The National Interest

Peter Suciu

F-22, Middle East

Currently, the United States Air Force is the only operator of the aircraft.

Here's What You Need to Remember: For now, it seems likely the Israeli Air Force will have to “make do” with its F-35I Adir aircraft, which by some accounts is the best fighter in the skies today. It is the only F-35 variant to enter service heavily tailored to a foreign country’s specifications.

Even before Joe Biden became president-elect, it looked quite unlikely that Israel would be acquiring any Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor fighters. News had circulated that the Israeli military had expressed interest in the F-22 as the advanced stealth aircraft could allow its air force to maintain its “qualitative military edge” (QME), which the United States is legally required to preserve. This followed the agreement by the United States to sell the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II to the United Arab Emirates.

The story, which was first reported by the London-based Asharq Al-Awsat, cited internal sources that senior Israeli defense officials sought to acquire the F-22 as it was designed for greater air-to-air combat capability than the F-35.

Currently, the United States Air Force is the only operator of the aircraft. It is flown by units of the 1st Fighter Wing out of Langley Air Force Base, Virginia; the 3rd Fighter Wing at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska; and the 154th Fighter Wing at Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii.

A significant issue is that the F-22 cannot be exported under U.S. federal law, which is meant to protect its stealth technology and other classified technologies. While a 2010 defense authorization bill did include a provision that required the Department of Defense (DoD) to prepare a report on the costs and feasibility for the export of an F-22 variant, Congress has not lifted the export ban.

However, the biggest issue is that the F-22 program ended in 2011. To date, only 195 aircraft have been produced and it is unlikely that production would resume due to the high cost.

Defence-Blog reported that Israeli defense officials have only denied reports that there was interest in the fighter, and said it is “not currently on the table.” However, there have been the arguments made that as President Donald Trump is likely a lame duck he could approve the sale.

That of course doesn’t really make it true—or more importantly address the feasibility issues, notably that the aircraft isn’t being produced. Restarting the program would likely be astronomically costly to say the least, while another issue is that the aircraft in service are largely considered overdue for an upgrade.

“These reports are based on an assessment that Trump is willing to do almost anything—including diplomatic and security intervention—in order to promote arms deals and to help friends,” Yossi Melman, intelligence and strategic affairs correspondent at the Haaretz newspaper, reported.

For now, it seems likely the Israeli Air Force will have to “make do” with its F-35I Adir aircraft, which by some accounts is the best fighter in the skies today. It is the only F-35 variant to enter service heavily tailored to a foreign country’s specifications.

The Israeli fighters feature an overriding Israeli-built C4 program that runs “on top” of Lockheed’s operating system. One of F-35’s key capabilities comes from its superior ability to soak up data with its sensors and share it with friendly forces. Compatibility with datalinks used by friendly Israeli air and ground forces is thus an important aspect from Israel’s perspective as it tracks the position of hostile surface-to-surface rocket launchers and surface-to-air missiles systems.

The Adir has also been certified to carry major Israeli-developed weapons systems in its internal weapons bay. This includes the Python-5 short-range heat-seeking air-to-air missile, and the Spice family of glide bombs, which combine electro-optical, satellite, and man-in-the-loop guidance options that offer greater targeting versatility and have a range of up to sixty miles.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. This article first appeared two months ago and is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters.

Robert Beckhusen

Security, Middle East

Military customers scratch their heads looking at it.

Here's What You Need To Remember: "Fire superiority” is shooting more bullets at the enemy, accurately, than he is shooting back at you. This gun was designed to achieve that.

The Israeli company Silver Shadow recently attracted attention for its double-barreled AR-type rifle, the Gilboa DBR Snake. For the most part, it’s an AR, uses AR parts, and fires the 5.56-millimeter AR round. Except that it has two separate barrels, two magazines and two ejection ports — with two triggers as if two AR rifles had smashed into each other.

The two triggers are to make the Snake legal for civilian use in the United States, as We Are the Mighty‘s Blake Stilwell noted, citing ATF regulations for machine guns. But it’s easy enough to pull both, firing two rounds at once.

It’s the civilian market, primarily in America, where this gun should find buyers. Military customers are highly unlikely to view this rifle as very practical.

But let’s back up for a moment. The U.S. military has studied double-barreled semi-automatic rifles for potential combat use before. The Pentagon’s Project Salvo, which began in 1951, aimed to produce a next-generation infantry rifle suitable for modern warfare while embodying the lessons of World War II.

One of these lessons is the importance of what the military calls “fire superiority” — shooting more bullets at the enemy, accurately, than he is shooting back at you. If you have fire superiority, the sheer volume of fire limits an enemy’s room to maneuver, pinning them down and making them easier to attack on their exposed flanks. Heavy fire can also inflict casualties through shrapnel and ricochet.

Ultimately, Project Salvo led to the AR series of rifles and its first military adaptation, the selective-fire M-16, with semi-automatic, three-round burst and fully-automatic modes.

There were several far-flung concepts put into development testing as part of Project Salvo. There was a flechette-firing shotgun — never adopted — designed to shred enemy soldiers with dozens of darts. Project Salvo also involved experiments with double-barreled rifles including the 5.56-millimeter Winchester Salvo, produced in 1957.

The Winchester Salvo, like the modern Snake, has two ejection ports with one on each side of the receiver. (That’s a lot of flying brass.) There are two magazines, and the rifle’s unloaded weight comes to 11.8 pounds. It’s difficult to compare the weight to a modern AR rifle given the wide variety of variants and their accessories, but the Salvo is a few pounds heavier than an “average” AR.

The G3, a heavy NATO battle rifle from the Cold War, weighs nine pounds — about as much as a Gilboa DBR Snake. That makes the Snake a bit on the heavy side, but not unreasonable.

One problem with the Winchester Salvo came with its 5.56-millimeter cartridge — an unusual and experimental duplex cartridge which carried two bullets, one behind the other, for four total bullets firing every time the shooter pulled the trigger. This added recoil — too much of it.

The Snake doesn’t use duplex ammunition, but it faces a same basic questions of efficiency, weight, and waste. Ammunition adds weight, yet two bullets traveling side-by-side are still traveling toward the same target. The enemy will likely not know the difference from a standard, single-barrel AR as the rounds snap around them.

The result is twice the ammunition, and cost, for a similar suppressive effect. Better to have a lightweight rifle — with a single barrel. And if soldiers need extra firepower, they can always flip the selector switch to a three-round burst.

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

Caleb Larson

Soryu-Class, Asia

Anyone who says Japan's navy is a paper tiger hasn't met these. 

Here's What You Need To Remember: The Sōryū-class is also the first class of Japanese submarines that uses air-independent propulsion technology. Though the class is diesel-electric, some of the subs can switch from louder diesel engines to quieter Sterling engines.

The Japanese Navy, or as they’re officially known, the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF), is slated to operate a total of twelve Sōryū-class submarines. These diesel-electric attack submarines were originally introduced into service with the JMSDF in the mid- to late-2000s and have several interesting features.

The Sōryū-class was the first Japanese submarine class built by Japan to use lithium-ion batteries. Historically, batteries onboard submarines have been built similarly to the battery that powers your car—lead-acid batteries. Lithium-ion batteries have a size a power storage advantage in that they can have a greater power output despite being much smaller and more light-weight than their lead-acid predecessors.

Lithium-ion batteries also usually recharge faster than lead-acid batteries, which reduces time on the surface—a particularly vulnerable place for submarines—and underwater endurance is therefore greatly increased. Some sources claim that underwater endurance may have been doubled by switching to lithium-ion batteries and could be as long as two weeks. If true, the class’ endurance is quite good.

The Sōryū-class is also the first class of Japanese submarines that uses air-independent propulsion technology. Though the class is diesel-electric, some of the subs can switch from louder diesel engines to quieter Sterling engines.

The Stirling engines used by the Sōryū-class were adapted from engines used in Sweden. The unique engine uses bottled liquid oxygen so that the engine’s diesel fuel can combust. The advantage of this propulsion system is that it runs much quieter than a traditional diesel engine. Furthermore, its range is estimated to be around 6,100 miles or about 9,800 kilometers.

Though the class does not have vertical missile launch tubes, they can launch U.S.-supplied Harpoon anti-ship missiles via the six torpedo tubes in the class’ hull. The missile skims the sea surface to evade enemy radar and has a prodigious 170+ mile (or about 280+ kilometer) range. In addition, the submarines are armed with torpedoes and can lay anti-submarine and anti-ship mines.

Future Export

Until very recently, Japan adhered to a self-imposed weapons export restriction that prevented the sale of weapons or weapon systems abroad. But, as the island nation has recently demonstrated by its muscle-flexing in response to an increasingly assertive China, exports might again be on the menu for Japan.

Both India and Australia have expressed interest in acquiring Japanese submarine technology, if not fully built submarines. Though it would be a break from the recent past, it would not be entirely shocking if Japanese submarines are seen in other countries’ navies in the future.

Caleb Larson is a Defense Writer with 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: Wikipedia.

Peter Suciu

Nuclear Weapons,

The longest missing nuclear weapon hasn't been seen in 71 years, and it is unlikely it will be found anytime soon.

Here's What You Need to Remember: While this should be as scary as suggested, the good news is that in the past 50 plus years, no other nuclear weapons have been lost – at least that we know of.

The 1996 John Woo film Broken Arrow features a quite memorable line – uttered by character actor Frank Whaley – "I don't know what's scarier, losing nuclear weapons, or that it happens so often there's actually a term for it." In fact, the term "Broken Arrow" does refer to the loss of a nuclear weapon and it has happened more than once.

Between 1950 and 1980, there have been 32 documented nuclear weapon accidents that involve the unexpected accidental launching, firing, detonating, theft or loss of the weapon. To date, six U.S. nuclear weapons have been lost and shockingly never recovered. Below you will find a breakdown of the situations that lead to this shocking statistic.

February 13, 1950

The longest missing nuclear weapon hasn't been seen in 71 years, and it is unlikely it will be found anytime soon.

It was lost when the crew of a United States Air Force Convair B-36 bomber was conducting a mock nuclear strike and was en route from Eielson Air Force Base (AFB), Alaska to Carswell AFB, Texas, when it developed engine trouble. Not wanting to have a crash with a nuclear warhead, the crew was ordered to drop its 30-kiloton Mark 4 (Fat Man) bomb into the Pacific Ocean.

According to the "official" report, the bomb didn't contain the plutonium core necessary for a nuclear detonation, but it still contained a substantial amount of uranium.

March 10, 1956

Six years after losing the first bomb, two nuclear cores were lost when a B-47 bomber likely crashed in the Mediterranean Sea while en route from MacDill AFB, Florida to Ben Guerir Air Base, Morocco. The aircraft had successfully completed its first aerial refueling, but it failed to make contact with a tanker for a second refueling and was reported missing.

The exact weapon wasn't disclosed, but the B-47 typically carried the 3,400-kilogram Mark 15 nuclear bomb. No trace of the plane nor the cores has ever been found.

February 5, 1958

During a simulated combat mission near Savannah, Georgia, another Air Force B-47 bomber carrying a Mk 15 weapon collided with an F-86. After multiple attempts to land, the bomber crew was given the green light to jettison the bomb to reduce weight, and also to ensure it wouldn't explode during an emergency landing. The bomb, which was dropped over the Wassaw Sound near the mouth of the Savannah River, wasn't recovered.

January 24, 1961

Somewhere near Goldsboro, North Carolina, a uranium core is likely buried in a field. It had been one of the cores for a pair of 24-megaton nuclear bombs that were on a B-52 that crashed shortly after takeoff. What is especially unsettling about this incident is that three of the four arming mechanisms on the bomb that was recovered had been activated.

The second bomb's tail was discovered 20 feet below ground in the muddy field, and when efforts to find the core failed to uncover it, the military did the next best thing. The United States Army Corps of Engineers purchased a 400-foot circular easement over the buried components to restrict digging.

December 5, 1965

Somehow an A-4E Skyhawk attack aircraft, loaded with a one-megaton thermonuclear weapon, managed to roll off the deck of the USS Ticonderoga and fell into the Pacific Ocean. The pilot, plane and bomb quickly sank in 16,000 feet of water and were never seen again.

However, it wasn't until 15 years later that the U.S. Navy even admitted the accident had taken place, and only noted it happened 500 miles from land. However, that wasn't true – as the carrier was about 80 miles from Japan's Ryuki island chain. As a result of that accident, the Japanese government now prohibits the United States from bringing nuclear weapons into its territory.

Spring 1968

The final bomb to be lost and not recovered occurred sometime in the first half of 1968, and involved the loss of the U.S. Navy's nuclear attack submarine USS Scorpion, which sank about 400 miles to the southwest of the Azores Islands. In addition to the tragic loss of the 99 crewmembers, the submarine was carrying a pair of nuclear-tipped weapons, which had yields of up to 250 kilotons.

While this should be as scary as suggested, the good news is that in the past 50 plus years, no other nuclear weapons have been lost – at least that we know of.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He regularly writes about military small arms, and is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com.

Image: "US nuclear weapons test in Nevada in 1951" by International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0

Denis Mole

Nuclear Submarines, Asia

The claim that Australia can’t have nuclear-powered submarines because it doesn’t have a nuclear industry has never been tested.

In Adelaide’s The Advertiser newspaper on 7 March, former defence minister Christopher Pyne said, ‘Then there is the nonsensical argument that the Attack Class submarines are no good because they aren’t nuclear. Almost all of these arguments are driven by people who either know nothing at all about submarines and defence or have outdated information that is no longer relevant.’ Pyne must therefore believe that Australia’s current and recent submarine commanding officers know nothing about submarines.

The 2016 defence white paper called for Australia’s future submarines to be ‘regionally superior’. As a former commander of the submarine force, I don’t know any submarine commanding officer over the past 30 years who has any doubt that, overall, nuclear-powered submarines are superior to diesel submarines of similar vintage. Australia’s new Attack-class submarines will probably be superior to most diesel submarines in our region, but they won’t be superior to China’s nuclear-powered submarines entering service in the 2040s and beyond. China’s navy is numerically larger than the US Indo-Pacific fleet now and is forecast to be more powerful than the American fleet by 2035. Australia’s 12th Attack-class submarine won’t enter service until around 2054 and will be in service until about 2080.

Pyne went on to say, ‘Australia does not have a nuclear industry. One cannot be created overnight.’ Pyne might have the cart before the horse. The Americans had their first nuclear-powered submarine in service before their first nuclear power station. The nuclear power station program in the US had been languishing until Captain, later Admiral, Hymen G. Rickover was appointed to head the nuclear reactor development for both naval and civil applications. In the early years, it was trained nuclear submariners leaving navy service and going into the commercial power sector that allowed that industry to grow rapidly.

The claim that Australia can’t have nuclear-powered submarines because it doesn’t have a nuclear industry has never been tested. An Australian ability to manufacture and reprocess nuclear fuel wouldn’t be essential in order to own and operate nuclear-powered submarines. Modern American and British submarines are built with nuclear fuel to last the life of the vessel. Japan has 33 nuclear reactors in power stations but doesn’t manufacture or reprocess nuclear fuel. This is also true of many countries in Europe and the Middle East that have nuclear power. Australia buys advanced combat aircraft and weapons that are manufactured overseas, so why not nuclear reactors and the whole-of-life fuel they require? Nuclear-powered submarines could be built in Australia with imported reactors.

Notwithstanding that reactors and fuel can be purchased from other countries (the OPAL reactor at Lucas Heights is from Argentina), why doesn’t Australia have a larger and more diverse nuclear industry? Of the top 20 economies (Australia is 13th), 17 have nuclear power. Australia, Italy and Saudi Arabia are the three exceptions. Italy imports 16% of its electricity from adjacent countries, more than half from France where it is produced from nuclear power. Saudi Arabia is acquiring nuclear power. And, as various countries commit to achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, it’s noteworthy that no major economy intends doing so without nuclear power in the mix.

Diesel submarines have been around for about 120 years and nuclear submarines have been around for about 65 years, so neither form represents new technology. With a choice between the two technologies, the leading Western maritime powers of the US, UK and France all adopted the nuclear option with no diesel attack submarines, because nuclear power is the more effective and superior technology.

At the time when replacements for Australia’s Oberon-class submarines were being developed in the 1980s, it’s almost certain that neither the US nor UK would have sold nuclear submarines to Australia. With the Cold War at its peak, their focus was on the Soviet Union and the possibility of maritime warfare in the North Atlantic. France was just starting to develop its first nuclear-powered attack submarines. But what about when it came time to explore options to replace the Collins-class submarines?

The 2009 defence white paper announced that the Collins class would be replaced and Australia’s submarine force would be expanded to 12 boats. The defence minister at the time, Labor’s Joel Fitzgibbon, directed the department that, in developing options, it was not to bring forward any nuclear proposal. Three years later, when he was no longer defence minister, Fitzgibbon admitted it was a mistake ruling out a nuclear option; however, neither of his successors altered the ‘no nuclear’ guidance to the department. Consequently, when the Coalition government came to power in 2013, only conventional options had been developed.

The notion of conventionally powered submarines’ suitability for Australia in the second half of this century needs to be challenged. The Attack-class program should proceed as replacements for the six Collins-class submarines to avoid a capability gap; however, options to acquire nuclear-powered submarines for the additional six boats and eventually replacements for the six Attack-class submarines should be pursued immediately.

Submarines could lead to a broad nuclear industry in Australia. This possibility will be the subject of a seminar to be held at ASPI on Thursday 15 July, jointly hosted by the Submarine Institute of Australia and UNSW Canberra. More information is available here.

Denis Mole served in the Royal Australian Navy for more than 35 years, commanding submarines and attaining the rank of commodore. He has recently retired from the commercial marine and defence support sector.

Image: Reuters.

Robert Beckhusen

Security, Asia

Chinese announcements of military prowress have circulated in the press with varying degrees of skepticism and hyperbole.

Here’s What You Need to Remember: China is talking up its military prowess.

To hear Chinese state media tell it, the soldiers of the People’s Liberation Army will go into battle in the future wearing an array of high-tech gizmos. In their hands will be enormous weapons combining a rifle with a 20-millimeter grenade launcher akin to the old — and canceled — American OICW. On top of that, they will have heads-up displays and networked positioning systems so Chinese troops can monitor each other digitally, almost like a video game.

It looks impressive, and Chinese announcements of the system have circulated in the press with varying degrees of skepticism and hyperbole. A more skeptical take recently came from the military news wire Shephard Media, which pointed out that China is claiming the 20-millimeter hybrid weapon, dubbed QTS-11, can fire air-bursting grenades lethal within a radius of 7.7 meters.

Be wary of such claims. The U.S. version of this weapon from years ago, the OICW, also included a 20-millimeter grenade launcher but the U.S. military found it to be ineffective. A grenade’s lethality primarily comes from shrapnel, but the pieces of flying metal were often too light and often dispersed upwards and away from the target. Ultimately, the U.S. military lost interest, though the OICW did inspire the M320 grenade launcher and the problematic — and now canceled — XM25 (see picture above).

South Korea developed its own tricked-out future rifle called the K11 and adopted it into service. But the K11 was plagued with problems from the fire-control system to the optics and the barrel — it wobbled. Another issue is that the K11 is huge and heavy at 13 pounds unloaded. So like the OICW, the result is a big, bulky rifle with an underpowered grenade launcher. And like the American version, it’s expensive.

Armies tend to like reliable, effective and affordable rifles — all factors where these hybrid weapons have been found lacking.

In any case, the Chinese QTS-11 is reportedly in service in limited numbers with the Sky Wolf Commandos, a special operations force in the Chinese army’s Western Theater Command. Chinese state television described the move as part of a training program to “adapt to future informatised warfare.”

This was in reference to the electronic gadgets that come with the system — a “full digitalized integrated soldier combat system, including detection and communications,” Chinese state media added.

If this sounds familiar, it should.

Years ago the U.S. Army worked on its Land Warrior program which attempted to equip networked soldiers with battery-powered devices such as smartphones and integrated helmets as if troops were operating in a science-fiction movie. The larger goal was to peer through the “fog of war” with soldiers digitally marking enemies on digital maps, while also being able to track the location of fellow soldiers to reduce friendly fire incidents.

It hasn’t been easy. The need to lug heavy batteries with a finite amount of energy, and unreliable connectivity, has bedeviled developers. But the Army kept working on it. The program turned into Nett Warrior and then Precision Fires-Dismounted — or PF-D — for artillery gunners. The U.S. Army believes smartphones are a cheap and practical tool to help forward observers pick targets, send the information back to the guns stationed miles away, which then rain down shells.

That may be where China’s own experiments in this technology end up. The U.S. Army’s Foreign Military Studies Office, meanwhile, has speculated the Chinese announcements may serve as a form of propaganda, noting that the Sky Wolf Commandos are stationed near the Indian border, where China routinely times military declarations for geopolitical purposes.

China also announced that its military is developing an “Ironman-like, weight-bearing suit mocked as a ‘wearable skeleton’ to carry heavier gear.”

We’ll see. Exoskeletons are extremely difficult engineering challenges that try to augment something humans are already evolved to do — resulting in tiring out the human operator instead of strengthening them. Still, perhaps the Chinese military will develop a machine or weapon that has more success. Or maybe it’s just a psychological mind-game.

This article was first published earlier in 2019.

Sebastien Roblin

History, Eurasia

The submarine infiltrations appeared to cease with the end of the Cold War—but not for good.

Here’s What You Need To Remember: On the morning of October 28, 1981, two Swedish fishermen were hauling their catch back to Karlskrona when they noticed a mysterious oil slick. One Bertil Sturkmen later returned to the area to investigate, and at 10 a.m. came across a startling sight: a seventy-six-meter long submarine wedged on its starboard side against the sharp rocks of Torumskär island. An officer was standing on the submarine’s conning tower, staring at him through binoculars—and holding a machine gun.

Sturkmen sailed back to Karlskrona and notified the nearby Swedish naval base, which harbored two of Sweden’s three coastal defense flotillas. Karlskrona was well protected from attack due to its position in a shallow bay shielded by a belt of rocky islands which demanded careful circumnavigation. Somehow, the submarine had wended it way through this daunting aquatic obstacle course to a point only six miles away from the base.

The patrol boat Smyge reached the grounded vessel by 11 a.m., and Comm. Karl Andersson managed to converse with crew members in German—who informed him that the submarine had strayed off course due to a faulty navigation system.

Recommended: China's H-6K: The 'Old' Bomber That Could 'Sink' the U.S. Navy

Recommended: Why an F-22 Raptor Would Crush an F-35 in a 'Dogfight'

Recommended: Air War: Stealth F-22 Raptor vs. F-14 Tomcat (That Iran Still Flies)

The boat in question was S-363, a Soviet Whiskey-class coastal patrol submarine—thus giving the incident its moniker “the Whiskey on the Rocks.” (At the time, the submarine was widely misidentified as U-137.) The short-range diesel-electric submarine had a crew of 56 and had been designed in the 1940s with snorkel and battery technology derived from the Nazi Type XXI “electric boat.” The Soviet Union built more than two hundred of the submarines.

Sweden’s long Baltic coastline faced Leningrad and Soviet bases in the Baltic states and Poland. Though international law states that a country’s territorial waters extend twelve nautical miles (fourteen miles) away from its mainland and island possessions, Soviet submarines had been detected intruding into Swedish waters on numerous occasions during the 1960s and 1970s. Swedish vessels had opened fire on them several times without apparent effect.

Sweden was theoretically neutral during the Cold War, but Stockholm’s perceived closeness to the West apparently motivated Soviet intelligence-gathering activities. The Swedes returned the favor by shadowing Soviet ships and aircraft with their own jets and submarines, occasionally leading to tense situations: for example, in 1985 a standoff between Swedish Viggen and Soviet Su-15 interceptors resulted in a deadly crash.

In fact, the evening before, on October 27, the Swedish submarine Neptune and two helicopters had been testing a new type of torpedo which may have been of considerable interest to the Soviets. It was around that time that S-363 ran aground. Her crew gunned her diesel engines trying to escape—producing a din which was heard ashore.

As news of S-363’s grounding spread, journalists and boats surrounded the submarine. Stockholm demanded the right to interrogate her captain, Anatolij Gustjtjin. Moscow claimed S-363 had entered Swedish waters seeking aid, though of course, S-363 had not issued a distress signal.

Swedish radars then detected a task force of a dozen Soviet ships approaching S-363. Led by Admiral A. Kalinin, the fleet included the missile destroyer Obraztsovy, and older gun-armed destroyer, two anti-ship missile boats, a frigate and a tug.

While the submarine Neptune did its best to slow down the approaching fleet, the icebreaker Thule was moved into position to block access to S-363. As the Soviet task force continued to approach, radar-guided coastal guns activated their targeting radars, which were designed to hop multiple frequencies to evade counter-battery fire. This finally prompted the Soviet warships to halt. A lone tug continued approaching, however, until Swedish torpedo boats barred its progress.

Meanwhile, Swedish ships conducted gamma-ray spectroscopic analyses of S-363 and detected trace amounts of what appeared to be Uranium 238—suggesting that a nuclear weapon was on. Back in the 1950s, the Soviet Union had developed several nuclear torpedoes, including smaller types designed to knock out multiple enemy vessels, as well as a larger type for nuking naval bases and coastal cities—a concept which has recently seen a renaissance. Indeed, the Whiskey-class S-144 had tested a T-5 anti-ship nuclear torpedo with a five-kiloton warhead in 1957.

After days of protracted negotiations, Captain Gustjtjin, accompanied by political officer Vassily Besedin, submitted himself to a six-hour interrogation aboard the torpedo boat Vastervik on November 2. He insisted that S-363 had experienced a breakdown of its four different navigational systems and drifted a hundred miles off course from the coast of Poland. However, given that entering that far into Karlskrona Bay required numerous precise maneuvers, his Swedish interlocutor noted such a mistake was “worthy of the Guinness Book of World Records.”

Meanwhile, a storm broke out, obscuring Swedish radars. When it cleared, two vessels were detected approaching Swedish waters. Assuming a renewed Soviet incursion, Prime Minister Falldin had naval strike planes scrambled and coastal guns put on standby to open fire in defense of territorial waters. But after twenty minutes, it was discovered that the contacts were German merchant ships.

Finally, after a ten-day standoff, Moscow permitted the Swedes to extricate the grounded submarine. Swedish tugs put the Soviet sub back to water and handed her off to Admiral Kalinin’s task force. S-363 returned to port on November 7.

Political officer Besedin later told a Swedish journalist:

"Our officers were ordered to blow up the submarine together with its crew if the Swedish military forces tried to take possession of the boat. These orders would have been completed.

"Onboard, in the torpedo tubes, there were torpedoes with nuclear warheads. The effect of detonating such nuclear warhead is about the same as the impact of the bomb released over Hiroshima [15 kilotons]. It is terrible to think of all the destruction and the long-term consequences it would have had for Sweden as a whole."

Karl Andersson has questioned Besedin’s account, however, arguing that the submarine would have been scuttled by destroying the propeller shaft and valves, not detonating onboard nuclear warheads.

Besedin also insisted that a navigational error had occurred due to damage from an earlier collision, forcing S-363’s crew to rely on less accurate methods. Another theory is that the submarine was testing a new, unreliable inertial navigation system.

The episode precipitated a decade of intensified submarine hunts by the Swedish Navy. However, despite deploying numerous torpedoes, depth charges and mines at numerous dozens of contacts, no Soviet submarines were apparently destroyed. Stockholm also began working on upgrading the stealth and endurance of its coastal defense submarines by developing advanced Air-Independent Propulsion technology.

The submarine hunt aroused domestic controversy. Swedish right-wingers saw the U-137 incident as evidence of the Soviet Union’s ill-intentions and the need to build up military deterrence. Some left-wing Swedes implied the Swedish Navy was jumping at shadows and suggested the submarine sightings were actually NATO submarines provoking the Swedes against the Soviets.

The submarine infiltrations appeared to cease with the end of the Cold War—but not for good. As relations between Russia and the West sharply deteriorated in 2014 over Moscow’s seizure of the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine, the Swedish Navy spent a week attempting to track a mini-submarine that reportedly sighted multiple times in Swedish waters.

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 article first appeared several years ago.

Image: Reuters.

Kris Osborn

Missile Defense, Americas

American destroyers already have systems to track and try to shoot down regular ballistic missiles; could they be adapted to new hypersonic weapons?

Key point: The Navy wants to be able to protect itself from a wide variety of threats. Here is how the service could track and try to take out newer and faster missiles.

Having a U.S. Navy destroyer able to take out intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) is a radical development that multiplies defenses in unprecedented ways. 

The mid-course phase of flight during which an ICBM travels through space toward its descent back into the earth’s atmosphere, is typically a twenty-minute process depending upon launch origin and trajectory. That period of the ICBM’s flight is longer than any boost phase ascent or terminal phase descent onto a target, offering the best opportunity to shoot it down.

But ICBMs are designed to survive through a salvo the use of countermeasures such decoys or other methods of ensuring an ICBM passes through space. This means that an ability for a defender to take multiple intercept “shots” would be of enormous tactical value. Ground-based interceptors (GBIs) can travel great distances, yet they are land-launched and restricted in terms of point of origin. 

This first appeared earlier and is being reposted due to reader interest.

A Navy-ship fired SM-3 IIA, recently demonstrated to be capable of destroying ICBMs, brings new geographical launch possibilities. For example, a group of Aegis-capable Navy destroyers could fire SM-3s from the middle of the Pacific Ocean at ICBMs speeding through space for the United States from China. While an ICBM is likely to be at a higher altitude in space during the major portions of the mid-course phase, the period of time just after it leaves the earth’s atmosphere, or the minutes right before it reenters the earth’s atmosphere upon descent, present optimal windows for defense with the SM-3 IIA. A ship operating not far off the coast of the United States, or near enemy shores in the vicinity of a potential enemy launch location, could provide a unique opportunity for SM-3 IIA-armed destroyers to fire intercepts at ICBMs operating just above the boundary of the earth’s atmosphere. 

There is yet another interesting tactical possibility here which might include the idea that a highly-precise, larger and long-range SM-3 IIA interceptor could be used to intercept hypersonic weapons. Is it fast enough? Can ship-based radar track something at that speed? That may remain to be seen, however one interesting nuance can be found in the Pentagon’s current effort to accelerate defenses against hypersonic weapons.

Hypersonic boost-glide vehicles, which skim along the boundaries of the earth’s atmosphere, occupy what Principal Pentagon Director for Hypersonics Michael White recently described as “in between space,” meaning it was difficult for most interceptors or ship-based defenses to reach. The areas just above and below the earth’s atmospheric boundary may be too high for certain ballistic missile defenses, such as ship-fired SM-3s to reach, yet simultaneously be too low for space-traveling GBIs to hit. Could the newer SM-3 IIA reach this area? Why not? Especially if it is empowered by extended and networked radar tracking systems and had the engineering to travel at the necessary speeds to create a collision. 

Kris Osborn is the Defense Editor for the National Interest. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University. This first appeared earlier and is being reposted due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters

Robert Farley

Anti-Ship Missiles, Asia

Long-range Chinese missiles threaten countries throughout the Pacific, but America might be the only country with the money, technology, and will to find ways to defend against them.

Key point: Beijing knows it can hold warships and bases throughout much of the Pacific at risk. But Washington also knows this and is working on anti-missile defenses.

An old adage of defense analysis is that a weapon system that has not been tested does not, in any meaningful sense, exist. Testing gives an organization confidence that the weapon will function as intended, helps to work out technological bugs, and offers an opportunity to integrate a particular weapon into a broader system of technologies. If that’s the case, then China’s DF-21D and DF-26B “carrier killer” missiles now appear to exist.

This first appeared earlier this year and is being reposted due to reader interest.

On August 26, as part of a broader exercise that involved Chinese air and naval forces, the PLA tested one each of the DF-21D and DF-26B missiles. The DF-21D is a road-mobile medium-range ballistic missile with a range of some 1,500 km, while the DF-26 is a road-mobile IRBM with a range of up to 4,000 km, making it a threat against warships and bases operating deep in the Pacific. Both missiles have terminal maneuvering capabilities that enable them to target ships underway, leading some to dub them “carrier-killers” for the threat that they pose to the big aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships of the United States, Japan, and Australia. As Tyler Rogoway notes, China has conducted some tests of its carrier-killer missiles before, but the integration of the launches into a larger set of naval and air activities suggests the development of doctrine and real operational capability.

The United States apparently observed the exercise via a U-2 overflight, to the extreme displeasure of the Chinese. Any such overflight of a live exercise would carry obvious risks, but the U-2 is designed for such missions and has conducted them since the early days of the Cold War. Of course, China could not hope to keep such testing secret, and indeed a visible demonstration of the missiles is half the point. The test of the missiles serves two purposes; to increase the effectiveness of the weapons themselves, and to warn the United States and others about China’s military prowess, an impression undeniably confirmed by the irritable U.S. reaction. 

The very existence of the missiles has produced a family of glib claims that the missiles have rendered the aircraft carrier obsolete. A ballistic missile capable of terminal maneuvering as it approaches an aircraft carrier undercuts the carrier’s primary defense, its mobility. But both of China’s missiles depend on an extensive set of sensors and communications nodes in order to find their target, maneuver towards them, and avoid any electronic or physical defenses that their victims can mount. This makes the integration of the weapons into a broader family of systems, including air, space, submarine, and surface, absolutely critical to their ability to have an impact. In case of war, the task of the U.S. military would be as much to blind the sensor’s that make China’s missiles lethal as to destroy the missiles themselves. 

Nevertheless, concern over China’s ability to hold U.S. carriers at risk has led to calls for “distributed lethality” which would spread strike capability across a larger range of air, surface, and submarine platforms, as well as the abrogation of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty, which has allowed the United States to pursue the construction of its own medium and intermediate range cruise and ballistic missiles. 

All of this comes as tensions between China and the United States have grown in the Western Pacific. The recent U.S. deployment of two carrier battle groups in July confirmed U.S. interest in making a show of force in the region, just as rhetoric over China’s domestic policies and ongoing territorial assertiveness in the East and South China Seas has sharpened. In the looming U.S. presidential election, tensions with China have become a talking point on both sides, with President Donald Trump taking credit for aggressive military, diplomatic, and trade stances, and Vice President Joe Biden arguing for persuasive regional diplomacy to counter the Chinese threat. 

However, the potential of China’s missiles extends beyond the U.S.-Chinese relationship. Any missile that can hit a U.S. carrier can also hit one of Japan’s new aircraft carriers, or one of Australia’s new amphibious assault ships. Apart from the United States, no country in the region can hope to disrupt China’s system of anti-access systems, making the missiles a potential tool of regional military dominance. On the other hand, Japan seems increasingly willing to contemplate the development of its own offensive missiles, which would hold China’s ships and shorebound installations under similar risk.

Clearly, the United States has been aware of these missiles for a good long time. It seems that China is increasingly willing to demonstrate its full military capabilities both to Washington, and to the Western Pacific region. Whether this will result in increased tension or in a de-escalation remains to be seen.

Robert Farley, a frequent contributor to the National Interest, is author of The Battleship Book. He serves as a Senior Lecturer at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce at the University of Kentucky. His work includes military doctrine, national security, and maritime affairs. He blogs at Lawyers, Guns and Money and Information Dissemination and the Diplomat. This first appeared earlier this year and is being reposted due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters.

Caleb Larson

T-90 Tank, Europe

One of the T-90’s greatest strengths is its price.

Here's What You Need to Remember: Herein lies one of the strengths inherent to Russian arms exports: instead of focusing on selling the latest, greatest, and most technologically advanced equipment, the T-90 family focuses instead on tried-and-true technologies, incrementally improving them onto a compact, affordable platform.

The T-90 and associated variants are one hell of a tank — may be the best in Russian inventories. Relatively modern, they sport many levels of armor and capabilities, are easily upgradeable, and continue to supply armies all over the world.

Vlad Be Nimble, Vlad Be Quick

The T-90 family of tanks are a mix of old and new: the readily available and mass-producible T-72 hull was paired with a more advanced current from the T-80 family — firmly in the Russian design tradition of incremental changes rather than broad, new designs.

It also relies on traditional Russian tank design, standard since the Second World War: squat and low-profile hull and turret, which together offer opponents a smaller target to aim at.

An automatically loading cannon eliminates a loader crew member, bringing the total crew to three, which also aids in keeping the tanks small and compact, compared to the M1 Abrams, or the Leopard family, which are considerably larger and both require a crew of four, with loader.

Tanking on the Cheap

One of the T-90’s greatest strengths is its price. Although newer-model T-90MS is about 4.5 million dollars, the earlier — and cheaper — T-90 designs are still available for purchase and export, and cost considerably less, around 2.5-3.5 million dollars. According to another National Interest contributor, this is an attempt by Russia to “target the higher segments of the heavy armor market.”

For such an affordably priced tank, the T-90 features effective armor. In 2016, a T-90 was filmed in Syria taking a hit from an American-Designed TOW missile. While the TOW missile struck the tank, the T-90s Kontakt-5 armor (explosive reactive) detonated the missile, saving the tank from a knock-out hit. Not bad for an export tank.

Easily Upgradable

Herein lies one of the strengths inherent to Russian arms exports: instead of focusing on selling the latest, greatest, and most technologically advanced equipment, the T-90 family focuses instead on tried-and-true technologies, incrementally improving them onto a compact, affordable platform.

The Rosoboronexport website, the T-90's exporting entity, reflects this when describing the T-90MS, the latest T-90 variant:

“The tank features improved mobility and steerability achieved through the installation a higher-power engine, automatic gear shift control and wheel steering control. While retaining a low silhouette, optimal weight, high mobility and capability to cross the most difficult obstacles at high speed in stride, which are traditional for Russian tanks, the T-90MS has acquired a contemporary level of protection and survivability.”

That strategy has evidently worked: T-90 and associated variants have been exported to Algeria, Azerbaijan, India, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uganda, and Vietnam.

Caleb Larson is a Defense Writer with 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 is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Wikipedia.

Caleb Larson

Nuclear Energy, Air Force, World

Aircraft powered by nuclear reactors could, in theory, remain in the sky for weeks or possibly months without needing to refuel.

Here's What You Need to Remember: Jet engines are part of what did in the nuclear-powered bombers. Early but mature jet fighter designs left drawing boards and entered serial production at roughly the same time as the bomber prototypes. They were much faster than turboprop bombers, and if they crashed or were shot down, there would be no risk of nuclear contamination.

The 1950s and 1960s were the United States’ and Soviet Union’s nuclear heyday. Unlocking the power of the atom was supposed to usher in a new era in human achievement. In many ways, it did—harnessing nuclear power offered nearly unlimited energy to countries in the exclusive nuclear club.

But could the nuclear age transform aviation as well? The United States and USSR certainly thought so. Meet the Tu-95LAL and the Convair NB-36H— both of which carried onboard nuclear reactors.

Unlimited Range, Limited Exposure

In the early days of the Cold War before ICBMs and nuclear-powered submarines, American and Soviet nuclear preparedness was extremely high. Both countries had nuclear-armed bombers in the sky around the clock, waiting to deliver their payloads on Moscow and Washington. Keeping bombers constantly in-air required lots of support infrastructure and forward planning—and lots of refueling, which limited bomber’s range and endurance.

Aircraft powered by nuclear reactors could, in theory, remain in the sky for weeks or possibly months without needing to refuel. Their only limitations would be food, water, and pilot endurance. The idea was seemingly straightforward: use existing aircraft designs and modify them to be powered not by conventional means, but by nuclear power.

American and Soviet engineers faced several complex design problems. First, how exactly would nuclear propulsion work? Surprisingly similar to any other kind of aircraft. Of crucial importance would be the massive amount of thermal energy a nuclear reactor creates.

First, a simplified explanation of jet engines: during normal flight, air enters a jet engine, where it is compressed, injected with fuel, and ignited. This creates a controlled explosion that is forced rearward, creating thrust and pushing the aircraft forward.

A nuclear-powered airplane would operate in much the same way—air is taken in and compressed, and pushed out the back of the engine, creating thrust and pushing the aircraft forward. However, after entering the engine, compressed air would act as a reactor coolant, flowing around either the reactor itself, or a heating element from the reactor. This super-hot and compressed air would then squirt out the back of the engine, creating thrust and pushing the aircraft forward. Importantly, air would not flow through the reactor core itself, as this would contaminate the exhaust with radiation that would be ejected into the air.

The Workhorses

The United States and USSR both needed huge aircraft that could transport prodigious payloads, capable of housing heavy reactors within their bomb bays.

In 1961, Soviet aircraft designers decided on their platform of choice, a modified Tupolev Tu-95. The Tu-95’s first flight was ten years previous, in 1951. The strategic nuclear bomber is enormous and continues to fly today, roughly analogous to the United States’ venerable B-52 strategic bomber.

The Tu-95 has extreme endurance and can carry a large bomb load, perfect for hauling a nuclear reactor. It has several design features not often seen on other aircraft. Not only is it propeller-driven, but the four engines each have a set of contra-rotating propellers.

In the United States, nuclear-powered aviation testing began earlier in 1955. Their test platform was a modified Convair B-36. The B-36 was truly a beast—the B-36 had the longest wingspan of any operational military aircraft ever built.

The B-36 sported a whopping six engines, arranged in a pusher configuration with the propellers located behind the wings. The hollow wing roots were over seven feet thick to provide additional space for fuel for transcontinental flight. Some of the later B-36D models were even fitted with two sets of side-by-side jet engines for short bursts of higher performance, which brought the engine count to ten.

No Risk, No Fun

Design challenges were prodigious, but not insurmountable. The biggest design consideration was Acute Radiation Syndrome—radiation poisoning that the crew would need protection from.

The Americans installed a four-ton lead disk in the middle of the B-36 fuselage to reduce the crew’s radiation exposure. The 5-man flight crew were stationed in the plane’s cockpit, which was encased in lead. The cockpit windows were switched out for foot-thick lead glass as an extra precaution. The modified Tu-95 also had similar shielding installed.

During their lifespans, both the American and Soviet experiments left the drawing board, but were rather unimpressive in the air. Besides the success of flying with a nuclear reactor onboard, the biggest concern was for the safety of the pilots and crew. Therefore most flights were thankfully reactor-off journeys.

For what they were, both programs enjoyed a certain degree of success. Both had installed a functional nuclear reactor into a large bomber, and conducted test flights. The parent platforms were also rather successful. The Tupolev Tu-95 remains in service with Russia to this day. The American B-36 had a shorter run and was replaced by the iconic B-52, also still in service.

Modernity Knocking

Jet engines are part of what did in the nuclear-powered bombers. Early but mature jet fighter designs left drawing boards and entered serial production at roughly the same time as the bomber prototypes. They were much faster than turboprop bombers, and if they crashed or were shot down, there would be no risk of nuclear contamination.

Intercontinental ballistic missiles were also played an outsized role. Why build and maintain a massive aircraft, train pilots, and then risk both to deliver payload when a missile would do the same job faster with no risk to life?

Nuclear-powered submarines that could carry ICBMs also doomed the continued development of nuclear-powered aircraft. They were thought to be safer too, although there have been notable accidents.

Still, the test programs were not totally unproductive. Some of the nuclear data that the B-36 program gathered was used in developing the reactors that power NASA’s deep-space satellites.

Nuclear 2.0

In April, an accident in Russia’s Arkhangelsk region released a detectable level of airborne nuclear material.

Several Russian nuclear monitoring stations that report to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization’s network then went silent and stopped transmitting nuclear detection data. Speculation says that Russia is experimenting again with nuclear propulsion, this time for cruise missiles.

Is nuclear propulsion making a comeback? Hopefully not. 

Caleb Larson holds a Master of Public Policy degree from the Willy Brandt School of Public Policy. He lives in Berlin and writes on U.S. and Russian foreign and defense policy, German politics, and culture. This article is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Wikipedia.

Sebastien Roblin

Security, Americas

Since World War II, exceptional carrier-based fighters have repeatedly more than held their own against land-based adversaries.

Here’s What You Need To Remember: Designing an airplane that can fly at high speeds lugging heavy weapons loads, and yet still take off and land on a short flight deck a few hundred meters long has always posed a formidable engineering challenge. Sea-based fighters typically feature folding wings for easier stowage, ruggedized landing gear and arrester equipment, and greater robustness to endure the wear and tear from sea-based operations. These all literally weigh against the exquisite engineering exhibited by land-based fighters.

Yet since World War II, exceptional carrier-based fighters have repeatedly more than held their own against land-based adversaries.

To qualify for this list, the carrier-based-fighter in question must not only have been effective but also had a significant operational impact. This excludes excellent carrier-based jets such as the Super Hornet or Rafale-M which haven’t seen intensive combat employment.

The airplane must also be a ‘fighter’ designed for air-to-air capability airplanes. This leaves out excellent aircraft like the SBD Dauntless dive bomber, A-1 Skyraider and A-4 Skyhawk which were attack planes foremost, even though they had their occasional air-to-air successes.

Mitsubishi A6M Zero

The A6M Zero was an elegant fighter designed for the Imperial Japanese Navy by engineer Jiro Horikoshi. Weighing less than 4,000 pounds. The Zero’s 840-horsepower radial engine allowed it to traverse a remarkable 1,600 miles on internal fuel, outclimb and outrun many contemporary land-based fighters with a top speed of 346 miles per hour, and still turn on a dime.

When Japan unleashed its surprise attack on Pearl Harbor and territories across Asia and the Western Pacific, Zeroes flown by veteran Japanese pilots proved a terror of Allied fighters like the Hawker Hurricane and F4F Wildcat which the Zero outclassed in both speed and maneuverability. Allied pilots spent the first year of the Pacific War developing tactics to cope with the Zero’s capabilities.

However, unlike other successful carrier-based fighters, the Zero failed to evolve at the same pace as its adversaries. Its remarkable performance had been achieved by cutting away almost all armor protection—a design compromise that became increasingly fatal as faster, better-armored Allied fighters entered service with heavier armaments.

Vought F4U Corsair

In 1943, the Grumman F6F Hellcat brought an end to the Zero’s dominance, shooting down hundreds of Japanese aircraft in air battles such as the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot.

However, the Hellcat itself was outlived by the even higher-performing F4U Corsair. The Corsair is notable for its unique gull-winged design, but difficulties landing the “Hogs” caused the Navy to delay its introduction into service—so the Marines snatched them up instead. The Corsair quickly proved so successful that both the U.S. and Royal Navies adopted it into service.

The Corsair’s powerful Double Wasp engine made it fast and deadly, scoring an 11:1 kill ratio versus Japanese fighter pilots, who nicknamed it the “Whistling Death.” It played a vital role in intercepting Kamikaze attacks and providing ground support for Marines in Iwo Jima and Okinawa using napalm canisters and high-velocity rockets.

Remarkably, the Corsair’s career was only getting started. By the 1950s, Corsairs were back in action over Korea and French-occupied Vietnam, principally used in ground attack roles. However, radar-equipped Corsair night fighters shot down North Korean night intruders. Corsair pilot Guy Bordelon was only the Navy ace of the Korean War, and one Corsair even shot down a MiG-15 jet.

The Corsair’s combat career concluded violently in July 1969, when El Salvador invaded Honduras over a lost soccer game. Both sides operated Corsairs, and a Honduran F4U pilot shot down two Salvadoran Corsairs and a P-51 before the four-day war’s conclusion.

Grumman F9F Panther

The Panther was the first jet successfully integrated into U.S. Navy carrier air wings for long-term service. The slick jet, painted an inky navy blue and packing four twenty-millimeter cannons and flew on hundreds of raids during the Korean War, a dangerous role immortalized in the film The Bridges at Toko-Ri. It quite likely scored the first jet-on-jet aerial kill in history by downing a MiG-15 on November 9, 1950.

Though both powered by similar turbojets based on the Rolls Royce Nene, the straight-wing F9F could only attain 620 miles per hour, compared to the 670 mph of the swept-wing MiG-15. However, that didn’t prevent a lone F9F pilot from downing four Soviet MiG-15s in a whirling air battle over the Sea of Japan in 1952. Like the best naval fighters, the F9F also evolved gracefully over time, developing into a higher-performing swept-wing model called the “Cougar.”

The Harrier (In its Many Incarnations)

There have been many variants of the Harrier built by the various manufacturers, but their basic appeal was always the same: their vector-thrust turbofans allowed them to take off and land vertically like a helicopter from the deck of a small amphibious carrier or a remote forward bases lacking traditional runways.

This capability came at a price, however. Despite boasting air-to-air capability, Harriers were firmly subsonic jets that would be at a grave disadvantage dueling contemporary supersonic fighter jets. Furthermore, the trickiness of its VTOL engines has caused Harriers to suffer extremely high accident rates.

Yet the Harrier makes the list because its capabilities decisively affected the outcome of the Falkland Island War. In addition to twenty-eight carrier-based BAe Sea Harriers, the U.K. hastily converted container ships to carry fourteen land-based Royal Air Force Hawker Harriers. Together these escorted Royal Navy ships and pounded Argentine ground targets.

Argentina flung scores of strike jets at the British fleet, which lay at the extreme of their operational range. Though they might have been equally matched versus the Harrier, the Argentine pilots followed orders to only press the attack on British ships—arguably a mistake. Harrier managed to shoot down roughly twenty Argentine fighters using all-aspect AIM-L Sidewinder missiles. The Argentine pilots endured heavy losses to still sink several ships. But without the deterrence provided by the Harriers, the damage would likely have been far greater.

McDonnell Douglas manufactured AV-8 Harriers also performed well in combat over Afghanistan and Iraq and remains in service with the U.S. Marines and the navies of Spain and Italy. They will be replaced by F-35B jump jets, which despite significant teething and cost issues, promise a tremendous improvement thanks to supersonic flight capability, stealth characteristics, and advanced avionics.

McDonnell-Douglas F-4 Phantom

The F-4 Phantom was a beastly warplane powered by two huge J79 turbojets that could propel it past twice the speed of sound. A rare example of a design successfully used by all three branches of the U.S. military, the two-seat Phantom could detect adversaries and engage them with long-range missiles using its nose-mounted radar, and also carry a heavier bombload than a World War II B-17 bomber.

The Phantom often gets a bad rap for difficulties it faced combatting MiGs over Vietnam related to its lower maneuverability and the ineffectiveness of its early air-to-air missiles. The Navy responded to these problems by instituting the “Top Gun” school which schooled aviators in air combat maneuver theory. Navy Phantom pilots claimed forty MiGs shot down for only seven Phantoms lost in air-to-air combat. Later F-4J and F-4S models operated by the Navy incorporated wing-slats which greatly improved maneuverability and landing performance, though at a slight cost of speed.

Despite its flaws, the Phantom proved you could combine speed, heavy payload, advanced sensors, and (eventually) decent agility in one large airplane, a principle which informs modern fourth-generation jets such as the currently-serving FA-18E/F Super Hornet.

And what of the awesome F-14 Tomcat, you ask?

The Grumman F-14 Tomcat of Top Gun fame was indeed a superb air superiority fighter. However, the Tomcat’s saw most of its action as a land-based fighter in the service of the Iranian Air Force.

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 article was first published in 2019.

Image: Reuters

Robert Beckhusen

Security, Europe

A lone soldier armed with a Panzerfaust could — depending on the angle and shot placement — penetrate an Allied tank, ignite its fuel or ammunition and kill everyone inside.

Here’s What You Need to Remember: To Allied tank crews during World War II, the Panzerfaust was one of the German army’s deadliest weapons behind the static 88-millimeter cannon, the rocket-propelled Panzerschreck and — most of all — other tanks.

The shoulder-launched Panzerfaust, or “tank fist,” propelled a shaped charge warhead around 45–60 meters per second over a distance of 60-100 meters — depending on the Panzerfaust 60 and 100 variants. But it was always a short-range weapon, requiring German troops to sneak up close to their targets before depressing the firing mechanism.

Due to the Panzerfaust’s inherent range limitations, German anti-tank teams were most effective in dense or obscured environments such as cities and woodlands. A lone soldier armed with a Panzerfaust could — depending on the angle and shot placement — penetrate an Allied tank, ignite its fuel or ammunition and kill everyone inside.

Crew members would only have a second or two to jump from their tank, surely suffering horrific burns regardless of whether or not they survived. If unable to escape, the flames would leave little more than ashes and bones.

British Army tank commander Stuart Hills experienced the Panzerfaust’s power during the initial battles in northern Belgium that preceded Operation Market Garden. One encounter made for a harrowing passage in his 2002 memoir By Tank Into Normandy.

Hills’ Sherman tank and three others with the Sherwood Rangers Yeomanry pushed into the Belgian city of Gheel on Sept. 9, 1944. Initially, the operation took the bloodiest toll on the tanks’ supporting infantry.

An understrength rifle advancing with the Rangers met MG-42 machine gun fire in the fields outside Gheel. Hills witnessed an officer being “virtually cut in half as he received a belt of bullets all to himself,” Hills wrote.

Witnessing the officer’s death made Hills relieved to be a tanker. The Shermans’ concentrated fire soon silenced the MG-42s, and the advance into the town center proceeded without incident.

The defending Germans had largely abandoned the city, and the British tankers encountered Gheel’s townspeople celebrating their liberation by hanging Belgian flags from their homes.

However, word came within hours that a German counter-attack had cut off the tanks’ route into town and left them surrounded. The civilians removed their flags, which added to the tankers’ nervousness.

As night fell, the British tanks huddled in defensive positions around the town square, their crews watching down the connecting streets. German probing attacks made little progress, and the Shermans knocked out a tracked Jagdpanther tank destroyer at near point-blank range.

Then the sun rose — and a Sherman tank next to Hill’s vehicle burst into flames.

Panzerfaust.

The driver was killed. The tank’s commander, Capt. Jimmy McWilliam, jumped out but was terribly burnt. The general rule when it came to direct hits was that “it was largely a matter of luck whether you emerged alive,” Hills wrote.

My mind was full of horrors. I had seen at the closest possible range what had happened to Jimmy and now it was very likely that the same thing was going to happen to me. Here I was sitting in my Sherman with all its firepower, but I could not identify any target or even guess in what direction I should be looking.

Sure enough, about two minutes later, there was a terrific sheet of flame and shower of sparks as we were hit. We fired the Browning machine-gun in what we thought was the direction of the shot and backed furiously if rather clumsily into the main square, thankful to be able to move at all.

A piece of shrapnel had grazed my forehead and taken my beret with it, but that was the extent of the damage to any of us.

My driver, Bob Ingall, said that he had seen a Germany infantryman a second before he fired his Panzerfaust at us and had felt the blast on his legs. I did not have the chance right then to look at the damage, but I later found that half a track plate had been shot away on our starboard side and that a hole had been punched right through the entire sprocket assembly into the differential.

If we had had a co-driver that day, he would almost certainly have been killed or at least lost his legs.

The surviving tanks of the Sherwood Rangers Yeomanry withdrew from Gheel. The Allies wouldn’t recapture the city after another six days of heavy fighting.

Hills recalled having nightmares of his experiences decades later that would leave him feeling “despair and terror.” But he kept those thoughts from overwhelming him due to his considerable courage and support from fellow soldiers.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Warfare History Network

History, Europe

A staggering 850,000 German soldiers were waiting for the allies when they landed in France.

Here's What You Need to Remember: The numbers alone don’t tell the full story of the battle that raged in Normandy on June 6th, 1944.

The largest amphibious invasion in history began on the night of June 5-6, with the roar of C-47 engines preparing to take off , and climaxed on the beaches of Normandy.

But just how many paratroopers did it take to support the Normandy landings, how many soldiers braved machine gun fire and artillery to secure those crucial beachheads, and how many German soldiers were they up against?

History on the Net’s article on the D-Day invasion provides the astonishing raw figures.

Operation Overlord Statistics

The Normandy invasion consisted of the following:

• 5,333 Allied ships and landing craft embarking nearly 175,000 men.

• The British and Canadians put 75,215 British and Canadian troops ashore

• Americans: 57,500

• Total:132,715

• 3,400 were killed or missing.

The foregoing figures exclude approximately 20,000 Allied airborne troopers.

D-Day Casualties:

• The First U.S. Army, accounting for the first twenty-four hours in Normandy, tabulated 1,465 killed, 1,928 missing, and 6,603 wounded. The after-action report of U.S. VII Corps (ending 1 July) showed 22,119 casualties including 2,811 killed, 5,665 missing, 79 prisoners, and 13,564 wounded, including paratroopers.

• Canadian forces at Juno Beach sustained 946 casualties, of whom 335 were listed as killed.

• Surprisingly, no British figures were published, but Cornelius Ryan cites estimates of 2,500 to 3,000 killed, wounded, and missing, including 650 from the Sixth Airborne Division.

• German sources vary between four thousand and nine thousand D-Day casualties on 6 June—a range of 125 percent. Field Marshal Erwin Rommel’s report for all of June cited killed, wounded, and missing of some 250,000 men, including twenty-eight generals.

American Personnel in Britain:

• 1,931,885 land

• 659,554 air

• 285,000 naval

• Total:2,876,439 officers and men housed in 1,108 bases and camps

Divisions of the Allied forces for Operation Overlord (the assault forces on 6 June involved two U.S., two British, and one Canadian division.)

• 23 infantry divisions (thirteen U.S., eight British, two Canadian)

• 12 armored divisions (five U.S., four British, one each Canadian, French, and Polish)

• 4 airborne (two each U.S. and British)

• Total:23 American divisions, 14 British, 3 Canadian, 1 French and 1 Polish.

Air assets:

• 3,958 heavy bombers (3,455 operational)

• 1,234 medium and light bombers (989 operational)

• 4,709 fighters (3,824 operational)

• Total: 9,901 (8,268 operational).

German troops:

• 850,000 German troops awaiting the invasion, many were Eastern European conscripts; there were even some Koreans.

• In Normandy itself the Germans had deployed 80,000 troops, but only one panzer division.

• 60 infantry divisions in France and ten panzer divisions, possessing 1,552 tanks,In Normandy itself the Germans had deployed eighty thousand troops, but only one panzer division.

Approximately fifteen thousand French civilians died in the Normandy campaign, partly from Allied bombing and partly from combat actions of Allied and German ground forces.

The total number of casualties that occurred during Operation Overlord, from June 6 (the date of D-Day) to August 30 (when German forces retreated across the Seine) was over 425,000 Allied and German troops. This figure includes over 209,000 Allied casualties:

• Nearly 37,000 dead amongst the ground forces

• 16,714 deaths amongst the Allied air forces.

• Of the Allied casualties, 83,045 were from 21st Army Group (British, Canadian and Polish ground forces)

• 125,847 from the US ground forces.

But the numbers alone don’t tell the full story of the battle that raged in Normandy on June 6th, 1944. For a complete view of Operation Overlord, check out the full article at History on the Net, D-Day: The Invasion of Normandy, as well as some others like D-Day Quotes: From Eisenhower to Hitler.

This article first appeared on the Warfare History Network.

Image: Reuters

Peter Suciu

U.S. Air Force, Americas

These large and quick launches of many planes at once are known as Elephant Walks.

Key point: These exercises are good practice in case an emergeny requires the need for a lot of bombers to take off and attack all at once. This is how the Air Force tries to keep itself ready for anything. 

It surely made for an impressive sight late last year.

Eight United States Air Force B-52H Stratofortress bombers could be seen lined up on the runway at Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana in an “elephant walk,” the procession of military aircraft taxiing in close formation prior to takeoff. This most recent show of force of the Cold War-era bombers, which took place last week, was part of a readiness exercise conducted to ensure that the 2nd Bomb Wing remains fully able to provide winning combat power.

The Air Force has been increasingly conducting such elephant walks as a demonstration of the capabilities of its bomber fleet. A similar show of strength was conducted in April involving five B-52H bombers prior to their departure from Guam.

Following this October 2020 lineup of bombers, the eight aircraft flew to Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota before returning back to their home base in Northern Louisiana.

To Europe and Back

Some of the B-52 bomber crews had already had a busy month apparently at the time, as a pair of the aircraft from Barksdale AFB made a round trip flight to Europe, where the aircraft took part in a major NATO training exercise during a Bomber Task Force (BTF) mission over the North Sea. The two-week-long NATO exercise had involved more than fifty aircraft from across the alliance—and it was held to ensure that Allied air forces are able to operate effectively together.

The B-52s conducted the non-stop trans-Atlantic flight to Europe, and then made the return flight to Louisiana with support from Dutch, German, Italian, and U.S. aerial refueling capabilities. The multilateral support to the BTF was the most recent example of the strength gained through interoperability and partnership with the U.S. Air Force’s NATO allies and partners, as well as a continued validation of a shared commitment to global security and stability in Europe.

The refueling missions included KC-135 Stratotanker aircraft from the 100th Air Refueling Wing at RAF Mildenhall in England, which refueled the bombers off the coast of Scotland.

The Air Force’s strategic nuclear force, including the B-52, remains an essential military link between Europe and North America and has been seen as a key contributor to the Alliance security as the bombers offer a global strike capability. This recent trans-Atlantic crossing comes less than two months after six B-52s took part in the “Allied Sky” flyover across thirty NATO countries in a single day at the end of August. It was meant to highlight solidarity with U.S. partners and allies.

Four of the Cold War-era U.S. Air Force bombers were deployed from Royal Air Force (RAF) Fairford in the UK and flew over Europe, while two bombers from the 5th Bomb Wing at Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota flew over the U.S. and Canada.

Over the summer additional B-52H bomber training missions were conducted at RAF Fairford as part of a long-planned exercise involving the 5th Bomb Wing, which was deployed to demonstrate U.S. capability to command, control and conduct bomber missions across the globe.

Despite its age, the upgraded B-52H bombers can still perform a variety of missions at subsonic speeds at high altitudes while the aircraft have a combat range of 8,800 miles and are able to carry precision-guided ordnance with worldwide precision navigation.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. This article first appeared earlier and is being reposted due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters.

Peter Suciu

Indian Army, Asia

The NAG missiles are constructed of lightweight and highly durable composite materials.

Here's What You Need to Remember: The NAD is not the only missile platform that has been undergoing testing. Earlier this month, the Indian Ministry of Defence also announced the flight test of the new generation anti-radiation missile.

India and China have continued to move men and material to the Ladakh Valley near the Line of Actual Control before winter sets in, and this has included a significant number of tanks and other armored vehicles. In some cases, the tanks and troops are just 400 meters apart. India has ferried in equipment via heavy-lift, and that included numerous T-72 and T-80 tanks, along with BMP-2 armored personnel carriers (APC). All of the vehicles have been modified and adapted to run on a special fuel mix designed specifically for the high altitudes and low temperatures of the region.

Last month the Indian military also conducted tests of its latest variant of the NAG anti-tank missiles near the Pokhran Test Range in the western state of Rajasthan. During the tests, the third-generation, all-weather, fire-and-forget anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) reportedly destroyed the target with extremely high accuracy in both desert terrain and rugged frontier hills—terrain that is similar to that of the Ladakh region.

"This is the final test and the NAG program will begin to be deployed to all units in the military," the Indian Defense Ministry said in a statement.

Defence Aviation Post reported that the NAG is a product of Defence Research and Development Organisation Agency of India (DRDO).

The missile, which first underwent successful tests in September 1997 and January 2000, is equipped with an advanced passive navigation system, and it was designed to destroy modern tanks and heavy armored targets, and has a night strike capability. It has been launched from a ground-based launch pad or an airbase. During the test in January 2016, a NAG missile successfully destroyed a thermal weapons system (TTS) at a range of 4 km at the Pokhran range. This anti-tank missile also underwent the last of the practical tests in different weather conditions earlier this year—likely in preparation for deployment to the Himalayas.

The ground version, also known as the "Prospina," can also be mounted on a NAMICA (BMP-2 platform), which is among the armored vehicles deployed along the border with China.

The NAG missiles are constructed of lightweight and highly durable composite materials. These can be installed with four rockets, spread and length 1.85, diameter 0.20m, a wingspan of 0.4m and weighs 43kg. The missile is fitted with a targeting guidance system, while the middle body contains many compact sensors and warheads. The platform can fire six missiles in just 20 seconds, and it is designed to destroy or defeat enemy tanks equipped with composite and reactive armor.

Army Technology reported that Defence PSU Bharat Dynamics Limited (BDL) will produce the missile while Ordnance Factory Medak will manufacture the NAMICA. Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh congratulated the Indian Army and DRDO for the completion of the trial.

In 2018, the Indian Defence Ministry had cleared the acquisition of 300 Nag missiles and 25 NAMICAs for the Indian Army.

The NAD is not the only missile platform that has been undergoing testing. Earlier this month, the Indian Ministry of Defence also announced the flight test of the new generation anti-radiation missile. Dubbed the RUDRAM, it is the first locally developed anti-radiation missile of the country. Additionally, last month, DRDO announced that it tested the Hypersonic Technology Demonstrator Vehicle (HSTDV). 

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. This article is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Wikipedia.

Peter Suciu

Military History, Europe

The British invented the tank but did they actually come up with the term?

Key point: The word tank actually is related to how British tried to conceal their efforts to develop the new weapon. Here is how it went and how other names, such as panzer, were born.

In German it is the "panzer," in French it is the "char d'assaut," but in English, we know it is as the "tank." Yet even after more than 100 years since military "tanks" first entered service, this—at least from a linguistic point of view—is somewhat confusing. Why are tanks called tanks?

This article first appeared earlier and is being reposted due to reader interest.

The German word "panzer" doesn't actually translate to tank, but rather the word means "armor," as it derives from the French word "pancier" for "breastplate" and comes from the Latin "pantx" or "belly."

Today, Panzer is a loanword, notably in the context of the German military. But it is a bit more confusing because the first German "tank" was the Sturmpanzerwagen (Armored assault vehicle) A7V. Later German tanks were known as "Panzerkampfwagen" or roughly "armored combat vehicle." Leave it to the Germans to be direct and to the point.

Meanwhile the French term "char d'assaut" at least suggests an assault vehicle, but then "char" is essentially the word for tank. The British and French were allies during the First World when the "tank" was developed.

In 1915, the British military at the behest of then-First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill, established the Landships Committee, which was composed mainly of naval officers, politicians and engineers.

The goal of this small committee first was to oversee the development of large wheeled "landships" that were estimated to weigh as much as 300 tons and could roll over any terrain. The project was ambitious, to say the least, but it soon became apparent that the costs, complexity, and logistics of creating such a vehicle were utterly unrealistic, especially in wartime.

Instead, the decision was to go with a smaller vehicle that could pave the way for the infantry to break through the enemy lines. Throughout the spring and summer the Committee conducted a number of trials with wheeled and tracked vehicles. Then in July 1915, the British War Office became aware of the project and its operations were transferred from the Royal Navy to the British Army, which was actually doing most of the fighting on the Western Front.

Under the Army's direction, the first completed tank prototype was developed and it was dubbed "Little Willie." It is also the oldest surviving individual tank in the world, in part because it was just a prototype and never saw use in combat. Little Willie is now in the collection The Tank Museum in Bovington, England.

Externally Little Willie did serve precursor of the tanks to come, and this included the Mark I, which featured sponsons on the side of the tank instead of the turrets, that would define later tanks. It took more than a year to refine and produce the MkI, but by September 1916 some 150 new armored vehicles had been built at William Foster & Co. of the Lincoln Metropolitan Carriage and Metropolitan Carriage, Wagon & Finance Co. at Wednesbury.

In an effort to hide exactly what the military was building, the vehicles were called "tanks" to suggest a container to transport fresh water to the front. In December 1915, the codeword "tank" was officially adopted, and the Landships Committee officially became the Tank Supply Committee

At the Battle of Flers-Courcelette, during the larger Battle of the Somme, on September 15, 1916, the first tanks rolled into action. Some forty tanks advanced over a mile into enemy lines. However, these lumbering vehicles, which did shock the enemy at first, proved too slow to hold their positions while many bogged down in the mud. It has been argued that military planners simply didn't know how to properly utilize these new machines, and it would take another two years of fighting before the tank had truly proven itself in battle.

But by then the word "tank" was in the modern dictionary. It is "char" in French and "танк" in Russian, all because of the successful effort to fool the German military during the war.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and website. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. This article first appeared earlier and is being reposted due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters.

Peter Suciu

F-117 Nighthawk, Americas

Could it be possible that the F-117 Nighthawk will get a chance to fly again?

Here's What You Need to Remember: Despite the platform’s success, the United States Air Force opted to retire the F-117 in April 2008. The Air Force ultimately retired the Nighthawk as a cost-saving measure as the service struggled to pay for the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor.

It was an aircraft that may have simply been ahead of its time. The Lockheed Martin F-117 Nighthawk was the first operational aircraft to be designed around stealth technology, and while commonly referred to as a “stealth fighter,” it was actually a ground attack aircraft. The platform was developed during the late 1970s in response to an Air Force request for an aircraft that would be capable of attacking high-value targets without being detected by enemy radar.

New materials and techniques developed during the “space race” allowed engineers to design the aircraft with radar-evading “stealth capabilities.”

Earlier this month one F-117 headed to the Palm Springs Air Museum, where it became part of the permanent collection. The fact that one of the aircraft is heading to the museum is notable as this is only the fourth F-117A to end up as a museum exhibit. One other aircraft, named “Midnight Rider,” arrived this August at Hill Aerospace Museum in Utah in August, while “Unexpected Guest” was expected to be displayed at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library this year. “Shaba” will also be transported to the Kalamazoo Air Zoo Museum in Michigan for restoration and future display.

Four of the prototype aircraft are displayed at various museums and military bases. The first prototype/test aircraft was presented to Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada in 1992 and became the first F-117 to be made a “gate guardian.”

The second prototype was delivered to the National Museum of the United States Air Force at Wright-Patterson AFB outside of Dayton, Ohio in July 1991; while the third prototype is now at Holloman AFB, New Mexico. That aircraft, which was painted to resemble the first F-117A to drop weapons in combat, was also the first to be revealed to high-ranking officials at Groom Lake in December 1983, which was also the first semi-public unveiling of the aircraft.

The fourth prototype was previously at Blackbird Airpark Museum in Palmdale, California, but it is undergoing restoration work and will be displayed at the Air Force Flight Test Center Museum at Edwards AFB sometime next year.

History of the F-117

The F-117 had its first flight in June 1981 at Groom Lake, Nevada, while the first F-117A unit, the 4450th Tactical Group (renamed the 37th Tactical Fighter Wing in October 1989), achieved initial operating capability in October 1983. Of the sixty-four F-117s built between 1981 and 1990, fifty-nine were production versions.

In 1989, the F-117A was awarded the Collier Trophy, one of the most prized aeronautical awards in the world.

The F-117A first saw combat just months later, when two from the 37th TFW were used in Operation Just Cause on Dec. 19, 1989, against military targets in Panama. The aircraft was used in the Persian Gulf War when the 415th and the 416th squadrons of the 37th TFW were deployed to Saudi Arabia. During Operation Desert Storm, the F-117As flew 1,271 sorties, achieving an 80 percent mission success rate, and suffered no losses or battle damage.

The ground attack aircraft were used in a conflict in Yugoslavia, where one was shot down by surface-to-air missiles in 1999, the only Nighthawk to be lost in combat. This occurred on March 27, 1999, when an S-125M missile crew from the Serbian 250th Air Defense Missile Brigade fired two missile V-600 missiles at the aircraft when it was flying back to its base in Italy after bombing a military target outside of Belgrade. Named “Something Wicked,” its remains are on display at the Museum of Aviation in the Serbian capital city.

Despite the platform’s success, the United States Air Force opted to retire the F-117 in April 2008. The Air Force ultimately retired the Nighthawk as a cost-saving measure as the service struggled to pay for the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. At the time, the Air Force claimed that the advent of the air superiority-oriented Raptor—and eventually the F-35—meant it no longer needed the F-117.

While the aircraft has been officially retired, a portion of the fleet has been kept airworthy and, as noted, few museums have even been provided with the airframe. So while unlikely, it is possible the F-117 Nighthawk could get a chance to fly again. Until then, the best way to see this early cutting-edge aircraft is in a museum.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. This article is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Wikimedia Commons.

Caleb Larson

military, Middle East

Iran excels at updating old weapon systems like the T 72Z.

Here's What You Need To Remember: Iran’s domestic defense industry does not produce world-class weapon systems. But it is good at upgrading existing platforms and keeping them relevant.

Although Iran struggles to design and build more modern weapon systems, it excels in upgrading older Soviet and American designs, especially tanks. The Type 72Z is no exception—and has been exported to Iranian allies and client groups in the Middle East and Africa.

Type 72Z

Iran’s defense industry relies heavily on foreign weapon systems, especially for big-ticket items like tanks and aircraft. This is because Iran has a limited ability to manufacture these domestically. The Type 72Z is no exception. Iran’s Type 72Z tanks are upgraded Soviet T-54 and T-55 tanks, and Chinese Type 59 tanks, and not a copy of the Soviet T-72 tank as the name would suggest.

Iran’s government-owned Defense Industries Organization, a weapons manufacturing conglomerate that provides equipment and services for the Iranian armed forces designed and installed the upgrades. Upgrades incorporated into the Type 72Z design include domestically-designed explosive-reactive armor paneling fitted to the front hull glacis, turret sides and top, and side skirts for better protection against shaped charges and kinetic energy penetrators.

The 72Z upgrade also features a somewhat more powerful main gun. In place of the original factory-fitted 100-millimeter gun, the 72Z was upgraded with a larger bore 105-millimeter gun and equipped with a modernized fire-control system for better gun stability and accuracy. Thanks to the barrel size, a number of NATO tank munitions would, in theory, be compatible with the upgraded main gun.

The engine was also upgraded with a 780 horsepower engine of Ukrainian origin, up from 520 horsepower for the Chinese Type 59, and roughly 500 horsepower T-54/T-55 engine, giving the 72Z a decent power-to-weight ratio, thanks in part to its smaller size.

Export

Iran is apparently not the only Type 72Z operator. The investigative website Bellingcat identified a number of 72Z tanks near Tikrit in Iraq with Iraqi militias that were apparently used to fight against the Islamic State. The tanks were identified by the unique tan and burgundy camouflage pattern and turret-mounted smoke grenade launchers used for concealment. Bellingcat did not identify if the tanks were crewed by Iranian tankers or Iraqi militias, but acknowledged that Iran’s industrial capability is one of its main foreign policy tools in the Middle East.

Sudan ordered and purchased a number of the upgraded 72Zs sometime in the mid-2000s, though the exact number of tanks is speculative. Previously, Sudan also purchased several dozen Rakhsh armored personnel carriers from Iran. These APCs are also manufactured by the state-owned Defense Industries Organization.

Postscript

Iran’s domestic defense industry does not produce world-class weapon systems—but for countries that import Iranian arms, that doesn’t matter. As I previously wrote, Iran excels at updating old weapon systems, in particular Soviet-era tanks, keeping them at least somewhat prepared for battle.

Caleb Larson holds a Master of Public Policy degree from the Willy Brandt School of Public Policy. He lives in Berlin and writes on U.S. and Russian foreign and defense policy, German politics, and culture.

This article first appeared last year and is being reprinted due to reader interest.

Caleb Larson

History, Americas

The X-1 was used to better understand flight characteristics in the transonic range, from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.

Here's What You Need to Remember: Sometimes dangerous, and always insightful, the X-series of planes continue to push the boundaries of what is possible in the air—and now in space. These planes continue to impress today. Keep an eye out for more information on the X-series in the future.

The X-series of planes are a series of non-production prototype planes that the U.S. Air Force uses to gain insights into flight and push the boundaries of what is possible. Though some of the most well-known and significant X-planes achieved greatness in the 1940s and 1950s, X-planes are still being developed today. Meet some of the greatest X-planes ever built.

The First of an Era: The X-1

In the frenzy of aeronautic advancements after the Second World War, perhaps no airframe contributed more to the understanding of flight more than the Bell X-1, the first of the experimental American X-series.

The X-1 was used to better understand flight characteristics in the transonic range, from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1. Airframes of the era suffered from undesirable flight characteristics in the transonic speed range and were generally unstable and a danger to fly.

The X-1 looks like a bullet—and that’s no accident. The airframe was modeled on a .50 caliber bullet, a supersonic projectile that was stable at Mach 1 and more. The X-1 didn’t have jet engines but got up to speed via rocket engines. It was also dropped from a modified B-50 bomber’s bomb bay so as to conserve as much of the X-1’s fuel as possible for Mach 1+ speeds.

In 1947, the most well-known test pilot in history, Chuck Yeager, became the first man to fly faster than the speed of sound, flying at Mach 1.06 and inching over the sound barrier.

Bell X-2 Starburster

Bell’s next contribution to the X-series broke another barrier—Mach 3. Just as the X-1 increased the depth of knowledge of the transonic range, the X-2 gathered invaluable data on the supersonic range—but was deadly to fly.

Like it’s predecessor, the X-2 was also powered by rocket engines and was dropped out of a modified B-50 bomber’s bay doors, but unlike the X-1, had much more aerodynamically efficient swept wings rather than the X-1’s straight wings. The record-breaking test pilot, Captain Miburn “Mel” Apt would blow past Mach 3 and achieve Mach 3.2 speeds, though the flight cost him his life.

Perhaps due to an instrumentation error, Capitan Apt banked hard while at Mach 3+ speed and lost control of his X-2. Although he was able to eject from the plane via the nose-mounted escape pod, he did not jump out of the pod after separation, possibly knocked unconscious by the massive G forces he experienced. The X-2 program would ultimately cost three test pilots their lives.

X-18

Fast forward a bit in time, and the X-series program would investigate the tilt-rotor designs.

For years, attempts at vertical take-off aircraft had failed badly. Designs generally followed that of conventional airplanes that could point their nose skyward and hover like a helicopter. Though these oddball designs were capable of taking off vertically, they were extremely difficult to handle and only the best and most experienced pilots could fly them. It was hoped that the X-18 could remedy this problem by being easier to handle.

The X-18 looked like a large transport plane, though its entire wing could rotate 90 degrees upward to point its propellers sky-high. After flying slowly upwards, the X-18 would gradually rotate its wing to the forward position and fly horizontally.

Though an improvement on the earlier attempts at vertical takeoff planes, the X-18’s wide wing could not be rotated during high wind conditions, as it acted like a large sail and could cause the airframe to tip over. Though ultimately unsuccessful, the X-18 provided valuable insight into tilt rotor designs and contributed to the V-22 Osprey design—now the backbone of the Marine Corps and Navy’s logistics chain.

Postscript

Sometimes dangerous, and always insightful, the X-series of planes continue to push the boundaries of what is possible in the air—and now in space. These planes continue to impress today. Keep an eye out for more information on the X-series in the future.

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: Wikimedia.