Diplomacy & Crisis News

Summary: Here, we explore the evolution of British submarine prowess with the Astute class, a technological marvel designed to replace the Trafalgar class. Unveiling its origins from Cold War anti-submarine warfare to present-day advancements, we delve into the Astute's impressive features, including world-leading sensors, Tomahawk missiles, and unique optronic masts. Written by defense expert Harrison Kass, this article provides an in-depth look at the cutting-edge technology defining Britain's submarine naval strength in the 21st century. 

How the Astute-Class Was Born

The days in which the British ruled the world’s waterways are over – but the island-based nation is still capable of fielding impressive vessels. And the latest British nuclear-powered submarine, Astute-class, continues a long and venerable seafaring tradition, introducing novel technologies and abilities.

Built by BAE Systems, at Barrow-in-Furness, the Astute will replace the Trafalgar-class, becoming the default British SSN. In all, seven boats are scheduled, with the first becoming operational in 2014 – the culmination of a program that had begun decades earlier, in 1986.

The Origin of the Astute-Class Submarine 

In 1986, the British Ministry of Defence began exploring prospective replacements for the Swiftsure- and Trafalgar-class submarines. Initially known as SSN20, the project was a Cold War venture that continued the Royal Navy’s emphasis on anti-submarine warfare, working to counter the increasingly sophisticated Soviet submarines. SSN20 was designed to match the capabilities of Soviet submarines – with improved nuclear propulsion, enhanced firepower, a more complex “integrated sonar suite” and combat systems. While researching and designing SSN20, the British – caught up in the Cold War defense spending fervor – did not concern themselves with price. Costs were not considered a “constraint.”

Yet, like America, when the Cold War ended, the British reevaluated their spending priorities. In 1990, SSN20 was canceled. A new submarine design program was started – this time with an effort to constrain costs; the British opted to build a new class that was derived from the existing Trafalgar-class (which was in turn derived from the preceding Swiftsure-class). The new project, beginning in June 1991, became known as the Batch 2 Trafalgar-class, or B2TC.

The Design of the Astute Submarine

The Astute “has been outfitted with many technological firsts,” reported Peter Suciu in the National Interest recently. “Each of the boats is equipped with world-leading sensors, carries Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missiles and Spearfish heavyweight torpedoes and can circumnavigate the globe submerged, producing their own oxygen and drinking water.”

The Astute-class can carry 38 weapons – usually a mixture of Spearfish and Tomahawk Block IV/V cruise missiles. The ability to launch Tomahawk missiles makes the Astute especially dangerous, as each Tomahawk can hit a target, within a few meters of accuracy, up to a range of 1,000 miles.

The Astute also features an upgraded version of the Submarine Command System, known as the Astute Combat Management System, which receives data from the boat’s sensors and displays the results on command consoles, enhancing the crew’s situational awareness. The Astute also uses Atlas Hydrographic DESO 25 high-precision echosounders. And notably, the Astute does not use a conventional periscope; instead, the Astute features two CM010 non-hull-penetrating optronic masts, which carry thermal imaging, low-light TV, and color CCD TV sensors.

Additionally, the Astute carries the Sonar 2076, which is an integrated passive/active search and attack sonar featuring bow, intercept, flank, and towed arrays. According to BAE Systems, the Sonar 2076 is the world’s best sonar system. The Astute itself has more than 39,000 acoustic tiles, which mask the vessel’s sonar signature, granting the boat better acoustic qualities than any other submarine in the Royal Navy.

“Unlike other nuclear-powered submarines, the Astute-class was developed to utilize state-of-the-art anti-acoustic tiles,” Suciu reported. “Each hull is fitted with more than 39,000 acoustic tiles that mask the vessel’s sonar signature and all the submarine to glide through the water almost silently. The little noise the boat gives off has been compared to that of a “baby dolphin.”

For power, the Astute-class relies upon a Rolls-Royce PWR2 (Core H) pressurized water reactor with a pump-jet propulsor. Originally designed for British Vanguard-class submarine, the PWR2 has a 25-year lifespan and does not need to be refueled – meaning the Astute can technically operate for 25 years without interruption. In addition to providing propulsion, the PWR2 is also used to recycle air and water. But, although the PWR2 can operate indefinitely, the Astute is usually only stocked with about 90 days of food at a time. However, “deployments on the submarines can vary in length, with overall assignments lasting three years,” Suciu reported. “Two full crews rotate shifts to allow the vessel to remain at sea for as long as possible. Crews may serve between 60 and 80 days before resurfacing and rotating out.”

The Future of the Astute

Four Astute-class vessels are already in service: the Astute, Ambush, Artful, and Audacious. The Anson was launched in 2021, and is currently working towards gaining operational status. Meanwhile, the last two planned boats of the Astute-class, the Agamemnon and the Agincourt, are under construction, and are expected to be launched within the next two or three years. Given that the Astute is packed with cutting -edge technology, and is replacing the Trafalgar-class, which has been in service since 1983, we can reasonably expect the Astute to be a fixture of the Royal Navy for decades to come.

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. 

Summary: In December 2022, the U.S. Air Force and Northrop Grumman unveiled the B-21 Raider, marking a significant leap in bomber technology since the introduction of the B-2 Spirit in 1988. The article explores the key differences between these two generations of stealth bombers, covering aspects such as design, capabilities, and technological advancements. While the B-2 Spirit boasts a Cold War legacy with its revolutionary "flying wing" design, the B-21 Raider represents a digital-age marvel, utilizing computer-aided design and open systems architecture. The comparison delves into size, stealth features, and production processes, offering insights into the evolving landscape of U.S. bomber capabilities. Written by military hardware expert Peter Suciu, the article provides a comprehensive analysis of these iconic aircraft, shedding light on their historical context and technological significance.

The B-2 Spirit vs. the B-21 Raider

In December 2022, the United States Air Force and aerospace and defense giant Northrop Grumman officially unveiled the B-21 Raider. It was the first new United States Air Force bomber in more than three decades that had been presented to the public – since the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit made its public debut back in November 1988 – while it is widely considered to be a generational leap forward in aircraft technology and development.

It could be at least another generation before another bomber is developed and takes to the skies – and that is if the B-21 Raider doesn't end up being the last U.S. bomber to fly.

It was just this past November that the B-21 successfully took its first test flight on in Palmdale, CA, where the bomber has been undergoing testing. Though the service also didn't publicize the event, about three dozen aviation enthusiasts and others gathered around Plant 42 and were able to witness the flying wing-styled bomber take to the skies.

Despite numerous similarities between the aircraft, the B-21 Raider is much more than just a 21st-century version of the Cold War-era B-2 Spirit.

B-2 Spirit in the Sky

Seen as the first successful "flying wing" aircraft, the B-2's low-observable, or "stealth," characteristics have provided it with the unique ability to penetrate an enemy's most sophisticated defenses and threaten its most valued, and heavily defended, targets. The Spirit's capability to penetrate air defenses and threaten effective retaliation further has provided a strong, effective deterrent and combat force well into the 21st century.

The B-2's low observability was derived from a combination of reduced infrared, acoustic, electromagnetic, visual, and radar signatures. That makes it difficult for the sophisticated defensive systems to detect, track, and engage the B-2. Many aspects of the low-observability process remain classified; however, the B-2's composite materials, special coatings, and flying-wing design all contribute to its "stealthiness."

Its low-observability (LO) further provided it greater freedom of action at high altitudes, thus increasing its range and a better field of view for the aircraft's sensors.

The first B-2 rolled out of the bomber's final assembly facility in Palmdale, Calif., in November 1988 and it flew for the first time on July 17, 1989. The United States Air Force had plans for 132 B-2 Spirits, but as the aircraft was a product of the Cold War, it was originally designed to penetrate Soviet air defenses. With the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Congress slashed the budget for the Spirit, which cut production to just twenty-one aircraft.

B-21 Raider: Smaller But More Capable Bomber

The B-21 Raider is actually a generational leap in aircraft technology and development. The Raider was developed to be the multifunctional backbone of the modernized bomber fleet, gradually replacing the aging Rockwell B-1 Lancer and B-2 Spirit bombers now in service. A dual-capable penetrating strike stealth aircraft, the B-21 will be capable of delivering both conventional and nuclear munitions.

Throughout its development, the Raider has been billed as a highly survivable, long-range subsonic stealth bomber that is capable of penetrating adversary air defense networks deep behind enemy lines and delivering both conventional- and nuclear-tipped munitions on key military and infrastructure targets across the globe.

Though the Raider is notably smaller than the Spirit, it is also sleeker and stealthier. Yet, due to its smaller size, the B-21 will have a reduced payload capacity when compared with the B-2A. The United States Air Force's current plans call for at least 100 Raiders, which could address the issue – as a larger number of smaller bombers could be better than fewer larger aircraft. The Air Force can hardly afford to lose any aircraft, but a loss of a single B-2 Spirit could further impact the service's bomber capabilities.

There are other notable differences – the B-21 doesn't feature serrated edges throughout its design, nor do its two engine air intakes extend out of the fuselage to the same extent as the B-2A, and instead is flusher to the fuselage surface. The cockpit windows were modified, likely to improve the Raider's LO characteristics and while the view to the side reportedly doesn't provide as much visibility as the B-2's, it is likely addressed through sensors and cameras.

It has further been reported that the other significant difference is simply the color of the Raider from the traditional black/dark gray operational livery of the B-2. Since it was first publicly revealed, the B-21 sported a lighter gray color scheme. However, this may not be its final color – and we'll have to watch to see if it is updated.

Perhaps the biggest difference is how the aircraft were designed.

The B-2 was devised in an era when engineers still employed slide rules, and pocket calculators were considered expensive hardware.

By contrast, the B-21 Raider is truly a product of the digital age that took advantage of computer-aided design. In addition, it has been noted for being designed with an open systems architecture that would enable rapid future capability integration to keep pace with the highly contested threat environment. In addition, Raider's design is based on firm requirements with existing and mature technology to control program costs. In fact, the plane's prime contractor, Northrop Grumman, has been directed to use production processes, production tooling, and a production workforce that ensures sustained and seamless production while avoiding unnecessary costs.

That latter fact could also ensure that while the Air Force was forced to make do with fewer than two dozen Spirits, its fleet of B-21 Raiders could exceed 100.

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.

All images come from Shutterstock or Creative Commons. 

Summary: The U.S. Air Force's coveted F-22 Raptor stealth fighter, equipped with cutting-edge technology, recently showcased its prowess in intercepting Iranian F-4 Phantom jets attempting to engage a U.S. Air Force MQ-1 Predator drone in international airspace.

F-22 Can Do It All 

In November 2012, two Iranian Air Force Sukhoi Su-25s tried to down a U.S. Air Force MQ-1 Predator drone. At the time, the MQ-1 was flying in international air space, 16 miles from the Iranian border; the drone flight was legal, but understandably instigatory. Iran scrambled the two Su-25s, which quickly closed on the drone. But the Su-25 was designed for close air support, not air superiority, and it struggled impotently with its cannons to shoot down the MQ-1.

The American drone escaped the interaction unscathed, having filmed the entire sequence with on-board cameras. In response to the incident, the U.S. modified its procedures to better protect its vulnerable drone fleet. It began providing drones with a fighter escort.

One year later, in 2013, the Iranians – apparently unaware of this new U.S. drone-escort policy – engaged another MQ-1. This time, the Iranians sent a jet with some air-to-air game, the F-4 Phantom – an aircraft the U.S. exported to Iran in the 1970s, back when the two countries were allies. Unlike the Su-25, the F-4 was entirely capable of bringing down the MQ-1. But when the Iranian F-4s moved to engage the MQ-1, they discovered they were not alone.

Escorting the MQ-1, lurking silently, was a Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor – a fifth-generation stealth fighter. As the Iranian pilots learned that day, the F-22 “is equipped with stealth technology that enables it to operate virtually undetected by radar.”

Iran, F-4 and Those Stealth F-22 Raptors

Indeed, the Iranians were oblivious to its presence as the F-22 stalked them from below.

This aircraft is packed with enviable, cutting-edge technology. “The F-22 Raptor is a technological marvel,” I noted previously.

“The world’s first operational fifth-generation fighter, the F-22 was designed with a bevy of novel features – stealth technology, supercruise, supermaneuverability, and sensor fusion – all combined to create the preeminent air superiority fighter.”

The Iranians flying in Vietnam War-era F-4 Phantoms were ill-equipped to match an F-22. Granted, the F-4 was a capable airframe – the most produced American supersonic military aircraft ever – but it first flew in 1958. The F-22, on the other hand, was an up-to-date, 21st century marvel.

“The F-22’s software is advanced and impressive. Using sensor fusion, data from multiple onboard sensor systems are synthesized to create a more comprehensive tactical picture,” I explained a few years back.

Besides, the F-4 was not built for dogfighting. “The Phantom was not particularly maneuverable,” I explained in a previous article on the F-4. “Enemy MiGs could typically outturn the F-4, which wasn’t designed for dogfighting and suffered from adverse yaw in tight turns. Instead, the F-4 was intended to fire radar-guided missiles from beyond visual range, not engage in air combat maneuvering.”

Well, the F-22 was comfortably within visual range: It was directly below the Iranians.

The F-22’s pilot, operating undetected, had sidled right in. “He flew under their aircraft to check out their weapons load without them knowing that he was there,” then-Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said. Having determined the F-4’s payloads, the Raptor pilot finally alerted the Iranians to his presence.

He “pulled up on their left-wing and then called them and said ‘you really ought to go home,’” Welsh said. The F-4s complied and bugged out.

The incident is indicative of the friction that has underscored the U.S.-Iranian relationship since the late 1970s. Currently, the two sides are working toward a deal on Iran’s nuclear program, which is reportedly nearing break-out capacity and has made Iran an international pariah. The world is watching closely as the negotiations unfold. In the meantime, hopefully the two rival nations can avoid any further dogfighting incidents.

Author Biography: Harrison Kass 

Harrison Kass is a senior defense editor with over 1,000 published articles. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, he joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison has degrees from Lake Forest College, the University of Oregon School of Law, and New York University’s Graduate School of Arts & Sciences. He lives in Oregon and regularly listens to Dokken. Email the Author: Editor@nationalinterest.org. 

Image Credit: Shutterstock. 

The Saab 37 Viggen is among what seems like almost countless Cold War fighters built to deter Russia in the sky if World War III ever took place. However, this plane is from a non-NATO nation and seems to be quite special:

The name Viggen, given to the Saab 37 aircraft, has two distinct meanings. Each, despite striking drastically different tones, are oddly appropriate. The first meaning, refers to askvigg, which today translates loosely to “thunderbolt” – but historically meant “thunderstones.” Thunderstone, or askvigg, is what the Viking age inhabitants of Scandinavia called the prehistoric stone axes that were occasionally excavated. The Vikings believed that Thor, the god of thunder, had sent the axes to Earth in lightning strikes conjured while he was hunting giants with his war hammer Mjolnir. The axes were believed to have magical properties, such as lightning protection. Indeed, the Saab 37 Viggen’s first nominal origin is flattering, apt, and epic. The second, more humble name, refers to vigg, the Swedish word for tufted duck.

What We Know About the Saab 37

The Viggen program began in December 1961  as Aircraft System 37. At the time, the program was the largest industrial undertaking Sweden had ever attempted, of course built during the Cold War when concerns about the Soviet Union were a major factor in building the plane.

Throughout the 1960s, Aircraft System 37 accounted for a whopping ten percent of all Swedish research and development funding. Sweden designed most of the system from the powerplant, ejector seat, reconnaissance systems, armaments, ground servicing equipment, and simulators – a daunting venture for a country like Sweden.

By 1963, Saab had settled on an aerodynamic design for their new jet. The design was radical, featuring an aft-mounted double delta wing plus small, high-set canards. The canards were especially distinct, and the Viggen would be the first mass-produced airplane to ever feature canards. Canards have since come to be relatively common, appealing in modern aircraft like the Dassault Rafale, IAI Kfir, Eurofighter Typhoon, and Saab’s newest offering, the JAS 39 Gripen.

In the Viggen, the inclusion of the canards, along with the delta wings, were to satisfy the various, often conflicting, program requirements set forth by the Swedish government. The jet was to be capable of short take-offs and landings (STOL), to enable operation from Sweden’s Bas 60 dispersal system, which repurposed reinforced public roadways as military airfields during war time. Additionally, the jet needed to be able to break the sound barrier, while also having high maneuverability (and low turbulence sensitivity) at subsonic, low-level flight.

The Saab 37 Viggen was designed to be an attack aircraft, rather than an interceptor, as the Saab 35 Draken already served as an adequate interceptor. Accordingly, Saab hoped to make the Viggen capable of low fuel consumption at high subsonic speeds, something with excellent range. Intending to build such an aircraft, Saab originally planned to power the Viggen with a single Rolls-Royce Medway engine. However, when the Medway engine development was canceled, Saab instead licensed the Pratt & Whitney JT8D engine, producing a modified version, the Volvo RM8. Whereas the original JT8D was used for commercial airliners, the RM8 was quite different from the source engine, featuring updated materials to allow operation at Mach 2 speeds, the addition of a Swedish-built afterburner, and a variable nozzle. The airframe also included a thrust reverse to help slow the aircraft down on landings (thus making short-runway landings possible). The thrust reverse could even be pre-set in the air to fire when the nose-wheel strut compressed upon landing.

A Saab 37 Viggen prototype first flew in 1967, with Saab’s chief test pilot Erik Dalhstrom at the controls. After the prototype’s maiden flight, Dahlstrom described the new jet as easy to control. The international aviation press noted that Sweden had made fantastic progress in aerospace development. By 1971, the Viggen was being delivered to the Swedish Air Force. In service, the jet proved reliable and safe – a relief given how complex and novel the airframe was. The finished product could perform, too. Capable of hitting 1,386 miles per hour, the Viggen could climb at 40,000 feet per minute and reach a service ceiling of 59,000 feet. For armament, the jet carried one 30 mm Oerlikon KCA cannon with 125 rounds. For hardpoints, the jet had three under each wing, plus three under the fuselage.

While the Viggen was capable and innovative, it was never exported, and never saw much action (as Swedish jets never do). The Swedish Air Force began removing the Viggen from front line service in 1994, to make way for the new Saab JAS 39 Gripen. The last Viggen was formally retired in 2005.

About the Author: Harrison Kass

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

All images are from Shutterstock. 

A few years back, the US Air Force’s 49th Wing put on an impressive display of airpower at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico: an elephant walk featuring 49 of the wing’s fighter jets and drones.

Elephant Walk Time

What’s an elephant walk?

An elephant walk is “the Air Force term for a close formation aircraft taxiing en masse before takeoff.” So think dozens of jets crawling down the runway together, and then taking off one after another. The term is not new, however; the term dates back to World War II when bomber aircraft would often taxi and take off together en masse. To observers, the nose-to-tail bomber formations looked like a group of elephants walking nose-to-tail.

Elephant walks aren’t just “for clicks and likes though,” the Department of Defense maintains.

“The key to air power is exceptional airmen, and the key to exceptional airmen is exceptional training,” said Brigadier General Lyle K. Drew, who commands the 82nd Training Wing. “[The] elephant walk was our message to the world that the U.S. and its international partners remain committed to delivering the best trained airmen in the world.”

Indeed, the elephant walk can also be use as a means of celebrating, and of boosting on-base morale.

The Hollomon Elephant Walk

The elephant walk at Hollomon occurred on April 21st, and featured F-16 Vipers plus MQ-9 Reaper drones.

“When people mention Hollomon Air Force Base I want them to picture the aircraft and mission that’s displayed in today’s elephant walk,” said U.S. Air Force Colonel Justin Spears, 49th Wing commander. “We have the largest F-16 Viper and MQ-9 Reaper training pipeline and this elephant walk showcases the amount of airpower and manpower we can generate.”

The forty-nine craft elephant walk at Hollomon certainly has people talking.

“I think elephant walks are important as it shows our NATO partners and other allies around the world that we care about producing pilots and operators,” said U.S. Air Force Major Sean Robere, 311th Fighter Squadron, assistant director of operations. “It also shows other parts of the world that we are continuing to produce capable Airmen and aircraft.”

The F-16s (an airframe first flown in the 1970s) used in the elephant walk belonged to the 8th, 311th, and 314th Fighter Squadrons. The MQ-9s used in the elephant walk – which marked the first time the MQ-9 has been used in an elephant walk – belong to the 29th, 9th, and 6th Attack Squadron.

Allowing forty-nine aircraft to launch at once in such a short window also demonstrated the skill of the Air Force’s maintenance workers.

“Being able to work with the Airmen from the MQ-9 side of the house is always fun because we essentially have the same mission of building combat aircrew but with different aircraft,” said U.S. Air Force Senior Master Sgt. Brian Maple, 311th Aircraft Maintenance Unit assistant superintendent. “The communication between the MQ-9 and F-16 units really helps to build and strengthen our effectiveness at completing the mission.”

The Hollomon elephant walk was indeed an impressive visual display. To get a sense of what an F-16-based elephant walk looks like, check out this 2019 USAF video from Germany.  

About the Author: Harrison Kass

Harrison Kass is a Senior Editor and opinion writer with over 1,000 published articles on defense issues. 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. 

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

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

What is An Elephant Walk? 

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

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

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

Bigger Picture

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

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

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

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

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

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

About the Author: Harrison Kass

Harrison Kass is a Senior Editor with over 1,000 articles posted. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, Harrison joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison holds a BA from Lake Forest College, a JD from the University of Oregon, and an MA from New York University. Harrison listens to Dokken. Email the Author: Editor@nationalinterest.org. 

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

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

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

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

The Push for Crimea 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The View from the Kremlin on Crimea 

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

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

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

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

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

About the Author

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

All images are from Shutterstock. 

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

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

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

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

The State of the Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Logistical Woes for Russia in Ukraine War

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

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

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

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

About the Author

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

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

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

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

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

Bell X-1: Built to Burst Boundaries

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

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

The Power of Flight

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

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

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

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

About the Author: Harrison Kass

Harrison Kass is the Senior Defense Editor at 19FortyFive. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, he joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison has degrees from Lake Forest College, the University of Oregon, and New York University. He lives in Oregon and listens to Dokken. Follow him on Twitter @harrison_kass. Email the Author: Editor@nationalinterest.org. 

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

Meet the Virginia-Class Block V

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

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

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

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

China's Missiles Have the Right Range

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Block V Virginia-Class Submarine: Picking Up the Slack

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

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

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

About the Author 

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

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

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

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

F-22: Top Dog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About the Author 

Harrison Kass is a Senior Defense Editor at with over 1,000 articles published. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, he joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison holds a BA from Lake Forest College, a JD from the University of Oregon, and an MA from New York University. He lives in Oregon and listens to Dokken. Follow him on Twitter @harrison_kass. Email the Author: Editor@nationalinterest.org. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The F-35

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

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

About the Author 

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

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

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

F/A-18 Hornet: A History

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

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

LWF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About the Author: Harrison Kass Harrison Kass is a senior defense editor with over 1,000 published articles. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, he joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison has degrees from Lake Forest College, the University of Oregon School of Law, and New York University’s Graduate School of Arts & Sciences. He lives in Oregon and regularly listens to Dokken. Email the Author: Editor@nationalinterest.org. 

For the first time since World War II, Germany has established a permanent military presence outside its territorial borders. While the deployment of 4,800 soldiers to Lithuania appears modest, this historic shift in German strategic thinking could hold significant long-term implications for transatlantic security. Throughout the post-war period, the U.S. has guaranteed Germany’s and much of Europe’s security via extended deterrence. However, as Washington recalibrates its focus to counter an increasingly assertive China, it will need to divert resources and personnel from Europe and the Middle East to the Asia-Pacific. Despite anachronistic concerns about a resurgence of Prussian militarism, an actively engaged and capable Germany willing to contribute to deterrence and defense in Europe will facilitate America’s stagnant “Pivot to Asia.” So yes, America and the broader Western world should embrace a Germany ready to take transatlantic security seriously.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine reminded everyone that large-scale conventional warfare between two modernized armies is possible today, even in Europe. Nowhere was this shock more evident than in the defeated powers of World War II, with both Germany and Japan tacitly moving away from their longstanding pacifist doctrines to a more combat-ready posture. Immediately following the invasion, Chancellor Olaf Scholz even went so far as to declare a “Zeitenwende,” or a historic turning point in German attitudes toward security. Though progress has been slow, as Scholz cannot reverse decades of defense industry neglect overnight, this recent announcement marks the latest effort to turn the Bundeswehr into a “war-ready” force.

While German soldiers have previously participated in NATO rotational programs, this deployment is the first independent and foreign assignment in Germany’s post-war history. At the request of the Lithuanian government, Berlin will station five units, including one armored near Vilnius and Kaunas – the capital and second-largest city, respectively. Bordered by Russia and its ally Belarus, Lithuania and the other Baltic countries represent NATO’s front lines and most vulnerable targets in the event of a conflict with Russia. Moreover, the tiny nation only fields an army of 16,000 troops, explaining why NATO presence is existential for Lithuanians. However, with the Zeitenwende still in the early phases as Germany’s defense sector lumbers out of dormancy, the brigade will remain inoperative and without actual armor until 2027. Nevertheless, Berlin has demonstrated its willingness to defend every inch of NATO territory by placing troops on the alliance’s eastern flank.

But it is not so much the strategic gains of this move that Washington should welcome but rather the broader trend it indicates. Following the Cold War, Germany has faced consistent criticism from its allies for failing to pull its weight in NATO and meet its financial obligations, specifically earmarking 2% of GDP for annual defense spending. However, this long-term commitment in Lithuania signals that Berlin has adjusted to the new security environment. In addition, as an innovation hub and Europe’s largest economy, Germany has immense potential as a leader in regional security. With encouragement from Washington, a successful Zeitenwende would reduce America’s NATO burdens and enable its reorientation to the Asia-Pacific.

What was supposed to be America’s “Asian Century” has been repeatedly bogged down by exigencies in Europe and now the Middle East. Of course, the U.S. would still play a fundamental role in NATO, and the transatlantic alliance will forever remain a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. But with both the capabilities and intentions to remold the world order, China must remain America’s predominant diplomatic concern.

However, many analysts have expressed historically rooted consternation over Germany’s strategic adjustment. Given Germany’s disastrous role in both World Wars, NATO integrated the country to prevent the re-emergence of deployment-capable force. Consequently, some analysts worry that this deployment to Lithuania will once again legitimize the military as a foreign policy tool in Berlin, altering their long-term approach and worldview. Put bluntly, they fear a revival of German militarism. However, such sentiments reflect outdated perceptions of Prussian Junkers and Panzer tanks while failing to account for the military-cultural changes within Germany since 1945. Modern Germany is not the same country that invaded France three times in one lifetime. Additionally, NATO’s Article 5, which declares an attack on one as an attack against all, effectively thwarts any future German expansionism in Europe.

On a more realistic note, there are legitimate apprehensions regarding the feasibility of enduring German security contributions. To be sure, Scholz’s Zeitenwende is far from fruition, and years of persistent reform are necessary to transform the country’s defense industry. Berlin has notoriously overlooked its military since the end of the Cold War to the point of dilapidation, with 85% of buildings in its once renowned artillery school requiring urgent renovation. When Russia invaded Ukraine, Germany only possessed enough ammunition for 48 hours of combat. Berlin has since dispatched almost its entire arsenal to Kyiv, including tanks, artillery, and ammunition. And while Scholz has recommitted to the 2% NATO threshold, his country remains years away from satisfying the requirement. Furthermore, while Europe stands united today, it is reasonable to question whether Germany will continue along this path when the war ends.

The recent commitments in Lithuania strongly suggest that the Zeitenwende is not a fleeting policy initiative. Even if the recent announcements unfold as planned, Washington should diligently engage its European allies to coordinate and deepen their security infrastructures. Given their economies and technological expertise, there is no reason why the combined efforts of Germany, France, and the U.K. cannot sustain Ukrainian resistance in America’s absence. Yes, Washington should continue to support Ukraine, but the days when its security assurances allowed European powers to disregard defense expenditures are over. A self-sufficient Europe depends on a capable Germany, which, in turn, reinforces transatlantic interests and values. Additionally, America will find itself in a better position to address its pacing challenge of the century in a rising China.

Memorial to the Battle of Kursk, the largest tank battle of the Second World War.

 

Nearshoring and other concepts where a nation and their supportive allies entrench their own economic, policy and security interests may begin in earnest in the upcoming year. This past year has done little to secure a safe society or economic stability anywhere in the world, and the costs of bad policy are now part of the daily lives of most individuals. Views of unappealing outcomes unravelling in unsustainable directions have been made clear to those living in societies based on democratic values, and a clear choice is upon them.

Since Covid, a clear and measured move to take US and Western economic dependence away from China has taken shape. Much of this move involves multinational corporations setting up shop in the USMCA trade zone in Mexico, where a generational trend in uptraining Mexican citizens has been tied to moving manufacturing capabilities into Mexico to serve the North American market. With a productive and technically well trained Mexican workforce, securing US economic activity though Mexico based multinational manufacturing will likely maintain stable markets in the US. This act functions by pulling the US away from dependence on China’s manufacturing might and possible political leverage China may have over the US and its allies in the event of natural barriers or political conflict between the two powers. This move can secure the old NAFTA block of countries, if all members would work with their allies, as opposed to strengthening the threats to themselves and their NAFTA neighbours.

Europe might feel more of the effects from the revolutionary change it needs to make with Russian energy with a colder 2024 upon them. While Europe moves to take in some energy from other parts of the world, accessing energy from the Middle East may become difficult as the Gulf region becomes more erratic and the policy approaches from their own NATO allies keep them in a chilly limbo as opposed to pushing to secure Europe’s energy and security future. The lack of clarity NATO and Europe has had with many of its allies has not only delayed defences being sent to Ukraine, but has given a financial line to Russia in the conflict and has enabled Russian allies to fund, fuel, and ensure attacks on Ukrainian civilians. This indecisive policy comes at a time when NATO and their allies have given billions to the war effort, with families clearing feeling the effects at home. Shaming locals over supporting Ukraine can be seen as a local political tactic at this point, as clearly most have been supportive of Ukraine, and do not deserve to be accused by anyone for their lack of historically significant support. Using Ukraine for local political gain is a major threat to Ukraine’s defence over the next year, and local Government that spin such support for their own political gains hurt Ukraine more than they help.

The structural nature of Western societies has become a major factor in the strength of nations since the masks of many have slipped at the end of 2023. Equality under the law and being able to be productive in a secure society has been challenged by the impression of other systemic norms that often have few roots in justice and equality in modern history. Many opposing systems either are at the brink of collapse, or favour a small cabal of a few powerful elites no matter what label is given from our past or from poorly researched movies. Opportunities for wealth and peace has been bleached from the general narrative by regimes and groups that were already at the end of their shelf life as a political entity, and have no future prospects that anyone would willingly agree to if given a clear picture of those prospects. There are parts of the world that have seen little peace past half a generation, and whose ancestors go back generations as fallen soldiers under the earth of old battlefields in lands that has little value. If a nation does not prepare for any eventuality, including those mentioned above, they can easily turn into a dying society. A society that can live under pax et lux only comes from generations of hard fought values, anything else has proven to simply be the dream of tyrants.

“Tis the season to be merry,” but not in the Land of Israel, which is plagued by war and bloodshed. However, Harfoush’s concert at the European Commission brings peace amidst a dark Christmas in the Middle East.     

As Americans prepare to celebrate Christmas, they aspire to live in a world enjoying peace and harmony. “Tis the season to be merry,” people say. But sadly, for the peoples in the Middle East, peace and harmony is a distant dream, far away from the reality that they experience, as far too many peoples homes have been reduced to rubble in that part of the world, forcing the local inhabitants to flee for their lives. In fact, here in the Holy Land, we are not merry. We are very depressed and feel that this is a dark holiday.    

Israel has been at war since the October 7 massacre, which slaughtered over 1,600. On that horrific day, Hamas raped women en masse, mutilated babies, and committed crimes against humanity at the Rave Music Festival and other nearby kibbutzim, which many refer to as Israel’s September 11. In a recent display by the Israeli mission to the United Nations, the New York Times reported that Yael Richert, a chief superintendent with the Israel Police, noted: “Everything was an apocalypse of corpses. Girls without any clothes on. Without tops. Without underwear. People cut in half. Butchered. Some were beheaded. There were girls with a broken pelvis due to repetitive rapes. Their legs were spread wide apart, in a split.” Another survivor of the Rave Massacre noted that a Hamas terrorist cut off a woman’s breast, threw it on the road and played with it. 

They also took over 260 Israelis hostages, including women, children and the elderly. Many of the hostages are now celebrating the holidays in total darkness in Gaza. Indeed, Newsweek compared what Hamas did on October 7 to ISIS, declaring that there was footage of “women abducted with their babies, grandmothers taken hostage and paraded down the streets of Gaza. There’s a video of a teenage Israeli woman being pulled by terrorists from the back of a vehicle in Gaza. In the video, she is barefoot, wearing sweatpants and a tee-shirt, and as she turns, you can see the back of her sweatpants are covered in blood that came from between her legs.”

We now know the name of the victim is Naama Levy, she is 19 years old and is still being held hostage in Gaza to date. Her mother recently published a plea for her release in the Times of Israel: “You have seen the video of my daughter Naama Levy.  Everyone has. You have seen her dragged by her long brown hair from the back of a jeep at gunpoint, somewhere in Gaza, her gray sweatpants covered in blood. You may have perhaps noticed that her ankles are cut, that’s she’s barefoot and limping.  She is seriously injured. She is frightened. And I, her mother, am helpless in these moments of horror.” She was only one of many victims.  

The few hostages that have been released are completely traumatized. As one of the doctors who examined released hostages told CBS, “There is not a single person who came back that didn’t have a significant physical injury or medical problem. On top of that, some of them were getting medication to look better than they actually were. We definitely saw signs of being handcuffed. We did hear and see evidence of sexual abuse in a significant part of the people we have treated. We also heard evidence and that was one of the hardest parts of abuse against those who are still there, both physical and sexual.”

Since the October 7 massacre, the people in the entire region have been suffering from a war that feels as if it has no end in sight. All of Israel, from Eilat in the South to Rosh Ha-Nikra in the North, is under rocket fire. For a great period of the last semester, most children had zoom classes and were not in school. Although school has now resumed, many services that existed for children before the war do not exist now. The situation is so bad here that only foreign journalists, diplomats, politicians, olim and Israelis are flying to the Jewish state these days for the most part. As a result of the security situation, most foreign airlines refuse to fly into Ben-Gurion Airport. 

Similarly, a great part of Gaza has been reduced to rubble and people are literally starving there, as 1.9 million Gazans have been displaced from their homes because of the war and Hamas is stealing the limited humanitarian aid that is let through.  As the country becomes colder, many people in Gaza are forced to live in tents instead of proper homes, as their homes were destroyed in the war and Hamas unlike Israel does not provide their refugees with hotel rooms. 

I have a good friend who was forced to flee her home because of intensive rocket fire from Lebanon. Her beautiful home with a swimming pool was literally transformed overnight into a war zone, unsafe for her, her husband and their four small children to live in. The Israeli government offered her a hotel room in Tiberius, but she chose to flee to Switzerland instead, for she feared this war had no end in sight. I got another friend whose cousin was murdered on October 7. All day long, she is crying over her loss, her beloved relative who went to work and did not come home, leaving behind a widow in her twenties and small children. All of the people here around the holiday season feel the lack of peace and security.

Imagine what it is like to celebrate Christmas without a Christmas tree. This year in Bethlehem, there are no Christmas trees put up in public displays, according to a Palestinian source that I know. Imagine what it is like to celebrate Christmas without the children going out to see the play “A Christmas Carol” by Charles Dickens. This year in Netanya, the city where I live, the municipality canceled all of the Hanukkah plays because of the war. 

Unfortunately, people who live in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and other parts of the Middle East are also suffering around Christmas this year. In Syria alone, the Civil War that began in 2011 has resulted in over 400,000 deaths and millions of others have been displaced from their homes, and do not know if they will ever be able to return. The situation in the Cedar state is also not good. Lebanon has lost tens of thousands of lives over the years as well. The people of Yemen are literally starving to death, as the civil war there devastated that country. Literally, anywhere where Iran’s proxies took over, from Gaza to Syria and Lebanon to Yemen, the people are suffering gravely.

It is in this spirit that the European Commission in Brussels decided to host a concert titled “Save a Life, You Save Humanity.” Omar Harfouch, who is the Honorary President of the Organization for Dialogue and Diversity, a pianist and composer, who has been active in peace-building efforts in the Middle East, decided to perform this song in the European Commission in order to highlight the value of preserving human life in a region dominated by war, heartache and sorrow. The song “Save a Life, You Save Humanity” was inspired by the Quran and the Talmud, who both have a phrase declaring “you save a life, you save the world entire.” 

The concert took place in the main hall of the European Commission, during a musical evening organized on the eve of the European summit which brings together all European leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron, to make crucial decisions concerning the future of Ukraine and the situation in the Middle East. During his performance, Omar Harfouch read Surah Al-Ma’idah 32: “The Almighty says: and he who saves a life, it is as if he had saved all humanity”, in front of European officials and decision-makers, all under the sponsorship of European Commissioner Oliviér Várhelyi. 

During the reading of this surah, the audience had a surprised face as they heard the Holy Quran, which for the first time was read inside the European Commission building. Very involved in his fight for peace, Omar Harfouch asked political leaders to promise him one thing: that they would each save a life after hearing his music, composed for the occasion. The composer’s new musical work was composed of two parts symbolizing the divisions of today’s world: the first, which tells of a full and happy life, filled with love and tolerance. The second, which describes a life of sadness, destruction, fear, loss of security and hope. And which poses a crucial question: which world do we want to live in: the first or the second?

From the end of the first part, played on the piano with the orchestra, the audience warmly applauded the musicians. At the end of the second part, the audience was on its feet, some people in the audience unable to contain a few tears. The success was such that Omar Harfouch and his orchestra were immediately asked by the ambassadors present in the room to play this composition in all European cities.

Note that during this concert, Omar Harfouch was accompanied by his official violinist, the Ukrainian Anna Bondarenko, and an orchestra of fifteen musicians from different nationalities: French, Belgian, Syrian, Ukrainian and Macedonian.  It was also the first time that a classical music concert took place in an official building of the European Commission in Brussels.  His song calling for tolerance was so moving that here in the Holy Land, I dream of the day when he can also come here to perform his song in a call for peace and harmony, so that this dark Christmas can be transformed into a beautiful bright one, where peoples around the world live in peace and prosperity with each other. 

The global displacement crisis has reached alarming proportions, with millions of people forced to leave their homes due to armed conflicts, persecution and systematic policies.   According to the concept paper written for an international conference sponsored by the West Azerbaijan community, “It is imperative to prioritize the voluntary, safe and dignified return of expelled people to their homes as a long-term solution.”

The Azerbaijanis were deliberately expelled and deported from the territory of present-day Armenia in 1905-1906, 1918-1920 and 1948-1953.  In 1948-1953 alone, more than 150,000 Azerbaijanis were deported en masse from their historical lands in the territory of the Armenian SSR.  Some of them, especially the elderly and infants, died due to severe resettlement conditions, unfavorable climate, physical deprivation and mental suffering.   In the face of the disintegration of the USSR, more than 250,000 Azerbaijanis living in Armenia were forcibly expelled from their historical lands.   216 of them were mercilessly slaughtered and 1,154 were injured.

In a recent conference titled “Enabling the safe and dignified return of Azerbaijanis expelled from Armenia: Global context and just solution,” Dr. Nazim Mustafa of the Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences noted: “In the 1800s, only a few Armenians existed there,” noting that it was the decision of the colonial powers to transform Yerevan Province into a homeland for the Armenian people by importing Armenians into the region and kicking out Azerbaijanis.   

Professor Yildiz Deveci Bozkus from Ankara University underscored that Yerevan province was originally a majority Azerbaijani area and that foreign experts in the past even noted that there were scarcely any Armenians in the area.   Yet, she noted that thanks to the work of colonial powers who supported the ethnic cleansing of Azerbaijanis from the region, it is now an exclusively Armenian place: “The Soviet policy led to the displacement of thousands of Azerbaijanis, with their historical and cultural heritage being destroyed in Armenia.  This changed the demography of the region.”

According to the concept paper, “The case of forced expulsion of Azerbaijanis from Armenia, where they once constituted an absolute majority, represents an immense and unprecedented injustice.   The plight of Azerbaijani expellees from Armenia exemplifies the grievous consequences of ethnic cleansing perpetuated by systematic state efforts, characterized by violence and gross human rights violations.   These tragic events unfolded over multiple periods, notably in 1948-53 and 1987-91.   The consequences of these illegal actions remain unresolved.”

Khalid Taimur Akram, the executive director of the Pakistani Research Center for a Community with a Shared Future, stated: “The forced expulsion of Azerbaijanis from their homes in the 1990’s represents a dark chapter in the history of the South Caucasus.   Families of refugees had their lives shattered.    The Armenian forces committed ethnic cleansing.”  He emphasized that their safe return to their homes is pivotal for the establishment of peace and security in the South Caucasus.  

According to the Concept of Return, which was published by the conference, “Ethnic cleansing committed against Azerbaijanis was in most carried out with the state organs through violence, genocide, massacres and other crimes against humanity and gross violations of human rights.   The Soviet Union, in particular its notorious leader Joseph Stalin, who transferred Zangazur and other majority Azerbaijani areas to Armenia in 1921 and who signed a racist order on the deportation of one hundred thousand ethnic Azerbaijanis from Armenia, remained unredressed.”

They continued: “In the same vein, the actions committed by the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic against its Azerbaijani population in 1987-1991 are still unremedied.  In Armenia nowadays, Azerbaijani historical and cultural heritage including mosques and graveyards, toponyms were changed and systematic racial discrimination was carried out against Azerbaijanis.   Those who participated in ethnic cleansing and other crimes against ethnic Azerbaijanis and their misdeeds are glorified at the state level in Armenia.” 

It should be emphasized that the Azerbaijanis who were forced out of Armenia were peaceful citizens, who did not pose a threat to the Armenian state.  They were not part of any armed groups that threatened the political goals of the Armenians.  They were merely kicked out of their homes because of their faith and nationality, and for no other reason.   For this reason, in the framework of a future peace agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia, their return should not be considered a threat.        

Sadly, West Azerbaijanis are not the only nation to suffer such a fate.   Ambassador Gunyan Saptoma, Chairman of the International Relations Commission of the Council of the Indonesian Ulema, noted that the right of return of the refugees is engrained in international law and that there are many displaced nations in Southeast Asia as well.  One poignant example he gave was the boat people of Vietnam: “The Vietnam War lasted for twenty years.   After the fall of Saigon, the capital of South Vietnam, when the United States decided to withdraw its troops from South Vietnam, there were about a half of a million boat people and around 700,000 fled to the United States and its allies, such as Canada and Australia.”

However, unlike the West Azerbaijanis, the boat people of Vietnam did see light at the end of the tunnel:  “More than 100,000 later were repatriated back to Vietnam for they were not accepted by the United States as real refugees.   I participated in the effort to repatriate 12,000 Vietnamese back to South Vietnam.   The Vietnamese government agreed to accept them in 1993.”  Let us hope that in the wake of a peace agreement the West Azerbaijanis can be accepted back as well.     

China’s People Liberal Army En Marche…

China has benefitted from the lack of focus on its actions since 2022 while the West was completely concentrated on Ukraine. The conflicts in Europe and the Middle East were not expected soon before they began, and once those conflicts took shape, the focus on China’s growing presence on the world stage was no longer the main concern in the West. China has been able to avoid sanctions while not only having some ties to Russian arms deals, but also by avoiding a major fallout from Covid. While China is not in a poor position due to these international events, the ties that China forms or diminishes will have a significant impact on life in China.

US economic Tic Tok Toe with China through both Republican and Democratic administrations has put pressure on China’s export economy which relies heavily on manufactured goods exports to North America and Europe. While China’s economic burdens grow due to those policies, China’s manufacturing weight on the world economy is still in a fair position. China still has a great amount of access to many of those Western economies that its fair-weather allies have been locked out of, and will still be able to manage their economy in a position of strength. Chinese companies have been able to seek some direct benefits through nearshoring to places like Mexico, and will need to come to a meeting of minds in achieving new economic arrangements via importing raw goods after Government changes in places like Argentina. China may not be in a boom phase like they were in the 2010s, but they can enter into their position as an advanced economy, complete with stable policies, manageable recessions, and clever investment policy, if they choose such a path.

China must choose to create an image of itself as being independent, strong and not greatly aligned to nations that are embroiled in direct conflict with their trade partners, even if the trade relationship is not ideal for China. Exporting and trade with Western countries who allow for a great deal of leeway in their relationships with China are already a political advantage. Even if these activities are serious concerns in Western countries, there are surprisingly few actions being taken to stop them at this time that will prevent Chinese exports to Western nations. This balance of national/party interests for China not only have a limit, but likely have an expiration date, and China should avoid making themselves into a target as there is little benefit to China in a hot conflict with any regional or international opponents.

Russia has recently taken to importing artillery surpluses from North Korea, and likely has sought such ammunition and gear from China as many of their Soviet designed systems operate with similar equipment. There is little benefit however to China in aligning itself with Russia’s war in Ukraine, as the sales from consumer goods outweighs the sales of artillery sales to one nation. While China and Russia do align on many policy positions, they are not proper allies in any sense of the word, and make decisions to their own singular benefit. China would be able to balance their own position by selling its arms to both sides, as both sides use similar artillery shells and China’s only benefits from the Russo-Ukraine war are possible export opportunities and cheap raw imports. With funds drying up to support Ukraine, and both sides using the same Red Dawn era equipment, China does not need to take a position to gain a balanced economic and political position when dealing with Russia or NATO in Europe. China does well when it is not directly or indirectly involved in a war, or with those who seek conflict.

China has sought recent assurances to secure their energy imports from actors in the Persian Gulf region in order to fuel its manufacturing economy. The strategy of tamping down the pressure helps China in two ways. The first it to maintain Chinese commercial shipping capabilities towards the region that can be easily blocked by smaller regional powers or by India, and the second is to secure a dependable and frequent supply of energy imports to its massive economy and population. To ensure this, China should maintain its own military capabilities as it has done throughout its history, but make trade and profits from exports the primary policy driver over possible plans to assault Taiwan, or having shooting sessions in the mountains with India. An attack on Taiwan would end much of China’s relationship with the West, aka, all of their export consumers, and conflicts with India will only sour relations further with what will be the most important power in Asia over the next ten years.

Economic and societal pressures is the biggest threat to China’s current government. Energy should be clearly sought though agreements with allies of export consumer nations, as ties to regimes that cause more conflict is not good for Chinese exports, Chinese imports, or Chinese energy infrastructure. Tying China’s economy to nations in perpetual conflict will have the effect of putting economic pressure on the Chinese people themselves. China possesses a large population, a fair amount of natural resources, and a good amount of territory, and does not need to fight for those essential elements to be a stable nation. The biggest threat to China’s regime is a local revolt, and that will come with instability and conflict. Economic pressure for China is one of the main elements that may disintegrate stability in Chinese communities. While economic trade pressures may result in a slow but managed decline, pressures from conflicts will unravel a society rapidly. Allies in conflict give no benefit if China has no direct goals in those conflicts, simply adding hardships to Chinese citizens. China’s ties to horrific regimes only ensures losses of funds, fuel, food and family members who rely on the youth to care for the elderly…and with these great pressures, come great changes. The next few short years will determine China’s ultimate path.

 

If one asks the average American, who are the Qizilbash people, the average American won’t know what you are speaking about.   They will say the “Qizil what?”   And then, if you ask them about the connection of the Qizilbash people to Azerbaijan, the average American will ask you how to spell Azerbaijan and ponder where it is on the map.    However, the average American should learn a little bit about who the Qizilbash people are if they seek to understand the history of modern-day Azerbaijan,  Iran, Central Asia, Afghanistan, the regions of strategic value to the United States of America.   

Recently, the State Committee on Work with the Diaspora, a government agency of Azerbaijan, held an event titled “the Heritage of the Qizilbash in Azerbaijan: in the footsteps of history,” which sought to raise awareness about the Qizilbash people, who are an association of Turkic nomadic tribes that speak the Azerbaijani language.  These tribes included the Rumlu, Shamlu, Ustajlu, Afshar, Qajar, Tekelu, and Zulkadar.   From the 15th century onwards, these tribes contributed to the foundation of the imperial Azerbaijani Dynasty of Safavids that originated in Azerbaijan and ruled over a big part of the Near and  Middle East.   

The Azerbaijani Safavid Dynasty or the State of Qizilbash which was its other denomination, was the first Twelver Shia Empire in modern-day Iran.   Because of the Safavids, Iran today is Shia and not Sunni.  However, the Safavids were not primitive like the mullahs in Tehran are today.  The Iran under Azerbaijani Safavids was an economic stronghold between East and West who had an efficient state bureaucracy based upon checks and balances.   They created great architectural landmarks and patronized the fine arts.   Under their role, Turkic and not Persian influence was dominant.  The State language was Azerbaijani as well as military and ruling elite consisted of Azerbaijani Qizilbash tribes. Indeed, it was only from the Pahlavi Dynasty onwards that Turkic identity in Iran was repressed rather than celebrated.        

The conference that was held in Azerbaijan sought to raise awareness about the roots and identity of the Qizilbash and to promote communication that can lead to the reunification of the global community of Qizilbash, like it existed at the time of the Azerbaijani Safavid Empire. “Azerbaijan is doing great work to unite the Qizilbash people,” former federal secretary of Pakistan, Board member of the Qizilbash Global Heritage Organization Agha Sarwar Raza stated.   “Our ancestors lived on the territory of Azerbaijan.   Subsequently, they spread to different countries.   Azerbaijan is our motherland.”  

In a joint statement, the members of the Qizilbash Global Heritage Organization, co-organizer of the conference, stated: “We, members of the Qizilbash Global Heritage Organization which is part of the world Qizilbash community, feel proud to note that the Qizilbash movement which emerged in the second half of the 15th century opened a new page in the history of the Near and Middle East and the Turkic world on the whole.   During the reign of the Safavid state founded by the Qizilbash tribes which incorporated present-day Azerbaijan, Armenia, Dagestan, Iran, Iraq, Eastern Turkey, Eastern Georgia, Southern Turkmenistan and Western Afghanistan and in the subsequent years notably during the conquest of Nadir Shah Afshar, a great figure in world military history, the Qizilbash made a stronghold in these areas thus having eventually spread to different parts of the world.”

They continued by “stressing the importance of this international conference as a great beginning in the wider study and promotion of Qizilbash heritage which appears to be a glorious page in the history of Azerbaijan.  In a broader sense, we perceive this significant event as a historical step marking organized and purposeful activities towards the appropriation by Azerbaijani people and state of its glorious historical heritage.”   On another note, the Qizilbash Global Heritage Organization “expressed our faith in the sustainability of activities on a broader scale and format towards strengthening the bonds of the world Qizilbash with their historical homeland and their return to their historical roots and support future efforts of this kind.”

The Qizilbash Global Heritage was established in Canada in order to help Qizilbash from across the world to reconnect with their roots, coordinate their joint activities, to be introduced to the Azerbaijani language and culture, and to integrate them into Azerbaijani society.   Arshi Qizilbash, the deputy chairman of the Qizilbash Global Heritage Organization, stated that the goal of the organization is to grow and take their organization to the United Nations and UNESCO for recognition as a world heritage organization.   

By Rachel Avraham

La poignée de cas d'objets volants non identifiés qui demeurent étranges tend à occulter les 95 à 98% de phénomènes élucidés. Des marchands de rêve exploitent ce vieux filon avec les méthodes commerciales et médiatiques d'aujourd'hui. / Science, Espace, États-Unis (affaires intérieures), États-Unis, (...) / Science, Espace, États-Unis (affaires intérieures), États-Unis, Fiction, Technologie, Cinéma - 2023/12