The National Interest

Michael Peck

Helicopters, Americas

The U.S. Army is arming its AH-64 Apache attack helicopters with an Israeli missile that will enable Apaches to hit targets without a line of sight.

Here's What You Need to Know: The push for stand-off weapons for its helicopters is part of a broader Army push for longer-range weapons,.

The U.S. Army is arming its AH-64 Apache attack helicopters with an Israeli missile that will enable Apaches to hit targets without a line of sight.

The Spike NLOS (non-line-of-sight) missile will allow Apaches to remain safely behind cover – a hill or trees – while they guide the munition to the target.

The Spike NLOS uses electro-optical guidance – basically a camera – with both day and night vision. With a range of 25 kilometers (15.5 miles), the missile uses a wireless data link to connect to the firing platform. “Spike NLOS provides the gunner with the unique ability to attack targets at stand-off range with no line of sight,” according to manufacturer Rafael’s product sheet. “The Spike NLOS weapon system can be operated in either direct attack or mid-course navigation based on target coordinates only. These modes enable the defeat of long-range hidden targets with pinpoint precision, damage assessment and the obtaining of real-time intelligence.”

A Defense News journalist witnessed a U.S. Army test of the Apache-Spike combination at the Yuma Proving Ground in August 2019. “The test shots were performed in challenging terrain. The AH-64 hid behind 1,600 feet of craggy mountain and took take aim at a target representing a Russian Pantsir medium-range, surface-to-air missile system on the opposite slope. In the shot witnessed by Defense News, the Apache flew just a couple of hundred feet above the highest obstacle in the desert when the missiles were fired.

“The missiles hit every target across nine total shots used to evaluate the system. The last missile firing resulted in the weapon hitting a moving target in the dark.”

Spike NLOS is part of a family of Spike missiles, including the shoulder-fired Spike SR anti-tank missile, the Spike LR2 with a range of three miles and the Spike ER2 with a range of 6 to 10 miles. Spike missiles are used by 33 nations, with 30,000 missiles sold, according to Rafael.

Why is the U.S. Army buying an Israeli missile? It’s a temporary solution while the Army grapples with how to equip its attack helicopters with stand-off missiles and drones. The increasing lethality and proliferation of sophisticated air defense systems is a powerful incentive for helicopters to keep as much distance as possible from their targets, just as deadlier anti-aircraft systems spurred the development of glide bombs and other stand-off weapons for fixed-wing strike aircraft.

“The Army is moving forward to address a much-desired capability, particularly when considering how the service will fight in the future where greater stand-off to go up against enemy targets is paramount to successful operations,” Defense News noted.

The push for stand-off weapons for its helicopters is part of a broader Army push for longer-range weapons, especially given fears that Russia’s arsenal of artillery and tactical missiles outranges their American counterparts. For example, the Army’s Precision Strike Missile project aims to develop a missile with a range of about 300 miles.

Michael Peck is a contributing writer for the National Interest. He can be found on Twitter and Facebook.

This article first appeared in January 2020.

Image: U.S. Army / Flickr

Mark Episkopos

Hwasong Missiles, Asia

This is what three of North Korea’s most powerful ICBM models—the Hwasong 14, 15, and 16—are capable of doing.

“The United States and its Asian allies regard North Korea as a grave security threat,” opened a recent Council on Foreign Relations report on the DPRK’s military capabilities. These concerns are not entirely misplaced; North Korea is believed to own a stockpile of around sixty nuclear weapons, including a powerful and steadily growing arsenal of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM’s). This is what three of North Korea’s most powerful ICBM models—the Hwasong 14, 15, and 16—are capable of doing.

Hwasong 14 

Hwasong-14 is a two-stage, liquid-fueled mobile ICBM, first test-launched in the summer of 2017. Hwasong-14’s single liquid-fueled engine seemingly bears wide-ranging similarities to its Hwasong-12 predecessor. North Korean authorities claimed the missile could “strike anywhere on earth”—although an obvious exaggeration, the Hwasong-14 does manage to set an important precedent. At a likely range of around 10,000 kilometers, it is the first North Korean missile capable of reaching mainland North America. This new range estimate is significantly revised from initial projections, which pointed to a significantly lower range of around 7,000 to 9,500 kilometers. The Hwasong-14 can deliver a payload of approximately 500-600 kilograms, according to the spectrum of western expert consensus. Though Hwasong-14 is a major leap forward for North Korean ICBM capabilities, the missile’s reliability has been called into question. As noted by the CSIS Missile Defense Project, “debate continues over the Hwasong-14’s reentry vehicle and whether it is capable of surviving the stresses associated with ICBM distance.”

Hwasong-15  

Hwasong-15 shares many technical characteristics with its Hwasong-14 counterpart—in particular, they appear to use similar propulsion systems. Still, the Hwasong-15 dwarfs its predecessor in most performance areas. It boasts a significantly greater range of around 13,000 kilometers and is capable of delivering a 1,000-kilogram payload; it also offers a substantially improved control system, allowing a greater degree of precision. Partly as a result of these performance upgrades, the missile is both larger and heavier than the Hwasong-14. It requires a nine-axle transporter erector launcher (TEL), as opposed to the eight-axle TEL of its predecessor.  

Hwasong-16 

North Korea unveiled its new “monster ICBM,” sometimes referred to as the Hwasong-16, at an October 2020 military parade commemorating the seventy-fifth anniversary of the North Korean Workers’ Party. At first glance, the missile appears to be a bigger and more capable successor to the Hwasong-15. In particular, the DPRK’s newest missile appears to support a much greater payload of around 2,000 to 3,000 kilograms. But the Hwasong-16 is, in some key ways, an apparent step backward for North Korea’s nuclear arsenal. The new missile’s colossal size requires a similarly large TEL—it can’t travel very far and only has a small number of available travel paths, making its movements more predictable. By comparison, the Hwasong-15 is markedly more mobile and is still perfectly capable of delivering catastrophic damage with its 1,000-kilogram payload—it has also been successfully tested at least once. Hwasong-16 is, like all its predecessors, liquid-fueled, defying the widespread expectations of western experts that North Korea is finally ready to make the leap to solid-fueled ICBM technology. Whereas a solid-fueled ICBM can be launched nearly at a moment’s notice, deploying a liquid-fueled missile can take as long as eighteen hours. This gap makes liquid-fueled missiles less survivable and limits their value as second-strike nuclear weapons.  

Mark Episkopos is a national security reporter for the National Interest. 

Image: Reuters

Robert Farley

military, Europe

Military aircraft can have notoriously short lifespans, but that isn’t always the case.

Here's What You Need to Remember: The MiG-21 will easily reach sixty, however, and probably seventy without breaking a sweat. It remains one of the iconic fighters of the supersonic age.

Military aircraft can have notoriously short lifespans, especially during periods of technological ferment. The most elite aircraft of World War I could become obsolete in a matter of months. Things weren’t much different in World War II. And at the dawn of the jet age, entire fleets of aircraft became passé as technologies matured. The advanced fighters that fought in the skies over Korea became junk just a few years later.

But a few designs stand the test of the time. The B-52 Stratofortress first flew in 1952, yet remains in service today. New C-130s continue to roll off the production line, based on a design that became operational in 1954.

But those are bombers and transport aircraft; they don’t fight one another. Fighters face a special problem of longevity, because they must compete directly with newer models. Thus, very few fighters have had long lifespans, either in production or in service.

The MiG-21 “Fishbed” is an exception.

Origins

Initial suitability studies for the MiG-21 began in 1953. The success of the MiG-15 and MiG-17 suggested that Soviet aerospace engineers could compete with their Western counterparts, and with the MiG-19 the Soviets had their first supersonic fighter. However, technology changed so quickly in the first two decades of jet flight that the fighters that had dominated the Korean War were effectively obsolete by the mid-1950s. MiG-15s could cut apart a formation of B-29s, but couldn’t even catch modern American bombers. The Soviets intended the MiG-21 to change that, while also providing an effective air superiority option.

The MiG-21 (eventually dubbed “Fishbed” by NATO) would exceed Mach 2.0, with an internal cannon and the capacity to carry between two and six missiles (the Fishbed actually preceded the missiles into service). Like most fighters the MiG-21 would eventually serve in a ground attack role, in which it can carry a limited number of bombs and rockets. As with many of their fighters, the Soviets preferred to operate the MiG-21 from ground control, eliminating the need for bulky, sophisticated radar equipment.

Altogether, the USSR would build 10,645 Fishbeds between 1959 and 1985. India would construct another 657 under a licensing and technology transfer agreement with Moscow, while Czechoslovakia built 194 under license. Under complicated and somewhat dubious circumstances, the People’s Republic of China acquired sufficient aircraft and technical documents to reverse engineer the MiG-21 into the Chengdu J-7/F-7. China produced around 2,400 Fishbeds between 1966 and 2013. The combined numbers make the Fishbed by far the most produced supersonic aircraft in world history.

Longevity

With the MiG-21, engineers sorted through a set of basic problems that future research could not substantially improve upon. Modern fighters don’t fly much faster than the MiG-21, or maneuver much more capably. While they do carry more ordnance and have more sophisticated electronic equipment, many air forces can treat these as luxuries; they simply want a cheap, fast, easy-to-maintain aircraft that can patrol airspace and occasionally drop a few bombs. The Fishbed fits the bill.

To be sure, the Fishbed would not have been a particularly useful fighter in Western service. It has short legs, cannot carry a great deal of ordnance and lacks the space for sophisticated electronic equipment. The shape of its cockpit limits pilot awareness. However, it aptly fulfilled the Soviet need for a ground control intercept fighter that could fly and fight over the battlefields of Western Europe, as well as act in a limited interceptor role.

During the Cold War, the United States came into possession of a number of MiG-21 variants (eventually purchasing a squadron of J-7s from China). Generally speaking, American pilots spoke well of the plane, and it performed more than adequately in aggressor training situations. Indeed, highly trained American pilots probably pushed the MiG-21 farther than most Soviet pilots could have done.

The Fishbed at War

The MiG-21 never saw combat on the Central Front in a NATO-Warsaw Pact war, but it certainly has seen its share of action.

In Vietnam, pencil-thin MiG-21s found that they could take advantage of American rules of engagement by using their size and speed to cut through bomber packages before U.S. fighters could visually identify and target them. The size and maneuverability of the Fishbed also allowed them to evade early air-to-air missiles. After attacking, the MiGs would run for home.

One exception to this pattern came on January 2, 1967, when a group of F-4 Phantom IIs under the command of legendary pilot Robin Olds tricked North Vietnamese commanders into a disastrous engagement. The Phantoms shot down seven Fishbeds that day, including one flown by Nguyen Van Coc, who would survive the crash and accumulate nine kills over the rest of the war. This would mark Nguyen as the most successful Fishbed pilot of all time, although several other Vietnamese and several Syrian pilots would achieve ace distinction while flying the MiG-21.

The MiG-21 saw extensive service in wars across the Middle East. The fighter-bombers of the Israeli Defense Force devastated Egyptian and Syrian Fishbeds in the opening strikes of the Six-Day War. Fishbeds fought Israeli fighters in the War of Attrition, the Yom Kippur War and the Lebanon War, generally suffering badly at the hands of outstanding Israeli pilots. In one case, Israeli fighters ambushed and destroyed several MiG-21s flown by Soviet pilots.

The success of Western aircraft against the Fishbed in the Middle East, as well as in Angola, caused many to conclude that Soviet fighters were outclassed by their Western counterparts. However, pilot training issue make comparison difficult. The MiG-21 performed more than adequately in comparable pilot training contexts. For example, Indian MiG-21s flew in the 1965 Indo-Pakistani War, and achieved kills in the 1971 War and the Kargil War. Fishbeds also acquitted themselves well in air combat in the Iran-Iraq War.

Upgrades

The number of operational MiG-21s began declining in the late 1980s and 1990s, as more modern models replaced them in front-line service, and after the collapse of the Soviet Union led to the dramatic reduction of Russian strength. Soviet client states felt the pinch as well, and could no longer keep their aircraft in service. However, numerous air forces continue to use the MiG-21 and its Chinese variants.

The MiG-21 currently serves in eighteen air forces worldwide, including two members of NATO (Romania and Croatia). Fishbeds flew in about forty other air forces (counting is difficult because sometimes countries ceased to exist before the MiGs that served them) since 1960. The J/F-7 serves another thirteen countries, and has been retired by four. China, Russia, and Ukraine still carry out maintenance and update work on existing aircraft. The advent of 3D printing may make it even easier for current operators to keep their Fishbeds in service, as they can produce spares and upgrades in country.

Few of the Fishbeds in service today bear much resemblance to the fighter that rolled off the line in 1959. They carry different, far more sophisticated weapons, including the R-60 AAM, the Magic 2 and the Python III. This makes them far more lethal than their older cousins. Moreover, upgrades to their electronics have improved their radar and communications equipment, and have made possible the delivery of precision-guided munitions.

Will the MiG-21 (Or a Variant) Remain in Service in 2059?

China has ended production on the J-7, meaning that we have seen the last MiG-21 variant roll the assembly line. Croatia and Romania will dispose of their Fishbeds in the next five years. After a spate of accidents, India is finally retiring its MiG-21s (assuming it can ever actually acquire or produce a replacement). Chinese J-7s have been relegated to local defense and training duties.

This hardly means the end of the Fishbed, however. Many of the J-7 and F-7 models remain of fairly recent vintage, and can stay in service for quite some time. Bangladesh acquired the last dozen F-7s in 2013, and won’t need a replacement anytime soon. And plenty of air forces simply have no requirement for anything much more sophisticated or expensive than a Fishbed. There may never be a hundred-year fighter (although the B-52 may quite possibly reach that number before final retirement). The MiG-21 will easily reach sixty, however, and probably seventy without breaking a sweat. It remains one of the iconic fighters of the supersonic age.

Robert Farley, a frequent contributor to the National Interest, is author of The Battleship Book. This article first appeared in 2019.

Image: Wikipedia.

David Axe

Security,

The arsenal plane would carry large numbers of long-range munitions into combat, adding firepower to a main force of fighters.

Here's What You Need to Remember: The idea is for the fighters to spot targets for the more-vulnerable arsenal planes, allowing the latter to remain farther from the battle. For that reason, an arsenal plane could need sophisticated communications systems, whether it’s a new design or a modification of an existing type.

The head of the U.S. Air Force’s Global Strike Command wants to develop a new aircraft type that can function as the command’s “arsenal plane.”

The arsenal plane would carry large numbers of long-range munitions into combat, adding firepower to a main force of fighters.

However, the arsenal plane presumably would not possess the same sensors, performance and stealth qualities that other types possess.

“The arsenal plane concept is probably better described as more of a clean-sheet approach to a platform that can affordably and rapidly fill the gap for long-range strike capabilities, and to go down more innovative paths,” Gen. Timothy Ray told reporters in early April 2020.

This apparently is the first time that a top Air Force officer has insinuated that a new, “clean-sheet” design, rather than an existing type, should fill the arsenal-plane role. The Air Force previously had hinted that the B-1 and B-52 bombers and even airlifters could function as arsenal planes.

“If you look at our force going forward, a lot of the programs that we have are turning the bomber force into something else,” Will Roper, the Air Force’s top weapons-buyer, said at a press event in Washington, D.C. in November 2019. “A B-52 with a lot of hypersonic weapons on it is, I will call it a bomber, but it's certainly not dropping things down—quite the opposite, right? It's almost a missileer instead of a bomber.”

Ray around the same time said that cargo planes could be candidates for the arsenal role. “You have to go look at those options, if you believe you’ll have access to airlift assets to go do that in a time of crisis,” Ray said. “I’m not mentally there, I don’t see how that comes together.”

There’s a cold logic in the Air Force’s drive to acquire an arsenal plane. To preserve their clean, radar-dodging lines, the service’s F-22 and F-35 stealth fighters typically carry their weapons in small internal bays.

The F-22’s standard loadout is four air-to-air missiles and two 1,000-pound bombs. The F-35 can haul just two air-to-air missiles and two 2,000-pound bombs internally. By contrast, many Russian and Chinese fighters, while not stealthy, routinely carry 10 or more missiles and bombs under their fuselages and wings.

American fighter squadrons could fly into combat with far fewer weapons than their opponents could carry. An arsenal plane, lobbing potentially hundreds of missiles from well behind the aerial front line, could help to close the weapons-gap.

The idea is for the fighters to spot targets for the more-vulnerable arsenal planes, allowing the latter to remain farther from the battle. For that reason, an arsenal plane could need sophisticated communications systems, whether it’s a new design or a modification of an existing type.

“This is a little unusual and something (almost) entirely new,” Brian Laslie, author of The Air Force Way of War, told The Daily Beast shortly after the Air Force first announced the arsenal-plane concept. “But with too few fighters carrying too few weapons—and rapidly-arming foes—the Pentagon seems willing to risk something unusual and new.”

David Axe was defense editor at The National Interest. He is the author of the graphic novels War Fix, War Is Boring and Machete Squad. This article first appeared last year.

Image: Wikipedia.

Harun Karčić

Russia, Balkans

Joe Biden wants a return to the strategic region, but Vladimir Putin is not going down without a fight.

The Russian embassy in Bosnia and Herzegovina recently warned it will “react” if Bosnia takes further steps towards joining NATO, saying it will perceive such an act as hostile. Then, a few days later, Igor Kalabukhov, Russia’s newly-appointed ambassador in Sarajevo, compared NATO to a hostile enemy in an interview and warned that “We must take this fact into consideration – the encroachment of NATO’s infrastructure towards our borders. We must react in a military-technical sense.”

Such warnings, stark as they may be, are not unprecedented.

Moscow clearly believes that the purpose of NATO is to “fight against Russia” and that joining NATO will force Sarajevo to take a side in the “military-political confrontation.” Despite Bosnia being small and war-torn, such a vividly antagonistic posture from Russia clearly shows that the Balkan region as a whole plays an outsized role in wider geopolitical constellations. Namely—Bosnia, Kosovo, and Serbia are the only three remaining Balkan countries that have not yet joined NATO. Serbia is adamant on staying out of the alliance, while Kosovo is yet to fulfill a number of pre-conditions. However, being home to Camp Bondsteel—the biggest U.S. military base in the region—and staunchly pro-American in its foreign policy leaves no doubt as to Kosovo’s geopolitical orientation. Hence, that essentially leaves Bosnia as the only remaining country that wants to join NATO (or at least that is what half of its population wants). Namely, Bosniak Muslims and Croats are, according to opinion polls, pro-NATO oriented while Bosnian Serbs gravitate towards Russia. According to a 2017 International Republican Institute opinion poll carried out in the country, Bosniak Muslims are most eager to join the alliance: 57 percent of Bosniaks strongly support NATO accession, compared to 53 percent of Bosnian-Croats and just 2 percent of Bosnian-Serbs. The logic behind such reasoning is rather straightforward: NATO, led by the United States, intervened twice to save a persecuted Muslim population from the onslaught of a Christian enemy—in Bosnia (1994, 1995) and in Kosovo (1999). Hence the love for NATO. On the other hand, Bosnian Serbs, by means of their shared Orthodox Christian faith and pan-Slavic ties, look towards Moscow.

Russia has for years maintained its opposition to Bosnia joining NATO, though it opted to call for “military neutrality” instead of outright opposition. With Joe Biden, a long-time sympathizer of Bosnia and Kosovo, now in the White House, Moscow is taking a more hostile stance.

For years, a number of Balkan observers (including myself) have been warning of increased Russian malign influence in Bosnia and in the wider Balkan region, particularly after the discovery of Bosnian Serb paramilitaries acting beneath the radar and allegedly linked to Russian biker gangs known as the “Night Wolves.” The “Wolves” have been under U.S. sanctions for years due to their active involvement in the Russian annexation of Crimea and in recruiting pro-Russian separatist fighters to fight in Ukraine. Elsewhere in the region, there was a botched coup d’état engineered by fourteen people (including two Russian military intelligence officers) aiming to install a pro-Russia, anti-NATO government in Montenegro in 2016; Attempts to sow discord in North Macedonia prior to its own NATO accession in 2017—again, blamed on pro-Russian elements—and attempted sabotage of Macedonia’s name change deal with Greece in 2018 (which paved the way for the country to join NATO).

To be clear about one thing—Russia does not view tiny Western Balkan states as a national security threat. However, so far as Moscow is concerned, forestalling their accession to the Western military alliance is a strategic goal within Russia’s broader foreign policy objective of curbing NATO’s expansion. There is also the tit-for-tat moment: since NATO has been infringing upon Soviet-era zones of influence in its soft underbelly (i.e., Georgia and Ukraine), Moscow feels entitled to adequately reciprocate in NATO’s (and the European Union’s) backyard. Russia has been probing and testing the West’s response. The same strategy has been applied in Ukraine’s Donbas, Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia, and in Moldova through Transdniestria. By developing the ability to sway over local powerbrokers and play with fire in frozen-conflicts, Moscow can essentially blackmail NATO and the EU and extract concessions from them. Hence, Moscow is using the Balkans as a bargaining chip.

Bosnia is the easiest target as existing deep-rooted problems can be exacerbated to divert the EU’s and NATO’s attention from Moscow’s more ambitious designs. A key Russian ally in Bosnia is the hardline politician Milorad Dodik, currently the Serb-member of the tripartite Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Not only has he met Russian president Vladimir Putin nearly ten times over the past years, but he has defied almost all Bosnian state institutions and has shown that his party can paralyze Bosnia’s politics—at will. Though not very much liked in the West, Moscow’s rhetorical support is of paramount importance to him. When he ruled over the Bosnian Serb entity (comprising 49 percent of Bosnia) he forged closer relations and received weapons and military advisors from neighboring Serbia and Russia. He is vehemently anti-NATO and staunchly pro-Russian. Moscow knows that rhetoric alone suffices to keep Bosnian Serbs happy, and they can in turn—at Moscow’s request—paralyze Bosnia’s ability to function. If Russia can achieve so much leverage over an EU and NATO-aspiring country with hardly any costly investments, so much the better.

Bosnia’s postwar political system is fiendishly complex and bureaucratic. The country remains starkly divided among Catholic Croats, Muslims Bosniaks, and Orthodox Christian Serbs. Each ethnic group has a president, and every eight months they take turns in running the country. Administratively, Bosnia and Herzegovina is divided into two political entities: one inhabited by Bosnian Serbs (Republic of Srpska), the other shared by Bosniak Muslims and Bosnian Croats (Federation). The Federation is further divided into ten Swiss-style cantons. When not dysfunctional on its own, such a convoluted political composition, relying mostly on consensus in decisionmaking, makes it ideally suited for malign foreign interference.

Russia has for years been waging a systematic assault on Western democracies—either by meddling in U.S. elections, promoting the rise of the far-right in Europe, or advocating BREXIT—which plays into the Kremlin’s ultimate goal of having a weaker European Union. The Kremlin has also done heaps to undermine the post-World War II rules-based international order which seeks to protect smaller states from the predation of larger ones. The Western Balkans have emerged as a new front in this no longer covert war. Russia’s strategic objective in the Western Balkans is not only to block aspiring nations from joining NATO but to stymie the development of pro-Western liberal democracies. Its media outlets disseminate pro-Kremlin narratives in Serbia and among Bosnian Serbs by promoting shared Slavic and Orthodox ties, reinforcing the idea of Russia being the only true ally of Balkan Orthodox Christians, lionizing Vladimir Putin, and memorializing NATO’s bombing of Serbia. Russia is striving to keep public opinion stridently against the alliance.

This brewing conflict has the potential to develop into a more serious confrontation between the United States and Russia, and essentially between Biden and Putin. The Balkans remain unfinished business, left behind from the 1990s and an untimely American pull-out, which is coming back to haunt Washington. Hence, the prospect of Western integration for the region still remains the main vehicle towards achieving sustainable peace and stability. It is a process that will not only require constant commitment and periodical encouraging signals but active involvement of the United States.

Geopolitics has returned to the Balkans and the region has once again become a chessboard in a new “Great Game” where Ankara, Brussels, Washington, Moscow, Berlin—and, increasingly, Beijing—vie for influence and geopolitical leverage in the pursuit of wider aspirations.

Harun Karčić is a journalist and political analyst based in Sarajevo covering foreign influences in the Balkans. He tweets @HarunKarcic

Image: Sebian servicemen attend a military parade near Belgrade, Serbia October 19, 2019.​ Reuters.

Stephen Silver

North Korea Missiles, Asia

North Korea launched a pair of short-range ballistic missiles on Thursday, a considerable escalation from the first launch. Such a launch would, unlike the first one, be considered a violation of sanctions against North Korea. 

Following North Korea’s cruise missile launch earlier this week, the U.S. government, in particular, appeared to downplay the severity of what happened. President Joe Biden told reporters earlier this week that “according to the Defense Department, it’s business as usual,” and even laughed when he was asked if the launch would affect diplomacy.

Then, later in the week, North Korea carried out another missile launch.

North Korea launched a pair of short-range ballistic missiles on Thursday, a considerable escalation from the first launch. Such a launch would, unlike the first one, be considered a violation of sanctions against North Korea. 

Japanese prime minister Yoshihide Suga proclaimed that the launch threatened “peace and safety in Japan and the region,” while South Korean foreign minister Chung Eui-yong expressed  “deep concern,” according to The Washington Post. 

The South Korean government stated that “the two short-range missiles were fired at 7:06 a.m. and 7:25 a.m. from an area on the North’s eastern coast and flew 450 kilometers (279 miles) on an apogee of 60 kilometers (37 miles) before landing in the sea,” according to The Washington Post.

“This activity highlights the threat that North Korea’s illicit weapons program poses to its neighbors and the international community,” U.S. Indo-Pacific Command spokesperson Capt. Mike Kafka said, per the newspaper.

The missile tests follow the visit to the region last week by Secretary of State Tony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, where they met with their counterparts from Japan and South Korea and are thought to have discussed the North Korean nuclear issue extensively. The United States and South Korea also performed joint military exercises at the same time, the type of exercises that have long been viewed as a provocation by North Korea.

CNN had reported, during the meetings in Asia, that there were indications such a missile test was in the works by the North Koreans.

North Korea has typically launched missile tests or other provocations whenever a new president takes over in the United States or South Korea. In 2017, shortly after President Trump assumed office, the Kim regime launched nuclear and intercontinental missile tests, which led to escalating rhetoric that eventually gave way to a diplomatic process.

Reports prior to the Asia trip had stated that North Korea was being unresponsive to American diplomatic overtures. 

Biden is expected to soon announce his administration’s strategy in regard to dealing with North Korea, which is expected to differ from that of his predecessor. Biden is scheduled to hold his first news conference as president on Thursday, and North Korea is likely to come up.

Stephen Silver, a technology writer for the National Interest, is a journalist, essayist and film critic, who is also a contributor to The Philadelphia Inquirer, Philly Voice, Philadelphia Weekly, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Living Life Fearless, Backstage magazine, Broad Street Review and Splice Today. The co-founder of the Philadelphia Film Critics Circle, Stephen lives in suburban Philadelphia with his wife and two sons. Follow him on Twitter at @StephenSilver.

Image: Reuters

Ethen Kim Lieser

Stimulus Check,

According to a recent online survey of more than four hundred investors conducted by Deutsche Bank, it revealed that half of the respondents between twenty-five and thirty-four plan to spend 50 percent of their $1,400 stimulus payments on stocks.

Roughly one hundred twenty-seven million coronavirus relief checks—totaling $750 billion—have already hit the bank accounts of financially struggling Americans, according to the Internal Revenue Service.

And many experts believe that a sizeable portion of those funds will eventually make its way into the market to make big bets on popular but volatile so-called meme stocks like GameStop and AMC.

According to a recent online survey of more than four hundred investors conducted by Deutsche Bank, it revealed that half of the respondents between twenty-five and thirty-four plan to spend 50 percent of their $1,400 stimulus payments on stocks.

That discovery led the German investment bank to state that “a large amount of the upcoming U.S. stimulus checks will probably find their way into equities.”

Meanwhile, those aged eighteen to twenty-four who took part in the poll planned to use 40 percent of the stimulus checks on stocks, and those thirty-five to fifty-four admitted they would use 37 percent of the checks. Individuals over fifty-five said they would put only 16 percent in the market.

Market experts, though, are warning that you shouldn’t bet on such meme stocks if you aren’t in a position to absorb potentially huge losses. For example, to shed some light on the immense volatility of those stocks, GameStop in recent months was driven up by hundreds of percent in part by Reddit traders seeking to squeeze hedge funds betting against the company. The stock then plunged 33 percent on Wednesday following the company’s quarterly earnings report, but then bounced again the next trading day.

“Behind the recent surge in retail investing is a younger, often new-to-investing, and aggressive cohort not afraid to employ leverage,” Deutsche Bank strategist Jim Reid and research associate Raj Bhattacharyya said in a report.

“Given stimulus checks are currently penciled in at circa $405 billion in Biden’s plan (before Senate revisions), that gives us a maximum of around $150 billion that could go into U.S. equities based on our survey. … If we estimate this at around 20 percent (based on some historical assumptions), that would still provide around circa $30 billion of firepower—and that’s before we talk about any possible boosts to 401k plans outside of trading accounts.”

A more conservative approach to spending the stimulus payments has been touted by none other than legendary investor Warren Buffett, who boasts a net worth of roughly $100 billion.

“The first thing I’d do with any money I had would be to pay (credit card debt) off,” he said during last year’s online shareholders meeting for his company Berkshire Hathaway, adding that too many Americans today use credit cards “as a piggy bank to be raided.”

He then told a story about a friend who got her hands on some cash and later asked him for advice on what to do with it. Buffett eventually learned that the woman was still carrying around a credit card balance that was tacking on 18 percent in interest annually.

“It just doesn’t make sense,” he told his shareholders. “You can’t go through life borrowing money at those rates and be better off.”

Ethen Kim Lieser is a Minneapolis-based Science and Tech Editor who has held posts at Google, The Korea Herald, Lincoln Journal Star, AsianWeek, and Arirang TV. Follow or contact him on LinkedIn.

Conrad Black

Joe Biden,

No president in the history of such press conferences, going back to Franklin D. Roosevelt, has ever responded from a briefing book, especially one where the questions were in anticipated sequence as occurred today.

President Joe Biden’s first news conference was the high point of his administration to date; he was fluent, good-humored, well-informed, and only slightly bobbled one or two questions and not in a way that surpassed the confusion deliberately created by Dwight D. Eisenhower’s complicated syntax or Lyndon Johnson’s Texan colloquialisms.

He was very well-rehearsed to take predictable questions on the Democrats’ soft-points and respond with articulate answers that had almost nothing to do with the real issue. Less reassuringly, he read from briefing notes at length in a manner that brazenly advertised the pre-selection of questionnaires, questions, and generally windy and evasive answers. No president in the history of such press conferences, going back to Franklin D. Roosevelt, has ever responded from a briefing book, especially one where the questions were in anticipated sequence as occurred today.

Minute and repetitive questions about the dire border conditions were funneled into a series of responses based on the alleged inhumanity of the previous administration and scrupulously ignored President Trump’s achievement in reducing illegal southern border entries by almost 90 percent.

There were a few gratuitous donkey-kicks against Trump; nothing would be easier, more appropriate, and more certain to continue to moderate the American political temperature than a gracious reference to the former president-the swift development of the vaccines, or even his policy to China, which Biden did acknowledge that he was in some measure continuing. But the Democrats’ obligatory Trump-demonization script does not permit of that, though the refrain resonates more feebly every week.

It was clear as the session proceeded how pre-rehearsed it all was, but it achieved the minimum ambition of spiking claims of the president’s senility. He spoke for over an hour and there was almost none of the worrisome bumbling that afflicted many of his previous public comments, and he did not remotely appear to be adrift or vacant, as he did frequently during the campaign and at times since his inauguration.

He had the old Joe Biden casual charm and comradeliness with the working press that has made him a popular figure in Washington since he first arrived there nearly fifty years ago. He did undoubtedly raise his game on what we have seen before and everyone should be reassured that all the Manchurian Candidate and related theories of a waxworks dummy president being shunted around like an effigy and stammering incomprehensibly when asked anything more challenging than the identity of the male occupant of Grant’s Tomb is asked, were laid to rest, at least for the time being.

The journalists themselves will be aware that the whole occasion was a long-prepared set-up, but that does not imply that the regime has no answer for serious questions, even if the president was not prepared to offer any. The format and pre-selection of questioners didn’t allow the refutation of such whoppers as his assertion that the “overwhelming majority” of people arriving at the southern border were sent back, or that most Republicans support him; (the real number that does is ten percent-he may have been referring to support of his Covid Relief bill, but that is not what he said).

Nothing came up about the administration’s green ambitions, nothing about the covid pandemic apart from accelerating vaccines, about school reopenings, and there was nothing about taxes and the proverbial economic reset, nothing at all about gun control, and not one word about Iran.

There was much discussion about the filibuster, but the president and the press just filibustered each other on the issue. The closest there was to any actual news was his agreement that North Korea was the greatest foreign policy problem and his stated expectation that he would seek reelection in 2024.                  

It was a fair day for the president, but a further disgrace to the worthless partisan press. There was no challenge on any of the soft pre-cooked answers, except on a couple of border matters, where the president entered a cul-de-sac and self-bloviated into silence. He was not challenged on a shaming PBS question that the Mexican border was being swarmed because “Joe Biden is a decent man.”

A low hurdle was cleared and the president was alert and affable; the terrible, outrageous nightmares of the Trump-baiting press conferences and all the contumely of that era are mercifully receding, but honeymoons, especially as hokey a honeymoon as this one, don’t last long.          

Conrad Black is a writer and former newspaper publisher whose most recent book is Donald J. Trump: A President Like No Other. He is Chairman Emeritus of the National Interest.

Sebastien Roblin

Essex-class,

​The Essex’s best defense and offense came from the new generation of aircraft she carried, all with ranges of a thousand miles or longer.

Here's What You Need To Remember: The decades of operational service provided by the venerable Essex carriers testified both to the robustness of their design, and their effectiveness as platforms of the U.S. naval power.

Perhaps no vessel embodies the U.S. Navy’s embrace of the aircraft carrier as the centerpiece of its strategy as the Essex-class carrier. Between 1943 and 1950, twenty-four of the thirty-thousand-ton carriers were built at shipyards in Newport News, Philadelphia, Brooklyn, Norfolk and Braintree—some completed in as few as fourteen months. This makes the Essex the most extensively produced capital ship class in the twentieth century.

The Navy’s earlier carriers were limited in size due to the Washington Naval Treaty signed in 1922, with an exception granted for two battlecruisers converted into carriers with displacements of thirty thousand tons (in U.S. service, the Lexington-class).

Though lacking combat experience, the Navy tested its carriers extensively in wargames and gained a decent idea of their revolutionary. So did Japan, which withdrew from the Naval Treaty in 1934 to build up its forces up for planned future conquests.

Reciprocally freed from the treaty’s restriction, in 1940 the Navy set out to build a larger carriers than its latest Yorktown-class. Though the U.S. was over a year away from involvement in World War II, naval engineers grasped the qualities a fully-capable carrier needed: when it came to ‘flattops’, bigger was actually better.

The 30,000 ton Essex was finally commissioned on December 31, 1942, measuring 265 meters in length and displacing 31,300 tons with the hull reinforced by as much as four inches of Special Treatment Steel armor. Four twin and four-single five-inch gun turrets used two fire-control radars to blast aerial threats up to seven miles away using proximity-fused air-bursting shells. Additionally, sixty rapid-firing twenty-millimeter cannons and seventeen quad-barrel forty-millimeter Bofors guns provided close protection.

Additional air- and surface-search radars gave the carriers advance warning of approaching threats while helping manage friendly forces in the battlespace. A new side-mounted elevator gave the carriers better flexibility, particular in the event that the elevator was jammed by battle damage.

She and her sisterships officially had crew complements of 2,300 personnel, though often sailed with more than 3,000. Eight huge boilers generating temperatures of 850 degrees Fahrenheit turned four steam turbines for electrical power and propulsion, allowing the hulking carrier to achieve 33 knots under full power.

The Essex’s best defense and offense came from the new generation of aircraft she carried, all with ranges of a thousand miles or longer. Agile F6F Hellcat finally helped the Navy win air superiority over maneuverable, but fragile A6M Zero. Faster SB2C Helldiver bomber could heft up to two-thousand pounds of bombs internally, and another thousand underwing. And tubby three-man TBF Avengers could launch deadly torpedo attacks, and also proved effective as radar-equipped submarine hunters and airborne early warning plane. The air groups typically boasted two squadron each of Hellcats and Helldivers and a squadron of Avengers.

The Essex’s larger deck allowed two squadrons to be “spotted” for takeoff on the flight deck, while a third readied its engines on the open hangar deck below. As aircraft carried progressively heavier weapons loads, they began to make more extensive use of the Essex’s two to three steam catapults to achieve necessary takeoff speed. An enlarged store of 240,000 gallons of aviation fuel enabled extended flight operations.

Starting with the Ticonderoga laid down in 1943, new long-hull Essex carriers entered service with a flared ‘clipper bow meant to handle rough weather more smoothly. The long-hull ships boasted additional anti-aircraft guns and improved radars, and had their refueling and air vents reconfigured for improved survivability, and the ship’s Combat Information Center moved below deck. In fact, as Essex carriers received near continuous upgrades to their radars, guns and catapults, no two came to be exactly alike.

The Essex carriers were thrust into the cauldron of the Pacific War which had already consumed five of the eight fleet carriers the Navy began the conflict with. Many of the Essex class vessels were renamed after recently sunk carriers (Yorktown, Lexington, Wasp, Hornet, Independence) as well as other famous ships and historic battles.

Initially they primarily served as floating airstrips to pound fortified Japanese islands in the United States’ relentless island-hopping campaign. However, in June 1944 six Essex class-carrier engaged Japanese counterparts in the Battle of the Philippine Sea, sinking three Japanese carriers and shooting down around six hundred aircraft in the so-called “Great Marianas Turkey Shoot.” The U.S. Navy lost 123 combat aircraft and no ships.

Fourth months later, four Essex-class carriers covering the U.S. landing on the Philippines fought off three separate Japanese fleets in the epic Battle of Leyte Gulf, the largest naval battle in history. Aircraft from the Essex and Franklin (as well as from the Yorktown-class Enterprise) sank the Japanese battleship Musashi, the largest battleship ever built. Again, the Essex-class carriers survived Japanese counterattacks unscathed thanks to effective Combat Air Patrols.

However, in the final year of the war Japan launched increasing numbers of Kamikaze attacks that succeeded in penetrating the Essex’s formidable air defense screens. On May 11, 1945, while providing air support for the invasion of Okinawa, the Bunker Hill was simultaneously struck by two Zeroes also carrying bombs, the massive explosions killing 390 crew. She nonetheless managed to return to Pearl Harbor for repairs on her own power.

Another Essex-class carrier, the USS Intrepid, survived being hit by four Kamikaze attacks as detailed in this earlier article.

Earlier, on March 19, 1945, the Franklin was struck by two armor piercing bombs dropped by a lone D4Y “Judy” dive bomber, setting off an chain reaction of exploding bomb and fuel laden aircraft that killed over eight hundred crew. Remarkably, Franklin captain refused to abandon ship and managed to nurse her back to port, having suffered the heaviest casualties for any U.S. Navy ship not lost in action. You can see footage of the Franklin’s ordeal in this 1945 documentary.

Ultimately, not one Essex-class carrier was lost during World War II. The close of hostilities saw the cancelation of eight planned Essex carriers. But most of the remaining twenty-four would lead long and eventful service lives.

The Navy reconfigured its Essexes with angled flight decks (increasing their weight to forty-seven thousand tons) and mirror landing systems to help operate faster and heavier jet fighters like he F9F Panther and the FJ Fury, serving alongside trusted piston-engine fighters like the Corsair and the beastly A-1 Skyraider. Helicopters were also added for search-and-rescue duties.

Eleven of the Essex carriers saw action in the Korean War, hitting ground targets in North Korea. In one incident in 1952, a Panther launched from the Essex-class Oriskany shot down four Soviet jets in an aerial skirmish over the Sea of Japan.

A decade later the Essex’s continued to serve, now with Skyhawk attack jets, speedy F-8 Crusader fighters, which saw action in the Vietnam War, with A-1s from the Intrepid even improbably shooting down a MiG-17 jet fighter. The carriers were also extensively employed to recover NASA space capsules and astronauts. However, the Essexes were being replaced by new nuclear-powered carriers.

However, the Oriskany—the last Essex-class vessel launched in a heavily modified configuration—endured the class’s final ordeal when a mishandled flare tossed into an ammunition locker ignited a fire that vented poisonous fumes throughout the ship, killing forty-four.

While most of Essex-class vessels were decommissioned in the 1970s, the last still in service, the USS Lexington, remained active as a training ship until 1991. Four of the World War II fleet carriers still serve as museum ships in New York, South Carolina, Texas, and California. The decades of operational service provided by the venerable carriers testified both to the robustness of their design, and their effectiveness as platforms of the U.S. naval power.

Sébastien Roblin holds a master’s degree in conflict resolution from Georgetown University and served as a university instructor for the Peace Corps in China. He has also worked in education, editing, and refugee resettlement in France and the United States. He currently writes on security and military history for War Is Boring. (This first appeared last year.) 

Daniel R. DePetris

North Korea Missiles, Asia

Perhaps Kim Jong-un is sending a message to the Biden administration that Washington’s maximalist demands need to change.

North Korean missile tests have a familiar, almost cyclical, pattern to them. If Pyongyang launches a projectile toward the East Sea, then Washington, Seoul, and Tokyo immediately condemn the action as a violation of UN Security Council Resolutions and a dangerous provocation threatening regional peace. The pattern occurred yet again last night when the North sent two ballistic missiles into the air days after its previous test of short-range cruise missiles over the weekend. The South Korean government called an emergency session of the National Security Council, as it always does. Japan, which has a government that is far more hardline toward the North than its South Korean neighbor, reacted with a mix of alarm and indignation. The launch “threatens the peace and security of our nation and the region and violates U.N. resolutions,” Japanese prime minister Yoshihide Suga said. “We are determined to protect our citizens’ lives and peaceful livelihoods at all cost, and will work closely with other countries including the U.S. and South Korea.”

While analysts on social media were giving the usual explanations about what North Korea may be up to—perhaps Kim Jong-un is trying to gain additional leverage over the United States before nuclear negotiations resume? Perhaps Kim is sending a message to the Biden administration that Washington’s maximalist demands need to change. Business in the North was churning along as it always has.

Those of us in the United States tend to jump to the conclusion that North Korean actions in the military realm are directly intertwined with Washington’s own. If the United States caused Pyongyang to lash out with a new volley of missiles, then surely Washington has the capability to convince the Kim dynasty to refrain from launching more?

The problem, unfortunately, is that there are some things even the United States—the preeminent power in the world—can’t control. North Korea may be a perpetually weak and struggling state with a GDP a fraction of Jeff Bezos’ net worth, but it’s also a state with a tremendous amount of pride governed by a leadership that takes paranoia to a new level. The North Koreans won’t be dictated to. When the North sets a plan for itself, it’s willing to implement that plan until Kim Jong-un is fully satisfied.

Could the latest North Korean missile test throw one more obstacle in the way of resuming diplomacy over Pyongyang’s nuclear program? While it’s certainly possible, it’s not like the North Koreans are particularly interested in going down the diplomatic route at the moment. Using various channels at its disposal, the Biden administration attempted to establish contact with the North in the hope the gesture would be reciprocated. Instead, like someone ducking robocalls, the North didn’t even bother to pick up the phone. In Washington, the lack of a response came as a disappointment. In Pyongyang, however, it doesn’t make much sense to talk when the White House is still conducting its North Korea policy review. And let’s face it: with Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s repeated references to the “denuclearization of North Korea,” Pyongyang isn’t hearing anything new today that they haven’t heard over the last fifteen to twenty years.

The missile tests that have occurred over the last week are less about delivering a stern message to the United States or “challenging” the new administration in Washington than they are about implementing a plan Kim Jong-un telegraphed earlier in the year. That plan, established at the Eighth Workers Party Congress in January, entails redoubling military modernization efforts and developing the full-spectrum of missile technology, from hypersonic glide vehicles to submarine-launched, solid-fueled intercontinental ballistic missiles. “Our external political activities must focus on controlling and subjugating the United States, our archenemy and the biggest stumbling block to the development of our revolution,” Kim told the party congress at the time. “No matter who takes power in the United States, its true nature and its policy toward our country will never change.”

To put it in the most basic terms, North Korea will continue to behave like North Korea. We have long passed the stage of being surprised.

Dan DePetris is a Fellow at Defense Priorities as well as a columnist for the Washington Examiner and The American Conservative. You can follow him on Twitter at @DanDePetris.

Image: Reuters

Kyle Mizokami

History, Americas

It was ultimately weather issues that did these behemoths of the sky in, not enemy fire.

Key point: World War II was won without flying aircraft carriers, proving they weren’t a war-winning asset. However, the concept has seen a revival due to the advent of drone technologies.

Nearly a hundred years ago the U.S. Navy asked a question: if airplanes can fly through the air, why couldn’t a vessel carrying them fly through the air as well? The result was the Akron-class airships, the only flying aircraft carriers put into service in any country. Although promising, a pair of accidents—prompted by the airship’s limitations—destroyed the flying carrier fleet and ended development of the entire concept.

The Akron-class airships were designed and built in the late 1920s. The ships were designed, like conventional seagoing aircraft carriers, to reconnoiter the seas and search for the enemy main battle fleet. Once the enemy fleet was located, the U.S. Navy’s battleships would close with the enemy and defeat them. This was a primitive and limiting use of the aircraft carrier, which had not yet evolved into the centerpiece of U.S. naval striking power.

The airships of the Akron class, Akron and Macon, were ordered in 1926 before the Great Depression. The two ships were commissioned into U.S. Navy service in 1931 and 1933, respectively. The Akron class was a classic pill-shaped interwar airship design, with a rigid skin made of cloth and aluminum and filled with helium. The air vessel was powered by eight Maybach twelve-cylinder engines developing a total 6,700 horsepower. At 785 feet each was longer than a Tennessee-class battleship, had a crew of just sixty each, and could cruise at fifty-five knots. The airships were lightly armed, with just eight .30 caliber machine guns.

Recommended: The Colt Python: The Best Revolver Ever Made?

Recommended: Smith & Wesson 500: The Gun That Has As Much Firepower As a Rifle

Recommended: Smith & Wesson's .44 Magnum Revolver: Why You Should Fear the 'Dirty Harry' Gun

Unique among airships, the Akron class carried fixed-wing aircraft and could launch and recover them in flight. Each airship carried up to five Curtiss F9C Sparrowhawk fighters, lightweight biplanes with a crew of one and armed with two .30 caliber Browning machine guns. The airships each concealed a hangar within their enormous airframe and launched and recovered the Sparrowhawks through a hook system that lowered them into the airstream, whereupon they would detach and fly off. The system worked in reverse to recover the tiny fighters.

The flying carrier concept had its advantages and disadvantages compared to the “traditional” seagoing carrier. Akron and Macon were twice as fast as surface ships, and could therefore cover more ground. By their very nature those onboard could see much farther over the horizon than surface ships, and their Sparrowhawks extended that range even farther. For just sixty men manning each airship the Navy had a powerful reconnaissance capability to assist the battle fleet in fighting a decisive naval battle.

The airships did have their disadvantages. Akron and Macon were both prone to the whims of weather, and could become difficult to handle in high winds: in February 1932 Akron broke away from its handlers just as a group of visiting congressmen were waiting to board. Three months later in San Diego, two sailors were thrown to their deaths and a third was injured trying to moor the airship to the ground. Bad weather grounded the airships entirely, weather a traditional seagoing warship could handle with relative ease.

On April 3, 1933 USS Akron was on a mission to calibrate its radio equipment off the coast of New Jersey when it ran into trouble. Strong winds caused the Akron to plunge 1,000 feet in a matter of seconds, and the crew made the snap decision to dump the water ballast to regain altitude. The airship ended up rising too quickly and the crew lost control. Akron crashed into the sea, killing seventy-three out of seventy-six personnel on board, including the head of the Navy’s Bureau of Aeronautics and the commander of Naval Air Station Lakehurst and the station’s Rigid Airship Training & Experimental Squadron.

On February 12, 1935 USS Macon was over the Pacific Ocean when a storm caused the upper fin to fail. Macon had suffered damage to the fin months earlier, but the Navy had failed to repair the damage. The collapse of the upper fin took approximately 20 percent of the ship’s helium with it, causing the airship to rapidly rise. The crew decided to release additional helium to make it sink again, but too much helium was lost and the ship descended into the ocean. Macon’s slower crash than her sister ship Akron, as well as the presence of life jackets and life preservers aboard the airship, ensured that eighty-one out of eighty-three passengers and crew survived the accident.

The loss of both airships effectively ended the flying aircraft carrier concept. It’s interesting to speculate what might have happened had the concept been further developed and survived until the Second World War. As scouts, airship carriers would not have lasted long had they accomplished their mission and located Japanese ships and bases. Oscar and Zero fighters of the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy would have made short work of the delicate airships and their lightweight fighters. On the other hand, airships could have adapted to become formidable antisubmarine warfare platforms for convoy escort duty in the Atlantic Ocean, standing guard over unarmed merchantmen and fending off German u-boats with a combination of fighters and depth charges.

Regardless of speculation, World War II was won without flying aircraft carriers, proving they weren’t a war-winning asset. The concept has lain dormant for decades, but recent Pentagon research into turning the C-130 Hercules transport into a flying aircraft carrier for pilotless drones means the concept is still alive and well. The flying aircraft carrier could indeed stage a comeback, though with considerably fewer pilots involved.

Kyle Mizokami is a defense and national security writer based in San Francisco who has appeared in the Diplomat, Foreign Policy, War is Boring and the Daily Beast. In 2009 he cofounded the defense and security blog Japan Security Watch. You can follow him on Twitter: @KyleMizokami.

This first appeared in 2018 and is being reprinted due to reader interest.

Paul Richard Huard

World War II,

​The machine gun fired twice as fast as any other weapon in the world at the time. This gave it a distinct sound which scared enough American troops that the War Department made a propaganda film about it.

Here's What You Need To Remember: The machine gun had its weaknesses. It used ammunition like crazy, possessed no single-shot capability and could quickly overheat. But its raw firepower did ghastly things to Germany’s enemies.

During World War II, American G.I.s called the German MG42 machine gun “Hitler’s buzz saw” because of the way it cut down troops in swaths.

The Soviet Red Army called it “the linoleum ripper” because of the unique tearing sound it made—a result of its extremely high rate of fire. The Germans called the MG42 Hitlersäge or “Hitler’s bone saw”—and built infantry tactics around squads of men armed with the weapon.

Many military historians argue that the Maschinengewehr 42 was the best general-purpose machine gun ever. It fired up to 1,800 rounds per minute in some versions. That’s nearly twice as fast as any automatic weapon fielded by any army in the world at the time.

“It sounded like a zipper,” Orville W. “Sonny” Martin, Jr., who was a second lieutenant with the U.S. Army’s 13th Armored Division, said in an oral history of infantry and armor operations in Europe. “It eats up a lot of ammunition and that makes for a logistical problem, but it eats up a lot of people, too.”

When the war began in 1939, the Germans had a solid, reliable general-purpose machine gun—the MG34. But it was expensive and difficult to manufacture.

The German high command wanted front-line troops to have more machine guns. That meant a weapon designed to deliver a high rate of fire like the MG34, but which was cheaper and quicker to produce.

Mauser-Werke developed a machine gun that fired a 7.92-millimeter Mauser cartridge fed into the gun from either a 50-round or 250-round belt. What’s more, the company manufactured the machine gun from stamped and pressed parts, welding the components together with a technique that reduced production time by 35 percent.

The MG42 had an effective range of up to 2,300 feet and weighed 25 pounds. A gun crew could change its barrel in seconds.

True, the machine gun had its weaknesses. It used ammunition like crazy, possessed no single-shot capability and could quickly overheat. But its raw firepower did ghastly things to Germany’s enemies.

The mere sound of an MG42 firing took a psychological toll on troops. The situation became so bad the U.S. Army produced a training film intended to boost the morale of U.S. soldiers terrified of the machine gun’s reputation.

In one of the film’s dramatized scenes, a green replacement gets pinned down by MG42 fire while the narrator says that nobody else in the platoon seems particularly bothered by the sound—nobody but the raw G.I. who “can’t get over the fast burp of the German gun.”

“Well, so it does have a high rate of fire,” the narrator continues. “Does that mean it is a better fighting weapon than ours?”

What comes next is a “shoot off” between various U.S. machine guns and the MG42, along with other German automatic weapons. The narrator of the training film soberly describes the accuracy and slower-but-steady rate of fire of U.S. weapons.

“The German gunner pays for his impressive rate of fire,” he intones. “But you get maximum accuracy with a rate of fire that isn’t just noise! The German gun is good—but ours is better. Their bark is worse than their bite.”

But the reality is that the MG42 bit hard, killing or grievously wounding many thousands of Allied soldiers. James H. Willbanks, author of Machine Guns: An Illustrated History of Their Impact, describes the MG42 as being nearly everywhere on the European battlefield, either in gun emplacements or vehicle-mounted on everything from halftracks to Panzers.

“The MG42 was deadly and effective in the hands of German infantry,” Willbanks writes.

The deadliness of the MG42 even shaped German infantry tactics during the war. U.S. and British tacticians emphasized the rifleman, with machine guns simply supporting infantry assaults.

Because of the MG42’s devastating power, the Germans chose the reverse. The Wehrmacht placed the machine gunner in the central infantry role, with riflemen in support.

Each MG42 ideally had a six-man crew—a commander, gunner, a soldier who carried the weapon’s tripod and three additional troops who carried spare barrels, additional ammunition and tools.

When Allied troops attempted infantry assaults against positions protected by an MG42, the German gun crew would lay down withering suppressive fire. In most cases, all the attacking infantrymen could do was wait for a barrel change, for the gun to run out of ammunition or for a tank to show up so it could blast the machine-gun nest to oblivion.

The MG42 continued to serve in the post-war West German Bundeswehr. Rechambered so it would fire the NATO 7.62-millimeter cartridge, the Germans designated the weapon the MG3. It kept its blistering rate of fire.

Today Germany and 30 other countries still use Hitler’s buzz saw.

Image: Wikimedia Commons.

Robert Farley

Aircraft Carriers,

Will the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) ever take the leap into nuclear propulsion for its aircraft carriers?

Here's What You Need to Remember: Credible reports confirm that the PLAN is already building at least one conventional carrier in the 80,000-ton range. Given how quickly Chinese shipbuilding has accelerated, does it make sense for the PLAN to think nuclear for its next generation of ships?

Credible reports confirm that the PLAN is already building at least one conventional carrier in the 80,000-ton range. Given how quickly Chinese shipbuilding has accelerated, does it make sense for the PLAN to think nuclear for its next generation of ships?

You May Also Like: 5 Best Submarines of All Time, 5 Best Aircraft Carriers of All Time, 5 Best Battleships of All Time and Worst Submarine of All Time. 

Current Carriers

China has taken huge steps forward in the past decade, acquiring and modifying an old Soviet carrier, and building a new ship to the same design. China will follow up the Type 001— essentially a half-sister to Liaoning, itself a half-sister to Admiral Kuznetsov—with the Type 002. Reportedly already under construction, the Type 002 is expected to use conventional propulsion, along with a series of technological advances such as an EMALS (Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System) catapult system.

Also From TNI: Donald Trump: The Worst President Ever? 

Also From TNI: Donald Trump: Best President Ever? 

Also From TNI: Why Japan Really Lost Pearl Harbor

It is unclear how many Type 002 carriers Beijing will build, although a one-off would be uncharacteristic of Chinese shipbuilding. It makes sense that the PLAN would want a pair of ships; operating the CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take-Off But Arrested Recovery) Type 002 carriers will require a significantly different skill set than the first two, and it will be easier to produce that skill set with two carriers than with one. Moreover, the construction of only a single carrier could make that ship a white elephant, sitting uneasily in China’s larger strategic plan.

Nevertheless, some reports have suggested that China will take the nuclear leap for its fourth carrier. The Type 003, which largely remains on the drawing board, represents China’s real leap into the void. Expected to displace 110,000 tons, the Type 003 carriers will be the first ships since the 1950s built anywhere in the world to rival the largest, most powerful U.S. supercarriers. Although detailed expectations for the ships are not yet available, a vessel of that size could probably make thirty knots and carry in excess of seventy aircraft—much like the Nimitz or Gerald Ford classes in the United States. Experience with the Type 001 and Type 002 ships will undoubtedly feed back into the design and construction process to produce a more efficient, effective vessel. It remains unclear what kind of aircraft the Type 003 might fly, but a next generation of fighters and drones (the former perhaps based on the J-31 stealth fighter) should be available by the time the first Type 003 takes to the sea.

Why Go Nuclear?

Depending on a few strategic factors, nuclear power could make sense for the PLAN. Unlike the U.S. Navy (USN), the PLAN does not yet have access to a bewildering array of bases and maintenance facilities that can keep a carrier battle group in fighting trim. Similarly, the PLAN lacks the experience of the USN in long-range underway replenishment. A nuclear carrier doesn’t solve these problems—escorts will still need fuel, and the air group will still burn through equipment and fuel at a high rate—but a carrier that can travel long distances without refueling can help on the margins.

The other reason that nuclear power could be useful is the potential for huge power generation. Projections suggest that this will increasingly become a requirement for advanced warships, as they will depend upon lasers and other power-hungry systems for defensive and offensive weapons. It is not inconceivable, if testing and development go well, that China’s first nuclear carrier could carry lasers, railguns and other such advanced equipment.

With respect to strategic rationale, China’s maritime lines of communication lie in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. In the latter especially, China faces potentially hostile foreign powers (India, France the United Kingdom) on turf that geographically favors those countries. As the core of a task force made of cruisers, destroyers and nuclear attack submarines, a Type 003 carrier could offer a formidable presence—likely more formidable than that of any navy besides the USN. Moreover, as U.S. experience has demonstrated, large aircraft carriers are extremely flexible platforms, and can support all manner of expeditionary operations beyond their intended functions. Big decks with big reactors offer a nation reliable tools for resolving its security concerns.

Conclusion

More than a generation ago, some analysts predicted that the Soviet Union might build aircraft carriers to rival the largest ships in the U.S. Navy. This would have represented a natural progression from helicopter carriers, to V/STOL (vertical and/or short take-off and landing) carriers, to ski-jump carriers and finally to genuine CATOBAR supercarriers. Even the Soviets bought into the idea, putting together plans for massive carriers that could have challenged the USN on the high seas.

Alas, it was not to be. The Soviet Union collapsed, and its naval ambitions collapsed with it. And unexpected events might change China’s evolution, as well. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) might suffer an economic downturn that would render its carrier fleet too expensive to push forward. China might decide that aircraft carriers aren’t worth the risk, given improvements in the technologies designed to destroy them. But at the moment, the PRC has decided to allow the PLAN to push forward with an extremely ambitious carrier program, one that could eventually produce a fleet second only to the USN, and that perhaps only for a time.

Robert Farley, a frequent contributor to the National Interest, is author of The Battleship Book.

Image: Reuters

Ethen Kim Lieser

Stimulus Social Security,

There are still millions of Social Security recipients in urgent need of financial assistance who say they haven’t seen a dime from the stimulus checks.

As of Thursday, the Internal Revenue Service has confirmed that it has sent out one hundred twenty-seven million coronavirus relief checks—totaling roughly $750 billion—to financially struggling Americans under President Joe Biden’s American Rescue Plan.

Despite those lofty figures, there are still millions of Social Security recipients in urgent need of financial assistance who say they haven’t seen a dime from the stimulus checks.

The reason is apparently due to the Social Security Administration (SSA) itself, according to a letter from the House Ways and Means Committee to the benefits agency, contending that thirty million Social Security recipients are sitting empty-handed because the SSA didn’t turn over the necessary payment information to the IRS in a timely fashion.

“We understand that these beneficiaries are waiting because the Social Security Administration has not sent the necessary payment files to the Internal Revenue Service,” Reps. Richard Neal, John Larson, Bill Pascrell, and Danny Davis wrote in the letter.

“As of today, SSA still has not provided the IRS with the payment files that are needed to issue (stimulus checks) to these struggling Americans. We demand that you immediately provide the IRS with this information by tomorrow.”

In a separate letter earlier in the week, the House Ways and Means Committee wrote: “Some of our most vulnerable seniors and persons with disabilities, including veterans who served our country with honor, are unable to pay for basic necessities while they wait for their overdue payments.”

Exacerbating the entire process is that many senior citizens are finding it difficult to garner the necessary information via the IRS “Get My Payment” tool at www.irs.gov/coronavirus/get-my-payment. After entering their full Social Security or tax ID number, date of birth, street address, and ZIP code, more often than not, they have been receiving a message that says, “Payment Status Not Available.”

“If you get this message, either we have not yet processed your payment, or you are not eligible for a payment,” the IRS says. “We will continue to send the 2021 Economic Impact Payment to eligible individuals throughout 2021.”

Others have received a “Need More Information” message, which means that the stimulus check was returned to the IRS because the post office was unable to deliver it. The best way to update a new address is to “file your 2020 tax return with your current address, if you haven’t already done so. Once we receive your current address, we will reissue your payment,” the IRS noted.

Some seniors have resorted to calling the IRS at 800-919-9835, but they have found it nearly impossible to get through to a live representative. “IRS live phone assistance is extremely limited at this time,” the agency states.

Ethen Kim Lieser is a Minneapolis-based Science and Tech Editor who has held posts at Google, The Korea Herald, Lincoln Journal Star, AsianWeek and many others. 

TNI Staff

Security,

Israel’s Merkvana is one of the world’s best tanks.

Here's What You Need to Remember: The disadvantage of the Armata’s unmanned turret is situational awareness. The commander cannot pop his head out of the vehicle to maximize to see. That problem could be solved by technology such as Iron Vision, but it is not clear that the Russians have that technology.

With its ongoing campaign in Syria proving to be a useful live-fire operational test and evaluation process for its latest weapons, it is perhaps not inconceivable that the Kremlin might eventually deploy the T-14 Armata main battle tank to that war-torn country.

The Russians are currently building 20 prototypes of the new tank and could build as many as 100 of the new vehicles for the Kremlin’s elite Taman Division. If the Kremlin did deploy some number of T-14s to Syria for operational evaluations under genuine combat conditions, there is a possibility the machines could face off against Israeli Merkava tanks if Tel Aviv chose to make a ground incursion into Syria.

The latest Israeli Merkava IVm Windbreaker is an excellent tank that is equipped with the Trophy active protection system (APS), Tzayad battlefield management system and advanced survivability features such as modular armor. Moreover, the Merkava IV will likely continue to improve—perhaps incorporating a revolutionary feature in the form of the Elbit Iron Vision helmet-mounted display system, which would allow crew members to “see” the world outside the tank via a series of external cameras without opening the vehicles’ hatches. The system, which provides unprecedented situational awareness, was tested in 2017 but it is not clear when it will be fielded—but it will be soon. Israel is the first to develop such technology, but Russia could eventually field similar hardware.

Recommended: The World’s Most Secretive Nuclear Weapons Program.

Recommended: The Fatal Flaw That Could Take Down an F-22 or F-35.

Recommended: Smith & Wesson's .44 Magnum Revolver: Why You Should Fear the 'Dirty Harry' Gun.

“The discussion among experts now revolves mainly around the question of whether the commander lacks the necessary overview when sitting in the tank or whether TV cameras and electro-optical aiming devices can actually provide the same information as the optical aiming devices and observation equipment on the current generation of battle tanks,” Captain Stefan Bühler, graduate engineer at the University of Applied Sciences, Explosive Ordnance Disposal Officer at the NBC-KAMIR Competence Center for the Swiss Armed Forces and Commander of Tank Squadron 12/1,wrote. “A look into the sky provides the (technical) answer: the pilot of an F-35 can look through the aircraft with his head-up display – a computer generates a virtual 3D world from the video signals from the cameras mounted all around, which is then faded into his optics depending on the pilot’s direction of vision. With such technology, as offered by the Israeli company ELBIT Systems under the name ‘Iron Vision’ for use on armored vehicles, the commander of a T-14 could see even more than the commander of a battle tank with a manned turret.”

The T-14, by comparison to the Israeli machine, also features advanced protection systems—possibly more advanced in some regards than that of the Merkava—but also features an unmanned turret. The Russian vehicle also offers excellent mobility—and its faster and far more agile than the comparative huge Israeli machine, which weighs 65 tons and has 1500hp engine.

“The T-14 has the same power output as the Leopard 2 or the M1 Abrams, however, with a combat weight of 48 tons, it is 20% lighter, resulting in a specific output of 31.3 hp/T (22.9 kW/T). In comparison its western counterparts with 24 hp/T (17.6 kW/T), this new vehicle is extremely agile,” Bühler wrote. “The T-14’s tracks are narrower in the current version compared to the Leopard 2 or the M1 Abrams, however, due to the significantly lower combat weight, wide tracks are also not absolutely necessary: the specific ground pressure will be about the same compared to the western counterparts.”

Further, given its combination of active protection systems, reactive armor and passive laminated armor, the T-14 could possibly offer better protection for its crew than a comparable tank such as the Merkava, which is a more survivable machine than either the Leopard 2 or Abrams. Bühler argues that the Armata’s unmanned turret offers some survivability advantages over manned turret designs. “Based on all these considerations, it must be assumed that the T-14 Armata offers the crew a higher overall level of protection than its western counterparts, despite its significantly lower combat weight,” Bühler wrote.

In terms of sensors and situational awareness, the Israelis almost certainly retain a massive advantage over the Russian T-14. However, Bühler notes that sensors are a problem for all tanks. “Compared to older optical systems, video cameras and electro-optical scopes are neither more nor less vulnerable to enemy fire or splintering. Optics are, and will remain, the Achilles’ heel of a battle tank, including the T-14,” Bühler wrote.

The disadvantage of the Armata’s unmanned turret is situational awareness. The commander cannot pop his head out of the vehicle to maximize to see. That problem could be solved by technology such as Iron Vision, but it is not clear that the Russians have that technology. It is certain that Moscow does not have such technology installed on the current versions of the T-14, but it could eventually as Bühler notes. The Israelis’ massive situational awareness advantage given the capability of the Iron Vision system will give Tel Aviv’s seasoned tank crews a decisive advantage over the T-14 or any other Russian tank until Moscow develops an equivalent capability. In armored warfare, the crew that sees the enemy first almost always wins. This article first appeared in 2018.

Image: Reuters.

Stephen Silver

Biden Press Conference North Korea,

Biden was also asked whether he plans to run for reelection in 2024, and indicated that he does, although he also seemed confused as to why he was being asked such questions.

Speaking at the first news conference of his presidency on Thursday afternoon, President Joe Biden was asked about North Korea and its recent missile launches, including the ballistic missiles that were fired in the last 24 hours. That followed North Korea’s firing of cruise missiles a few days earlier, the week after two U.S. cabinet secretaries visited the region and discussed the North Korea issue with their counterparts in South Korea and Japan.

“Let me say that number one, the UN resolution 1718 was violated by those particular missiles that were tested,” the president said. “We’re consulting with our allies and partners, and there will be responses if they choose to escalate. We will respond accordingly.”

“But I’m also prepared for some form of diplomacy, but it has to be conditioned upon the end result of denuclearization. So that’s what we’re doing right now, consulting with our allies.”

When he was then asked if he agreed with former President Barack Obama’s warning to his successor, former President Donald Trump, that “North Korea was the top foreign policy issue that he was watching.”

Biden answered simply, “yes,” before moving on to the next question.

The press conference, in its first 30 minutes, concentrated much more on domestic policy issues than foreign policy issues, with the first several questions dealing with the coronavirus pandemic, economic concerns, the fate of the Senate filibuster, the influx of migrants who have recently shown up at the Southern border, and other issues.

Biden was also asked whether he plans to run for reelection in 2024, and indicated that he does, although he also seemed confused as to why he was being asked such questions.

In terms of other foreign policy issues, Biden was asked about Afghanistan, and whether the U.S. plans to meet its May 1 deadline of a U.S. withdrawal from that country. The president answered that he thinks it will be too logistically difficult to get all of the personnel out by that date, but remained committed to a withdrawal.

“We will leave, it’s a question of when we leave,” the president said of Afghanistan.

The press conference, Biden’s first as president, came 65 days into his first term. He began by reiterating that the main goal, at the outset of his presidency, was to solve the coronavirus crisis and the accompanying economic “dislocation.”

He went on to raise the administration’s goal for vaccinations to 200 million shots in 100 days after the original goal of 100 million was reached significantly ahead of schedule. The president also touted “new signs of hope” in the economy.

Stephen Silver, a technology writer for The National Interest, is a journalist, essayist and film critic, who is also a contributor to The Philadelphia Inquirer, Philly Voice, Philadelphia Weekly, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Living Life Fearless, Backstage magazine, Broad Street Review and Splice Today. The co-founder of the Philadelphia Film Critics Circle, Stephen lives in suburban Philadelphia with his wife and two sons. Follow him on Twitter at @StephenSilver.

Caleb Larson

Security, Asia

Though still in its infancy, preliminary work has been done on the feasibility of a Japanese-made stealth fighter design.

Here's What You Need To Remember: Interoperability with Lockheed Martin’s F-35 would be an extremely desirable characteristic for the F-X platform. And, as Japan already operates the Lockheed Martin F-35, there is a strong case to be made for help from the American manufacturer. 

In a short statement posted to their website, the Japanese Ministry of Defense announced that the Japanese government had inked a contract with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries to produce Japan’s first domestically-designed stealth fighter, tentatively called the F-X. “We have signed a contract with [Mitsubishi] Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.” the statement read. “In the future, we will steadily proceed with the development of the next fighter (FX) together with the company.”

As previously covered, Japan Self-Defense Forces are looking to have a domestically-designed and manufactured stealth fighter in service by the early- to mid-2030s that would serve alongside Japanese F-35 stealth fighters.

Though still in its infancy, preliminary work has been done on the feasibility of a Japanese-made stealth fighter design. A test platform, called the X-2 Shinshin, first flew in 2016 and was used to glean valuable information on stealth fighter flight characteristics rather than become a dedicated fighter.

Outside Help

Although Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) will be the prime contractor for the F-2 project, MHI will have to lean on foreign expertise for some of the fighter’s more technologically-challenging manufacturing aspects, namely stealth. Though not yet named, it is possible that Lockheed Martin, the American aerospace heavyweight and F-35 manufacturer, would provide the requisite manufacturing knowledge.

Though the F-X would be the first home-grown stealth fighter for the Japan Self-Defense Forces, though it would not mark the first time that the Forces partnered with an outside partner in aerospace development, nor the first time that Lockheed Martin provided manufacturing know-how to the island nation.

Japan partnered with Lockheed Martin on their Mitsubishi F-2 fighter, an F-16 Fighting Falcon derivative in the mid-1990s that some have called the backbone of Japan Air Self-Defense Forces. Though the two airframes are closely related, the Japanese F-2 is both longer and wider than the F-16. Once in service, the F-X would likely replace Mitsubishi’s F-2.

Interoperability with Lockheed Martin’s F-35 would be an extremely desirable characteristic for the F-X platform. And, as Japan already operates the Lockheed Martin F-35, there is a strong case to be made for help from the American manufacturer. 

Postscript

Regardless of which outside firm Japan decides to partner with, there is now a concrete plan in place for Japan to diversify its stealth capabilities. And, if partnering with Lockheed Martin, Japan may be poised to begin manufacturing one of the world’s most capable stealth fighters, given that company’s prodigious experience with stealth fighters. 

Caleb Larson is a defense writer for the National Interest. He holds a Master of Public Policy and covers U.S. and Russian security, European defense issues, and German politics and culture. This article first appeared last year.

Image: Flickr.

Michael Peck

Russian Military,

Moscow likes scary weapons, even though they might not be practically usable. Is the Poseidon the next best thing in deterrence or just sheer overkill?  

Here's What You Need to Remember: Russia suggests the Poseidon is a retaliatory weapon that would revenge a U.S. first strike even if American missile defenses were capable of stopping hundreds of Russian ICBMs. But even in the unlikely event that the U.S. could intercept 500 or more Russian ballistic missiles, a delivery system that could take days or weeks to reach its target seems hardly an efficient deterrent.

Russia has begun underwater tests of its Poseidon thermonuclear torpedo.

The Poseidon is an 80-foot-long nuclear-powered submersible robot that is essentially an underwater ICBM. It is designed to travel autonomously across thousands of miles, detonate outside an enemy coastal city, and destroy it by generating a tsunami.

"In the sea area protected from a potential enemy’s reconnaissance means, the underwater trials of the nuclear propulsion unit of the Poseidon drone are underway," an unnamed Russian defense official told the TASS news agency.

The source also said the “the reactor is installed in the hull of the operating drone but the tests are being held as part of experimental design work rather than full-fledged sea trials at this stage.”

TASS also reports the Poseidon, -- the name was chosen in a Web contest held by Russia’s Ministry of Defense – will be armed with a 2-megaton warhead. That’s more than enough to destroy a city. But that leaves the question of why Russia would choose to nuke an American city with an underwater drone – even one that allegedly travels 100 miles an hour – when an ICBM can do the job in 30 minutes.

Russia suggests the Poseidon is a retaliatory weapon that would revenge a U.S. first strike even if American missile defenses were capable of stopping hundreds of Russian ICBMs. But even in the unlikely event that the U.S. could intercept 500 or more Russian ballistic missiles, a delivery system that could take days or weeks to reach its target seems hardly an efficient deterrent.

More intriguing is the suggestion that Poseidon could be used against U.S. aircraft carriers. A very fast, nuclear-armed drone could prove difficult for American anti-submarine defenses to stop. In a March 2018 speech, Russian President Vladimir Putin described his nation as being able to “move at great depths -- I would say extreme depths -- intercontinentally, at a speed multiple times higher than the speed of submarines, cutting-edge torpedoes and all kinds of surface vessels, including some of the fastest. It is really fantastic. They are quiet, highly maneuverable and have hardly any vulnerabilities for the enemy to exploit. There is simply nothing in the world capable of withstanding them.”

Putin added that Poseidon’s “nuclear power unit is unique for its small size while offering an amazing power-weight ratio. It is a hundred times smaller than the units that power modern submarines, but is still more powerful and can switch into combat mode, that is to say, reach maximum capacity, 200 times faster.”

Let’s also leave aside the question of why, if Russia really is that advanced in reactor design, its regular nuclear submarines aren’t so blessed. The puzzle is why a giant robot submarine would be needed to detonate a nuclear warhead near a U.S. aircraft carrier (presumably Poseidon is too expensive to waste by arming it with a mere high-explosive warhead). If the goal is to sink a U.S. carrier, couldn’t Russia saturate a carrier’s defenses with a volley of conventionally-armed hypersonic missiles like the Mach 5-plus Khinzal? And if nukes are being used, Russia has no shortage of missiles, bombs and aircraft to target American ships.

Whether Poseidon adds much to Russia’s strategic nuclear forces is doubtful. No less is doubtful is Poseidon the Carrier-Killer.

Michael Peck is a contributing writer for the National Interest. He can be found on Twitter and Facebook. This first appeared in 2018.

Image: Reuters.

Stephen Silver

Missile Defense, Americas

The idea is to have two separate designs, and eventually, a winner-take-all selection will be made.

Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman have received contracts in order to “design the next-generation interceptor for the U.S. missile defense network,” Reuters reported this week, citing a document that the news outlet has seen.

“With an estimated maximum value of $1.6 billion through fiscal year 2022, this contract award is structured to carry two designs into the technology development and risk reduction phase of the acquisition program to reduce technical and schedule risk. This award will ensure NGI is an efficient and effective part of an integrated Missile Defense System (MDS) solution,” the Missile Defense Agency said in a press statement issued by its public affairs office. 

Northrop received a $3.9 billion contract, while Lockheed’s was for $3.7 billion, provided they are fully funded through their entire “performance period.” Boeing, per Bloomberg News, was left out of the contracts, which were described as the first major defense procurement of the Biden era.

The Washington Post said that Boeing was given a $6.6 billion contract in 2018 for a missile defense interceptor, although the contract was later canceled. 

“Boeing is disappointed the U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA) did not advance our team to the next phase of competition in the development of the Next Generation Interceptor (NGI) competition,” Boeing said in a statement published by The Washington Post.

Bloomberg News characterized the awards as a combined $1.6 billion through 2022, at which point the program will be reassessed. The idea is to have two separate designs, and eventually, a winner-take-all selection will be made.

The system will be part of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense, described by Reuters as “a network of radars, anti-ballistic missiles and other equipment designed to protect the United States from intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).”

“Today’s awards are an important step in modernizing our Missile Defense System,” Stacy Cummings, who is performing the duties of Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, said in the Pentagon’s announcement.

“NGI plays an important role in our homeland defense, and our acquisition strategy is ensuring the department maximizes innovation to keep pace with rapidly advancing threats.”

The announcement comes days after North Korea carried out a missile test, its first in about a year, and the first during the Biden administration. North Korea is seen as one of the adversaries who make the missile defense system necessary.

“NGI is the result of the first holistic technical assessment of homeland defenses the department has conducted since initial system operations began in 2004,” Vice Adm. Jon Hill, the director of Missile Defense Agency, said in the press statement. 

“By planning to carry two vendors through technology development, MDA will maximize the benefits of competition to deliver the most effective and reliable homeland defense missile to the warfighter as soon as possible. Once fielded, this new homeland defense interceptor will be capable of defeating expected threat advances into the 2030s and beyond.”   

Stephen Silver, a technology writer for the National Interest, is a journalist, essayist and film critic, who is also a contributor to The Philadelphia Inquirer, Philly Voice, Philadelphia Weekly, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Living Life Fearless, Backstage magazine, Broad Street Review and Splice Today. The co-founder of the Philadelphia Film Critics Circle, Stephen lives in suburban Philadelphia with his wife and two sons. Follow him on Twitter at @StephenSilver.

Image: Reuters

Caleb Larson

Virginia-class Submarine, Americas

The Virginia-class were the first American submarines to be designed using 3D computer modeling, a move that was supposed to save both money and time.

A number of submarine technology advancements since the end of the Cold War have arguably made the class into the deadliest sub hunters in existence.

The Virginia-class is the United States Navy’s newest nuclear-powered fast attack submarine, designed to hunt down and sink enemy submarines and other surface vessels. In the case of the Virginia-class, they are also fitted with vertical launching tubes that house Tomahawk missiles, affording the Virginia-class a land-attack capability in addition to being a primarily naval attack asset. The Virginia-class replaces the Los Angeles-class, the United States powerful but aging Cold War-era nuclear fast attack submarines.

One of the innovative technologies possessed by the Virginia-class is pump-jet propulsion, an improvement compared to traditional screw-type propellers. Though a variety of pump-jet designs exists, all of them essentially rely on a pump system to take in seawater and a nozzle to pump water out, creating forward movement. The advantages offered by pump-jet designs are numerous: they allow for higher top speeds than traditional propeller designs and are quieter—a crucial advantage in underwater games of cat-and-mouse.

The Virginia-class were the first American submarines to be designed using 3D computer modeling, a move that was supposed to save both money and time. Cost-saving measures were at a premium, as the class also supersedes the Seawolf-class an extremely well-armed and quiet though prohibitively costly fast-attack submarine class that was intended to replace the Los Angeles-class. Due to an extremely high $3 billion-plus per submarine, the Seawolves are represented by a paltry three hulls.

The Virginia-class comes in five blocks, or variants, that incorporate design improvements and cost-saving measures incrementally. The last block, block V, are radically different than the original block I Virginias and almost an entirely different class: they are about eighty feet longer in length than their predecessors, which allows them to house Virginia Payload Modules, increasing the amount of Tomahawk cruise missiles each submarine can carry—up to sixty-five missiles from approximately thirty-seven on previous Virginia blocks.

Most recently, the Virginia-class manufacturer, Electric Boat, announced they had been awarded $1.89 billion for an additional block V submarine, hull number SSN 811. The contract award allows Electric Boat to continue to produces Virginia-class at a rate of two hulls per year, a step seen by some as crucial for maintaining submarine numbers as the Los Angeles-class submarines are retired.

At this pace, the Virginia-class will likely be acquired until the mid-2040s, and are expected to remain in service for about thirty-three years. With that amount of longevity, the newest Virginia-class submarines would stay in service until the early 2070s.

Caleb Larson is a defense writer for the National Interest. He holds a Master of Public Policy and covers U.S. and Russian security, European defense issues, and German politics and culture

Image: Reuters