You are here

Diplomacy & Crisis News

Russia and China Freaked: 12 Navy Arleigh Burke-Class Destroyers Get 'Extension'

The National Interest - Mon, 04/11/2024 - 13:17

What You Need to Know: The U.S. Navy announced plans to extend the service life of a dozen Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, aiming to keep these aging ships operational for up to 48 additional ship-years from 2028 to 2035.

-The decision, announced by Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro, seeks to maintain fleet numbers while newer vessels are produced, though it comes with a projected cost of $6 billion over 15 years.

-As the Navy phases out less successful programs like the littoral combat ships, these veteran destroyers will serve a critical role in global power projection and defense amid a constrained budget environment.

U.S. Navy to Keep a Dozen Arleigh Burke-class Destroyers in Service

It wasn't meant to sound the least bit scary or ominous, but perhaps Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro should have reviewed the calendar on Thursday. Announcing that the Department of the Navy plans to operate a dozen " Arleigh Burke-class (DDG-51) Flight I destroyers beyond their 35-year expected service life" sounds questionable at any time, but doing so on the day of spooks and horrors almost seems like a portent for the worst to happen.

"The decision, based upon a hull-by-hull evaluation of ship material condition, combat capability, technical feasibility and lifecycle maintenance requirements, will result in an additional 48 ship-years of cumulative ship service life in the 2028 to 2035 timeframe," the U.S. Navy said in a statement while confirming this is really about keeping up the size of the fleet.

In the past year, the sea service had reportedly "conducted a thorough evaluation of each DDG-15 Flight ship," and then determined that a dozen "should remain operational," despite the ship's reaching the end of their respective planned service life. The Navy added that the selection was also based on maximizing the service life before any of the warships will require additional "extensive and costly docking availability."

The U.S. Navy is looking to keep the aging warships in service and as cost-effectively as possible, Del Toro suggested.

"Extending these highly-capable, well-maintained destroyers will further bolster our numbers as new construction warships join the Fleet," said Secretary Del Toro. "It also speaks to their enduring role in projecting power globally, and most recently in the Red Sea, their proven ability to defend themselves, as well as our allies, partners and friends from missile and drone attacks."

Yet, keeping the aging ships, which have a 35-year service life, won't be free.

"We expect a total cost estimate of $1.3 billion across the FY26 FYDP and $6 billion over 15-years," a spokesperson for Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro told USNI News. "On average, it will cost about $139.6 million per ship [per] year."

More Players On the Field

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti's NAVPLAN had called for the sea service to "get more ready players on the field," and the aging destroyers are those players in this case – but it could be seen to be more about keeping old and tired players on the field instead.

"Today's budget constrained environment requires the Navy to make prioritized investments to keep more ready players on the field," said Adm. Franchetti. "The Navy is actively pulling the right levers to maintain and grow its Battle Force Inventory to support the United States's global interests in peace and to win decisively in conflict."

The following Arleigh Burke-class destroyers will remain in service:

USS Barry (DDG-52) USS The Sullivans (DDG-68) will see their service extended by three years; USS Gonzalez (DDG-66), USS Cole (DDG-67), USS John Paul Jones (DDG-53), USS Paul Hamilton (DDG-60), USS Curtis Wilbur (DDG-54), USS Laboon (DDG-58), USS John S. McCain (DDG-56) and USS Stout (DDG-55) will each receive five-year extensions; and USS Carney (DDG-64) and USS Stethem (DDG-63) will each receive one-year extensions.

Not noted in CNO or Secretary Del Toro is how the U.S. Navy has already begun to decommission its littoral combat ships (LCS), even as new models were produced. Along with the Zumwalt-class destroyer program, the LCS has been a hole in the water that the U.S. Navy has thrown taxpayer money into, and as the service is pinching pennies to pay for its next-generation warships, today's sailors will be forced to service on vessels that are getting long in the tooth.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

Marine Corps Could Use 'Old' Stinger Missiles Against China in a War

The National Interest - Mon, 04/11/2024 - 13:10

What You Need to Know: The U.S. Marine Corps is adapting the FIM-92 Stinger missile, traditionally used to down aircraft, for anti-amphibious roles in preparation for a potential conflict with China.

-In recent joint drills with the Philippine military, Marines deployed Stingers from coastal positions to target landing crafts, showcasing the weapon’s versatility.

-Given the potential need to defend Taiwan against a Chinese amphibious assault, the Marines are rethinking coastal defense strategies.

-The updated Stinger, equipped with a proximity fuse for counter-drone operations, demonstrates effectiveness against amphibious targets, adding a new layer to the Marine Corps’ coastal defense capabilities.

U.S. Marines Adapt Stinger Missiles for Anti-Amphibious Warfare Against China

The U.S. Marine Corps is getting ready for a war with China by testing some old weapons in new roles.

As part of this testing, Marine infantry companies are using the FIM-92 Stinger anti-aircraft missile—the weapon responsible for Russia’s “Vietnam” in Afghanistan in the 1980s—against amphibious targets.

The FIM-92 Stinger in New Roles

A war with China would most likely erupt over a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. And an invasion of Taiwan would require one of the largest amphibious operations in modern times. So, the Marine Corps is working on its anti-amphibious warfare capabilities to defend against Chinese landings.

As part of a recent counter-landing drills with the Philippine military, the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) tested the FIM-92 Stinger against incoming landing crafts and amphibious infantry fighting vehicles.

The shouldered-fired FIM-92 Stinger isn’t designed to take on landing craft and boats but rather to shoot down helicopters and fighter jets.

The Marines were set up in holes close to the beach in a layout similar to those of their forefathers in World War Two. However, today’s battlefield presents more threats. A Chinese invasion force, for example, would very likely use one-way attack drones ahead of the landing forces to soften up the beach and take out threats. There are countermeasures and ways to protect against such threats, but the danger is there.

“Today, Philippine and U.S. Marines are integrating our respective emerging doctrines for coastal defense and counter-landing operations,” U.S. Marine Corps Lt. Col. Nicholas Freeman, commanding officer of Battalion Landing Team 1/5, 15th MEU, said about the counter-landing exercise.

In terms of targets, the Marines fired against dummies on the water, landing several hits, and thus showcasing that the FIM-92 Stinger can indeed be effective in a counter-landing role.

“We’re training to maneuver and mass effects to attrite, block, fix and destroy a force that attempts to land. Here, Philippine guides would bring in our forces to rapidly establish an area defense of this landing site. Our engagement area would extend from the beach's exit routes out to the launch points for enemy landing craft, with a plan for fires integrating both Philippine and U.S. Marine weapons systems,” Freeman added.

According to Raytheon, the manufacturer of the FIM-92 Stinger, the portable anti-aircraft missile has more than 270 verified kills, including fighter jets and helicopters, to its credit. As far as targets, the Russian military remains the FIM-92 Stinger’s favorite adversary, with most of the 270 kills racked up against the Soviet and Russian forces in Afghanistan and Ukraine. The Ukrainian forces are using the missile profusely to deny the Russian Aerospace Forces control of the skies over the battlefield.

The FIM-92 Stinger has been in service since the 1980s but remains a reliable anti-aircraft weapon system and quite dangerous to low-flying aircraft. Raytheon has equipped newer versions of the missile with a proximity fuse that allows the munition to explode when it is close to a target rather than when it strikes it, thus making it ideal for counter-drone operations as well.

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.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and Shutterstock. 

$6,000,000,000 Navy Aircraft Carrier 'Sunk' By $100,000,000 Diesel Submarine

The National Interest - Mon, 04/11/2024 - 13:01

U.S. Navy Aircraft Carriers Are in Trouble: In a 2005 war game, the USS Ronald Reagan, a $6 billion aircraft carrier, was "sunk" by the Swedish submarine HMS Gotland, a relatively low-cost, diesel-powered vessel.

-Using quiet, Stirling engines instead of conventional loud diesel engines, the Gotland slipped past advanced U.S. defenses, scoring multiple virtual torpedo hits and evading detection.

-This exercise underscored the vulnerability of expensive, high-tech assets to quieter, low-tech adversaries.

-The U.S. Navy responded by leasing the Gotland to better understand the weaknesses it exploited, realizing that defense spending does not always equate to invulnerability.

Lessons Learned: The Swedish Submarine That Exposed U.S. Aircraft Carrier Vulnerabilities

During war games in 2005, the $6 billion-plus USS Ronald Reagan was sunk. By whom? A single, relatively low-tech, diesel-powered Swedish submarine — the HMSM Gotland. 

In the exercise, the Gotland was able to sneak past the Ronald Reagan’s passive sonar defenses, land multiple virtual torpedo hits, sink the carrier, and leave without a scratch. 

The U.S. Navy had deployed an entire carrier strike group, which included destroyers, helicopters, and aircraft, all tasked with hunting for, and defending against, threats like the Gotland. The Swedish submarine should not have stood a chance, yet it evaded detection and scored a fatal blow against a superior adversary. 

Popular Mechanics explains how: 

“It’s all thanks to a very old-school engine. Instead of using its diesel to power an internal combustion engine (which is quite loud, what with the explosions and all), the Gotland-class sub instead uses highly optimized Sterling engines, not unlike what you might find as a desk toy, but considerably more high tech. These exceedingly quiet engines are used to charge batteries which in turn can directly run the engines. The result is a sub that’s quieter than any other diesel, and even quieter than its nuclear cousins which require a constant churn of coolant that can give away their position.”

Indeed, most modern navies rely on diesel submarines instead of nuclear submarines, because diesel subs are significantly cheaper. The drawback, typically, is that diesel subs are noisier, slower, and can only operate for a few days at a time without surfacing.

Gotland-Class: The U.S. Navy Reacts

The U.S. Navy was concerned to learn that a small Swedish submarine was able to sink an aircraft carrier with a nine-figure price tag. But the Navy leased the Swedish submarine and worked to address the vulnerabilities the Gotland had exploited. 

The sub only cost about $100 million — roughly the cost of two F-18 Super Hornets. If a $100 million machine could sink a $6 billion machine, then the U.S. is not getting a very healthy return on its defense investment.

In theory, the defense spending advantage that the U.S. enjoys over its chief rivals, China and Russia, would not ensure military superiority or even relative safety. 

Some have speculated that in real-world conditions, the Reagan would have been able to use its 30-knot top speed to evade successive torpedo strikes.

But that theory remains untested. And even one or two torpedo strikes could have served to force the carrier out of action and back to port for a lengthy and expensive repair process.

The simple fact that the Gotland served to demonstrate is that bigger and more expensive isn’t always better. A mosquito can kill a human. A submarine can kill an aircraft carrier. And sometimes, old-school tech has advantages over newer technology.  

About the Author: Harrison Kass

Harrison Kass is a prolific defense and national security writer with over 1,000 published pieces. 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.

Image Credit: The main image is of a Brazilian aircraft carrier being decommissioned. 

The Best NATO Is a Dormant NATO

Foreign Affairs - Mon, 04/11/2024 - 06:00
Less reliance on America would yield a stronger alliance and a safer Europe.

How Autocracy Prevailed in Tunisia

Foreign Affairs - Mon, 04/11/2024 - 06:00
Any future democratic renewal will depend on an entirely new movement.

The Perfect Has Become the Enemy of the Good in Ukraine

Foreign Affairs - Mon, 04/11/2024 - 06:00
Washington must redefine its objectives.

The growing threat of nuclear escalation in Ukraine-Russia conflict

Foreign Policy Blogs - Sun, 03/11/2024 - 17:18

During a conference at the Paris Business School on October 30th , 2024, prominent experts and politicians gathered to discuss the growing threat of nuclear escalation in the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia. Amid increasing concerns over the worsening geopolitical tensions, attendees warned of the risk of nuclear war between NATO and Russia, with almost all nuclear deterrence agreements between the U.S. and Russia currently suspended.   The conference was opened by Professor Frédéric Encel ,the chair of the conference who introduced the debate. Msgr. Vittorio Formenti, an influential representative of the Vatican, spoke out strongly against the dangers of nuclear war, recalling the horrors of Hiroshima. Formenti emphasized Pope Francis’s call for peace, warning of the devastating consequences of war and stressing that dialogue is the only path to a sustainable solution.   Jeffrey Sachs: Ukraine crisis fueled by NATO expansion   American economist Jeffrey Sachs then took the floor, arguing that NATO’s eastward expansion has played a significant role in the conflict. Sachs stressed that direct negotiations between Washington and Moscow are essential to prevent further escalation. He warned that the economic impact of the Ukraine conflict is already taking a severe toll on Europe, with an estimated $10 trillion projected to be spent on defense in the EU over the next decade.   Manel Msalmi on the impact on women and children   Manel Msalmi, president of the European Association for the Defense of Minorities, highlighted the effect of the war on women and children, who make up the vast majority of refugees fleeing Ukraine. She called for protecting their rights and warned that further escalation could have devastating consequences for future generations. Msalmi noted that recent statements by Ukrainian President Zelensky which show his concern about the difficult situation in his country, could be misinterpreted as encouraging escalation and the need to advocate for diplomatic solutions.   Gaidz Minassian and Gerard Chaliand: different perspectives, shared call for peace   French political scientist Gerard Chaliand, winner of the 2024 PUFF Geopolitical Book Prize, voiced sharp criticism of European leaders who he believes are blindly following U.S. strategy mainly Biden administration. He argued that a peace solution is not only inevitable but urgently needed. Gaidz Minassian from Le Monde offered a different view on the origins of the conflict and stressed the fact that Russia is the aggressor and the EU needs to support Ukraine but joined the call for diplomatic solutions in order to avoid further escalation.    An urgent call for peace and stability   The Paris conference highlighted the growing danger of nuclear conflict resulting from the war in Ukraine and underscored diplomacy and dialogue as the only solution. The influential speakers left no doubt about the need for international cooperation to prevent further escalation and ensure a safe future.   Paris, Ukraine, Conflict, Diplomacy, Nuclear Threat   Experts and politicians in Paris sound the alarm over the threat of nuclear war and call for urgent diplomatic efforts.

The Radar War

Foreign Policy Blogs - Fri, 01/11/2024 - 16:18

A phenomenon was noticed during the Second World War that certain shapes affected the ability for early radar to detect aircraft. When considering the material of the aircraft, it was also noticed that non-metallic materials like wood added to the reduced detection by radar. While this effect was not utilised in any major way until the science was applied to prototypes during the 1980s, it was a continuation of a long standing rivalry between aircraft and anti-air technologies throughout the Cold War.

One of the most well known rivalries of the early Cold War came from a famous incident where an SA-2 Anti-Aircraft missile was able to shoot down an American U-2 Spy Plane over the Soviet Union in 1960. The U-2 was designed to fly over enemy airspace at extremely high altitude, where most aircraft and anti-aircraft missile systems could not hit the U-2. While it was assumed that the radar could see the U-2, it was believed that the missile could not reach the aircraft. To their surprise, the SA-2 was able to reach the spy plane and knock it down, proving that even early missiles could eliminate aircraft hiding well above the target.

The SA-2 would earn much of its added fame by terrorising American attack aircraft over Vietnam in the 1960s and into the 1970s. Special “Wild Weasel” missions were formed in order to distract the SA-2 radar operators from targeting the bombers by using trained pilots to encourage the SA-2’s to fire at them in their more well equipped planes. These planes often used electronic jamming equipment along with piloting skills to evade SA-2 missiles, later using an anti-radar “Shrike” missile that tracked the radar beam from the SAM radar site. The next systems to be presented were the SA-3 Goa and SA-6 Kub systems, used in the Middle East conflicts of the 70s and early 80s, they were eventually met with the first drones that added non-lethal targets to the radar screen with the intent to deplete the 3-missile launchers of the SA-6’s mobile firing units.

Stealth technology during the 1991 Gulf War enabled the first F-117 bombers to succeed in their missions without any losses. It was surprising that just a few years later, one F-117 was shot down by an older SA-3 Goa missile over Yugoslavia. Stealth was designed to not go above a missile shield nor to go through it rapidly at low altitude, but as a means to cloak an aircraft from detection. If a radar cannot lock on a plane, a missile cannot be launched to intercept the target, and the attacking plane has a better chance at eliminating the radar site at closer range. Stealth did not make the planes invisible at all ranges however, and repeat tactics likely could lead to the loss of an advanced aircraft.

So what have we learned about the recent Radar War from the lessons of the Cold War and the loss of the F-117? Much like the past generations of missiles, new improvements to Stealth technology from the F-117 to F-22, B-2 and F-35 have been competing with more powerful radars that are designed to detect the detectable Stealth aircraft at closer ranges. The modern “Shrike”, or anti-radar missiles currently match or exceed S-300 and S-400 Missile detection and firing distances when Stealth is able to close the range of the massive radar site for the S-300 sites. While the S-300 and S-400 can likely see an F-35 coming, it likely has difficulty in locking on to the target so a missile could destroy an F-35. This is not only due to the F-35’s stealth design and materials, but because of electronic countermeasures and powerful radars as well as assistance from conventional planes, decoys and drones in the mission process. This information of course has not been made fully public, but it is likely the case that other hacking, electronic interference and intelligence assets also burdened the latest S-300 units before they were neutralised. Interceptor aircraft are also used of course, but their missiles will also have a reduced firing range against a Stealth intruder, with the F-35 having speed as another valuable asset in its suite of capabilities.

It is not clear where the next evolution will come from, but it looks to involve drone and missile swarms that are already being challenged by newer systems. The use of AI and more powerful radars will outpace human operators of many of these systems. A Vietnam Shrike situation taking out the radar crew may become less likely as systems become more spread out and automated. As older systems prevail in many regions, overburdened and under-trained operators may become the perpetrators of negligence, as seen in the downing of two civilian airliners, one over Ukraine and another over Iran in the last few years. Energy weapons have entered the battlefield as well, but not at the distances current missiles have been able to achieve. The only assurance is that new technology is always being developed.

The Price of Principle Is Dwarfed by the Cost of Capitulation in Ukraine

Foreign Affairs - Fri, 01/11/2024 - 14:00
What’s at stake in Kyiv’s fight for freedom.

Israel Brings Its Gaza Strategy to Lebanon

Foreign Affairs - Fri, 01/11/2024 - 05:00
Hezbollah is not Hamas—and diplomacy could still work.

Xi Jinping’s Axis of Losers

Foreign Affairs - Fri, 01/11/2024 - 05:00
The right way to thwart the new autocratic convergence.

Why China Won’t Give Up on a Failing Economic Model

Foreign Affairs - Thu, 31/10/2024 - 05:00
Beijing might see short-term gains—but ignores the risk of long-term pain.

A Woman in the White House

Foreign Affairs - Thu, 31/10/2024 - 05:00
If Harris wins, her gender would have more than symbolic significance.

How America Can Succeed in a Multialigned World

Foreign Affairs - Wed, 30/10/2024 - 05:00
The importance of building truly global partnerships.

The Least Bad Option for Lebanon

Foreign Affairs - Wed, 30/10/2024 - 05:00
Modest American diplomacy is the best way forward—for now.

Swiss Peace Forum on Karabakh Must Be Two-Sided

Foreign Policy Blogs - Tue, 29/10/2024 - 14:05

It was recently reported in the media that Switzerland seeks to hold a Peace Forum on Karabakh, which will discuss the plight of the Armenians who left their homes after the Second Karabakh War and the subsequent military operation.   According to the reports, the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Swiss Federal Assembly passed a resolution mandating a peace forum in a year to initiate an open dialogue between the Azerbaijani government and the Armenians of Karabakh.

“The aim is to facilitate an open dialogue between Azerbaijan and representatives of the Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians, conducted under international supervision or in the presence of internationally relevant actors, in order to negotiate the safe and collective return of the historically resident Armenian population,” reads the text of the motion submitted to the Swiss parliament by the foreign affairs commission of the National Council.   The motion’s justification mentions that Nagorno-Karabakh has been emptied of its Armenian population since Azerbaijan’s last military advance in September 2023. 

“Fearing another genocide like that perpetrated against the Armenians in 1915, the historical population was forced to leave their homeland within a few days. The region has since experienced documented ethnic cleansing: Armenian cultural heritage, such as churches, monasteries and cemeteries, is systematically destroyed or reinterpreted with fake historical documents under the guise of “renovation”. Despite these serious developments, the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh maintain their desire to return to their homeland under security guarantees from the international community, to determine their own political future and to exercise democratic self-government.”

However, the peace forum is one-sided.  It does not discuss the plight of the close to one million Azerbaijanis who were ethnically cleansed from their homes and forced to live as refugees.  During my seven visits to Azerbaijan, I visited a displaced persons camp outside of Baku, where I met with Azerbaijanis who were forced from their homes in Karabakh.  Today, inside the refugee camps, they live in squalor without air conditioning in the summer, hoping and praying that they can return to their homes in Karabakh, which were destroyed by the Armenians and found booby-trapped with landmines.

The Swiss peace forum does not discuss the Azerbaijani mosques and cultural heritage sites that were destroyed and left in ruins during thirty years of Armenian occupation.   During my two trips to Shusha and two trips to Aghdam, I found cities that lay in ruins due to Armenia’s brutal ethnic cleansing campaign.  I also saw cemeteries, mosques, historic landmarks, and numerous homes that were reduced to rubble.   While on a recent trip to Zangilan, I saw that Azerbaijan rebuilt the mosque that was destroyed, while the remnants of what was remained to bear witness to what the Armenians did to that mosque.  But the Swiss ignore these inconvenient facts. 

Rather, their resolution only discusses the damage to Armenian cultural heritage and the plight of Armenian settlers, who fled after the Azerbaijanis reclaimed Karabakh and the seven Azerbaijani districts in accordance with four UN Security Council resolutions.  As someone who has been to Karabakh five times, I must say that the damage that was done to Armenian cultural heritage sites pales in comparison to what was done to Azerbaijani cultural heritage sites.  I saw an Armenian church in Shusha with mild damage to the roof during the war, and when I was there, the Azerbaijanis were in the process of fixing it up.   Compare that with mile after mile of cities and villages that lay in ruins due to Armenia’s ethnic cleansing campaign against one million Azerbaijanis who lived in Karabakh and the seven adjacent Azerbaijani districts.  

In the eyes of many Azerbaijanis, this makes this peace forum one-sided and violates Switzerland’s otherwise neutral foreign policy.  If the Swiss wish to be true impartial mediators, they must discuss the plight of refugees on both sides and the horrific conditions of cultural heritage sites that were destroyed on both sides.   Otherwise, they cannot be considered to be an impartial negotiator.    Therefore, Switzerland must also give respect to the plight of one million Azerbaijanis that were expelled from their homes in the First Karabakh War and the destruction the Armenians did during their thirty year occupation, and only discuss what Azerbaijan did afterwards in this context.   Otherwise, they are fueling the conflict rather than resolving it.   

The Covert War for American Minds

Foreign Affairs - Tue, 29/10/2024 - 05:00
How Russia, China, and Iran seek to spread disinformation and chaos in the United States.

Notes on the THAAD System

Foreign Policy Blogs - Mon, 28/10/2024 - 15:00

This graphic shows how the THAAD system is networked via fiber optic cables to its various components to detect, identify, and engage an incoming missile. The THAAD missile, called an interceptor, has no warhead or explosives. Instead, it uses “kinet… (Photo Credit: U.S. Army)

After over 500 ballistic missiles demonstrated a historic threat to city centres and thoroughly established a Causus Belli, the United States’ responded to future threats by erecting a THAAD site in the Middle East. In past conflicts, a significantly smaller SCUD threat in the 1991 Gulf War was a large factor in establishing a coalition of willing powers to challenge tyranny in the region. With ballistic missiles being a known threat during the Second World War via V-2 rockets, it has only been a recent phenomenon where a defence against such threats even exists. Even during the 1991 Gulf War, early Patriot missile systems were largely ineffective in intercepting SCUD missiles, despite the SCUD being significantly older technology and in a lot smaller numbers. A notable strike on US personnel in Saudi Arabia showed there was little defense against the SCUD if the launchers were not intercepted within minutes of the missile being made ready to fire. The invention of THAAD came from the motivation to have missile interceptors protect allied forces as well as innocent civilian populations as promised in 1991. With that technology finally becoming active, missile interception systems closely belongs to the era of the 2020s.

The THAAD system was mostly known previously for its deployment and political tension created around it in the Pacific region. With North Korea continuously demonstrating the range of their ballistic missile programs, THAAD was proposed to be introduced in Asia at the protest of China’s Government. THAAD is designed to target long range, high altitude rockets and intercept them in the upper atmosphere. THAAD would protect America itself from a massive attack, often eliminating large warheads that are designed to create a lot of area damage, but also could carry chemical and nuclear warheads. THAAD, if successful, would mirror Reagan’s Star Wars system, eliminating missiles at the highest arc of their trajectory, except being based on the ground. THAAD would work however, whereas Star Wars was a proposal well beyond the technology of its time.

Despite there being versions of Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) systems surrounding Moscow since the 1960s, there were no confirmed successful uses of these systems in combat until recent more modern missile systems demonstrated they could target and eliminate other active missiles. During the War in Ukraine, older ballistic missiles like the OKA were able to beat out more modern S-300, SA-11 and SA-15 systems designed to knock missiles out of the sky. Only the most modern missile systems are able to knock out Russian missiles, with a spotty success rate at best. THAAD will likely be more active in the region soon, and a true test of its capabilities will be established. The ability of THAAD to coordinate missile defense with other systems is significant, as the THAAD radar is extremely powerful and able to detect missiles being fired from across the entire Middle East.

The THAAD system may have a weakness if it is not coordinated and connected to smaller defensive missile systems/Anti-Air systems that can protect the THAAD site and radar from smaller missile and drone threats. Bleeding THAAD and other expensive and complicated systems of their missiles was experienced in Ukraine as Russia used low cost drones to drown the radar detection with multiple targets and use up crucial missiles that are needed against high speed targets, as opposed to slow, inexpensive drones and missiles. The THAAD system therefore should only be used for its main purpose, and other systems need to be married to it for its own defense and a proper long term layered defense of the protected territory. Taking out a THAAD or something claimed as equivalent like a Russian S-400 system is a significant victory, as it shows that the territory cannot be protected and a new strategy needs to be initiated and installed, a task that can take a large amount of time in a difficult and ever expanding conflict. Suffering a missile barrage, even if defended successfully, allows the enemy to better target vital resources and civilians the next time around, and requires a defensive capability along with offensive action. The result of failures has already demonstrated the brutality of conflict when missile defense is relied upon too much and a military becomes complacent in war.

Azerbaijan Responds to Recent Dutch Resolutions

Foreign Policy Blogs - Thu, 24/10/2024 - 16:00

The Dutch Parliament has passed two fresh biased resolutions against Azerbaijan, a strong ally of the United States.  These two resolutions were passed after the Dutch Parliament recommended that the government support Armenia in every possible way, particularly in the context of the “seizure of Karabakh,” a resolution that was heavily criticized in Azerbaijan

The first fresh resolution states: “Considering that the Azerbaijani army attacked Nagorno-Karabakh (again! – Ed.) in September 2023, causing almost the entire population to flee to Armenia and not yet return to their homes, and also because Azerbaijan is destroying Armenian cultural heritage in the region… We call on the government to take action to protect Armenian cultural heritage, both under the 1954 Hague Convention and within the framework of UNESCO.”

The second resolution states: “that “obstacles (to the peace process – Ed.) still exist, including Azerbaijan’s continued detention of Armenian prisoners of war.” The resolution calls on the Dutch government, along with other European countries, to intensify pressure on Azerbaijan to expedite the release of all Armenian “prisoners of war.”

Following the parliamentary initiative, a representative of the executive branch—Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp—also expressed support for these resolutions during his speech. He called for the release of individuals associated with the former separatist regime and terrorists arrested by the Azerbaijani side, framing them as “prisoners of war.”

I have visited Karabakh five times and the only significant destruction of cultural heritage that I witnessed was that of Armenians destroying Azerbaijani cultural heritage.    I saw the ruins of Aghdam, where 100,000 people used to live in the Soviet period.  I saw the ruins of the historic Bread Museum, which used to house a loaf of bread that was preserved by Soviet soldiers dating from the Second World War. All that remains of that museum is a half-destroyed mural. I saw tombs dating from the Karabakh khanate, a world heritage site which were partially destroyed. I saw a mosque, which until recently housed pigs and goats, and was used as an Armenian watch tower. And I saw the remnants of a cemetery, where all of the bones were thrown away, with the tombstones and gold teeth in the graves being sold for use in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

I was in Shusha and saw a destroyed Azerbaijani palace, a destroyed bank, and destroyed government offices.  All of Shusha, the capital of Azerbaijani music and poetry, was essentially ruins, after the Armenians controlled the area for thirty years and literally lived among the ruins, not rebuilding anything.     I saw a monument to Soviet soldiers that was destroyed in the city of Sultanya.    I saw a ruined mosque in Zangilan, which was recently rebuilt but the ruins were preserved as a memorial to Armenia’s crimes against humanity.   Mile after mile, I saw destroyed agricultural fields, ruined homes and other cultural heritage sites, and many mosques that lay demolished or disrespected in cruel ways.   In contrast, I saw that the Azerbaijanis only caused mild damage to a church in Shusha, which they rushed to fix.   Yet, the Dutch Parliament is silent on all of this destroyed cultural heritage. 

They only care about the few churches that accidently got damaged in the fighting and that Azerbaijan imprisoned some Armenian separatists, like Ruben Vardanyan, a Russian oligarch of Armenian ethnicity close to Putin who committed crimes against Azerbaijanis.   Just as the West wants to see Israel release Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists in exchange for freeing the hostages, so does some Western countries like the Netherlands wish to see terrorists with Azerbaijani blood on their hands set free.      

The Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry stated in its response: “It is regrettable that the aforementioned documents and expressed opinions completely ignore the fact of military occupation that was once perpetrated against our country, the ethnic cleansing of the Azerbaijani population, and the ongoing territorial claims of the Armenian side against Azerbaijan.”

This is major double standard on the part of the Netherlands: “The colonial past of the Netherlands is marked by the enslavement and exploitation of numerous peoples in Asia, Africa, and the Americas, along with numerous crimes committed against them. As they expanded their colonial empire through brutal tactics, the Netherlands consistently prioritized profit over human rights. A significant portion of the Netherlands’ development is built on the plundered national wealth of enslaved countries. Therefore, the statement from the Netherlands—who continue to keep various peoples around the world in a state of dependency—that they are making efforts to overcome the severe consequences of their own colonial history should be viewed as hypocrisy,” stated the Milli Majlis of Azerbaijan.

The Baku Initiative Group (BIG) has announced its invitation to the Parliament of the Netherlands to urge the government to put an end to the crimes occurring on the islands of Bonaire, Sint Maarten, Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Eustatius, and Saba. The group also called for the establishment of an investigative commission to hold accountable those responsible for past and ongoing crimes. Additionally, the Group urges the European Union to support the creation of a relevant body under the UN Human Rights Council to oversee criminal activities in these territories and facilitate forwarding recorded cases to other UN bodies. “We urge you to support initiatives against colonial crimes at the international level and back the activities of the Baku Initiative Group,” BIG stated.

 

Evolving Urban Conflicts

Foreign Policy Blogs - Thu, 17/10/2024 - 16:45

The QN-506, a low cost option mirroring the BMPT Terminator may become the pre-AI standard in Urban Combat.

 

What would have been a simple narrative of popular sci-fi games just three short years ago, urban combat has become a mixture of traditional anxiety mixed with modern horrors on the battlefield. The Geo-political environment is asking for more of these conflict in urban environments, characterised by high losses and brutal victories at the best of times. While there has been little development of new and innovative arms or equipment in urban warfare from the Second World War into the Vietnam War, the last few major conflicts in urban situations gave rise to new concepts of protection and firepower via hard lessons in combat.

The Soviet experience in Afghanistan as well as Russian losses in the Chechen Wars was a lesson in armour support. While the traditional method of bringing tanks into an urban situation required accompanying soldiers to protect tanks and armour, the use of and development of a dedicated anti-personnel armour vehicle became a necessity. Anti-air systems like the ZSU-23-4 Shilka were stripped of their radar and used in a direct fire role against high angled targets in the mountains of Afghanistan. Despite this lesson, urban combat in Chechnya resulting in the loss of many Russian armoured vehicles, despite the past lessons of using the Shilka against high angled targets.

The era that approached the 2010s still required a proper system for protected urban combat, even after a generation of slow developments by urban warriors fighting in Iraq and extended fighting in Afghanistan. An independent system/assault drone was still out of reach, but was demonstrated in the movie Robocop in 2014. The classic ED-209 from the 1980s Robocop films was re-imagined and put in the role of urban combat droid, a concept that will likely be seen in the near future as a method to avoid casualties in urban combat.

When the War in Ukraine began, one of the most fear combat systems possessed by Russian Forces approaching Kyiv was the BMPT Terminator. Based on a modified T-72 hull and chassis, the mass produced T-72 was used with an updated unmanned turret to create a modern urban combat vehicle that utilised large reserve stocks of older classic T-72 hulls. Added protection to the T-72 enabled the crew of 2 to be buttoned up inside of the protected hull, while the active turret was controlled remotely. The turret consisted of an arsenal of weapons to suit an urban environment, notably two cannons from the BMP-2, machine guns, anti-tank missiles and other useful sensors to repel assaults from high angles above or from protected shelters. The BMPT Terminator was a manned version of something seen in sci-fi movies, with technology that could be developed into a BMPT that could perhaps be unmanned in the future. The Uran-9 concept was just that, a unmanned ground attack drone that is likely still in development today.

While systems like the Uran-9 require a new manufacture and design, the idea of using older T-72 hulls for a new system like the Terminator may become a solution for the ever dwindling armour stockpile being ground through in the War in Ukraine. The old Soviet stockpile being used by both Russia and Ukraine in combat is often not destroyed by other tanks, but by artillery, drones, and personnel using anti-tank weaponry. While the T-72s are being ripped apart on the battlefield, Russia possesses many T-55 hulls in storage from the mid-Cold War period with cannons that are not effective against modern armour on the battlefield. If these systems could be re-imagined for urban combat, they might provide an easily accessed and rapid solution for either army fighting in towns across Ukraine and Russia.

The idea of putting a modern system on an old and well stocked hull was attempted by China already with their QN-506 vehicle, China’s “Terminator” concept. The PLA’s copy of the Soviet T-54, the Type 59, is part of the same design family as the T-55, and is the basis for the QN-506 urban combat vehicle. While this system did not sell well on the international market when it was first presented, it was a concept that was meant as a option for countries who possessed the older T-55/Type 59 hulls to have a modern urban combat platform for their military. The QN-506 also had a single cannon like an M2 Bradley, but in an unmanned turret like the BMPT. The QN-506 also had a series of smaller rockets, anti-tank missiles, and its own drone, along with sensors and equipment to serve in an urban combat environment. While the concept did not sell well as few short years ago, such a system will likely be effective in urban conflicts where no such system alternatives exist at the moment. This low cost alternative will be the best option for many militaries, as traditional tanks have several drawbacks as experienced in Grozny, warfare that is increasingly urban and based on developing AI technologies. While conflicts grow, more of these systems will find their place in those battles. It is just a matter of time before we see an ED-506 perhaps, as losses of AI equipment can easily be replaced.

Pages