2022, Russia has maintained about one-fifth of Ukraine in its grip while the front lines have remained relatively stagnant.

Hopefully, adding the 60 Fighting Falcons will help push Kyiv’s efforts further.

However, the true outcome that the delivery of these fighters will provide remains up for debate.

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.  You can email the author at Editor@nationalinterest.org. 

Summary: The article discusses the reactivation and deployment of Iowa-class battleships during the Korean War. Following their initial decommissioning after World War II, the USS Missouri was the only Iowa-class battleship remaining in active duty. However, during the Korean War, the USS Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Jersey were reactivated and played significant roles in naval operations off the coast of Korea. The battleships conducted bombardments on various targets, contributing to the overall destruction of Korean assets. The article also highlights the modifications made to the Iowa-class battleships during their second comeback in the 1980s, including installing newer weaponry such as anti-ship missiles and cruise missiles. Despite no longer being in service, the Iowa-class battleships are esteemed by military enthusiasts and industry experts.

The Iowa-Class: Down But Not Out

The Second World War officially ended after the U.S. dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Within five years, almost 90% of the U.S. Navy’s personnel were discharged to civilian life as its active duty personnel had shrunk to 375,000. In addition to those relegated to reserve duty, the majority of the Navy’s battleships were decommissioned or scrapped for parts. However, three completed Iowa-class battleships would soon jump back into service and join their sister ship the USS Missouri off the coast of Korea. For the next three years, these formidable warships would lead the Navy’s operations against North Korean and Chinese forces.

Introducing the Iowa-class battleships

The Iowa-class ships can be traced back to the late 1930’s, when the “escalator clause” first emerged. First penned in the 1936 London Treat, if Japan (or other non-signatories) refused to confirm that future battleships would not be armed with guns over 14-inch calibers, “then the signatories could adopt 16-inch guns and also a larger size limit for ships.” For this reason, the World War II battleships were constructed with 16-inch guns, and the Iowa-class vessels were designed to weigh 45,000 tons, rather than the previous 35,000 ton limit. These battleships were powered by eight Babcock & Wilcox boilers and four sets of double-reduction cross-compound geared turbines. During the Second World War, the earliest search radars installed onto the Iowa ships were the SK air-search radar and SG surface-search radar.

Each Iowa-class battleship measures 860 feet with a maximum beam length of 108 feet. In terms of armament, each vessel packed a punch. Nine 16-inch Mark 7 naval guns were fitted on the ships, which could fire explosive and armor-piercing shells. The “three-gun” turrets on each ship could fire any combination of its guns, including a broadside of all nine. The Mark 38 Gun Fire Control System was installed for fire control, in addition to large-caliber guns.

Notably, the Mk 8 “Super-heavy” Armor Piercing Capped (APC) shell for anti-structure and anti-ship work was incorporated on the Iowa-class ships for use against unarmored targets.

The USS Missouri and sister ships take on North Korea

After World War II, the USS Missouri was the only Iowa-class battleship to remain on active duty. She was notably the last American battleship commissioned. In 1950, the Missouri was displaced off the coast of Korea. Shortly after her arrival, the USS Wisconsin was reactivated for support.

The U.S. Navy opted not to transfer the three heavy cruisers of the Des Moines class already in service in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean since they served as important deterrents to the Soviet Union at the time. When the Wisconsin (followed by the reactivation of sister-ships Iowa and New Jersey) re-entered service during the Korean War, they were all in excellent condition. In fact, the only real change involving these battleships was the replacement of WWII-era floatplanes with helicopters.

By 1952, the USS Iowa was serving as flagship for the Commander, Seventh Fleet. It took part in gun strikes on targets around the areas of Songjin, Wonsan, Hungman, Kojo, Toejo, Chaho, and northern Inchon, North Korea. USS New Jersey also operated mightily during the war, taking part in coast raiding of North Korean transportation facilities along the border. The USS Missouri also engaged in numerous bombardments while serving in Korea. The battleship carried out her first attack in 1951 and began a second tour two years later.

While the four Iowa-class battleships certainly did a number on Korean assets via bombardments in the early 1950s, the overall impact of their presence is up for debate. As detailed by Robert Farley here in the National Interest, “Communist forces quickly learned to move critical facilities and troop concentration outside of the range of the battleships’ guns, although the transport network was hard to shift inland.

Heavy U.S. bombing of targets across Korea contributed to the general destruction, making it hard to parse out how much the battleships themselves mattered. The smaller, cheaper heavy cruisers could often deliver similar levels of destruction to enemy targets. Still, the very presence of the battleships may have had some degree of psychological effect on Communist and UN forces alike.”

The Iowa-class ships certainly brought their big guns to Korea. In the 1980s, these battleships would be revived for a second time. Since these vessels are quite large in size, modifications could be more easily incorporated. During the Iowa class’ second comeback phase, workers replaced the older 5-in gun mounts installed onboard with newer and bigger weaponry. In addition to sixteen Harpoon anti-ship missiles, thirty-two Tomahawk cruise missiles were also installed on the battleships.

Although the Iowa-class vessels are no longer in service, these battleships are well regarded by military buffs and industry officials alike.

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. Email the Author: Editor@nationalinterest.org. 

 

Summary: The USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), the leading vessel of the new Gerald R. Ford-class of aircraft carriers, has completed an extended deployment to the Mediterranean. While the CVN-78 features advanced technologies, it has faced issues with various systems. Concerns arise regarding the sustainability and vulnerability of such massive carriers, considering evolving threats like hypersonic missiles, unmanned vehicles, and cyber attacks. The article questions the necessity of supercarriers and suggests that their construction and maintenance costs, coupled with potential end-of-life challenges, may make them less practical than alternative options like updating conventionally powered carriers or increasing amphibious assault ships in the fleet.

Is The Ford-Class The Last of the United States Navy's Aircraft Carriers?

The USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), the newest and largest nuclear-powered supercarrier ever built, is now headed home after an extended deployment to the waters of the Mediterranean. The warship is the lead vessel of a new class of United States Navy aircraft carriers that will replace the aging Nimitz-class on a one-for-one basis over the coming decades.

Featuring greater automation, which allows the ship to operate with a smaller crew, CVN-78 is also among the most advanced warships ever built. As the largest warship ever constructed in terms of displacement, USS Gerald R. Ford is an impressive vessel that will likely serve as power projection throughout the world for decades to come.

Yet, even as she is loaded with new and innovative technologies, there has remained issues with numerous systems that haven't exactly worked as planned. From the ship's toilets, which regularly clog, to the ordnance elevators that didn't function properly; numerous systems have had serious teething issues that have needed to be resolved. Given those problems, it would be easy to dismiss the carrier as a huge money pit in the water and perhaps even suggest that CVN-78 is actually a bad carrier.

The bigger question is whether the Gerald R. Ford-class could end up being the end of the line for true aircraft carriers.

A Century of Aircraft Carriers

It is worth noting that it has only been about a century since the United States Navy first began to operate carriers – and at the time many naval leaders still saw the battleship as the dominant surface combatant. Fast forward, and today no one operates anything close in size to battleships, and the closest is Russia's aging Soviet-era battlecruisers that never quite delivered on their promise.

Simply put, guided missile destroyers can fill the same role of the old big gun battleships, while being quicker to build, cheaper to operate and requiring a significantly smaller crew.

Aircraft carriers may not be so easy to replace. Few warships can do what carriers can do – notably in being a floating airbase.

Yet, a major concern is that a supercarrier could be really a big target. The old fear was from enemy aircraft and submarines, but the threat now includes hypersonic missiles, undersea unmanned vehicles (UUVs), and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Low-tech threats still remain a concern as well, as was seen on October 12, 2000, when suicide terrorists exploded a small boat alongside the USS Cole.

It wouldn't really take all that much to do considerable damage to such a high-value target.

In addition, the systems are now so complex that they could even be targeted in a cyber attack. The question is whether the United States Navy needs such a massive floating airbase that faces so many threats.

Replacement Cycle and Ford-Class 

The biggest argument against a nuclear-powered carrier is that it really isn't an efficient system. Yes, such a vessel has nearly unlimited range, yet the endurance is only as great as the food and water it can carry. A ship that can stay a sea indefinitely is good until one considers that it still needs to be supplied with fuel for the aircraft and food for the crew.

During the global Covid-19 pandemic, USS Nimitz (CVN-68) completed the longest deployment of a carrier since the Vietnam War, spending 321 days at sea. It was hardly good for the crew, who had to endure 10 months at sea, but it also pushed the ship hard and required a lengthy maintenance period. Even worse, the Nimitz-class carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) was sidelined for months due to an outbreak of Covid that impacted more than a third of her crew.

Massive vessels that have such massive crews could be just as susceptible in another pandemic.

Then there is the fact that even the regular maintenance of these supercarriers take months and there is little indication that this will be improved on CVN-78 or the other Gerald R. Ford-class flattops. Moreover, the mid-life refueling of the nuclear reactors takes the ships out of service for years! The United States Navy may have 11 nuclear-powered carriers in its fleet, but rarely are more than five or six deployed at any one time.

Life Cycle Woes

Yet, the biggest consideration on why these new supercarriers are just a bad idea is that there seems to be little planning for their end of life. Even as the cost to construct the next ships in the class has fallen, there are the billions of dollars that the Navy will have to pay to eventually dispose of these vessels. It was reported that it could take more than a decade and a half to fully dismantle and scrap USS Enterprise (CVN-65), the first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, while the price tag could be more than $1.5 billion.

Even once the issues with CVN-65 are addressed, the Navy will have to deal with the Nimitz-class carriers that the new Ford-class will be replaced on a one-for-one basis. This issue isn't likely to get better with the newest carriers being built.

Each may be impressive, but the Gerald R. Ford-class carriers take years to build, costs a not-so-small fortune, require massive maintenance and will take years to dismantle. Perhaps it would be wiser to update the conventionally powered Kitty Hawk -class, and complement them with more America-class amphibious assault ships (LHDs), which would be better suited to a potential war in the Indo-Pacific. Each of those flattops would be cheaper to build, we could build more of them, and they'd be easier to retire when the time comes. And they aren't a nuclear disaster waiting to happen should a terrorist get lucky.

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. Email the Author: Editor@NationalInterest.org. 

Summary: The P-82/F-82 Twin Mustang, a unique fighter aircraft born out of North American Aviation's innovation, showcased a twin-fuselage design with two pilots. Emerging after World War II, it became operational in 1946, featuring a distinctive structure to alleviate pilot fatigue on long missions. Despite missing WWII combat, the Twin Mustang made history during the Korean War, scoring the first air-to-air kill in 1950. With a range exceeding 1,600 miles and a max speed of 475 mph, it played a significant role until 1952, marking the end of piston-engine fighters in the USAF. Surviving examples stand as relics of Cold War aviation history.

The P-82/F-82 Twin Mustang

Quite a few military aviation history buffs have argued a case for the P-51D Mustang as the greatest fighter plane of all time. So then, going by the philosophy that "two heads are better than one," the only thing that could be better than one Mustang would be two Mustangs … as in two Mustangs in one single plane/airframe, right? That's apparently what the fine folks at North American Aviation (who'd already gained additional fame during WWII via the B-25 Mitchell) were thinking when they designed and built the "sequel" (so to speak) to the P-51, that being P-82/F-82 Twin Mustang. Let's take a closer look at this aerial oddity of the early Cold War era.

The Twins Are Born 

"Don't give me an F-82/That monster from out of the blue/You won't understand, just who's in command/Don't give me an F-82!" That is one of the verses from the humorous Air Force fighter pilot drinking song "Give Me Operations," popularized by folk singers such as the late great Oscar Brand ("the Dean of American Folk Music") and the still-alive-and-kicking Dick Jonas (retired USAF Lt. Col. AKA "the fighter pilot's minstrel"). 

When looking at pics of the Twin Mustang, one might get the impression that the plane was a result of cross-breeding the original WWII Mustang with another highly successful fighter plane from a rival American aircraft manufacturer, that being the P-38 Lightning built by famed Lockheed's Skunk Works factory under the legendary Kelly Johnson. However, unlike the Lightning, the P-82 went beyond mere twin tails and twin-engine and actually added a second fuselage — joined by the wing and the horizontal stabilizer — a second cockpit, and a second pilot to boot.

A Boeing fact sheet explains the rationale:

"With a pilot in each fuselage, it reduced the problem of pilot fatigue on ultra-long-range missions. The P-82F and G models carried a radar operator in the right cockpit instead of a co-pilot. Both engine throttles and both propellers were controllable from either cockpit by manually operated levers. The pilot's cockpit on the left contained the normal flight and engine instruments, while the co-pilot on the right had sufficient instruments for relief and emergency operation. A simplified cockpit arrangement improved pilot comfort, including a tilting, adjustable seat to reduce fatigue during long flights." 

(NOTE: It was after WWII ended that the then-newly independent U.S. Air Force changed the alphanumeric designations for its fighter planes from "P" for "Pursuit" to "F" for 'Fighter.)

The Twin Mustang made her maiden flight on June 15, 1945, but didn't officially go operational until 1946. This was not in time to escort the B-29 Superfortresses on the heavy bombers' long-range high-altitude missions over Japan — hence the rationale for the fatigue-reducing second pilot in the first place — before WWII ended, but the P-82/F-82 would more than make up for the lost time when the Korean War rolled around (more on this in a bit). The F-82 certainly didn't fall short in the combat range department (bad pun intended), as the warplane could cover more than 1,600 miles (2,574 kilometers) with a full payload. 

At a max airspeed of 475 mph (764 kph), the Twin Mustang was 35 mph (56.32 kph) faster than her single-engine predecessor. However, the P-82/F-82 did not one-up the P-51D in armament, still sticking with the six Browning .50 caliber machine guns, except this time it was decided to concentrate guns along the central joining wing span as opposed to the three guns in each wing of the "Single 'Stang" (so to speak). 

First Killer Over Korea

As previously mentioned, the Twin Mustang definitely got her fair share of action in the deadly skies over Korea after missing out on WWII aerial combat. In the process, though this twin-bodied warbird didn't rack up quite the impressive kill tally of the P-51, she and her crews made history in terms of both firsts and lasts. 

Most significantly, the F-82G scored the very first air-to-air kill of the war, on June 27, 1950. Whilst escorting a Douglas C-54 Skymaster, an F-82G piloted by then-Lt. William "Skeeter" Hudson and radio operator Lt. Carl Fraser, shot down a Yakovlev Yak-11. The next two North Korean aircraft to be shot down by U.S. forces would also fall to the guns of the F-82G. The Twin Mustang continued participating in combat operations in Korea until March 1952, although the plane would be rendered obsolete for air-to-air combat purposes as jet-vs.-jet fighter engagements rose to prominence. 

As far as last hurrahs go, the F-82 turned out to be the last American piston-engined fighter ordered into production by the USAF. Five of them survive today.

Where Are They Now?

A total of 282 P-82s/F-82s were built (compared with more than 15,000 P-51s) before being retired in 1953 (the same year that the Korean armistice was signed). Five of them survive today, including one on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force at Wright-Patterson AFB near Dayton, Ohio. 

About the Author 

Christian D. Orr is a former Air Force officer, Federal law enforcement officer, and private military contractor (with assignments worked in Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kosovo, Japan, Germany, and the Pentagon). Chris holds a B.A. in International Relations from the University of Southern California (USC) and an M.A. in Intelligence Studies (concentration in Terrorism Studies) from American Military University (AMU). He has also been published in The Daily Torch and The Journal of Intelligence and Cyber Security. Last but not least, he is a Companion of the Order of the Naval Order of the United States (NOUS). Email the Author: Editor@nationalinterest.org. 

Image Credit: Shutterstock. 

Summary: The article delves into the fascinating history of the USS Oriskany, an aircraft carrier with notable service in Korea and Vietnam, highlighting its commendations and pivotal missions. After decommissioning in 1976, the Navy transformed the carrier into an artificial reef in 2006. The intentional sinking aimed to create an underwater habitat, and collaboration with environmental agencies ensured minimal impact. Despite concerns about pollutants, the artificial reef has become a thriving marine environment, benefiting local economies and showcasing the innovative reuse of a once-mighty warship.

USS Oriskany: Why did the Navy sink its own ship?

Fifteen years have passed since the U.S. Navy intentionally sank its aircraft carrier USS Oriskany in the Gulf of Mexico near Pensacola, Florida. Why CV/CVA-34 may be at the bottom of the ocean, the legendary vessel served the Navy well during her decades in operation. In fact, USS Oriskany was awarded the Navy Unit Commendation and the Meritorious Unit Commendation on three occasions. She also was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal and the Korean Service Medal. Although all these roles are certainly commendable, perhaps the Oriskany’s current function deep in the Gulf is her most significant. The once mighty U.S. carrier is now serving the seas as an artificial reef.

The Essex-class origin story

The USS Oriskany was one of the Navy’s few Essex-class aircraft carriers completed after the Second World War. Prior to the Essex ships, the Navy sailed Yorktown-calss carriers that were severely limited due to strict arms control treaty obligations. As tensions began to build in Europe in the late 1930’s, however, American engineers understood the need to advance future carrier platforms. The Essex-class ships were notably longer, wider and more than a third heavier than their predecessors. Additionally, each ship was equipped with a bigger flight deck and deck-edge elevator that elevated their offensive and defensive air prowess.

In the first half of the 20th century, naval airframes were much smaller and lighter than their modern day counterparts. Specifically, the Douglas TBD Devastator was entering service around the time the first Essex-class ship was entering service. The Devastator was extremely hefty compared to earlier airframes, weighing more than 4,600 tons. Fully loaded, the Devastator had a wingspan of 50 feet, necessitating much more room than earlier carriers could provide. In addition to this aircraft, the Navy required that future carriers would be able to carry at least 90 planes. The increased space incorporated on the Essex-class ships fulfilled this need.

Introducing the USS Oriskany:

In the early 1940’s, CV-34 was laid down by the New York Naval Shipyard. By 1945, the carrier officially launched, however, construction on the vessel was halted one year later when it was roughly 85% complete. Over the next few years, the Oriskany would undergo several modernization efforts in order to better handle newer carrier aircraft. Some of the enhancements made to the vessel include a heavily reinforced flight deck structure, stronger elevators, more sophisticated hydraulic catapults and newer arresting gear. Once the Oriskany was fully refitted, she was commissioned in the New York Naval Ship Yard in 1950.

The Oriskany’s operational history

Perhaps the most notable missions accomplished by the Oriskany were in Korea and Vietnam. When the carrier set sail to aid United Nations forces in Korea in 1952, her aircraft heavily struck against enemy supply lines and coordinated bombing operations along the coast. Notably, two aircraft aboard the Oriskany downed two Soviet MiG-15 fighters. In the 1960’s, the carrier would deploy to Vietnam. On October 26 1967, then-Lieutenant Commander John McCain was taken as a prisoner of war after his A-4 Skyhawk was shot down.

How did the USS Oriskany transform into an artificial reef?

After many solid decades in service, the Oriskany was decommissioned in 1976. Within a few years, it became apparent that the massive carrier would be too costly to modernize. By the end of the Cold War, her hull was stripped of all equipment. In 2004, the Oriskany’s retirement trajectory took a turn. The U.S. Navy retook possession of the carrier and transformed the Oriskany to the State of Florida to use as an artificial reef. U.S. Navy personnel teamed up with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Escambia’s County Department of Natural Resources, the Pensacola Police Department, the U.S. Coast Guard and various sheriff departments in surrounding neighborhoods in 2006. A Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal team then detonated C-4 explosive charges intentionally placed throughout the carrier in order to carry out the planned sinking

The Navy worked with the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure the sinking of the Oriskany would not negatively impact sealife. After spending around $20 million to clean the hefty carrier, the service was still forced to leave an estimated 700 pounds of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) aboard the ship. Some ecologists were concerned that the sinking would coincide with unintended consequences below sea level and a State of Florida study is currently underway to determine if there will be a negative outcome in the future.

Since the sinking of the Oriskany, at least thirty-eight fish species have been seen around the wreck. Additionally, Pensacola and Escambia County generated more than $4 million from the addition of the artificial reef in 2007 alone. This number is likely much, much higher today.

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. You can email the author at Editor@nationalinterest.org. 

All images are Creative Commons. 

The M4 Sherman tank was a big part of World War II. But was it any good? Some experts think it was a total piece of junk, while others think it was a strong weapon of war and deserving of a place in history.

Here is what one expert told us: “Quantity has a quality all its own.” The above quote is often attributed, correctly or otherwise, to Joseph Stalin. Whoever said it first, the statement is often a theme when applied to Soviet-designed weapons systems, from the Avtomat Kalashnikova AK-47 rifle, to jet fighters such as the MiG-23 “Flogger” and MiG-21 “Fishbed,” to the venerable T-34 medium battle tank.

But the truism could also apply to certain weapons systems made in America, especially during WWII, when U.S. wartime industrial capacity was at its peak. Arguably no other American-made platform of World War Two fits the proverb quite like the M4 Sherman medium battle tank.

The M4 Sherman’s March From the Seas

Not counting prototypes, a total of 49,234 of these tanks were produced, a number surpassed only by the Soviet T-34. Officially the Medium Tank, M4, this iconic tank kept the U.S. Army’s then-common naming convention of nicknaming its armored beasts after American Civil War generals, Yankee and Rebel alike.

For example, the M3 medium tank was named for both Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant, depending on whether it had the U.S.-patterned turrets or the British-patterned turrets, respectively. In the case of the Sherman, Civil War buffs can’t help but wonder how much WWII Southron tankers – especially those from Georgia and South Carolina – had to swallow their pride when serving as crewmembers in a vehicle named for their most despised Union officer.

However, unlike its Civil War namesake, the Sherman tank didn’t so much march to the sea as it marched from the seas – from North African, French, and Italian shores, moving inland to confront the might of Nazi Germany’s war machine head-on.

Middleweight Maligned for Mismatches

As beloved and iconic as the Sherman tank was and remains, it has also been tarnished as a bit of a lovable loser due to the fact that it was, to be brutally honest, outgunned and outclassed by later WWII German battle tanks like the vaunted and fearsome Tiger.

This reputation is strongly enforced by myriad books, military history documentaries on YouTube, and the box office blockbuster Fury, all of which propagate the mostly accepted notion that the M4 had anywhere from a 3:1 to 5:1 loss-to-kill ratio versus the Tiger – although there is at least one YouTube video out there that dares to challenge this notion.

By that same paradigm, you might believe that it was only through sheer numbers — somewhat akin to how T-34s defined the Battle of Kursk — that the M4 eventually came up on the winning side of the war. Or to go back to the Civil War analogies, similar to the popular myth that it was only through sheer numbers, and not through any sort of fighting prowess or skilled generalship, that the Union defeated the Confederacy.

Even if one does accept these numbers as gospel truth, that doesn’t make the Sherman a truly inferior tank, any more than legendary middleweight boxers such as Jake LaMotta or “Marvelous” Marvin Hagler can be considered inferior boxers because they would most likely be knocked out when matched up against heavyweights like “Iron Mike” Tyson or Evander Holyfield.

To quote the title of former U.S. Army officer turned freelance writer Miguel Ortiz’s 2021 article, “The Sherman was actually a great WWII tank.”

Ortiz backs the title with solid facts:

“Against the early-war Panzer III and Panzer IV tanks, the Sherman’s 75mm M3 short-barrel gun was capable of delivering knock-out punches. Moreover, the tank’s sloped frontal armor was adept at bouncing the incoming German fire…In 1946, the U.S. Army’s Ballistic Research Lab conducted a study on the engagements fought by the 3rd and 4rd Armored Divisions during 1944. The study examined 30 armor-on-armor engagements and found that the Sherman had a 3.6-to-1 kill ratio against the German Panther.“

Ortiz and other defenders of the Sherman’s reputation have provided some additional context: The M4 was not designed for a purely tank-killing role like the Tiger was. Contrary to the typical Hollywood-embellished depictions in popular media and video games, the majority of Allied tank engagements on the Western front were against anti-tank guns, infantry, and fortified positions like bunkers. Against those sort of targets, the Sherman’s 75mm main gun performed just fine, thank you very much.

The Enemy’s Perspective on the M4 Sherman

But if you don’t want to take American writers at their word, how about words of praise from a high-ranking enemy figure?

In this case that figure was no less than Albert Speer, Hitler’s Minister of Armaments and War Production:

“On the Southwest Front, opinions are in favor of the Sherman tank and its cross-country ability. The Sherman tank climbs mountains that our Panzer crews consider impassable. This is accomplished by the especially powerful engine in the Sherman in comparison to its weight. Also, according to reports from the 26.Panzer-Division, the terrain-crossing ability on level ground (in the Po valley) is completely superior to our Panzers. The Sherman tanks drive freely cross-country, while our Panzers must remain on trails and narrow roads and therefore are very restricted in their ability to fight.”

Besides being blessed with greater speed, maneuverability, and versatility, the Sherman was far more reliable and maintenance-friendly than the Tiger. Even the most ardent critics of the Sherman and greatest fans of the Tiger will readily concede that fact, as the German behemoth was infamous for its frequent mechanical breakdowns. To use a handgun analogy, a 9mm pistol that goes “BANG!” every time you pull the trigger beats the hell out of a .45 ACP that can’t go a full magazine without jamming.

And that doesn’t even factor in the upgraded 76mm gun of the Firefly variant of the Sherman, which gave its crews a much better fighting chance against those Tiger bogeymen. Alas, brevity dictates that’s a separate topic – one we will have to discuss at a later date. Stay tuned, folks.

About the Author 

Christian D. Orr is a former Air Force officer, Federal law enforcement officer, and private military contractor (with assignments worked in Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kosovo, Japan, Germany, and the Pentagon). Chris holds a B.A. in International Relations from the University of Southern California (USC) and an M.A. in Intelligence Studies (concentration in Terrorism Studies) from American Military University (AMU). He has also been published in The Daily Torch and The Journal of Intelligence and Cyber Security. Last but not least, he is a Companion of the Order of the Naval Order of the United States (NOUS). Email the Author: Editor@nationalinterest.org. 

Summary: Explore Sweden's Cold War-era A-36 project, a would-be bomber designed for potential nuclear capability. Intended as a deterrent against the Soviet Union, Projekt 1300 envisioned a delta-wing supersonic bomber capable of carrying a free-falling nuclear weapon. Despite its advanced design with a single-pilot operation and a range sufficient to reach key Soviet-controlled targets, including the Baltic States, political caution and public sentiment led to the project's cancellation in 1957. Written by former Air Force officer Christian D. Orr, this article sheds light on an intriguing chapter in Sweden's military history. 

The A-36: Sweden’s Would-Be A-Bomber

Although Sweden hasn’t participated in an officially declared war since the Swedish-Norwegian War of 1814, and maintained a strict neutrality policy throughout the Cold War—bear in mind that it’s only now that Sweden is joining NATO—that certainly didn’t stop Sweden from producing some top-notch and high-tech weapons systems.

Clearly, they still wanted to be prepared for war against the Soviet Union just in case.

A wise precaution, as the Swedes were no doubt ever mindful of their brother Scandinavian country Finland’s military run-in with the Soviets during the Winter War of 1939-1940. Moreover, Sweden found itself in a total of eleven wars with Russia between the 12th and 19th centuries. As it turns out, Sweden’s collective military R&D genius extended beyond fighter planes and into the realm of bombers such as the A-36. Unlike the aforementioned fighter planes, the A-36 bomber never got off the ground (literally or figuratively).

A-36 - Sweden’s Nuclear Hammer of Thor?

As noted by my colleague Brent M. Eastwood, “Surprisingly, the Swedes even had their own nuclear-weapon program in the 1950s and 1960s – not something you would expect from the peace-loving country. They needed an airplane to carry the bomb had they decided to go all-in on the project and produce an actual nuclear device. It was thought the bomb would give the Swedes a flexible nuclear response as it faced an existential threat from the Soviet Union.”

Enter Projekt 1300, which envisioned a delta-wing supersonic bomber capable of carrying a free-falling nuclear weapon weighing up to 1,700 pounds (800kg).

Unlike American or Soviet bombers of the era (such as the B-52 and the Tupolev Tu-95 “Bear” respectively), which needed to fly extreme distances, the Swedes were able to opt for a smaller bomber that could be flown by a single pilot, with a proposed range of around 250 miles (410 km) that was sufficient to reach targets in the Baltic States—which were under the control of the Soviet Union at the time—and even the city of Leningrad (today’s St. Petersburg).  East Germany and Poland—the USSR’s Warsaw Pact allies at the time—also would have been within striking distance.

The delta-wing design was deemed more optimal for the A-36’s intended airspeed of Mach 2. Powered by twin British Merlins Rolls-Royce Olympus engines, the A-36 was going to be 55-feet long with a wingspan of 31 feet (9.44 meters), a ceiling of 60,000 feet (18,288 meters), and a fuel capacity of 8,800 pounds (3,991kg). An internal weapons bay would have been chosen to avoid (1) issues with the payload overheating that would’ve resulted from underwing carry and (2) drag stemming from an external bomb that would have impeded the aircraft’s overall performance.  The payload itself would have been a free-floating “dumb” bomb.

A-36: This Hammer Would Never be Swung

However, the A-36 project ended up going nowhere fast.

To quote Mr. Eastwood again, “Caution got the better part of the Swedes. Political leadership never wanted a nuclear exchange with the Soviets. And creating its own nuclear program would be difficult, time-consuming, and expensive. Going nuclear did not really fit Swedish peace-loving culture either. Home defense was one thing, but the responsibility for being a nuclear-equipped nation was considered far-fetched. There just was not enough popular support for a nuclear weapons program.”

Ergo the A-36 project was canceled in 1957, the Swedish government decided in 1966 that they were going to resist going nuclear, and in 1968 they scrapped their nuclear bomb project altogether.

Scandinavia remains a nuclear-free region, and there is no indication that it will change anytime soon.

About the Author 

Christian D. Orr is a former Air Force officer, Federal law enforcement officer, and private military contractor (with assignments worked in Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kosovo, Japan, Germany, and the Pentagon).  Chris holds a B.A. in International Relations from the University of Southern California (USC) and an M.A. in Intelligence Studies (concentration in Terrorism Studies) from American Military University (AMU).  He has also been published in The Daily Torch and The Journal of Intelligence and Cyber Security. Email the Author: Editor@nationalinterest.org. 

Summary: Some fortunate U.S. military personnel experienced the awe-inspiring sight of eight U-2 spy planes in a rare 'Elephant Walk' at Beale Air Force Base, California. This showcase of joint airpower, featuring U-2 'Dragon Lady' aircraft, T-38 Talons, and KC-135R Stratotankers, highlights the prowess of the United States Air Force.

Eight U-2 Spy Planes Seen in 'Elephant Walk'

Aviation buffs may be lucky to see a single U-2 spy plane – apart from the few that are in a museum – but earlier this month, eight of the legendary aircraft were lined up in an "Elephant Walk" at Beale Air Force Base (AFB), California as part of the United States Air Force's efforts to showcase the joint airpower of the multiple wings stationed at the facility.

On January 4, the U-2 "Dragon Lady" aircraft were seen lined up with T-38 Talons from the 1st Reconnaissance Squadron, and KC-135R Stratotanker aircraft from the 940th Air Refueling Wing.

Currently, a total of 27 U-2s are housed at Beale AFB, and those aircraft rotate through military installations around the world.

History of Elephant Walks

In recent years, the United States Air Force has conducted multiple very high-profile "elephant walks," the term for taxiing numerous aircraft before takeoff. In addition to the close formation on the ground, it can involve a minimum interval takeoff.

The first elephant walks occurred during the Second World War when large fleets of allied bombers massed for attacks – and observers on the ground noted that as the aircraft lined up, it resembled the nose-to-tail formations of elephants walking to a watering hole.

Today, the U.S. Air Force employs elephant walks to show the capability of a unit as well as the teamwork that is required to conduct such an operation. It also can help pilots prepare for the launching of fully armed aircraft in a mass event if needed.

The U-2 in the Spotlight

The U-2 was designed to provide high-altitude, all-weather surveillance and reconnaissance, day or night, in direct support of U.S. and allied forces.

Developed at Lockheed's famed Skunk Works division under the supervision of engineering guru Clarence "Kelly" Johnson in 1953, the U-2 took the sleek lines of a traditional sailplane featuring long, tapered wings that allowed it to fly missions ranging 3,000 miles while carrying 700 pounds of then state-of-the-art photoreconnaissance equipment.

It wasn't an easy plane to fly and by some accounts was actually the most difficult to master. Known by its nickname "Dragon Lady," it could reach altitudes of 70,000 feet – higher than what was believed to be a threat from enemy missiles. Pilots had to wear a full-pressure suit similar to those worn by astronauts.

The aircraft has been synonymous with the Cold War, in part because, on May 1, 1960, a Soviet surface-to-air missile struck a U-2 piloted by Francis Gary Powers while on a reconnaissance mission over Russia. Yet, despite that incident, the U-2 has remained a critical asset for the IC.

The program was restarted in the 1980s and as a result, many of the U-2s flying today aren't that old – and while the basic design is essentially the same as the originals produced some twenty years earlier, they are 40 percent bigger and feature a modular design that allows the aircraft to carry more equipment, but also heavier equipment. That approach also has meant that the U-2 could be adapted to suit specific missions.

Those U-2s currently in operation can carry three times as much reconnaissance equipment and fly nearly twice as far for three times as long as those first U-2s built during the dark days of the Cold War. In recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Dragon Lady has been used as aerial "eavesdropping devices" where it could survey dirt patterns to look for signs of makeshift mines and improvised explosive devices (IEDs).

The aircraft has also shown versatility as a non-military aircraft, and as noted by Lockheed Martin it has "morphed into everything from a high-tech NASA platform for conducting physics experiments to a high-altitude tool for tracking the migration of destructive spruce bark beetles through the forests of Alaska."

End of the Line for the U-2

It was announced earlier this year that the Air Force will likely move forward with its plans to retire the U-2 Dragon Lady by Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26). It would mark the end for the spy plane, which first flew in the skies over Groom Lake in 1955.

This isn't exactly "news," as Air Force leaders have been considering retiring the U-2 fleet for nearly two decades. The RQ-4 Global Hawk unmanned aerial systems (UAS) were originally slated to replace the Dragon Lady but now the Hawk's wings have been clipped as well.

As a result, if lawmakers agree, the Air Force could retire its remaining RQ-4s just after the Dragon Lady is sent to retirement. The service would turn to space-based sensors to collect high-altitude images instead.

However, as reported by TheDrive, NASA could likely still fly the U-2 in its ER-2 configuration in very small numbers.

Author Experience and Expertise

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. 

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary: Here, we explore the evolution of British submarine prowess with the Astute class, a technological marvel designed to replace the Trafalgar class. Unveiling its origins from Cold War anti-submarine warfare to present-day advancements, we delve into the Astute's impressive features, including world-leading sensors, Tomahawk missiles, and unique optronic masts. Written by defense expert Harrison Kass, this article provides an in-depth look at the cutting-edge technology defining Britain's submarine naval strength in the 21st century. 

How the Astute-Class Was Born

The days in which the British ruled the world’s waterways are over – but the island-based nation is still capable of fielding impressive vessels. And the latest British nuclear-powered submarine, Astute-class, continues a long and venerable seafaring tradition, introducing novel technologies and abilities.

Built by BAE Systems, at Barrow-in-Furness, the Astute will replace the Trafalgar-class, becoming the default British SSN. In all, seven boats are scheduled, with the first becoming operational in 2014 – the culmination of a program that had begun decades earlier, in 1986.

The Origin of the Astute-Class Submarine 

In 1986, the British Ministry of Defence began exploring prospective replacements for the Swiftsure- and Trafalgar-class submarines. Initially known as SSN20, the project was a Cold War venture that continued the Royal Navy’s emphasis on anti-submarine warfare, working to counter the increasingly sophisticated Soviet submarines. SSN20 was designed to match the capabilities of Soviet submarines – with improved nuclear propulsion, enhanced firepower, a more complex “integrated sonar suite” and combat systems. While researching and designing SSN20, the British – caught up in the Cold War defense spending fervor – did not concern themselves with price. Costs were not considered a “constraint.”

Yet, like America, when the Cold War ended, the British reevaluated their spending priorities. In 1990, SSN20 was canceled. A new submarine design program was started – this time with an effort to constrain costs; the British opted to build a new class that was derived from the existing Trafalgar-class (which was in turn derived from the preceding Swiftsure-class). The new project, beginning in June 1991, became known as the Batch 2 Trafalgar-class, or B2TC.

The Design of the Astute Submarine

The Astute “has been outfitted with many technological firsts,” reported Peter Suciu in the National Interest recently. “Each of the boats is equipped with world-leading sensors, carries Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missiles and Spearfish heavyweight torpedoes and can circumnavigate the globe submerged, producing their own oxygen and drinking water.”

The Astute-class can carry 38 weapons – usually a mixture of Spearfish and Tomahawk Block IV/V cruise missiles. The ability to launch Tomahawk missiles makes the Astute especially dangerous, as each Tomahawk can hit a target, within a few meters of accuracy, up to a range of 1,000 miles.

The Astute also features an upgraded version of the Submarine Command System, known as the Astute Combat Management System, which receives data from the boat’s sensors and displays the results on command consoles, enhancing the crew’s situational awareness. The Astute also uses Atlas Hydrographic DESO 25 high-precision echosounders. And notably, the Astute does not use a conventional periscope; instead, the Astute features two CM010 non-hull-penetrating optronic masts, which carry thermal imaging, low-light TV, and color CCD TV sensors.

Additionally, the Astute carries the Sonar 2076, which is an integrated passive/active search and attack sonar featuring bow, intercept, flank, and towed arrays. According to BAE Systems, the Sonar 2076 is the world’s best sonar system. The Astute itself has more than 39,000 acoustic tiles, which mask the vessel’s sonar signature, granting the boat better acoustic qualities than any other submarine in the Royal Navy.

“Unlike other nuclear-powered submarines, the Astute-class was developed to utilize state-of-the-art anti-acoustic tiles,” Suciu reported. “Each hull is fitted with more than 39,000 acoustic tiles that mask the vessel’s sonar signature and all the submarine to glide through the water almost silently. The little noise the boat gives off has been compared to that of a “baby dolphin.”

For power, the Astute-class relies upon a Rolls-Royce PWR2 (Core H) pressurized water reactor with a pump-jet propulsor. Originally designed for British Vanguard-class submarine, the PWR2 has a 25-year lifespan and does not need to be refueled – meaning the Astute can technically operate for 25 years without interruption. In addition to providing propulsion, the PWR2 is also used to recycle air and water. But, although the PWR2 can operate indefinitely, the Astute is usually only stocked with about 90 days of food at a time. However, “deployments on the submarines can vary in length, with overall assignments lasting three years,” Suciu reported. “Two full crews rotate shifts to allow the vessel to remain at sea for as long as possible. Crews may serve between 60 and 80 days before resurfacing and rotating out.”

The Future of the Astute

Four Astute-class vessels are already in service: the Astute, Ambush, Artful, and Audacious. The Anson was launched in 2021, and is currently working towards gaining operational status. Meanwhile, the last two planned boats of the Astute-class, the Agamemnon and the Agincourt, are under construction, and are expected to be launched within the next two or three years. Given that the Astute is packed with cutting -edge technology, and is replacing the Trafalgar-class, which has been in service since 1983, we can reasonably expect the Astute to be a fixture of the Royal Navy for decades to come.

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. Email the Author: Editor@nationalinterest.org. 

Summary: In December 2022, the U.S. Air Force and Northrop Grumman unveiled the B-21 Raider, marking a significant leap in bomber technology since the introduction of the B-2 Spirit in 1988. The article explores the key differences between these two generations of stealth bombers, covering aspects such as design, capabilities, and technological advancements. While the B-2 Spirit boasts a Cold War legacy with its revolutionary "flying wing" design, the B-21 Raider represents a digital-age marvel, utilizing computer-aided design and open systems architecture. The comparison delves into size, stealth features, and production processes, offering insights into the evolving landscape of U.S. bomber capabilities. Written by military hardware expert Peter Suciu, the article provides a comprehensive analysis of these iconic aircraft, shedding light on their historical context and technological significance.

The B-2 Spirit vs. the B-21 Raider

In December 2022, the United States Air Force and aerospace and defense giant Northrop Grumman officially unveiled the B-21 Raider. It was the first new United States Air Force bomber in more than three decades that had been presented to the public – since the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit made its public debut back in November 1988 – while it is widely considered to be a generational leap forward in aircraft technology and development.

It could be at least another generation before another bomber is developed and takes to the skies – and that is if the B-21 Raider doesn't end up being the last U.S. bomber to fly.

It was just this past November that the B-21 successfully took its first test flight on in Palmdale, CA, where the bomber has been undergoing testing. Though the service also didn't publicize the event, about three dozen aviation enthusiasts and others gathered around Plant 42 and were able to witness the flying wing-styled bomber take to the skies.

Despite numerous similarities between the aircraft, the B-21 Raider is much more than just a 21st-century version of the Cold War-era B-2 Spirit.

B-2 Spirit in the Sky

Seen as the first successful "flying wing" aircraft, the B-2's low-observable, or "stealth," characteristics have provided it with the unique ability to penetrate an enemy's most sophisticated defenses and threaten its most valued, and heavily defended, targets. The Spirit's capability to penetrate air defenses and threaten effective retaliation further has provided a strong, effective deterrent and combat force well into the 21st century.

The B-2's low observability was derived from a combination of reduced infrared, acoustic, electromagnetic, visual, and radar signatures. That makes it difficult for the sophisticated defensive systems to detect, track, and engage the B-2. Many aspects of the low-observability process remain classified; however, the B-2's composite materials, special coatings, and flying-wing design all contribute to its "stealthiness."

Its low-observability (LO) further provided it greater freedom of action at high altitudes, thus increasing its range and a better field of view for the aircraft's sensors.

The first B-2 rolled out of the bomber's final assembly facility in Palmdale, Calif., in November 1988 and it flew for the first time on July 17, 1989. The United States Air Force had plans for 132 B-2 Spirits, but as the aircraft was a product of the Cold War, it was originally designed to penetrate Soviet air defenses. With the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Congress slashed the budget for the Spirit, which cut production to just twenty-one aircraft.

B-21 Raider: Smaller But More Capable Bomber

The B-21 Raider is actually a generational leap in aircraft technology and development. The Raider was developed to be the multifunctional backbone of the modernized bomber fleet, gradually replacing the aging Rockwell B-1 Lancer and B-2 Spirit bombers now in service. A dual-capable penetrating strike stealth aircraft, the B-21 will be capable of delivering both conventional and nuclear munitions.

Throughout its development, the Raider has been billed as a highly survivable, long-range subsonic stealth bomber that is capable of penetrating adversary air defense networks deep behind enemy lines and delivering both conventional- and nuclear-tipped munitions on key military and infrastructure targets across the globe.

Though the Raider is notably smaller than the Spirit, it is also sleeker and stealthier. Yet, due to its smaller size, the B-21 will have a reduced payload capacity when compared with the B-2A. The United States Air Force's current plans call for at least 100 Raiders, which could address the issue – as a larger number of smaller bombers could be better than fewer larger aircraft. The Air Force can hardly afford to lose any aircraft, but a loss of a single B-2 Spirit could further impact the service's bomber capabilities.

There are other notable differences – the B-21 doesn't feature serrated edges throughout its design, nor do its two engine air intakes extend out of the fuselage to the same extent as the B-2A, and instead is flusher to the fuselage surface. The cockpit windows were modified, likely to improve the Raider's LO characteristics and while the view to the side reportedly doesn't provide as much visibility as the B-2's, it is likely addressed through sensors and cameras.

It has further been reported that the other significant difference is simply the color of the Raider from the traditional black/dark gray operational livery of the B-2. Since it was first publicly revealed, the B-21 sported a lighter gray color scheme. However, this may not be its final color – and we'll have to watch to see if it is updated.

Perhaps the biggest difference is how the aircraft were designed.

The B-2 was devised in an era when engineers still employed slide rules, and pocket calculators were considered expensive hardware.

By contrast, the B-21 Raider is truly a product of the digital age that took advantage of computer-aided design. In addition, it has been noted for being designed with an open systems architecture that would enable rapid future capability integration to keep pace with the highly contested threat environment. In addition, Raider's design is based on firm requirements with existing and mature technology to control program costs. In fact, the plane's prime contractor, Northrop Grumman, has been directed to use production processes, production tooling, and a production workforce that ensures sustained and seamless production while avoiding unnecessary costs.

That latter fact could also ensure that while the Air Force was forced to make do with fewer than two dozen Spirits, its fleet of B-21 Raiders could exceed 100.

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. Email the Author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

All images come from Shutterstock or Creative Commons. 

Summary: The U.S. Air Force's coveted F-22 Raptor stealth fighter, equipped with cutting-edge technology, recently showcased its prowess in intercepting Iranian F-4 Phantom jets attempting to engage a U.S. Air Force MQ-1 Predator drone in international airspace.

F-22 Can Do It All 

In November 2012, two Iranian Air Force Sukhoi Su-25s tried to down a U.S. Air Force MQ-1 Predator drone. At the time, the MQ-1 was flying in international air space, 16 miles from the Iranian border; the drone flight was legal, but understandably instigatory. Iran scrambled the two Su-25s, which quickly closed on the drone. But the Su-25 was designed for close air support, not air superiority, and it struggled impotently with its cannons to shoot down the MQ-1.

The American drone escaped the interaction unscathed, having filmed the entire sequence with on-board cameras. In response to the incident, the U.S. modified its procedures to better protect its vulnerable drone fleet. It began providing drones with a fighter escort.

One year later, in 2013, the Iranians – apparently unaware of this new U.S. drone-escort policy – engaged another MQ-1. This time, the Iranians sent a jet with some air-to-air game, the F-4 Phantom – an aircraft the U.S. exported to Iran in the 1970s, back when the two countries were allies. Unlike the Su-25, the F-4 was entirely capable of bringing down the MQ-1. But when the Iranian F-4s moved to engage the MQ-1, they discovered they were not alone.

Escorting the MQ-1, lurking silently, was a Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor – a fifth-generation stealth fighter. As the Iranian pilots learned that day, the F-22 “is equipped with stealth technology that enables it to operate virtually undetected by radar.”

Iran, F-4 and Those Stealth F-22 Raptors

Indeed, the Iranians were oblivious to its presence as the F-22 stalked them from below.

This aircraft is packed with enviable, cutting-edge technology. “The F-22 Raptor is a technological marvel,” I noted previously.

“The world’s first operational fifth-generation fighter, the F-22 was designed with a bevy of novel features – stealth technology, supercruise, supermaneuverability, and sensor fusion – all combined to create the preeminent air superiority fighter.”

The Iranians flying in Vietnam War-era F-4 Phantoms were ill-equipped to match an F-22. Granted, the F-4 was a capable airframe – the most produced American supersonic military aircraft ever – but it first flew in 1958. The F-22, on the other hand, was an up-to-date, 21st century marvel.

“The F-22’s software is advanced and impressive. Using sensor fusion, data from multiple onboard sensor systems are synthesized to create a more comprehensive tactical picture,” I explained a few years back.

Besides, the F-4 was not built for dogfighting. “The Phantom was not particularly maneuverable,” I explained in a previous article on the F-4. “Enemy MiGs could typically outturn the F-4, which wasn’t designed for dogfighting and suffered from adverse yaw in tight turns. Instead, the F-4 was intended to fire radar-guided missiles from beyond visual range, not engage in air combat maneuvering.”

Well, the F-22 was comfortably within visual range: It was directly below the Iranians.

The F-22’s pilot, operating undetected, had sidled right in. “He flew under their aircraft to check out their weapons load without them knowing that he was there,” then-Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said. Having determined the F-4’s payloads, the Raptor pilot finally alerted the Iranians to his presence.

He “pulled up on their left-wing and then called them and said ‘you really ought to go home,’” Welsh said. The F-4s complied and bugged out.

The incident is indicative of the friction that has underscored the U.S.-Iranian relationship since the late 1970s. Currently, the two sides are working toward a deal on Iran’s nuclear program, which is reportedly nearing break-out capacity and has made Iran an international pariah. The world is watching closely as the negotiations unfold. In the meantime, hopefully the two rival nations can avoid any further dogfighting incidents.

Author Biography: Harrison Kass 

Harrison Kass is a senior defense editor with over 1,000 published articles. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, he joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison has degrees from Lake Forest College, the University of Oregon School of Law, and New York University’s Graduate School of Arts & Sciences. He lives in Oregon and regularly listens to Dokken. Email the Author: Editor@nationalinterest.org. 

Image Credit: Shutterstock. 

The Saab 37 Viggen is among what seems like almost countless Cold War fighters built to deter Russia in the sky if World War III ever took place. However, this plane is from a non-NATO nation and seems to be quite special:

The name Viggen, given to the Saab 37 aircraft, has two distinct meanings. Each, despite striking drastically different tones, are oddly appropriate. The first meaning, refers to askvigg, which today translates loosely to “thunderbolt” – but historically meant “thunderstones.” Thunderstone, or askvigg, is what the Viking age inhabitants of Scandinavia called the prehistoric stone axes that were occasionally excavated. The Vikings believed that Thor, the god of thunder, had sent the axes to Earth in lightning strikes conjured while he was hunting giants with his war hammer Mjolnir. The axes were believed to have magical properties, such as lightning protection. Indeed, the Saab 37 Viggen’s first nominal origin is flattering, apt, and epic. The second, more humble name, refers to vigg, the Swedish word for tufted duck.

What We Know About the Saab 37

The Viggen program began in December 1961  as Aircraft System 37. At the time, the program was the largest industrial undertaking Sweden had ever attempted, of course built during the Cold War when concerns about the Soviet Union were a major factor in building the plane.

Throughout the 1960s, Aircraft System 37 accounted for a whopping ten percent of all Swedish research and development funding. Sweden designed most of the system from the powerplant, ejector seat, reconnaissance systems, armaments, ground servicing equipment, and simulators – a daunting venture for a country like Sweden.

By 1963, Saab had settled on an aerodynamic design for their new jet. The design was radical, featuring an aft-mounted double delta wing plus small, high-set canards. The canards were especially distinct, and the Viggen would be the first mass-produced airplane to ever feature canards. Canards have since come to be relatively common, appealing in modern aircraft like the Dassault Rafale, IAI Kfir, Eurofighter Typhoon, and Saab’s newest offering, the JAS 39 Gripen.

In the Viggen, the inclusion of the canards, along with the delta wings, were to satisfy the various, often conflicting, program requirements set forth by the Swedish government. The jet was to be capable of short take-offs and landings (STOL), to enable operation from Sweden’s Bas 60 dispersal system, which repurposed reinforced public roadways as military airfields during war time. Additionally, the jet needed to be able to break the sound barrier, while also having high maneuverability (and low turbulence sensitivity) at subsonic, low-level flight.

The Saab 37 Viggen was designed to be an attack aircraft, rather than an interceptor, as the Saab 35 Draken already served as an adequate interceptor. Accordingly, Saab hoped to make the Viggen capable of low fuel consumption at high subsonic speeds, something with excellent range. Intending to build such an aircraft, Saab originally planned to power the Viggen with a single Rolls-Royce Medway engine. However, when the Medway engine development was canceled, Saab instead licensed the Pratt & Whitney JT8D engine, producing a modified version, the Volvo RM8. Whereas the original JT8D was used for commercial airliners, the RM8 was quite different from the source engine, featuring updated materials to allow operation at Mach 2 speeds, the addition of a Swedish-built afterburner, and a variable nozzle. The airframe also included a thrust reverse to help slow the aircraft down on landings (thus making short-runway landings possible). The thrust reverse could even be pre-set in the air to fire when the nose-wheel strut compressed upon landing.

A Saab 37 Viggen prototype first flew in 1967, with Saab’s chief test pilot Erik Dalhstrom at the controls. After the prototype’s maiden flight, Dahlstrom described the new jet as easy to control. The international aviation press noted that Sweden had made fantastic progress in aerospace development. By 1971, the Viggen was being delivered to the Swedish Air Force. In service, the jet proved reliable and safe – a relief given how complex and novel the airframe was. The finished product could perform, too. Capable of hitting 1,386 miles per hour, the Viggen could climb at 40,000 feet per minute and reach a service ceiling of 59,000 feet. For armament, the jet carried one 30 mm Oerlikon KCA cannon with 125 rounds. For hardpoints, the jet had three under each wing, plus three under the fuselage.

While the Viggen was capable and innovative, it was never exported, and never saw much action (as Swedish jets never do). The Swedish Air Force began removing the Viggen from front line service in 1994, to make way for the new Saab JAS 39 Gripen. The last Viggen was formally retired in 2005.

About the Author: Harrison Kass

Harrison Kass is a Senior Defense Editor with over 1,000 published articles. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, he joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison has degrees from Lake Forest College, the University of Oregon, and New York University. He lives in Oregon and listens to Dokken. Follow him on Twitter @harrison_kass. Email the Author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

All images are from Shutterstock. 

AMENDMENTS 1 - 31 - Draft opinion 2022 discharge: General budget of the EU - Commission
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Katalin Cseh

Source : © European Union, 2023 - EP

A few years back, the US Air Force’s 49th Wing put on an impressive display of airpower at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico: an elephant walk featuring 49 of the wing’s fighter jets and drones.

Elephant Walk Time

What’s an elephant walk?

An elephant walk is “the Air Force term for a close formation aircraft taxiing en masse before takeoff.” So think dozens of jets crawling down the runway together, and then taking off one after another. The term is not new, however; the term dates back to World War II when bomber aircraft would often taxi and take off together en masse. To observers, the nose-to-tail bomber formations looked like a group of elephants walking nose-to-tail.

Elephant walks aren’t just “for clicks and likes though,” the Department of Defense maintains.

“The key to air power is exceptional airmen, and the key to exceptional airmen is exceptional training,” said Brigadier General Lyle K. Drew, who commands the 82nd Training Wing. “[The] elephant walk was our message to the world that the U.S. and its international partners remain committed to delivering the best trained airmen in the world.”

Indeed, the elephant walk can also be use as a means of celebrating, and of boosting on-base morale.

The Hollomon Elephant Walk

The elephant walk at Hollomon occurred on April 21st, and featured F-16 Vipers plus MQ-9 Reaper drones.

“When people mention Hollomon Air Force Base I want them to picture the aircraft and mission that’s displayed in today’s elephant walk,” said U.S. Air Force Colonel Justin Spears, 49th Wing commander. “We have the largest F-16 Viper and MQ-9 Reaper training pipeline and this elephant walk showcases the amount of airpower and manpower we can generate.”

The forty-nine craft elephant walk at Hollomon certainly has people talking.

“I think elephant walks are important as it shows our NATO partners and other allies around the world that we care about producing pilots and operators,” said U.S. Air Force Major Sean Robere, 311th Fighter Squadron, assistant director of operations. “It also shows other parts of the world that we are continuing to produce capable Airmen and aircraft.”

The F-16s (an airframe first flown in the 1970s) used in the elephant walk belonged to the 8th, 311th, and 314th Fighter Squadrons. The MQ-9s used in the elephant walk – which marked the first time the MQ-9 has been used in an elephant walk – belong to the 29th, 9th, and 6th Attack Squadron.

Allowing forty-nine aircraft to launch at once in such a short window also demonstrated the skill of the Air Force’s maintenance workers.

“Being able to work with the Airmen from the MQ-9 side of the house is always fun because we essentially have the same mission of building combat aircrew but with different aircraft,” said U.S. Air Force Senior Master Sgt. Brian Maple, 311th Aircraft Maintenance Unit assistant superintendent. “The communication between the MQ-9 and F-16 units really helps to build and strengthen our effectiveness at completing the mission.”

The Hollomon elephant walk was indeed an impressive visual display. To get a sense of what an F-16-based elephant walk looks like, check out this 2019 USAF video from Germany.  

About the Author: Harrison Kass

Harrison Kass is a Senior Editor and opinion writer with over 1,000 published articles on defense issues. 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. Email the Author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.