Watch Out: Israel's New Air-Launched "Rampage" Ballistic Missile Is Fierce The Israeli air force operates a wide range of conventional guided air-to-surface munitions. But none can match Rampage’s range. by Kyle Mizokami

 It seems "Rampage" works as advertised.

Israel reportedly used in combat for the first time a new kind of fast, long-range missile.

According to aviation journalist Babak Taghvaee, on April 13, 2019 Israeli air force warplanes fired, for the first time, at least one Rampage air-launched ballistic missile at a missile factory and weapons warehouses in Masyaf, Syria.

The Israelis chose to deploy Rampage “due to the danger of Syria Air Defense Force's S-300PM-2s,” Taghvaee tweeted. The S-300 surface-to-air missile, in theory, can intercept aircraft flying as far as 120 miles away.

The Israeli air raid succeeded in striking the target facilities and “destroying multiple artillery rockets and ballistic missile launchers,” according to Taghvaee. He tweeted commercial satellite imagery that appears to confirm damage to the site in Masyaf.

Rampage first broke cover in the summer of 2018. Israel Aerospace Industries and Israel Military Industry Systems announced they had tested, from an F-16, the 15-feet-long, 1,200-pound, GPS-guided Rampage — and had already inked a sale contract with one customer, presumably the Israeli air force.

With Rampage, the Israeli air force joined a slowly growing number of air arms developing ALBMs for non-nuclear attacks. Russia has introduced its own, much larger ALBM. China reportedly is working on one, too.

Among leading powers, only the United States apparently doesn’t see the value in an air-launched ballistic missile. America’s existing cruise missiles — which already are available to U.S. forces in very large numbers — are capable of striking, in large salvos, a wide range of distant targets.

IAI said speed, range and cost are the ALBM’s main advantages. Eli Reiter, manager of IMI’s firepower division, praised Rampage’s “extraordinary cost-effectiveness ratio” but did not disclose the missile’s cost.

“It can be detected, but it is very hard to intercept,” Amit Haimovich, director of marketing for IAI’s Malam engineering unit, told The Jerusalem Post.

The Israeli air force operates a wide range of conventional guided air-to-surface munitions. But none are supersonic. And it’s likely none can match Rampage’s range. “The whole point of this missile is that it can hit targets within standoff ranges,” Haimovich said.

While IAI didn’t specify the new weapon’s reach, a similar but larger Russian weapon reportedly can strike targets as far as 1,200 miles away. It’s reasonable to assume Rampage can travel hundreds of miles.

By the same token, it’s also reasonable to assume Rampage comes with a relatively small warhead. Israel’s Popeye cruise missile, which is roughly the same length as Rampage is, weighs 3,000 pounds — twice as much as Rampage does — and boasts a 750-pound warhead and a 50-mile range.

At half the weight of Popeye and likely devoting a greater proportion of its internal capacity to fuel, Rampage probably boasts a much smaller warhead than Popeye does. To be fair, Rampage’s high speed could lend it kinetic energy that partially compensates for the comparatively small warhead size.

But Rampage’s size means that an F-15 or F-16 probably wouldn’t carry more than two at a time. That limits the size of the missile salvos the Israeli air force could launch at some distant hard target — say, an airfield or chemical-weapons site.

This is a familiar problem for the first operator of ALBMs. In March 2018, Russian president Vladimir Putin introduced Kinzhal, an apparent air-launched version of the Iskander surface-launched rocket. China began testing its own ALBM in December 2016, according to press reports.

The Russian air force has modified six MiG-31 long-range fighters to carry the 25-feet-long Kinzhal, according to Taghvaee. The Kremlin will modify, before the end of 2018, as many as six more MiG-31s to carry the ALBM, Taghvaee claimed.

The squadron-size force of ALBM-armed MiGs gives Russia the ability to strike heavily-defended targets at long range. But not very many targets. “We’re talking about isolated launches — two or three or six missiles at a time,” said Pavel Podvig, an expert on the Russian military. The same limitations could apply to Israeli warplanes lobbing Rampages.

When it comes to long-range strikes, it clearly isn’t worth it to the U.S. military to trade warhead- and salvo-size for the protective benefit of speed, when it can simply launch lots of relatively slow weapons to compensate for their comparative vulnerability.

But for a country such as Israel with fewer launching platforms, a very fast and hard-to-intercept ballistic weapon — however modest its explosive power — might be just what it needs to hold at risk certain kinds of distant targets.

If Taghvaee’s reporting is accurate, it seems Rampage works as advertised.

Japan's Diesel AIP Stealth Submarines Are Deadlier Than You Think China, beware? by Kyle Mizokami

The combination of long-endurance stealth, sensors, and modern torpedoes and missiles makes the Soryu class an effective hunter-killer.

The Second World War taught Japan valuable lessons. The first—don’t start wars—is an obvious conclusion that has been taken to heart. Other lessons were the result of the wartime Allied air and naval blockade of the country, which brought it to the brink of starvation. For Japan, poor in resources and arable land, to survive the next war, the air and sea lanes must stay open, and for that to happen, Japan must have top-flight air and naval forces.

Japan’s postwar submarine fleet is one of the best in the world. With an authorized total of twenty-two submarines, the Japan Maritime Self Defense Force’s submarine fleet is also one of the largest. Japan builds its own submarines, with the work split between Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Kawasaki Heavy Industries, both based in the port city of Kobe.

Japan takes an iterative approach to submarine construction, with a new submarine class introduced roughly every twenty years that builds upon previous ones. The current class, Soryu, builds upon the older Oyashio class, and the two classes form the entirety of the fleet. Each Soryu features a high degree of automation, reducing crew size to nine officers and fifty-six enlisted men—down ten personnel from the Harushio-class of the mid-1990s.

At 4,200 tons submerged, the nine Soryu-class submarines are the largest submarines built by postwar Japan. Each is 275 feet long and nearly twenty-eight feet wide. They have a range of 6,100 nautical miles and can reportedly dive to a depth of 2,132 feet, or two-fifths of a mile. The Soryu class features an X-shaped tail, reportedly for increased maneuverability in approaching the seabed. This maximizes the sub’s maneuvering room in shallow and littoral waters, particularly the straits in and around Japan that mark key invasion routes.

Each submarine has an optronic mast and ZPS-6F surface/low-level air search radar for detection of enemy ASW and maritime patrol craft. As submarines, however, the main sensor is sonar, represented by the Hughes/Oki ZQQ-7 sonar suite incorporating one bow-mounted sonar array and four flank sonar arrays. The subs also have a towed sonar array for rear acoustic detection.

The Soryu class has six 533-millimeter torpedo tubes mounted in the bow. Armament consists of Type 89 heavyweight homing torpedoes with a range of twenty-seven nautical miles and a maximum operating depth of 2,952 feet. The standard diameter torpedo tubes, along with strong American ties, mean the Soryu is also armed with UGM-84 submarine-launched Harpoon missiles. According to Combat Ships of the World, there are unconfirmed reports that the submarines carry a warshot of thirty weapons instead of the twenty of previous classes. They can also lay mines.

The Soryus have extensive active defense systems, in the form of the ZLR-3-6 electronic countermeasures suite and two three-inch underwater countermeasures launchers for launching acoustic devices. On the passive side, the entire submarine is covered in acoustic tiling to reduce both the signature of enemy active sonar signals and sounds from the inside the ship.

Propulsion is what the class is most famous for. Each can make thirteen knots surfaced and twenty knots submerged, powered by twelve Kawasaki 12V 25S diesel engines and one tandem Toshiba electric motor. For silent running, each submarine is equipped with four Stirling V4-275R Mk air independent propulsion systems licensed from Sweden that can power the submarine underwater for up to two weeks. There are also rumors that the last ships built will trade their AIP units for lithium-ion batteries.

The Soryu class isn’t perfect, though: one major criticism of the boats during the Australian submarine competition was their relatively short operating range. At 6,100 nautical miles, the Soryu’s range wasn’t an issue for their original mission: protecting the home waters of Japan.

Australian Soryus, however, would have had to travel 3,788 miles from their base at HMAS Stirling just to reach the vicinity of Taiwan, a voyage that would necessitate at least one refueling stop, and probably two. For the Australian bid, the Soryus were to be lengthened six to eight meters for improved crew habitability and increased range, but the need to modify the submarine for Australian requirements likely worked against Japan.

The combination of long-endurance stealth, sensors, and modern torpedoes and missiles makes the Soryu class an effective hunter-killer. It is, however, a specialized killer, as Australia came to realize, and would have been a fish out of water in Australian service.

As potent as the class is, expect a replacement class that builds upon this hunter-killer within the next decade. Japan is exploring unmanned underwater vehicles, and toward that end, underwater communications and underwater wireless power-transmission methods. What will Son of Soryu look like? Stay tuned.

China vs. Japan: Who's Navy is Stronger? Has China built a destroyer with to match Japan’s top of the line destroyers, or will it have to wait until the next generation? by Kyle Mizokami

 It would undoubtedly be better to see these two fine ships working together than trying to tear each other apart.

The People’s Republic of China Army Navy (PLAN) is experiencing an unprecedented rise in ships and capabilities. China is building virtually every class of warship, from aircraft carriers to corvettes simultaneously, and in some cases, by the dozen.

Of particular note is the Luyang III or Type 052D–class destroyer. Designed to provide anti-air area defense to a carrier battle group or amphibious ready group, the 052D is the defensive linchpin of any Chinese task force, particularly one operating beyond the range of land-based assets. Two destroyers have been commissioned into the PLAN, with another seven under construction and one more planned.

At the same time, Japan is looking to modestly expand its surface warfare capabilities. The government of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has approved plans to build two new Aegis air warfare destroyers, bringing the pacifist country’s overall number of Aegis ships to eight. Based largely on American equipment, the new destroyers will be Japan’s answer to 052D. (For the purpose of this article we’ll imagine the new Japanese destroyers as Atago-class destroyers with upgrades—or Atago Plus for short.)

Or will it? Has China built a destroyer with to match Japan’s top of the line destroyers, or will it have to wait until the next generation? Are the upgrades Japan has planned for the two new ships too little, too late, or do they provide a decisive edge over the 052D?

The centerpiece of the 052D is the combination of Type 346 Dragon Eye active electronically scanned array radar system and Type 518 L-band radars. A Russian expert claimed the Dragon Eye is capable of detecting the F-35, but there’s no firm evidence of that at this point. It is also not known if Dragon Eye is capable of shooting down ballistic missiles.

Atago Plus, on the other hand, is powered by the AN/SPY-1D(V) passive electronically scanned array radar. The Atago Plus–class was not originally purchased with software to engage ballistic missiles, but this is being remedied with an update. In terms of radar, the Atago Plus–class is the clear winner.

The 052D and Atago Plus both have a single main gun in the 127-millimeter to 130-millimeter class. For self-defense against missiles, small boats and fast attack craft the Chinese destroyer has two 30-millimeter guns and a H/PJ-12 anti-missile close-in weapon system (CIWS), the latter a seven-barrel 30-millimeter gatling gun. The Atago Plus–class has two Phalanx CIWS Block 1B, an upgraded version of the long-serving radar controlled gatling gun capable of engaging missiles and small boats.

In terms of gun armament, the two ships are a virtual tie. The Chinese ship has more guns, but we don’t know how effective they are. The Japanese ship has fewer guns but the systems are proven.

Both destroyers primarily rely on missile armament, with dozens of vertical launch silos providing flexible payload options. The 052D destroyer has 64 individual vertical launch silos. Japan’s Atago Plus–class destroyers have 96 individual silos—64 in the bow and 32 in the stern.

The silos on the 052D destroyer can be loaded with HQ-9B SAMs, CY-5 rocket-delivered anti-submarine torpedoes, and YJ-18 anti-ship missiles, China’s version of the Russian Klub. The U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence estimates they will also at some point be equipped with a land attack cruise missile, possibly a naval version of the DF-10.

The 052D has more defensive systems—in addition to the silo-based surface-to-air missiles, it also reportedly has a quad pack of DK-10A medium range surface-to-air missiles, two 30-millimeter guns, and one H/PJ-12 and FL-3000N point defense anti-missile systems. It even has a 24 shot anti-submarine decoy system. Does this help the 052D’s defensive rating? A little, but not where it really counts: The Atago Plus’ defenses can cover a broader spectrum of threats to the task force, not just the ship itself.

The silos on the Atago Plus–class can carry SM-3 Block IIA ballistic missile interceptors, SM-2MR surface-to-air missiles, the newer SM-6 surface-to air-missiles, and ASROC, a system similar to the CY-5. Due to political reasons, Japan does not have land-attack cruise missiles.

The Atago Plus–class wins on defensive capability. The Atago-class is equally capable of intercepting sea-skimmers and ballistic missiles at the edge of space. It can carry fifty percent more missiles in its silos—all of which are defensive. On top of all that, it has multiple layers of anti-submarine warfare capability.

In the area of offensive missile armament, the 052D has a decisive advantage, being capable of loading all 64 vertical launch cells with anti-ship missiles. Of course no navy in its right mind would do that, but it does illustrate the flexibility of the Chinese system. The Atago Plus–class is limited to eight SSM-1B anti-ship missiles that, like the American Harpoon, are too large to fit in silos and must be stored on the deck or superstructure.

The 052D–class wins on offensive capability. It can pack a potent ship-killing punch — if it is willing to trade away defensive missiles. The fact that China has cruise missiles and no political qualms about deploying them gives the 052D a latent land attack capability.

Digital networking and information sharing capability is another area of increasing importance. China has the new Joint Service Integrated Data Link System (JSIDS) system, similar to Link 16. Japan on the other hand utilizes Link 16 itself. Not knowing much about JSIDS, we’ll call this one a draw.

So far, with the exception of offensive armament, the 052D-class has tied or come in a respectable second to the Atago Plus. But we haven’t even mentioned the specific upgrades the Atago Plus will have—upgrades that allow the ship to pull far ahead of its Chinese competitor.

The Atago Plus–class will utilize the U.S. military’s Cooperative Engagement Capability. CEC on the new destroyers—and Japan’s E-2D Advanced Hawkeye Airborne Early Warning and Control aircraft—will allow the ships to share sensor data and provide targeting data for missiles.

An Advanced Hawkeye will, for example, be able to provide targeting data for SM-6 missiles fired from an Atago Plus—at targets out of range of the ship’s own radars. CEC will permit the Japanese ships to cooperate in a similar fashion with U.S. air and naval ships. Overall, CEC will allow the destroyers to leverage the power of similarly equipped ships in the area, increasing their useful range.

The Atago Plus–class is also being built with future weapon upgrades in mind. The ships are being built to accommodate electromagnetic railguns and lasers under development with the Ministry of Defense’s Technical Research Development Institute. Although neither weapon has achieved operational status, Japanese designers appear confident they are just over the horizon.

Overall, the Japanese destroyer is the better ship. The Atago Plus–class will do a better job of not only defending itself, but whatever other vessels it is designed to protect. Using CEC, the destroyers can utilize sensors on other ships and planes to extend its capabilities. It is definitely weighed toward a defensive mission and is weak in offensive capability, but the installation of a railgun may go a long way towards improving its ability to attack ships and land targets at a distance.

The 052D-class is a credible ship but there’s a lot unknown about it, particularly with regards to the effectiveness of the radar and the accuracy of its missiles. Having 50 percent fewer missile silos than its Japanese competitor hurts the 052D. The lack of an upgrade path seems a bit problematic in the long term, but it should be kept in mind that a successor, the 055-class, already appears on the verge of production.

So, if the two ships met on the high seas, who would win? It seems unlikely that either one could hurt the other with anti-ship missiles—both carry too much defensive armament for that. Adding another ship or two to escort—the entire point of both destroyers—would stretch the 052D’s capabilities. The Japanese ship could probably defend two other ships with ease—and then engage the Chinese ship with its railgun.

Both ships have good designs, but China’s is a little more of an achievement because the country’s shipyards are relatively new to building large modern combat ships. Noting that, the Japanese ship is the clear winner in our duel. It would undoubtedly be better to see these two fine ships working together than trying to tear each other apart.

A U.S. B-2 Bomber Attacked a Chinese Embassy in 1999 (This Was What Was Left) Overall, twenty-eight thousand bombs and other munitions were exploded over Yugoslavia, a country the size of Ohio. by Kyle Mizokami

There was no logical reason to intentionally bomb the embassy and provoke China, nor was there a great swelling of anti-Chinese feeling in America that would have provoked such an act.

During NATO’s 1999 air war over Yugoslavia, the Atlantic alliance struck hundreds of targets over Serbia and Kosovo. Most were uncontroversial: air-defense sites, army headquarters and other military targets. The destruction of one target in particular, however, set off a wave of anti-Western—and anti-American in particular—protests half a world away. That target was the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.

NATO’s bombing campaign began on March 24, 1999, after peace talks meant to stop the persecution of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo collapsed. Targets in both Yugoslavia and Kosovo were struck—first the Serb air defense network that opposed NATO planes, then a broader target array including Yugoslav army forces said to be directly involved in the persecution of Kosovars. The target list also included political-military targets inside the Yugoslav capital of Belgrade itself.

Overall, twenty-eight thousand bombs and other munitions were exploded over Yugoslavia, a country the size of Ohio. William Cohen, then secretary of defense, characterized Allied Force as “the most precise application of airpower in history.” Some five hundred civilians died in the bombing, a remarkably low number for such a high number of munitions expended. In its own account of the campaign, NATO stresses that targets were “carefully selected” and that “massive effort was made to minimise the impact of the air campaign on the Serb civilian population.”

Despite the seemingly extensive target vetting, on May 7 the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was struck by five Joint Directed Attack Munition satellite-guided bombs, delivered by U.S. Air Force B-2 Spirit bombers. Three Chinese journalists—Shao Yunhuan of Xinhua, and Xu Xinghu and his wife Zhu Ying of the Guangming Daily—were killed in the attack. Twenty other Chinese nationals were injured, five seriously.

In response, President Bill Clinton made a rare public apology to China. Clinton gave his “profound condolences” to the Chinese, saying the attack was a mistake. NATO claimed it was acting on information that the embassy was actually the headquarters of the Yugoslav Federal Directorate for Supply and Procurement (FDSP).

In his detailed explanation to Chinese officials of the target selection process, Under Secretary of State Thomas Pickering stated that the United States believed it was striking a state-sponsored proliferator of missile parts to Libya and Iraq and a Yugoslav military logistics facility. Pickering blamed “multiple factors and errors” that stretched back to 1997, and cited three main failures: the flawed technique used to identify the FDSP building, the U.S. military and intelligence community’s complete lack of understanding of where the Chinese embassy was actually located, and the lack of vetting the FDSP’s location with anyone who actually knew better. As Pickering pointed out, although many U.S. and NATO diplomats must have actually visited the Chinese embassy in the four years since it moved, its new location had not been updated in “no-target” databases.

Despite assurances that the attack was a mistake, a wave of anti-American protests spread across China, targeting the U.S. embassy in Beijing and consular facilities in other major cities. Tens of thousands of Chinese demonstrated in Beijing, and U.S. diplomatic buildings suffered damage from vandalism. Chinese authorities cordoned off the buildings from protesters, but otherwise allowed them to continue.

Across China, the general consensus was that the destruction of the embassy in Belgrade was intentional. Even the Chinese government did not believe that the embassy was bombed because of an out-of-date map. The attack, intentional or not, tapped into a deep vein of anti-foreigner sentiment in China dating back hundreds of years. Chinese people, having lived their entire lives with the knowledge of unequal treaties, demands, and other aspects of colonialism forced upon a weak China, viewed the attack as yet another humiliation imposed by foreign powers. Much of the anti-Western sentiment was heartfelt.

At the same time however, there was evidence that the Chinese Communist Party encouraged the anti-Western protests. Chinese authorities allegedly organized the protests through Communist Party cadres assigned to universities. Bottles, stones, bricks, paint and even Molotov cocktails were thrown at the U.S. embassy in Beijing. In Chengdu, the consul’s residence was set on fire. Given the tight control the Chinese Communist Party exerts over the country, it is difficult to imagine that the more violent protests were at least tacitly allowed to occur. Then again, it’s difficult to imagine that the vast U.S. military and intelligence apparatus could mistake an embassy with a traditional Chinese green tiled roof for a military logistical hub.

The rush to conspiracy on the part of China is in some ways understandable. There is no obvious reason why the Chinese embassy in Belgrade should be bombed, especially by an all-seeing and all-powerful American military. Simple stupidity simply can’t be the cause; terrible acts such as the bombing of the Chinese embassy must have equally terrible causes, such as a mysterious, racist, imperialist urge to once again humiliate the great Chinese people.

Yet to what end? There was no logical reason to intentionally bomb the embassy and provoke China, nor was there a great swelling of anti-Chinese feeling in America that would have provoked such an act. Ultimately, the conspiracy explanation lacks motive. Hanlon’s razor says it best: never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Why Israel's F-15 Fighter Jet Is One of the Most Feared Planes in the Sky An Israeli Strike Eagle would go a long way toward fixing the Israeli Air Force’s shortcomings. by Kyle Mizokami

The aircraft served continuously over the past twenty years, not only in training exercises but anti-terrorism operations.

One of the fighter jets most associated with Israel is the F-15 Eagle. The first F-15 touched down in Israel in 1976 and the jet has served continuously—and without defeat—since. In 1998, the Israeli Air Force introduced a new version of the jet, one designed for air-to-air and air-to-ground combat. The Ra’am (Thunder) serves as the long-range striking arm of the Israeli Air Force, complementing the new F-35I Adir fighter to ensure Israeli air superiority now and into the foreseeable future.

The earliest versions of the McDonnell Douglas (today Boeing) F-15 Eagle were pure air-to-air fighters. Large twin-engine, single-seat fighters, they featured a bubble canopy for excellent visibility, a powerful APG-63 radar, a combat load of four AIM-7 Sparrow radar-guided missiles and four AIM-9 Sidewinder infrared-guided missiles, and an M61 Gatling gun. The two Pratt & Whitney F100 engines gave the F-15 such an impressive power-to-weight ratio that the new jet could easily accelerate straight up.

The F-15 was large and versatile enough that engineers considered a multirole version, one that took advantage of the F-15’s power, range, and size to carry air-to-ground weapons. This led to the development of the F-15E Strike Eagle, which entered service with the U.S. Air Force in 1989 and promptly saw service in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. 

The Strike Eagle’s performance in the Gulf War stirred Israeli interest. The Gulf War had not exactly gone as planned for Tel Aviv, which had been bombarded by Scud missiles launched by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Israel acquiesced to U.S. pressure not to retaliate, but even if it had decided to do so it lacked the long-range aircraft and reconnaissance assets necessary to hunt Scud launchers in Western Iraq. Saddam Hussein remained in power after the war to eject his army from Kuwait, ensuring that Iraq would remain a threat to Israel. Meanwhile, Iran was in the early stages of its nuclear weapons program. A long-range fighter would be a necessary weapon for deterring, or failing that destroying, threats from the east. 

An Israeli Strike Eagle would go a long way toward fixing the Israeli Air Force’s shortcomings. The F-15E’s conformal fuel tanks would add range the range necessary to attack long-range targets. The dual air-to-air/air-to-ground capability meant an F-15E could self-escort if necessary. (In 1981, Israeli F-15s escorted F-16s tasked to destroy the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak, enlarging the air group and the need for aerial refueling and other support.) A single plane that could do it all, that the Israel Air Force already knew very well, was an intriguing option. 

Israel selected the F-15I, or Ra’am, in May 1994 with an initial agreement to buy twenty-one aircraft (known as Peace Fox V) with a further option for four more (Peace Fox VI.) The order was increased to twenty-five aircraft in 1995. The F-15 had already served in the Israeli Air Force for fifteen years, and Israeli engineers had plenty of ideas on how to improve on the platform. Israeli Aerospace Industries worked with manufacturer Boeing (which had since purchased McDonnell Douglas) to contribute many of the aircraft’s avionics. 

The F-15I hosted a number of indigenous features. The aircraft had an Israeli-made central computer, GPS/inertial guidance system, and an Elbit display and sight helmet (DASH). The airplanes were delivered with electronic warfare systems built into the F-15E, instead of using the Israeli Elisra SPS-2110 Integrated Electronic Warfare System. 

The F-15I could carry all the weapons Israeli F-15As carried and then some. The Ra’am initially carried AIM-9L Sidewinder and Python infrared-guided short-range missiles, but time has narrowed that down to the Python. The fighter also carried both the older AIM-7 Sparrow and newer AIM-120 AMRAAM radar-guided medium-range missile. 

The F-15I’s twin engines and large airframe mean can carry up to 18,000 pounds of fuel and munitions. The Israeli Air Force originally described the jet’s ordnance load as thirty-six Rockeye cluster bombs or six Maverick air-to-ground missiles. Today, the F-15I’s air-to-ground munitions set has expanded to include Paveway laser-guided bombs, Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) satellite-guided bombs, BLU-109 “bunker-buster” bombs, the SPICE precision-guided bomb, and AGM-88 HARM anti-radar missiles. 

The first F-15I arrived in Israel in 1997, with new aircraft arriving at about once a month until the order was fulfilled in 1999. The aircraft served continuously over the past twenty years, not only in training exercises but anti-terrorism operations, the 2006 Lebanon War, the Gaza War, Operation Pillar of Defense, and Operation Cast Lead. The F-15Is were also heavily involved in Israeli planning to strike Iranian nuclear facilities had Iran, a strike headed off by the signing of the 2015 nuclear agreement between Iran and the West.

The IAF’s adoption of the F-35I “Adir” fighter did not dampen the country’s enthusiasm for the F-15. The IAF still calls the aircraft its “strategic aircraft,” with the head of the Air Force stating, “At the end of the day, when we want to reach far distances with few aircraft many arms - the F-15I wins.” 

In 2016, Israel announced the start of an upgrade program meant to keep the F-15I relevant, including a new active, electronically-scanned array radar and updated avionics. In 2018, the IAF was reportedly torn between purchasing F-15I and F-35 fighters, leaning towards the former over the latter. If Israel purchases more F-15s, it will almost certainly end up flying the platform for the better part of a century. That’s a ringing endorsement for a warplane first flown in the early 1970s.

The World's Best Navies Are Helpless Against These 5 Missiles As rising tensions with China and Russia make clear: ship-to-ship naval warfare is back. by Kyle Mizokami

After decades of rapid innovation, the end of the Cold War and the subsequent Global War on Terror all but halted anti-ship missile development in the West. A focus on land operations in the Middle East and Central Asia sent Western navies struggling for relevance.

As a result, navies adopted an emphasis towards supporting land forces and operating in the littoral zone. For the most part, ship to ship warfare was reduced to a 9,000-ton destroyer confronting a 2-ton pirate skiff.

As rising tensions with China and Russia make clear: ship-to-ship naval warfare is back. And with it, the need to reach out and sink enemy ships.

A new generation of anti-ship missiles (ASMs) are on the horizon. Stealthy, supersonic and autonomous, these missiles are adept at evading defenses and hunting individual ships. Let’s look at some of the more interesting ASMs, both deployed and in development.

Brahmos

Named after the Brahmaputra and Moscow Rivers, the Brahmos anti-ship missile is a joint Indian-Russian program. Developed through the 1990s and early 2000s, Brahmos is one of the few anti-ship missiles built during this time. It is currently in service with the Indian Armed Forces.

Brahmos is the fastest low-altitude missile in the world. The missile has two stages: the first, consisting of a solid-fuel rocket, accelerates Brahmos to supersonic speeds. The second stage, a liquid-fueled ramjet, accelerates it to Mach 2.8. The missile reportedly flies as low 10 meters above wavetops, making it what’s known as a “sea skimmer”. It has a range of about 290 kilometers.

The missile is extremely versatile, capable of being carried by surface ships, land-based anti-ship missile batteries, and aircraft such as the Indian Air Force’s Su-30MK1. The air-launched version has a longer range of 500 kilometers. A submarine-based version is under consideration but has not been developed due to lack of interest.

Brahmos packs a considerable punch: land and ship-based versions are armed with a 200 kilogram warhead, while the aircraft version has a 300 kilogram warhead. Even without a warhead, at Mach 2.8 Brahmos would impart tremendous kinetic energy on its target.

Brahmos uses its high speed, stealthy design, and sea-skimming capability to evade enemy air defenses. The missile’s speed of Mach 2.8 translates to 952 meters per second. Assuming the defender’s radar is mounted at a height of 20 meters, Brahmos will be detected at a range of 27 kilometers. This leaves the defender with just 28 seconds to track, illuminate and shoot down Brahmos before it impacts the ship.

LRASM

The U.S. Navy needs a new anti-ship missile. The current missile, Harpoon, was introduced in 1977. One of the best ASMs of the Cold War, Harpoon has aged into a mediocre missile unable to incorporate the latest technological advances.

The Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile, or LRASM, is a leading candidate to replace it. LRASM is a variant of the U.S. Air Force’s JASSM-ER cruise missile and shares many of its design features. Built by Lockheed Martin, JASSM-ER is jam-resistant and stealthy, with a range of 500 miles. JASSM-ER is designed to autonomously detect and attack targets based on an uploaded profile. It can deliver a 1,000 pound penetrating warhead to within three meters of the target, and is capable of being carried by most U.S. Air Force strike aircraft.

LRASM takes a different tack from missiles such as Brahmos. Instead of achieving high Mach numbers to make the missile more survivable against air defense threats, the subsonic LRASM uses stealth and autonomous decision-making to evade shipboard defenses. LRASM will identify high value targets on its own and home in on them.

LRASM should be expected to have a range similar to JASSM-ER. Compared to the existing Harpoon’s 67 miles, LRASM’s estimated 500 mile range will considerably enlarge the engagement range of the U.S. Navy’s air and ship platforms.

Unlike Harpoon, LRASM fits in both the Mk. 41 vertical launch system silos of the Ticonderoga-class cruisers and Burke destroyers and the Mk. 57 silos on the new Zumwalt-class destroyers. This will allow individual ships to carry many more anti-ship missiles than ever before, although this will impact the number of other missiles, such as the SM-6 surface-to-air missile and ASROC anti-submarine rockets, in the ship’s overall inventory.

Club (3M-54E1 anti-ship variant)

An anti-ship missile used by the Russian Navy, Club is actually a family of weapons sharing the same airframe. It is a versatile weapons system with variants capable of anti-ship (3M-54E1), land attack, and anti-submarine missions. Club has been exported to Algeria, China, and India.

There are four versions. Club-S is designed to be launched from 533mm torpedo tubes, a standard diameter for submarines worldwide. Club-N is designed to be launched from surface ships, Club M is launched from land, and Club K is fired from camouflaged shipping containers.

Club has a solid-fueled first stage, which clears the missile of the launcher and boosts it to cruising altitude. After the first stage burns out, the missile’s turbofan engine kicks in. The latest anti-ship version, 3M-54E1, is directed to the target by an active radar seeker, GLONASS global positioning system targeting, and internal navigation systems. The 3M-54E1’s warhead weighs 881 pounds.

Technically a cruise missile, 3M-54E1 typically cruises at 0.8 Mach at an altitude of 10-15 meters. Some versions accelerate to 2.9 Mach supersonic flight during the terminal stage shorten the reaction time of enemy anti-missile defenses.

The maximum range of the 3M-54E1 is 300 kilometers, or 186 miles. It’s surely a coincidence that the missile’s range is the maximum allowable for cruise missiles under the Missile Technology Control Regime. MCTR is a nonproliferation agreement designed to limit the range of nuclear-capable missiles, to which Russia is a signatory.

Developer Concern Morinformsystem-Agat JSC caused a stir in 2010 when it announced Club K, a version that is camouflaged as a standard 40-foot shipping t container. The launcher, which can be carried by container ship, flatbed train car or truck, carries four missiles. It was never fully explained why any legitimate military would want weapon system camouflaged as a staple of global commerce. The launcher sparked fears that rogue states such as Iran (which subsequently announced interest) and terrorists could use it to hide missiles in plain sight.

XASM-3

Japan’s strictly defensive military doctrine has driven a requirement for smaller ASMs to arm ships, aircraft and ground batteries. Japan has designed and produced two generations of anti-ship missiles fitting this profile, but the third generation will likely be a radical departure from past designs.

XASM-3 is an anti-ship missile currently under joint development by the Government of Japan’s Technical Research and Development Institute and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI). Although relatively little is known about the missile at this point, if put into production it will represent a considerable leap over the Japan Self Defense Forces’ existing capabilities.

XASM-3 will be a hypersonic missile, a solid-fueled rocket with integrated ramjet operating at speeds of up to Mach 5. The missile is designed to be stealthy. Like Brahmos, XASM-3 will use speed to limit the enemy’s reaction and engagement time. Using the same engagement parameters as Brahmos, XASM-3 will allow defenders only a 15 second reaction time.

XASM-3 has both active and passive integrated seekers. The missile weighs 1,900 pounds, with warhead size currently unknown. It is expected to have a range of 120+ miles.

The missile will be carried by Japan’s indigenous F-2 fighter. Other possible carriers are the Kawasaki P-1 maritime patrol aircraft and Japan’s F-35A fighters. XASM-3 will most likely not fit inside the internal weapons bay of the F-35 and would have to be carried externally, making the F-35 easier to detect.

Development of the XASM-3 began in 2002, and is expected to end in 2016 — six years overdue. At that point, MHI will need to decide if it wants to create a production missile. Should XASM-3 go into production, it’s possible it will be cleared for export to friendly countries.

Naval Strike Missile

A new anti-ship missile designed by Norway’s Kongsberg, the Naval Strike Missile is touted by the company as the world’s first “5th generation anti-ship missile.”

NSM utilizes a rocket booster for initial launch, after which it transits to a turbofan engine. The missile is a sea-skimmer, appearing to travel less than 10 meters above the wavetops in videos. Speed is unreported but likely high subsonic.

Kongsberg touts the missile as “fully passive,” meaning it does not use active sensors to track targets. NSM does not emit infrared or radar waves that could be detected by enemy ships. Weighing in at 410 kilograms, NSM is smaller than other missiles on this list. The missile has a range of 185 kilometers and carries a 125 kilogram warhead.

NSM is currently in service with the Norwegian Navy’s Skjold-class missile boats and Fritjof Nansen-class destroyers. NSM is also operated by the Polish Army as coastal artillery.

In October 2014, the U.S. Navy tested a Naval Strike Missile from the flight deck of the littoral combat ship USS Coronado. The test was a success, with a direct hit on a simulated target. The test was part of the Navy’s Foreign Competitive Testing Program and does not necessarily mean the Navy will acquire NSM.

A version of the Naval Strike Missile, the Joint Strike Missile, is currently under development. The JSM will be capable of both air to ground and anti-ship missions, and will fit the internal weapons bay of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. It will also fit a standard 533mm submarine torpedo tube. JSM is scheduled to become operational in 2023.