Agrégateur de flux

Summary and Key Points: The Yak-41 (Yak-141) was a Soviet attempt at creating a supersonic VTOL (vertical takeoff and landing) aircraft, developed in the 1980s but ultimately shelved after the Soviet Union collapsed. Despite rumors, there is little evidence to suggest that the Yak-41 directly influenced the development of the F-35B, the VTOL variant of the U.S. military's Joint Strike Fighter.

-While Lockheed Martin did partner with Yakovlev in the early 1990s, the connection is more likely coincidental than foundational.

-The Yak-41 remains a footnote in aviation history, while the F-35B is a significant leap in modern military aviation.

Did the F-35B Benefit From the Soviet Yak-141?

Some rumors/conspiracy theories die hard – Walt Disney isn't preserved at his theme park, and NASA didn't fake the moon landing (nor is the earth flat), but try convincing those who believe such wild stories. This is also true in the world of military hardware.

It is a KNOWN FACT that Chinese hackers stole U.S. military technology, including details about Lockheed Martin's F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II stealth fighters, and Beijing likely used the knowledge in the development of its Chengdu J-20 "Mighty Dragon" multirole fighter.

However, there remains just a rumor – and not a believable one at that – of how a largely forgotten Soviet aircraft contributed to the development of the F-35B – the vertical/short takeoff and landing (VSTOL) variant of the Joint Strike Fighter.

This would be the Yak-41 (aka Yak-141), an aircraft that is really little more than a footnote today, and for good reason. It never really moved past the early prototype stage.

The Yak-38 is the Starting Point

To understand anything about the Yak-41/Yak-141 requires a bit of explanation about the YAK-38, the Soviet's attempt to develop a fixed-wing aircraft that could take off and land vertically.

Since the Second World War, military planners have considered the advantages of VSTOL aircraft, which could take off and land vertically or on short runways, and the British military led the effort with the development of the AV-8B Harrier from lessons learned in the Korean War. By the late 1960s, it emerged as the only truly successful VSTOL design of the Cold War era.

The Soviets weren't deterred and moved forward with its own aircraft.

The A.S. Yakovlev Design Bureau JSC was charged with developing a Soviet VSTOL, yet whereas the Harrier had begun essentially as a clean slate, the Yak-38 was developed from the land-based experimental demonstrator Yakovlev Yak-36. In the end, the two shared little in common – yet, it is evident that the Soviets were forced to make numerous compromises.

The redesigned Yak-38 was outfitted with a pair of R-27 turbojets with intakes squashed together in an open nose, with the rear nozzles capable of rotating to provide vectored thrust. Compressed air thrusters on the tail, on the tips of its undersized wings, and at the end of its unicorn-like nose boom provided directional maneuvering.

In total, it took five years of testing to get the Yak-38 to the point where it could transition between vertical liftoff and horizontal flight. The two dedicated lift jets behind the cockpit in addition to a single RD-27 vector thrust engine resulted in higher fuel consumption, limiting range to around two hundred miles at best, and less if it performed a vertical takeoff.

Though some 230 were produced, its service history was underwhelming – and it was considered a difficult aircraft to control.

The Yak-41 Was Born

Despite the lack of success with the Yak-38, the Soviets pressed on with the Yak-41 (NATO reporting name "Freestyle"), which was developed in the 1980s. According to Army Recognition, the Yak-41 was "the pinnacle of the Yakovlev Design Bureau's VTOL aircraft development" becoming "the world's first supersonic VTOL aircraft, achieving speeds up to Mach 1.7," and was developed for use on the "Soviet Navy's Kiev-class carriers."

It was designed around a tri-engine configuration that included its main RD-41 after-burning turbofan engine, with a pair of RD-38 lift engines that provided the transition between vertical and horizontal flight. In addition to its advanced engine, the Yak-41 was outfitted with multi-tracking radar that could engage multiple targets, while its armament was to have consisted of a variety of ordnance including air-to-air missiles, guided bombs, and an internal cannon.

The aircraft took its maiden flight on March 9, 1987, and it soon set around a dozen world records. It was arguably leaps and bounds more advanced than the Yak-38, and may have even been comparable in capabilities to the Harrier. It might have been just the aircraft the Soviet Navy needed for its aircraft cruisers.

That is until one of the two prototypes was lost in an accident while landing on the aircraft cruiser Admiral Groshev in September 1991. That put the program on hold.

Then the Soviet Union broke up just months later, and in the years that followed Russia was in no position to move forward with the aircraft.

The F-35 Connection

So was the F-35B actually based on Soviet technology? That probably depends on who you ask and what you want to believe. With the end of the Cold War, and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Yakovlev entered into a partnership with that little American firm known as Lockheed Martin.

As a Task & Purpose report from April 2018 outlined, "The two companies allegedly signed an agreement in 1991 (but not revealed until 1995) that outlined funding for additional Yak-141 prototypes, including a plan to fly the remaining operational prototype the Farnborough Airshow in September 1992."

Perhaps Lockheed Martin garnered some insight from the Yak-41, but the Soviet-designed aircraft was hardly a success at that point. Yet, the rumors continue to circulate to the contrary. Some of it may be Russian propaganda efforts – not that Russians would ever engage in such activities. But some of it may just be from aviation buffs who can't see that similar aircraft can be developed independently.

Finally, interest was renewed in the largely forgotten Yak-41/Yak-141 until last year, when it was announced the Soviet aircraft would be introduced in the popular online multiplayer game War Thunder – the same title that has earned notoriety for its fans constantly leaking classified secrets on gaming forums. That has only further served to reignite the rumor that the F-35 was based on Soviet tech.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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

Les représentants algériens dans les compétitions africaines sont confrontés au problème de domiciliation. Ils ont fini par opter pour le stade Mustapha Tchaker, qui a […]

L’article Compétitions africaines : le MCA, le CRB et l’USMA sans stade, que faire ? est apparu en premier sur .

Summary and Key Points: The Su-34 Fullback is a versatile fighter-bomber used by the Russian Aerospace Forces. It combines bombing and air-to-air combat capabilities in one platform.

-Equipped with advanced electronic warfare countermeasures and a wide array of munitions, the Su-34 is designed to perform multiple mission sets, including tactical bombing and air superiority roles. However, the Su-34 has suffered significant losses in the Ukraine conflict, highlighting its vulnerabilities despite its robust design.

-The aircraft's effectiveness is maximized with adequate air and ground support, but it remains exposed to threats without such protection.

Su-34 Fullback: Russia’s Dual-Purpose Fighter-Bomber in the Spotlight

The Russian Aerospace Forces operate a large fleet with several different types of aircraft. One of the most interesting jets in that fleet is the Su-34 Fullback. 

A bomber and fighter jet in one, the Su-34 is the go-to choice for Russian commanders for taking out hard targets on the ground. But the aircraft has been taking heavy attrition in the war in Ukraine, showing its weak points. 

Su-34 Fullback: Two Aircraft in One 

Designated as “Fullback” by NATO, the Su-34 is a twin-engine fighter-bomber jet with a crew of two – a pilot and a weapons officer. The aircraft can operate in all weather conditions and conduct attack, bombing, and fighter missions.

 The Russian Aerospace Forces have been using the Su-34 Fullback mainly in a tactical bombing role. With this requirement in mind, Sukhoi designers gave the Fullback an enhanced cockpit with additional armor to withstand anti-aircraft ground fire. Moreover, the fighter-bomber sports advanced electronic warfare countermeasures to jam or defeat enemy anti-aircraft missiles. 

The Su-34 Fullback can hit speeds of around Mach 2 (about 1,500 miles per hour) and has an operational range of 2,500 miles without any refueling. It is designed to sustain heavy pressure (up to 9 Gs) and has a pressurized cabin. 

But where the Su-34 Fullback really shines is in the weapons department. The aircraft can carry up to 18,000 lbs of munitions in 12 hardpoints, including R-77 active radar-homing beyond-visual-range air-to-air missiles; R-73 heat-seeking air-to-air missiles; R-27 radar-homing air-to-air missiles; Kh-59, Kh-58, Kh-38, Kh-29, and Kh-25 air-to-surface missiles; and Kh-65 and Kh-36 cruise missiles. The fighter-bomber can also carry Kh-35 and Kh-31 anti-ship missiles and an extensive selection of conventional bombs. In addition, the Su-34 carries a 30 mm Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-30-1 cannon with 120 rounds for ground attack and dogfighting. 

With these munitions, the Su-34 Fullback can strike targets up to 160 miles away, and the Russian Aerospace Forces have used it extensively in operations in Ukraine. However, Su-34 squadrons have taken serious losses in the conflict, losing at least 26 fighter-bombers so far. Overall, the Russian Aerospace Forces operate around 150 of these aircraft, each of which costs about $85 million. 

The concept of incorporating multiple mission sets into one aircraft isn’t new. The U.S. F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter jet, for example, is capable of conducting six mission sets at the same time with the right munitions. The idea behind such aircraft is to streamline mission sets and encourage a more efficient aircraft fleet. The U.S. military envisioned the F-35 Lightning II doing the job of several older aircraft that would eventually be retired.

Overall, the Su-34 is a capable aircraft that can accomplish several mission sets. It is most valuable when it has sufficient air and ground support to pursue its tactical bombing missions without worrying about enemy fighter jets or anti-aircraft systems. In the absence of such support, it is vulnerable. 

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 the 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.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

In my previous article, I described how the growth of artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency means that data centers require access to evermore quantities of reliable energy to power them. A quick glance at the electrical generation capacity of North America, much of Europe, and Asia leads you to a simple conclusion: more generation capacity—and cleaner generation capacity at that—is needed.

Currently, 3.5 percent of the world’s carbon emissions are the result of power consumption by data centers. Data centers need a consistent power that solar and wind simply cannot guarantee. A stable 24/7 capacity can only be provided by relying on fossil fuels, hydroelectric and geothermal power, or nuclear energy. Burning more fossil fuels for power generation is not an option. Of the remaining “green” options, geothermal and hydroelectric power are only feasible in a few select geographic regions, leaving us with nuclear power as the only real choice to power the lion’s share of the massive growth expected in data centers around the world, not to mention the general surge in the world’s energy needs.

Politically, nuclear power is a sensitive issue in the West, with many voters’ perceptions of nuclear power shaped by the frightening scenes of the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters. Yet, Western countries continue to push new climate initiatives that require increased electrical generation capacity, whether electric vehicle mandates or fossil fuel heating phaseouts. 

Noticeably missing from these initiatives are realistic plans to address the electricity generation needs of the country. Most experts agree that nuclear power has to be part of a green solution. More troubling is that adversaries of the West are building nuclear power stations at a blinding pace in order to secure their energy future. Yet, in the West, our grid is being overtaxed, and even traditionally secure sources of generation capacity are faltering. For instance, due to climate shifts, Canada’s prized hydroelectric power industry is failing to produce enough electricity, leaving Canada to import electricity from the United States for the first time in a decade. This is a less-than-ideal position for a country with a long history of selling its cheap surplus electricity, and it also raises questions about the ability of non-nuclear green sources to produce the energy needed.

The West is slowly waking up to this reality, with leaders at the COP 28 summit calling nuclear power the only viable option to attain their carbon reduction goals, culminating in an agreement by twenty-five countries, including the United States, to triple nuclear generation capacity by 2050. Development efforts between GE and Hitachi are leading to safer and cheaper reactors, and plans to build them in the West are beginning to gain steam, though few boots and shovels have struck dirt. Perhaps a symptom of general bureaucracy that has come to plague large infrastructure projects, but more likely a sign nuclear power still lacks the general social acceptance for wide-scale expansion.

Uranium price and supply challenges threaten to ground these efforts, further spooking investors away from nuclear reactor construction projects and their prohibitively long payback periods. Yet these challenges have had the upside of aiding fledgling domestic producers in the United States to gain market share. Congress has moved further to secure domestic production with the passage of HR. 1042, uranium imports from Russia, a significant producer of power station-grade enriched uranium, were banned. These steps help secure future energy security for the United States in the same way that our oil and gas production currently does. 

With public acceptance being the largest roadblock to the implementation of nuclear power on the scale needed to meet energy needs, education, and communication need to be paramount for our leaders. For a large majority of the public, there is no understanding of nuclear fission or radiation, seeing it as some type of invisible, dangerous alchemy. As such, the disposal of nuclear waste is highly unnerving to a public that is terrified of nuclear waste due to misconceptions born out of the media’s depictions of radiation and nuclear disasters. With a more informed understanding of the risks and benefits of nuclear power, I believe that public opinion would largely be in favor of nuclear power.

Clean, safe, and reliable nuclear power is not only needed but very attainable if we focus on education and public investment in the technology.    

Adrian Kranz is president of Paratrade Corporation and a contributing writer for the Newport Global Summit.

Image:  Wlad74 / Shutterstock.com.

Summary and Key Points: The Ukrainian military's advance into Russia's Kursk Oblast is forcing the Russian military to redirect forces from Ukraine to defend its territory. Ukrainian ground forces and fighter jets are making significant gains, with airstrikes targeting Russian infrastructure and command centers.

-The Russian military, short on well-trained units, is deploying inadequately prepared formations, such as those from the Russian Aerospace Forces, to counter the Ukrainian offensive.

-This reallocation of personnel highlights Russia's ongoing struggle with high casualty rates and limited capability to effectively respond to the Ukrainian incursion.

Ukraine's Kursk Invasion Has Russia on Edge 

The Ukrainian foray into Russia continues to net significant gains, reshaping the conflict with every passing day.

The Ukrainian military is fighting in Russia’s Kursk Oblast with ground forces and fighter jets. Kyiv’s progress is forcing the Russian military to relocate forces from Ukraine back to Russia to deal with the threat.

Fighting Inside Russia 

Ukrainian units have operated with great impunity within Russia, and Russian military leadership is becoming increasingly anxious about Ukrainian advances in Kursk Oblast. Images circulating online show Russian troops digging trenches around the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant near Kurchatov. The facility is located approximately 50 miles from the border with Ukraine. 

“After initial disarray and disorganization, Russian forces have deployed in greater force to the region, including likely from elsewhere along the contact line. They have also begun to construct additional defensive positions in an effort to prevent Ukrainian advances,” British Military Intelligence assessed last week. 

Meanwhile in the skies, the Ukrainian Air Force flies sorties over Russian territory, striking targets with unusual ease. In an example of this air campaign, a video surfaced showing a Ukrainian MiG-29 Fulcrum dropping a French guided munition with a bunker-busting warhead through the roof of a Russian command and control bunker somewhere close to the frontlines in Kursk. In another instance, a Ukrainian fighter jet uses a pair of U.S. glide munitions to destroy a granary facility held by the Russians. Ukrainian missiles have destroyed several bridges in Kursk in an attempt to trap Russian units and prevent reinforcements from coming in. 

The Russian military is short on capable, well-trained units to deploy. As a result, it is sending newly organized formations that are ill-suited to fight the battle-hardened Ukrainian mechanized brigades spearheading the foray into Kursk. 

The Specialized Motor Rifle Regiment is one example of a unit deployed by the Russian military that is not fit for the task. Formed in May, the unit is comprised of Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) personnel. 

“Reportedly personnel forming the VKS-manned Motor Rifle Regiment include those previously in specialist roles such as early-warning radar operators at Long Range Aviation Heavy Bomber regiments,” British Military Intelligence stated in its latest assessment of the war.

“Diverting personnel from these previously high priority areas likely demonstrates continuing personnel shortages. By employing them in an infantry role, hey are also being misused, which could reduce Russian capability to re-take territory in Kursk Oblast,” British Military Intelligence added. 

This is like the U.S. Air Force sending a battalion of F-22 Raptor maintainers and drone pilots to do the job of a U.S. Marine Corps infantry battalion. 

“Russia continues to develop new units and recruit more personnel to sustain its mass attritional warfare approach against Ukraine,” British Military Intelligence added.

According to the latest estimates released by the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense, the Russian military has lost over 600,000 men, averaging more than 1,000 casualties a day. 

“The high casualty rates that result mean that Russia needs to continuously replenish front line infantry personnel, which will almost certainly continue to limit Russia’s ability to generate higher capability units,” British Military Intelligence concluded. 

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 the 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.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

L'ancienne Première ministre Élisabeth Borne a annoncé, mercredi dans un entretien au Parisien, sa candidature à la tête de Renaissance, le parti d'Emmanuel Macron. La députée du Calvados s'est dite prête à "rassembler de façon très large" au sein du parti présidentiel, qui doit tenir un congrès avant le 30 novembre pour renouveler sa direction.

Summary and Key Points: The Imperial Japanese Navy's carrier Shinano was an ill-fated warship, originally intended as a battleship but converted into an aircraft carrier during World War II.

-Despite being the largest aircraft carrier of its time, Shinano was plagued by design compromises and was sunk by a U.S. submarine just seven hours into its maiden voyage.

Bottomline: The ship's flawed concept of serving as a resupply vessel for other carriers, combined with Japan's inadequate anti-submarine warfare strategy, highlighted the weaknesses that contributed to its swift demise. Shinano's failure serves as a cautionary tale in naval warfare design.

Shinano: The Largest Aircraft Carrier That Never Saw Battle

Over the last hundred years, the navies of the world have constructed, operated, and taken to war hundreds of aircraft carriers. Some carriers have been truly outstanding designs, while many more were simply adequate and lost to history. One ship that achieved fame not out of greatness but sheer incompetence was the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) carrier Shinano. Originally constructed as a battleship, she was redesigned to support the air war in the Pacific before being sunk, with considerable irony, by a submarine before she could even see battle.

In May 1940 the Yokosuka Naval Yard laid down the third hull of the Yamato-class battleships. The largest battleships ever built, the Yamato-class featured nine eighteen-inch guns and were considerably larger and more powerful—on paper anyway—than even the U.S. Navy’s Iowa-class battleships. The Yamato and her sister ship Musashi were completed as designed, but work on the third ship, Shinano, halted shortly after the outbreak of hostilities with the Allied powers—principally the United Kingdom and Holland.

By June 1942 Shinano was complete up to her main deck but Japan no longer had use for battleships. A series of reversals at sea, particularly the Battle of Midway, had dealt a serious blow to Japanese carrier aviation. (The Battle of Midway alone saw the loss of four Japanese fleet carriers.) At the same time, it was becoming increasingly clear that aircraft carriers had eclipsed the battleship as the dominant weapon at sea. Japan needed more aircraft carriers, and fast.

The IJN decided to redesign Shinano to help make up Japan’s carrier losses. At 840 feet long at the waterline, Shinano was set to become the world’s largest aircraft carrier, with a huge flight deck to support air operations and a cavernous hangar to store and repair fighters, dive bombers, and torpedo planes. Such a ship could carry well over a hundred fighters, the equal in aircraft to nearly two American carriers.

Unfortunately, an opposing plan emerged that envisioned Shinano not as a true aircraft carrier but new type of vessel, a carrier support ship. Under the new plan Shinano would act as a floating resupply ship for other aircraft carriers, carrying fuel, munitions, fuel, and other supplies. Aircraft from other carriers would land on Shinano, load up on fuel and weapons, and then take off on combat missions. Incredibly, under this scheme Shinano would not have any planes of its own, nor would she have the ability to store any.

After considerable infighting, the Imperial Navy decided on a compromise design. Shinano would be fitted out as a 68,000-ton aircraft carrier similar in construction to the smaller Taiho. The carrier would have a hangar and carry four dozen fighters for self-defense. Her primary mission, however, was to supply new planes to carriers that had sustained combat losses, repair damaged aircraft, and resupply fleet carriers at sea.

The conversion effort began in the summer of 1942 but proceeded very slowly. Inexplicably, work only sped up after the Battle of the Philippine Sea in June 1944, when two more fleet carriers and a light carrier were lost to enemy action. The ship was finally launched in October 1944. As completed, Shinano displaced 62,000 tons, had an overall length of 872 feet, and was up to 119 feet long. She had a crew of 2,400 and carried up to forty-seven fighters for self-defense.

A large target for enemy aircraft, Shinano was well equipped to fend off aircraft and shrug off hits above the waterline. Her anti-air defenses included sixteen 5-inch guns, 145 25-millimeter anti-aircraft guns, and 336 5-inch anti-aircraft rocket launchers. Armor ranged from 15.75 inches at the main belt to just 3.94 inches amidships. Unlike American carriers, she had an armored flight deck, with 2.95 inches of armor protecting the innards of the ship from dive bombs penetrating from above.

Ironically, although well equipped to fend off aerial and surface attacks Shinano was ultimately done in by a subsurface attack. On November 28th, 1944, just seven hours into a voyage from Yokosuka to Matsuyama for fitting out, Shinano was attacked by four torpedoes launched from the submarine USS Archerfish. The ship, undermanned and incomplete, could not affect damage control procedures properly. Watertight doors had been left open and poorly welded segments of the ship gave way to flooding, and the huge ship went down exactly seven hours after coming under torpedo attack.

Much of the criticism of Shinano’s design is predicated not on the ship’s battle history—the carrier participated in only one, lopsided “battle”—but in how the carrier support ship design would have fared given what we know about the Pacific War. As a ship designed to prolong the ability of Japan’s carriers to fight without returning to port, it was designed to support Japan’s tradition of keeping men, ships, and planes on the frontline until they were killed and destroyed. As we know now, this was a major contributor to Japan’s eventual defeat and the U.S. Navy’s opposite policy, of regularly rotating forces off the front line, was a major contributor to America’ victory. Shinano was designed to support a losing strategy.

Shinano’s loss to submarine action highlighted another shortcoming in the design and the larger Imperial Japanese Navy: the lack of a strong anti-submarine warfare doctrine and adequate anti-submarine ships and resources. Despite a highly successful undersea warfare campaign waged by the submarines of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, Japan never built up a strong anti-submarine warfare response comparable to that fielded by the Allies fending off Germany’s U-boat fleet. Although Shinano was well prepared to fight the air and surface battle, she was lost to the one battle she was utterly unprepared for—the subsurface battle.

Built as a compromise ship by an indecisive navy, Shinano was perhaps the worst designed carrier ever built—a mistake made exponentially worse by the dire wartime situation Japan found itself in. It is worth noting that Shinano was the first and last carrier support ship ever designed, as other naval powers have avoided the class. Shinano was a somber lesson to future naval powers: there is no middle ground in carrier construction, and weakness in one of the realms of naval warfare will haunt major powers in wartime, claiming even the largest warships.

About the Author: Kyle Mizokami, Defense Expert 

Kyle Mizokami is a writer based in San Francisco who has appeared in The Diplomat, Foreign Policy, War is Boring and The Daily Beast. In 2009 he cofounded the defense and security blog Japan Security Watch. 

Summary and Key Points You Need To Know: The A-10 Thunderbolt II, known as the Warthog, is equipped with the GAU-8 Avenger, a 30mm rotary cannon capable of firing 4,200 rounds per minute, making it a devastating force against enemy tanks and armored vehicles.

-Developed in the 1970s to counter Soviet tanks, the Avenger underwent extensive testing and improvements before proving its effectiveness in Operation Desert Storm, where it destroyed hundreds of Iraqi tanks and vehicles.

-Despite its battlefield success, the A-10's future is uncertain, with debates on whether newer technologies might replace it. However, the power and fear induced by the Avenger gun remain undeniable.

The A-10 Warthog's GAU-8 Avenger: A Tank's Worst Nightmare

If you are operating an enemy tank, the deep, buzzing belch of cannon fire from an A-10 Thunderbolt II may be the last thing you ever hear.

The A-10, better known as the Warthog, has a rotary cannon called the GAU-8 Avenger that can sustain 600 revolutions and fire 4,200 rounds per minute. The gun can make short work of armored vehicles.

Let’s take a look at the awesome power of this gun.

Looking for the Perfect Weapon

In the early 1970s, the U.S. Air Force analyzed various wars between Israel and Arab countries that featured tank-on-tank warfare. The service branch came away from that research looking for an airplane and a gun that could buzz enemy tanks and plink them into oblivion. They reckoned such a platform could help defeat the Soviet army’s thousands of tanks. 

General Electric won the bid for a 30mm ultra-fast cannon. The gun would fire armor-piercing and high-explosive rounds that were a match for any tank, armored vehicle, and artillery piece. Enemy bunkers were also on the list of installations the gun could destroy. Each bullet had the length of a pint bottle. 

Working Through the Avenger’s Issues

By 1974, the GAU-8 Avenger was ready for testing. The seven-barrel, gatling-style gun fired from as high as 25,000 feet and as low as 100 feet. It underwent 60 test flights and shot 39,000 rounds in various maneuvers and stunts at up to 5-Gs. Hydraulic motors spun the rifled barrels. 

However, the gun had some issues. Flashes from the firing kept the pilot from seeing where he was flying. The gas dirtied the windshield, too. Gas could also reach the airplane’s engines, causing the power plants to suffocate. Engineers spent 10 years addressing and fixing those problems.

The huge gun weighs 620 pounds, but once you add the feed system and drum, it weighs 4,029 pounds. The Avenger has a full load of 1,150 rounds of ammunition in the drum. The entire apparatus is nearly 21 feet long, and its range is 4,101 feet.

Desert Storm Dandy

It was during Operation Desert Storm that the A-10 and its gun shone brighest. The gun fired 783,514 rounds during 8,077 combat sorties. It eliminated 900 Iraqi tanks, at least 2,000 other armored vehicles, and around 1,200 artillery pieces.

A-10 pilot John Marks was interviewed by Smithsonian Magazine about shooting the Avenger during the First Gulf War. “The thing shook the airplane when you pulled the trigger. You could smell the spent casings even with the oxygen mask on. The sound is muffled with all the gear we wear, but you still hear it. The high rate of fire and typical range mean the rounds hit just before or about the time you release the trigger,” Marks recalled.

The GAU-8 is mounted laterally off-center because the recoil could move it off target during a strafing run. But the barrel is “underneath the airplane’s center of gravity,” according to Matt Snape of Hotcars.com. “This centers the recoil forces, preventing changes in aircraft pitch or yaw when fired,” Snape wrote.

Despite the power of the gun and the A-10’s combat-proven effectiveness, the Air Force tried to retire the airplane in 2015, 2016, and 2017 budget cycles, and it wanted to trim the numbers ASAP. 

The A-10 and the Future

The Air Force and the Congressional Research Service will be investigating lessons learned from the war in Ukraine. Russia has lost hundreds of tanks and armored personnel carriers to anti-tank guided missiles, artillery, and drones.

Could the Air Force do away with the A-10 and focus instead on these systems and tactics during an armored fight?

Or is it better to depend on that amazing gun to eliminate even more enemy tanks and infantry fighting vehicles? These are difficult questions to answer, but one thing we know for sure is that the Avenger gun is a force on the battlefield. It puts fear into the enemy.

About the Author: Dr. Brent M. Eastwood 

Brent M. Eastwood, PhD, is the author of Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare. He is an Emerging Threats expert and former U.S. Army Infantry officer. You can follow him on Twitter @BMEastwood.

All images are Creative Commons. 

It was back to the future on Tuesday night as Michelle and Barack Obama spoke at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. The former was the clear winner over the latter in the speech sweepstakes, but she made no move to wrest the nomination from her longtime friend, Vice President Kamala Harris. Instead, she focused on pillorying Donald Trump as the scion of “the affirmative action of generational wealth.” Her husband evocatively likened Trump to the “neighbor who keeps running his leaf blower outside your window every minute of every day.”

Absent some of the more fevered conspiracy theories on the right actually occurring—Joe Biden seizing back the nomination, Michelle Obama tossing her hat in the ring—the convention in Chicago has been drained of much of its suspense. Even the much-ballyhooed protests against the Gaza war seem to have fizzled out, if not turned into sheer farce, now that Vice President Kamala Harris has captured the hearts and minds of the Democratic party.

As the convention focused on denouncing Trump as a threat to American freedoms—democracy is apparently now passe—a fresh reminder of the foreign policy stakes arrived with the disclosure that the Biden administration has approved a secret strategy called “Nuclear Employment Guidance” that aims to deter a simultaneous attack from China, North Korea, and Russia.

How much either Tim Walz or Harris will focus on foreign affairs in their speeches is an open question. But the geopolitical context that any new president will confront is rapidly shifting, and not always in good ways. Perhaps the coordination between Russia, China, and North Korea that foreign policy realists were wont to warn about was likely to occur, but American foreign policy does not seem to have done much to forestall the prospect. Instead, the state of belligerence towards China may, in some measure, have become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Absent a crisis abroad—an attack on Taiwan or war with Iran—it is economics that remains at the forefront of the Harris campaign. If her own campaign is anything to go by, she has a firm mastery of the importance of finances. She reported a whopping $220 million at the close of July in cash on hand in contrast to the $151 million that the Trump campaign disclosed. This reversal of fortune is allowing Harris to hammer home her anti-corporate, pro-labor message in a variety of swing states. Meanwhile, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s finances appear to be in dire straits as he commands a mere $3.9 million with $3.5 million in debts. Small wonder that his campaign is openly flirting with endorsing Trump as long as the former president is willing to promise, for whatever that promise is worth, a post (Secretary of Health and Human Services?) in a new administration to Kennedy. The most likely prospect is that Kennedy, who has not rated a mention at the convention, will drift into insignificance. It’s an amazing testament to the fall of the once-proud Kennedy family.

If there is a star of the convention, it appears to be the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025. Trump has sought to disown it, but Democrats are highlighting its proposals as a foundation for a new Trump administration. An oversized copy of the “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise”  is being held up by several speakers, including Pennsylvania state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta who deemed the document a “radical plan to drag us backwards, bankrupt the middle class and raise prices on working families like yours and mine.” The term “radical,” once the province of the Left, seems to be vying with “weird” as the favorite Democratic term of obloquy for Trump.

As Harris and her running mate Tim Walz prepare to make their respective big speeches tonight and tomorrow, it would not be surprising to see them flag Project 2025 as a danger to the republic. On July 23, Harris stated in Milwaukee that Trump and “his extreme Project 2025 agenda will weaken the middle class. Like, we know we got to take this seriously, and can you believe they put that thing in writing?” Most book authors could only dream of such publicity, but Trump and Co. appear to be running away from Project 2025 as quickly as they can.

About the Author: Editor of the National Interest, Jacob Heilbrunn

Jacob Heilbrunn is editor of The National Interest and is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center. He has written on both foreign and domestic issues for numerous publications, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Foreign Affairs, Reuters, Washington Monthly, and The Weekly Standard. He has also written for German publications such as Cicero, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, and Der Tagesspiegel. In 2008, his book They Knew They Were Right: the Rise of the Neocons was published by Doubleday. It was named one of the one hundred notable books of the year by The New York Times. He is the author of America Last: The Right’s Century-Long Romance with Foreign Dictators.

Image Credit: Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The D-21 was America’s first foray into drone technology, developed by Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works in the 1960s in response to growing Soviet anti-aircraft defenses.

-This supersonic surveillance drone, capable of flying at Mach 3.2, was initially launched from the SR-71 Blackbird before transitioning to the B-52H bomber.

-The D-21's primary mission was to gather intelligence on China’s nuclear program, but the project ultimately failed, with all four missions (1969-71) unsuccessful.

-Despite this, the D-21 significantly influenced future U.S. drone technology, and China's later WZ-8 drone bore a strong resemblance to the D-21.

The D-21 was America’s First Attempt at Drones

When one thinks of unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, the MQ-1 Predator or the MQ-9 Reaper probably come to mind. 

But America’s drones have a much longer operational history.

Way back in the 1960s, Lockheed Martin designed the D-21 supersonic surveillance drone at their Skunk Works facility. Created in response to the downing of Gary Powers and his U-2 spy plane, the D-21 was the U.S. military and intelligence community’s solution to the rapidly advancing Soviet anti-aircraft defenses ringing the Communist bloc states.  

The D-21 Specs

Designed to fly at an astonishing Mach 3.2, or 2,455 miles per hour, the D-21 employed a ramjet engine. This insanely fast early drone would be launched from an SR-71 Blackbird and continue to its target at supersonic speeds. 

If it were shot down, no one would be lost, and the Americans would have a degree of deniability. 

Because of the D-21’s unique design, though, launching from an equally radical airframe such as the SR-71 Blackbird proved to be a problem. So the Pentagon switched to a B-52H bomber. A rocket booster would launch the drone from the wing of the Stratofortress. 

China’s Nuclear Weapons Program

When the D-21 went active, the People’s Republic of China was rapidly developing an illicit nuclear weapons program. At this time, China was very similar to how we might today view North Korea: It was a backward and isolated land ruled by a vicious cult of personality. 

But China wanted nukes, and the Americans were rightly concerned about this prospect, especially given China’s close alliance at that time with the Soviet Union. 

China’s main nuclear test site was at a place called Lop Nur. To get a better read on what was occurring there, the Americans deployed their D-21 surveillance drone. Four major intelligence collection missions were launched against this target over the course of two years (1969-71). 

A Failure?

The program failed. According to Maya Carlin, two of the four drones were lost somewhere over China, while the other two malfunctioned and delivered no usable intelligence.

The Pentagon canceled the program in 1971. Unsurprisingly, the Chinese down the line unveiled their own supersonic drone, the WZ-8, which looked suspiciously like the D-21. 

The Chinese had captured one or both of the D-21s that were lost over the Middle Kingdom and reverse-engineered them. This, of course, was a portent of things to come.

Lockheed Martin’s design for the D-21 would go on to significantly influence future drone technology for the U.S. military. Even modern drones have been inspired by the lessons learned from the D-21. While the missions technically ended in failure, the program was not a complete waste of time. 

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock.

From the Vault

Russia Freaked Out: Why the U.S. Navy 'Unretired' the Iowa-Class Battleships

Battleship vs. Battlecruiser: Iowa-Class vs. Russia's Kirov-Class (Who Wins?)

Humans could be at risk following the discovery of contaminated maize batches, health minister says.

Profitant des rayons de soleil de l’été, le festival du film francophone d’Angoulême, célèbrera sa 17ᵉ édition du 27 août au 1ᵉʳ septembre en France. […]

L’article Festival du film francophone d’Angoulême : le long-métrage algérien « L’Effacement » en lice est apparu en premier sur .

Hungary responded to Brussels' request for an explanation over its easing of entry requirements for Russian and Belarusian nationals on Wednesday (21 August), dismissing concerns about potential security risks to the bloc's Schengen border-free travel zone.

Summary and Key Points You Need to Know: Submarines are among the most potent assets in a nation's arsenal, capable of lurking in the ocean's depths to strike enemy targets with precision. The U.S. Navy, boasting the world's most formidable submarine fleet, is set to enhance its capabilities with the new SSN New Jersey, a Virginia-class fast-attack submarine.

-Designed to find and sink enemy warships, the SSN New Jersey, officially SSN 796, will join the Navy's fleet as the 23rd Virginia-class sub. With a $3.5 billion price tag and powered by nuclear energy, these submarines can operate for years without refueling, and the Navy plans to keep them in service well into the 2070s.

-Virginia-class subs, introduced in 2004, are equipped with an impressive arsenal, including Tomahawk cruise missiles and Mk48 torpedoes, making them a crucial component of U.S. naval power.

What Makes the Virginia-Class Submarine So Special? 

Submarines are some of the most powerful weapon systems in a country’s arsenal. They lurk in the depths of the ocean, ready to pounce on enemy shipping and deliver high-precision missiles, including nuclear weapons, to enemy targets thousands of miles away. 

The U.S. Navy has the most powerful submarine fleet in the world, with scores of vessels. And in a few weeks, the Navy will accept its newest submarine.

The SSN New Jersey 

On April 6, the Navy delivered the SSN New Jersey at the U.S. Naval Weapons Station. 

As a fast-attack submarine of the Virginia class, the SSN New Jersey will have a simple mission in the event of a conflict: find and sink enemy warships. 

Officially named SSN 796 New Jersey, the nuclear-powered submarine will join the most populous class of submarines in the U.S. Navy. The Navy currently operates three classes of fast-attack submarines (Los Angeles, Seawolf, and Virginia) for a total fleet of approximately 50 submarines. 

The Navy is planning to purchase a total of 66 Virginia-class submarines. As of February, 22 subs are in service, with the USS New Jersey soon to be the 23rd. In addition, 11 other submarines of the class are under construction, and four more are authorized by Congress.

The submarine has been years in the making. Its keel was laid in March 2019, and it comes with a price tag of approximately $3.5 billion. The new submarine will be the third warship to be named after the state of New Jersey. 

Powered by nuclear energy, the Virginia-class submarines can stay afloat for years without the need for refueling and are mainly limited by their victuals.

The Navy plans to operate the class well into the 2070s.

The Virginia-class Submarines 

Introduced with the SSN 774 Virginia in 2004, the Virginia class is the latest class of fast-attack submarines in the U.S. Navy. Built by General Dynamics Electric Boat Division and Huntington Ingalls Industries, the Virginia class is a powerful weapon system. 

At almost 380 feet long, the class has a beam of 34 feet and a displacement of approximately 7,800 tons submerged. The submarine can operate at depths of over 800 ft (about 250 meters). It can reach speeds of more than 25 nautical knots (over 28 miles per hour), and it relies on one nuclear reactor with one shaft for its propulsion. In terms of manpower, Virginia-class submarines have a crew of 132, with 15 officers and 117 enlisted personnel. 

But where the Virginia class shines is in its armament. There are five blocks, or modifications, with different combinations of weapons. Submarines carrying the Block I through IV weapons modifications have 12 Vertical Launching Tubes for Tomahawk cruise missiles and four 21-inch torpedo tubes that can fire Mk48 torpedoes or UGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles.

Considering the restrictions imposed by the limited space, the Virginia-class can pack a healthy 25 torpedoes/anti-ship missiles and over a dozen cruise missiles. Block V will add more missiles through the Virginia Payload Module.

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 Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Alger, le 20 août 2024 – Une nouvelle ère s’ouvre pour le transport routier en Algérie. En effet, la société Holcim El Djazaïr vient de […]

L’article Le premier camion 100 % électrique fait son entrée sur le marché algérien est apparu en premier sur .

Summary and Key Points: Submarines have evolved into fast, stealthy, and highly maneuverable platforms, with the Seawolf-class submarine from the U.S. Navy leading the pack as the fastest and most advanced, capable of exceeding 35 miles per hour and diving up to 2,000 feet.

-Following closely is the Virginia-class, a versatile submarine designed for modern warfare, with a top speed of 28 miles per hour. Russia’s Yasen-M class, known for its ability to carry hypersonic missiles, cruises at 40 miles per hour and dives to nearly 2,000 feet.

-China’s Shang-class submarine showcases the country’s growing naval prowess, reaching speeds of 34 miles per hour and diving to over 2,200 feet.

-Finally, the UK's Vanguard-class, central to the Royal Navy’s nuclear deterrent, offers reliable performance with a speed of 28 miles per hour and a diving capability of over 1,300 feet. These submarines represent the pinnacle of underwater warfare technology.

Top 5 Fastest Submarines in the World: Speed, Stealth, and Power

Submarines may be an older technological platform, but each iteration gets better than the last. 

Submarines are meant to be stealthy. More than that, though, subs must possess a high degree of speed and the ability to dive fast. They also must be highly maneuverable. 

The list below, while far from comprehensive, uses those qualities to determine the five best fast submarines in the world.

5. Vanguard-Class Submarine

Once the greatest naval power in the world, the British Royal Navy today is a shadow of its former glory. Nevertheless, the British still possess some capabilities that make them competitive at sea. The Vanguard-class nuclear-powered submarine is an excellent heir to the legacy of the great imperial navy that came before it. 

Designed to fight the Cold War, these boats for now are still the primary submarine of the Royal Navy. 

A Vanguard-class submarine displaces just shy of 16,000 tons when submerged. She’s powered by one Rolls Royce pressurized water-cooled nuclear reactor that supplies steam to two sets of General Electric geared turbines delivering 27,500 horsepower to one shaft. 

Her speed is a respectable 28 miles per hour. She can also dive in excess of 1,300 feet. The numbers don’t lie. The Vanguard class is a solid sub. 

4. Shang-Class Submarine

China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy is steadily advancing its submarine capabilities to rival those of the Americans, Russians, and other advanced navies. The nuclear-powered Shang-class leads the way. 

The Shang class has a 7,000-ton displacement and can carry around 100 crewmembers. Its top cruising speed is about 30 knots, or 34 miles per hour, and these boats can dive down to 2,296 feet.

As for this submarine’s maneuverability, one analyst has written that, “China can ensure that [the Shang-class] submarine has a breakthrough in underwater navigation performance, and the nuclear power propulsion system has sufficient power to match the hull tonnage. Under better circumstances, [the Shang-class] is entirely possible to achieve relatively excellent underwater speed and underwater maneuverability.” 

3. Yasen-M-class Submarine

Russia may be more of a continental power rather than a maritime power, but the Russian Navy can build some remarkable underwater systems. 

The Yasen-M class is especially impressive. Recently, the Russians converted this class of “tough” Russian subs (as Business Insider labeled them in 2023) into hypersonic missile carriers, making the Yasen-M the only active submarine in the world capable of deploying these next-level weapons. In June, the Russians deployed one of these boats in a flotilla to Cuba, skirting the U.S. Eastern seaboard in the process. 

The Yasen-M can cruise up to 35 knots (40 miles per hour) and can safely dive to about 1,968 feet. She displaces around 13,800 tons. 

In all, the Russians have one of the speediest, most lethal undersea platforms in existence today. Americans underestimate the Yasen-M at their own peril.

2. Virginia-class Submarine

When America went looking for a replacement for the iconic Los Angeles-class attack submarine, it first landed on the highly complex but expensive Seawolf class. 

Sadly, that submarine’s cost and the lack of a Soviet enemy made Congress rethink its decision to make the Seawolf class the new primary attack submarine for America’s Navy. Sent back to the drawing board, the Navy produced the Virginia class. 

A Virginia-class submarine goes about 28 miles per hour. Because the boats are relatively new, the Navy is not as forthcoming with certain design details. For example, the Navy is coy about this sub’s maximum operating depth, listing it as “more than 800 feet.” It carries 15 officers and 117 enlisted personnel as well. 

A highly maneuverable and fast submarine, the Virginia-class is one of the finest attack submarines ever built. 

1. Seawolf-class Submarine

Now for the blue label of modern submarines, the U.S. Navy’s Seawolf class. As noted above, this boat was meant to replace the Los Angeles-class attack subs beginning in the early 1990s, until Congress got cold feet. 

At roughly $4.3 billion per unit, one can hardly blame them. But given the kind of threat environment the U.S. faces today, a fleet of these submarines might have been the best long-term investment the Navy could have made.

Alas, there’s no going back. The Navy currently possesses only three of these submarines, and there are no plans to reconstitute the production line. Besides, the Navy prefers the Virginia-class submarine, which, while a versatile and fast boat as you just read, has limits to its speed and maneuverability that the Seawolf class does not share.

This boat can go in excess of 35 miles per hour. The Seawolf class is highly maneuverable and can dive up to 2,000 feet, with a maximum crush depth ranging from 2,400 to 3,000 feet beneath the waves. 

The Seawolf-class submarine threat is widely believed to keep the Chinese and Russians up at night. It is not only the fastest submarine in the world today, it is also the best submarine ever built. 

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock.

From the Vault

Russia Freaked Out: Why the U.S. Navy 'Unretired' the Iowa-Class Battleships

Battleship vs. Battlecruiser: Iowa-Class vs. Russia's Kirov-Class (Who Wins?)

Several animal diseases made a comeback across the European Union this summer, forcing authorities to impose transport restrictions and the culling of thousands of livestock amid financial losses for farmers and concerns about the potential impact on the bloc’s exports.

Summary and Key Points You Need to Know: The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) operates the largest fleet of F-16s outside the U.S., with over 300 airframes, including the specialized F-16I Sufa variant.

-Designed to meet the specific needs of Israel's Air Force, the F-16I includes significant upgrades such as conformal fuel tanks for extended range, an advanced helmet-mounted cueing system, and an enhanced electronic warfare suite. These modifications make the Sufa a critical component of Israel's military, allowing it to carry out complex air-to-ground missions effectively.

-The F-16I has been a key asset in operations such as the 2021 conflict with Hamas in Gaza and is expected to remain in service for years to come.

F-16I Sufa: The Thunderstorm in Israel’s Air Defense Arsenal

The Israel Defense Forces fly the largest contingent of the F-16 outside of the U.S. Air Force, with more than 300 airframes in their arsenal.

Nicknamed Sufa, or thunderstorm in Hebrew, the two-seat variant of the F-16 – the F-16I Sufa – was specifically designed to meet the requirements of Israel's Air Force.

While the platform has some shortcomings, Israel’s Sufa variant boasts unique modifications that make it a critical part of the Jewish state’s military program. 

F-16I upgrades the original

 Originally developed by General Dynamics (now Lockheed Martin), the F-16 Fighting Falcon took its first flight in 1976. The fighter jet was designed to rectify some of the shortcomings in the aircraft that flew in the Korean and Vietnam Wars. The Falcon’s increased thrust-to-weight ratio and smaller frame made it an air-superiority platform, with improved air-to-air training for fighter pilots. Similar to the F-15, the Fighting Falcon was also a premier airframe for withstanding higher g-forces. 

An initial contract between Lockheed-Martin and Israel allocated up to 110 new F-16Is by 2003. According to former Lockheed Martin Vice President John Bean, “[The Sufa program] illustrates the strong bond between Lockheed Martin and Israel; we hope to strengthen that relationship through our continuing commitment to this program." 

The first fleet arrived in Israel in 2004 and featured a range of specialized modifications, including changes to the Falcon’s avionics, instrumentation, and weapons support systems. The F-16I is fitted with Israeli-designed conformal fuel tanks that extend the jet’s flight range by increasing the fuel it can hold by 50%. The placement of the tanks also allows the wings’ inner store stations, which are typically utilized for external tanks, to be available for weapons storage. This variation alone doubles the Sufa’s air-to-ground weapons capacity.

The F-16I’s Elbit Dash IV display shortens the lock-on process time for engagements, and the aircraft uses a helmet-mounted cueing system. This Israeli development can link aircraft information such as height and speed to the system, enabling weapons to target enemy aircraft using sight only. Dash IV allows the pilot to locate targets at high angles off the nose of the fighter, providing 360-degree information to the pilot everywhere they look. 

A key aerial asset

Arguably the most significant modification made to the F-16I Sufa is in its electronic warfare suite and avionics. Approximately half of the Falcon’s avionics were replaced with Israeli innovations including the aerial towed decoy. The Sufa’s electronic warfare suite incorporates radar warning systems and jamming capabilities, including the Elisra SPS 3000 self-protection jammer.

The F-16I Sufa has been active in Israel’s air force missions for nearly two decades, and the platform remains a critical asset. It continues to carry out important tasks. During a 2021 Israel-Hamas flare-up in Gaza, Sufas comprised the majority of the aircraft responsible for striking the terror group’s underground tunnel network and other weapons depots. With the help of the F-15I Ra’am and F-35I Adir stealth fighters, Operation Guardian of the Walls was successful.

The F-16I Sufa will likely remain in Israel’s aerial arsenal for years to come.

About the Author: Defense Expert, Maya Carlin

Maya Carlin 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.

Image Credit: All Images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Top 5 Points on the F-35 You Need to Know: The F-35 Lightning II program, the most advanced jet in the skies today, has faced numerous challenges and is now the most expensive defense program in history, with an estimated lifetime cost of over $2 trillion.

-The program's complexity arises from its three variants (A, B, and C), each tailored to meet the specific needs of the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, replacing multiple older aircraft.

-Despite efforts to reduce costs, sustainment and operational expenses have risen significantly, partly due to the extended operational life of the F-35 and inflation.

-The program's high costs are justified by its ability to streamline multiple mission sets into a single, versatile aircraft, making it a logistical asset for the U.S. military.

-The F-35 program’s complexity stems from its three variants (A, B, and C), each designed to meet the specific needs of the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, replacing multiple older aircraft.

F-35 Lightning II: The $2 Trillion Fighter That’s Reshaping U.S. Air Power

The F-35 Lightning II is the most advanced jet in the skies today. However, its journey to the skies hasn’t been easy. Indeed, the F-35 program had to overcome several challenges and setbacks to be where it is today. To a certain extent, these challenges continue to this day.

According to the latest assessment by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the F-35 Program will cost more than $2 trillion during its lifetime. This astounding cost makes it the most expensive defense program in recent history and one of the most expensive in military history in general.

Specifically, the GAO report estimates $1.6 trillion in sustainment costs, which include operational demands and maintenance – this is about 45 percent higher than the previous estimate in 2018 ($1.1 trillion). It also estimates approximately $445 billion in acquisition costs, which include the development and procurement of the stealth fighter jet.

One of the main reasons for the hefty half a trillion dollars increase in sustainment costs is the fact that the U.S. military plans to operate the F-35 fighter for an additional decade, or until 2088. Another reason is the higher inflation.

The fact that the GAO had to revise its estimate within six years coupled with the ongoing production and delivery of the aircraft, could indicate that the F-35 Program’s cost might further increase in the near future.

Lockheed Martin and the F-35 Joint Program Office have tried to bring costs down but without significant success. Nevertheless, for many, the high cost and challenges surrounding the F-35 Program have a reasonable explanation.

F-35 Stealth Fighter: It Can Do It All? 

Much like the Russian Babushka wooden dolls that fit several similar toys of different sizes in each other, the F-35 Lightning II isn’t just one aircraft and isn’t intended to replace just one aircraft.

The F-35 comes in three versions: A, B, and C. Although they are essentially the same aircraft in terms of capabilities, each is designed differently to meet the different demands of the U.S. military’s services. Essentially, Lockheed Martin designed three different aircraft in one, and that is reflected in some of the costs.

The F-35A is the conventional take-off and landing aircraft that operates from runways; this is the version used by the Air Force and most of the 19 countries that comprise the F-35 Program.

The F-35B is the Short Take-Off, Vertical Landing (STOVL) version of the aircraft and can take off and land like a helicopter but still fly like a fighter jet; this version is used by the U.S. Marine Corps, as well as several foreign partners.

Finally, the F-35C is the aircraft carrier version of the aircraft and is designed to withstand the extreme pressures of carrier operations; this iteration is used only by the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps.

In addition, the three versions of the F-35 Lightning II are going to replace several older aircraft, including the A-10 Warthog close air support aircraft, AV-88 Harrier STOVL fighter jet, and also probably the F-16.

As such, they include capabilities that would normally be spread over several aircraft. This streamlining of mission sets in a single aircraft is a logistical miracle for the U.S. military and will benefit it in a time of war.

About the Author

Stavros Atlamazoglou is a Greek Army veteran (National service with 575th Marines Battalion and Army HQ). Johns Hopkins University. You will usually find him on the top of a mountain admiring the view and wondering how he got there.

This article was first published by Sandboxx News.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The United States Navy’s Ohio-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, crucial to the nation's nuclear deterrent, are rarely seen or discussed publicly due to their stealth missions.

-However, in June, the U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa revealed the location of the USS Tennessee (SSBN-734) in the Norwegian Sea, accompanied by the USS Normandy (CG-60) and P-8A Poseidon aircraft, along with an E-6B Mercury “doomsday plane.”

-This unusual disclosure is believed to be a strategic response to recent Russian naval activities, including the deployment of Russian naval vessels to the Caribbean and exercises in the Mediterranean. The reveal serves as a reminder of the Ohio-class submarines' destructive capabilities.

Why the U.S. Navy Unveiled the Location of a Nuclear-Armed Submarine

The United States Navy's Ohio-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines remain a key component of the nation's nuclear triad and serve as a nuclear deterrent. The warships are often spoken/written about – yet rarely seen. As part of the "Silent Service," the submarines spent much of their patrols under the sea, with their locations rarely disclosed.

However, on back in June, the U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa/U.S. 6th Fleet posted on X – the social media platform formerly known as Twitter – to announce that USS Tennessee (SSBN-734) was operating in the Norwegian Sea, while the nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed sub was joined by the Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Normandy (CG-60) and P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft. In addition, an E-6B Mercury strategic communications plane was also reported to be flying over ahead.

The unusual disclosure--the submarine was surfaced and not under the waves operating in stealth--of the movements of any of the U.S. Navy's 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines is already highly unusual. However, the fact that an E-6B jet – one of the Navy's 16 modified Boeing 707s that serves as an airborne strategic command post and like the U.S. Air Force's E-4B is often known as a "doomsday plane" – makes it especially noteworthy.

The "boomers" as the submarines are known can disappear for months at a time. That is exactly what they were designed to do, as the boats remain the most destructive weapon system employed by the U.S. military. Given that there are just 14 in service – along with four more modified Ohio-class subs that serve as cruise missile submarines (SSGNs) – revealing the location of any isn't something taken lightly.

Yet, since 2020, the U.S. has disclosed the locations as a reminder of the Ohio class's destructive capability.

"Any decision to highlight the presence of one of these submarines, which are key components of America's nuclear deterrent arsenal and typically keep well out of sight while deployed, inherently sends a message to potential adversaries, such as Russia," TheWarZone reported.

So why did NAVEUR-NAVAF offer up the location of the SSBN-734?

The most likely answer is that it was a direct response to the Russian Navy's deployment of the guided-missile frigate Admiral Gorshkov and the Yasen-M-class nuclear-powered guided-missile submarine Kazan to the Caribbean earlier in June. The Russia flotilla – which also included the replenishment tank Academic Pashi and a tug boat Nikolay Chiker – made a rare port-of-call visit to Havana, Cuba, at the time

In addition, the Russian Navy had been conducting drills in the Mediterranean, involving its missile cruiser Varyag following another port visit to the Libyan city of Tobruk. The cruiser, which also took part in joint exercises with the Egyptian Navy, is quite far from her home port, as she is the flagship of the Russian Navy's Pacific Fleet.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. 

From the Vault

Russia Freaked Out: Why the U.S. Navy 'Unretired' the Iowa-Class Battleships

Battleship vs. Battlecruiser: Iowa-Class vs. Russia's Kirov-Class (Who Wins?)