Feed aggregator

One hundred and ten years ago, during what was to become the bloodiest conflict the world had seen to that point, the fighting stopped for Christmas. It wasn’t planned, but on the evening of December 24, 1914, the guns along the Western Front were mostly silent, and fittingly, “Silent Night”—or “Stille Nacht” in German—was heard being sung on both sides of the lines.

The First World War had begun less than six months before, but soldiers on both sides of the lines had already dug into trench warfare. Winter had arrived, and military planners looked to spring to break the stalemate.

At that point, the horrors of gas warfare, constant artillery barrages, and futile attacks across no-man’s-land had yet to be seen in full. However, there were already trench lines running nearly from the English Channel to the Swiss border that stopped any forward movement.

Silent Night

As both sides didn’t expect an attack at Christmas, the guns fell silent until the singing started. Soldiers stopped shooting, and on Christmas morning, some soldiers came out of the trenches waving white flags.

However, the celebrations weren’t as widespread as contemporary media depictions may suggest. Yet, they took on something of a legend.

Today, there is a common image—thanks to the stories that came about ten years ago to mark the centennial of the truce in 2014—of soldiers crossing no man’s land to greet one another. The irony is that while it has been written about countless times in the past century, during the war, the military leaders of the UK, France, and Germany attempted to keep a tight lid on the news getting out.

The last thing any commanders wanted was for their respective soldiers to suddenly have the desire to stop fighting and make a de facto peace with the enemy.

Any mention of the truce went largely unreported for more than a week. It was only on New Year’s Eve that The New York Times reported that an unofficial truce had broken out. Moreover, accounts only circulated as families at home found out, not through the daily newspapers but from firsthand accounts in letters from the front lines. The British newspapers, The Mirror and Sketch, eventually printed front-page photographs of the soldiers mingling.

The French press all but blocked the truce, confirming only that it was limited to the British sectors—which it was not—and that it was short-lived, which it largely was. While not as common as in the British sectors, there were accounts of it occurring with some French and Belgian soldiers taking part.

Coverage in Germany was as muted, but when it was reported, it openly criticized those taking part. That fact isn’t surprising as Germany, at that point, believed itself to be winning, having conquered most of Belgium and made significant inroads into France.

That, too, may explain why the French and Belgians were less eager than their British allies to participate. Soldiers from those countries were less likely to shake hands with the invaders of their homelands!

How The Myth Took Hold Like many myths, the truce became larger than life in the years after the war. The first fictionalized account was the 1933 German play Petermann schließt Frieden oder Das Gleichnis vom deutschen Opfer (Petermann Makes Peace). Written by war veteran Heinz Steguweit, who was an early member of the Nazi Party, the play was far from uplifting as it ended with a German soldier shot dead by a sniper while singing Christmas carols!

However, the Nazis also stamped out any attempt to acknowledge it occurred, and with the clouds of war on the horizon, few wanted to remember even one happy moment where peace broke out.

The Christmas Truce of 1914 was chronicled briefly in the 1969 musical satire Oh! What a Lovely War.

A similar scene served as the backdrop for Paul McCartney’s 1983 music video “Pipes of Peace,” in which the former Beatle played both a British and German soldier who meet in no man’s land. The video was noted for offering a fairly accurate depiction of the trenches at that stage in the war. The song wasn’t released as a single in the U.S. but did reasonably well in the UK charts, reaching the number one spot for two weeks.

The video inspired a 2014 ad campaign from the UK-based Sainsbury grocery store, which was released to mark the centennial of the truce. The campaign featured British and German soldiers singing “Silent Night” before both teams shook hands, played football, and stopped fighting. 

The 2005 French film Joyeux Noël is most notable for depicting the events from the perspective of German, Scottish, and French soldiers. While it is heavily fictionalized, it also offers a realistic look at the situation in December 1914.

The Legacy of the Truce

Sadly, the war didn’t end on December 25, 1914. Moreover, the worst was yet to come—those artillery duels, mustard gas, and senseless offensives. It wouldn’t be until 1918 that the guns would fall silent, and there was peace on the Western Front.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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

Image: Lucas Alvarez Canga / Shutterstock.com. 

“Well, I’m a Son of Satan’s Angels/And I fly the F-4D/All the way from the Hanoi railroad bridge to the DMZ/I’m one of ol’ Hoot Gibson’s boys and mean as I can be/I’m a Son of Satan’s Angels and I fly the F-4D”—Dick Jonas, Lt. Col, USAF (Ret.), former Vietnam War F-4 Phantom II pilot turned professional singer

Even if the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom weren’t immortalized in song by the people who flew her, she would still go down in history as arguably the single best and most famous third-generation jet fighter.

(NOTE: McDonnell Douglas merged with Boeing in 1997; however, unlike, say, the merger of Lockheed with Martin Marietta to form Lockheed Martin in 1995, or the 1994 merger of Northrop and Grumman to form Northrop Grumman, only one of the predecessor companies’ names, i.e. Boeing’s, was retained.)

F-4E early history and specifications

The F-4 Phantom made her maiden flight on May 27, 1958, and officially entered into operational service with the U.S. Navy in 1961, with the Air Force and Marine Corps following suit shortly thereafter.

Nomenclature-wise, the Phantom II was the "sequel" (in a manner of speaking) to the short-lived 1940s vintage FH Phantom, which made history in her own right during her brief service life as both the first U.S. jet aircraft to take off from and land on an aircraft carrier. Subsequently, it became the first U.S. jet fighter in operational service with both the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps.

The F-4E was the last variant of the venerable Phantom to be built, produced between 1965 and 1973. The F-4E has the following specifications and vital stats:

·        Fuselage Length: 63 ft 0 in (19.2 m)

·        Wingspan: 38 ft 5 in (11.7 m)

·        Height: 16 ft 5 in (5 m)

·        Max Takeoff Weight: 61,795 lb (28,030 kg)

·        Max Airspeed: Mach 2.23 (1,280 kn; 1,470 mph; 2,370 km/h)

·        Service Ceiling: 60,000 ft (18,000 m)

·        Combat Range: 370 nmi (420 mi, 680 km)

·        Armament: 20 mm (0.787 in) M61A1 Vulcan cannon mounted internally under the nose, 640 rounds; Up to 18,650 lb. (8,480 kg) of ordnance on nine external hardpoints; 4× AIM-9 Sidewinder (U.S. versions) or Python-3 (Israeli Kurnass version) air-to-air missiles on wing pylons

Regarding the Phantom II’s combination of speed and weight, Vietnam veteran pilot Dick Anderegg joked that this overgrown speed demon provided “proof that if you put enough thrust behind a brick you can make it fly” (a comment echoed by Dick Jonas in his book RBAAB: The Red-Blooded All-American Boy). She set a whopping sixteen world speed and altitude records between 1959 and 1962; five of those records would stand until the F-15 Eagle—another McDonnell Douglas product—came along in 1975.

Operational History (In Brief)

The Phantom II served the United States Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps faithfully from the Vietnam War in the mid-1960s and early 1970s all the way to the 1991 Persian Gulf War AKA Operation Desert Storm (with the F-4G Wild Weasel V variant providing the warbird’s aerial combat swan song [bad pun intended]).

During the Vietnam War in particular, after initially starting off behind the power curve against North Vietnamese MiG-17 “Frescoes” and MiG-21 “Fishbeds” (thanks to the ridiculous rules of engagement imposed by President Lyndon B. Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara), USAF F-4 MiG Combat Air Patrol (MiGCAP) missions ended up with a far more desirable 5.5:1 kill ratio while their USN counterparts finished with an even more impressive 6.4:1 figure.

The venerable fighter-bomber also acquitted herself in aerial combat at the hands of the Israeli Air Force during multiple Arab-Israeli conflicts including the War of Attrition (July 1967-August 7, 1970) and the Yom Kippur War of 1973, before being finally retired by the Israeli Air Force in 2004. Renamed the Kurnass (“Sledgehammer”), Israeli Air Force Kurmass drivers ended up hammering 116.5 enemy aircraft out of the sky. 

Where Are They Now?

There are now a total of three remaining users of the Phantom: NATO members and therefore American allies Greece and Turkey (though Turkey’s status as a U.S. ally nowadays is only nominal at best)…and, ironically, Iran, one of the worst enemies of the U.S. and Israel alike, which dubs America and Israel as “The Great Satan” and “Little Satan” respectively. (I was going to include South Korea on this list, but upon further review, it turns out that the Republic of Korea Air Force retired its Phantoms this past June.)

According to the World Directory of Modern Military Aircraft, the Hellenic Air Force, Turkish Air Force, and the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force (IRIAF) have a total of thirty-three, forty-eight, and sixty-three Phantoms; all three of these users have the RF-4E all-weather tactical reconnaissance variant, and the Iranian air for e also has some F-4Ds and F-4Es in service.

In the case of the Iranians, the jets are holdovers from happier times when Iran was still under the rule of Mohammed Reza Shah, a staunch ally of both the United States and Israel. Iran continues to fly the Phantom due to the fact that international arms sanctions have made finding more modern replacement warbirds rather difficult. The IRIAF has certainly continued to make judicious use of the F-4E in combat; BBC News reports the Iranians used the planes in combat as recently as 2014, in strikes against the Islamic State terrorist group. 

About the Author

Christian D. Orr is a Senior Defense Editor for National Security Journal (NSJ). He is a former Air Force Security Forces officer, Federal law enforcement officer, and private military contractor (with assignments worked in Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kosovo, Japan, Germany, and the Pentagon). Chris holds a B.A. in International Relations from the University of Southern California (USC) and an M.A. in Intelligence Studies (concentration in Terrorism Studies) from American Military University (AMU). He has also been published in The Daily Torch , The Journal of Intelligence and Cyber Security, and Simple Flying. Last but not least, he is a Companion of the Order of the Naval Order of the United States (NOUS).

Image: Giannis Papanikos / Shutterstock.com

A month ago, tech entrepreneur Elon Musk made very clear in a post on X that he wasn’t a supporter of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. Musk shared a video of a Chinese drone formation and offered his opinion, “Meanwhile, some idiots are still building manned fighter jets like the F-35.”

That sparked a backlash from the aviation community, which defended the fifth-generation stealth fighter and argued that while drones are likely part of the future of military aviation, it is unlikely they could replace the role of the jet fighter in modern warfare.

Lockheed Martin UK Responds

Earlier this week, Paul Livingston, chief executive of Lockheed Martin’s UK division (the F-35’s manufacturer), also defended the F-35 in an interview with The Telegraph newspaper.

He told the publication of record, “I think Elon is an amazing brain and he’s done some incredible things, particularly with SpaceX. Who doesn’t admire that stuff? But there’s an understanding of the threat that he won’t have, because he doesn’t have the clearances to understand that. On this subject, he’s wrong.”

Thus, as Livingston suggested, Musk’s opinion of the fighter may be based largely on open-source and public information. That fact isn’t likely to change.

Even as the billionaire behind SpaceX has become a close ally of President-elect Donald Trump, Musk is unlikely to receive a higher security clearance due to his admission of past drug use. Musk is reported to hold a “top-secret” clearance, which has taken years to obtain.

Are Other “Idiots” Building Manned Fighters?

Livingston further defended the F-35—widely seen as the most successful fifth-generation fighter built to date, with more than 1,000 now in service around the world—and pointed out that Beijing is building its own stealth fighter.

This could beg the question of whether there are “idiots” in Beijing and Moscow pushing for manned fighters. If the United States were on the wrong path, perhaps Beijing wouldn’t have pulled out all the stops at last month’s fifteenth China International Aviation and Aerospace Exhibition in Zhuhai, where it unveiled the twin-seat variant of its Chengdu J-20 Mighty Dragon stealth fighter, known as the J-20S.

The event also saw the debut of the Shenyang J-35A, a carrier-based variant of the FC-31, further showcasing China’s growing fifth-generation aircraft capabilities.

“The Chinese are still building their J20 jets,” Livingston noted. “Maybe Elon thinks they’re idiots as well because those are manned fighters?”

Four F-35s Can Do A Squadron’s Worth of Work

The Lockheed Martin executive also highlighted the capabilities of the Lightning II, describing the jets as “flying computers” while touting their multirole capabilities.

“Before the F-35, if I was going to fly a mission into a peer nation’s territory to strike against a well-protected target, I would need a minimum of 16 aircraft,” Livingston told The Telegraph. “You would have jamming aircraft—which, by the way, says, ‘Hello, we’re coming’—then you’d send in suppression of enemy air defence aircraft, because you’d have to kill the radars off, then you’d send fast strike aircraft in.”

The F-35, Livingston said, can get the same job done much more effectively and efficiently.

“I can now do that same mission with four F-35s and no support. And they don’t need protection afterwards, because they can fight their way out,” he added.

Drones Are The Future

Musk has also taken the view that the F-35 is an “expensive and complex jack of all trades, master of none,” while arguing, “Crewed fighter jets are an inefficient way to extend the range of missiles or drop bombs,” adding, “A reusable drone can do so without all the overhead of a human pilot.”

Livingston doesn’t dispute that drones could play a significant role in air warfare, but he doubts whether the human element can ever be fully removed.

“Drones are going to be part of the future and they will be able to provide some level of air dominance, because there’s no doubt that once you take a human out of an aircraft the cost for your effects comes down,” the UK executive said in the interview. “But you’ve got to look at where we are today. And first of all, a drone has got to be able to see a threat, right?”

The Pentagon Sticking With The F-35

Even as Musk has publicly criticized the F-35, it would appear the U.S. Department of Defense is sticking with the manned fifth-generation fighter. Last Friday, Lockheed Martin was awarded a nearly $12 billion contract to produce an additional 145 Lightning IIs for the U.S. military and its international allies.

“This modification adds scope for the production and delivery of 145 F-35 full rate production (FRP) Lot 18 aircraft (48 F-35A aircraft for the Air Force; 16 F-35B aircraft and five F-35C aircraft for the Marine Corps; 14 F-35C aircraft for the Navy; 15 F-35A aircraft and one F-35B aircraft for F-35 non-U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) program partners; and 39 F-35A aircraft and seven F-35B aircraft for Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customers),” the Pentagon stated in the contract announcement.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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

Image: Mike Mareen / Shutterstock.com. 

During the fiercest period of submarine warfare in human history, the United States relied heavily upon the Gato class—the first mass-produced submarine of World War II. The Americans built seventy of the Gato class (and derived the Balao and Tench class from the Gato), making her the most numerous of America’s World War II submarines. The diesel-powered Gato proved to be a capable vessel and is credited with destroying significant portions of the Japanese merchant marine, and to a lesser extent, the Imperial Japanese Navy.

Introducing the Gato class

Unlike modern attack submarines, which are designed to operate more independently, the Gato class was built as a supplement to the fleet, known as “fleet submarines.” A fleet submarine is a submarine that has the requisite speed and endurance to operate as part of the main naval fleet, which for the Americans during World War II, was built around the battleship.

The Gato was tasked with shooting out ahead of the main fleet and scouting the enemy position. When appropriate, the Gato would engage the enemy, incrementally degrading the enemy's abilities before the main fleet would arrive to encounter a hindered enemy force.

Because so many Gato submarines were made, the Navy had time to tinker and experiment; four different modifications of the class were offered. Variations included adjustments to the navigation bridge, a bulwark around the cigarette deck, periscope plating shears, and machine gun positioning. Generally, the Gato displaced 2,424 tons when submerged and measured about 311 feet long. The beam measured 27 feet while the draft measured 17 feet. For propulsion, the Gato relied on four diesel engines, two 126-cell Sargo batteries, and four high-speed electric motors churning two propellers. The propulsion system was good for 5,400 shp when surfaced and 2,740 shp when submerged. The Gato could hit top speeds of 24 miles per hour when surface (and just 10 miles per hour when submerged). The vessel could operate for a range of 11,000 nautical miles, could stay submerged for forty-eight hours at a time, and could stay on patrol for seventy-five days. The test depth was 300 feet. For armament, the Gato featured ten 21-inch torpedo tubes (six forward and four aft) and a stock of twenty-four torpedoes. When needed, the Gato could swap its torpedoes for mines (Mk 10 and Mk 12). Additionally, the Gato had one 76-mm/50-caliber deck gun, plus a 40-mm and 20-mm cannon.

After the war

When World War II ended, the Gato was essentially obsolete. With a test depth of just 300 feet, the Gato was already behind the times—despite being just two to four years old—a consequence of the rapid technological development made during World War II. The surviving Gato submarines were still put to use, however. Some of the Gatos were used as radar pickets while others were converted to transport oil. One Gato, meanwhile, was converted to fire the Regulus cruise missile. Still more Gatos were sent abroad, for operation in foreign navies (Brazil, Turkey, Greece). Today, the last remaining Gatos are on display in museums around the United States.

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

Image Credit: Gerald Peplow / Shutterstock.com

The fourth-generation Grumman F-14 Tomcat is one of the most famous American-made jet fighter aircraft of all time, thanks to both the “Top Gun” fictitious film franchise and the venerable warbird’s real-world historical combat performance.

(NOTE: In 1994, Grumman Aerospace Corporation merged with Northrop Corporation to form Northrop Grumman.)

So, imagine the tremendous irony that one of the last three remaining users of the Tomcat is one of the worst enemies of the United States, that being Iran, more specifically the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force (IRIAF), which dubs America as “The Great Satan.”

Iranian-Owned F-14 Initial History and Specifications

According to the World Directory of Modern Military Aircraft, the IRIAF has a total of twenty-six Tomcats, specifically the original F-14A variant, which made her maiden flight on December 21, 1970. The planes were sold to Iran when it was still under the rule of Mohammed Reza Pahlavi (October 26, 1919-July 27, 1980). Mohammed Reza Shah was a staunch ally of both the United States and Israel, and the order for the Tomcats was placed in January 1974; deliveries commenced in January 1976 (when Gerald R. Ford was the U.S. president). 

The Why

So why does the IRIAF still have the battle-proven but now oh-so-antiquated Tomcat in its fleet? (Ditto for the third-generation McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II?) Well, a reason is the fact that Iran has been an international pariah ever since the Iranian Revolution of 1979 overthrew the shah and installed an Islamist and anti-American regime headed by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (May 17, 1900-June 3, 1989) as supreme leader.

Since then, as a state sponsor of terrorism, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been hobbled by sanctions that make it difficult for Tehran to acquire new systems as well as spare parts for existing systems.

Be that as it may, the Iranians have used their now-ancient F-14s quite effectively in combat. The warbird has an all-time air-to-air kill ratio of 135:4 according to MiGFLUG, and the overwhelming majority of those victories were scored not by U.S. Navy Tomcat drivers (sorry, Maverick!), but rather by the IRIAF during the Iran-Iraq War (September 22, 1980-August 20, 1988).

The Way Forward?

As for the prospect of Iran finding a replacement for both its F-14 and F-4 fleets (as well as the Soviet-designed fourth-generation MiG-29 “Fulcrum”), well … the Russians are trying to help them out of that jam, in accordance with Vladimir Putin’s new “axis of evil” with Iran, China, and North Korea, in the form of sales of the Sukhoi Su-35 “Super Flanker.” According to Aero-News Journal, a deal was inked between Tehran and Moscow back in November 2023; this deal would have also included Mi-28 attack helicopters and potentially the S-400 air defense system).

However, that deal has hit a snag. Back on April 21, 2024, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty announced that the Iranian government began denying the previous report:

“Reports in the Iranian media that the country is to receive the latest generation of aircraft in the next few days are incorrect, according to the Fararu news website. The media had referred to a report by the SNN news agency, which is close to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The agency itself denied the report on its Telegram page after consulting with the Defense Ministry, which last year announced that Iran had acquired Mi-28H combat helicopters and [Yakovlev] Yak-130s from Russia in addition to the SU-35 fighter jets.”

To make matters more confusing, the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida had reported the previous week that Iran had indeed already received some of the Su-35s roughly a year prior but was unable to operate them due to a dearth of spare parts. Evidently, the Iranian Defense Ministry is a prime example of the proverbial left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.

About the Author

Christian D. Orr is a Senior Defense Editor for National Security Journal (NSJ). He is a former Air Force Security Forces officer, Federal law enforcement officer, and private military contractor (with assignments worked in Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kosovo, Japan, Germany, and the Pentagon). Chris holds a B.A. in International Relations from the University of Southern California (USC) and an M.A. in Intelligence Studies (concentration in Terrorism Studies) from American Military University (AMU). He has also been published in The Daily Torch, The Journal of Intelligence and Cyber Security, and Simple Flying. Last but not least, he is a Companion of the Order of theNaval Order of the United States (NOUS).

Image: BeAvPhoto / Shutterstock.com

“The Punisher,” the action-packed Marvel Comics franchise featuring vigilante protagonist Frank Castle, is a hugely successful comic book franchise. However, one real-life “Punisher,” the XM25 25x40 mm grenade launcher, the would-be successor to the M203 40 mm grenade launcher and M320 grenade launcher, turned out to be a failure.

Now there are two new weapons systems that aspire to succeed where the XM25 “Punisher” failed: the Squad Support Rifle System (SSRS) and the PGS-001.

The Basic Premise

According to Joseph Trevithick of The WarZone in a November 17, 2024, article titled “One Of These Futuristic Grenade Launchers Could Succeed Where The Army’s ‘Punisher’ Failed,” both the SSRS and the PGS-001 are finalists in a U.S. Army’s xTechSoldier Lethality challenge. This challenge is the army’s ploy to devise a high-tech 30 mm Precision Grenadier System (PGS) that troops could use to engage targets ranging from enemy personnel behind cover to light armored vehicles to unmanned aerial vehicles. The counter-drone requirement in particular is something that actually predates but has also now been given a far greater sense of urgency by the ongoing war in Ukraine.

Additional requirements for the PGS program include:

-An air-bursting “Counter Defilade Round” that can “precisely and quickly defeat personnel targets” behind cover.

-An overall length of 34 inches (60.96 centimeters) or less.

-A maximum weight of 14.5 pounds (6.57 kilograms).

-A minimum effective range of 1,640 feet (500 meters).

As Army Contracting Command prescribed in a contracting notice from February 2023:

“The PGS will be a man portable integrated weapon system that enables precision engagements to destroy personnel targets in defilade and in the open with increased lethality and precision compared to the legacy M203/M320 grenade launchers … The PGS will provide overmatch to comparable threat grenade launchers in near peer formations in future operating environments (jungle, urban, woodland, subterranean, desert, day/night/obscured). The PGS is envisioned to consist of a weapon, a fire control, and a suite of ammunition which enables the user to engage targets in defilade/cover, hovering UAS targets, conduct door breaching, engage close combat targets, and light armored targets.”

Finalist # 1: The SSRS

The SSRS is a joint venture between Barrett Firearms, best known for their legendary .50 caliber M82-series rifles, and MARS, Inc. The tandem showed off a model at the Association of the U.S. Army’s (AUSA) main annual conference in October 2024. The model had the following features and specifications:

· Caliber and Capacity: 30x42mm projectiles in a five-round box magazine (NOTE: this is a major step up from the single-shot capacity of the M203)

o Ammo Types: high-explosive, incendiary, armor-piercing, dedicated training rounds, “close quarters battle” (CQB) shell (buckshot-like canister round)

· Weight: Just under 14 lbs (6.35 kg)

· Pistol grip, trigger assembly, and fire control selector switch that all mimic AR-15/M16/M4-series rifles

· Topside attachment rail for optics such as the Vortex Optics XM157

Finalist # 2: The PGS-001

The PGS-001 comes courtesy of FN America, the U.S.-based subsidiary of famed Belgian small arms company Fabrique National Herstal (best known for the FAL 7.62x51 mm battle rifle and the P-35 Browning Hi-Power 9mm semiautomatic pistol). The company unveiled its model of the PGS-001 at last year’s AUSA.

As far as can be ascertained, the FN offering also fires some type of 30 mm projectile. However, Trevithick notes that known specifics are less readily available than in the case of the Barrett/MARS offering, but the layout is similar to the SSRS and is also able to accommodate the XM157 optic. The PGS-001 distinguishes itself from the SSRS via its large muzzle brake, which would help mitigate recoil (especially useful for firing rapid follow-up shots), but at the price of significant muzzle blast and flash.

The Way Forward?

The SSRS and PGS-001 are considered the two finalists. Trevithick notes that there is still at least an outside possibility for some dark horse contenders such as:

-American Rheinmetall Munitions Squad Support Weapon Achieving Precision Grenadier System Objectives.

-Knight Technical Solutions (not to be confused with Knight’s Armament Company) Multipurpose Intelligent Grenade System (MIGS) (a six-shot revolver-type design).

-Plumb Precision Products P3-M110 17.5 mm (though quite frankly, that caliber sounds more than a bit undersize for the Army’s requirements).

Time will tell.

About the Author: Christian D. Orr

Christian D. Orr is a Senior Defense Editor for National Security Journal (NSJ). He is a former Air Force Security Forces officer, Federal law enforcement officer, and private military contractor (with assignments worked in Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kosovo, Japan, Germany, and the Pentagon). Chris holds a B.A. in International Relations from the University of Southern California (USC) and an M.A. in Intelligence Studies (concentration in Terrorism Studies) from American Military University (AMU). He has also been published in The Daily Torch , The Journal of Intelligence and Cyber Security, and Simple Flying. Last but not least, he is a Companion of the Order of the Naval Order of the United States (NOUS).

Image: Shutterstock.

President-elect Trump believes that the United States has no important interests in Syria, or so he tweeted last week. This announcement has strengthened the view of some in the restraint community who reacted to his election with cautious optimism, hoping the new administration will turn away from decades of counter-productive foreign policies. More than a few people have suggested that the second Trump administration might prove to be a good one for advocates of restraint and that perhaps an embrace should be in the offing. 

Such a move would be a catastrophic mistake. The once and future president represents not a boon to strategic restraint but a dire, existential threat. No grand strategy will survive the association with Trump and the MAGA movement, and restraint is no exception.

The GOP is riding high now, but it will govern on a fragile foundation. Today, it is less of a coherent political party than a cult of personality, and cults do not outlive their leaders. Eventually, Father Time will catch up to the president-elect. Probably sooner rather than later, the taco bowls, filets-o-fish, and inactivity will contribute to his involuntary retirement from politics. And when that happens, the GOP will face a reckoning. No one will rise to take his place. No new voice will be able to match Trump’s appeal to the masses, his charisma, and his instincts. When he goes away, so does MAGA, at least as a force that can produce victory in national elections. Historians will mark November 5, 2024, as the movement’s high-water mark.

Since 2015, when Trump was on the ticket, the GOP has outperformed expectations. Without him, in the off-years and special elections, the GOP has underperformed. Only the Dear Leader can inspire the MAGA nation to go to the polls.

Trump 2.0 will be unrestrained by archaic constitutional notions of checks and balances and is likely to produce catastrophe and disgrace beyond the imagination of reasonable people. Not long after it falls, there will be a backlash against everyone who helped and everything this man claimed to stand for. Once MAGA withers, its values and shibboleths will be rendered anathema to the next generation. By 2034, it will be hard to find any serious Americans who will admit to having supported Trump.

If its proponents are not careful, strategic restraint will become a casualty of the poisonous Trump legacy. Its opponents already associate it with Charles Lindbergh, Father Coughlin, and the other quasi-authoritarians of the 1930s. If it becomes identified with the quasi-authoritarians of the 2020s, it will not survive as an option for grand strategy moving forward. Years of effort to distance restraint from the caricature of isolationism will have been for naught. Restraint—and perhaps realism itself—will never recover from association with MAGA.

Trump is a nativist. His policies may overlap with restraint, but only by coincidence rather than shared values or goals. The neoconservative is the intellectual enemy of both MAGA and restraint, but in this case, the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. Few restrainers have advocated for closing borders, restricting trade, or drawing lines between enemies and friends abroad. Even fewer support a massive buildup in the Pacific to deter a Chinese attack on Taiwan. In fact, restrainers tend to worry about the potential deterioration of that relationship and many others under myopic, manichean nativist leadership. And no restrainers support throwing more and more money at a bloated and wasteful Pentagon. Most are unified in their horror at Trump’s slate of unserious nominees for very serious jobs.

Prior to the rise of Trump, restraint had momentum in American strategic circles. Revulsion at unnecessary wars and preposterous defense spending levels was growing on both sides of the aisle. Money was even starting to flow into restraint-related coffers.

If the movement becomes synonymous with MAGA, that momentum will come to a halt—not today or tomorrow, but soon. And the damage could be permanent. Proponents may be willing to focus on the short-term gains that the new GOP’s leadership might bring, but they will be illusory.

The restraint tent must be wide and open to all political persuasions. However, if the movement is to be sustained, not everyone can be welcomed. The only acceptable outlook for those who want to build a truly sustainable route to restraint is to jockey for position on the anti-Trump bandwagon. There may be plenty of room now, but once the Dear Leader is gone, that bandwagon will become crowded quickly. 

Restrainers must not fall for short-term policy illusions or sell their souls, no matter how strong the temptation. Sulfur does not quickly wash off. Its odor will stick to whatever Trump touches and will bring down entire movements if their proponents are not careful and crystal clear in their values from the beginning of what promises to be a long four-year stretch.

Christopher J. Fettweis is a professor of political science at Tulane University. His most recent book is The Pursuit of Dominance: 2000 Years of Superpower Grand Strategy (Oxford UP 2015).

Image: Anna Moneymaker / Shutterstock.com. 

“The explosion was due to a technical issue. There is no possibility of sabotage,” the governor of the province said.

The post A blast at a Turkish ammunition factory kills 11 people appeared first on Euractiv.

/ Géopolitique, Vietnam, Diplomatie, Frontières, Cambodge - Asie / Géopolitique, Vietnam, Diplomatie, Frontières, Cambodge - Asie

Eric Lombard, ein ausgewiesener Experte für Banken und Versicherungen, hat als Frankreichs dritter Wirtschafts- und Finanzminister innerhalb eines Jahres eine zentrale Aufgabe übernommen: die Ausarbeitung und Durchsetzung des Haushaltsplans für 2025.

Kazakhstan has become a regional leader in green initiatives with a carbon neutrality strategy for 2060, despite starting as the region’s largest coal polluter.

The post Kazakhstan accelerating nuclear power plant construction, leading Central Asia’s energy transition appeared first on Euractiv.

An early Christmas gift? New ministers responsible for health-related portfolios take office on 24 December.

The post New French government: The Vautrin-Neuder duo tasked with tackling key health challenge appeared first on Euractiv.

Inconnu du grand public, Éric Lombard apporte au gouvernement une fine connaissance des sujets financiers et une appétence pour le dialogue social, lui qui aura la lourde charge de faire adopter le budget 2025.

Des ONG serbes ont porté plainte mardi 24 décembre contre la police et l’Agence de renseignement à la suite d’un rapport d’Amnesty International sur l’utilisation par les autorités de logiciels espions pour surveiller des journalistes et des militants.

La présidente moldave Maia Sandu a été investie mardi 24 décembre pour un second mandat, et a salué le choix pro-européen fait par les électeurs « malgré les pressions » après un scrutin assombri par des accusations d’ingérences de Moscou dans cette ex-république soviétique.

Frankreich wird das Jahr 2024 mit zwei Wahlen, vier Regierungen und einem steigenden Defizit beenden. Das Land befindet sich in einer beispiellosen politischen und haushaltspolitischen Instabilität – und die Aussichten für 2025 sind kaum besser.

Der Widerstand der konservativen EVP gegen den Green Deal gewann 2024 an Fahrt, häufig in Zusammenarbeit mit Rechtsaußen. Für 2025 wird ein weiterer Vorstoß für unternehmensfreundliche Zugeständnisse erwartet.

The new minister will certainly have his work cut out for him.

The post Everything you need to know about Eric Lombard, France’s new economy minister appeared first on Euractiv.