Diplomacy & Crisis News

It started with dung-filled balloons and spiraled from there.

Summary and Key Points: During the Cold War, the U.S. and its allies supported anti-communist nations, while the Soviet Union backed pro-communist regimes. This dynamic continues today, with the West aiding Ukraine, prompting Russia to threaten reciprocal military support to anti-Western nations.

-At the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Security Council Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev hinted at supplying weapons to regions hostile to Western interests.

-Despite these threats, Russia's capacity to provide such aid is hampered by sanctions and its own military needs, making these statements likely more saber-rattling than serious threats.

Russia Threatens to Arm Anti-Western Nations in Response to Ukraine Aid

During the Cold War, the United States and its Western allies provided weapons and support to anti-communist nations, while the Soviet Union and her satellite states provided similar support to foster the spread of communism. Beginning with 1947's Truman Doctrine, Washington vowed to "provide political, military and economic assistance to all democratic nations under threat from external or internal authoritarian forces."

Today the West continues similar support to nations such as Ukraine, a fact that has received condemnation from Moscow, which now has vowed to provide its own military aid to nations and regimes that aren't so friendly to NATO, the U.S. and its allies.

According to a report from Russian state media outlet Tass, this week at a meeting with the heads of international news agencies at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF), Russian President Vladimir Putin acknowledged that the Kremlin was considering how to respond to the Western aid provided to Ukraine. That could include supplying "similar weapons" to regions where "painful strikes" could be carried out on Western targets.

Russian Security Council Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev – who previously served as president of Russia – echoed Putin's comments.

"This marks quite a significant change in our foreign policy," explained Medvedev. "This is what the Yankees and their drooling European dogs think: we have the right to send any weapons to Ukraine but no country can help Russia.

"Now let the US and its allies feel the direct impact of the use of Russian weapons by third parties," Medvedev added. "This could be anyone who considers Yankeeland as their enemy, regardless of their political beliefs or international recognition."

Specific nations weren't named, but the Russian Security Council deputy chairman went on to suggest that if a nation is an "enemy" of the United States, "then they are our friends," and would possibly be provided weapons and other military aid.

"And let the use of Russian weapons in the so far unidentified 'regions' be as devastating as possible for their and our adversaries. Let 'the sensitive facilities of countries providing weapons to Ukraine' burn in hellfire, along with those who operate them," Medvedev said. "As for us, we will rejoice in the successful strikes involving our weapons against our common enemies."

Empty Promise Or Serious Threat?

Even as Moscow has seen its position among the international community deteriorate since it launched its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Russia continues to maintain support with nations around the world including China, Belarus, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria, Myanmar, Eritrea, Pakistan and Kazakhstan.

What aid Russia can actually send remains an issue, as international sanctions have resulted in it struggling to produce military hardware for its own needs. In addition, some former clients – notably India – have been slowly turning away from Moscow.

Moreover, while the Kremlin is directly involved in a conflict in Ukraine, the West is largely not engaged in any full-blown fighting. Though Medvedev could be seen to suggest that various nations could strike at U.S. interests, it would be foolish to believe Tehran, Havana, or Pyongyang would follow through even with prodding. Such a regime would be unlikely to survive for long.

Thus, Putin's and Medvedev's words should be seen as mere saber rattling, while their blades are simply old and rusty.

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: Shutterstock. 

Summary and Main Points: Turkey, which maintains one of Europe’s largest tank fleets, is set to modernize its armored force with the Altay main battle tank (MBT).

-The Turkish Defence Industry Agency (SSB) announced that serial production of the Altay will begin earlier than expected, with the first tanks entering service in 2024.

-The Altay, based on South Korea’s K2 Black Panther, features a domestically designed powerpack system and advanced protection systems.

-Equipped with a Rheinmetall 120mm L/55 smoothbore gun, the Altay is designed to meet Turkey’s self-sufficiency goals in arms production.

-Turkey is also exploring export opportunities for the Altay MBT.

Turkey’s Altay Tank: Modernizing Europe’s Largest Tank Fleet

NATO member nation Turkey maintains one of Europe’s largest fleets of tanks. According to figures from Global Firepower, the Turk Kara Kuvvelleri (Turkish Land Forces) maintains an arsenal of 2,622 tanks—but many are older models, dating back to the Cold War. Efforts to modernize its armored force have picked up.

The Turkish Defence Industry Agency (SSB) announced on May 29 that serial production will begin on its Altay main battle tank (MBT), a year earlier than originally expected.

“We are moving to serial production of the Altay tank,” SSB president Haluk Görgün told public broadcaster TRT Haber, per Janes. “There are countries that want to work with us on this internationally, and we are continuing our negotiations with them.”

The Turkish military received its first two prototype Altay MBTs from BMC Defense for testing in April 2023 and is now on track to enter service with the Turk Kara Kuvvelleri sometime next year.

Honoring a Hero of Turkey

The indigenously developed and produced Turkish MBT was named to honor General Fahrettin Altay—whose surname meaning red horse or colt was given to him by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the Turkish Republic. Altay served in the Gallipoli and Palestine campaigns during World War I and was a cavalry commander during the Turkish War of Independence.

The Altay MBT is based on South Korea’s K2 Black Panther but was further designed and developed to meet the needs of the Turk Kara Kuvvelleri. It is equipped with a domestically designed powerpack system. Ankara sought to create the powerpack—which encompasses both the engine and transmission system—and other subsystems to reduce the reliance on foreign technology, but to further strengthen Turkey’s self-sufficiency in arms production, Defense and Security Monitor reported.

Its main armament is a Rheinmetall 120mm L/55 smoothbore gun, while second weapons included a 12.7mm (.50 caliber) commander’s machine gun and a 7.62mm coaxial machine gun. It is reported to be able to carry forty 120mm rounds of various types for the main gun.

The Altay is also outfitted with a number of advanced protection systems that help the survivability of the crew, including advanced armor with CRBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear) protection, and a C3I (command, control, communications, and intelligence) system, as well as a fire-extinguishing and explosion suppression system. In addition to a laser warning system and battlefield target identification system, the Altay is further equipped with the Aselsan’s Örümcek 360-degree situational awareness platform that was BMC Defense first unveiled in March 2023.

The Turkish MBT will be operated by a crew of four that includes a commander, driver, gunner, and loader. The tank is on the heavier side, weighing about 71 tons. However, it is capable of reaching a maximum speed of 70 km/h (43 mph), with an operational range of 500 km (310 miles).

While designed to meet the needs of Turk Kara Kuvvelleri, Ankara will explore export options for the Altay.

“We are very strong as a country in the ground vehicle industry,” added Görgün. “We have several companies that export abroad. All their products have advantages that can compete with their global counterparts.”

About the Author: 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.

Main image is of Altay tank. Others are of K2 Black Panther that helped inspire the Altay tank. Image Credit: Shutterstock. 

Summary: Supercavitating torpedoes, which use a cavitation bubble to reduce drag and achieve high speeds, are operated by Russia, Iran, Germany, and not the U.S.

These torpedoes have a distinctive nose to create the bubble and often use rocket propulsion to maintain high speeds. Russia's VA-111 Shkval, in service since 1977, is a prime example, reaching speeds up to 290 mph. Iran's Hoot, believed to be reverse-engineered from the VA-111, can reach 220 mph but has a limited range of six miles.

Despite their speed, supercavitating torpedoes have a shorter operational range compared to conventional torpedoes like the U.S. Mark-48.

Two of America’s primary foes, Russia and Iran, possess a supercavitating torpedo.

As the name suggests, a supercavitating torpedo uses supercavitation to move through the water at higher velocities than conventional torpedoes. Supercavitation is the use of a cavitation bubble to reduce drag. 

Supercavitating Torpedoes, Explained

The bubble forms at the nose of the object – in this case, a torpedo – and extends past the aft end of the object. It prevents contact between the sides of the object and the liquid medium through which it passes. The separation that the bubble creates between the object (torpedo) and the liquid (ocean water) significantly reduces skin friction drag, allowing the object to achieve higher speeds. 

Supercavitating objects typically feature a distinctive nose, with a sharp-edged perimeter designed to produce the bubble. The nose is often articulated and shaped like a flat disk or cone. The body of the supercavitating object is typically slender – all the better to be enveloped in a cavitation bubble.

If the bubble created is not long enough to encompass the entire object, high-pressure gas can be injected near the object’s nose to extend the bubble. 

Rocket propulsion is often used to sustain the high speeds needed to achieve supercavitation. Various methods can be used to maneuver a supercavitating object, including: differential thrust from multiple nozzles; vectoring rocket thrust through a gimbaling single nozzle; a tilted object nose; gas injected asymmetrically near the object’s nose to distort the bubble’s geometry; and drag fins that can project through the bubble into the surrounding liquid. 

Reverse-Engineered Supercavitation

The Soviets started experimenting with supercavitating torpedoes in the 1960s. Russia's current flagship model is the VA-111 Shkval, which has been in service since 1977. The VA-111 is launched from a 533mm torpedo tube and relies on a solid-fuel rocket to achieve cavitation speeds.

A combined-cycle gas turbine in the nose creates the gas bubble. Once the VA-111 has achieved the requisite speed, an underwater ramjet, fueled by hydroreactive metals that use seawater, helps keep the torpedo humming at speeds of 230 miles per hour. Some reports suggest the VA-111 is even capable of reaching 290mph, and that the Russians may be working to develop a model capable of exceeding 350mph. The VA-111 uses four fins to change direction.

Russia jealously guards its supercavitating technology. In 2000, a U.S. citizen named Edmond Pope was convicted of espionage related to information he gathered about the VA-111. Pope, a former U.S. naval officer turned businessman, was said to be spying on behalf of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency. He was sentenced to 20 years, but after being held for 253 days, Pope was pardoned on humanitarian grounds by newly elected Russian President Vladimir Putin: The U.S. government claimed that Pope had a rare form of bone cancer. Pope has always maintained his innocence.

Iran operates a supercavitating torpedo, too, the Hoot (which is Persian for Whale). Most industry experts agree that Iran reverse-engineered the VA-111 to create the Hoot, which has been in service since 2006. Apparently, the torpedo can reach speeds of 220mph, but it only has a six-mile operational range. Iran claims to have successfully test-fired their supercavitating torpedo from a surface ship in the Strait of Hormuz.

Despite their advanced speeds, supercavitating torpedoes are limited in range to under 10 miles. Conventional torpedoes, like the American Mark-48, can travel 24 miles. 

About the Author

Harrison Kass is a prolific defense writer with over 1,000 published articles. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, he joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison holds a BA from Lake Forest College, a JD from the University of Oregon, and an MA from New York University. He lives in Oregon and listens to Dokken.

Image Credit: U.S. Navy or Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The F-35, a fifth-generation stealth fighter, is typically lauded for its advanced features and precision capabilities.

-However, the F-35 also boasts impressive versatility through its "Beast Mode" configuration, where it shifts from stealth operations to carrying a substantial payload of 22,000 pounds of ordnance on internal and external hardpoints.

-This mode allows the F-35 to deliver significant firepower after establishing air superiority, enhancing its multi-role functionality.

-This adaptability justifies the hefty $1.7 trillion program cost by enabling the F-35 to serve effectively in various phases of conflict, including prolonged engagements.

The F-35 is typically perceived as a graceful and refined fighter, created with advanced features emphasizing concealment and surgical precision. The common perception is grounded in truth; indeed, the F-35 is a fifth-generation stealth fighter, built to house software that enhances network connectivity and data sharing. But the common perception discredits the F-35 for its versatility – and for its ability to “roll up its sleeves.”

Remember, the F-35 is a multi-role fighter, and when prompted, can be reconfigured as a straightforward, knuckle-dragging, bomb-carrier. The reconfiguration is known as “Beast Mode.”

All Out Flight 

Designed with stealth technology, the F-35 is adept at entering contested airspace, avoiding detection, and engaging enemy targets – all before air superiority is established. Really, the F-35 is designed expressly to initially establish air superiority. And because the F-35 is designed to be stealthy, concessions were made with respect to weapons payloads. To enhance its stealth characteristics, the F-35 uses an internal weapons bay, rather than external hard points that drastically increase an aircraft’s radar cross-section. While the internal weapons bay makes for a stealthier airframe, the storage space, inside the fuselage, is limited. 

F-35 Stealth or Carry: Enter Beast Mode 

In stealth mode, when the F-35 carries weapons internally, the jet can handle just 5,700 pounds of ordinance. That breaks down to either four AIM 120 AMRAAM missiles (for air-to-air missions), or alternatively – for hybrid missions – two AMRAAMs paired with two GBU-31 JDAM bombs. That’s not very much firepower – but the concession is worthwhile to gain stealth benefits. 

However, once air superiority is established, once an enemy loses its anti-air systems such as air defense missiles and guns, sensors, interceptor aircraft, stealth mode becomes less relevant. And when stealth loses its relevance, the F-35 can enter “Beast Mode,” and use its external hard points to maximize its firepower.

In Beast Mode, the F-35 can handle four times more ordinance than when operating in stealth mode. Using the external hardpoints plus the internal weapons bay, the F-35 can carry 22,000 pounds of ordinance. That breaks down to 14 AMRAAMs and two AIM-3x Sidewinder missiles for air-to-air missiles.

Or, for hybrid missions, the jet can be outfitted with two AMRAAMs, two Sidewinders, and six JDAM 2,000-pound bombs. Indeed, the boost in firepower is significant – although, in Beast Mode, the F-35’s operational range is cut in half – to just 1,400 kilometers. 

Something may feel counterintuitive about using the F-35, a fifth-generation jet/supercomputer, as a simple bomb truck – a role that clunkier, Cold War-era aircraft, like the F-16 or B-52, are entirely equipped to handle. Yet, when you consider that the F-35 program cost taxpayers 1.7 trillion dollars, the notion of using the jet just to secure air superiority in the opening salvo of a conflict becomes offensive. 

If you’re going to spend that type of money on an airframe, you’d better milk it for all it’s worth – a sentiment that the Beast Mode configuration embodies. And for the U.S., which has a tendency to invade countries with rudimentary air defense systems – and then stick around for multi-decade occupations – the F-35 needs to be able to do more than just sneak around and wipe out air defense systems in the first few days of conflict. 

About the Author

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The Iowa-class battleships, launched during WWII, are iconic symbols of U.S. naval power. Four ships—USS Iowa, USS New Jersey, USS Missouri, and USS Wisconsin—served in major conflicts from WWII to the Gulf War.

-Armed with nine 16-inch guns and renowned for their speed and firepower, these battleships were critical in various naval operations.

-The USS Missouri famously hosted Japan's surrender in 1945.

-All four ships are now museum exhibits, with USS Iowa located in Los Angeles Harbor, offering a glimpse into their storied past.

Exploring the Storied History of the Iowa-Class Battleships

Here's a fact you will appreciate:  I've actually toured the USS Iowa (BB-61) on multiple occasions.

The Battleship USS Iowa Museum in Los Angeles Harbor/San Pedro has been open to the public since 2012, and it is a tour I highly recommend.

My personal friend Andrew Silber, now-retired former proprietor of the delightful Whale & Ale British Pub and Restaurant in San Pedro—a superb choice of venue for vittles and refreshments after you finish your ship tour—was one of the key local community leaders responsible for helping to bring the Iowa Museum to the Harbor.

Having said all that, let’s look at the history of this iconic battleship class:

The Berth, er, Birth, of the Battleships

The Iowa-class battleships trace their origins back to 1939 and 1940, i.e. before the bombing of Pearl Harbor crippled the U.S. Navy’s older pre-existing battleship fleet. Designed to meet the “escalator clause” of the Second London Naval Treaty via their 16-inch main guns and 45,000-long-ton standard displacement – though they actually ended up slightly overweight at 47,825 long tons – they were intended to intercept fast capital ships such as the Imperial Japanese Navy’s (IJN) Kongō class whilst also being capable of serving in a traditional battle line alongside slower battleships and act as its "fast wing.”  A total of four such vessels were built:  Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri (“The Mighty Mo”), and Wisconsin.

These big beasts carried nine of those aforementioned 16-inch guns – divvied amongst two turrets, fore and one aft – which could lob a 2,700-pound (1,225 kg) shell over a distance of 23.4 nautical miles (43.3 km). They are 860 feet (262.13 m) long at the waterline and 887 feet 3 inches (270.43 m) long overall with a beam of 108 feet 2 inches (32.97 m), and a Class A armor belt 12.1 inches (307 mm) thick.

Iowa-Class - As a Quick Aside

Interestingly enough, the Iowas never got to test their mettle against Japanese battleships or battlecruisers. The reason: only two WWII battleship-to-battleship engagements pitting the USN against the IJN involved other battleship classes: (1) the USS Washington BB-56), a North Carolina-class battleship which sank the Kirishima during the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal on 15 November 1942; and (2) the Surigao Stait phase of the Battle of Leyte Gulf, when Rear Admiral Jesse Oldendorf “crossed the T” of Vice Admiral Shōji Nishimura’s fleet, resulting in the sinking of the latter admiral’s battleships Fusō and Yamashiro – though the Fusō was sunk by destroyer torpedoes before the American BBs could get in their licks.

It was also an act of sweet revenge for Pearl Harbor, as out of the six U.S. battleships that participated—West Virginia, Maryland, Mississippi, Tennessee, California, and Pennsylvania—all except Mississippi had been sunk or damaged at Pearl and subsequently repaired or rebuilt, which goes to prove the old saying the payback is a … battleship (yeah, that’s it). 

To this day, many seapower buffs love to hypothesize who would win in a “what-if” battle between the Iowas and the IJN’s biggest gun (as in 18-inchers) Yamato and Musashi. 

A Piece of the Action…and Hosting a Sweet Surrender

Nonetheless, the Iowa-class behemoths still saw more than their fair share of combat action, from the Pacific Theater of WWII to Korea to Vietnam to Lebanon to Iraq. The overwhelming majority of these involved provided naval gunfire support (NGFS) against enemy shore batteries and installations (including on the main Japanese home island of Honshū), although the USS Iowa herself did have the satisfaction of engaging in at least one surface ship-to-ship battle, sinking the light cruiser Katori – with a loss of all hands, 315 officers and enlisted sailors – off of the island of Truk on 17 February 1944.  

Arguably the biggest claim to fame for any Iowa-class warship was the Missouri’s hosting of the signing of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender on 02 September 1945, thus enabling the Iowa class to get the proverbial last laugh against Hideki Tojo. 

The Iowas’ last hurrah—indeed the last combat action for any battleship class—occurred during Operation Desert Storm in 1991, when the Wisconsin and Missouri combined to fire 1,078 16-inch shells at Iraqi targets. A somewhat amusing additional accomplishment during this same conflict occurred when some of Saddam Hussein’s troops surrendered to the Mighty Mo’s Pioneer UAV during the initial shelling on 24 February 1991, as it spotted targets for the mighty battlewagons—history’s first recorded surrender to a drone on a battlefield.

Iowa-Class - Where Are They Now?

Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri, and Wisconsin were decommissioned for the final time in 1990, 1991 1992, and 1991 respectively. All have since been converted to museum ship status; besides the Iowa museum already mentioned at the beginning of this article, New Jersey is berthed in Camden, NJ (appropriately enough), Missouri at Pearl Harbor, and Wisconsin in Norfolk, VA. The latter three are definitely bucket list items of mine.

About the Author

Christian D. Orr is a former Air Force officer, Federal law enforcement officer, and private military contractor (with assignments worked in Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kosovo, Japan, Germany, and the Pentagon). He has also been published in The Daily Torch and The Journal of Intelligence and Cyber Security.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: Germany is set to bolster its air force by purchasing 20 additional Eurofighter Typhoons from Airbus, as announced by Chancellor Olaf Scholz.

-This acquisition, valued at approximately 2 billion euros ($2.2 billion), enhances Germany's defense capabilities and ensures Airbus's production lines remain active through 2032.

-The Luftwaffe currently operates 138 Eurofighters, which serve as a key component of its combat fleet. In addition, Germany will receive 35 Lockheed Martin F-35A fighters starting in 2027.

-Germany is also collaborating with France and Spain on the Future Combat Air System (FCAS), a sixth-generation fighter project expected to be operational by the early 2040s.

Germany Expands Air Force with 20 More Eurofighter Typhoons

The Eurofighter Typhoon has taken Europe by storm, and on Wednesday, German chancellor Olaf Scholz announced that the Luftwaffe will purchase an additional twenty Eurofighters from maker Airbus. Berlin has greatly increased its defense spending as a result of Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Scholz has been committed to maintaining and expanding Germany’s arms production capacity, a point he made in a speech at the opening of the ILA air show outside of Berlin.

“That is why we will order 20 more Eurofighters before the end of this legislative session—in addition to the 38 aircraft currently in the pipeline,” the German leader remarked, according to a report from Reuters.

The price tag for the additional Eurofighter Typhoons has been put at around 2 billion euros ($2.2 billion), and in addition to helping enhance Germany’s military capabilities, the acquisition will ensure that Airbus will be able to keep its production lines running through 2032, extending it by at least two years—and that is without additional outside orders.

The German Luftwaffe operates 138 Eurofighters. The single-seat, all-weather multirole combat aircraft serves as the backbone of its combat aircraft fleet and can be used in both air defense and ground attack roles.

“They are a core element in ensuring the future contribution of the Air Force to the required armed forces capability profile and to the associated Alliance commitments,” explains the German Bundeswehr website. “Thanks to its ability to conduct network-enabled operations, the Eurofighter can be used in close cooperation both with German air, land and naval forces and those of military Alliance partners.”

F-35s Also Coming

In addition to the Eurofighter order, the German Luftwaffe is also on track to receive a total of thirty-five Lockheed Martin F-35As—the conventional takeoff and landing variant of the Joint Strike Fighter—with the first of those aircraft now scheduled to arrive in 2027.

It was reported last month that production of the German F-35s will occur at Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth, Texas, factory instead of the Final Assembly Check Out facility in Cameri, Italy.

Looking Beyond the Eurofighter and F-35

Even as Berlin is going all-in with the Eurofighter Typhoon and F-35 Lightning II, Germany is already working with France and Spain on the Future Combat Air System (FCAS)—believed to be a manned or at least optionally-manned sixth-generation fighter and supporting unmanned aerial systems.

Details about the FCAS remain sparse, but the current timeline doesn’t call for the new fighter to enter service until at least the early 2040s. The program has faced a number of setbacks, including infighting among the countries involved. That fact helps explain why Germany is now adopting additional Eurofighters with advanced features, while France remains committed to the updated Dassault Rafale.

About the Author: 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 and Shutterstock. 

Summary: The U.S. Navy is advancing its capabilities by developing hypersonic anti-ship cruise missiles through the Hypersonic Air-Launched Offensive Anti-Surface (HALO) program.

-Contracts have been awarded to Raytheon and Lockheed Martin to create these missiles, which could be launched from surface ships, submarines, and potentially even land.

-The HALO missile is expected to surpass current options like the Harpoon and Tomahawk in speed, range, and effectiveness, providing a significant boost in naval strike capability.

-This initiative aims to enhance the Navy’s readiness for potential conflicts in the Indo-Pacific and counter advances by Russia and China in hypersonic technology.

U.S. Navy’s New HALO Program to Develop Hypersonic Anti-Ship Missiles

The U.S. Navy is advancing its capabilities by developing hypersonic anti-ship cruise missiles through the Hypersonic Air-Launched Offensive Anti-Surface (HALO) program.

Contracts have been awarded to Raytheon and Lockheed Martin to create these missiles, which could be launched from surface ships, submarines, and potentially even land.

The HALO missile is expected to surpass current options like the Harpoon and Tomahawk in speed, range, and effectiveness, providing a significant boost in naval strike capability.

This initiative aims to enhance the Navy’s readiness for potential conflicts in the Indo-Pacific and counter advances by Russia and China in hypersonic technology.

The U.S. Navy is developing hypersonic anti-ship cruise missiles that could be deployed from surface ships, submarines, and jets. “This would give Navy surface and subsurface fleets an entirely new category of naval strike capability,” The War Zone reported.

The U.S. is working to catch up with Russia and China, who already have working hypersonic missiles, and to prepare for the possibility of a naval-based conflict in the Indo-Pacific.

Ship-Launched Anti-Ship Missiles

The Navy initiative in question is known as the Hypersonic Air-Launched Offensive Anti-Surface program, or HALO. Contracts were awarded to Raytheon and Lockheed Martin in early 2023. The firms will compete to see who can create a better product.

Program specifics are a well-guarded secret, although the common understanding is that ramjet or scramjet engines will propel the new missiles. The Navy’s fiscal year 2025 budget request hinted at further details about the HALO program:

“HALO will be a carrier-suitable, higher-speed, longer-range, air-launched weapon system providing superior Anti Surface Warfare capabilities…HALO will address advanced threats from engagement distances that allow the Navy to operate in,  and control, contested battle space in littoral waters and Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) environments.”

The Navy may be offering an overly rosy projection of what the HALO missile can accomplish. But without question, a hypersonic anti-ship missile would be a considerable asset once added to the Navy’s inventory, offering an upgrade over the existing Harpoon munition.

The Harpoon is a dedicated anti-ship missile capable of operating within a range of 75 miles. Tomahawk cruise missiles, which have a 1,000-mile range, can also be used for anti-ship purposes when needed. But the HALO program should substantially augment the Navy’ anti-ship missile capabilities.

In addition to the HALO, the Navy is also working on the Naval Strike Missile (NSM), a stealth option with a 100-mile range to be outfitted on the Littoral Combat Ship; and the multi-purpose SM-6, with a maximum range of about 230 miles. 

Of the Navy’s existing anti-ship missiles, the Harpoon is preferred. But HALO will expand the Navy’s strike options.

“HALO would therefore give Navy ships and submarines a new way to strike at an opponent’s ships rapidly, even at extended ranges,” The War Zone reported. “The weapon’s hypersonic speed would also present complications for shipboard defenses and just generally reduce the time enemy forces have to react.”

Air, Land, and Sea

If the HALO project can be configured to fire from surface and subsurface vessels, perhaps it can also be adapted to fire from land. The U.S. Army and Marine Corps would probably be interested in a land-based HALO option. The Marine Corps already uses land-based Tomahawks and NSMs, while the Army and Navy use Tomahawks and SM-6s.

The Air Force, meanwhile, is working to develop its own hypersonic cruise missile. Its Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile will “hold fixed, high value, time-sensitive targets at risk.”

About the Author: Harrison Kass 

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

Image Credit: The main image is from RTX. All other images are from the U.S. Navy. 

Summary: The U.S. Navy's VX-9 "Vampires" squadron is responsible for testing new weapons and systems before they are deployed on Navy aircraft.

-Recently, an F/A-18E/F Super Hornet from VX-9 was spotted carrying a RIM-176 Standard Extended Range Active Missile (SM-6), raising speculation about new capabilities.

-The SM-6, which has a range of up to 250 nautical miles, was originally designed for anti-air and anti-ship missions.

-If integrated with Super Hornets, it could significantly extend the strike range of U.S. carrier groups, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region.

-This development suggests the Navy is exploring advanced warfare capabilities for its aircraft.

Navy’s VX-9 'Vampires' Testing New SM-6 Missile on F/A-18 Super Hornets

The aviators of the United States Navy's Air Test and Evaluation Squadron Nine (VX-9) "Vampires" could be described as the sea service's platform testers. Before most new systems make their way to the Navy's aircraft, they're put through various rigors with the pilots and ground crews of VX-9.

According to the U.S. Navy, the squadron "conducts operational test and evaluation of all air-to-ground weapons, air-to-air weapons, sensors, electronic warfare systems and mission software upgrades to aircraft and weapon systems. More than 350 VX-9 Vampires maintain and fly a diverse fleet of approximately 20 aircraft used in the demanding and dynamic role of operational flight test, supporting both Navy and Marine Corps tactical aviation."

In other words, they'll be the ones who will determine whether certain weapons and other systems will be employed by U.S. Navy warbirds when it isn't just a test!

Among the aircraft currently operated by VX-9 is the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, and one of those warbirds was spotted in April carrying a RIM-176 Standard Extended Range Active Missile (ERAM) – also known as the Standard Missile 6 (SM-6) – near Naval Air Weapons Station (NAWS) China Lake. Photos of the Super Hornet carrying the SM-6 were shared by photographer @StinkJet via a post on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.

As Defence Blog reported, the sighting has raised questions about the potential new capabilities of the F/A-18 Super Hornet, as the SM-6 was originally developed by Raytheon as an extended range anti-air warfare (ER-AAW) platform that can be employed against fixed and rotary-wing aircraft, drones and as an anti-ship cruise missile. It has been integrated with the U.S. Navy's Aegis Combat System.

It is estimated that on the low end, the SM-6 has a range of 130 nautical miles (240 km), while higher estimates such it could reach a target from a distance of up to 250 nautical miles (463 km). An air-launched variant would be certainly welcome for carrier strike groups (CSGs) operating in the Indo-Pacific, where China has sought to introduce weapons that would force carriers to operate much further out.

According to Naval News, the SM-6 employs an X-band receiver that provides guidance – meaning it would work with an F/A-18E/F AN/APG-79 or F-35C AN/APG-81 AESA radars is possible. It further suggested that a forward-based F-35C – the carrier-based variant of the Joint Strike Fighter – could be employed to guide the SM-6 to target after it is launched by a Super Hornet from a safe distance, as the F/A-18E/F already can communicate fire control data via the Naval Integrated Fire Control–Counter Air (NIFC-CA) datalink system.

That is still just a matter of speculation.

Moreover, this is not the first time that photos have circulated online showing the F/A Super Hornet possibly putting the SM-6 through the motions. Another image made the rounds in 2021, and it would seem that the U.S. Navy seems very interested in extending how far its Super Hornets could sting.

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 Shutterstock. 

Washington has been making a series of bad assumptions that trace back 30 years.

India’s prime minister will balk at needing allies to stay in power, but coalition rule has proved to have benefits for large democracies.

Summary and Key Points: Houthi rebels recently claimed to have struck the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in the Red Sea using unmanned aerial vehicles, a claim denied by U.S. Central Command.

-The incident is part of a broader disinformation campaign by the Iran-backed group, which has been targeting international shipping in retaliation for U.S. and UK military actions against them.

-Supported by Iran, the Houthis have increased their attacks in strategic waterways, posing significant risks to global trade and regional stability.

-Despite the claims, there is no evidence that the USS Eisenhower or any U.S. vessel was hit.

Houthi Rebels' False Claims: No Hit on USS Dwight D. Eisenhower

Houthi rebels claimed they achieved a “direct hit” on a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Red Sea over the weekend. 

A spokesman for the Iran-backed militant group said Houthi forces targeted USS Dwight D. Eisenhower with unmanned aerial vehicles on Saturday in retaliation for Israel’s ongoing military operation against Hamas in Gaza. 

Chinese and Iranian state-run media outlets circulated the rumor, publishing a clearly doctored photograph of the American ship on social media (we have compiled several example photos in this article). However, U.S. Central Command denies the claim. According to Voice of America, a CENTCOM official asserted that, “There is no truth to the Houthi claim of striking the USS Eisenhower or any U.S. Navy vessel,” adding that “This is an ongoing disinformation campaign that the Houthis have been conducting for months.”

The Houthis Continue to Barrage Ships in the Red Sea

Over the last few months, the U.S. and the United Kingdom have been carrying out frequent barrages against Houthi assets in the Middle East in an effort to further degrade the group’s capabilities. 

The Iran-backed militants continue to cause headaches in the Gulf of Oman and Red Sea, attacking international shipping routes frequently. Since the October 7 Hamas massacre in Israel, the Houthis have partnered with regional affiliates to strike vessels they claim are linked to the Jewish state and the West. From October to March alone, the Houthis carried out at least 60 attacks in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. 

How Iran Is Fueling the Conflict

In a direct response to these unwarranted barrages, UK and U.S. forces target Houthi assets and weapons depots in Yemen. The Houthis have embroiled Yemen in civil war since 2014 after they seized control of the country’s northern Sana’a province and forced out the government. The conflict evolved into a larger and quite lethal war. 

Just as the Islamic Republic supports Gaza-based Hamas terrorists via weapons transfers, funding, training and propaganda, so it also backs the Houthis in Yemen. Tehran is proficient in exploiting regional instability to exert control. As detailed by War on the Rocks, “They assemble these parts into working weapons with technical assistance from Hezbollah and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps advisers. This approach has allowed the Houthis to now field short and long-range drones and an increasingly diversified fleet of missiles capable of striking deep inside Saudi Arabia.” 

The Houthis’ increased barrages targeting ships in the Gulf of Oman are a dangerous escalation, according to U.S. officials. Approximately one-fifth of the world’s crude oil traded by sea passes through the Strait of Hormuz. The Iran-backed group knows it can interrupt the flow of the global economy using  lethal UAVs, missiles, rockets and other projectiles. The rebels may claim to only target ships linked to Israel, but the Pentagon has refuted this claim and provided evidence indicating the group also targets multinational ships. As explained by a Department of Defense spokesperson, “The Houthis continue to endanger commercial shipping that goes through that region, continue to put at risk U.S. forces, other countries’ forces in the region who want to see commerce continue to flow in a very crucial area in the Middle East.”

Although Houthi military spokesperson Yahya Saree claims that the Eisenhower was damaged in recent barrages, this narrative is clearly pure fiction. However, the militant group is well supplied with UAVs thanks to Iran, and eliminating the Houthis’ weapons depots should remain a top priority for U.S. and Israeli forces alike.

About the Author: Maya Carlin

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

Images of fake aircraft carrier attack via social media screenshots. 

Summary and  Key Points: The Admiral Kuznetsov, Russia’s sole aircraft carrier, has been plagued by persistent operational failures and extensive repairs, casting doubt on its future effectiveness.

-Originally launched during the Soviet era and designed to project power, the Kuznetsov has suffered from technical issues and accidents, including aircraft losses and fires.

-Despite these challenges, Russia claims it will rejoin the fleet soon.

-Historically, Russia's naval ambitions have faced setbacks, and the Kuznetsov’s troubled legacy highlights ongoing struggles.

Admiral Kuznetsov: Russia’s Troubled Aircraft Carrier Faces Uncertain Future

As Russia inches closer to commissioning its second Gerald R. Ford-class carrier, the gap in capabilities between Russian and Western naval power remains stark.

While the U.S. Navy is inching closer to commissioning its second Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier, Russia remains dependent on its semi-defunct Admiral Kuznetsov for sea-based power projection. Despite the former Soviet Union’s military prowess and development during the Cold War, the completion of robust aircraft carriers never came to fruition. Once the USSR collapsed in 1991, any hopes for the Soviet’s carrier aspirations came crumbling down. Due to poor planning and timing over the years, Russia possesses a singular aircraft carrier in its naval fleet. To make matters worse, Admiral Kuznetsov has proven to be a massive disappointment.

The history of Russia’s Navy:

Following the death of Peter the Great in the early 18th century, the Imperial Russian Navy sharply declined. In fact, between 1726-1730, only 54 ships were constructed. During the second half of this century, Russia saw an uptick in its naval development due to its domination of the Black Sea. By the turn of the 19th century, Russia’s progress on this front ramped up quickly. The Russian Navy became the second most powerful naval force across the globe at this time, second to the United Kingdom.

However, the naval might Russia possessed was soon nixed following the Russo-Japanese War, which resulted in a tremendous loss of Russian ships. To rectify this downfall, Tsar Nicholas II launched a hefty shipbuilding development program, which granted Russia a larger sea-based fleet than its Central Power enemies when the First World War broke out.

The trajectory of the Russian Navy would remain tumultuous for years to come. During the Russian Civil War, which would ultimately lead to the rise of the new Soviet Union, Russia’s naval fleet was completely weakened as a fighting force. With the Bolsheviks in charge, a renewed interest in building up the naval fleet was prioritized.

Although the USSR worked hard to quickly develop advanced battleships, destroyers, and cruisers around the WWI era, the U.S., Japan, and Great Britain pivoted toward adopted aircraft carriers. In a sense, the Soviets missed the boat on taking advantage of these years to build up their career potential.  

The rise of the Kuznetsov-class aircraft carrier

It wasn’t until the late 1930’s that aircraft carriers would be prioritized by the Soviets in one of Stalin’s five-year plans.

The “Project 71” class, however, was largely put on hold when the Second World War broke out. Over the next few decades, additional carrier class prototypes were introduced, yet they never came to fruition due to frequent changes in the country’s political leadership. By the mid-1980s, the push to develop a homegrown aircraft carrier was finally fruitful.

Admiral Flota Sovetskoho Soyuza Kuznetsov was constructed at Chernomorskiy Shipyard and officially launched by the middle of the decade. Initially, the ship was named Riga before being redesignated as Leonid Brezhnev, Tbilisi, and finally Kuznetsov over the years.

Kuznetsov was designed to be the lead ship of the Admiral Kuznetsov-class of aircraft carriers. However, when the USSR collapsed, Kuznetsov’s sister ship- Varyag- was not complete. The Kuznetsov became the sole carrier to sail for the new Russian Federation in 1991, serving as the flagship of its navy. In addition to helicopters, the Kuznetsov can carry an array of Sukhoi Su-33 and MiG-29 fighters. The carrier has a complement of a dozen long-range surface-to-surface anti-ship P-700 Granit cruise missiles, giving it its “heavy aircraft-carrying missile cruise” designation.

On paper, Kuznetsov displaces roughly 60,000 tons and can sail at speeds in excess of 30 knots. The carrier is also fitted with anti-submarine warfare capabilities. As detailed by Naval Technology, “The ship is equipped with an Udav-1 anti-submarine system with 60 anti-submarine rockets. Udav-1, supplied by the Splav Research and Production Association in Moscow, protects surface ships by diverting and destroying incoming torpedoes. The system also provides defence against submarines and saboteur systems, such as underwater vehicles. The system has ten barrels and is capable of firing 111SG depth charge projectiles, 111SZ mine-laying projectiles and 111SO diverting projectiles. The range of the system is up to 3,000m and the submarine engagement depth is to 600m.”

Despite these abilities, Kuznetsov has suffered from a litany of failures and mishaps over the years. In fact, Russia’s sole carrier has remained dry-docked for the better part of the last decade. During the carrier’s first-ever deployment to aid the government-backed forces in the Syrian Civil War in 2016, two aircraft were lost, partaking in carrier operations. Faulty arresting wires were reportedly to blame for losing one Su-33 and one MiG-29K.

Following these mishaps, Kuznetsov was rendered useless as the carrier ceased launching and landing airframes. In addition to this tragic deployment, Kuznetsov has suffered from many incidents onboard, including fires, falling cranes and deck holes.

Even if Kuznetsov sets sail again as the flagship of Russia’s Navy, the carrier is limited in its capabilities when compared to its foreign counterparts.

About the Author: Maya Carlin

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary: The Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, plagued by a history of technical failures and mishaps, has been out of service since 2017.

-Initially built in the Soviet era and intended for high-profile roles, the carrier's outdated mazut fuel system and subpar construction have led to operational issues, including a fatal fire and a crane collapse that caused significant damage.

-Despite Russian claims that Kuznetsov will return to service, its history of limited deployments and continuous setbacks suggests that retiring the vessel might be a more practical option.

Why Russia’s Admiral Kuznetsov Might Never Sail Again

Russia’s sole aircraft carrier should be relegated to the scrapyard.

For years, Admiral Kuznetsov has been dry docked undergoing frequent repairs. The ship’s history is marred with unfortunate events, causing some to refer to the carrier as a complete failure. From abysmal deployment performance to fire outbreaks and falling cranes, bad luck just seems to engulf the Kuznetsov. Russia’s carrier has remained out of service since 2017, however, state-run news outlets allege that Kuznetsov could re-commission with the fleet by the end of this year. Considering the ship’s history and Moscow’s tendency to over-exaggerate, this timeline seems murky at best.

The History of Russia's Admiral Kuznetsov Aircraft Carrier :

During the Cold War, Admiral Kuznetsov was designed to serve as the lead ship of the two-ship Admiral Kuznetsov class in the Soviet Navy. By the time the Soviet Union collapsed, however, the second planned ship- Varyag- was not fully constructed. Ultimately, Ukraine sold this incomplete carrier to China and it was commissioned as the People’s Liberation Army’s Liaoning. The carrier was built within the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic at Chernomorskiy Shipyard during the late 1980’s to early 1990’s. Initially, the carrier was named Riga, which was eventually changed to Leonid Brezhnev and later Tbilisi. It was not until 1990 that the ship was designated Admiral Flota Sovetskogo Soyuza N.G. Kuznetsov (shortened to Admiral Kuznetsov.

Specs & Capabilities

Admiral Kuznetsov has at least two dozen rotary-style vertical launch systems, with eight missile cells each. According to The Drive, these systems could potentially fire 192 SA-N-9 “Gauntlet” point air defense missiles, which would be instrumental in defending the carrier against anti-ship missiles, aircraft, and surface ships in wartime. Additionally, Russia’s sole carrier is fitted with several anti-submarine defenses with two UDAV-1 anti-submarine/anti-torpedo rocket systems.

While Western ships developed around this time typically used gas turbines or nuclear power for energy, Kuznetsov was conventionally powered by mazut. This fuel source is notoriously black and tarry, giving off a heavy and visible trail of dark smoke when used. For an aircraft carrier, this fuel source is subprime, considering enemy warships can view the mazut from miles away. To make matters worse, mazut is a particularly challenging fuel source that requires proper boiler and piping installations to ensure adequate preheating and pressurization. When the Kuznetsov was constructed, however, insufficient piping incorporated on the ship made it challenging for its boilers to operate at full capacity simultaneously.

In addition to its shoddy construction and difficult power source, the carrier has underperformed in its intended role. Over Kuznetsov's 30-year career, it has only been deployed one time. In 2015, Russia deployed its sole carrier to the Syrian coast as part of the Kremlin’s campaign in support of the government forces in the civil war. During this operation, both a MiG-29 and an Su-33 fighter jet were lost.

As detailed by USNI News, “A fighter assigned to the Russian carrier operating in the Eastern Mediterranean crashed during a landing approach on Sunday. The Mikoyan MiG-29K was part of a trio of MiGs that had sortied from Russian carrier Admiral Kuznetsov headed over Syria. At one point, for unknown reasons, one of the fighters turned back to the carrier and crashed while on approach to the carrier, the official said.”

Russian state-run media outlets also verified these claims, asserting that a “technical fault during the approach landing” was to blame for the two losses.

Following these mishaps, the rest of the airframes positioned on the carrier were moved to an airbase in Syria, essentially rendering the presence of the ship useless. This incident appeared to be the first of many unfortunate mishaps that would plague the aircraft carrier. In 2018, a floating crane fell onto the carrier’s deck, killing one worker and injuring several others. Since the crane opened up a 200-square-foot hole in the flight deck, it took some time for the wreckage to be cleared. While waiting to be delivered to dry dock, another incident occurred.

A fire caused by a welding error in the ship’s engine room killed two workers and injured more than a dozen others. Overall, the repair bill for this mishap alone ballooned to roughly $8 million. Kuznetsov has not been impervious to additional incidents since being relegated to dry dock, however.

In 2022, another fire erupted onboard. Alexei Rakhmanov, head of the United Shipbuilding Corporation, said that "All the relevant fire systems worked normally. There was no damage and no casualties.”

While the Kremlin claims that Kuznetsov will re-enter service with its naval fleet sometime this year, the prospects for this remain dim. In fact, Moscow may want to consider scrapping its sole carrier altogether.

About the Author: Maya Carlin

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary: The fighting in Ukraine's Donbas region sees slow Russian advances, but their large-scale offensive in the Kharkiv Oblast has failed, leading to heavy casualties and little strategic gain.

-The failed offensive, launched in May, has rallied international support for Ukraine and led to the deployment of advanced weaponry like HIMARS and ATACMS.

-Despite high casualties, with estimates of 320,000 to 515,000 Russian soldiers killed, wounded, or captured, the Kremlin continues to mobilize replacements.

-Russia’s attritional strategy involves costly, small-scale wave attacks, reflecting a focus on quantity over quality in its military operations.

Failed Russian Offensive in Kharkiv Sparks Increased Support for Ukraine

The fighting in Ukraine continues, with Russia making very slow but steady gains in the Donbas. Village after village, the Russian military advances forward. But that is not the case in the east, where a large-scale Russian offensive has failed to achieve anything meaningful at the cost of tens of thousands of casualties.

A Failed Offensive?

In May, the Russian military launched a large-scale offensive in the Kharkiv Oblast, in eastern Ukraine. The goal was to approach Kharkiv, the second-largest city in Ukraine and about 25 miles from the border with Russia, and also stretch the Ukrainian forces and their resources.

After several weeks of heavy fighting, it looks like that the offensive has failed. The Russian forces failed to make any meaningful progress, and Ukrainian counteroffensives have been liberating some of the territory lost. Currently, there are two large pockets of fighting but they are a good distance away from Kharkiv.

But the Russian offensive was a disaster on more than one level. Beyond the tactical and operational defeats, the failed offensive rallied international support for the Ukrainian cause and pushed the United States and several NATO countries, including Germany, to greenlight the use of long-range precision weapon systems against targets within Russia.

Now, the Ukrainian forces can use the advanced weaponry at their disposal, including M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS), M270 Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (MLRS), and MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS), against high-value targets inside Russia.

However, the Russian offensive in the east was also very costly in terms of casualties.

Russian Casualties in Ukraine are Massive 

In the few weeks that the offensive lasted, the Russian forces lost tens of thousands of troops and hundreds of heavy weapon systems.

Indeed, over the past 24 hours, the Ukrainian military claims to have killed, wounded, or captured approximately 1,300 Russian troops and damaged or destroyed around 63 tactical vehicles and fuel tanks, 51 artillery pieces and multiple launch rocket systems, 41 unmanned aerial systems, 40 infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, 22 main battle tanks, 7 pieces of special equipment, and 1 anti-aircraft weapon system.

Overall, the Russian casualties continue to rise and range between 320,000 to 515,000 men killed, wounded, or captured.

“The elevated casualty rate is highly likely a reflection of Russia’s ongoing attritional offensive which is being conducted across a wide front,” the British Military Intelligence estimated in a recent operational assessment.  

Although those numbers start to resemble those of the two world wars, the Kremlin has shown an impressive force generation capability. For every Russian soldier killed or maimed in Ukraine, Moscow finds two others to replace him.

“It is highly likely that most Russian forces receive only limited training, and they are unable to carry out complex offensive operations. As a result, Russia employs small-scale but costly wave attacks in an effort to weaken Ukrainian defenses,” the British Military Intelligence added.

Quality might be an issue, but the vast quantity that the Kremlin pours into the war covers any training deficiencies.

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.

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary: Northrop Grumman's X-29, developed during the Cold War to compete against Soviet fighters, is one of aviation history's most unique experimental aircraft.

-Introduced in the 1980s, it featured forward-swept wings, providing exceptional maneuverability and supersonic performance.

-The aircraft required advanced composite materials and a computerized fly-by-wire system for stability.

-Although only two prototypes were built and the program was eventually discontinued, the X-29's innovative design and capabilities left a lasting impact.

-Russia later attempted a similar design with the Sukhoi Su-47, which faced significant issues and was also shelved after producing just one prototype.

The X-29: Northrop Grumman's Revolutionary Jet with Backward Wings

Manufacturer Northrop Grumman may be best known for developing the F-14 fighter popularized by the blockbuster film Top Gun, however, the company is behind one of the most obscure experimental airframes in aviation history. In fact, the X-29 never even made it past its testing phase. This airframe was developed more than four decades ago, yet it remains a fan favorite for aviation experts. 

An overview of the X-29’s history

When the Cold War was heating up back in the 1970s, the U.S. military began seeking a dynamic fighter platform to better compete against the Soviet’s own aerial fleet.

The X-29 was submitted to fulfill this need, going up against the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon. When this prototype was introduced, it became the first airframe of its kind to feature forward-swept wings that made it appear as though they were installed backward.

Incorporating this unique feature was new. However, the concept driving it dated back further. Both the U.S. and Nazi Germany experimented with forward-swept wings during the Second World War. Like design issued that would persist to plague the X-29, these earlier conceptions were also flawed.

The X-29 notably achieved the ability to fly supersonically with this unique wing design.

As detailed by NASA – “The complex geometries of the wings and canards combined to provide exceptional maneuverability, supersonic performance, and a light structure. Air moving over the forward-swept wings tended to flow inward toward the root of the wing instead of outward toward the wing tip as occurs on an aft-swept wing. This reverse airflow kept the wing tips and their ailerons from stalling at high angles of attack (direction of the fuselage relative to the airflow).” 

NASA and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency collaborated to make sure the wing design functioned on the X-29. Advanced composite materials enabled the wing structures to be lightweight and rigid. While the X-29 was very agile even flying at fast speeds, it required a computerized fly-by-wire control system for stability.

More specs and capabilities:

The X-29 measured roughly 48 feet long and its unique wingspan stretched to just over 27 feet.

The fighter was powered by the General Electric F404-GE-400 engine, which produced 16,000 pounds of thrust.

Additional details surrounding the X-29’s specs were outlined by NASA:

“The aircraft had a maximum operating altitude of 50,000 feet, a maximum speed of Mach 1.6 and a flight endurance time of approximately one hour. The only significant difference between the two aircraft was an emergency spin chute deployment system mounted at the base of the rudder on aircraft No. 2. External wing structure is primarily composite materials incorporated into precise patterns to develop strength and avoid structural divergence. The wing substructure and the basic airframe itself are aluminum and titanium. Wing trailing edge actuators controlling camber are mounted externally in streamlined fairings because of the thinness of the supercritical airfoil.”

In the mid-1980s, the X-29 took its first flight from Edwards Air Force Base. Northrop Grumman’s Chief Test Pilot Chuck Sewell flew the airframe.

A second X-29 prototype flew two years later. In total, both aircraft were in the air 242 times between 1984 and 1991. The first X-29 to fly was relegated to display duties at the Research and Development Gallery of the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force on Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio.

The Second airframe found its way back to the Armstrong Flight Research Center on Edwards Air Force Base.

What about Russia's "copycat" X-29 fighter?

Roughly five years after the X-29s flew on their final missions, Russia debuted its own version of a fighter jet with forward-swept wings. This copy-cat airframe was designated the Sukhoi Su-47.

Like its American counterpart, the Soviet fighter has many issues. Without munitions, the Su-47 weighed a whopping 18 tons. This added pressure on its wings, which were already over-worked when flying high-speed movements. Two D-30F-11 turbojet engines powered the Soviet fighter, enabling the aircraft to fly at speeds of Mach 1.65, comparably slower than the U.S. X-29. 

 Ultimately, the experimental plane was nixed, and only one was ever built. 

About the Author: 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. You can follow her on Twitter: @MayaCarlin. 

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary: The B-47 Stratojet, the U.S.'s first jet bomber, was introduced in 1951, marking a significant transition in military aviation.

-Designed for high-altitude, long-range missions to deliver nuclear weapons, it featured advanced technologies like swept wings and powerful jet engines.

-Despite early issues with stability and maintenance, the B-47 became a pivotal aircraft in the Cold War, with over 2,000 units produced.

-Its role extended beyond its initial design, including electronic intelligence missions.

-The B-47 set the stage for subsequent jet bombers and represented a critical leap in U.S. strategic bombing capabilities.

The Forgotten Pioneer: The B-47 Stratojet’s Impact on Cold War Strategy

A slew of U.S. bomber aircraft have transcended the military community to become iconic weapons of war in the eyes of the general public.

The stable of World War II bombers, for example, like the B-17 Flying Fortress, B-24 Liberator, and B-29 Superfortress, which are typically associated with the liberation of Europe and Asia.

Then you’ve got the B-52 Stratofortress, a massive eight-engine brute that has been in service for seven decades without any plans for retirement.

But there were also machines that debuted in the small window between the iconic classes of U.S. bombers; after World War II but before the B-52 became a mainstay of U.S. aerial power. And generally, understandably, those bombers have been forgotten as relics of a transitional period in military technology.

But one such example is particularly important: the B-47 Stratojet, the U.S.’s first jet bomber. 

Research and Development of the Early Jet Bomber

The B-47 Stratojet was introduced in 1951 as a long-range, high-altitude, jet-powered strategic bomber. The B-47 was designed to avoid enemy interceptor aircraft and deliver nuclear weapons deep within the Soviet Union’s territory. 

In 1943, the U.S. Army Air Forces (USAAF) made an informal request for the design of a jet-powered reconnaissance bomber. Jet technology was sparkling new in 1943 and had not yet been applied to a bomber platform – but the merits of such an application were obvious. Several aerospace companies responded to the USAAF’s request, and began conducting research into jet bomber technology.

By 1944, the USAAF had formalized its request, asking for proposals for a jet bomber with impressive specifications: 550 mile per hour top speed; 450 mile per hour cruising speed; 3,500 mile range, and; 45,000 foot service ceiling. North American Aviation, Convair, Boeing, and the Glenn Martin Company each submitted proposals – and all four companies were awarded study contracts. NAA and Convair were asked to focus on four-engine designs – which would become the B-45 and XB-46 respectively. Boeing and Martin were asked to focus on six-engine designs – which would become the B-47 and XB-48 respectively.

Design Influence from German Aeronautics

In 1945, the Army Air Forces Scientific Advisory Board inspected a secret German aeronautics lab. Embedded with the inspection team was George S. Schairer, the chief of Boeing’s technical staff. During the inspection, the team found German airplane models incorporated something novel, something rumored but unconfirmed: swept wings. Extensive wind tunnel data confirmed that the swept wing design was quite effective. Urgently, Schairer wired back to Boeing.

“Stop the bomber design,” Schairer wrote. The new bomber, under development back home with Boeing, featured straight wings. But Schairer was now a convert; he wanted the new bomber to have swept wings.

Back home, Boeing redesigned its jet bomber to include wings and tail that swept back at 35 degrees. Further revisions were to follow, especially with respect to engine placement and landing gear placement. 

By April 1946, Boeing was satisfied with all of its tweaks. The USAAF ordered two prototypes, which were designated as the XB-47. The XB-47s rolled off the assembly line, ready for flight testing, just a few days before the USAAF separated from the U.S. Army to become a distinct service, the U.S. Air Force. The newly formed USAF set to work, exhaustively testing the new XB-47.

A New Jet Bomber in the New Air Force

Because the new jet bomber incorporated so many cutting-edge technologies, the platform was heavily tested. Test pilot Robert Robbins, who helped debut the XB-47, was initially skeptical about the new bomber. “Oh God, please help me through the next two hours,” Robbins prayed before the XB-47’s first flight. Robbins' fears were alleviated, however; the XB-47 could fly. 

There were some problems, however. The prototype had a tendency to “Dutch roll,” or weave side to side in an uncontrolled yawing motion. A “yaw damper” control system was installed to prevent such yawing. The bomber also had a habit of pitching up at maximum speed – a dangerous flight characteristic caused stalling due to upward pitching of the outboard section of the wing. To remedy the upward pitching, Boeing installed “vortex generators” to prevent the airflow separation that led to upward pitching and stalling. And tragically, during an early test flight, pilot Scott Osler was killed when the XB-47’s canopy ripped off at high speed. The co-pilot managed to land the bomber safely – and Boeing redesigned the canopy. 

Stratojet in Service

The exhaustive tweaking and testing paid off in dividends – although the finished B-47 Stratojet still had problems. 

The finished B-47 Stratojet was regarded as the fastest bomber in the world. USAF Col. Walter Boyne described the new bomber as a “sleek, beautiful outcome that was highly advanced.” The B-47 was said to fly with a light touch, more like a fighter jet than a bomber. The B-47 was so aerodynamically clean that high-speed landing gear (180 knots) was required; the landing was assisted, however, with a ribbon-like drag chute that would slow the bomber down. And because of the hazards associated with such high-speed landings, the B-47 was the first mass-produced aircraft to be equipped with an anti-skid braking system (ABS). 

Still, the B-47 was criticized for its high landing speed – which, when paired with the bomber’s sluggish takeoff performance made for a dangerous combination. The B-47 was also very particular about its landing attitude. If landed at the wrong attitude, the bomber would porpoise – and sometimes skid onto one wing before cartwheeling. Another serious problem: the wings flexed in flight, which had a tendency to affect flight control. Also, the B-47 was a “maintenance hog.” 

Despite the drawbacks, over 2,000 B-47s were produced. The standard variant served proudly until 1969, while the electronic-intelligence variant, the EB-47, served until 1977. 

About the Author: Harrison Kass 

Harrison Kass is a prolific defense writer with over 1,000 published articles posted online and around the world. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, he joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison holds a BA from Lake Forest College, a JD from the University of Oregon, and an MA from New York University. He lives in Oregon and listens to Dokken. Follow him on Twitter @harrison_kass.

Image Credit: Creative Commons or Shutterstock. 

 

The role of the UN in American foreign policy has become more of an afterthought than a priority these days. As the world descends into great power competition, the idea of multilateral institutions as a panacea for global challenges seems like a relic of a bygone era of optimism. With frightening levels of polarization in the U.S. and elections in November, the last thing voters are pondering is how the next president will engage the UN. This disregard is neither new nor surprising and certainly not the fault of individual voters. For years, U.S. attitudes toward the UN have oscillated between disengagement and retrenchment depending on the administration. Amidst this cyclical vacillation, the U.S. has diminished its organizational leverage while the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has expanded its influence.

Unlike the U.S., the PRC leverages its UN membership as a force multiplier to advance its interests and reshape global norms and the international order. Through economic coercion, strategic placement of its officials in key positions, and pressure on foreign officials, Beijing has undermined the UN’s institutional integrity to accommodate its domestic and international agenda. It has also successfully silenced critics of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) human rights violations and malign activities.

Under President Xi Jinping’s hallmark “wolf warrior diplomacy,” Beijing has recognized that it cannot accomplish its maximalist objectives within the confines of the current international order. Consequently, PRC officials within the UN system have silently pushed for resolutions and norms that reflect its global vision. Foremost, the PRC prioritizes non-interference and state sovereignty over democracy and human rights. Moreover, the CCP’s conceptualization of human rights promotes the right to economic development at the expense of political and civil rights. Other authoritarian regimes support the PRC’s vision for the international system, as it would enable them to operate without criticism, accountability, or consequences.

Perhaps most egregious is the PRC’s abuse of UN committee positions. Despite its well-documented repression of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang, which Beijing has whitewashed as “vocational education,” China retains its position on the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC). The PRC has routinely used this position to silence and shield itself from criticism.

In 2019, 22 Western countries sent a letter to the UNHRC that urged the CCP to close its Xinjiang re-education camps. The PRC responded by rallying 50 countries–nearly all with poor human rights records and economic dependence on China–to sign a joint letter that praised its “remarkable achievements in Xinjiang.” The UNHRC rejected a similar Western bid to hold a debate on PRC crimes against humanity against Uyghurs in October 2022. However, efforts to suppress debate extend beyond the situation in Xinjiang, with Beijing marshaling 53 countries to defend its imposition of the Hong Kong National Security Law. Uncoincidentally, 43 were recipients of PRC investments through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

China also weaponizes its role on the NGO Committee of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). This committee grants applicant organizations consultative status, a mechanism necessary to participate in the UN’s activities, events, and negotiations. Unfortunately, Beijing has conditioned its vote of approval on whether the organization recognizes Taiwan as an integral part of China.

The subversion of institutional integrity is not limited to committees, most recently exhibited during the World Health Organization’s (WHO) response to the COVID-19 outbreak. Alongside blatant failures to adhere to International Health Regulations, the CCP launched a pressure campaign on the WHO to downplay the virus’s severity. This was coupled with obfuscation efforts and a general lack of transparency that left the world woefully unprepared for what was to come. The PRC has also long pressured countries to reject Taiwan’s membership in the WHO despite the island’s medical expertise.

Additionally, the CCP makes concerted efforts to install its nationals in leadership positions within the UN’s specialized agencies. In 2019, when no other country held more than two leadership positions, China had four, with another candidate under nomination. For eight years, Houlin Zhao oversaw the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), which regulates and standardizes telecommunications and information technology. During his time, Zhao leveraged his influence to benefit domestic companies like Huawei and promoted PRC internet norms of surveillance and censorship. CCP officials have also held leadership positions in INTERPOL, the UN Industrial Development Organization, the International Civil Aviation Organization, and the Food and Agriculture Organization. Like Zhao at the ITU, the agency heads brazenly pursued PRC interests in violation of the agency’s neutrality mandates.

President Xi’s inauguration of the UN Peace and Development Trust Fund (UNPDF) provides another compelling example of Beijing’s self-interested pursuits. Launched in 2015, the much-vaunted fund is run by a steering committee of mostly CCP officials. Unsurprisingly, over one-third of its approved projects have fallen under China’s flagship BRI. While CCP malpractices at the UN do not end here, the picture is clear.

Fortunately, the U.S. is the UN’s largest contributor and possesses the alliances necessary to counter the PRC’s expanding influence. Washington should utilize its power of the purse to drive structural reforms that improve transparency and accountability. For example, it is clear that the UNHRC is broken, and the U.S. should advocate for prerequisites that prevent the world’s worst human rights abusers from holding panel positions. Moreover, U.S. and European diplomats should collaborate to create coalitions that coordinate leadership roles and voting strategies.

However, nothing is possible without sustained U.S. engagement across administrations. This is not to say that the UN will become the supranational authority some envisioned in the aftermath of World War II. Many Americans will remain skeptical of the UN. Nonetheless, even UN skeptics would agree that countering China is America’s top foreign policy priority. Doing so requires a comprehensive diplomatic approach that ensures Washington defends its interests and those of the free world in every possible arena.

Summary: The Lockheed S-3 Viking, retired by the U.S. Navy in 2016 after over four decades of service, was a versatile, carrier-based aircraft renowned for its anti-submarine capabilities.

-Initially developed to replace the Grumman S-2 Tracker, the S-3 featured a four-person crew and advanced sensor integration.

-Although it was later repurposed for surface detection, ground attack, and in-flight refueling, its retirement has left some defense planners nostalgic for its submarine detection abilities, especially amid rising naval tensions with China.

-Despite interest in reviving the S-3, modern replacements like the V-22 Osprey have taken over its roles.

Why the S-3 Viking's Retirement May Have Been Premature

A few years ago, NASA retired the Lockheed S-3 Viking, which had been in service with the U.S. Navy until 2016 – over four decades after the jet’s introduction in 1974.

The S-3, nicknamed “War Hoover” for the vacuum cleaner-like sound it made, was originally developed as a submarine killer – and was distinct for its four-person crew.

Building the S-3 Viking

To replace the aging, prop-driven Grumman S-2 Tracker, the Navy developed the VSX program to procure an anti-submarine successor.

The winning design, the S-3, was a carrier-based, all-weather aircraft capable of subsonic, long-range flight. The S-3 was very much a conventional-looking plane, with a slightly swept leading edge and two GE TF-34 turbofan engines mounted under the wings. Whereas most military jets required ground service equipment to assist with the engine start, the S-3 housed an auxiliary power unit (APU) and could perform unassisted starts.  

Four-Man Crew

Unlike most carrier-capable jet aircraft measuring around 50 feet long, the S-3 carried a four-person crew – rather than a two-person, or one-person crew. Upfront sitting side-by-side was the pilot and the copilot/tactical coordinator (COTAC).

In the back, also side-by-side, were the tactical coordinator (TACCO) and the sensor operator (SENSO). The SENSO was enlisted, whereas the other three crew members were commissioned officers. The four-person configuration came with an odd ejection protocol: if the pilot or COTAC initiated ejection, all four crew members would be ejected, with the backseaters firing 0.5 seconds before the frontseaters to allow for separation.

If TACCO or SENSO, sitting in the back initiated ejection, the pilots up front would not be ejected – no, they had to initiate their own ejection. 

Sensors and Displays Allowed Teamwork

The S-3 was renowned for its sensory integration; the S-3 was the first anti-submarine aircraft to integrate all of its sensor systems into a single General Purpose Digital Computer (GPDC). The integration allowed crew members, who were each seated in front of a Multi-Purpose Display (MPD) screen, to consult and collaborate with each other by analyzing the same data at their own station simultaneously. Alternatively, each crew member could assess separate data.

The end result: the S-3 was a powerful detective, with sensory capabilities considered equivalent to the P-3 Orion, a 116-foot plane with a crew of 12. 

Despite the S-3’s adeptness at sleuthing out enemy submarines, by the 1990s, with the Soviet Union folded, there just weren’t many enemy submarines left to sleuth.

Accordingly, the S-3’s mission profile was modified, from anti-submarine operations to sea surface detection, ground-attack, and in-flight refueling operations. For the S-3’s updated, less sophisticated function, the backseat crew was removed, leaving just a pilot and COTAC to operate the S-3 for most missions. The S-3 served reliably until 2016 when it was retired.

Still, some interest in the S-3 has remained, including rumors of a “comeback.” South Korea’s Navy, for example, expressed interest in purchasing the S-3. Even the U.S. Navy has spitballed the idea of bringing a few S-3s back from storage to perform anti-submarine duties.

For a moment, it appeared as though Lockheed was going to refurbish the S-3, rename it the C-3, and use it to replace the C-2 Greyhound for carrier onboard delivery (COD). Instead, the V-22 Osprey was chosen as the C-2’s replacement.

But the lingering interest in the S-3 serves as a testament to the jet’s functionality and reliability.

And now, in light of China’s naval build-up and aggressive behavior, some war planners are longing for the S-3’s vaunted submarine detection abilities, and wondering if the Viking’s retirement was premature. 

About the Author

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

If Biden can avoid the temptation to be a warrior defending allies abroad, he might have a better chance at winning his battles at home.