U.S. General Throws Mike Pompeo’s Iran Policy Under the Bus “There's actually no military component of what's known as the maximum pressure campaign.” by Matthew Petti

The commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East said that there is “actually no military component” to the maximum pressure campaign against Iran, reversing comments made by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in January.

U.S. forces killed Iranian spymaster Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani as he arrived in Baghdad on January 3, kicking off a round of direct U.S.-Iranian clashes.

Pompeo advertised the assassination as part of his signature “maximum pressure” campaign, which is aimed at forcing Iran to change a host of its domestic and foreign policies.

“It has a diplomatic component, it has had an economic component, and it has had a military component,” he told reporters on January 7, referring to the pressure policy.

But Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, head of U.S. Central Command, pulled back Pompeo’s claims during a speech at the Middle East Institute last week.

“We actually do not directly contribute to the maximum pressure campaign,” said the four-star general, who commands U.S. forces in the Middle East and Central Asia. “Instead, what our responsibility is as U.S. Central Command, is to deter Iran from taking actions either directly or indirectly against the United States or our allies and partners in the region.”

State Department officials have sold the killing of Suleimani as a way to “restore deterrence” against Iran.

McKenzie warned that Iran could act “either directly or indirectly against the United States or our allies and partners in the region” in retaliation to diplomatic and economic pressure.

But he was clear that “there's actually no military component of what's known as the maximum pressure campaign.”

Suleimani’s killing and the Iranian retaliation was the last direct confrontation between Iranian and U.S. forces. Congress voted to restrain President Donald Trump’s war powers soon after, sending a signal that the U.S. public would not endorse any further military escalation.

Iranian and U.S. forces have clashed several times since the beginning of the maximum pressure campaign, before and after Suleimani’s death.

U.S. naval forces began massing in the Persian Gulf in the summer of 2019 after several oil tankers exploded off the coast of Iran. Iranian forces shot down a U.S. surveillance drone they say entered Iranian airspace, and Trump came within minutes of ordering an armed retaliation.

Iranian-backed Iraqi militias were blamed for a rocket attack that killed an American translator in December 2019, causing a spiral of escalation that culminated in the Suleimani killing. Iran then launched ballistic missiles at a U.S. airbase in western Iraq, injuring over 100 troops.

The same Iranian-backed militias killed two more U.S. service members in a rocket attack in March.

Iraq’s parliament has asked U.S. forces to leave the country in light of the U.S.-Iranian clashes.

More rockets struck a U.S. base last week as Iraqi and U.S. officials met for a strategic dialogue, where the two countries agreed on the need to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq.

McKenzie, however, maintained that killing Suleimani has deterred Iran from further action.

“I would assess that right now we're in a period of what I would call contested deterrence with Iran,” he said. “I think the Iranians have had to recalculate because they did not believe that we would actually take that action.”

Why U.S. Army Bases Should Be Stripped of Statues With Confederate Roots The Confederates for whom bases are named are not heroes nor do they present a “history of Winning, Victory and Freedom.” In fact, they never have. by Mark Perry

Retired Army Lt. Col. Paul Yingling was famous once, at least in the military. Back in 2007, Yingling, who served as an active-duty officer with the U.S. 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, penned an article for the Armed Forces Journal that arrived with all the subtlety of the shells he’d once fired from his regiment's tanks. Describing the war in Iraq as a “debacle,” Yingling blamed the military's senior leadership for America's military failures in the Middle East. His assessment was blunt, painful and controversial: “America’s generals have failed to prepare our armed forces for war and advise civilian authorities on the application of force to achieve the aims of policy,” Yingling wrote.

“A failure of generalship” made national headlines and spurred a predictable response from Yingling’s superiors—many of whom quietly signaled to Yingling that his military career was over. As Yingling later described it, there was “absolute silence from the top.” But in the Pentagon’s E-Ring, where the U.S. military plans America’s wars, Yingling’s article was passed hand-to-hand, talked about and debated—ceaselessly. And over the years, the charge sheet detailed in the Armed Forces Journal article has not only begun to take hold, a chorus of senior military officers regularly defend Yingling's views. Meanwhile, Yingling himself retired to teach high school social studies and coach youth baseball in Colorado.  

Now, Yingling is at it again. In an article that appeared in the June 9 issue of Defense One, Yingling and two retired U.S. Army officers (John Nagl, a celebrated retired Army lieutenant colonel and Mike Jason, a well-known retired combat colonel) urged the Army leadership, and specifically Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, to rename U.S. military bases—substituting celebrated combat leaders and soldiers for "the names of Confederate officers who took up arms against the United States." Yingling and his colleagues identified ten army bases they believe should be renamed (Forts Benning, Bragg, Hood, Lee, Polk, Gordon, Pickett, A. P. Hill, and Rucker—as well as Camp Beauregard), while recommending suitable substitutes: from Sergeant First Class Alwyn Cashe of Thompson, Georgia to Sergeant Henry Johnson, a Medal of Honor recipient from North Carolina.

Speaking from his home in Colorado, Yingling laid out the reasons behind his team’s recommendations. “We identified three criteria,” Yingling told me in an extensive telephone interview. “The person had to be in the home area of the base, had to be a person of color, and had to be a junior or enlisted officer.” When I offered that perhaps it might be appropriate to honor Gen. James Longstreet, a southern officer who broke with the Lost Cause and actually commanded an integrated militia during Reconstruction (resulting in his branding as a “scalawag”—a turncoat, by his former Confederate commanders), Yingling sighed. “Can’t do that,” he said. “And for a very simple reason. He was a Confederate.”

The Defense One article did not have the explosive power of Yingling’s 2007 Iraq essay, but its impact was immediate. The Yingling-Nagl-Jason proposal circulated in the upper echelons of the military, whose senior officers largely endorsed its recommendation. “This move is long overdue,” a senior retired military officer told me within hours of the article’s publication, adding that many in the military had been thinking along the same lines—some of them for many years. Predictably, however, Trump opposed the move, in a tweet-powered condemnation aimed at solidifying his standing with his base, while tying him to the uncertain history of a generation of confederate generals who have seen their names emblazoned on Army bases from Virginia to Texas. “These Monumental and very Powerful Bases have become part of a Great American Heritage, and a . . . history of Winning, Victory, and Freedom,” Trump tweeted. “The United States of America trained and deployed our Heroes on these Hallowed Grounds, and won two World Wars. Therefore, my administration will not even consider the renaming of these Magnificent and Fabled Military Installations.”

Of course, though this should go without saying, Trump had it wrong. The Confederates for whom the Army bases are named are not only not heroes (except perhaps in some areas of the Old Confederacy), they do not present a “history of Winning, Victory and Freedom.” And never have. A handful of examples will suffice: Fort A. P. Hill is named for Virginian Ambrose Powell Hill, a Corps Commander in Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia, who was killed by Yankee gunners at the Battle of Petersburg. The problem with Hill, who sported a red “battle shirt” in combat, was that he was sick, and absent, during most of Lee's major engagements—suffering, it is said, from syphilis. At Gettysburg, when Lee needed him most, he was rarely found. Then there’s the famed George Pickett, who commanded Lee’s charge at Gettysburg, only to be dismissed by Lee himself in the war’s last days, when Pickett’s division was overwhelmed at the Battle of Five Forks. Pickett himself was behind the lines with his buddies, enjoying a “shad bake.” Lee was enraged. On the eve of Appomattox, Lee spotted him nearby: “Is that man still with this army?” he asked. Finally, there is General Braxton Bragg, for whom North Carolina’s Fort Bragg is named. Bragg is arguably one of the worst commanders in American military history (Grant’s army humiliated him at Chattanooga) and was loathed by his subordinates, who plotted endlessly to replace him. After Chattanooga, Jefferson Davis, who might have been his only friend, relieved him, made him his military assistant—and regularly ignored his advice.

Nor should we forget several others, better battlefield commanders than Hill, Pickett or Bragg, though of suspect morals and political beliefs: John Brown Gordon became Governor of George after the Civil War—and reputed head of the state's Ku Klux Klan, while Brigadier General Henry Benning, an ardent secessionist and racist (the “white race” he told the Virginia legislature, is “superior in every respect”), went on to become a respected lawyer in Columbus, Georgia. The Benning family, it is said, became the model for the O’Hara’s in Margaret Mitchell’s Gone With The Wind. The regularly occurring and predictable question is not why these men’s names should be replaced by the names of those who are true heroes, but why they were so honored in the first place. Yingling provides an answer, pointing out that many of the bases were named in the thirty-year period from 1890 to 1920 when the myth of the Lost Cause was at its height—and the United Daughters of the Confederacy were a formidable lobbying organization. “The army was not strategic about their culture at the time,” he notes, “but southerners were. They were well-organized, outspoken.” Yingling points to the U.S. Air Force as a model of how bases should be named. “If you visit Edwards Air Force Base,” he says, “you will notice that all of the streets are named for fighter pilots who lost their lives in their service. It's exactly right, a reminder of the sacrifice that Air Force pilots made. It's deeply affecting, and very sobering.”

The Yingling-Nagl-Jason proposal has gained support inside the U.S. military, and in Congress, despite President Donald Trump’s opposition. Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy has said that he is open to considering renaming those bases named for Confederates, while a Pentagon spokesperson has said that Secretary of Defense Mark Esper “supports the discussion.” The announcement reverses the Army’s traditional position on the issue. And in the wake of the Defense One article, the Senate Arms Services Committee adopted Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act which would force the Pentagon to remove the names of monuments and paraphernalia honoring the Confederacy from military bases over the next three years. “This issue is already decided,” the senior retired military commander with whom I spoke says. “It is a non-debate.”

If there is a last stand here, then this former senior military officer notes, it is likely to be over the renaming of Fort Lee in Virginia. It is at least notionally true that Robert E. Lee stands alone, for unlike Gordon or Benning, the celebrated southern commander remained nearly silent in the wake of his defeat, counseling his fellow commanders to accept the verdict of the war. The issue over which the debate had raged, he believed, had been decided on the battlefield—and Lee accepted the verdict in silence. Then too, and inarguably, Lee was an innovative, brilliant and tenacious enemy commander whose legendary campaigns are studied and restudied. But then there’s this: would you have sent 12,500 of the cream of your army for nearly a mile across an open field and into the teeth of the most formidable array of artillery ever deployed in North America?

Me neither.

Why America's V-22 Osprey Just Keeps Getting Better A powerful and useful aircraft. by Kris Osborn

The U.S. military services have now received as many as 400 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft, a milestone which speaks to the multi-year operational effectiveness of the well-known aircraft, in use by the Marine Corps, Navy and U.S. Special Operations.. 

The 400th Bell-Boeing built Osprey was delivered to U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command to support a wide range of mission sets to include troop transport, resupply and long-range infiltration.

The Osprey has supported land and maritime combat and land war for many years since its arrival more than 10 years ago; its mission success has inspired the Pentagon to continually upgrade the aircraft for service as far as into the 2050s and beyond. 

The longevity and expected service-life of the Osprey has, for many years, been supported by a wide range of sustainment and modernization efforts including aerial refueling and advanced digital networking. There is also the possibility of further arming the platform and the Navy has been working to engineer and deploy its own variant of the Osprey. The CVM-22B Navy variant, in development now for several years, is intended to replace the current role of the carrier-launched C-2 Greyhound aircraft. 

The military services who operate the Osprey have, over the years, added a Digital Interoperability technology to network the aircraft, its crews and other air and ground nodes to transmit combat crucial real-time intelligence information. 

Due to its tiltrotor configuration, the Osprey can hover in helicopter mode for close-in surveillance and vertical landings for things like delivering forces, equipment and supplies—all while being able to transition into airplane mode and hit fixed-wing aircraft speeds. This gives the aircraft an ability to travel up 450 nautical miles to and from a location on a single tank of fuel, Corps officials said.

The Pentagon concept with future Osprey variants is to build upon the lift, speed and versatility of the aircraft’s tiltrotor technology and give the platform more performance characteristics in the future. While few specifics were yet available, this will likely include improved sensors, mapping and digital connectivity, even greater speed and hover ability, and better cargo and payload capacity. Other upgrades will probably see next-generation avionics and new survivability systems such as defenses against incoming missiles and small arms fire.

The Osprey is, among other things, known for its ability to reach speeds more than 250 knots and achieve a much greater combat radius than conventional rotorcraft. Upgrades to the Osprey better facilitate an Osprey-centric tactic known as “Mounted Vertical Maneuver,” wherein the tiltrotor uses its airplane speeds, helicopter hover and maneuver technology to transport weapons such as mobile mortars and light vehicles, supplies and Marines behind enemy lines for a range of combat missions—including surprise attacks. 

Over the years, the Naval Surface Warfare Center and various industry partners have explored the possibility of more fully arming the Osprey with new weapons, giving its fast expanding combat roles. At one point, various services were exploring requirements along those lines, however the status of such an initiative is, at the moment, unclear. At one point in recent years, industry experimented with firing 2.75 folding fin Hydra 70 laser guided rockets to support the aircraft’s mounted guns. 

Adding weapons to the Osprey would naturally allow the aircraft to better defend itself should it come under attack from small arms fire, missiles or surface rockets while conducting transport missions; in addition, precision fire will enable the Osprey to support amphibious operations with suppressive or offensive fire as Marines approach enemy territory.

Is the U.S. Naval Buildup in the Pacific a Warning to China? Beijing had better believe it. by Peter Suciu

Even as China’s first domestically built aircraft carrier Shangong began its sea trials this month, and conducted air sorties near Taiwan, Beijing was put on notice that the United States remains the only nation in the world that could deploy a three Carrier Strike Groups (CSGs) to the Pacific simultaneously.

Last week the USS Nimitz (CVN-68) Carrier Strike Group, CSG-11, which is part of the U.S. Navy’s 3rd Fleet and coordinates with the U.S. 7th Fleet to conduct missions, began its deployment. U.S. Navy officials have declined to say where the 45-year-old nuclear-powered carrier and its warships were headed but it was just one of three CSGs now operating in the region.

Just as CSG-11 was steaming westward from San Diego, USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) left its homeport in Yokosuka, Japan to begin a CSG patrol in the region. The carrier embarked with Carrier Air Wing 5 based at Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni and was joined by unspecified escorts from Destroyer Squadron 15 according to USNI News.

CVN-76 had completed its annual repair in April and held sea trials in May before beginning its most recent patrol deployment. The warships’ 5,000 sailors and airmen had undergone a 15-day restriction of movement (ROM) period and were tested for COVID-19 before embarking as an effort to create a “protective bubble” to keep the ship free from the highly infectious virus.

USS Nimitz had undertaken similar precautions. This followed the outbreak of the novel coronavirus on USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71), which had been sidelined since late March after nearly a third of its crew were impacted from the disease. That had allowed China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) to have the unique distinction of having the only operational carrier in the region. However, USS Theodore Roosevelt has now returned to duty after is crew recovered from the COVID-19 outbreak.

The deployment of three carriers comes as U.S. national defense strategy sees China as a top security concern. As The Associated Press, via the Navy Times reported, the Pentagon has been working to shift more resources and military assets to the Pacific and South East Asia to address Beijing’s growing economic influence and military might in the region.

Simply put, carrier strike groups remain a symbol of American naval power and while China could soon have two carriers in the PLAN’s fleet—the U.S. Navy still possesses 11.

In addition, the U.S. Navy operates eight amphibious assault ships (LHA), which is as large in size as many of the actual carriers operated by foreign navies, including China, and has plans to build a 4th America­-class LHA. The versatile warships can transport up to 3,000 sailors and marines and house as many as 31 aircraft including the Marine Corps’ F-35B, which can make vertical takes and landings and thus doesn’t require a catapult.

In April, USS America (LHA-6) took part in a drill in the South China Sea as a show of force while the USS Theodore Roosevelt was in Guam.

It isn’t just the U.S. Navy that is serving notice to the Beijing either, as the U.S. Air Force has been flying B-1B bombers and Global Hawk drones in the Sea China Sea in recent weeks. Despite COVID-19 and distractions including protests across the United States, the U.S. military’s flexing of its muscles should serve as a reminder to Beijing—as well as Moscow and Tehran—not to underestimate America’s resolve.

Your Tank Is Dead: Meet the World’s First Anti-Tank Rifle This massive anti-armor rifle drew on big-bore rifles designed to hunt African Big Five game. by Caleb Larson

The First World War was a time of terrible destruction—and intense innovation and evolution. Several technologies that are considered a standard facet of today’s modern battlefields are directly attributable to advancements or improvements made during the Great War. Body armor, aerial warfare, tanks—all attributable to lessons learned during the First World War. One of the lesser-known advancements in military technology is the anti-tank rifle.

The tank made its battlefield debut in 1916 with the British army, and later with the French Army. Though early tank models were slow and cumbersome, steady improvements to their designs resulted in higher speed, thicker armor, and better firepower. Though anti-tank mines were effective against armor, it was difficult to guess with any accuracy where tanks would attempt to cross. Artillery was also a potential solution, though they could not always be zeroed onto tanks quickly enough. Bullets were one potential solution to Germany’s tank problem.

The standard German rifle cartridge in both the First and Second World Wars was the 7.92 millimeter Mauser round. It was quickly realized by the Germans that despite this round’s formidable stopping power, it didn’t stand a chance against British tanks. Germany began fielding the armor-piercing K round, or K bullet to troops for use against armored targets.

The round in question, depending on the variant, had either a steel or tungsten carbide core rather than soft lead, which easily deforms on impact with an armored target. But, as British armor improved, the round became less and less effective. It became evident that against late-model British tanks, the K round was completely impotent. Something bigger, with better penetration was needed. Germany looked to hunters for the answer.

Elephant Gun

One possible solution had African roots. The continent is home to the so-called “Big-Five.” These are some of the most dangerous animals one can hunt—elephants, lions, leopard, rhinoceros, and Cape Buffalo. Like a tank, taking one of the Big Five down is no easy feat—and like a tank, requires a large-caliber round.

Drawing on lessons learned from big-bore hunting cartridges, the German Army developed the large 13.2mm TuF round, German for Tank und Flieger, or Tank and Aircraft. This bottlenecked and semi-rimmed cartridge was big—bigger even that the .50 BMG round of later World War Two fame. Since the cartridge was designed to harass or disable British tanks, it came with a hardened steel core. A large cartridge requires a large guns, and the platform designed by the German firm Mauser was not light-weight.

Unloaded, the Mauser T-Gewehr was a heavy 35 pounds. Loaded, the rifle’s weight jumped to 40+ pounds, and was operable essentially just from the prone position. The long rifle came equipped with a bipod that attached to the barrel near the middle, and helped provide a solid, stable platform from which to fire. Using iron sights, the two-man shooter and ammunition bearer team could engage targets up to around 500 meters, or a little over 1,600 feet. The rifle used a bolt-action single shot system, and had an innovative pistol grip just rear of the trigger.

Shooting the T-Gewehr was likely very painful. The rifle lacked a muzzle brake or butt pad to reduce recoil. Shooting was probably done by both the ammunition bearer and main gunner to not overly fatigue either shooter.

Postscript

Germany built over 15,000 of the T-Gewehr. Though the design was undeniably powerful, it suffered from poor mobility. Shooter comfort was also likely a serious issue. In any case, the T-Gewehr’s utility lessened near the end of the Great War with the introduction of thicker tank armor that was imperious to its large rounds—good news for T-Gewehr crews!

To Survive Nuclear War, Moscow Is Prepared To Live Underground The enemy doesn't win if we survive. by Charlie Gao

According to Russia’s Ministry of Emergency Situations, in the event of a nuclear attack on Moscow, there is space in underground facilities for all of the population. While this is a very bold claim, Moscow is famous for the massive amount of bunkers it has available for Civil Defense (гражданской обороны) and the military. The average Muscovite usually has an odd story or two about how bunkers have popped up in their daily life. But what types of bunkers are there? How protected are they?

On the largest level, the bunkers in Moscow can be classified into four types: basement, metro, metro-2, and sphere. The first two types are largely used for Civil Defense. The last two are primarily used by military and government agencies.

The largest and most famous civil defense system in Russia is the Moscow Metro. The metro is specifically engineered to protect against nuclear attack, boasting not only depth but reinforcements on the tunnels and blast doors that allow for a total seal against blast pressure and fallout. These doors are usually restricted to the main stations, outlying stations may have less or no blast protection.

Newer stations are usually built with blast protection using modern military methods. Notably, the “Park Pobedy” station is built using armablocks and utilized upwards excavation for shafts. Normally, shafts are excavated downwards from the surface, but upwards excavation minimizes the likelihood of satellite reconnaissance finding the locations of shafts as the construction equipment and spillage cannot be seen if it is underground.

In addition to the metro, various other civil bomb shelters are dotted around Moscow. These shelters are usually fairly shallow and feature limited protection from the overpressure of a blast. Their presence is usually found by the presence of various chimneys and air vents that feed fresh air into these bunkers. Some of these shelters have been repurposed into businesses and parking lots. These are generally of the “basement” type.

Details for these bunkers are public knowledge, as there are documents describing the minimum specifications. All bunkers must be able to survive an airblast of up to one hundred kilopascal and have stores of food and water for two days. Air filtration systems also are standard. Power generation is also provided to run the air filtration and lighting systems.

After a period of stagnation, the government appears to be spending money on this aspect of the infrastructure again, with a program started in 2015 that builds or renovates old civil defense bunkers. Large-scale drills were undertaken in 2016, which involved over 40 million people.

Much less information is available on the military bunkers, but they tend to be deeper than the civilian bunkers. While military bunkers were first built in the “basement” and “metro” types (the Tagansky Bunker 42 complex is a good example of an early bunker in “metro” style), the military moved onto “sphere” and “metro-2” bunker types in the 1970s and 1980s.

The “sphere” style of bunker was developed as a way to improve the survivability of shallow bunkers since shallow bunkers are cheaper to build than deeper ones. To attain greater survivability, an outer bunker is made in the form of a sphere. This sphere is placed inside a shallow circular shaft. Shock absorbers are placed around the sphere connecting into an internal bunker. Those absorbers cushion the occupants from the shock waves of a nuclear explosion.

Other bunkers that use similar technology in which the central bunker is suspended on shock absorbers in a central structure might also be present, with various variations on the shape of the central bunker. “Cylinder” and “Nut bolt” (hexagonal) types are also rumored to exist.

The infamous “metro-2” bunker style is laid out similarly to the older “metro” style but is deeper underground for greater blast resistance and secrecy. It was said to be built in two phases, with the first being in the 1970s and 1980s, called D-6 ,and the second being between 1990–2000 by the TIS (OAO Трансинжстрой) firm, which also builds civilian metro stations.

However, most sources reporting on Metro-2 are speculative, with the primary ones being reports of hobbyists who may have stumbled upon some Metro-2 entrances or exits or a 1990s DIA report on the system.

Despite the vast number of bunkers, recent advances in fuzing technology for nuclear weapons are threatening to make the minimum civil defense standard obsolete. As fuzing technology improves, such as that used on the American Super Fuze, it’s more likely that pressure levels experienced by the civil defense bunkers will far exceed their design rating.

The Royal Navy ‘Tested to the Limit’ in Baltic Exercise as Russia Flexes Muscles The former head of the Royal Navy called the situation dangerous and warned that the drills could become something far deadlier. by Peter Suciu

The Baltic Sea has been quite crowded with military warships and aircraft this month, and to the observing eye, it could appear that a major war is being fought in the remote corner of Europe as NATO and Russia each conducted a series of drills and exercises.

The British Royal Navy announced that as NATO’s Baltic Operations (Baltops) begins its second week, its two hundred sailors aboard the Portsmouth-based frigate HMS Kent were “tested to the limit” even as aviators from Russia's Baltic Fleet flexed their muscles in a display of aerial power.

The frigate, which is one of two Royal Navy warships that joined the more than two dozen vessels and a similar number of aircraft, traveled well over five hundred miles from the southern Baltic and around the Danish island of Bornholm, to the Latvian coastline during the exercises. Baltops, which is in its forty-ninth year, saw upwards of three thousand military personnel take part in the annual international test of naval and air power. As the exercise name suggests, the goal of Baltops is to test the ability of seventeen NATO and allied/partner nations to guarantee the freedom and security of nations with a Baltic coastline. 

Russia held its own exercises that were likely meant to be a clear counter-demonstration and show of arms to NATO. Nearly a dozen aircraft from the Baltic Fleet’s naval aviation wing took part in strikes against a notional enemy’s amphibious assault ship. This included Su-24 frontline bombers and Su-30SM fighter, which were supported by a wing of Su-27 Flankers.

While it is unclear how close the Russian exercises were to the NATO operations, the former head of the Royal Navy called the situation dangerous and warned that the drills could become something far deadlier.

“The Russians have been very dangerous in the last couple of years where they have flown very close to other aircraft that are operating in an unnecessary and very dangerous way,” Adm. Lord Alan West told the British media outlet The News. “Historically one has always monitored other people's exercises. But Russia has had a number of very dangerous near-misses and the problem is there could be an accident and things could escalate.”

Moscow has raised fears over the deployment of NATO forces in the region and has called the exercises a security threat. Both sides have blamed the other for conducting such “destabilizing” military drills near the borders.

However, last month the Russian Navy announced that the Baltic Fleet will be bolstered with the addition of six new Karakurt-class corvettes from Project 22800, which are each equipped with the Kalibr cruise missiles as well as modern control, radio, navigation, electronic warfare systems, counter-division armaments, and man-portable air-defense systems. The ships were designed to act as part of a naval group or to be deployed on their own.

The Russian Baltic Fleet was established by Russian Czar Peter the Great in May 1803. It is the oldest Russian Navy formation.