Agrégateur de flux

The US Air Force and five foreign allies recently staged an “elephant walk” deep within the Indo-Pacific region, clearly as a show of force and solidarity toward a revisionist China.

Hosted at Andersen Air Force Base in September of last year, the elephant walk featured a 23-plane formation, with jets from the US, UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, and France.

What is An Elephant Walk? 

“Train together. Ready together. Stronger together. More than 15,000 US and Allies forces are enhancing #readiness and #interoperability throughout the @INDOPACOM,” PACAF tweeted. (Can you imagine Curtis LeMay using hashtag readiness?)

The USAF contributed five F-35 fighters, one B-52 bomber, two KC-135 tankers, two C-17 transports, and one C-130 transport to the elephant walk.

“On the other hand, the allied forces joined in with contributions from France, consisting of four Rafale fighters, one A400 Atlas transport aircraft, and one A330 MRTT; the United Kingdom provided one A400 Atlas; Canada contributed one C-130J and one CC-150T Polaris; Japan included one C-130H; and Australia participated with one C-130J,” The Eurasian Times reported.

Bigger Picture

The Andersen elephant walk was one of many exercises, across the US Indo-Pacific Command area. One of the exercises is Mobility Guardian.

“Mobility Guardian, Air Mobility Command’s flagship exercise, focuses on honing the logistics and mobilization capabilities required for large-scale conflicts in the Pacific,” The Eurasian Times reported. Mobility Guardian “supports concurrent exercises led by Pacific Air Forces, such as Northern Edge, which has expanded to other regions of the Pacific from its usual location in Alaska, and Cope Thunder, a joint exercise involving the US and the Philippines.”

Mobility Guardian was conducted from July 5th to July 21, coinciding with a series of Bomber Task Force rotations thar brought the B-52 and B-1 bombers to air bases in Guam and Japan. Specifically, B-52 from the 20th Expeditionary Bomb Squadron at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana and B-52s from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota were deployed to Andersen in Guam. Meanwhile, two B-1s from Dyess Air Force Base in Texas were deployed to Misawa Air Base in Japan.

“At the time, Lt. Col. Andrew Marshall, the commander of the 345th Expeditionary Bomb Squadron, said that the presence of the B-1 in Japan emphasizes the United States’ dedication to the Indo-Pacific region and its commitment to supporting Allies and partners in the area,” The Eurasian Times reported.

While deploying bombers to Guam is rather ordinary, deploying bombers to Misawa in Japan is unusual – and likely to grab China’s attention.

Tensions have been ramping up in the region as China continues to assert itself, make territorial claims, build man-made islands. The US elephant walk is most certainly a display tailored specifically for China. A way of indicating that the US still has considerable force projection. And a way to show that the US is not alone in the region. European powers, Asian powers, and Oceanic powers all have a vested interest in tempering China’s rise, and are willing to coordinate with the US to temper China’s rise.

About the Author: Harrison Kass

Harrison Kass is a Senior Editor with over 1,000 articles posted. 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. 

It was in Crimea where the current war in Ukraine began.

Starting in February 2014, Russian special operators and Wagner Group mercenaries—the infamous “Little Green Men”—invaded the Crimean Peninsula and captured key government functions.

Soon thereafter, conventional Russian forces followed, and the illegal annexation of Crimea was complete. 

In the years that followed, Ukraine has sought to liberate the annexed Crimea Peninsula. Moscow’s invasion presented the perfect opportunity. 

The Push for Crimea 

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and the Ukrainian military leadership have repeatedly stated that their strategic goal is to liberate all Ukrainian land under Russian occupation before the war is over.

For now, the Ukrainian people seem to be behind this vision. However, the operational and tactical considerations don’t guarantee success. 

To get to Crimea, the Ukrainian forces would have first to do what they failed to do over the summer: achieve an operational breakthrough in southeastern Ukraine.

With limited fighting windows available (May-November and December-March) and the frequent large-scale offensive of the Russian forces, it would likely take Kyiv a year or more in the current rate of fighting to reach Crimea. 

Entry to the Crimean Peninsula is governed by a small corridor of land. When, in the summer, the Ukrainian military started making progress in southern Ukraine in its large-scale counteroffensive, the Russian military started barricading that small piece of land that leads into Crimea.

Judging from the difficulty the Ukrainians had in penetrating the extensive Russian defensive lines, it would be hard to punch through into Crimea. 

To be sure, Crimea is a Peninsula, and the surrounding water offers opportunities for amphibious operations. Ukraine has already been working with the British Royal Marines Commandos to establish an amphibious commando force. But without air and naval superiority, a large-scale amphibious operation necessary to distract or create a second front in Crimea would be pure folly. 

With additional Western security aid, including more fighter jets, long-range munitions, air defense systems, and better training, the Ukrainian forces would have a better chance of breaking the Russian defenses and entering Crimea. 

The View from the Kremlin on Crimea 

But the Kremlin won’t let Crimea go without a fight—and a significant fight, for that matter. 

In the ten years the Crimean Peninsula has been under Russian occupation, the Kremlin has turned it into a military hub. Anti-access/Aerial Defense (A2/AD) systems, fighter jets, and warships have turned Crimea into an “unsinkable aircraft carrier” that protects Russia from the south. There is a lot at stake in Crimea, and the Russian military will throw everything it has to ensure that it doesn’t fall back into Ukrainian hands. Indeed, if there is a credible scenario of the Kremlin employing tactical nuclear weapons in the war, it would likely be if Crimea was under direct threat of being lost. 

Even though the dismantling of the Wagner Group private military company and the assassination of its leader, Yevgeny Prigozhin, reaffirmed the power of Russian President Vladimir Putin within Russia, a potential loss of Crimea would likely create additional woes for the Russian leader. The Kremlin’s “special military operation” in Ukraine sought to replace the Ukrainian leadership and incorporate parts of Ukraine into Russia. 

As the war has turned out, Crimea is the real prize. The Russian military leadership doesn’t entertain notions of achieving the initial strategic goal of capturing Kyiv. Similarly, Kyiv isn’t looking to drive up to Moscow.

No, it is all about Crimea and the territory that leads to it in southeastern Ukraine. 

About the Author

Stavros Atlamazoglou is a seasoned defense journalist specializing in special operations and a Hellenic Army veteran (national service with the 575th Marine Battalion and Army HQ). He holds a BA from Johns Hopkins University and an MA from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). His work has been featured in Business Insider, Sandboxx, and SOFREP. Email the Author: Editor@nationalinterest.org. 

All images are from Shutterstock. 

This time around two years ago, the Russian military was amassing forces and equipment around Ukraine. Through an aggressive—and indeed unprecedented—intelligence declassification strategy, the United States kept Ukraine, NATO, and the international community abreast of Moscow’s plans. The goal was clear: prevent Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. 

Despite the merits of the strategy, Putin went ahead with his invasion with the known consequences.

Almost two years of conflict have cost the lives or limbs of more than 320,000 Russian troops and have destroyed thousands of heavy weapon systems such as main battle tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, artillery pieces, aircraft, and warships. 

So, after so much hard fighting, what is the state of the Russian armed forces today? Are they still a near-peer adversary to the U.S. military? 

The State of the Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine 

This week, National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby offered some valuable insight on the state of the Russian military. 

On the ground, the Russian military has lost significant heavy weapon systems but still retains a sizeable amount of its mechanized capability. 

When it comes to the Russian Aerospace Forces, Moscow retains a sizeable amount of aircraft despite losing up to 300 fighter jets, bombers, attack aircraft, and helicopters. 

As far as the Russian Navy, despite losing 11 surface warships, submarines, and support vessels sunk or destroyed to Ukrainian fire, the Russian Navy retains an important number of vessels. 

And yet, the Russian military struggles. Basic command and control are abominable, and as a result, major offensive operations that might have some promise fail to achieve anything significant. Morale and discipline also continue to be low. 

But almost two years of war have also shown that the Kremlin is more than comfortable with throwing men into the meatgrinder to freeze the conflict and force Ukrainians on the negotiation table. 

“This is a military that still has not really learned the lessons that you would think a modern military would learn after two years of war,” Kirby said.

Logistical Woes for Russia in Ukraine War

In terms of logistics, the Russian military continues to be dependent on other countries to meet its munition requirements. Artillery shells, drones, and missiles are a hot commodity. Iran and North Korea are Moscow's primary suppliers. Indeed, most of the suicide drones that have been wreaking havoc on Ukrainian cities have been made in Iran. The overall situation doesn’t seem ideal for Russia if it has to deal with two pariah states.

Despite Moscow’s hopes, the Russian defense and aerospace industry has failed to meet the heavy demands of the war. Even though the Russian military has been scavenging cars, microwaves, refrigerators, and washing machines for microchips and semiconductors to put into missiles and other weapon systems, the demand is higher than the supply. 

“We know that this war has had an impact on Mr. Putin’s war-making capability, particularly when it comes to munitions: artillery, drones, missiles,” Kirby added.

Although the Kremlin might still retain important capabilities on the ground, air, and sea, its performance in Ukraine has proven that it is by no means a conventional near-peer threat to the U.S. military. 

About the Author

Stavros Atlamazoglou is a seasoned defense journalist specializing in special operations and a Hellenic Army veteran (national service with the 575th Marine Battalion and Army HQ). He holds a BA from Johns Hopkins University and an MA from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). His work has been featured in Business Insider, Sandboxx, and SOFREP. You can email the Author: Editor@nationalinterest.org. 

Today, the X-1 might seem like an old and antiquated plane when stacked up against the latest and greatest combat aircraft and bombers the U.S. air force has right now. However, this plane's place in aviation history is secure for countless reasons: 

Breaking the sound barrier has become commonplace. Fighter jets, bombers, and even a now-defunct commercial jet have crossed over to travel faster than the speed of sound. Yet eighty years ago, the sound barrier was a province of flight reserved solely for the most cutting edge, daring, experimental airframes – the X-series. Whether the sound barrier could be broken at all remained unproven.

Skeptics maintained that the threshold simply could not be crossed, or that crossing that barrier would cause an aircraft to combust. The sound barrier loomed large in the minds of aerospace designers, as a major milestone with psychological significance.

Intent on being the first to break the sound barrier, NACA (NASA’s predecessor), the U.S. Air Force, and the U.S. Army Air Force jointly commissioned Bell to create the first-ever X-plane, a now mythical airframe, the Bell X-1.

Bell X-1: Built to Burst Boundaries

The X-1 was designed in the mid-40s and built in 1945. The jet was built around a Reaction Motors XLR11 rocket engine that featured four chambers. The XLR11 burned ethyl alcohol diluted with water using a liquid oxygen oxidizer. The engine’s four chambers could be turned on or off individually, giving the pilot precise control over the thrust. Each chamber provided 1,500 pounds of thrust.

Bell’s Jack Woolams was the first person to ever fly the X-1. He made several glide-flights in Florida after being dropped from a B-29 at 29,000 feet. Using data gathered from Woolams’ test flights, Bell made further modifications in preparation for powered flight.

The Power of Flight

The first powered X-1 flight occurred in the last month of 1946. Chalmers “Slick” Goodlin replaced Woolams, who had died practicing for the National Air Races. During the test flight, Goodlin lit only two of the engine’s chambers, but the jet still accelerated so quickly that one was turned off until the X-1 could climb to 35,000 feet. At 35,000 feet, two chambers were tested and the X-1 reached Mach 0.795. Tests continued at a cautious pace while the X-1’s systems were verified. The X-1 wouldn’t break the sound barrier until its 50th flight.

With Goodlin demanding a $150,000 (or, $1.82 million in 2022) bonus for breaking the sound barrier, Chuck Yeager stepped in to see if he couldn’t edge the X-1 past the sound barrier. Flying for just his Air Force base pay, Yeager took X-1 #46-062, nicknamed Glamorous Glennis for his wife, to see whether breaking the sound barrier was possible at all.

On October 14, 1947, Yeager and Glamorous Glennis were dropped from the bomb bay of a B-29. Igniting all four of the X-1’s engine chambers, Yeager became the first person to ever break the sound barrier; he reached Mach 1.06, or 700 miles per hour, proving definitively that the sound barrier was indeed breakable. The U.S. military had hoped to keep the news of their scientific breakthrough a secret but without much luck. Aviation Week and the Los Angeles Times scooped the secret story. When the publications ran headlines about Yeager’s historic flight, the Air Force threatened legal action, although no suit was ever filed. The news shocked the world.

The X-1 program became the template for future X-programs, like the X-15, X-20, and X-29. And data gathered from the X-1 flights deeply informed the development of future fighter jets. Today, you can find Glamorous Glennis on display at the National Air & Space Museum in Washington, D.C. Or, you can watch a depiction of Yeager’s historic flight in The Right Stuff (1983).

About the Author: Harrison Kass

Harrison Kass is the Senior Defense Editor at 19FortyFive. 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. 

Block V Virginia-class submarines are being built in Groton, Connecticut. Many more Block V’s have been ordered and will be built shortly. Block V offers a number of upgrades from the first four Virginia-class blocks, and it could serve for another five decades. 

Meet the Virginia-Class Block V

The Virginia was designed as a class of fast-attack submarines meant to be more affordable than the $2.8 billion Seawolf class. While the Seawolf was a capable fast-attack sub, it was so expensive that the program was cancelled after only three subs were built.

The Virginia class is cheap by comparison, costing $1.8 billion per unit. Both submarine classes were built to replace the aging Los Angeles class.

To date, quite a few  Virginia-class submarines have entered service, most of them from Blocks I, II, and III. Only a few Block IV Virginias are in service. Given that the Block IV program is not yet complete, and is a highly capable submarine, the Block V is especially forward-looking.

It was designed to address a specific vulnerability: the growing missile gap between the U.S. and rising superpower China.

China's Missiles Have the Right Range

China is building up its military at scale despite enjoying 40 years of relative peace.

Beijing is especially busy building up China’s navy and air force, as well as its nuclear and conventional arsenals. In the meantime, China is making aggressive territorial claims in the Pacific region. Over the last two decades, while China committed time and resources to augmenting its military, the U.S. was bogged down with tangential wars in the Middle East.

The perpetual conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and throughout the region, drained American resources and attention.

Meanwhile, China converted latent power into actual power, pulling even and surpassing the U.S. in certain regards.

For example, China now possesses the largest navy in the world. But perhaps more important, China built an impressive stockpile of cruise and ballistic missiles. The U.S. fell behind, and a missile gap took shape. 

Part of the problem for the U.S. is that China has more missiles. The more significant problem, however, is that those missiles also have greater range. China is approaching monopoly status on intermediate-range missiles in the region. Obviously, the U.S. has the capacity to build intermediate-range missiles. But it was long a signatory to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty – a Cold War pact between the U.S. and the Soviet Union that forbids it from deploying missiles with an effective range between 500 and 5,500 kilometers.

China never signed the Treaty, and remains free to deploy intermediate-range missiles as it pleases. It has done so in massive numbers. Recognizing the widening missile gap, the Trump administration withdrew from the INF, and now the U.S. is working to close the missile gap.

Block V Virginia-Class Submarine: Picking Up the Slack

China’s missiles were designed to face down American aircraft carriers, surface warships, and bases – essentially, the backbone of U.S. power in Asia. The missile gap will widen further once the U.S. retires its Ohio-class submarines. This is why the U.S. is urgently working to develop the Block V Virginia-class submarine, which will help pick up the slack that the Ohio’s retirement creates.

With the missile gap in mind, the latest Virginia Block was designed with a groundbreaking new concept, the Virginia Payload Module, or VPM. The VPM is a hull plug that will allow the vessels to carry three times as many Tomahawk missiles as the Block IV.

Assuming the Block is built and deployed punctually, it will be just one step toward closing the missile gap.

About the Author 

Harrison Kass is a senior 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 holds a BA from Lake Forest College, a JD from the University of Oregon, and an MA from New York University. He lives in Oregon and listens to Dokken. Email the Author: Editor@nationalinterest.org. 

The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor is an amazing machine – a point this video makes clear. In the video, taken at the famed OshKosh Airshow a few years ago, two F-22s perform a variety of flybys and maneuvers. Now, the F-22, which cost over $100 million dollars per unit and is no longer in production, is flown more conservatively at airshows than cheaper, more readily available fighters such as the F-15 and F-16. You’re not going to see F-22s in the USAF Thunderbirds anytime soon.

But even while flown somewhat conservatively, the grace and power of the F-22 is fully apparent in the Oshkosh video and, indeed in all F-22 public demonstrations. The U.S. Air Force has been publicly demonstrating the F-22 since 2007, performing power loops, split and tailslides, high-speed passes, and dedication passes.

In all, the F-22 has been demonstrated over 250 times. If you have the means, I highly recommend you take the opportunity to see an F-22 demonstration.

F-22: Top Dog

The F-22 was designed to be the world’s pre-eminent air-superiority fighter, meaning it was meant to be the world’s best dogfighter. The design choices and performance outcomes allowing the F-22 to outpace its competition in the air are suggested in aerobatic demonstrations. The jet accelerates and decelerates seemingly without friction. The control inputs seem to register smoothly, with exacting precision.

There’s really nothing quite like it. Not even the newer F-35, America’s other fifth-generation fighter, moves with such lithe athleticism or latent power. The F-35 was created to be a utilitarian, exportable multi-role fighter, renowned for its data-sharing and network connectivity, rather than being used as an air-superiority fighter. The F-22 remains the most impressive dogfighter, and relatedly, the most impressive aerobatic demonstrator, in the U.S. military’s inventory.

The F-22 owes much of its performance to its two Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 turbofan engines – each of which is equipped with thrust-vectoring nozzles. The nozzles can move twenty degrees up or down, giving the F-22 the supermaneuverability that is so visible during its demonstrations. Each Pratt & Whitney engine packs plenty of power, too, providing 35,000 pounds of thrust apiece. With such power, the F-22 can exceed Mach 2. 

The F-22 can also achieve supercruise, meaning it can attain supersonic flight without using afterburners. Typically, a jet requires its afterburners to achieve supersonic flight. The problem with afterburner use is that it quickly expends fuel: An afterburner is essentially fuel, mixed with oxygen, being spit into the engine’s exhaust stream, which causes a thrust-increasing explosion. But the F-22, an air superiority fighter, needs to conserve its fuel for dogfighting, which itself is a fuel-guzzling activity.

For the F-22 to burn through all of its fuel just to arrive at the dogfight would render the jet useless. Supercruise technology was incorporated as a way to allow the F-22 to conserve the fuel it needs to effectively conduct its air-superiority missions.

With respect to avionics and raw computer power, the F-22 is not as impressive as the F-35, which remains the industry standard. But the F-22 is still plenty capable – a true fifth-generation fighter using sensor fusion to synthesize data from multiple onboard sensor systems, granting the pilot a more coherent tactical picture. The result is a pilot operating with improved situation awareness and an easier workload in the cockpit.

Specifically, the F-22 relies on the Martin Marietta AN/AAR-56 infrared and ultraviolet Missile Launch Detector; Westinghouse/Texas Instruments AN-APG-77 active electronically scanned array radar; TRW Communication/Navigation/Identification Suite; and a Sanders/General Electric AN/ALR-94 electronic warfare system. The result is a quite capable plane that Air Force personnel often refer to as the “mini-AWACS.” 

Of course, none of the F-22’s software power is on display in the Oshkosh video – only the plane’s raw aerobatic abilities, which are perhaps the finest in military aviation. 

About the Author 

Harrison Kass is a Senior Defense Editor at with over 1,000 articles published. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, he 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. He lives in Oregon and listens to Dokken. Follow him on Twitter @harrison_kass. Email the Author: Editor@nationalinterest.org. 

In January 2020, the US Air Force put on an impressive display of fifth-generation fighter power, with a 52-plane “elephant walk” formation, comprised entirely of F-35A Lightning II aircraft. The exercise happened to coincide as tensions with Iran escalated – but the Air Force said the timing was coincidental, and that the exercise had been planned months in advance.

“The exercise took place at Hill Air Force Base in Utah,” Popular Mechanics reported. “Hill was the first Air Force Base to become fully operational with the F-16 Fighting Falcon more than thirty years ago, and history is repeating itself with the F-35A.”

As Fox 13 News noted at the time, the Hill elephant walk launched more fifth-generation fighters (52), than any other nation has ever built.

“Hill received the last of 78 F-35As in December 2019,” Popular Mechanics reported. “To commemorate the occasion, the base decided to conduct what the U.S. military calls an “elephant walk”: a mass sort of aircraft.”

As Hill AFB stated, “the wings fly 30-60 sorties per day from Hill’s flightline. During the exercise, Airmen launched roughly the same number of daily sorties, but they took off in quick intervals.”

How much does a 52-ship F-35 elephant walk cost?

The F-35 Lightning II costs $44,000 per hour to fly. If each of the 52 jets in the elephant walk flew for just one hour, that’s still a $2 million dollar-plus exercise. If the jets flew for two hours, the cost shoots about $4 million.

Worth it? Uh, I’m not sure about that, although the finished result was something to behold. You can watch the video that the 419th tweeted of the event, here.  

“Lockheed Martin [is] struggling to get the cost per hour down,” Popular Mechanics reported, “which left unchecked could force the Pentagon to buy fewer planes.”

Rampant costs aside, “the Air Force does get something out of the exercise. The entire base trains for the event, giving pilots and maintainers a fixed date to get a large number of jets ready to take to the skies. Once the planes are ready, the base must work to launch and recover 52 fighter jets. It’s not a war scenario, but it is one that exercises virtually the entire base’s muscles,” Popular Mechanics reported.

As Hill AFB stated: “launching aircraft from multiple squadrons simultaneously presents various challenges and allows the wings to evaluate the capabilities of maintenance professionals, as well as pilots and command and control teams.”

The F-35

The F-35 Lightning II has a checkered history, laced with controversy, cost-overruns, delays, performance issues. So, the Hill elephant walk was likely an Air Force effort meant to signal that the F-35 was indeed a functional airframe, capable of operating on a set schedule and capable of projecting force.

“The elephant walk is also evidence the F-35 is growing easier to maintain.” Whereas in the past, the F-35 only had a reliability rate of about 66 percent, the reliability rate has risen above 75 percent, making something like a 52-ship elephant walk a possibility.

About the Author 

Harrison Kass is the Senior Editor with over 1,000 articles published. 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. 

Image Credit: All images from U.S. Air Force. 

Perhaps the most capable, most contributive fighter in US Navy history is the F/A-18 Hornet. The Hornet, which mostly replaced the iconic F-14 Tomcat, has been in service with the Navy since 1984. And thanks to frequent upgrades, the Hornet is still relevant and expected to remain in service for decades to come.

F/A-18 Hornet: A History

The F/A-18 Hornet is a twin-engine, supersonic, all-weather, multirole fighter; it can do a bit of everything – and has done a bit of everything, from air superiority, to air-to-ground, to reconnaissance.

But the vaunted jet was almost scrapped before ever entering service in the first place; the Air Force actually said ‘no’ to the F/A-18.

LWF

In the 1970s, the Air Force solicited bids for its Lightweight Fighter (LWF) program. The LWF was intended to “spur the development of an aircraft that satisfied the energy-maneuverability theory.”

“The energy-maneuverability theory,” I wrotenot too long ago, “can be distilled to one basic formula: Ps – V (T-D/W). Simply put, the formula reliably predicts aircraft performance. And those predictions indicated that excessive weight would have debilitating consequences on the maneuverability of an aircraft.” What the Air Force wanted, ultimately, was a jet capable of “fast transients,” or “quick changes in speed, altitude,  and direction. The result would be a superior fighter, capable of gaining or losing energy quickly, hence out-turning an opponent.”

Well, the prototype of the F/A-18, the YF-17, was entered in the LFW program – losing to the YF-16, which has since become the vaunted F-16 Fighting Falcon. The F-16 won on account of possessing “superior acceleration, endurance, turn rates, and climb rates relative to the YF-17.”

And yet, the Navy, who had observed the LFW competition, was drawn to the YF-17. The jet was clearly capable while featuring the two engines that the Navy then required (for the sake of redundancy during catapult-launcher carrier takeoffs).

Further, “the Navy didn’t need a pure air combat fighter, capable of out-turning everything else in the skies. So, the YF-17’s failure to keep pace with the YF-16 wasn’t disqualifying.” The Navy made some tweaks and the F/A-18 was the result.

Now, despite the F-16’s superior agility, the F/A-18 is entirely capable, thanks to an excellent thrust-to-weight ratio, a fly-by-wire system, and leading-edge extensions.

The Hornet’s wing was designed with a 20-degree sweep to the leading edge; meanwhile, the trailing edge is straight. The wing also features full-length leading edge flaps, whereas the trailing edge features full-length ailerons.

Adding to the F/A-18’s maneuverability are canted vertical stabilizers, oversized horizontal stabilizer, oversized trailing edge flaps. The end result is a jet capable of performing at high angles of attack.

F/A-18 Hornet: Why It Is So Respected

The F/A-18 was designed to be “easy to maintain.” Maintenance is especially difficult for carrier-based jets, where the open sea complicates logistics and storage. Accordingly, the Hornet has been a relief – especially relative to its predecessors, the F-14 and the A-6, which required much more maintenance than the Hornet. In fact, the Hornet’s mean time between failure is three times longer than any strike aircraft in the Navy inventory – and the Hornet requires just half the maintenance time.

In part, the Hornet’s robustness is owed to its engine design. The General Electric F404, two of which are onboard each Hornet, was designed to be reliable and easy to maintain. Even under adverse conditions, the F404 is resistant to stalling or flaming out. And when there is a problem, the F404, which connects to the airframe at just ten points, can be removed with a team of four in about 20 minutes. The result is a piece of equipment that pilots and maintainers alike can trust.

The F/A-18 was just updated, too; new “Block III” Hornets are now entering service. “The new Block III Hornet features improved network capabilities to provide the pilot with increased data,” I noted a few years back. “Information sharing is becoming a prerequisite for modern airframes. Accordingly, the Block III was designed with new gadgets to collect and share information.” While the new Block III does not feature stealth technology, the jet is sufficiently equipped to assist naval operations for decades to come. The F/A-18, despite being something of a heritage platform, a Cold War relic, is simultaneously the plane of the future.

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 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. 

AMENDMENTS 1 - 25 - Draft opinion 2022 discharge: General budget of the EU - European External Action Service
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Katalin Cseh

Source : © European Union, 2023 - EP

AMENDMENTS 1 - 25 - Draft opinion 2022 discharge: General budget of the EU - European External Action Service
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Katalin Cseh

Source : © European Union, 2023 - EP

AMENDMENTS 1 - 224 - Draft report Recommendation to the Council, the Commission and the EEAS on the situation in Syria
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Nathalie Loiseau

Source : © European Union, 2023 - EP

AMENDMENTS 1 - 224 - Draft report Recommendation to the Council, the Commission and the EEAS on the situation in Syria
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Nathalie Loiseau

Source : © European Union, 2023 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2023 - EP

La Coupe d'Afrique des Nations (CAN) 2023 se rapproche de plus en plus, la Côte d'Ivoire organisant la phase finale pour la deuxième fois.

La rumeur s'est répandue sur les réseaux sociaux : des travailleurs étrangers auraient agressé des jeunes filles lors du concert du Nouvel An à Zagreb. La police n'a pourtant enregistré aucun incident... Autrefois, les « patriotes » vilipendaient le turbofolk, ils s'indignent désormais quand des Népalais viennent danser sur du rock croate.

- Articles / Croatie, Société, Novosti, Migrants Balkans

L'ancien président et Premier ministre albanais est assigné à résidence depuis le 30 décembre, à la demande du Procureur spécial pour la lutte contre la corruption et le crime organisé (Spak). Sali Berisha est soupçonné de « corruption passive ». Chaque après-midi, ses partisans se rassemblent devant son appartement.

- Le fil de l'Info / Politique intérieure, Albanie, Défense, police et justice, Courrier des Balkans, PS Albanie

The news revealed by Intelligence Online (IO, 23/08/23) was confirmed at the end of December, that Russian intelligence did indeed tell Xi Jinping's people in June-July that former Chinese foreign minister Qin Gang had taken part in an espionage operation

Despite Russia stepping up its strikes on Ukraine in recent weeks, Kyiv has so far managed to maintain a high

Teams of North Korean workers, whose recruitment by Russia was first reported by Intelligence Online (IO, 30/06/23), are being deployed

The €2m allocation represents a tiny fraction of the overall €1.1bn budget of the Direction Générale de la Sécurité Extérieure