You are here

The National Interest

Subscribe to The National Interest feed
Updated: 1 week 6 days ago

Greece Wants the F-35 Stealth Fighter. It Might Not Happen Quickly

Wed, 10/01/2024 - 17:09

Greece Wants the F-35 – But Turkey and Sweden Could Delay That Acquisition - Currently, ten NATO members, along with another half a dozen partner nations, either operate or plan to adopt the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. Two NATO alliance countries would like to join the program. One likely will never operate the fifth-generation stealth fighter, while the other is currently in a related "holding pattern."

Those countries are regional rivals Turkey and Greece.

As has been previously reported, Turkey was famously expelled from the program despite being an early program member after Ankara moved forward with its controversial decision to adopt the Russian-made S-400 "Triumf" air defense system. The United States and NATO argued that the systems were incompatible and that utilizing both would compromise the security of the fighter jet.

It remains unclear whether Turkey regrets its decision, and there has been speculation it only moved forward as a matter of principle and to save face. To date, Ankara's S-400s are not currently operational.

It was just last month that Turkish Defense Minister Ya ar Güler told reporters that the S-400 system would only be utilized when needed.

"This is a defense system. Don't we use a defensive weapon when someone attacks us? No country launches an attack on another by declaring, 'I will attack you in two hours.' In a wartime scenario, you need to move your aircraft, operate hundreds of trains and declare mobilization, and so on. In other words, for a country to launch an airstrike on another without anyone noticing is very difficult," Güler told journalists, per NordicMonitor.com.

What About Greece?

Greece has also sought the F-35, yet any proposed sale by the U.S. of fifth-generation F-35 fighter jets to Athens is reportedly being delayed due to the complex geopolitics of Washington's relations with Turkey.

Greek Foreign Minister Giorgos Gerapetritis said in an interview with Skai TV on Saturday that it is only a matter of time before Greece joined the F-35 program, but he also acknowledged the complexity of the situation.

Gerapetritis made the comments in advance of U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken's visit to Athens, and the minister said he would again request the purchase of the Lightning II.

"They (F-35) would significantly upgrade the country's defense. We will discuss this issue (during Blinken’s visit). I believe there will be positive developments," Gerapetritis explained.

Closer Greeco-Turkish Relations

Any request from Athens also comes after Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's landmark visit to Greece last month, after the two neighboring countries experienced a tumultuous relationship in recent years.

Erdogan said in a news conference with Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis in Athens, that any issue between Turkey and Greece could be resolved and that together the aim was to "turn the Aegean into a sea of peace and cooperation."

Turkey and Greece announced the Athens Declaration on Friendly Relations and Good-Neighborliness, in which they stressed that they are committed to fostering friendly relations, mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, and understanding and seeking resolution to any dispute between in line with international law.

The F-35 in the Balance

Greece has for years been seeking to buy twenty of the fifth-generation aircraft, with an option to buy an additional 20 F-35As over time.

However, it has been reported that Washington has essentially tied the acceptance response to Athens with the progress of the request made by Ankara for the acquisition of new F-16 "Viper" aircraft, along with the upgrade of older ones now in Turkey's arsenal.

Essentially, the U.S. seeks to simultaneously announce the sale of the Turkish F-16s and the Greek F-35s to maintain some semblance of balance in the Aegean.

The Swedish Situation

The situation has been further complicated by the continued holdup of Sweden's NATO accession, which has prevented the request for F-16s from being approved, and in turn that has caused a delay in the F-35s being sold to Greece as well.

It was in October that Erdogan submitted a bill to the country's parliament approving Sweden's NATO membership. However, the Parliament is delaying the ratification of the bill – and experts have suggested it is being held up over the F-16.

While the White House has said that the is no quid pro quo and that any F-16 sale to Turkey would be independent of Ankara's approval of Sweden's membership in NATO, it does seem that if Turkey gets the F-16s, Greece could get the F-35s and Sweden could join NATO.

To make all of it happen, Secretary Blinken will likely be logging a lot of miles. 

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu 

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

Russia Wants To Build a New Fleet of Nuclear Submarines

Wed, 10/01/2024 - 16:59

Even as the Russian Navy's flagship aircraft carrier shows no signs of heading to sea anytime soon, its submarine force has seen the addition of two nuclear submarines, which were commissioned at the Sevmash Shipyard in Severodvinsk. The ceremony for the new boats was attended by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The first of the submarines was the Project 955A Borey-A Imperator Aleksandr III (Emperor Alexander III) the fourth SSBN of the class, and the third in the Pacific Fleet. The new vessel was built by Sevmash under a May 2012 contract with its keel laid in December 2015, while it was rolled out from the shipyard hall in December 2022. Imperator Aleksandr III underwent a series of sea trials last summer and fall. However, as Naval News reported, the first three Project 955 SSBNs were different, and employed hull sections from the unfinished Project 971 Shchuka-B SSNs.

The second vessel to raise the flag on December 11, 2023, was the K-571 Krasnoyarsk, a Project 885M (08851) Yasen-M nuclear-powered attack submarine. It was the third boat from the project, and the second of its class intended for the Pacific Fleet.

The SSNs of Project 885M are a modification of the prototype K-560 Severodvinsk of Project 885, and will become the first main underwater carriers of Russia's 3M22 Tsircon hypersonic missile. In addition, the Russian SSNs of the 885/885M project can carry missiles of the Kalibr-PL system as well as the supersonic 3M55 Onyx anti-ship missiles. The cruise missile subs were developed in the late 1980s by the St. Petersburg-based Malakhit Design Bureau of Machine-Building. It was initially intended to replace the aging Akula-class nuclear-powered attack submarines.

"With such vessels and such weapons, Russia will feel that it is safe," Putin told officials and naval officers at the inauguration ceremony.

Both of the newly commissioned submarines are expected to serve with the Russian Navy's Pacific Fleet.

The Sevmash shipyard is currently constructing three more Borey-A SSBNs, which had been due to be launched by the end of last year for the Russian Navy but failed to meet the deadline.

More Russian Submarines: A Costly Move?

Putin also announced that eight more submarines will be produced in the coming years – including five Yasen-M and three Borei-A. However, some naval analysts have said it could be a costly move, as each of the Boeri-A class boats cost more than 650 million euros ($711 million).

"The submarines will come at the expense of resources allocated to other branches of the military," Jeff Hawn, a specialist in Russian military matters and an external consultant for the New Lines Institute, an American geopolitical research firm, told France24.com.

However, other experts have suggested that Putin can ill afford to abandon his maritime modernization program, regardless of its cost.

"Vladimir Putin has constantly repeated that the West represents a threat, and he must now prove to his public that he is taking the necessary measures to defend Russia," added Sim Tack, a military analyst for Force Analysis, a conflict monitoring company.

Russia's Submarines: Ready for Cold War Operations

The Russian Navy's submariners will also be engaging in training for a new "cold war," one that literally involves operations under the Arctic Sea ice.

According to a report from The Barents Observer on Wednesday, citing an announcement from the Russian Navy's Northern Fleet, nuclear submarine crews will undergo both theoretical and practical training and special attention will be given to under-ice operations of the strategic subs.

The exercise "confirms the capacity of the strategic nuclear naval forces to resolve problems from any part of the Arctic," read the fleet's statement.

The Russian Navy has long conducted comprehensive under-ice Arctic operations, but it is now renewing its focus on the waters to its north. As The Barents Observer also noted, the Northern Fleet is based in Severomorsk, Kola Peninsula, and is the most powerful unit in Russia’s Navy, with a significant number of nuclear submarines, among them two strategic subs of the Borei class.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu 

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

B-1B Lancer: Time to Send This Bomber to the Boneyard?

Wed, 10/01/2024 - 16:48

B-1B Lancers Grounded at Ellsworth AFB But Still Flying From Dyess - The Rockwell B1 Lancer has been grounded at Ellsworth Air Force Base (AFB), South Dakota, for at least two weeks as investigators begin probing what caused the crash of one of the long-range strategic bombers last week.

All four of the crew were able to safely eject and survived the crash. Three were treated for minor injuries, while one was admitted to the hospital with non-life-threatening injuries.

Regular flying operations in the B-1 at Ellsworth AFB were halted on January 5, the day after the accident, and are slated to remain grounded until January 19, according to a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) flight notice. The base, which features a single runway, may extend that downtime as needed, the Air Force Times reported.

The downed bomber was one of two B-1 Lancers participating in a local training mission in the early evening of January 4. While the lead aircraft landed safely at Ellsworth, the second Lancer crashed on approach around 5:50 p.m. local time, the Air Force said. The National Weather Service reported low visibility and freezing conditions at the time of the accident.

It was the first major crash of a B-1 since 2013.

Satellite images of the wreck, taken from Planet Labs, have made the rounds online and as reported by TheDrive, show the bomber resting off to the side of the runway at Ellsworth. It appears that the aircraft undershot the runway, and impacted the ground just before the runway threshold.

"Prominent black marks suggestive of the impact/touchdown point are visible just before the chevrons that demarcate the threshold area. This scarring does not exist in imagery taken of the base in months past," TheDrive noted. The bomber then veered to the left and off the runway.

The crash is being investigated.

B-1 Sill Flying

Though Ellsworth AFB has grounded its bombers, the B-1 Lancer will continue to fly from Dyess AFB, Texas.

"The B-1B Lancers assigned to Dyess are currently undergoing normal daily operations and will continue to stand ready to deliver combat capabilities at a moment?s notice," the base announced this week.

The host unit at Dyess is the 7th Bomb Wing of the Global Strike Command, which was activated on October 1, 1993. The wing performs combat training with the Boeing B-1B Lancer bomber and is currently the United States Air Force's premier operational B-1B unit with 36 aircraft.

The B-1 supersonic bomber first entered service in the mid-1980s. It continues to be used to support the U.S. bomber presence in the Asia-Pacific region and to conduct close air support missions in U.S. operations around the world. Since the end of the Cold War, it does not carry nuclear weapons.

The B-1 has a blended wing body configuration, with a variable-sweep wing, four turbofan engines, triangular ride-control fins, and a cruciform tail. The wings can sweep from 15 to 67.5 degrees (full forward to full sweep). Forward-swept wing settings are used for takeoff, landings, and high-altitude economical cruise. Aft-swept wing settings are used in high subsonic and supersonic flight.

A total of 104 were originally built, yet fewer than 60 remain in service today. The bombers are stationed at Dyess AFB, Texas, and Ellsworth AFB.

The sad reality is that the B-1B Lancer is getting older and has many hours of service time used up. As the B-21 Raider emerges, the B-1 will be fazed out. 

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu 

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

Nothing Like It: The Air Force Showed Off 8 B-2 Stealth Bombers At Once

Wed, 10/01/2024 - 16:30

As tensions between Pyongyang and Washington continue to tighten, the U.S. will intensify its deterrent capabilities. And that means many more B-2 Elephant Walks in the future. 

Deterrence Matters in Asia

The three legs of the U.S. nuclear triad — land-launched nuclear missiles, strategic bombers, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles — have remained a top priority for the U.S. military for nearly seven decades.

As the crux of America’s deterrence strategy, these three elements lend to the military’s mutual assured destruction doctrine, especially as the Biden Administration worries about arms builds ups from China and North Korea in Asia.

Simply put, if another nation launches a nuclear attack targeting the U.S, the U.S. military would respond with a massive retaliation using its own nukes.

This second-strike capability is assured by the three different legs.

Even if one leg fails to launch, the U.S. has two other means to strike. 

Elephant Walk: Air Force Showed Off 8 B-2 Stealth Bombers At Once

Late last year, the North Korean government threatened that the deployment and presence of U.S. bombers, aircraft carriers, or missile submarines around the Korean peninsula would meet the criteria for nuclear retaliation.

These remarks followed the surfacing of the USS Kentucky at the Port of Busan, marking the first visit by an American nuclear submarine to the peninsula since the 1980s.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un also accused the Biden administration of meeting with its South Korean counterparts to discuss plans to use nuclear weapons against North Korea. 

The escalating rhetoric by Pyongyang highlights the importance of America’s nuclear triad.

The good news is that America and its allies have lots of non-kinetic ways to respond. 

For example, back in 2022, B-2 Spirit stealth bombers carried out a training exercise at Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, an important 'elephant walk'.

As described by 509th Operations Group commander Col. Geoffrey Steeves, the Spirit Vigilance drills served as reminder that “the B-2 Spirit bomber is the visible leg of the nuclear triad, adding that “the B-2 is the world’s most strategic aircraft. It is the only aircraft on the planet that combines stealth, payload, and long-range strike. 

“We are charged with delivering the nation’s most powerful weapons for our most important missions.”

He added: “We are displaying a capability here to rapidly generate and deploy [the B-2] under greater scrutiny and time restraints than the normal day-to-day flying mission,” Steeves said. “Here we demonstrate to our near peer adversaries, as well as to ourselves, how well we can perform.”

“When we think of near peers and peer adversaries, we have to think multiple steps ahead,” Collier said. “We have to maintain an advantage, and in everything we do, we are thinking, ‘How do we meet a threat?’ but also ‘how do we lean forward and think about the next threat?’ We’re not training for the past or the now, we’re training for the future. That’s how you maintain an advantage.”

In total, 8 B-2 Spirit stealth bombers were put on the tarmac as a warning, as no nation on Earth has anything like the B-2. Not even China or Russia. 

B-2 Bomber: The Visible Leg

Stealth airframes are designed to operate undercover, but the B-2 is different.

The bomber’s role in strategic deterrence relies on America’s adversaries knowing exactly what it can do. Capable of all-altitude attack missions at long ranges, the Spirit can fly to any point in the world within a matter of hours. The stealth bomber can carry a payload of up to 40,000 pounds, including conventional weapons and nuclear weapons. Over the years, several key improvements have been incorporated into the B-2, including a Rockwell Collins TCN-250 tactical air navigation system and a Ku-band active electronically scanned array antenna. 

According to Airforce Technology, the Air Force in 2008 began a program to give the Spirit the capability to attack moving targets using precision-guided weapons. 

In light of the growing North Korean threat, the continued development and enhancement of the B-2 and other elements of America’s nuclear triad is essential to national security. As explained by Col. Steeves, “When we think of near peers and peer adversaries, we have to think multiple steps ahead. We have to maintain an advantage, and in everything we do, we are thinking, ‘how do we meet a threat?’ but also ‘how do we lean forward and think about the next threat?’ We’re not training for the past or the now, we’re training for the future. That’s how you maintain an advantage.”

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. Email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org 

A-10 Warthogs Doing an Elephant Walk Is Down Right Crazy Impressive

Wed, 10/01/2024 - 15:58

In November 2021, A-10 Warthogs from the 104th Fighter Squadron conducted an elephant walk at Warfield Air National Guard Base in Maryland. You can see a good example of an A-10 elephant walk in the video below.

The elephant walk was conducted with 16 Warthogs.

“Seeing our entire fleet on the runway, it’s just an awesome display of combat power,” said USAF Colonel Richard D. Hunt. “Our maintainers are some of the best in the Air Force, and this is concrete proof of our ability to bring the full force of our airpower to bear whenever it is needed.”

According to a press release: “The readiness exercise highlighted the ability and rapid mobility of the MDANG’s airpower, demonstrating their ability to launch combat-ready A-10s that are deployable for no-notice contingency operations.”

“Our ability to generate combat airpower at a moment’s notice helps promote regional stability because we can immediately respond to any threat,” said USAF Brigadier General Paul D. Johnson. “The 175th Wing is always ready to answer our nation's call and defend our country from our adversaries. We know they are watching, so it is good for them to know we can bring the fight at any time. I’m proud of our Airmen’s ability to generate and employ with the highest level of excellence in a contested environment and with complete [operational security].”

The A-10 tank buster

The airframe used in the MDANG elephant walk was the A-10 Warthog – commonly regarded as the best close air support airframe ever made. The A-10 was built around a 30mm GAU-8/A Avenger cannon with 1,350 rounds of ammunition.

The Avenger cannon is basically a gatling gun capable of destroying tanks and armored vehicles and enemy fortifications.

The A-10 was designed, with straight wings and high stability, to fly low and slow. Flying low and slow makes the A-10 an easy target, so the airframe was built to be durable – with the engines above the wing, and the cockpit encased in what is essentially a titanium bathtub.

“Generating this many A-10s is a testament to all the teamwork that it takes to keep us operationally ready,” said USAF Air Force Colonel David Wright. “As proud as I am of the job our Airmen did, I can’t say I’m surprised by it. Combat readiness is what we do, and our people always rise to the occasion.”

Task & Purpose was kind enough to break down the cumulative figures on display during the 16-ship A-10 elephant walk.

Here are the numbers: 21,600 rounds of GAU-8/A ammo; 32 General Electric turbofan engines (two per jet); $156.8 million worth of aircraft (about $10 million per jet); 176,000 pounds of fuel (11,000 pounds of fuel per jet when fully loaded); 19,200 pounds of titanium armor (1,200 each); and up to 256,000 pounds of mixed ordinance.

In all, it was an impressive display.

Timing not a coincidence

The USAF has been ramping up its show of force displays, which includes elephant walks.

The timing is not a coincidence, but rather coincides with escalations in tension between the US and Russia, and between the US and China – two adversaries that have made territorial claims in light of US resistance.

It seems unlikely that the MDANG’s 16-ship A-10 elephant walk had any sort of deterring effect on either Russia or China. Russia invaded Ukraine just a few months after the A-10 elephant walk.

About the Author: Harrison Kass 

Harrison Kass is a senior editor with over 1,000 published articles. 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. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org

Impressive: What A Fleet of F-15 Fighters in An Elephant Walk Looks Like

Wed, 10/01/2024 - 15:43

F-15 Strike Eagles in a 2022 Elephant Walk - The United States Air Force has conducted a number of impressive "elephant walks" –the term for taxiing a number of aircraft before takeoff – in recent years. In addition to the close formation on the ground, it can involve a minimum interval takeoff.

It was just a few years ago that a formation of two dozen F-15C/D Eagle fighter jets assigned to the 44th and 67th Fighter Squadrons, a KC-135 Stratotanker assigned to the 909th Air Refueling Squadron, an E-3 Sentry assigned to the 961st Airborne Air Control Squadron, and an HH-60 Pavehawk assigned to the 33rd Rescue Squadron was seen lined up on the runway as a part of routine wing readiness exercise at Kadena Air Base, Japan.

As Defence-Blog reported, "The goal of this exercise was to execute a short notice, agile combat execution-style deployment and generation. The large formation movement was part of a routine exercise scenario that tested the 18th Wing’s ability to generate airpower in support of the defense of Japan and other partner nations, ensuring the stability and security of a free and open Indo-Pacific."

Not a Picket Line with the F-15 Strike Eagle

It was a decade earlier, on April 16 at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base (AFB), North Carolina, when nearly seventy F-15 Strike Eagles also took part in what was among the largest such elephant walks involving the fourth-generation aircraft.

The Strike Eagles from the United States Air Force's 4th Fighter Wing – with aircrews assigned to the 4th Fighter Wing's 333rd, 334th, 335th, and 336th Fighter Squadrons – had lined up on the runway during a Turkey Shoot training mission, in which the more than five dozen aircraft successfully destroyed in excess of 1,000 targets on bombing ranges across the state to commemorate the 4th's victory over the Luftwaffe on April 16, 1945.

History of Elephant Walks

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

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

F-15 Eagle and Strike Eagle

The F-15 Eagle was developed to keep pace with the emergence of the MiG-23 and MiG-24 fighters, the United States Air Force sought to replace its fleet of McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom IIs, which had been in service since 1960. The program began in 1967 and after more than two years of intensive testing and evaluation, the Air Force awarded McDonnell Douglas the F-15 Advanced Tactical Fighter contract, after the aviation maker placed first amongst the three competitors in all phases of the competition but also had the lowest contract price.

The single-seat, all-weather, air-superiority fighter was a noted departure from the F-4, a tandem two-seat, long-range jet interceptor, and fighter bomber. While the F-4 could engage a ground-attack role, this was initially deemed unnecessary by the F-15 Special Project Board.

However, the designers at McDonnell Douglas continued to work on a potent multi-role version of the F-15E Strike Eagle, which can fulfill both roles of air-to-air superiority and ground strike. That provided the USAF with an aircraft that could fight its way to enemy territory, engage and destroy enemy aircraft, destroy an assigned ground target, and fight its way back home without the need for additional air support.

In its decades in service, the F-15 has racked up more than 100 victories in the sky and yet suffered not a single loss in aerial combat. It is easy to see why the high-flying Eagle/Strike Eagle can make an adversary take notice when it lines up on a runway in an elephant walk.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Why the U.S. Air Force Launched 52 F-35 Fighters in Huge Elephant Walk

Wed, 10/01/2024 - 15:27

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

The first elephant walks occurred during the Second World War when large fleets of allied bombers massed for attacks – and observers on the ground noted that as the aircraft lined up, it resembled the nose-to-tail formations of elephants walking to a watering hole. Today, the U.S. Air Force employs elephant walks to show the capability of a unit as well as the teamwork that is required to conduct such an operation.

It also can help pilots prepare for the launching of fully armed aircraft in a mass event if needed.

The Walk of the F-35 Lightning IIs

While during World War II, dozens and even hundreds of bombers could be lined up, recent elephant walks are far smaller but no less impressive, especially considering the capabilities of modern aircraft.

Such was the case in January 2020, when the United States Air Force's Active Duty 388th and Reserve 419th Fighter Wings conducted the Combat Power Exercise at Hill Air Force Base (AFB), Utah with 52 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II 35As – the conventional takeoff and landing variant of the U.S. military's Joint Strike Fighter.

The elephant walk of the F-35 Lightning IIs was employed to demonstrate the "ability to employ a large force of F-35As" as well as to test the air wing's readiness for personnel accountability, aircraft generation, ground operations, flight operations, and combat capability, according to a Hill statement from the time.

Elephant Walk Photo Worth a Few Million Dollars

Though the U.S. Air Force's press photos may have looked to many like little more than a number of aircraft lined up, the exercise had actually been planned for months. As TheDrive.com reported, "The amount of hardware on the runway in terms of billions of dollars is staggering."

As previously reported, the elephant walk was quite costly to pull off, as the F-35 Lightning II costs $44,000 per hour to fly.

If each of the 52 F-35 fighters in the elephant walk flew for just a single hour, it was still a $2 million-plus exercise. If the jets flew for two hours, the cost likely exceeded about $4 million.

Yet, it could be described as priceless.

The ability to launch 52 of the fifth-generation F-35 stealth fighters was as much to send a message to detractors of the program within the United States as it was to reaffirm the capabilities of the U.S. Air Force to near-peer adversaries such as China and Russia.

It highlighted the improved readiness rate of the F-35 fleet at the time, which had been lagging for years when the elephant walk was conducted in 2020.

The service had only just reached a mission-capable rate of 75 percent the prior October, up from just 66 percent a year earlier.

No doubt an adversary would have loved to have the chance to take out the Lightning IIs on the ground – which is about the time that the aircraft can be described as truly vulnerable.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu 

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

SR-91 Aurora: The Mach 5 Air Force Plane That Could Be a Game Changer

Wed, 10/01/2024 - 15:02

SR-91 Explainer: In the 1980s, the moniker “Aurora’ first appeared in a black program spy plane request. Since then, the infamous and perhaps mythical airframe has remained an enigma. Military engineers wanted to construct a hypersonic plane capable of reaching speeds in excess of Mach-5.0. No other plane in existence has been able to fly this fast. Although several reported sightings of the SR-91 Aurora have been documented, this notorious airframe has not been officially disclosed.

Background on the SR-91 Aurora

The Los Angeles Times and Aviation Week & Space Technology first put the SR-91 on the map in the mid-1980s.

Both outlets reported that the name “Aurora” had been inadvertently included in America’s 1995 planned $455 million budget for “black aircraft production.” According to the magazine, the moniker “Project Aurora” actually references an array of unique airframes and not just the SR-91 alone.

The Sun Sentinel also corroborated these numbers, according to Sandboxx News. These references indicated that the Pentagon had a secretive program that would expected to cost even more than the nearly $1 billion dollar B-2 Spirit endeavor.

As detailed in a 1986 procurement document obtained by Aviation Week, funding for the mysterious project had reached roughly $2.7 billion.

The SR-71 Blackbird’s Successor?

In the 1980’s, the legendary SR-71 Blackbird airframe was nearing the end of its service life. As the fastest plane to ever fly the skies anywhere on planet Earth, the Blackbird was certainly a tough act to follow. This airframe could reach speeds in excess of Mach-3.2, powered by a unique Pratt & Whitney J58 engine.

Designed with a minimized radar cross-section, the Blackbird is considered to be an early attempt of stealth design. Since the aviation space was radily evolving around this time, engineers were already working toward the Blackbird’s successor. Many analysts believed that the U.S. had the technological capacity to produce a Mach-5.0 airframe capable of reaching hypersonic speeds.

A detailed overview of Aurora “sightings”

Over the next decade, detailed examinations of a variety of U.S. defense budgets claimed that unaccounted for funds had been channeled into secretive programs. Sightings also began to prop up, all allegeding that the Aurora prototype was already taking flight. In 1989, an engineer asserted that he witnessed a triangular-shaped airframe resembling renderings of the Aurora over the North Sea. However, since this infamous airframe can reportedly fly at speeds five times faster than sound, the likelihood that this individual could have actually spotted it flying is very, very low. The Air Force was flying both the B-2 bomber and the F-1117 Nighthawk around this time, which could have been what was seen flying the skies.

In 2000, an additional Aurora clue emerged. Nic Outterside with the Aberdeen Press and Journal cited “confidential sources” when he claimed that RAF/USAF Machrihanish in Kintyre, Argyll to be a base for the Aurora airframes. Since the base has longer runways, Outterside explained that it would make a suitable runway for high-altitude, experimental aircraft.

Another clue concerning the Aurora surfaced in 2006, when the British Ministry of Defense released a report suggesting that the U.S. Air Force has initiated plans to produce a Mach-4.0-6.0 highly supersonic airframe. Ultimately, though, no “conclusive evidence had emerged to confirm the existence of such a project.” Later, other clues involving the potential existence of the Aurora surfaced. Namely, periodic “sky quakes” were reportedly felt over Los Angeles on various occasions.

In 1993, Bill Sweetman from the well-regarded Jane’s Defense Weekly defense magazine reported that seismologists from the U.S. Geological Survey had been recording tremors near the San Gabriel Valley in Southern California. According to the magazine, these tremors were in keeping with a sonic boom from a high-altitude supersonic aircraft. However, the fast planes heard buzzing over the city more likely came from unclassified airframes from Nevada’s Area 51.

“All I can say is that it’s something that’s traveling through the atmosphere at several times the speed of sound in a generally northeasterly direction,” Jim Mori, a seismologist with the United States Geological Survey at Caltech, told the LA Times in 1992. Sweetman then noted that the nature of the reported sonic bombs were not in keeping with other aircraft known to be flown by the U.S. military. “It’s too fast for any aircraft that we know about,” he added.

One month prior to this incident, the Aviation Week and Space Technology outlet also claimed that reported sightings of an atypical aircraft with diamond-shaped lighting had been spotted flying over northern California alongside two F-117 Nighthawks and a KC-135 refueling tanker. According to the witnesses, the plane turned off its unusual exterior lighting and made a distinct sound similar to “air rushing through a big tube.”

SR-91 Aurora: Fact, Fiction, or Internet Myth? 

Despite the litany of claims surrounding the Aurora’s existence, this airframe is yet to be confirmed by U.S. officials. If the mysterious SR-91 does exist, it could top the Blackbird’s speed record.

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. 

Forget F-16s: Why Not Give F-35s or Hypersonic Missiles to Ukraine?

Wed, 10/01/2024 - 13:46

In holding off the Russian invaders for two years, Ukraine has defied expectations. Although Ukraine has fought valiantly, the resistance would not be possible without the extensive Western donations, namely cash, intelligence, and military equipment, that Ukraine has received since the beginning of the conflict.

Most notably, Ukraine is in the process of receiving fourth-generation F-16 fighters (which Zelensky had lobbied for incessantly).

It has already received scores of other equipment, including surface-to-air missiles, tanks, handheld anti-tank systems like the FGM-148, and various drone systems.

Ukraine will undoubtedly continue pleading for the donation of Western military products. And why not? To date, Western nations have proven highly receptive to Ukraine’s arguments, that propping up Ukraine is vital to the security interests of Europe.

So while NATO nations and her tax-paying citizens seem to be growing fatigued with the fiscal requirements of supporting Ukraine, expect some form of aid to keep trickling in – lest NATO appear to be abandoning Ukraine.

So, let’s consider what military equipment would most benefit the Ukrainian cause.

One: Nuclear Weapons for Ukraine? 

I’m being mildly facetious, but the simple fact is that no weapon would aid the Ukrainians as immediately and convincingly as a nuclear weapon.

History has demonstrated that nations in possession of nuclear weapons don’t get invaded. Had Ukraine possessed nuclear weapons prior to February 2022, the Russian invasion would have been highly unlikely.

If Ukraine were gifted nuclear weapons now, they would perhaps have sufficient leverage to inspire Russia to withdraw and desist.

Now, I’m not advocating that Ukraine should receive nuclear weapons from her Western allies. Quite the opposite. Giving Ukraine a nuke would be completely irresponsible, for if Ukraine were given nuclear weapons it would likely lead, directly, into a nuclear exchange with Russia, which would be cataclysmic for the Eurasian continent and perhaps humanity itself.

Millions would die. Once-densely populated cities would become uninhabitable, excacerbating Europe’s already severe refugee crisis. Wheat shortages would lead to mass starvation.

Nukes to Ukraine would be bad. But as far as getting the Russians out of the Donbas, nuclear weapons are your most efficient weapons system.

Two, Fifth-Generation Fighters Like the F-35

Ukraine has been “outgunned and outnumbered” in the battle for the airspace above Ukraine. Remarkably, Ukraine has managed to deny the airspace to Russia – but Russia still maintains an advantage, mostly through the possession of aircraft that are superior to the Ukrainian aircraft.

But Russia’s aircraft is not cutting edge – they happen to be better than the aircraft Ukraine has presently.

America, however, who happens to be the primary bankroller of the Ukrainian effort, is in possession of fifth-generation fighter technology (and has even exported fifth-generation fighter technology), which would give Ukraine an automatic advantage in the skies over Russia.

While America has never exported the F-22 air superiority fighter, they have exported the multirole F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The F-35 would immensely expand the capabilities of the Ukrainian air defense; with industry leading radar systems and advanced missiles, the F-35 would allow the Ukrainians to engage Russian aircraft from further away, likely further than the Russians could answer from.

The distance advantage would allow Ukraine to start chipping away at Russian front lines, and air defense networks, and aircraft – gradually beginning to turn the tide of the conflict.

Now, Ukraine will not be receiving fifth-generation fighters – this article is merely a thought exercise about what weapons would be most helpful to the Ukrainians.

In reality, Ukraine has struggled to procure fourth-generation fighters, like the F-16, from the hands of Western allies. Don’t count on Zelensky charming the Americans out of any F-35s.

Three: Hypersonic Missiles for Ukraine? 

Hypersonic missiles are the cutting edge of missile technology.

Most nations do not possess, nor have attempted to build, hypersonic missiles. Even America, which possesses – by far – the world’s largest military budget, does not possess operational hypersonic missiles. Russia, however, has set the curve regarding hypersonic missile development with the Avangard, Kh-47M2 Kinzhal, 2M22 Zircon, and R-37 hypersonic missile systems. (For what it’s worth, China also possesses hypersonic missiles, which places the US at a disadvantage in the Indo-Pacific.)

Ukraine will not be receiving hypersonic missiles – her allies don’t have any hypersonic missiles to give.

The US is getting closer, with a variety of development programs, like the Boeing X-51 Waverider, the AIM-260 JATM, and the Hypersonic Air Launched Offensive Anti-Surface (HALO) anti-ship missile all in development.

So, there’s nothing for any Westerners to give the Ukrainians with respect to hypersonic missiles. But in theory, hypersonic missiles would allow for the effective targeting of Russians targets at (and beyond) the front line.

About the Author: Harrison Kass 

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

Lockheed Martin SR-72 Son of Blackbird or Darkstar: What We Know Right Now

Wed, 10/01/2024 - 00:53

Summary: The article discusses the development of the SR-72 Darkstar, often referred to as the "Son of Blackbird," as a potential successor to the legendary SR-71 Blackbird spy plane. The SR-71 Blackbird is known for its impressive speed and capabilities, which still hold several records, despite being retired. Lockheed Martin is potentially developing the SR-72 as an American hypersonic unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) with a planned flight expected in 2025. The new concept is intended for surveillance, intelligence, and reconnaissance missions.

SR-72 “Son of Blackbird” or Darkstar Update 

Although long retired, the U.S. Air Force’s SR-71 “Blackbird” still holds several records. This spy plane is notably the fastest plane to ever take to the global skies.

While aviation experts and military buffs widely recognize the Blackbird as one of the most sophisticated platforms to fly, less is known about its possible successor: the SR-72 “Son of Blackbird.”

Expected to fly sometime in 2025, the potential American hypersonic unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) concept is being developed by manufacturer Lockheed Martin as a successor to the legendary Blackbird.

The upcoming concept is intended for surveillance, intelligence, and reconnaissance. Once completed, will the SR-72 live up to the hype that followed its predecessor?

The Origin Story of the SR-71 Blackbird

While aviation-related feats are always particularly impressive, two decades in history really can be considered the pinnacle of technological evolution.

During the 1950s and 1960s, new concepts in metallurgy, electronics, and aviation sparked once-unimaginable developments.

The introduction of the Lockheed SR-71 is perhaps the most outstanding aerial achievement produced in America.

Designed in secrecy, the Blackbird could fly near the edge of space and outfly a missile. The airframe’s development was derived in part by U.S. engineers who were tasked with creating a rival for the Soviet Union’s counterparts.

To gather more accurate intelligence over the USSR, a report commissioned by the U.S. Air Force recommended reconnaissance aircraft should fly at 70,000 feet in order to be safe from the Soviet’s advanced defenses.

Around this time, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) pursued the U-2 “Dragon Lady.” The U-2 would fly in numerous successful missions over Soviet territory over the next few decades. While the USSR was largely unsuccessful in taking down these spy planes via air defenses for some time, they ultimately downed a U-2 piloted by Francis Powers in 1960.

The loss of this U-2 really spearheaded the effort to design an airframe faster and more capable of evading Soviet air defenses.

As explained by the revered aircraft designer Clarence Johnson who led Lockheed Martin’s infamous Skunk Works at the time, “Everything had to be invented. Everything.”

The A-12 was designed first, followed by the Blackbird. The airframe was constructed to fly at speeds over Mach-3.0 (times the speed of sound.) While the Blackbird possessed radar countermeasures to avoid enemy air defenses, the airframe’s greatest defense was its extremely high speed and altitude capabilities.

Essentially, no surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) could work fast enough to catch the speedy airframe.

Today, the SR-71 is still considered to be the highest-flying, fastest aircraft ever built.

Introducing the Blackbird’s successor, the SR-72 Darkstar or Son of Blackbird

When the Blackbird was relegated to retirement in the late 1990s, aviation buffs speculated on Lockheed’s next big project.

Recent hints that the manufacturer’s Skunk Works division may have already provided a new spy airframe to the U.S. Air Force have reinvigorated speculation about the Blackbird’s successor.

During its time in the air, the SR-71 famously outran more than 4,000 missiles fired at it. The SR-72 is being designed to achieve the same feat.

This time, however, the Son of Blackbird will be even faster than its “father” so that it can outpace even the most advanced modern-day air defenses.

To do this, the upcoming airframe will need to reach hypersonic speeds over Mach-5.0- a truly unimaginable ability.

Lockheed’s program manager Brad Leland noted that “Hypersonic aircraft, coupled with hypersonic missiles, could penetrate denied airspace and strike at nearly any location across a continent in less than an hour,” adding that “Speed is the next aviation advancement to counter emerging threats in the next several decades. The technology would be a game-changer in theater, similar to how stealth is changing the battlespace today.”

Up until now, reaching this high speed has only been accomplished with single-use technology demonstrators and rocket-propelled aircraft.

As detailed by The Aviation Geek Club, “The Waverider successfully launched from a B-52 and was powered to Mach 4.8 by a booster rocket. The X-51 then accelerated to Mach 5.1 after igniting its ramjet engine.”

The original Blackbird was powered by the unique Pratt & Whitney J58 turbojet engine, which aviation experts often refer to as a “turboramjet.” The engine used by the Son of Blackbird will have to be quite the powerhouse in order to meet the airframe’s expectations.

As tensions between Washington and Beijing continue to ramp up, the race to achieve next-generation capabilities is on. The USAF and PLAAF are developing their respective sixth-generation fighter and bomber programs. Moscow is also working toward further developing its hypersonics.

The timely production of the next Blackbird will be vitally important for U.S. national security interests.

About the Author: Maya Carlin

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

Central Asia Emerges as the Hub of a New Era in Global Trade

Tue, 09/01/2024 - 23:38

With Kazakhstan at its epicenter, Central Asia’s transit potential has become increasingly significant for global connectivity. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the standoff between Russia and the West have underscored the urgent need for new and alternative transit routes to facilitate trade between Asia and Europe. Central Asia’s strategic location offers an opportunity for both Asian and Western countries to diversify their economic engagements and reinforce strategic interests, creating a new nexus for global trade.

Central Asia, historically a crossroads of the ancient Silk Road, is reclaiming its role as a key transit region in global commerce. Kazakhstan, as the region’s largest country, is pivotal in this resurgence. Connecting significant markets of Europe and Asia, it offers a shorter and potentially more cost-effective route for goods transportation than traditional maritime paths, especially in the current geopolitical climate. During the first ten months of 2023, 22.5 million tons of freight made their way through Kazakhstan, marking a 19 percent increase in volume. This growth is particularly notable in container transportation, which grew by 15 percent over the same period. The transit traffic through Kazakhstan is projected to rise to 35 million tons by 2029. Meanwhile, rail cargo transport, a critical component of Kazakhstan’s transit capabilities, rose by 3 percent, totaling 246 million tons.

Central Asia, and particularly Kazakhstan, has become an increasingly vital gateway for China to conduct trade with Europe and the wider world, underscored by the investments made through the Belt and Road Initiative, which was first announced by President Xi Jinping in Kazakhstan and marked its tenth anniversary in 2023. Currently, China accounts for 27 percent of Kazakhstan’s transport flow, equivalent to 6.2 million tons. In 2022, over 23 million tons of goods were transported via rail between Kazakhstan and China, a figure that has since increased by an additional 22 percent. This significant uptick in transit volume demonstrates China’s growing reliance on overland routes through Central Asia for its trade with Europe.

The surge in cargo volume is not just about numbers; it represents a strategic shift in China’s trade routes. Traditionally reliant on maritime shipping, China has increasingly turned to overland routes through Central Asia as a faster, more reliable alternative. The development of the China-Europe Railway Express, for instance, has significantly reduced the time for goods transiting between China and Europe, offering a more efficient option compared to sea transport. However, the ongoing war in Ukraine has adversely impacted the prospects of the China-Europe Railway Express, as its main corridors traverse Russia. The conflict has raised concerns among traders about the viability and safety of using these routes. This uncertainty has made routes through Central Asia not only attractive but also vital for China’s continued trade with Europe.

For the West, too, Central Asia offers an important alternative route for trade with Asia, especially in the wake of the Western rupture with Russia over Ukraine. Central Asian countries, while maintaining a neutral stance in the Ukrainian conflict, are acutely aware of the benefits of diversifying away from the Russian-dominated Northern Corridor. As a result, they have embraced the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route (TITR), frequently labeled the Middle Corridor, seeing it as a way to improve infrastructure and boost regional trade. In the first nine months of 2023, the volume of cargo transportation along the TITR surged by 88 percent, reaching 2 million tons. Kazakhstan, a key player in the Middle Corridor, experienced a significant increase in cargo volumes, more than doubling to 1.5 million tons, in contrast to the Northern Route’s 40 percent decline, affected by the geopolitical instability around Russia. Kazakhstan’s goal is to increase the capacity of TITR up to 10 million tons by 2030.

This growing interest in the Middle Corridor from powers like the United States, the European Union, and China is not incidental; it’s deeply rooted in their long-term strategies. For Washington, supporting TITR counteracts Russia’s influence over Eurasian trade routes, a desirable geopolitical outcome post-Ukraine. It also opens access to the emerging Central Asian markets, offering trade and investment opportunities beyond transportation. For the European Union, the Middle Corridor aligns with its engagement strategy with resource-rich Central Asia, offering an alternative to Russian routes and enhancing energy security and supply chain diversification. Meanwhile, for China, the Middle Corridor offers a smoother commercial pathway to Europe.

Other major projects are also on the horizon. One of the key projects underway is the completion of the Second Track of the Dostyk-Moiynty Railway in Kazakhstan. Scheduled for completion in late 2025, it aims to boost the transit traffic between China and Europe, with an estimated economic effect of $8.8 billion over twenty years, according to Kazakhstan’s Prime Minister Alikhan Smailov. Another notable project is the construction of the Bakhty-Ayagoz Railway Line, which commenced in December 2023. This new 272-kilometer-long railway line, scheduled for completion in 2027, aims to increase the throughput capacity of Kazakhstan’s border crossing points with China from twenty-eight million tons to approximately forty-eight million.

Furthermore, the Darbaza-Maktaaral Railway Line, a new 152-km line connecting Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, commenced in November 2023 and is set to be completed by 2025. This line aims to increase corridor capacity, reduce transit times, and integrate regional trade routes. Lastly, the Aktau Port Container Hub project, planned for completion by 2025, is expected to increase the port’s container handling capacity from 70,000 twenty-foot equivalent units to over 300,000, significantly enhancing the efficiency of cargo transportation.

Investment in Central Asia’s infrastructure is crucial to unlocking its transit potential. This includes the development of railways, highways, and logistics hubs. Western technology and expertise can play a significant role in this development, creating a symbiotic relationship where Western businesses gain new opportunities and the region benefits from economic growth.

This investment also aligns with environmental objectives. Land-based transit like rail is more carbon-efficient than air or maritime freight. Consequently, investing in these transit routes through Kazakhstan reduces the carbon footprint of international trade.

Moreover, enhancing Central Asia’s transit capacity is a diplomatic endeavor. It offers the West a platform to strengthen ties with the region, fostering balanced regional development and stability and serving the long-term interests of both parties.

Ultimately, Kazakhstan’s transit potential is a geopolitical asset for both the East and the West. By supporting its development, China and Western countries can secure a strategic trade corridor that enhances their economic interests and diversifies international trade routes. It is also an investment in a more interconnected and resilient global economy. Recognizing and capitalizing on Kazakhstan’s strategic position is crucial for nearly all of the world’s major powers in this era of global economic realignment.

Stefan Antić is a Senior Research Fellow at the Center for International Relations and Sustainable Development in Belgrade, Serbia, and Managing Editor of Horizons, a quarterly English-language magazine.

Image: Shutterstock.

Embarking on a New Era: Libya’s National Dialogue for Unity and Progress

Tue, 09/01/2024 - 21:13

In the wake of a tumultuous decade marked by conflict and division, Libya stands on the brink of a promising new chapter. Earlier this year, responding to an overwhelming call from my fellow countrymen and women, and given the crippling stalemate that has characterized the UN-led mission established in 2011 to bring peace and stability to Libya, I initiated a series of nation-wide consultations as a path towards building an accurate and representative national dialogue. This effort constitutes the first-ever inclusive, non-sectarian, and entirely Libyan-led endeavor in our nation’s modern history since its independence in 1951. It also represents a pivotal moment when Libyans from all walks of life have a genuine chance to assert their sovereign and inalienable right to shape their destiny, uniting to forge a brighter future for our beloved homeland and its children.

Over the past months, these discussions have transcended the country’s internal divides, bringing together diverse voices and evidencing anew that the Libyan people are willing—and indeed able—to engage in meaningful exchange when given the proper opportunity to do so. Participants have included national political figures, local community leaders, city, municipal, and military authorities, tribal representatives, religious heads, minorities, labor unionists, youth activists, students, and academics. Each meeting and conversation, numerous details and photographs of which have been publicized online, propels us closer to a national consensus, driving the dialogue’s momentum forward in a manner that is as inspiring as it is irreversible.

One point of solid consensus that has emerged is the urgent need for this new and genuinely Libyan-led National Dialogue to carry on and to expand in the most appropriate format all across our homeland. For over a decade now, multiple international stakeholders have attempted—and ultimately failed—to reach an agreement among Libyans. But these initiatives were not Libyan-led, and partly for security reasons, they were almost entirely enacted outside Libya.

It is my deeply held conviction that no process of national dialogue can succeed unless it is Libyan-led, concluded on Libyan soil, and inclusive of all segments of Libyan society. Therefore, the next phase of this ambitious National Dialogue shall not only focus on broadening and intensifying our efforts with great determination but also anchor these discussions firmly in our homeland to bring this chapter of unimaginable suffering and chaos to an end and at last to set our beloved country on its righteous path to stability, prosperity, and a hopeful future.

A second area of significant convergence lies in the resolute belief that, after years of conflict, division, and failed political experimentation, the time has come to rediscover and embrace our shared Libyan national identity once more as the basis of any solution. This singular identity, steeped in a rich tapestry of history—from the days of the ancient Greeks and Romans to the Ottoman era to the struggle against Italian colonization and the Second World War, and the pivotal moments leading to our independence in 1951—is both our unifying force and our greatest strength.

In fact, in 1949, the first National Dialogue in our country’s modern history was launched. Through this momentous process, which drew on our own history, culture, and traditions, Libyans collectively and decidedly chose a democratic constitutional monarchy as their way forward to independence and beyond. This golden era, held under the cohesive power of the Independence Constitution, serves as a tribute to our ability to unite, self-govern, and thrive.

As we again engage in these most vital and urgent conversations of nation-building, a common aspiration arises: namely, to return to the principles and values on which the Independence Constitution was founded. These include patriotic duty, national responsibility, good ethics, transparency, tolerance, and inclusivity, and all remain central components of our cherished Libyan identity. This time-honored framework resonates profoundly with our national ethos and offers a beacon of hope for a well-governed, united Libya.

To our friends in the international community, we extend sincere gratitude for their past support, yet now convey our staunch commitment to charting our own autonomous path. We invite you to join us and contribute to this new comprehensive dialogue. This Libyan-led and inclusive movement is effectively more aligned with the Libyan people’s yearnings, free from the narrow internal and external interests that have spawned dysfunctionality and systemic domestic corruption.

To our neighbors, we extend a brotherly invitation to partake in Libya’s rebirth. A stable, peaceful, and flourishing Libya will not only bolster our own nation but also contribute significantly to the broader region’s safety and overall prosperity. In division, our weaknesses become your risks. But in unity, our thriving becomes your strength.

As we advance and deepen this new Libyan National Dialogue, we are not merely discussing our country’s future—we are actively shaping it. This process vastly surpasses a simple political endeavor; it stands as a renewal of our national spirit, a rekindling of hope, and a compelling testament to the resilience and unity of the Libyan people. Together, we stand at the dawn of a new era, ready to reclaim our destiny and rebuild a nation that honors our proud history, our diverse voices, and our collective aspirations. Long live a united Libya.

His Royal Highness Mohammed Senussi is the Crown Prince of Libya.

Image: Husein Eddeb / Shutterstock.com.

The B-21 Raider, F/A-18 Super Hornet and F-15EX Fighter: Just Too Expensive?

Tue, 09/01/2024 - 20:48

Northrop Grumman Set to Lose a Billion Dollars Building the First B-21 Raiders - The greatest threat to the United States military may not be near-peer adversaries such as Russia and China – rather, it could be the rising cost of the latest military hardware.

A point could be made that we're not facing mutually assured destruction in a war with either power, but that we're at risk of mutually assured bankruptcy.

It was in October 2023 that Northrop Grumman announced it would likely lose up to $1.2 billion to produce the B-21 Raider bomber during its low-rate initial production. Due to inflation, labor problems, and lingering supply chain issues – all of which are complicating the production process for the next-generation long-range strategic bomber – the company at best is expecting not to turn any profit at first.

"We are planning at a zero profitability [on the B-21 for now]," Northrop Grumman chief executive Kathy Warden said in an October call with analysts, according to a report from Defense News. "But we have to perform, and we are working hard to ensure that plan is what we achieve."

The aerospace firm reported a quarterly profit of $937 million, up from two percent a year prior – so it isn't completely dire.

B-21 Raider: A Costly Aircraft

The United States Air Force has announced plans to buy at least 100 B-21s, an advanced stealth bomber, which will replace the aging B-1B Lancer and B-2 Spirit bombers now in service. The B-21 will provide the service with new abilities to conduct penetrating deep-strike missions, and the aircraft will be able to carry both conventional and nuclear weapons – but it will also be one of the most expensive aircraft ever built, and the service certainly won't want to lose any.

Though the price has been classified, each aircraft could cost upwards of $750 million, and that's only if the costs are spread out to a full 100.

This is a lesson the Air Force learned all too well more than 15 years ago.

It has been reported that the B-2 Spirit named "Spirit of Kansas" that crashed in 2008 at Andersen Air Force Base saw the complete loss of the stealth aircraft as it flipped and caught fire. The total price tag of the accident was $1.4 billion!

The F/A-18 is Getting Too Expensive

It isn't just the latest and greatest aircraft that are becoming so expensive. As previously reported, the United States Navy has been at a standstill in negotiations with Boeing over the final F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets. Previous estimates put the unit cost of the final batch of aircraft at $55.7 million, and lawmakers on Capitol Hill authorized about $1.15 billion for the aircraft. The math added up to the 20 aircraft – but then like everything else, the price went up, way up.

Boeing's estimate for the Super Hornets came in much higher, almost to the point that it was approaching the cost of the Lockheed Martin F-35C, the aircraft carrier variant of the Lightning II. According to a report from Breaking Defense in October, Lots 15 to 17 – the latest of the F-35C – had a reported cost of $102.1 million per aircraft.

Boeing, which was locked into a handful of contracts that forced the company to take a loss when technology development went over budget, saw significant losses last year, Reuters reported in October.

The F-15EX Costs As Much as the F-35

The story is similar to Boeing's F-15EX, as its price tag has also gone up, and it has a higher price tag than the fifth-generation Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. The per-plane cost for the F-15EX Eagle II in Lot 3 is expected to be as high as $97 million and $94 million for Lot 4.

The F-35 Joint Program Office spokesman Russ Goemaere also told Breaking Defense in October that the United States Air Force's variant of the stealth fighter – the conventional takeoff and landing F-35A – currently has an "average" flyaway cost of $82.5 million for the jet's 15th, 16th and 17th production lots, which will be delivered in calendar years 2023, 2024 and 2025 respectively.

Indeed, the average flyaway price for the vertical takeoff and landing F-35B is $109 million, while the carrier-launched F-35C has a flyaway price of $102.1 million for lots 15-17, but neither variant is used by the Air Force.

The Future of Aircraft Development

It was also reported in July that Northrop Grumman had announced that it won't compete to be the prime contractor for the United States Air Force's Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter program – yet, it could still bid on the U.S. Navy's F/A-XX or Air Force's Collaborative Combat Aircraft programs.

As it stands, only Boeing and Lockheed Martin now build fighters for the Air Force. While these companies are still giants in the military aerospace sector, a question should be asked if they can afford to lose money building the aircraft. And if they opt to exit the market, what does that mean for the future of the Air Force and Navy?

And this doesn't even address the costs of the U.S. Navy's aircraft carriers – which are the most expensive military platforms ever built!

Author Experience and Expertise

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

Images are sourced from both Shutterstock and Creative Commons. 

The F-16 Fighter Is No Silver Bullet That Will Win the War for Ukraine

Tue, 09/01/2024 - 20:26

The Ukrainians have fought ardently to keep the Russian invaders at bay – but the Ukrainian resistance has depended mainly on foreign military aid.

Wisely, the Ukrainians have vigorously lobbied the Western powers for cash and equipment donations. And at the top of the Ukrainian’s wish list was the multi-role F-16, an American fourth-generation fighter that has been exported throughout NATO.

The Ukrainians were elated when allies agreed to ship F-16s to Ukraine. But now, an initial shipment of Copenhagen’s F-16s will be delayed several months, complicating the Ukrainian defense effort.

Yet, the Ukrainians have lasted two years without the F-16 – is the jet vital to Kyiv’s defense?

The Russo-Ukraine War from Above

Ukraine is “outnumbered and outgunned in the skies.” The Russians have relied upon the Su-35 and MiG-31 whereas the Ukrainians have relied upon the Su-27 and MiG-29. The Russian aircraft have higher-powered radar and more advanced missiles (AA-12;Khinzal) than the Ukrainian counterparts.

The result is that the Russians can detect and engage the Ukrainian aircraft, almost like a boxer with a pronounced reach advantage, from a distance within which the Ukrainians cannot detect or fire upon the Russians. So, Russians can engage frontline targets with relative impunity, beyond the range of Ukrainian aircraft.   

Ukraine has supplemented their deficiency with surface-to-air missiles – which have helped to mitigate the effectiveness of Russian aircraft. Western aid has proven especially helpful in bolstering Ukraine’s air defense system; Western nations have donated IRIS-T, NASAMS, and PATRIOT missile defense systems. But the surface-to-air dependency is a stop-gap, offering a purely defensive stance.

The F-16s offer Ukraine a longer-term fix and the opportunity to take the offensive. Indeed, the F-16, which has more advanced radar and missiles than the Ukrainians existing Su-27s and MiG-29s, would allow Ukraine to engage the Russian aircraft from greater distances. The F-16 can launch missiles like the AIM-120, a “fire and forget” system that will track a target without the pilot keeping the target in their line of sight. And the AIM-120 can be fired upon multiple targets simultaneously.

“Kyiv’s allies hope the [F-16] can push Russian aircraft farther from the frontlines, target radar transmitters more effectively and hunt down more cruise missiles,” Reuters reported. “But [the F-16s] will help address a problem that has persisted from the start of the invasion in February 2022: Russia’s more modern combat aircraft have been difficult for Ukraine’s military to counter with its own aging fighters.”

Ukraine has done an admirable job of denying air space to the Russian invaders. Early in the conflict, in a bid to gain air superiority over Ukraine, Russia ran aggressive air attacks. Ukraine thwarted the initial aerial assault – and then bolstered their air defense network with surface-to-air missiles and intelligence gathering, beating the odds and denying Russia air superiority for almost two years. But the Ukrainians are treading water, so to speak, and rather than just tread water, the F-16 would allow Ukraine to push back.

“Besides potentially limiting the number of airstrikes on front-line Ukrainian troops, F-16s could operate closer to the line of contact and attack Russian air-defence systems,” Reuters reported.

A panacea? F-16 Won't Save or Win the War for Ukraine

Still, F-16s are not going to offer some sort of magic bullet for the Ukrainians.

“Western military officials and experts say adding F-16s to Ukraine’s fleet will not abruptly change the course of the war,” Reuters reported. “Training pilots and support crews takes time, surface-to-air missiles remain a major threat, and the jets are not designed for Ukraine’s damaged and sometimes makeshift runways.”

But the F-16 is most assuredly an improvement over the Ukrainian’s existing fighter fleet. And the F-16 offers Ukraine the opportunity to move away from Soviet built tech, and become more closely aligned with NATO technology.

Acquiring F-16s “locks Ukraine onto a technological path that NATO is currently on,” said Professor Robert Farley. “What Ukraine has now is a dead end; It’s not going anywhere. If you want to have an air force in 10 years, it’s going to have to be F-16s or something similar.”

Ukraine’s current fighter fleet consists of Soviet Cold War fighters – which have long since become obsolete. Supplementing the Mig-29s and Su-27s are even older models like the Su-24s and Su-25s – jets that will struggle to keep pace with advancing Russian technology and will become increasingly hard to service as spare parts become harder to find.

F-16: Bottom Line

In sum, the Ukrainians, relying on Western assistance, have done an admirable job of denying Russians the airspace over Ukraine. The F-16 would help Ukraine mitigate Russia’s fighter advantage, perhaps allowing Ukraine to “push back.”

But the F-16 will not be a panacea or an overnight key to ousting the Russians from Ukrainian territory.

About the Author: Harrison Kass 

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

All images are from Shutterstock. 

Commerce Secretary Antagonizes Chip Manufacturers Amid Conflicting AI Messaging

Tue, 09/01/2024 - 20:23

At the Reagan National Defense Forum last month, United States Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo gave seemingly conflicting statements on the purpose of AI regulation, her stance on the U.S. relationship with China, and the continued development of artificial intelligence. Rather than focus on enabling U.S. development of AI, she threatened companies with lost revenue due to regulations while saying the United States should maintain its AI lead. She compared the U.S. relationship with China with that of the Soviet Union while claiming she doesn’t want “tension.” This comes after her department was greatly empowered by Biden’s recent executive order on AI—an important role that requires trust and a level head.

Raimondo’s statements came with a jibe directed at tech companies who lost money to her capricious regulations. “I know there are CEOs of chip companies in this audience who are a little cranky,” she said, “[be]cause they’re losing revenue. Such is life”. Not only is it unbecoming that of all government officials, the Commerce Secretary would be this actively hostile to industry, but that hostility also risks creating an uncertain environment for AI investment in the United States—a grave error for an industry Raimondo correctly cites as one of the most important for our national security.

Secretary Raimondo, who heads the department that has already once banned the export of chips designed to meet her requirements, then complained that it was “not productive” for Nvidia to respect export controls again by creating new chips below the latest thresholds. These thresholds, designed to restrict extremely high-performance chips, are primarily objective metrics of compute power measured in FLOPS, or “floating point operations per second.” The Commerce Department restricts chips with performance above these thresholds, indicating that those under it are deemed acceptable for export by the United States. Despite this, the strategy of the Commerce Department does not seem to be setting this threshold where they want it to be — or they simply don’t have the understanding to develop consistent thresholds and are setting reactionary regulations. Raimondo claimed that if manufacturers design a chip too close to the threshold—even if it’s still below it—“I’m going to control it the very next day.” This statement hinted at a potential export ban on Nvidia’s upcoming H20 chip, designed in good faith to comply with current regulations.

Such a ban would constitute enormous waste, both of design time and manufacturing, but that doesn’t seem to faze Raimondo, who boasts that “Every time I take an action, it denies them revenue.” Deny them the revenue it has, with the impacts of one regulation on the U.S.-based Nvidia estimated at $400 Million. That’s money that, were it not for the government’s intervention, could be reinvested into furthering chip development and increasing the U.S.’s lead in this technology. It’s difficult to ascribe any motivation to this destructive ambiguity from regulators short of active hostility to business from the Commerce Secretary.

Secretary Raimondo is not only inconsistent on export policy but also on foreign relations as a whole. At the same fireside chat, just minutes after recommending “Cold War” tactics on export controls, Raimondo turned to discuss ties with China, saying, “We have no interest in tension”—not quite the message sent by Cold War rhetoric. Raimondo phrased her export bans as “denying an entire country” access to technology, saying, “We’re going to continue to go in that direction.” This denial of technology to China also denies technology to smaller U.S. companies that can’t afford to train their Large Language Models but can use large “open weights” models released by Chinese researchers. While this may not be a major factor in the current day, with top open-weight models like Mistral and Llama 2 coming out of Western nations, any blow to open-source AI stifles innovation and benefits Sam Altman’s OpenAI, which will have less competition in the space of very large models like ChatGPT.

Raimondo cites an agreeable goal for this policy, stating, “We’re a couple years ahead of China, no way are we gonna let them catch up.” It is, indeed, essential for the United States to retain its lead in this vital technology over China, however useful their contributions may be. But not being caught requires continuing development. Raimondo also railed against the “effective acceleration” (“e/acc”) movement, mainly composed of software and AI engineers who believe in advancing AI development. She said, “There’s a view in Silicon Valley, you know, this ‘move fast and break things,’ effective acceleration. We can’t embrace that with AI, it’s too dangerous.” If Raimondo truly believes this technology is too dangerous, it’s all the more critical to maintain our lead over China—and if it’s not, then we shouldn’t slow down the development of a technology that is already improving outcomes in fields like healthcare.

Perhaps if Raimondo believes in maintaining our lead in AI, she should spend less time railing against the U.S. companies and engineers and leave them room to invest more time and money into staying ahead — something best done without vague threats of regulation and lost revenue hanging over the heads of American companies.

About the Author 

Dylan Dean is a software engineer with degrees in Electrical and Computer Engineering and an advocate for the decentralization of emerging technologies.

Image: Lev Radin / Shutterstock.com.

Russia's First Nuclear Submarine: The November-Class Made Some Strange History

Tue, 09/01/2024 - 20:14

Russia's Last November-class Submarine Took a Road Trip - In October 2022, a 352-foot-long "Whale" was transported through the streets of Kronstadt near Saint Petersburg, Russia. It wasn't a literal whale but was rather the sole surviving Project 627 Kit (Russian for "Whale"). Known by the NATO reporting name "November," it was the Soviet Union's first class of nuclear-powered attack submarines, which had been in service from 1958 to 1990.

The K-3, which had been at the Nerpa shipyard since 2005, was prepared for its final voyage that included being placed on a floating dock, operated by the Russian Ministry of Defense's Main Directorate for Deep-Sea Research (GUGI), where it sailed from the Barents Sea coast via the White Sea and the inner waterways to Kronstadt.

According to The Barents Observer, the floating dock, commissioned at the Zeleodolsk shipyard by the Volga River in 2015, was specially designed for sailing Russia’s inner waterways, including the White Sea Chanel that was built by Soviet prisoners in Karelia during the Stalin era.

November-Class: Meet the K-3

The K-3 Leninsky Komsomol, built in 1957, was the Soviet Union's first-ever nuclear submarine. It was developed as part of an effort to counter the United States Navy's USS Nautilus (SSN-571), the world's first nuclear-powered sub.

More than 135 Soviet organizations, including 20 design bureaus, 35 research institutes, and 80 works, participated in the design and construction of this completely new type of submarine in 1952–1958.

Interestingly, the lead vessel of the Project 627 was prototyped in wood, with each of five segments scattered between five different locations around Leningrad, including the Astoria Hotel. The K-3 submarine was subsequently built in Molotovsk, and launched in August 1957.  It was commissioned the following year as part of the Soviet Navy's Northern Fleet.

The torpedo-shaped boat displaced more than 4,000 tons submerged and more than 100 meters long. Seventy-four seamen and thirty officers divided in the K-3's nine compartments, made up the boat's crew.

Despite the issues with the boats, the K-3 reached the North Pole underwater in June 1962, the first Soviet boat to achieve the feat – and just four years after the USS Nautilus.

Though the submarine suffered a fire five years later while transiting the Norwegian Sea, resulting in the death of 39 crew members, the boat was repaired and remained in service until 1988 – seeing three decades of service.

The K-3 served as the prototype submarine for a total of 12 similar subs (Project 627A) that were subsequently built, including the K-159 that sank north of Murmansk in 2003
As previously reported, the Project 627 submarines were seen excellent attack vessels. Once in range, one of these boats could strike with 533mm SET-65 or 53-65K torpedoes; yet while they were technically more powerful than their American counterparts, the Soviet subs were extremely noisy. As a result, the Project 627 vessels were easily detected and could therefore not be employed in submarine hunting operations. 

Another major flaw the boats possessed was the overall lack of safety measures. Crew members were often sickened by the ship's lack of radiation shielding. Multiple incidents plagued the various November-class submarines over the years.

Preservation Efforts

After being taken out of service in 1988, the retired submarine was moved to the Nerpa shipyard in 2005, and a few years later, the work on cutting out the reactor compartment began. The nuclear reactor compartment was removed, and as a result, the restored boat is actually a bit shorter.

The boat had to be carefully moved through the streets of Kronstadt and is now scheduled to be preserved as a museum – a testament to the first Soviet nuclear-powered submarine.

There has been speculation that the Soviet-era sub was saved only because of the efforts made to preserve the USS Nautilus, which was decommissioned in 1980 and designated a National Historic Landmark in 1982. The former U.S. Navy submarine has been preserved as a museum ship at the Submarine Force Library and Museum in Groton, Connecticut, where the vessel receives around 250,000 visitors per year.

Author Experience and Expertise

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Type 212A Submarine: A German Naval Masterpiece

Tue, 09/01/2024 - 19:46

Summary: The article traces the history of German submarines from World War II to the modern era, focusing on the highly capable Type 212A submarines. Developed by Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft AG (HDW) for the German and Italian navies, the Type 212A introduced Fuel Cell Air Independent Power (AIP) technology, enabling silent cruising and extended submerged operations. These submarines have become an integral part of the German Navy, expanding its operational range to Northern Europe, the North Atlantic, and the Mediterranean Sea. The article also previews the future Type 212CD submarines, featuring improved sensors, extended range, and reduced acoustic presence for covert missions.

The German Navy's Type 212A Submarines

The Imperial German Navy (Kaiserliche Marine) was among the earliest pioneers of submarine warfare, and the first to operate submarines successfully on a large scale in wartime. During World War II, the Kriegsmarine further expanded its use of submarines – where they were a major component of the Battle of the Atlantic.

Germany's U-boats successfully operated far from its home waters, as far as the southern African coasts and even into the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean. By the end of the war, almost 3,000 Allied ships (175 warships; 2,825 merchant ships) had been sunk by U-boat torpedoes.

Today, the modern German Navy (Deutsche Marine) operates a far smaller number of submarines, but these are considered highly capable boats that could quickly confront an adversary's surface fleet or ballistic missile submarines.

Enter the Type 212A

Barred from having submarines in the Bundesmarine after World War II until 1960, West Germany lagged in the development of submarines. Beginning with the Type 201 submarines – the first U-boat class built after the Second World War – there has been renewed focus on submarines that has continued into the 21st century.

The current generation of Deutsche Marine submarines is the Type-212A (aka U-212A) has earned a reputation as a reliable and advanced submarine. Developed by Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft AG (HDW) for the German and Italian navies (as the Torado-class for Italy), the Type-212A was the first to make use of Fuel Cell AIP (Air Independent Power).

The submarines can operate at high speed on diesel power yet switch to the AIP system for silent cruising at slow speed. It can also stay submerged for up to three weeks with little exhaust heat­making the Type-212A virtually undetectable.

The German Navy has boasted that it is the quietest submarine in operation today, and a total of six Type 212A U-boats were commissioned between 2004 and 2015.

Beyond the Baltic

As the German Navy has expanded its operating area to cover the waters of Northern Europe, the North Atlantic, and the Mediterranean Sea, the Type-212A has been crucial­allowing Germany to operate in the littoral areas as well as the open sea. The submarines are also equipped with a highly integrated command and weapons control system that interfaces with the sensors, weapons, and navigation systems.

The Type-212A offers an even greater range, diving depth, and displacement than its predecessor submarines while being equipped with improved communications systems and reconnaissance capabilities. In support of the modernization efforts, the sixth Type-212A submarines in service have also been equipped with land-attack capability. The first of the improved class, U-32 is approximately 183 feet long with a beam of nearly twenty-two feet. It has a draught of nineteen feet.

Notably, that the Type-212A boats are manned by just five officers and twenty-two sailors, and the submarine features two decks­which was able to provide additional sleeping and living space and the end of "warm bunking." The boat's torpedo area is even reported to be spacious enough that it is no longer necessary to divide the interior to reload weapons.

Torpedoes are still the primary weapon, and the Type-212A features six 533-millimeter torpedo tubes. The tubes are positioned in two rows of three, four pointing slightly to the left while two tubes point to the right. Additionally, the submarines can be used to deploy German special operations forces through the torpedo tubes. While the German Navy may only have six of these Type-212A boats in operation these are quite a powerful and quiet boat that has the ability to operate in brown, green and blue water environments.

The Future Type 212CDs

Germany has already begun to look beyond the Type 212A U-boats, while Norway has begun constructing identical submarines to boost their maritime defense and strengthen military collaboration. Dubbed the 212CD, the vessel will be based on the well-established Type 212A operated by the German Navy and the Italian Navy.

A total of six 212CDs are now being constructed as part of a contract worth 5.5 billion euros ($5.9 billion) signed in 2021. Two of the advanced submarines under construction will be handed over to Berlin, while four will be delivered to the Norwegian Navy beginning in 2029.

The new submarine will be significantly larger than its predecessor, measuring 73 meters (240 feet) compared to the earlier version's 56 meters (184 feet). Moreover, the 212CD will boast a displacement of 2,500 cubic meters (88,286 cubic feet), as compared to the 1,450 tons of the 212A.

The future vessels will be equipped with improved sensors, an extended operational range, and reduced acoustic presence to support covert operations.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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

American Military Support for Ukraine Must Continue

Tue, 09/01/2024 - 19:22

Although both the House and Senate leaderships have agreed to a top-line budget of $1.59 trillion (with an additional “side deal” of $79 billion) for fiscal year 2024, there remains the requirement to pass the remaining eight appropriations bills to avoid a partial government shutdown. With time running out before a shutdown, Congress will likely have to pass another Continuing Resolution that would last long enough for the appropriations bills to pass. Critically, however, even if all the appropriations bills were signed into law before January 19, when the first tranche of bills must pass, Congress would not yet have passed legislation to provide additional funding for Ukraine.

The Biden administration’s October supplemental appropriations request for $106 billion, upon which Congress has yet to act, consists of funding to provide additional military and economic support to Ukraine, assistance to Israel and Taiwan, and resources for border protection programs. Funding for Ukraine, which totals $61.4 billion, is by far the largest item in the supplemental request. The defense-related aid package, the most critical element of the Ukraine-related request, amounts to over $44.4 billion for items in the DoD operations and maintenance accounts. These provide for, among other things, personnel support, intelligence analysis, flying hours, replacement of defense materiel sent to Ukraine, reimbursement for services provided to Ukraine, and defense production capacity expansion. The administration is requesting an additional $6 billion in the DoD procurement account, consisting of funds to increase the production of missile systems and critical munitions, for ship depot maintenance, for cybersecurity, and for some classified programs.

Late in December, with Congress failing to act on his supplemental request, President Joe Biden announced yet another drawdown of military equipment for Ukraine. It was the fifty-fourth such drawdown since 2021. The DoD reported that the latest drawdown consisted of air defense capabilities, artillery, antitank weapons, and other equipment totaling $250 million.

While certainly to be welcomed, the sum involved is but a tiny fraction of Ukraine’s urgent requirements and, indeed, what the supplemental calls for. Moreover, reportedly, the drawdown is likely to be the last of its kind, so that absent the passage of the supplemental, even the trickle of military aid to Ukraine will come to a complete halt.

The supplemental’s fate depends not so much on congressional attitudes toward supporting Ukraine, though these have slowly cooled since the Russians invaded the country in February 2022, but rather on whether Congress can reach an agreement on funding and policies for border control. Even if such an agreement could be reached and the supplemental approved, it is not at all certain that the Administration could push through a follow-on supplemental later this year.

Ukraine is no longer the center of media and public attention. Moreover, to the extent foreign policy will be a major issue in the presidential election campaign, it is more likely to focus on the Middle East—especially with Israel still at war—and on China, whose aggression in the South China Sea is unlikely to diminish, rather than on the war in Europe. Moreover, Ukraine’s failure to achieve anything like a decisive result in its much-ballyhooed spring counteroffensive has also dampened congressional enthusiasm, especially among an increasing number of Republicans who question whether it is worth continuing to spend large sums to support Kyiv.

Clearly, should no additional supplemental funding be forthcoming, Ukraine will find itself entirely dependent on European and other allies for equipment, logistics support, and training. Since Washington has provided roughly half of all military funding to support Ukraine, the absence of American support would jeopardize Ukraine’s chances of retaining the territory it currently controls, much less adding to it.

Indeed, in recent days, Russian forces have slowly seized some additional Ukrainian territory, west and south of Marinka near Donetsk City as well as southwest of the city near Novomikhailivka. The Russian objective remains to take control of all of Donetsk and Luhansk to strengthen its claim to the two rebellious provinces. Though Russia has lost most of the forces that initially attacked Ukraine, it has replenished them with a mélange of older and younger draftees. Ultimately, Russian forces vastly outnumber those of Ukraine, and Putin has shown no compunction about employing a meatgrinder strategy if that is what it takes both to block Ukrainian advances and to inch Russian forces forward. While Ukrainian forces have generally kept Russian troops at bay until now, it will be much harder for them to do so if American assistance dries up.

Putin is determined to stay the course and prosecute his war, in President Biden’s words, “for as long as it takes.” Staying the course means, at a minimum, pursuing Russian operations until after the American presidential election, from which Putin surely hopes that Donald Trump, who has no interest in supporting Ukraine, will emerge victorious. Congressional reluctance to fund additional military support for Ukraine would only further encourage Putin to resist any overtures for a negotiated solution to the war.

In the absence of American support for Ukraine, the odds that Russia will achieve its objectives will rise dramatically. It could either ingest all of Ukraine in one fell swoop or bite off a portion of the country, leaving it as little more than a rump state, which Moscow could ultimately swallow much as Hitler swallowed post-Sudetenland Czechoslovakia. Moreover, like Hitler, Putin is unlikely to remain satisfied with absorbing Ukraine into what he considers to be historical Russia. Moldova would probably be next. And then, if Trump makes good on his promise to re-evaluate American participation in NATO should he return to the White House, one or more of the Baltic states would be sure to follow.

There is no predicting the outcome of the November elections. If a month is a long time in politics, ten months is even more so. Still, the specter of an indifferent America led by Donald Trump should worry all legislators who care about the future of a free Europe and what the loss of that freedom would mean for the United States. For that reason, Congress should fund the supplemental as soon as President Biden signs the various appropriations bills that will come before him in the next weeks. And Biden, in turn, should request yet another follow-on supplemental.

The stakes for the United States are simply too high for America to turn a blind eye to a war that could spread well beyond the borders of Ukraine and ultimately threaten both American world leadership and its national security.

About the Author: Dov S. Zakheim

Dov S. Zakheim is Vice Chairman of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, a Senior Advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and a member of The National Interest Advisory Board. He is a former Under Secretary of Defense and Deputy Under Secretary of Defense.

Image: Shutterstock. 

A26: Sweden's Blekinge-Class Submarine Could Be a Game Changer

Tue, 09/01/2024 - 19:14

Sweden is Developing an Advanced Submarine - Throughout the Cold War, the Soviet Union had the largest fleet of submarines in the world, as well as the largest in world naval history. Today, the Russian Navy is essentially a shell of its former self, but its submarines are still considered capable and that is a fact that has worried NATO leaders for years. Soon, however, the international alliance will have another member state that will help counter Russia's submarine force – namely Sweden.

It was announced in late June 2022 that Sweden, along with Finland, had been formally invited to join NATO, and that news coincided with the word that a keel laying ceremony was held for HMS Blekinge, the first two of two A26 type submarines now on order for the Royal Swedish Navy.

The Keel Laying Ceremony for HSwMS Blekinge took place at Saab's shipyard in Karlskrona. In attendance were representatives from the Swedish Navy.

The A26 program was formally launched in 2015 after FMV (Swedish Defence Materiel Administration) placed an order for two new generation submarines for the Royal Swedish Navy. Each of the Blekinge -class boats will be 65m in length, and the modern submarines will have a surfaced displacement of 2,000 tonnes (2,200 tons). The boats will be equipped with a Stirling AIP and can dive for more than 18 days.

The standard complement will reportedly consist of 26 sailors, but it can accommodate up to 35 sailors including commandos and other passengers.

HMS Blekinge is expected to be delivered to the Swedish Navy in 2027 while the second submarine, HMS Skåne, is set to be delivered in 2028. Construction began in 2015 at Saab's Kockum Shipyard, in the southwest of the country, and according to a report from international analytics firm GlobalData, the contract allocation for the conventionally powered boats is worth $731 million.

A26 Submarine Program: What We Know

According to a December 2023 report from Naval-Technology, the A26 submarine's modular hull structure is made from special steel, which was developed to offer high-seakeeping performance and operational effectiveness. In addition, the boats' X-rudder configuration with four independently controlled control surfaces is meant to provide high maneuverability, while the subs will require low operating and maintenance costs.

Saab has also expressly stated it is "currently constructing the world's most advanced conventional submarine" – and that includes its stealth technology, notably the Sterling Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) system, which can enable the diesel-powered vessels to spend longer periods underwater without having to surface to recharge batteries.

As previously reported, the A26 program also makes use of Saab's Ghost stealth technology – the Genuine HOlistic Stealth – which is even quieter than their upgraded Gotland-class submarine.

"This incredibly low acoustic signature is achieved through a variety of means. The Blekinge-class makes use of rubberized mounts and baffles inside the submarine to reduce noise cause by on-board machinery or crew. Additionally, frames within the sub are filled with 'acoustic damping plates' that absorb ambient sound from within the submarine," noted Caleb Larson for TNI.

A New NATO Sub?

Sweden may not be the only operator of the advanced conventionally-powered boats.

A modified export variant of the A26 program – designated the C718 design – has been proposed for the Royal Netherlands Navy (RNLN). It would feature a larger hull diameter, increased length, and greater displacement.

In addition, the A26 Blekinge submarines have been offered to the Polish Navy as a possible choice for the "Orka" modernization program.

Stockholm's Submarine Force

In addition to the Blekinge-class boats that will eventually enter service by the end of the decade, Sweden currently has three Gotland-class submarines, which were built between 1992 and 1997. Stockholm is currently undertaking mid-life upgrade (MLU) modernization efforts on the submarines of the class to extend the service lives of those vessels. It was the first operational submarine class in the world to use air-independent propulsion in the form of Stirling engines which use liquid oxygen and diesel as the propellant.

The Royal Swedish Navy further continues to operate two of the original four Västergötland -class submarines dating from the 1980s, while two others were sold to Singapore. Two other submarines were also launched as part of the Västergötland-class, but have since re-launched after an extensive modernization in 2003 and 2004 as the   Södermanland- class. HSwMS Södermanland (Söd) and HSwMS Östergötland (Ögd) are expected to remain in service at least until the Blekinge-class are commissioned.

All of the Swedish submarines will likely play an important role in countering Russian aggression in the Baltic Sea, which could increasingly become a NATO-controlled lake.

Author Experience and Expertise

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

Main Image is from Saab. All others are Creative Commons. 

How the Leopard 2 Tank Keeps Getting Better (As in More Lethal)

Tue, 09/01/2024 - 18:30

Summary: This analysis discusses the continuous evolution of the Leopard 2 main battle tank (MBT) since its introduction in 1979, focusing on the modernized Leopard 2A7 variant. This advanced MBT features significant upgrades, including enhanced armor, improved energy systems, crew comfort enhancements, and a state-of-the-art weapon and battlefield management system. The article also highlights key specifications and features of the Leopard 2A7, such as its weaponry, protection systems, and mobility enhancements. Furthermore, the author distinguishes between the Leopard 2A7 and the 2A7+ models, with the latter being optimized for urban combat and fortified against RPGs and mines.

The Leopard 2A7 Tank – Improving Upon Perfection

Since being introduced into service with the West German military in 1979, the Leopard 2 main battle tank (MBT) has earned significant praise as one of the best in the world. As the successor to the Leopard 1, the German-made tank has been adopted by allied and partner nations around the world.

The platform has been steadily upgraded and improved, so much so that the latest variations are now practically tailor-made for specific roles. This includes the Leopard 2A7, a modernized version of the Leopard 2A6 MBT. It is equipped with new armor, an energy system, a crew compartment cooling system, and a new weapon/battlefield engagement/management system.

The 2A7 variant includes hull mine protection, a 17 kw Auxiliary Power Unit, a third-generation Attica thermal imaging unit for both Commander's Independent Sight and Gunners Sight, and a Spectus multi-spectral driver's vision device. The MBT's weapon system was also adapted for firing HE ammunition.

According to Army Recognition, the main armament of the Leopard 2A7 is similar to the Leopard 2A6 and consists of one L/55 120mm Rh 120 smoothbore gun, one MG3A1 7.62x51mm caliber coaxial machine gun, and a 7.62 mm MG3 machine gun mounted on loader hatch located on the left side of the roof turret. Eight 76mm smoke grenade dischargers are mounted on each side of the turret. The weapon system was further adapted for firing DM11 high-explosive (HE) rounds with an adjustable fuse.

The Leopard 2A7 is equipped with a collective NRBC system, power pack preheating, a crew compartment heater, a fire extinguishing system, electric bilge pumps, and an escape hatch in the hull floor, located behind the driver. To increase the comfort of the crew in hot and humid regions, the Leopard 2A7 is equipped with an energy system and crew compartment cooling system installed at the rear of the turret.

The first Leopard 2A7 was handed over to the German Army in Munich in December 2014, with more than a dozen vehicles produced for Tank Battalion 203, while an additional four went to the Armored Corps Training Center and another to the Technical School for Land Systems and School for Technology of the Army.

Not to be Confused With the Leopard 2A7+

There has been no shortage of confusion over the differences between the Leopard 2A7 and the 2A7+. However, it is important to note that while similar and based on the initial Leopard 2 design, the 2A7 variant was not optimized for urban combat.

This is where the 2A7+ model comes into play – as it was developed specifically to operate both in low-intensity and high-intensity conflicts. The MBT's tank's protection was increased by modular armor, while the frontal protection was enhanced via a dual kit on the turret and hull front, providing 360-degree protection against RPGs and mine protection to increase the survivability of the tank and its crew in urban operations.

The modular armor's system components were first employed by the Canadian military in Afghanistan. As with the 2A7, the 2A7+ variant can fire programmable High Explosive munitions, while the turret-mounted MG3 has been replaced with a stabilized FLW 200 remotely controlled weapon station.

Mobility, sustainability, and situational awareness have also been improved. The is equipped with an exterior telephone for dismounted personnel to aid in communication with friendly forces.

More 2A7+ Coming Soon

Last year, after the Czech Republic had donated the last of its Soviet-designed T-72 tanks to Ukraine, Prague announced plans to acquire the latest Leopard 2A7+ MBTs from Berlin.

Last summer, Hungary also received the first of its Leopard 2A7HU models, the configuration equipped with a new fire control system and remote weapon station as well as reinforced roof protection. In 2018, Budapest ordered a total of 44 Leopard 2A7 tanks and an additional 12 Leopard 2A4s from existing Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) stocks to the Hungarian Defense Forces for training purposes.

The deal was part of an effort to replace its Soviet-era arms, and the Leopard 2 tanks in their newest configuration, dubbed 2A7HU, were also slated to replace Russian-made T-72s.

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

Pages