The National Interest

Peter Suciu

Cold War History, Americas

This drone was pretty advanced for its time and served well for intercept practice.

Key point: Pilots need enemy aircraft to practice against (or at least really good fake enemies). Here is how the MQM-107 mimicked Soviet aircraft and could even change course to try and avoid being caught.

Only in the 1970s could the United States Air Force introduce a remotely piloted vehicle (RPV) that was designed for testing and training interceptor crews and name it “The Streaker.” While it didn’t play disco music or require operators to wear platform shoes, it was truly a testament to the “Me Decade.”

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

The Streaker was originally developed by Beech Aircraft not for the United States Air Force but rather for the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command. The Army has been trying to meet the 1972 Variable Speed Training Target (VSTT) requirement for a reusable, turbojet-powered, target towing drone that could be used to test surface-to-air missile systems.

The Beechcraft MQM-107 Streaker won the contract in 1975, and the platform was utilized until 1979. It was used by the Army in the testing of such systems as the FIM-92 Stinger and MIM-104 Patriot, while the Air Force subsequently used the Streaker for the testing of air-to-air missiles including the AIM-9 Sidewinder and the AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM).

For the era, the MQM-107 was quite high tech considering it was developed during the era of “Pong.” The high-subsonic target drone featured slight sweep sings and a centerline mounted turbojet engine. It was approximately seventeen feet long and had a ten-foot wingspan.

It was ground-launched with the aid of solid-fuel boosters and could accelerate to approximately 250mph in just two seconds. The Streaker’s flight path could be programmed in advance to launch or changed during flight by a ground controller using a radio link. During flight, it could mimic the heat and radar returns of different missiles and aircraft—while it could also drop chaff and flares to deceive interceptor crews.

The Streaker could be used with a variety of payloads for aerial targets, including radar, IR, and visual augmentation devices, scoring devices, and countermeasures. One of its main tasks is towing various sub-targets for radar- and IR-guided missile and gunnery training.

The platform was powered by a single Microturbo North America TRI 60-2 turbojet, which provided 831 pounds of thrust. The MQM-107 Streaker had an endurance of two hours and eighteen minutes and a ceiling of 40,000 feet. At the end of its mission, a parachute allowed it to descend where it could be recovered on land or in the water.

Production of the Streaker actually continued well past the last days of disco, and the program finally ended in 2003, when it was replaced by the BQM-167 Skeeter. However, in 2012 it was reported that at least a few of the target drones had made their way to Syria and then in turn North Korea, which was using them to build unmanned attack drones loaded with high explosives.

As tech blog Gizmodo reported at the time, the strange tale of the drone ending up in North Korea had the makings of a Chevy Chase movie! We would have thought a Richard Pryor movie, but either way it wasn’t really a laughing matter. A high-speed turbojet-powered drone that could be loaded for explosives isn’t exactly what a nation with an unstable leader should have at its disposal. However, it has been more than eight years since the MQM-107 has done much in the way of streaking.

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: Wikimedia Commons

Kris Osborn

military, Americas

A principal challenge, many maintain, will be the need to establish a continuous sensor track as faster space-traveling weapons and hypersonics will present as-of-yet unprecedented threats. 

Here's What You Need to Remember: Hypersonic weapons, some of which can travel through space at five times the speed of sound, are nearly impossible to track, a reality inspiring the MDA’s current command and control sensor strategy. Instead of merely needing to send stovepiped or disaggregated radar detection systems, there is a need to network radar and satellite systems together to establish a “continuous track” of an approaching weapon, without having to pool segregated radar feeds. 

Missile Defense in 2030 will require hypersonic defenses, new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) interceptors, upgraded satellites, advanced radar and, most of all, an advanced “kill web” of integrated sensors to track approaching enemy missiles and transmit crucial, time-sensitive information. 

“If the adversary launches at us, we’re going to the joint kill web [to] enable us to censor any sensor by shooter to engage,” Army Lieutenant General Daniel L. Karbler, commander of the Army Space and Missile Defense Command, said in a Pentagon report. 

A principal challenge, many maintain, will be the need to establish a continuous sensor track as faster space-traveling weapons and hypersonics will present as-of-yet unprecedented threats. 

“When you look at 2030, we’re looking at advanced ballistic missiles, [and] we know they’re going to maneuver hypersonic threats and cruise missile threats. That’s a very challenging place to be.” Navy Vice Admiral Jon A. Hill, director of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), said in the Pentagon report. 

The approach, the senior leaders explained, involves a mix of Army-fired ground missile defenses to take out enemy rockets, ballistic missiles and other inside-the-atmosphere threats. For ICBM defense, Hill talked about a two-fold trajectory, including maintaining the existing Ground Based Interceptors through upgrades and sustainment efforts, such as the Next-Generation Interceptor. 

When you get into ground-based missile defense or midcourse defense for protection of the United States, we are working very intensely on the service-life extension program, along with the reliability program that takes us beyond just the analytical,” Hill said. 

The basis for the Next Generation Interceptor, Missile Defense Agency developers explain, hinges upon sensor networking. This weapon, perhaps even more than others, will need the advanced “kill-web” network of meshed sensors to track and destroy an entirely new generation of threats. 

Hypersonic weapons, some of which can travel through space at five times the speed of sound, are nearly impossible to track, a reality inspiring the MDA’s current command and control sensor strategy. Instead of merely needing to send stovepiped or disaggregated radar detection systems, there is a need to network radar and satellite systems together to establish a “continuous track” of an approaching weapon, without having to pool segregated radar feeds. 

“While we have to also compete in parallel with the next generation interceptor… by closing that gap with a very strong liability program for the fleet today, and bringing on a new interceptor that will tie into the ground systems and into the sensors, [it] is going to be pretty formidable,” Hill said.

Kris Osborn is the new 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.

Warfare History Network

History, Europe

The paranoid purges of Joseph Stalin killed much of the Red Army's officer corps in the years before World War II.

Here's What You Need to Remember: The purge produced appropriately macabre scenes. An officer back from secret service in Spain’s civil war phoned friend after friend at their homes, only to find strangers now answering their phones. A general dropped dead of a heart attack upon hearing the dreaded predawn knock on his door—it turned out to have been a harmless messenger.

Officer corps expect to suffer heavy losses in war. The entire 1914 class of France’s St. Cyr military academy, for example, perished in World War I. But no officer corps ever suffered the degree of loss that the Red Army suffered in peacetime, at the hands of its own government, during dictator Joseph Stalin’s paranoid purge of 1937-1938.

Paranoia in the Communist Party

The first hint of the slaughter to come emerged at a conference of the Communist Party in March 1937, just as Stalin’s Great Purge was reaching its heights of terror. The craven, incompetent commissar for war, Marshal Kliment Voroshilov, told those assembled: “Happily, we have not as yet discovered many enemies in the army. I can say happily in the hope that there are not very many enemies in the Red Army.” But Stalin’s ranking lackey, Premier Vyacheslav Molotov, immediately contradicted Voroshilov. “If we have wreckers in every branch of the economy, can we imagine that in one place alone, the War Department, there are none?” said Molotov ominously. “It would be absurd to do so. The War Department is a very large affair, and its work will be checked not now but a little later. And it will be examined very rigorously.”

In a climate where stamp collectors could be shot for valuing old foreign stamps over new Soviet ones featuring Stalin’s portrait and astronomers could be executed for taking an ideologically incorrect position on sunspots, not even the Red Army was above suspicion. To begin with, it had been founded, organized, and largely officered by Stalin’s despised, defeated rival Leon Trotsky, and it remained under tenuous party control. Most suspicious of all was its long association with the German Army, going back to secret training in the 1920s and ongoing visits by Red Army officers to Nazi Germany.

A Blood-Splattered Confession

Much of Stalin’s paranoid fixation about the Red Army was focused on its head, Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky. As brutal as Stalin in quelling opposition, using poison gas on revolting peasants, and executing reform-seeking sailors, Tukhachevsky was a brilliant advocate of armored warfare. But it was his very emphasis on military professionalism that struck at the principle of party loyalty—which meant, essentially, loyalty to Stalin. Added to Tukhachevsky’s problems was the personal animosity of Marshal Semyon Budenny, one of Stalin’s closest military cronies.

The rigorous examination of the army that Molotov had threatened actually had started seven months earlier with the arrest of a divisional commander in Kiev, Dmitri Shmidt. A supporter of Trotsky, Shmidt once had threatened to lop off Stalin’s ears with his sword. In what would become standard treatment at the hands of the NKVD, Shmidt confessed to plotting to assassinate Voroshilov, then received what became the standard consequence for such apostasy—a bullet to the back of the head. A corps commander close to Tukhachevky was arrested next, confessed in turn to plotting with Trotsky, and was shot as well.

In Nazi Germany, Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich forged documents showing Tukhachevsky and other generals were plotting with them against Stalin, and had them passed to Stalin through the president of Czechoslovakia. (Although Himmler and Heydrich would take credit for the bloodbath that followed, Stalin had already determined his murderous course of action and apparently made no use of the forgeries.) Stalin struck without warning. On May Day, Tukhachevsky found his way to his usual parade spot atop Lenin’s Tomb blocked by security guards, and 10 days later, without explanation, he was demoted to the command of the Volga Military District. Stalin assured Tukhachevsky that he would soon be back in Moscow, and he was—arrested on arrival and thrown into the dreaded Lubyanka Prison with Marshal Ion Yakir and six other generals.

It took just two days for Tukhachevsky to sign a confession to being a Nazi spy. When his interrogation record was uncovered decades later after the fall of communism, the pages were splattered with blood—chilling evidence of the kind of force used to break the physically imposing Tukhachevsky. One of the generals, resigned to his fate, simply signed anything put before him to enjoy a comfortable cell, tea, and cigarettes for his last few days.

“Puppets in the Hands of the German Army”

At an emergency meeting of Red Army generals to explain the arrests, Stalin charged: “These men are puppets in the hand of the German Army. The German Army wants the government here to be overthrown and they undertook to accomplish that but didn’t succeed. The German Army wanted the army to be disrupted so that it would not be ready to defend the country.”

Voroshilov now changed his tune from three months before, saying: “I am greatly to blame. I did not detect these base traitors.” But he was quick to spread the blame. “I cannot point to a single warning signal from you,” he said, adding, “I never trusted Tukhachevsky.” He went on to warn the generals: “We have not purged everyone yet. I personally don’t doubt that there are people who thought they were only talking, that’s all. They chattered: ‘It would be a good thing to kill Stalin and Voroshilov.’ Our government will extinguish such people.”

From his cell, Marshal Yakir wrote Stalin a pitiful plea for mercy. “My entire conscious life has been spent working selflessly and honestly in full view of the Party and its leaders,” he professed. “Every word I say is honest, and I shall die with words of love for you, the Party, and the country with boundless faith in the victory of Communism.” Stalin wrote on the appeal: “Swine and prostitute.” Vorsohilov chimed in: “A perfectly precise definition.” Stalin’s political toadies followed suit. “Entire agreement with Stalin,” penned Molotov; Lazar Kaganovich, Yakir’s erstwhile best friend, went furthest of all. “For a bastard, scum, and whore, there is only one punishment,” he said, “the death penalty.”

That outcome was foreordained when Tukhachevsky, Yakir, and the others went into court for a secret trial on June 11, 1937. “When I saw those scoundrels in the courtroom, I was shivering. A beast was in me. I didn’t want to judge them, but beat and beat them in a wild frenzy,” said one of the judges, General Ivan Belov. “I feel I’m dreaming,” said Tukhachevsky. The 18-hour marathon proceeding consisted solely of reading the defendants’ “confessions” and listening to abuse from the judges. All the defendants were sentenced to death and shot, one by one, within an hour by the Lubyanka’s feared senior executioner, Vasili Blokhin. (A few years later, Blokhin would organize and help to carry out the infamous Katyn massacre of Polish officers.)

“The snake said he was dedicated to the Motherland and Comrade Stalin,” NKVD chief Nikoli Yezhov reported about Tukhachevsky’s last words. He was fortunate not to live to see what such devotion was worth. Stalin had the general’s wife and two brothers shot, and his mother, daughter, and sisters shipped to a gulag. Yakir’s last words were also to no avail. Stalin had his wife, brother, sister-in-law, and nephew killed.

One of the judges, General Belov, told writer Ilya Ehrenburg: “Tomorrow I shall be put in the same place.” He was right: within the next 18 months, he and five other of the eight judges were executed. There was almost another. The NKVD came for Budenny, but he held them off at pistol point while calling Stalin to get the order canceled. The police left with his wife, instead.

The Scale of Stalin’s Slaughter

The Soviet Union’s remaining marshal, Vasilli Blyukher, was beaten to death after refusing to confess; his widow said he looked like a tank had run over him. In two years’ time, 36,671 Red Army officers were executed, shipped to the gulag, or dismissed from service. Those who were killed were probably luckier than those who were imprisoned. One general who survived internment recalled seeing other officers in his camp “on all fours, howling and rooting about, they had become semi-idiots whom no amount of beating could drive from the refuse heaps.”

The scale of the purge was staggering: 13 of 15 army commanders, 50 of 57 corps commanders, 154 of 186 divisional commanders, 220 of 406 brigade commanders, all 11 vice-commanders of defense, 98 of 108 members of the Supreme Military Soviets, all army political commissars, 25 of 28 corps commissars, 58 of 64 divisional commissars. Even the lower ranks were not spared: almost half the colonels and 7,403 captains fell victim to the purge. “This is worse than when artillery fires on its own troops,” commented General Konstantin Rokossovsky. More Soviet generals and colonels were killed by Stalin than were to fall in World War II.

The purge produced appropriately macabre scenes. An officer back from secret service in Spain’s civil war phoned friend after friend at their homes, only to find strangers now answering their phones. A general dropped dead of a heart attack upon hearing the dreaded predawn knock on his door—it turned out to have been a harmless messenger.

“With each arrest it became more difficult to believe in the disloyalty, the sabotage, the treachery of these men,” said General Alexander Gorbatov. When he protested the arrest of his superior, he was inevitably jailed himself. Other officers he met in jail advised him to confess to anything about anyone “because they believed it was better to stand on their false testimony in order to put an end as quickly as possible to the torment and to die as quickly as possible.” But Gorbatov was an exception and, surprisingly, was not shot for his defiance, but merely sent to a Siberian labor camp.

Another defiant general was Konstantin Rokossovsky. After having eight teeth knocked out and three ribs broken, he was hauled before the Supreme Military Court and told that another officer, named Yushkevich, had confessed to spying with him for Germany. Instead of submissively agreeing with the accusation and taking a bullet, Rokossovsky shouted back, “Can the dead give evidence?” “What do you mean the dead?” the surprised judge asked. Rokossovsky replied, “Well, Adolf Kazimirovich Yushkevich was killed in 1920 at Perekop.” When records bore him out, Rokossovsky became perhaps the only defendant ever acquitted in the purge, although he was still sent to one of the most dreaded gulag camps in Siberia, Vorkuta.

The Outcome of the Purge

The effects of the purge could be seen in the disastrous winter war with Finland in 1939-1940. As described by future Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev: “Stalin was furious with the military and with Voroshilov—justifiably in my opinion. Stalin jumped up in a rage and started to berate Voroshilov. Voroshilov was also boiling mad. He leaped up, turned red, and hurled Stalin’s accusations back in his face: ‘You have yourself to blame for all this! You’re the one who had our best generals killed!’ Voroshilov then picked up a platter of roast suckling pig and hurled it against the table.” Although dismissed as commissar for defense, Voroshilov amazingly was not shot for his actions. He survived Stalin to serve as the Soviet Union’s ceremonial president, living until 1970.

Because of the Finnish fiasco, Stalin rehabilitated and restored 13,000 officers. Rokossovsky was sent to a seaside resort to recuperate and equipped with twin rows of metal teeth. Always one to enjoy toying with his victims, Stalin faked surprise upon seeing Rokossovsky. “I don’t seem to have seen you around for some time,” said the dictator. “Where did you go?” “I was arrested, Comrade Stalin,” Rokossovsky responded. “I was sitting in prison.” Stalin laughed. “A fine time you chose to go to prison!”

Rokossovsky went on to be the greatest Soviet commander of World War II after Grigori Zhukov, helping to win the battles of Stalingrad and Kursk and conquering Berlin. Another hero of the war to come, Marshal Ivan Konev, would argue: “Of the commanders destroyed—Tukhachevsky, Yeogorov, Yakir, Kork, Uborevich, Blyuker, Dybenko—only Tukhachevsky and Uborevich can be regarded as modern military leaders. Most of them were on the level with Voroshilov and Budenny. Those heroes of the Civil War were living on their past. If they had remained at the top the war would have turned out quite differently.” Konev might have thought differently had he known that when he was defeated early in the war, Stalin wanted him shot but was talked out of it by Zhukov.

Until his death in 1968, Rokossovsky never spoke of his ordeal in the purge. Once, however, while a marshal of the Soviet Union, he was crossing Siberian airspace and had his plane fly over the site of his old camp. As he looked down, the former prisoner muttered a brief epitaph for his fellow victims: “No traces left.”

This article first appeared on the Warfare History Network.

Image: Reuters

Peter Suciu

Suffren-Class Submarine, Europe

Suffren SSNs will replace the aging Rubis-class and will serve as the backbone of France’s submarine force until the 2060s.

Here's What You Need to Remember: The Barracuda series will provide the French Navy with a real combat superiority and for the first time enable a deep strike capability via MBDA naval cruise missiles (NCM). The vessel can be equipped with F21 heavyweight wire-guided torpedoes and modernized Exocet SM39 anti-ship missiles. Each submarine can accommodate a crew of sixty-five sailors plus Special Forces. 

The French Navy reached an important milestone in its Barracuda program, as it took delivery of the first of six Suffren-class nuclear attack submarines (SSN). The 99-meter long submarine was delivered from the French-based shipbuilder Naval Group to the French Armament Procurement Agency (Direction Générale de l’Armement, DGA) earlier this month after the completion of a series of sea trials. 

Delivery of the submarine took place in the presence of only a small delegation of high profile personalities due to the ongoing novel coronavirus pandemic. An outbreak of Covid-19 had previously sidelined the French Navy’s flagship aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle.

Decade Long Studies

Suffren SSNs will replace the aging Rubis-class and will serve as the backbone of France’s submarine force until the 2060s. The arrival of this first of six boats will revamp the nation’s nuclear deterrence capability. Delivery of the five other submarines is expected to take place over the next decade. 

More than ten years of studies were conducted to determine the course of submarine development to meet the operational needs of the French Navy. The Barracuda program began in 1998 when it was launched by the French Defense Procurement Agency (DGA), while the associated development contract was notified at the end of 2006. It still took another decade of those studies before the operational needs were finalized.

With the delivery of the Suffren-class spread out over a ten-year period, the program will ensure that the submarine force will be operational until at least 2060. 

“What a long way for Naval Group and all its industrial and state partners since the cutting of the first sheet on December 19, 2007, less than a year after the signing of the acquisition contract by the DGA,” said chairman and CEO of Naval Group Pierre Eric Pommellet, during the acceptance ceremony. “The industrial challenges to be taken up were numerous. I salute the commitment of the design and production teams of Naval Group, TechnicAtome, prime contractor for the on-board nuclear boiler, as well as those of the DGA, CEA and the French Navy.” 

Advanced Technologies

The construction of the Barracuda submarines will utilize a wide range of exceptional know-how involving the most advanced technologies. According to Naval Group this will include the use of very special types of steel, underwater acoustics performance and weapons systems that will make the Suffren-class one of the most efficient submarines in the world. The nuclear-powered Suffren has a surface displacement of 4,600 tons, an underwater displacement of 5,200 tons, and an immersion depth of 300 meters.

Among the innovative enhancements on the boat is its “optronic” mast, which replaces the telescopic mast. According to Naval Group, this will ensure better collection of visual information and better sharing of this information among the crew. This new feature, combined with advanced detection capabilities, guarantees the superiority of Barracuda submarines in their intelligence missions. 

The Barracuda series will provide the French Navy with a real combat superiority and for the first time enable a deep strike capability via MBDA naval cruise missiles (NCM). The vessel can be equipped with F21 heavyweight wire-guided torpedoes and modernized Exocet SM39 anti-ship missiles. Each submarine can accommodate a crew of sixty-five sailors plus Special Forces. 

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: Reuters.

Peter Suciu

History, Americas

The X-40A was not the first step in a reusable space plane, a concept that had predated the original Space Shuttle by decades.

Here's What You Need To Remember:  "The X-40A had to autonomously find the runway, account for wind gusts, and track a straight course down the runway centerline. The tiny wings on the X-40A required a high angle of attack to generate lift on landing, which meant the X-40A would rapidly rotate nose-down upon braking during landing. This required a very accurate onboard sensing system."

Today only one X-40A test vehicle remains in existence, and it is in the collection of the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, Ohio. However, the program, which is now largely forgotten, proved instrumental in the development of the X-37B–the United States Space Force's reusable space plane, which is currently conducting its mission in low Earth orbit. 

The National Interest was able to get some insight into just how significant the X-40A was in the development of the X-37B from Darold B. Cummings, founder and president of ForzAero. Mr. Cummings holds thirty-six patents in a variety of fields. He worked in the design, analysis, fabrication and testing of air vehicles during his lengthy career. 

"Up until the autonomous landing of the X-40A in 1998, no one had demonstrated that an unmanned space vehicle with such a low lift-to-drag ratio, and a high angle-of-attack landing attitude, could land safely," Cummings told The National Interest. 

"All the other key technologies, such as high-temperature materials and reliable propulsion systems, had already been demonstrated," he explained. "The X-40A had to autonomously find the runway, account for wind gusts, and track a straight course down the runway centerline. The tiny wings on the X-40A required a high angle of attack to generate lift on landing, which meant the X-40A would rapidly rotate nose-down upon braking during landing. This required a very accurate onboard sensing system to provide an aerodynamically controlled gentle nose-down rotation to keep the nose from slamming down and collapsing the nose landing gear. This was all accomplished on the very first X-40A flight!" 

The X-40A was not the first step in a reusable space plane, a concept that had predated the original Space Shuttle by decades. The experimental scaled-down aircraft was also just one part of the efforts to develop a reusable spacecraft that could be used in low Earth orbit missions. 

Among the others was the X-34 unmanned space plane, which was designed to be a cargo resupply aircraft, much like the Space Shuttle. 

"Unfortunately, that program was canceled in 2001," said Cummings. "The latest air vehicle related to a Space Shuttle replacement is the Sierra Nevada Corporation 'Dream Chaser,' which is currently a piloted aircraft like the original Space Shuttle. NASA has supplied funding for the Dream Chaser, and an unmanned version is planned for the future that would land autonomously like the X-40A." 

The Parachute Misconception 

One key point about the X-40A that Mr. Cummings would like to set straight is a longstanding myth that the unpiloted X-40, which was, in fact, built to 85% scale of the X-37 to test aerodynamics and navigation systems, utilized a drag or drogue chute. 

"The Space Shuttle had a large drogue parachute that slowed the aircraft down, and also provided a stabilizing force to keep it straight down the runway," noted Cummings. 

"The X-40A did not have a drogue chute–the parachutes on the back of the bulkhead were there in case the X-40A lost control or lost radio contact during the flight test: the parachutes would deploy, and the X-40A would land on deployed airbags," said Cummings. "Wikipedia incorrectly claims the X-40A deployed drogue chutes on landing. (Instead), all speed and control on the ground during landing was supplied by differential braking of the main landing gear." 

Beyond the X-40:

In addition to his work on space plane technology, Cummings previously worked on the YF-23 Stealth Fighter, a fifth-generation, single-seat, twin-engine stealth fighter designed for the United States Air Force in the late 1980s as part of the American Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) challenge. 

He offered his thoughts on how the development of stealth aircraft has taken on new importance given the current geopolitical situation as other nations–notably China and Russia–work towards developing similar capabilities.  

"That is a big question because there are a significant amount of geopolitical issues involved," explained Cummings. 

"The problem of force projection for the U.S. becomes an issue of numbers," he added. "As an example, the ability to penetrate the overlapping/interconnected Chinese defenses will become increasingly difficult with current limited U.S. stealth assets." 

For that reason, he said he believes that the future focus for the Air Force will be on "Force Multipliers," such as stealthy, but lower-cost/semi-expendable, unmanned aircraft working in consonance with manned fighters.  

"That is the current focus of the Air Force Skyborg program," Cummings said. "I personally do not believe the U.S. will launch another manned stealth fighter program at this time but will purchase and continuously upgrade the F-35, and supplement it with stealthy unmanned aircraft." 

Our thanks to Darold B. Cummings for sharing his insight and knowledge about the X-40B and YF-23 programs. 

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

PLA Navy, Asia

China has a very large and modern navy now and the progressive updates to the Type 093 boat show how far Beijing has come.

Key point: The Type 093 was not a very good submarine, but the latest version is serious business. Here is how it could fight the U.S. Navy.

The People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) is now the largest naval force in the world, and a lot of attention has been paid to its two aircraft carriers, while a third flattop is reportedly on the way. This is in addition to its naval expansion, which includes assault carriers, cruisers and destroyers.

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

However, the more significant threat from Beijing may not be the carriers or other surface vessels, or even its aircraft carrier “killer” missiles—but rather its Type 093A attack submarine.

The first iteration of the Type 093 dates all the way back to 2005, but it was not without problems—and it offered little improvement over its problem-plagued, noisy predecessor, the Type 091. However, the Type 093 has been steadily improved.

It now seems that with the enhancements the Type 093 is well on its way to being a world-class attack submarine.

According to submarine expert H I Sutton, writing for Naval News, the Type 093A Shang-II class is the most powerful attack submarine in China’s arsenal today. The roughly 7,000 ton nuclear-powered submarine is roughly the same size as the Royal Navy’s Astute-class, which puts it in between the French Navy Suffren-class and the U.S. Navy’s Virginia-class.

While nuclear-powered submarines tend to be louder than their diesel-electric counterparts, the Type 093A reportedly uses some of its larger size for noise-reducing features including acoustic stealth. Improvements in reactor coolant pump design may have helped reduce the Shang-class’ acoustic signature.

Beijing hasn’t shared any specific details, but Chinese sources have reported that its teardrop hull with a wing-shaped cross-section provides both improved speed and stealth. A 2009 U.S. Navy Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) report listed the Chinese Type 093 as being noisier than the Russian Navy’s Project 671RTM submarines, which entered service with the Soviet Navy in 1979. However, the Type 093A could be far quieter due to its altered hull form.

The Type 093A is also reported to be quite well armed, and is capable of carrying the YJ-18 anti-ship cruise missiles. It is a solid-fuelled rocket that can be launched from a buoyant launch canister. The missile lacks a solid booster and has an operational range of only about forty-two kilometers, but it is still a serious threat to enemy warships.

The submarine can also carry the YJ-82 anti-ship missile, rocket mines and torpedoes including the Yu-6 thermal torpedoes. The heavyweight thermal torpedo, which is essentially the Chinese counterpart of the American Mark 48 torpedo, is wire-guided and has active/passive acoustic-homing and wake-homing sensors.

The Type 093A Shang-II isn’t the world’s best attack submarine, but it should highlight the fact that Beijing continues to make progress on all fronts. Just as China’s PLAN is becoming a force to be reckoned with in terms of carriers, so too could be a serious submarine force.

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

Tu-95MS, Asia

The Tu-95 "Bear" remains one of the oldest designs in active service with the Russian military.

Here's What You Need to Remember: In August, the Russian United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) announced that the modernized Tu-95MSM strategic missile-carrying bomber was capable of carrying eight missiles instead of four, while the aircraft also received new flight control, navigation, and communication systems.

"The flight lasted over eight hours," a ministry spokesperson told Tass. "At some sections of the route, the strategic missile-carrying bombers were escorted by Su-35S fighters of the Aerospace Force."

Such flights of the Tupolev bomber have become routine.

The bombers, which are a key element of the air component of Russia's nuclear triad, were upgraded to carry the latest X-101 cruise missiles. Those missiles can be retargeted once the bombers are already airborne.

Nearly Seven Decades: 

The four-engine propeller plane was developed in the 1950s after Soviet planners had requested a four-engine bomber that could fly five thousand miles and hit targets across the United States. The choice of propeller-driven engines was made due to the fact that jet engines of the time burned through fuel too quickly.

The Tu-95 "Bear" remains one of the oldest designs in active service with the Russian military, and the only propeller-powered bomber in service in the world.

Despite the age of the bomber, it can still fly great distances and this year has made regular flights near American waters. While this most recent flight by the pair of Tu-95MS aircraft was closer to home, the bombers had been making patrol flights near the waters of Alaska.

The aircraft has also been steadily upgraded, and much like the United States Air Force's venerable B-52 Stratofortress, it shows no signs of leaving service. The current backbone of the Russian strategic bomber force remains the Tu-95MS. What is notable about the Tu-95 is the fact that unlike the American B-52s, many of the Tu-95s were actually produced in the 1980s.

This is because the older Tu-95 airframes were not suitable for modernization, and in the late Cold War the Soviet military planners made the decision to restart the production lines to produce the Tu-95MS variants. As a result those aircraft – despite being an older design – could be considered relatively young when compared to some NATO aircraft.

The Tu-95MS's primary armament is the Kh-55 air-launched cruise missile (ALCM). The Kh-55 is a subsonic missile with a range of around 2500 km. The current fielded nuclear-armed missile is the Kh-55SM, which increases the range of the Kh-55 to 3500 km. Its conventionally armed counterpart is the Kh-555, with a range of 2000 km. The Kh-555 has seen use in Syria fired from Tu-95MS. The regular Tu-95MS6 carries these six of these internally in a KMU-6-5 rotary launcher.

Still Flying High:

The Russian military has continued to enhance the abilities of the Tu-95MS with a further modernization effort, the Tu-95MSM variant. The primary purpose of the Tu-95MSM modernization is to give the Tu-95MS the ability to fire the Kh-101 and Kh-102 cruise missiles that are carried by the newer Tu-160 bomber. Because of the increased length of the missile, the Kh-10(X) cannot be carried on the internal rotary launcher of the Tu-95MS. As such, the Tu-95MSM adds four additional external pylons, which can carry two missiles each.

In August, the Russian United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) announced that the modernized Tu-95MSM strategic missile-carrying bomber was capable of carrying eight missiles instead of four, while the aircraft also received new flight control, navigation, and communication systems.

This past summer, the Tu-95MSM performed its debut flight at the aerodrome of the Beriev Aircraft Plant in Taganrog, and the improved Bear was piloted by the crew under the command of a test pilot Andrei Voropayev from the Zhukovskaya flight testing base, which is a subsidiary of the Tupolev Aircraft Company. According to state media, the flight proceeded in the normal mode at an altitude of nine thousand meters and lasted two hours and thirty-three minutes. The systems and equipment performed as expected and the entire test flight was conducted without a hitch.

With these recent upgrades, the Bear is expected to remain in service with the Russian Air and Space Force until at least 2040.

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: Reuters.

Peter Suciu

Russian Army, Eurasia

These soldiers practiced using ropes to quickly land from a helicopter.

Key point: Don't try this at home. Highly trained paratroopers are able to use ropes to hit the ground and attack with suprising speed.

Last week during the Friendship 2020 joint military drills, Russian and Pakistani paratroopers took part in a unique airborne assault training exercise. What made this particular drill notable is that the paratroopers didn’t actually use parachutes, but instead practiced a fast-rope technique from helicopters that hovered high above the ground. 

“The servicemen of Russia and Pakistan practiced the tactic of parachute-free landing from domestically-made helicopters as part of the joint Russian-Pakistani military exercise Friendship 2020,” Russia’s Defense Ministry said in a statement, reported by Tass.

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

The exercise, which involved 150 personnel from the special operations company of the 49th combined arms army of Russia’s Southern Military District and Pakistani special operations forces, was conducted at the Tarbela special operations training ground in Pakistan. During the drills, Mi-17 helicopters—the export version of the Russian Mi-8—hovered at an altitude of 20 meters in the air while the Russian and Pakistani airborne commandos descended using a special rope. After descending, the paratroopers practiced defending the area of landing and repelling a “terrorist attack.”

Fast One 

This type of “fast-roping” quick descend was first developed by the British military and was used in combat during the Falklands War. The original ropes were thick nylon that allowed Royal Marines to descend in a manner similar to sliding down a fire pole.

The type of rope used as well as the technique to descend has evolved over the years—and today the rope needs to be at least 1.6-inches or 40mm thick to prevent it from being jerked about from the rotor blast, while some even have a weighted core or ballast to help maintain stability.

Friendship 2020 Drills 

Fast-rope descents are increasingly used around the world by military forces, and while it may look simple it actually requires extensive training as there is no safety line to prevent a solider from falling.

The training drills played a significant role in this year’s Russian-Pakistani Friendship joint exercises, which have been held annually since 2016 alternately in each of the nations. 

This year’s maneuvers involved some seventy servicemen from the Russian special forces unit, while the drills are running in three stages. The first stage has been taking place at the Pakistani Army’s Tarbela special operations training ground from November 9-14 and it has involved solo training and exercises as well as team drills. The next two stages will take place at the Pakistani National Counter-Terrorism Center in Pabbi from November 16-19. 

According to the Russian Defense Ministry, personnel from both countries will take part in training exercises to exchange experience and practice inter-operability in accomplishing a broad range of missions. In particular, this includes eliminating illegal armed formations and conducting reconnaissance and search measures employing aircraft and technical reconnaissance capabilities 

The training between Russia and Pakistan follows a similar training exercise that involved U.S. and Ukrainian special operations forces (SOF) last month’s Fiction Urchin drills. The multinational exercises involved ten allied and partner nations and consisted of special forces operators conducting fast rope insertion and extraction systems. 

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

Hypersonic Missiles, Americas

Experts fear that the missiles could be impossible to defend against and could reshape warfare.

Here's What You Need to Remember: Hitting the specific location of a carrier at such distance, even with a hypersonic weapon, wouldn't be the easiest thing to pull off. Current ballistic missiles that can achieve hypersonic speed follow a predictable flight path, but a concern is that these missiles could be able maneuver in unexpected ways.

Aircraft carriers have always faced seriously deadly threats. In the past, it was submarines, which long posed the most danger to carriers. Modern anti-submarine warfare (ASW) has given the advantage back to the carrier strike groups, which can better screen and protect the capital ship. While unmanned submarines could present a new problem, the greatest danger could come from hypersonic missiles.

The Russian Kinzhal is the world's first hypersonic aviation missile system, and if the claims are to be believed it has a range of 3,000 kilometers when launched from an aircraft such as the Tupolev Tu-22M3 Backfire supersonic bomber. Even if those ranges are exaggerated the platform still presents a very serious threat to U.S. warships, notably aircraft carriers.

Because of the speed at which hypersonic missiles travel the force is so significant that these can inflict damage by sheer "kinetic" impact without needing explosives. Experts fear that the missiles could be impossible to defend against and could reshape warfare. This is why some have suggested that the U.S. military invests in the technology rather than massive warships – in part because the weapons could quite easily destroy those warships.

The Japanese military is already exploring ways to develop and deploy hypersonic weapons with a special warhead that could penetrate the decks of an aircraft carrier – and it is abundantly clear that Chinese carriers could pose a serious risk to the waters around the Japanese home islands.

Carrier Killer

The Stalker Zone website recently explored a hypothetical strike on a large carrier – in this case the U.S. Navy's USS George H. W. Bush, which has a displacement of 97,000 tons and a length of 333 meters. The carrier, which has a crew of 3,200 plus 2,500 military personnel that make up the aviation wing, is quite a sizeable target for any weapon, but getting past its air defenses including its screen of destroyers would be no easy task.

Here is where a hypersonic missile could be a truly devastating game changer.

As the exercise suggested, the current characteristics of the U.S. Navy's carriers cannot counteract hypersonic missile weapons. While it might seem that a hit on the command room would be the best place to aim, the deck of the carrier may be the most effective. The mass – 500kg – of the Kh-47M2 "Kinzhal" traveling at Mach 12 would do considerable damage.

"Even if the carrier can stay afloat for the first moments after the strike, the potential of its aircraft wing will be reduced to zero by the damage caused to the deck," the Stalker Zone noted. "In addition, such a strike can lead to the defeat of at least one of the two naval Westinghouse A4W reactors. The total capacity of these reactors is 1,100 MW. A missile with a half-ton warhead moving at high speed can not only destroy the coolant circulation circuits, but also lead to the explosion of the nuclear reactors themselves during their active operation when an aircraft carrier performs a combat operation."

Such a strike from even a single hypersonic "Kinshal" missile could be enough to completely destroy an aircraft carrier but would have the potential create a chain reaction that could take out an entire carrier strike group!

Countering the Threat

Hitting the specific location of a carrier at such distance, even with a hypersonic weapon, wouldn't be the easiest thing to pull off. Current ballistic missiles that can achieve hypersonic speed follow a predictable flight path, but a concern is that these missiles could be able maneuver in unexpected ways.

Yet, it is still easy to see why there is such concern.

This is why the military is working as hard – possibly even harder – to develop counter systems to stop a hypersonic attack. Not doing so would be accepting that any nation that could acquire such weapons could devastate a fleet.

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

Image: Flickr.

Kyle Mizokami

War on Terror, Middle East

Canada has done its part in fighting global terrorism, including taking on ISIS.

Key point: This Candian sniper has set a record. Here is how the impressive shot was taken.

In mid-2017, the sniping community was rocked by incredible news: a Canadian sniper team operating in the Middle East had made a successful kill at a distance of more than two miles. The team, deployed to fight the Islamic State, killed an ISIS fighter at a distance of 3,871 yards. The shot was a record breaker and more than a thousand yards farther than the previous world record. The shot, which bordered on the impossible, was made only slightly less so by the skill of the snipers involved.

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

On June 22, 2017 the Globe and Mail reported that two snipers assigned to Joint Task Force 2, Canada’s elite special forces unit, had shot an Islamic State fighter in Iraq at a distance of 3,540 meters, or 3,871 yards. The sniper team was stationed on top of a highrise building when it took the shot, which took almost ten seconds to reach its target. The sniper and his spotter had used a McMillan TAC-50 .50 heavy caliber sniper rifle. According to the Globe and Mail, the kill was verified by video “and other data.”

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

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

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

To understand the complexity of the shot, it’s best to start with a sniper maxim: sniping is weaponized math. Although a .50 caliber sniper rifle bullet can fly as far as five miles, a host of factors including gravity, wind speed and direction, altitude, barometric pressure, humidity and even the Coriolis Effect act upon the bullet as it travels. Even worse, these effects increase the farther the bullet travels. A successful sniper team operating at extreme distances must do its best to predict exactly how these factors will affect the bullet and calculate how to get the bullet back onto target.

The first and most influential factor on a bullet is gravity. A bullet begins to lose energy as soon as it leaves the muzzle of a gun, and as it loses energy it loses the ability to counteract gravity. The farther and slower a bullet flies, the more Earth’s gravity will pull the bullet downward. This is known as “bullet drop,” and even the most powerful bullet, such as the .50 caliber round used by the TAC-50, will invariably experience it.

In most shooting shooting situations, bullet drop is only a matter of a few inches or more. The Canadian snipers, on the other hand, had to deal with a phenomenal amount of bullet drop: at 3,450 meters, the bullet would be expected to drop 6,705 inches! Ryan Cleckner, a former U.S. Army Ranger sniper and author shows the ballistic data for the shot here. As the bullet is traveling subsonic at a spend of 940 feet per second, the bullet is diving an average of nearly two inches per foot of forward travel, with the problem getting much worse as distance increases.

In order to make the shot the Canadian snipers had to counteract the staggering amount of drop. Being on a highrise building, or hilltop was a must. The rest of the drop correction had to be done within the rifle’s scope, which can be adjusted for drop, and a scope mount that was angled upward for extreme long distance shooting.

Cleckner’s data also provides other useful information. Bullet flight time, from the muzzle of the Canadian sniper’s gun to target was just over seven seconds. The bullet was traveling at 940 feet per second when it hit, which means it slowed to below the speed of sound. Finally, after traveling more than two miles the bullet hit with 1,472 foot pounds of energy, greater than most M16 bullets at point blank range.

Another major factor that would have affected the shot was windage. When shooting at extreme distances, even a mild wind of five miles an hour will have an effect on the flight of a bullet, slowly but surely nudging it off its flight path toward the direction of the wind. At 400 yards, a .50 caliber bullet will be nudged 2.5 inches off its path by a five mile an hour wind. At 3,800 yards that balloons to an incredible 366 inches. In other words, the snipers had to assume their bullet would impact just over thirty feet in the direction of wind travel and plan accordingly.

Other environmental factors played a hand in the shot. Air pressure (generally a function of altitude), temperature, and humidity are factors most shooters at ranges of 500 yards or less rarely encounter, become major issues at 3,800 meters. These factors are mitigated by the use of wind sensors, barometric pressure readers, and a knowledge of local weather conditions. To complicate matters, these conditions may change so that a shot taken on a cold morning will be much different in the heat of the afternoon and snipers must recalculate the shot accordingly.

Earth itself, and the position of the shooter and target on the globe become factors at long range. The Coriolis Effect dictates that bullets shot in the northern hemisphere drift to the right, while those shot in the southern hemisphere drift to the left, and this phenomenon increases the farther one gets to the poles. Furthermore, shooting east with the rotation of the earth will cause bullets to strike high, while shooting west will cause the same bullet to strike low.

Even the construction of the rifle itself affects the shot. A high quality barrel will naturally be more accurate and the rifle involved in the shot, the McMillan TAC-50, is one of the best around. The barrel rifling, a spiral-like pattern that makes the bullet spin in flight, stabilizing it, imparts “spin drift.” According to Cleckner, a rifle with a right-hand spiral twist will send a bullet up to ten inches to the right at 1,000 yards. How much spin drift would affect the shot at 3,800 yards was essential information for the Canadian snipers.

In taking their record-breaking shot, the Canadian sniper team had to consider all of these factors—merely misjudging one would have caused a clean miss—and it is an incredible testament to their skill that they were successful. The average man-sized target is just twenty-four inches wide, leaving zero room for error in a two mile shot. The shot took place at the extreme edge of viability, given the current levels of sniper technology. While the JTF-2 shot will almost certainly be equalled, it seems unlikely it will be decisively beaten for the foreseeable future.

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

Image: Reuters.

Tim Murtaugh

U.S.-China Relationship, Asia

For a guy who expresses complete confidence that no one sees things as clearly as he does, Joe Biden sure botches a lot of things.

The U.S. relationship with China under the Biden administration is off to a rocky start if the first high-level meeting between the two nations is any indicator.

President Joe Biden, who cast himself as someone who would smooth relationships with foreign adversaries, can’t have been happy to see the American delegation embarrassed by the Chinese during a recent summit in Alaska.

The widely reported gathering in Anchorage saw Chinese diplomat Yang Jiechi lambaste the United States directly to Secretary of State Tony Blinken’s face.

“Many people within the United States actually have little confidence in the democracy of the United States,” Yang asserted, referencing the Black Lives Matter movement. “The United States does not have the qualification to say that it wants to speak to China from a position of strength.”

Rather than defend the United States against this charge, Blinken incredibly chose to concede the point, saying, “A confident country is able to look hard at its own shortcomings and constantly seek to improve, and that is the secret sauce of America.”

Even liberal publications were aghast at the way the Chinese steamrolled the apparently unprepared American contingent.

Around the world, those who support the Chinese position were jubilant in their celebration. “The Chinese-language coverage of what happened in Anchorage is very, very proud,” noted China expert Dean Cheng, calling it a propaganda victory for the communists.

The Biden administration did subsequently announce sanctions against two Chinese government officials over the nation's horrific record of human rights abuses and ongoing genocide. But this is barely a slap on the wrist in light of the magnitude of the offenses. “China and the Chinese Communist Party think that they're winning,” said former Trump National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster.

But being way off base on matters concerning the Chinese Communists is nothing new for Biden.

On the presidential campaign trail in 2019, Biden infamously downplayed China as an economic power, declaring that they were “not competition.” He acted incredulous that anyone could ever believe the opposite, asking condescendingly, “China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man.”

“I mean, you know, they’re not bad folks, folks. But guess what? They’re not competition for us,” he continued, making clear that not only was he wrong, but he was certain of it.

Biden’s penchant for fumbling China issues continued into 2020 when the coronavirus pandemic began to sweep the globe. For example, when former President Donald Trump moved to restrict travel from China to the United States, Biden opposed it, calling it “xenophobia” and “fear-mongering.”

More than two months later, after it was clear that Trump’s travel restrictions had saved American lives, Biden’s campaign played clean-up for him. A spokesperson claimed Biden had always supported the ban, although no one—including the candidate himself—had ever said so.

Meanwhile, China lied to the entire world about the scope and deadliness of the virus outbreak and enlisted the aid of the World Health Organization (WHO) in that deception. Incredibly, China even blamed the American military for spreading the virus. In fact, the Chinese continue to allude to American military involvement to this day.

Against this backdrop, Trump rightly determined that American taxpayers would no longer help fund the WHO if it continued to defer to China. Upon taking office, however, Biden unconditionally reversed that decision and effectively rewarded the bad actors who had impeded the global response to the pandemic in the first place.

Biden’s mistakes regarding China are alarming enough on their own, even without considering the financial ties to China his son Hunter has maintained for years. While his father was vice president, Hunter Biden rode aboard Air Force Two to Beijing, conducted meetings, and scored a massive deal with the state-owned Bank of China. One of Hunter Biden’s former business partners alleged that Joe Biden was aware of the various schemes and even had a part of some of them.

There’s a reason former Obama Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that Joe Biden has been “wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.”

For a guy who expresses complete confidence that no one sees things as clearly as he does, Joe Biden sure botches things a lot.

Tim Murtaugh is a visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation. He is the former communications director of President Donald J. Trump’s 2020 reelection campaign.

Image: Reuters

Peter Suciu

History, Americas

Boeing donated the sole YF-118G Bird of Prey to the museum in 2002 and it has been on display since 2003.

Here's What You Need to Remember: The lasting legacy of the Bird of Prey was its ability to demonstrate advances in stealth concepts, notably the "gapless" control surfaces that were developed to blend smoothly into the wings to reduce radar visibility, while the engine intake was completely shielded from the front.

The National Museum of the United States Air Force outside of Dayton, Ohio is home to more than 360 aircraft and missiles. Its collection includes such truly notable airplanes as the B-29 "Bockscar" that dropped the "Fat Man" atomic bomb on Nagasaki, the B-17 "Memphis Belle" and the Boeing VC-137C SAM 26000 that had the callsign Air Force One when it was used by Presidents John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.

In the Cold War gallery of the museum, near a Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor is a truly special aircraft – the one-of-a-kind Boeing YF-118G, a black project aircraft that was developed to demonstrate stealth technology. Developed by McDonnell Douglas and Boeing in the 1990s it was soon dubbed "The Bird of Prey," named for its resemblance to the Klingon spacecraft from the science fiction series Star Trek, as well as the movie Star Trek III: The Search for Spock.

The secret project ran from 1992 to 1999 and the single-seat aircraft was a demonstrator used to test "low observable" stealth techniques as well as new methods of aircraft design and construction. The aircraft, which was tested at the top-secret "Area 51," first flew in 1996 and made a total of 38 flights, where it was used to determine ways to make aircraft less observable not only to radar but also to the eye.

The program also validated new ways to design and build aircraft using large single-piece composite structures, as well as "virtual reality" computerized design and assembly and disposable tooling. It was powered by a single Pratt & Whitney JT15D-5C turbofan that provided 3,190 pounds of thrust and had a maximum speed of 300 miles per hour, and a ceiling of 20,000 feet.

The aircraft made its final flight in 1999 and it was declassified three years later when its design techniques had become standard practice. Boeing has used those techniques in the development of X-32 Joint Strike Fighter demonstrators and later in its X-45A Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle prototype.

The lasting legacy of the Bird of Prey was its ability to demonstrate advances in stealth concepts, notably the "gapless" control surfaces that were developed to blend smoothly into the wings to reduce radar visibility, while the engine intake was completely shielded from the front. Yet, despite its advancements, the National Museum of the United States Air Force noted that it still utilized some "off the shelf" technology to reduce costs while also speeding the production. This included a control system that is all-manual with no computer assists, while its landing gear was adapted from Beech King Air and Queen Air aircraft.

Boeing donated the sole YF-118G Bird of Prey to the museum in 2002 and it has been on display since 2003 – where despite its stealthy technology is ready to be seen and photographed by visitors!

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

Image: Wikipedia.

Peter Suciu

Iran Missiles, Middle East

Iran is going down a road other “isolated” nations have been forced to travel—developing a local way to produce weapons.

Here's What You Need to Know: Arms could be a future revenue stream for the country, and potentially an important one as its oil reserves certainly won’t last forever. 

This past January Iran launched a number of ballistic missiles at U.S. bases in Iraq in response to the U.S. killing of Gen. Qassim Suleimani, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—Quads Force commander. The strikes weren’t complete misses but were largely seen as militarily ineffective.

Multiple experts suggested Iran “missed” on purpose so as not to escalate the crisis, but by launching its missiles still, the Islamic Republic was able to save face by responding to Suleimani’s assassination in a U.S. drone strike. 

Experts also warned that next time Iran could respond with its combat-tested and highly combat-capable cruise missiles. This includes its Mobin, which was displayed at the MAKS 2019 defense trade show in Russia last summer. That cruise missile has a range of 280 miles, a speed of 560 miles per hour and can carry a warhead of up to 265 pounds, while it also has a low radar cross-section and high radar-evading capability. 

Iran has the largest missile arsenal in the Middle East—one that includes land-attack cruise missiles as well as anti-ship cruise missiles that can be launched from land, sea or air. Stopping a cruise missile isn’t impossible, but right now there are no operational weapons systems that can provide air defense against terrain-hugging cruise missiles over land.   

Exporting These Weapons 

While Iran hasn’t been able to build up a robust domestic defense industry, the Islamic Republic has looked to eventually export its indigenously-developed cruise missiles.

“Iran’s displays of advancements in arms development and production are not only a strategic exercise to attract new buyers, but also reveals the possibility of the country being a bedrock of arms imports to fill gaps in its capabilities,” Mathew George, Ph.D., aerospace & defense analyst at GlobalData, a leading data and analytics company, said in an email to the National Interest. 

“Iran has developed its military capabilities domestically over the past decade or so to circumvent the arms embargo, leading to the occasional demonstration and announcement of new aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and developments in armaments,” George added. “Yet, concerns still exist around whether the specifications mentioned are definite capabilities or whether they are hyped versions of older devices, with the latest Qasem Soleimani missile looking identical to the older Shahab 3 ballistic missile.” 

Regional Stability 

Iran is going down a road other “isolated” nations have been forced to travel—developing a local way to produce weapons. This is because western sanctions and arms embargoes that have been directed against Iran have only served to create a vacuum that the country’s nascent has struggled to fill. Iran has what can be described as an enthusiastic, if not quite cutting-edge military-industrial complex. 

Now it is beginning to take the first step toward being an arms supplier—something that could be a concern to the stability in the Middle East and beyond.

“While these developments are a cause of concern for many countries in the region, an additional supplier of arms into the global market will be welcomed by many countries interested in these technologies, but without the deep pockets and rigorous prerequisites required to purchase from traditional suppliers,” explained George.  

However, those embargos and sanctions can go both ways. So not only can Iran not purchase small arms, but it could be very difficult for the Middle Eastern nation to actively try to sell its wares on the open market—at least not without any potential buyers facing their own sanctions from the UN or United States. 

“Iran will work to ensure that nothing domestic will hamper the lifting of the arms embargo,” added George.  

Arms could be a future revenue stream for the country, and potentially an important one as its oil reserves certainly won’t last forever. 

“Stakeholders will most likely allow for the embargo to be lifted and a new round of arms commerce to ensue until an event linked to spurious organizations and clear evidence of Iranian support of that event leads to another suspension of arms trade with the country.”

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 this year.

Image: Reuters

Peter Suciu

Russian Navy, Europe

The Kilo II builds upon the powerful Kilo I-class of submarines and showcases how quite and modern Russian boats can be.

Key point: If you want to hide underwater and surprise your enemies, then silence is king. Here is how Moscow is expanding and maintaining its Kilo II-class fleet, what some naval experts call the "black hole".

The Russian Navy’s effort to upgrade its Pacific Fleet has continued in earnest this year. Over the summer Moscow announced that the Pacific Fleet would receive fifteen new warships and supply vessels that would operate in the Far East by the end of this year. Last week the Russian Navy inched closer to those goals when it announced that the Project 636.3 diesel-electric submarine Volkhov would enter service with the Pacific Fleet on Oct. 24.  

“The submarine Volkhov, the second in a series of six ships under construction at the Admiralty Shipyard for Russia’s Pacific Fleet, will be accepted for service with the Russian Navy on October 24 in compliance with an order by Navy Commander-in-Chief Admiral Nikolai Yevmenov,” Russian Navy spokesman Captain 1st Rank Igor Dygalo told Tass.

The ceremonial raising of the St. Andrew’s flag, Russia’s naval ensign, aboard the submarine will take place at the Admiralty Shipyard.

The submarine, which was laid down in 2017 and floated out in December 2019, completed its sea trials over the summer. From the end of June to the end of July the shipbuilders checked the sub’s sonar, radar, communications and life-support systems as well as other equipment. The Volkhov also successfully accomplished its planned submergences, while all the systems and mechanisms were reported to have operated in the normal mode and in complete compliance with the stated operational characteristics.

Second of Six 

The Project 636.3 Varshavyanka-class submarines (NATO reporting name: Improved Kilo-II) has been referred to as the third generation of large diesel-electric underwater cruisers in service with the Russian Navy. The improved Kilo-class subs, which have been nicknamed “Black Holes” by the U.S. Navy, are meant for operations in shallower, coastal waters and are tasked with anti-ship and anti-submarine warfare. They carry a crew of fifty-two submariners. 

The Volkhov is the second of the six diesel-electric submarines built by the Admiralty Shipyard for the Pacific fleet. The first boat of this Project, the Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, was delivered to the Navy last December, while the Admiralty Shipyard is currently constructing two more submarines of this type for the Pacific Fleet: the Magadan and the Ufa. 

Russia has been steadily increasing its submarine fleet in recent years, and three of the Varshavyanka-class submarines were also delivered by Admiralty Shipyards to Russia’s Black Sea Fleet in 2014. 

The Project 636.3 submarines are 74 meters long and displace more than 3,900 tons, and due to their strong hull, the submarines have an operational depth of 240 meters and can dive to a maximum depth of 300 meters. The submarines have an operational range of up to 7,500 miles. The Russian submarines have been considered among the world’s quietest underwater cruisers, and the boats can travel at speeds of up to twenty knots, while they have sea endurance of forty-five days.

The boats are armed with Kalibr-PL cruise missiles that are launched from torpedo tubes from the sub’s submerged position. They are also furnished with modern radar and communications systems, sonars and 533-millimeter torpedoes.

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

History,

The Renzan ("Deep Mountain") met the demands for a long-range bomber, and it had a maximum speed of 320 knots (370 mph) and was able to carry a bomb load of 8,800 pounds some 2,300 miles.

Here's What You Need to Remember: The aircraft could have been a threat to the U.S. Navy's fleet earlier in the war, but in 1945 the bombers would have had a hard time getting past the vast air net that protected the American carriers and other warships. Without a forward base, any hopes of striking the United States were also a pipedream.

Armchair historians, as well as studied academics, continue to debate why Nazi Germany failed to develop a long-range bomber before the outbreak of the Second World War. The United States, Great Britain and even the Soviet Union all developed long-range heavy bombers, but the Axis powers failed to develop similar aircraft. The German efforts included the He-177, a twin-engine bomber that earned infamous nicknames such as the "Flaming Coffin;" while the BF 110 medium bomber had the range but was unable to fend off enemy fighters.

Germany instead put much of its efforts into jet aircraft, while the efforts to develop a long-range bomber bordered on the fantastical. That included the Messerschmitt Me 265, which was part of the Amerikabomber program. The idea of the strategic bomber was one that could strike New York City from bases in France or the Azores. While three prototypes were built, production was abandoned in the fall of 1944.

The Imperial Japanese Navy also developed a four-engine long-range bomber – but as with many of the "miracle weapons" produced by the Axis powers, it proved to be too little, too late.

The Nakajima G8N Renzan – originally designated Type 18 experimental land-based attack aircraft – was developed by the Nakajima Aircraft Company, which had developed the KI-43 fighter plane as well as the Kokoku Heiki No. 2, or Kikka ("orange blossom"), a jet aircraft similar in design to the German Me-262.

The Renzan ("Deep Mountain") met the demands for a long-range bomber, and it had a maximum speed of 320 knots (370 mph) and was able to carry a bomb load of 8,800 pounds some 2,300 miles. In addition, it could carry a reduced bomb load up to 4,600 miles. Compared to other Japanese aircraft, which were largely antiquated by the latter stages of the Second World War, the Renzan was modern, with tricycle landing gear and a large single-fin rudder.

The bomber was powered by four 2,000 horsepower Nakajima NK9K-L "Homare" 24 radical engines with Hitachi 92 turbosuperchargers and four-bladed propellers. Its armament included twin 20mm Type 99 cannons in power-operated dorsal, ventral and tail turrets, two 13mm Type 2 machine guns in power-operated nose turret and one flexible 13mm Type 2 machine gun in each of the port and starboard beam positions. The aircraft was crewed by three but carry as many as 42 passengers. To man the machine guns the Renzan had a crew of 10.

As noted the Renzan simply arrived too late to make any contribution to the war effort. The aircraft made its first flight in late October 1944 and the Imperial Japanese Navy had planned to have 48 assembled by September 1945, but only a total of four were built by the time Japan surrendered in August 1945. Even if the Japanese military had built 48 or even 100 for that matter the aircraft likely could have done little to turn the tide.

The aircraft could have been a threat to the U.S. Navy's fleet earlier in the war, but in 1945 the bombers would have had a hard time getting past the vast air net that protected the American carriers and other warships. Without a forward base, any hopes of striking the United States were also a pipedream.

One of the four prototypes was taken to the United States for testing, but it was scrapped. For so many reasons the Nakajima G8N Renzan remains little more than a curiosity of the war.

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.

Kris Osborn

U.S. Navy,

As Navy innovators work intensely to pioneer new methods of undersea communication, many might wish to reflect upon the decades of technical challenges associated with bringing any kind of undersea real-time connectivity to submarine operations.

As Navy innovators work intensely to pioneer new methods of undersea communication, many might wish to reflect upon the decades of technical challenges associated with bringing any kind of undersea real-time connectivity to submarine operations. Historically, certain kinds of low-frequency radio have enabled limited degrees of slow, more general kinds of communication, yet by and large submarines have had to surface to at least periscope depth to achieve any kind of substantial connectivity.

The advent of new kinds of transport layer communications, coupled with emerging technologies woven into unmanned systems, are beginning to introduce potential new avenues of data processing and transmission intended to bring greater degrees of real-time undersea data transmission to fruition.

Sea water diminishes the power of electrical transmission, challenges identified many years ago by the Navy and some of its partners who have been working on under communication for decades such as Northrop Grumman. Northrop’s efforts date back to the World War II era and, along with the Navy and other industry contributors, helped pioneer the innovations that helped adapt RF communications architecture to sonar today. Considering this history, there are some interesting synergies woven through various elements of undersea warfare radio communications.

A 2014 essay by Carlos Altgelt, titled “The World’s Largest “Radio” Station,” details some of the historic elements of how the U.S. Navy pursued Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) undersea connectivity. Through its discussion of low-frequency ELF connectivity, the essay explains the technical challenges associated with undersea communication, which seem to align with how Northrop Grumman innovators describe how undersea communications will need to largely evolve in the areas of acoustics and optics.

As Altgelt notes: “As a result of the high electrical conductivity of sea water, signals are attenuated rapidly as they propagate downward through it. In effect, sea water ‘hides’ the submarine from detection while simultaneously preventing it from communicating with the outside world through conventional high-frequency radio transmissions. In order to receive these, a submarine must travel at slow speed and be near the surface, unfortunately, both of these situations make a submarine more susceptible to enemy detection.”

Alan Lytle, vice president of Strategy & Mission Solutions, Maritime/Land Systems & Sensors division, Northrop Grumman, told The National Interest about several innovations intended to address some of these challenges. For example, regarding a need to “see” and “detect” more undersea, Lytle said Northrop Grumman’s µSAS synthetic aperture sonar can combine with advanced machine-learning algorithms, to automatically detect threats on the bottom.

Some of the technical challenges and communications form part of the inspirational basis for newer kinds of undersea drones engineered with advanced levels of autonomy, such that they can find, track, detect and even detonate or explode enemy targets, such as sea-mines, without needing human intervention.

As part of this manned-unmanned teaming equation, the Navy seeks to further harness its growing fleet of air, surface, and undersea drones, according to Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday’s CNO NAVPLAN 2021.

 “They (unmanned systems) will expand our intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance advantage, add depth to our missile magazines, and provide additional means to keep our distributed force provisioned,” Gilday writes.

Gilday’s text brings a few things to mind, as he mentioned drones in the specific context of ISR, something which of course pertains to undersea connectivity and reconnaissance missions. His reference to a “distributed” force also seems quite deliberate, as longer range, higher-fidelity, secure undersea connectivity is crucial to the Navy’s Distributed Maritime Operations strategy, which envisions a disaggregated, yet networked force intended to leverage newer, longer-range kinds of surveillance technologies. This is precisely the kind of tactical circumstance in which unmanned undersea drones can play an integral part, especially when empowered with higher-speed, GPS-like undersea connectivity.

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 Master’s Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.

Image: Reuters.

Kris Osborn

Underwater Drones,

Sensors enabled by newer computer applications can see farther and much more clearly underwater.

Could newer kinds of AI-enabled undersea drone data processing and analysis introduce new breakthrough possibilities when it comes to solving the longstanding challenge of achieving high-speed, real-time connectivity?

Submarine commanders and weapons developers explain that UUV undersea functionality is dependent upon limited battery power and would therefore be further enabled by an ability to “process the data at the source of the sensor” to distinguish and transmit only the most critical information needed by human decision-makers.

“That’s the concept, how do you get all of that information back to a human to analyze. Maybe you don’t want to do that? Maybe you want to allow the UUV to do some initial analysis and make some modifications to its behavior autonomously?” Alan Lytle, Vice President of Strategy & Mission Solutions, Maritime/Land Systems & Sensors division, Northrop Grumman, told The National Interest in an interview.

Organizing and optimizing information at the source, Lytle says, requires less power and makes real-time undersea transmission more effective, something which might remove the need to have a forward-operating undersea drone gather data, which can only then be analyzed upon return to the host platform to be downloaded.

“You significantly improve the mission effectiveness of the UUV if you can process data at the source of the sensor, the power and bandwidth required to send back key critical information is significantly lower,” Lytle explained.

This is where AI comes in, as Northrop Grumman developers are working to develop and refine advanced algorithms able to take in “gathered” information, perform analytics and make determinations regarding moments of relevance or significance to commanders. Lytle’s point about forward-operating sensing and computing applies here, as AI-enabled computer systems could take in acoustic or optical sensor data, bounce it instantly against a vast database to make identifications, draw comparisons and perform analysis at the point of collection so as to streamline data transmission and selectively feed the information most crucial to human decision-makers.

Northrop Grumman’s sensing and AI-related computing efforts in this capacity seem to align with Chief of Naval Operations Michael Gilday’s 2021 NAVPLAN, given that his text makes reference to ongoing work to deploy resilient systems able to “operate with infrequent human interaction.”

“Through analysis, simulations, prototyping, and demonstrations, we will systematically field and operate systems that possess the endurance and resilience to operate with infrequent human interaction,” Gilday writes.

Newer, more advanced computer algorithms allow submarine commanders to operate sensors with much greater degrees of resolution and return-signal image fidelity. Sensors enabled by newer computer applications can see farther and much more clearly underwater.

“With our latest systems, you can get down to less than one-inch resolution. It is the difference between being able to discern a World War II aircraft that crashed into the sea bed, or see much more precisely such that submarine personnel could view bullet holes in the fuselage that must have caused it to be shot down,” Lytle said.

From a tactical circumstance, given that attack submarines and nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines are likely to conduct large amounts of clandestine patrols, it seems as though an ability to avoid having to surface would bring an extraordinary operational advantage. This is particularly critical given that nuclear-armed submarines certainly can’t risk giving up their position. Additionally, attack submarines are increasingly being developed for undersea ISR missions as they can more effectively access areas along enemy coastlines, where more detectable surface ships might be less effective. As part of this operational equation, Virginia-class attack submarines continue to receive cutting-edge upgrades adding new quieting technologies making them much harder to detect.

 “A large part of success in the undersea theater is the deterrence value. There is a tremendous conventional deterrence value, because an enemy does not know where the submarine is or know where the unmanned underwater system is... and if you don’t know exactly where it is, you have to search this massive swath of ocean. What we are trying to enable is an operational circumstance wherein the boat never has to come to periscope depth,” Lytle says.

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 Master’s Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.

Image: Creative Commons.

Peter Suciu

History, Americas

It was intended to hold up to 11,000 gallons of fuel that would allow it to remain in the air for up to 24 hours at a time.

Here's What You Need to Remember: By the time the first prototype was built it was apparent the XB-19 was already obsolete given the quick advancements that occurred during the war. While it was the largest bomber of the era, it simply wasn't the most advanced and by the time it finally took flight the XB-35 and XB-36 bombers were already being developed.

What was the largest American bomber built during World War II? Most would answer the B-29 Superfortress, the four-engine heavy bomber designed by Boeing and which was used to carry the atomic bombs that ended the war. However, that answer isn't technically the correct one.

It is a trick question.

An even bigger bomber, the Douglas XB-19, was developed and a single prototype was built. While it was flown a handful of times during test flights beginning in June 1941, it never entered active service. The experimental aircraft had a wingspan of 212 feet, while it was 132 feet in length – dwarfing every other World War II aircraft with the exception of the Hughes H-4 Hercules (Spruce Goose). The XB-19 displaced 130,230 pounds and had a maximum take-off weight of 164,000 pounds.

The four-engine bomber was advanced when it was developed in the late 1930s and it began as a top-secret, top priority project. However, due to inconsistent funding, the production of the prototype dragged on for more than three years.

Yet even when it was completed the all-metal prototype was different from other bombers as it featured an unfinished silver metal skin, heavily-glazed nose section and stepped cockpit flight deck. Its fuselage was a smooth, teardrop-shaped design that featured a deep belly for the internal bomb bay, and it tapered exceedingly at the rear. The aircraft was among the first bombers to feature a tricycle landing gear as opposed to the "tail-dragger" design that was incorporated on many of the bombers of the era.

It was intended to hold up to 11,000 gallons of fuel that would allow it to remain in the air for up to 24 hours at a time. As a result, it was equipped with bunks and even a galley kitchen.

Due to the size of the aircraft and to accommodate the five M2 .50 caliber machine gun positions, six M1919.30 caliber machine gun positions and two 37mm autocannons the XB-19 carried a crew of 16, but also had provisions for two additional flight mechanics. A six-man relief crew could also be accommodated for long flights.

Outdated On Arrival:

By the time the first prototype was built it was apparent the XB-19 was already obsolete given the quick advancements that occurred during the war. While it was the largest bomber of the era, it simply wasn't the most advanced and by the time it finally took flight the XB-35 and XB-36 bombers were already being developed.

In 1943 the aircraft's Wright R-3350 engines were replaced with Allison V-3420-11 V engines and efforts were made to turn the XB-19 into a transport aircraft. However, the modifications were never completed and the XB-19 made its final flight in August 1946.

After the war, there were efforts to preserve the sole prototype, but those proved futile as there was nowhere to properly display the airframe as the National Museum of the United States Air Force hadn't been constructed at that point. As a result in 1949, the aircraft was scrapped.

Today only two of its enormous main tires remain on display – one is at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force while the other is at the Hill Aerospace 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: Wikipedia.

Peter Suciu

U.S. Navy Destroyer, Americas

Now the Navy is reportedly taking another look at the Arleigh Burke-class for guidance as it begins the development of a “next-generation destroyer.”

Here's What You Need to Remember: According to the Navy’s 2020 thirty-year shipbuilding plan, the service would start to acquire new vessels beginning in 2025, but it could take a while to get such a ship designed, and it is unlikely the DDG Next would be able to meet the time constraints.  

The U.S. Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class of guided missile destroyers was developed during the Reagan era and first entered service when President George H. W. Bush was in office. It has had the longest production run of any post–World War II U.S. Navy surface combatant. To date sixty-eight out of a planned eighty-nine have entered service, and the with the decommissioning of the last Spruance-class destroyer in 2006, the Alreigh Burke-class was the sole active U.S. Navy destroyer until the Zumwalt-class was commissioned in 2016.  

Now the Navy is reportedly taking another look at the Arleigh Burke-class for guidance as it begins the development of a “next-generation destroyer.” Last week while speaking at the Defense One’s State of the Navy event, Adm. Michael Gilday said that the Navy’s future destroyer—dubbed DDG Next—would likely be smaller than the Zumwalt-class but would be more heavily armed with a larger missile magazine than the Arleigh Burke-class. 

“When you talk about large surface combatants, people in their mind’s eye, they’re thinking battleship,” Gilday was quoted of telling the virtual audience at the Defense One event.

“That’s not where we’re going. We’re talking about a ship that’s going to be probably smaller than a Zumwalt, right? I don’t want to build a monstrosity,” Gilday added. “But I need deeper magazines on a manned ship, deeper than we have right now.”

Not Too Big, Not Too Small 

The Cold War era Arleigh Burke-class of warships have an overall length of 500 to 510 feet and a displacement that ranges from 8,230 to 9,700 tons—significantly smaller than the 610 feet and nearly 16,000-ton displacement of the USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000).  

Gilday suggested that the DDG Next would be based on the DDG Flight IIIs, the most recently updated version of the Arleigh Burke-class, including its weapons capabilities. However, the Flight III variants are limited in terms of what can be added to the ships. The best option would be to use those systems but on a newly built platform.  

“The idea is to come up with the next destroyer, and that would be a new hull,” said Gilday. “The idea would be to put existing technologies on that hull and update and modernize those capabilities over time.”

While many of the weapons could be from the Flight III variants, the DDG Next would also get a little bit of technology from the Zumwalt-class, notably its power generation capabilities, which could be used to sustain directed energy weapons that could make the warship and the wider U.S. Navy’s entire fleet far more survivable in a future conflict. 

The Thirty Year Plan 

According to the Navy’s 2020 thirty-year shipbuilding plan, the service would start to acquire new vessels beginning in 2025, but it could take a while to get such a ship designed, and it is unlikely the DDG Next would be able to meet the time constraints.  

However, it seems that the Navy has a vision for a ship that could be just the right size, and more importantly which could be developed quickly using the technology of today while being upgradeable as new hardware comes online. 

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: Flickr.

Caleb Larson

Marines, World

Here's a breakdown of the strengths, weaknesses, and roles of five notable Marine Corps from around the world.

Here's What You Need to Know: True strength ultimately lies not in equipment or money, but in people and relationships.

America’s most famous Marine, retired Marine Corps General James Mattis, coined the phrase, “no better friend, no worse enemy” to describe the United States Marine Corps. The USMC is world-renowned, but does any other country have a Corps that can compare? A breakdown of the strengths, weaknesses, and the roles of five notable Marine Corps from around the world.

United States

If sheer size were the deciding factor, the USMC would win in a heartbeat. With an end-strength of around 186,000 (FY 2017 numbers), and around 38,000 Marine Reservists, some estimate that the USMC is as large as the next ten Marine Corps combined.

The USMC is widely considered to have the longest and hardest basic training of all the American services. At thirteen weeks long, it is indeed grueling. Recruits go through four phases of initial training, where they learn swimming survival basics, conduct rifle qualification, among other things, and peppered throughout with a great deal of physical training. Lastly, the recruits must pass The Crucible, a fifty-four-hour field training exercise in which everything the recruits have learned will be tested. Given little food and little sleep, the recruits are challenged with mental and physical obstacles.

Despite being the smallest and least funded of the armed services, the Marine Corp fields several weapon systems unique to itself. One of these is the versatile Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft. Using two rotatable rotors, the Osprey can hover like a helicopter, eliminating the need for a runway, and rotate it’s rotors in-flight, functioning like a fixed-wing aircraft and combining the best of helicopters and airplanes.

For a branch dedicated to the common good of the Corps, the Marines are surprisingly individualistic when compared to other branches. The Marine Corps wear the visually distinct, but highly concealing, MARPAT pattern. the MARPAT pattern is reserved exclusively for Marines and certain Navy personnel that work closely with the Marine Corps.

The Marine Corps has also started issuing a new rifle, and perhaps the best rifle in the world, the M27. The M27 was developed in tandem with the German firm Heckler & Kock as a successor to the M4/M16 family of rifles. Featuring a short-stroke piston action, the M27 is more reliable than its M4/M16 predecessors. It is also much more accurate, with an effective range of nearly 800 meters and a Minute of Arc of 2 (a measure of accuracy), compared with the M16 MOA of 4.5.

Nearly all Mission Occupational Specialties, or MOS, in the Marine Corps exist to support the infantryman. Marine air supports Marines on the ground, and organic armor and artillery simplify their support, as they do not necessarily need to coordinate with other services during combat.

At the end of the day, it’s the people that make the USMC so unique. It is the most lopsidedly male of the armed services, and the youngest—without an age waiver, you can’t join over 28 years old. Despite their youth and small size, they are formidable.

Russia

Like their American counterparts, the Russian Naval infantry’s insignia features a fouled anchor, signifying the trials and hardships that Marines face on sea and land. Russian Naval Infantry, as their Marine Corps is known as, serve in a similar role as American Marines— Russia’s expeditionary force in readiness, specializing in ship-to-shore assault operations.

Although Russian landing craft are multitude, much of their landing equipment is legacy Soviet, including a neat amphibious tank, the PT-76. Originally designed in the early 1950s, the PT-76 continues to be in active use, despite its early vintage. Due in part to a modest armor package and hollow rubber capped roadwheels, it is positively buoyant, and can ford most bodies of water, excepting rough sea conditions. Two hydrojets propel the tank in both forward and reverse, and a retractable trim vane helps to streamline the hull in the water, in addition to providing a modest amount of additional armor on land.

In the mid 1990s, American Marines and Russian Naval Infantry conducted joint exercises together in both the United States and in Russia. The Exercise Cooperation from the Sea was a disaster relief exercise that simulated the aftermath of natural disasters and aimed to improved joint relief interoperability. This series of exercises, which ended in 1998, saw U.S. Marines in Vladivostok and elsewhere in Russia, while Russian Naval Infantry got the better deal— conducting joint exercises in Hawaii.

In addition to the singularly unique VSS Vintorez and AS Val rifles, some Naval Infantry operators deployed to Crimea in 2014 were photographed with the not-often-seen OTs-14, a derivative of the AK-74. This odd-looking and rarely-seen bullpup is an even further compacted derivative of the ASK-74, and has a surprisingly long barrel for its compact size.

As a part of the Naval Infantry’s mission as a force-in-readiness, worldwide deployment is something that they are familiar with. In Syria, elements of Naval Infantry reportedly contributed heavily to the Syrian Army’s retaking of Palmyra from ISIS. According to Bellingcat, an investigate journalism site that specializes in open resource intelligence and deep fact-checking, members of Russia’s 61st Naval Infantry Brigade actively “participated in combat activities in the Luhansk Oblast in 2014.”

Seen cumulatively, the Naval Infantry’s combat experience in Ukraine and Syria contributes to its perception as a highly trained and combat effective fighting force. The 61st in particular is regarded by some as the most combat-experienced units in the Russian military.

Royal Marines

The special relationship between the United States and United Kingdom extends to both countries' Marine Corps. Technically known as the Corps of Royal Marines, the Royal Marines are the UK’s light infantry force-in-readiness, albeit at a much smaller scale than their American counterparts, numbering some seven thousand.

Unlike the Marine Corps, the Royal Marines are arranged into battalion-sized units, each with a slightly different mission profile, ranging from cold weather combat, shore assault and raids, to direct-action operations and maritime operations.

Unlike the Marine Corps, the Royal Marines do not operate any heavy armored units. Instead, they favor lightly-armored, highly mobile platforms like Land Rover Wolf, a highly-modified Land Rover Defender, or the MWMIK Jackal vehicle. An open-top 4x4 or 6x6, the Jackal is designed for reconnaissance, fire support, and rapid assault, and trades protection for mobility and battlefield awareness.

The Royal Marine standard-issue rifle is the SA80 chambered in 5.56x45 NATO. A bullpup, SA80 assault rifle is compact platform that has had a multitude of development and reliability issues since becoming the standard issue rifle of the British Armed Forces.

In a recent move, the Royal Marines announced a significant restructuring. In addition to new uniforms distinct from those of the Army (a move done by the USMC in 2002), and trading the problematic SA80 platform for the Colt C7, the Royal Marines are moving towards employing a higher number of smaller units, in line with the approach taken by the United States Marine Corps, which maintains a number of special-operations capable units.

In addition to the smaller units, the Royal Navy is acquiring Littoral Strike ships (quite similarly to the USMC), to further enhance their world-wide, ship-to-shore amphibious capability.

Despite the significant structural changes to an organization firmly rooted in tradition, a Royal Marines spokesperson said that “there are no plans to change anything that denotes the strong history and identity of the Royal Marines, including the Green Beret.” The Royal Marines are here to stay.

South Korea

The South Korean Marine Corps is large when compared to the rest of the world— as of 2018, they numbered 29,000 strong. It is also a relatively young Corps, founded in 1949. Despite their size and age, the Republic of Korean Marine Corps, or ROKMC, packs a serious punch.

ROKMC was trained by the United States and thus fills a similar role as the United States Marine Corps, equipped with armor intended to support the infantry, although they depend on the Navy and Air Force for aerial support. Like the USMC, the ROKMC is also subordinate to the Navy, which it depends on for lift capabilities.

Because of the Korean peninsula’s extensive coastline, the ROKMC plays a crucial role in the ROK armed forces. Their main mission profile is as a quick-reaction force and a strategic reserve that could support Army operations elsewhere on the peninsula. Due to both their coastline and close relationship with the United States military, the ROKMC maintains hundreds of American-derived Assault Amphibious Vehicles.

The ROKMC had developed in tandem with North Korea’s nuclear program. In 2016, as a response to North Korea’s nuclear- and conventional-missile progress, the ROKMC announced the formation of a three-thousand-strong quick-reaction “Spartan 3,000” unit. These three thousand could deploy anywhere on the Korean peninsula in under twenty-four hours in the event of a conflict with the North. Their stated purpose is “destroying key military facilities in the North's rear during contingencies,” which would almost certainly be one of the most dangerous of missions if war broke out between North and South Korea.

China

The Chinese Marine Corps (PLANMC) has an essentially different mission profile than that of the United States Marine Corps. Whereas the USMC is technically subordinate to the Navy, it is a distinct branch of the United States Armed Forces. Numbering around 186,000 the USMC is comparatively massive. Until a 2017 restructuring, the PLANMC numbered a minuscule 10,000.

Post-reorganization, the PLANMC tripled to around 30,000 and is a Marine Corps in the traditional sense, operating from naval ships and bases, providing port and ship security, and an assault capability. All essentially in support of the Navy. Their uniforms support this mainly littoral mission profile, which being blue and white, would be counterproductive as camouflage.

China’s relatively recent acquisition of an over-seas base Djibouti and ongoing disputes in the South China Sea point to an expanding role for the PLANMC, which seems to be gearing towards operations farther removed from China’s immediate border. The PLANMC would likely be China’s readiness force in the event of a conflict in the South China Sea, and has made a showing in joint operations with other countries, including Russia.

Significantly, the PLANMC has no combat experience to speak of. Until 2018, both American and Chinese Marines participated in joint-combat exercises in the Pacific, when the PLANMC was disinvited from participating, due to their destabilizing moves in the South China Sea.

Still, China is aware of its military’s inexperience, and appears to be trying to be making up for this deficiency by partnering more closely with the Russian Navy and Naval Infantry through their bilateral Joint Sea naval operations, where they practice and gain experience in offshore operations.

No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy

No conversation about Marines or Naval Infantry is complete without mentioning the United States Marine Corps, undeniably the largest, best-equipped, and most self-sufficient Marine force. This is due in large part to the sheer size of the DoD budget, and USMC organic armor and air elements. Still, at the end of the day, the secret strength of the USMC is its relationships. If war would break out with North Korea, China, or Russia, American Marines would no doubt be augmented by Royal Marines, the ROKMC, or other NATO allied Marine forces. Therein lies their true strength, not equipment or money, although important, but people and relationships.

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

This article first appeared in November 2019.

Image: Reuters