Nukes and Killing Carriers: The Scoop On China's Latest Ballistic Missiles China’s missile program is very secretive. by Caleb Larson

 Although China’s intercontinental strike ability is somewhat limited when compared to heavyweights like the United States or Russia, Beijing’s capabilities are growing. What China lacks in international reach is made up for big time in regional capabilities.

China’s missile arsenal can threaten regional adversaries like Taiwan and Japan, or global competitors like the United States—on their own territory. 

Marching Forward

China’s missile program is very secretive. This is partly because China has not entered arms control agreements as willingly as America and Russia, but also since Beijing only reveals intentionally misleading or opaque information. 

Beijing’s missiles serve multiple purposes. The first use, especially for their shorter-range missiles, is part of an anti-access/area denial strategy in which China and the South China Sea are an impregnable fortress, able to resist attacks from land, air, and sea. 

The other purpose is to threaten the United States in Asia, and American allies in the region like Japan and South Korea. 

Lastly, China has an increasingly sophisticated intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) arsenal that can threaten the United States directly. These ICMBs are nuclear. 

According to CSIS, China has “the most active and diverse ballistic missile development program in the world, upgrading its missile forces in number, type, and capability.” 

Here are some of the notable arrows in China’s quiver. 

DF-5 Family

China’s longest-range intercontinental ballistic missile is the Dong Feng-5 family of missiles. The progenitor of the DF family entered service in 1981. As with the entire DF family, the original DF was silo-based and liquid-propelled, apparently based in central China. 

It had a range of 12,000 kilometers, or about 7,500 miles. The initial variant had a Circular Error Probability (CEP) of 800 meters, meaning that each missile had a 50% chance of falling within 800 meters of a specific target point. Not terribly accurate—but the United States is well within range. 

In 2015, the newer DF-5B was deployed. These missiles carry more warheads and have increased accuracy, up to 300 meters, or about a thousand feet. Rather than a single warhead, the DF-5B has multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRV).

 The DF-5C was reported to exist only recently, in 2017. It’s MIRV capability was increased to ten. 

DF-15

The DF-15 family are road-mobile missiles that use a transporter for launch. They have a range of anywhere from 600-900 kilometers, or about 370 to 560 miles, depending on the variant. 

The DF-15 enjoys more of a tactical rather than strategic position within the Chinese military due to its more limited range and modest payload. Despite these limitations, the DF-15 can be equipped with a nuclear warhead, high explosive, or air-fuel burst mixture, or chemical weapons. 

Because of their shorter range, possible targets are highly dependent on launch location. Given a close enough launch location, South Korea, some parts of north and east India, and Taiwan could be hit. Accuracy and range have both steadily improved with later variants. 

DF-21

The DF-21 family is also road-mobile, and was the first highly mobile, solid-fuel missile developed by China. 

One variant, the DF-21D has been called the carrier-killer because of it’s relatively high accuracy of 20 CEP, maneuverability, and range of about 930 miles. 

Growing Potential

Although China’s intercontinental strike ability is somewhat limited when compared to heavyweights like the United States or Russia, Beijing’s capabilities are growing. 

What China lacks in international reach is made up for big time in regional capabilities, especially anti-access/area denial capabilities. Regional adversaries—and U.S. Navy—should beware. 

China's 'Advanced' Type 095 Submarines: A U.S. Navy Nightmare? How do America's subs compare? by Caleb Larson

The U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence may have said it best, “the PLA(N) will progress to the Type 095 SSN, which may provide a generational improvement in many areas such as quieting and weapon capacity.” Sailors beware.

Despite many years as a strictly littoral force, the People’s Liberation Army Navy has made steady advances in submarine design — and maybe leaving the United States behind. Here’s why.

Party Over Proficiency

For many years, China was the subject of ridicule in naval circles. The Korean War put the brakes on Chinese naval innovations (all innovations really), and the Cultural Revolution also hindered naval advancement in the name of the party.

Despite these setback, China has steadily developed its naval capabilities. Though Chinese naval advancement was initially focused on near-shore capabilities like smaller diesel submarines, shore-based missile defense, or fast littoral boats, China is now possibly capable of fielding a true blue-water submarine force.

Speaking last year at a Naval event, Captain Chester Parks, commanding officer of the Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, said that foreign adversaries "are definitely catching up to us,” in the realm of submarine technology.

The Office of Naval Intelligence concurred, saying “the PLA(N) is currently transitioning from older, less reliable attack submarines like the Romeo SS, Ming SS and Han SSN to the more modern Kilo SS, Yuan SS, Shang SSN and the Type 095 SSN,” later calling the Type 095 “advanced.”

Marco

Submarines try to stay hidden when puttering around underwater. Put simply, there are two important variables at play when submarines play hide-and-seek: how loud a submarine is, and how good submarines are at detecting other submarines.

The naval expert H I Sutton detailed that ambient ocean noise is around 90 decibels, or roughly a motorcycle at 25 feet away. Submarines try to get to that noise level, or below there.

According to Sutton, western submarines made it to about the 90-decibel threshold twenty to thirty years ago. The U.S. Navy’s improved Los Angeles-class subs are near 110 decibels.

“Ten years ago the latest Chinese attack submarines were considered to be as quiet as the latest Russian Akula Class submarines” H I Sutton remarked. "Since these estimates were published in 2007, China has launched two improved variants of the Type-093 submarine. So it is a reasonable assumption that the latest Chinese boats will already be quieter.”

One commentator found it likely that the Type 095 would have electronic noise-cancellation technology, like your noise-canceling headphones, a shaftless drive, and a single hull. All of these would be a huge step forward for China’s submarine program.

The newer Type 095 submarines are just beginning to enter the water or will be able to in the near future. Would it be reasonable to assume the Type 095 would be even more advanced — that is quieter — than it’s predecessors? Absolutely.

Polo

The other factor, detection, is difficult to gauge.

Submarines use sonar to detect other subs. Sonar systems are typically trailed out behind submarines on lines. They can also be arrayed along the sides of the sub. Chinese submarines make use of both systems. How advanced are Chinese designs? Hard to say definitely — but almost certainly getting better and better.

Steady March into the Deep

While it is hard to estimate Chines submarine abilities with absolute certainty, submarine quietness trends are clear — they’re not getting any louder.

The U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence may have said it best, “the PLA(N) will progress to the Type 095 SSN, which may provide a generational improvement in many areas such as quieting and weapon capacity.” Sailors beware.

China's (from Russia) Kilo-Class Submarines Can Sink Just About Anything China's very own "black holes." by Caleb Larson

Chinese submarine technology has progressed in leaps and bounds, and the Kilo-class may be to thank. Even though China does seem to be more intent on projecting force farther and farther away from the Chinese mainland, the Kilo-class is nevertheless the backbone of China’s anti-access/area denial strategy at sea—especially close to home. It would be wise for surface ships in China’s backyard to be wary. 

These Soviet-designed submarines are the backbone of China’s non-nuclear submarine fleet—and are very hard to detect. Here’s how they may give China an edge in the South China Sea. 

Soviet Union Surplus

The Kilo-class was originally a Soviet-designed boat that entered service in 1980. They are relatively small diesel-electric attack submarines intended for both anti-surface warfare and anti-submarine warfare. What makes them special is that they have reduced acoustic signatures that are hard to track, known colloquially as “black holes.” 

The Kilo-class is outfitted with anechoic tiles that adhere to the outside of the submarine’s hull. Anechoic tiles are essentially rubberized tiles that have been impregnated with air bubbles of varying size. The air bubbles are optimized for absorbing enemy sonar at different depths and can distort the returning sonar signal from enemy ships or submarines in order to make the sub harder to track. 

Because the Kilo-class uses diesel-electric propulsion, they have shorter range and endurance than nuclear powered submarines. Naval expert H. I. Sutton explained that the Kilo-class “uses heavy-duty lead-acid batteries to power the propeller. These are occasionally recharged using diesel generators, an arrangement known as diesel-electric.”

Recharging the Kilo’s batteries takes time away from missions, and requires surfacing or raising a snorkel near the surface which is risky because the sub might be detected. In addition to oxygen, other mission limitations include the crew’s food and water supplies, as well as diesel fuel for the on-board diesel generators used in battery recharging. 

Kilo-class submarines have a crew complement of fifty-two and can be out on patrol for over a month—up to forty-five days. It’s maximum dive depth is about 300 meters, or a thousand feet, and reportedly the subs have a range of 12,000 kilometers, or about 7,500 miles.

Chinese Optimum

The People’s Liberation Army Navy ordered the first Kilos from Russia in 1994 and has bought up more quite readily since, purchasing two upgraded Kilo variants in 1996, and eight more upgraded Kilos in 2002. 

China’s Kilo-class are optimized for the defense of China’s coasts and for military actions against Taiwan due to both their size and stealth. 

Because of the Kilo’s relatively small size, it can operate and maneuver in the shallow coastal waters near China, or in the South China Sea more easily than large nuclear submarines, which can struggle to maneuver at low depths. Despite having significantly less endurance than other nuclear submarines, diesel-electric submarines, especially compact hulls, can be more capable than nuclear submarines in some circumstances. 

The latest Kilo variants are among the quietest submarines in the Chinese and Russian navies. Upgraded Kilos are “slightly longer in length—the sub’s submerged displacement is around 4,000 tons—and features improved engines, an improved combat system, as well as new noise reduction technology.” Coupled with sonar-absorbent anechoic tiles, Kilos are deadly silent. 

A2/AD

Chinese submarine technology has progressed in leaps and bounds, and the Kilo-class may be to thank. Even though China does seem to be more intent on projecting force farther and farther away from the Chinese mainland, the Kilo-class is nevertheless the backbone of China’s anti-access/area denial strategy at sea—especially close to home. It would be wise for surface ships in China’s backyard to be wary. 

How AI Will Help Control the Army's Fighting Vehicles It would be a boon if it could be pulled off. by Kris Osborn

The U.S. Army wants future armored vehicles to instantly make decisions about terrain navigation, target identification, incoming enemy fire, and force positions and warfare strategy. In fact, the military wants this to happen in a matter of seconds and all without every nuance needing to be controlled or micro-managed by humans. It is a known and often discussed concept, rapidly gaining traction as new technology continues to emerge at rocket speed.

The kinds of initiatives are now taking on a newer, more advanced character as AI-enabled sensors, computers and targeting systems increasingly process and organize information more quickly, enabling ever-advancing measures of autonomy. 

Dr. Bruce Jette, Assistant Secretary of the Army, Acquisition, Logistics & Technology, told TNI that weapons developers are seeking a ground vehicle “sensor fusion” to enable soldiers to make rapid decisions when faced with fast-changing combat variables. 

“Vehicle crews are seeking optimal data to understand the terrain in front of them, to decide whether or not they should drive into it. Can I activate additional sensors, whether active or passive, to discern what really is there?” Jette told TNI. 

Commercial applications of autonomy, such as those now used for driverless cars, have been advancing for quite some time, however Army developers have been taking on something quite different. Combat vehicles need autonomy not just for linear navigation but rather for an integrated series of complex, fast-changing variables such as incoming attacks, rocky terrain, air integration, and means to optimize methods of attack. 

“We don’t want Soldiers to be operating these remote-controlled vehicles with their heads down, constantly paying attention to the vehicle in order to control it. We want these systems to be fully autonomous so that these Soldiers can do their jobs and these autonomous systems can work as teammates and perform effectively in the battlefield,” Dr. John Fossaceca, Artificial Intelligence for Maneuver and Mobility Program Manager, Army Research Laboratory, Combat Capabilities Development Command, Army Futures Command, said in an Army report. 

Jette used an interesting term when describing the Army’s sought-after technological advantages, calling it a kind of “sensor fusion.” This term was not likely used by accident, as it often refers to the integrated sensor applications now operational in the F-35. Using early iterations of AI, computers on-board the F-35 are able to take otherwise disparate or stovepiped streams of combat relevant data, perform analytics on the information, organize it and present a single coherent picture for pilots to view. A single screen display, therefore, contains integrated navigational, targeting, flight details and threat information simultaneously. It merges a 360-degree camera system called Distributed Aperture System with a long-range Electro-optical Targeting System and other crucial flight variables. A ground equivalent to this kind application would seem to call upon an even greater measure of complexity, as ground autonomy must account for a wider range of variables.

The concept is aligned with ongoing research into new generations of AI being engineered to not only gather and organize information for human decision makers but also advance networking between humans and machines. Drawing upon advanced algorithms, computer technology can organize, and disseminate otherwise dis-aggregated pools of data in seconds. AI-empowered sensors can bounce incoming images, video or data off a seemingly limitless existing database to assess comparisons, differences and perform near real-time analytics. This kind of phenomenon seems to represent exactly what Jette was thinking of when he mentioned integrated armored vehicle sensors analyzing the upcoming terrain to make immediate decisions. At the speed of the most advanced computer processing, various AI systems can simultaneously organize and share information, perform analyses and solve certain problems otherwise impossible for human to address within any kind of comparable timeframe. At the same time, there are many key attributes, faculties and problem-solving abilities unique to human cognition.

Jette explained that the technology has made massive leaps forward since earlier iterations of sensor integration were pursued previously in the Army Future Combat Systems (FCS) program. FCS, which began to take shape more than ten years ago, built a small fleet of Manned-Ground Vehicles engineered with advanced sensors to provide a 360-degree camera view of surrounding terrain. The Army’s now-cancelled Non-Line of Sight Cannon, for instance, was built with integrated surrounding cameras, however Jette explained the system lacked the maturity to make key combat-sensitive distinctions. Jette, who participated in FCS development while at White Sands Missile Range, N.M., years ago, said the FCS “optical systems would try to figure out what they were seeing in a ‘dark spot.’ They could not tell whether it was a shadow or a VBIED (Vehicle-Borne IED). You needed multiple sensors from different angles with a more holistic view.” 

Interestingly, while cancelled more than a decade ago, the fundamental networking concept pursued for the FCS program remains largely intact, if with different and far more advanced technical systems. FCS was engineered upon the technical premise that a fleet of forces would operate in a coordinated “networked” fashion wherein otherwise disparate sensors would share information in real time. It was envisioned as a layered system of sensors. For example, the MGVs were built to be lighter weight than other comparable combat platforms due to what developers called a “survivability onion.” The concept here was that an armored combat vehicle could be faster, lighter weight and more expeditionary by virtue of having a surrounding layered sensor system with which to detect and destroy incoming enemy fire. While this basic premise, as made manifest in early MGV prototypes, was deemed insufficiently survivable and cancelled, the fundamental strategic effort to sustain survivability while optimizing lighter-weight combat vehicles, persists to this day. Moreover, it is informing many of the parameters of the Army’s more expeditionary “light tank,” the Mobile Protected Firepower vehicle. 

New technologies, including active protection systems, lighter weight armored materials, new sensor applications and rapid advancements with AI are now making the initial FCS vision much more attainable. Reconciling or optimizing a seemingly contradictory balance between survivability and mobility very much informs the Army rationale for its family of Next-Generation Combat Vehicles. Given this, it is not surprising that the advent of advanced, AI-empowered computer algorithms are greatly impacting the developmental equation, as explained by Jette.

Using AI, sensor integration and integrated command and control, the Army is already demonstrating new applications for autonomous systems in combat. For instance, teams of Army robots conducted a “deep assault through a breach” during an exercise last year. The experiment was intended to prepare the service for a new kind of man-machine drone warfare.

The Army exercise, which pitted groups of unmanned vehicles or ground drones against a mock enemy “tank ditch” and “minefield,” was part of a massive service-wide modernization effort to prepare for a new generation of combat—one wherein self-navigating drones directly confront enemy fire in high-threat war scenarios while humans perform command and control at safer distances.

During the Army demonstration, which took place several months ago, there “was not a single soldier in any vehicle” conducting the initial breach, Commander of Army Futures Command, Gen. John Murray, told reporters.

Various kinds of advanced autonomy, naturally, already exist, such as self-guiding aerial drones and the Navy’s emerging “ghost fleet” of coordinated unmanned surface vessels operating in tandem. Most kinds of air and sea autonomous vehicles confront fewer operational challenges when compared to ground autonomy. Nevertheless, the concepts and developmental trajectory between air, land and ground autonomy have distinct similarities; they are engineered to operate as part of a coordinated group of platforms able to share sensor information, gather targeting data and forward-position weapons—all while remaining networked with human decision makers.

“Future military missions are going to require autonomous vehicles that can determine what the passable routes might be, calculate the best route and make assessment about what’s happening in the environment,” Fossaceca said

China Fears Admitting Galwan Casualties May Lead To Unrest: Dissident Jianli Yang, a Chinese dissident and son of a former Communist Party leader, said "The CCP leadership cannot afford to undermine the veterans' potential to launch a collective and armed anti-regime action"

Disgruntled Chinese Army cadres may launch an armed conflict, says dissident.

Disgruntled retired and serving Chinese Army cadres, who are hurt by the treatment meted out by the government, can launch an "armed" anti-regime action against Xi Jinping's government, said Jianli Yang, a Chinese dissident and son of a former Communist Party leader.

In an opinion piece in The Washington Post, Jianli Yang, the founder and president of Citizen Power Initiatives for China, writes that Beijing fears that the admitting that it had lost troops, that too more in number than its opponent, could lead to major domestic unrest that can even put the regime of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) at stake.

"The PLA has long been a key pillar of the CCP's power. If the sentiments of the serving PLA cadres are hurt and they get together with the millions of disgruntled veterans (which may be facilitated by those within the PLA who are already unhappy with Xi -- and there are thousands of them, such as those who were hurt by Xi's move to separate PLA from commercial activities), they could form a formidable force capable of challenging Xi's leadership," he writes.

"Significantly, the CCP leadership cannot afford to undermine the veterans' potential to launch a collective and armed anti-regime action. Hence, the continuing incidence of veterans' protests, despite significant coercive pressure and bureaucratic measures, is a source of intense anxiety for Xi Jinping and the CCP leadership," he adds.

Jianli cited the recent example of the recent face-off between Indian and Chinese troops at Galwan Valley, during which both sides suffered casualties.

When asked to confirm the number of casualties China had suffered in the recent clash in the Galwan Valley, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian did not acknowledge that there were casualties on the Chinese side, saying "I have no information to offer."

Yet again, when the question was posed the next day (June 23), Zhao avoided giving any details from the Chinese side, but was quick to retort that Indian media reports claiming that at least 40 Chinese soldiers were killed was "false information".

"Even a week after the incident, China has refused to publicly admit that there had been casualties on its side, while India paid the last homage to its martyrs with full state honours," Jianli states.

Jianli is of the view that at the root of this fear is the simmering resentment running in the hearts and minds of 57 million veterans of China's PLA.

He explains that veterans are holding frequent mass protests across China hoping to shame the government into recognising its obligation towards those who battled along the country's borders in the past.

"If this is the treatment meted out by the CCP regime to the martyrs of today, imagine the plight of PLA veterans, many of whom had participated in the bloody 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War or the Korean War. They have been holding frequent mass protests across China for years now, hoping to shame the government into recognising its obligation toward those who battled along the country's borders in the past," he says.

Jianli says the country which has the world's largest army, does not have a central agency to administer pensions and other benefits to its veterans. Resultantly, veterans are forced to depend on local governments for pensions, medical care and other basic benefits.

"However, due to wide disparity in the financial standings of the local governments, there is no standard or uniformity in what the veterans receive. After having given their youth and shed blood for the country, the veterans find themselves left by the CCP to the mercy of often corrupt local officials, making them feel like donkeys slaughtered after they are too old to work a grindstone," he adds.

Meet the 5 Best Bombers of All Time. By Robert Farley

Meet the 5 Best Bombers of All Time

Over the last century, nations have invested tremendous resources in bomber aircraft. More often than not, this investment has failed to bear strategic fruit.

Bombers are the essence of strategic airpower. While fighters have often been important to air forces, it was the promise of the heavy bomber than won and kept independence for the United States Air Force and the Royal Air Force. At different points in time, air forces in the United States, United Kingdom, Soviet Union, and Italy have treated bomber design and construction as a virtually all-consuming obsession, setting fighter and attack aviation aside.

However, even the best bombers are effective over only limited timespans. The unlucky state-of-the-art bombers of the early 1930s met disaster when put into service against the pursuit aircraft of the late 1930s. The B-29s that ruled the skies over Japan in 1945 were cut to pieces above North Korea in 1950. The B-36 Peacemaker, obsolete before it was even built, left service in a decade. Most of the early Cold War bombers were expensive failures, eventually to be superseded by ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

States procure bombers, like all weapons, to serve strategic purposes. This list employs the following metrics of evaluation:

· Did the bomber serve the strategic purpose envisioned by its developers?

· Was the bomber a sufficiently flexible platform to perform other missions, and to persist in service?

· How did the bomber compare with its contemporaries in terms of price, capability, and effectiveness?

And with that, the five best bombers of all time:

Handley Page Type O 400

The first strategic bombing raids of World War I were carried out by German zeppelins, enormous lighter than aircraft that could travel at higher altitudes than the interceptors of the day, and deliver payloads against London and other targets. Over time, the capabilities of interceptors and anti-aircraft artillery grew, driving the Zeppelins to other missions. Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and others began working on bombers capable of delivering heavy loads over long distance, a trail blazed (oddly enough) by the Russian Sikorsky Ilya Muromets.

Even the modest capabilities of the early bombers excited the airpower theorists of the day, who imagined the idea of fleets of bombers striking enemy cities and enemy industry. The Italians developed the Caproni family of bombers, which operated in the service of most Allied countries at one time or another. German Gotha bombers would eventually terrorize London again, catalyzing the Smuts Report and the creation of the world’s first air force.

Faster and capable of carrying more bombs than either the Gotha IVs or the Caproni Ca.3, the Type O 400 had a wingspan nearly as large as the Avro Lancaster. With a maximum speed of 97 miles per hour with a payload of up to 2000 lbs, O 400s were the mainstay of Hugh Trenchard’s Independent Air Force near the end of the war, a unit which struck German airfields and logistics concentration well behind German lines. These raids helped lay the foundation of interwar airpower theory, which (at least in the US and the UK) envisioned self-protecting bombers striking enemy targets en masse.

Roughly 600 Type O bombers were produced during World War I, with the last retiring in 1922. Small numbers served in the Chinese, Australian, and American armed forces.

Junkers Ju 88

The Junkers Ju-88 was one of the most versatile aircraft of World War II. Although it spent most of its career as a medium bomber, it moonlighted as a close attack aircraft, a naval attack aircraft, a reconnaissance plane, and a night fighter. Effective and relatively cheap, the Luftwaffe used the Ju 88 to good effect in most theaters of war, but especially on the Eastern Front and in the Mediterranean.

Designed with dive bomber capability, the Ju 88 served in relatively small numbers in the invasion of Poland, the invasion of Norway, and the Battle of France. The Ju-88 was not well suited to the strategic bombing role into which it was forced during the Battle of Britain, especially in its early variants. It lacked the armament to sufficiently defend itself, and the payload to cause much destruction to British industry and infrastructure. The measure of an excellent bomber, however, goes well beyond its effectiveness at any particular mission. Ju 88s were devastating in Operation Barbarossa, tearing apart Soviet tank formations and destroying much of the Soviet Air Forces on the ground. Later variants were built as or converted into night fighters, attacking Royal Air Force bomber formations on the way to their targets.

In spite of heavy Allied bombing of the German aviation industry, Germany built over 15,000 Ju 88s between 1939 and 1945. They operated in several Axis air forces.

De Havilland Mosquito

The de Havilland Mosquito was a remarkable little aircraft, capable of a wide variety of different missions. Not unlike the Ju 88, the Mosquito operated in bomber, fighter, night fighter, attack, and reconnaissance roles. The RAF was better positioned than the Luftwaffe to utilized the specific qualities of the Mosquito, and avoid forcing it into missions in could not perform.

Relatively lightly armed and constructed entirely of wood, the Mosquito was quite unlike the rest of the RAF bomber fleet. Barely escaping design committee, the Mosquito was regarded as easy to fly, and featured a pressurized cockpit with a high service ceiling. Most of all, however, the Mosquito was fast. With advanced Merlin engines, a Mosquito could outpace the German Bf109 and most other Axis fighters.

Although the bomb load of the Mosquito was limited, its great speed, combined with sophisticated instrumentation, allowed it to deliver ordnance with more precision than most other bombers. During the war, the RAF used Mosquitoes for various precision attacks against high value targets, including German government installations and V weapon launching sites. As pathfinders, Mosquitoes flew point on bomber formations, leading night time bombing raids that might otherwise have missed their targets. Mosquitos also served in a diversionary role, distracting German night fighters from the streams of Halifaxes and Lancasters striking urban areas.

De Havilland produced over 7000 Mosquitoes for the RAF and other allied air forces. Examples persisted in post-war service with countries as varied as Israel, the Republic of China, Yugoslavia, and the Dominican Republic

Avro Lancaster

The workhorse of the RAF in World War II, the Lancaster carried out the greater part of the British portion of the Combined Bomber Offensive (CBO). Led by Arthur Harris, Bomber Command believed that area bombing raids, targeted against German civilians, conducted at night, would destroy German morale and economic capacity and bring the war to a close. Accordingly, the Lancaster was less heavily armed than its American contemporaries, as it depended less on self-defense in order to carry out its mission.

The first Lancasters entered service in 1942. The Lancaster could carry a much heavier bomb load than the B-17 or the B-24, while operating at similar speeds and at a slightly longer range. The Lancaster also enjoyed a payload advantage over the Handley Page Halifax. From 1942 until 1945, the Lancaster would anchor the British half of the CBO, eventually resulting in the destruction of most of urban Germany and the death of several hundred thousand German civilians.

There are reasons to be skeptical of the inclusion of the Lancaster. The Combined Bomber Offensive was a strategic dead-end, serving up expensive four-engine bombers as a feast for smaller, cheaper German fighters. Battles were fought under conditions deeply advantageous to the Germans, as damaged German planes could land, and shot down German pilots rescued and returned to service. Overall, the enormous Western investment in strategic bombing was probably one of the greatest grand strategic miscalculations of the Second World War. Nevertheless, this list needs a bomber from the most identifiable bomber offensive in history, and the Lancaster was the best of the bunch.

Over 7000 Lancasters were built, with the last retiring in the early 1960s after Canadian service as recon and maritime patrol aircraft.

Boeing B-52 Stratofortress

The disastrous experience of B-29 Superfortresses over North Korea in 1950 demonstrated that the United States would require a new strategic bomber, and soon. Unfortunately, the first two generations of bombers chosen by the USAF were almost uniformly duds; the hopeless B-36, the short-legged B-47, the dangerous-to-its-own-pilots B-58, and the obsolete-before-it-flew XB-70. The vast bulk of these bombers quickly went from wastes of taxpayer money to wastes of space at the Boneyard. None of the over 2500 early Cold War bombers ever dropped a bomb in anger.

The exception was the B-52.The BUFF was originally intended for high altitude penetration bombing into the Soviet Union. It replaced the B-36 and the B-47, the former too slow and vulnerable to continue in the nuclear strike mission, and the latter too short-legged to reach the USSR from U.S. bases. Slated for replacement by the B-58 and the B-70, the B-52 survived because it was versatile enough to shift to low altitude penetration after the increasing sophistication of Soviet SAMs made the high altitude mission suicidal.

And this versatility has been the real story of the B-52. The BUFF was first committed to conventional strike missions in service of Operation Arc Light during the Vietnam War. In Operation Linebacker II, the vulnerability of the B-52 to air defenses was made manifest when nine Stratofortresses were lost in the first days of the campaign. But the B-52 persisted. In the Gulf War, B-52s carried out saturation bombing campaigns against the forward positions of the Iraqi Army, softening and demoralizing the Iraqis for the eventual ground campaign. In the War on Terror, the B-52 has acted in a close air support role, delivering precision-guided ordnance against small concentrations of Iraqi and Taliban insurgents.

Most recently, the B-52 showed its diplomatic chops when two BUFFs were dispatched to violate China’s newly declared Air Defense Zone. The BUFF was perfect for this mission; the Chinese could not pretend not to notice two enormous bombers travelling at slow speed through the ADIZ.

742 B-52s were delivered between 1954 and 1963. Seventy-eight remain in service, having undergone multiple upgrades over the decades that promise to extend their lives into the 2030s, or potentially beyond. In a family of short-lived airframes, the B-52 has demonstrated remarkable endurance and longevity.

Conclusion

Over the last century, nations have invested tremendous resources in bomber aircraft. More often than not, this investment has failed to bear strategic fruit. The very best aircraft have been those that could not only conduct their primary mission effectively, but that were also sufficiently flexible to perform other tasks that might be asked of them. Current air forces have, with some exceptions, effectively done away with the distinctions between fighters and bombers, instead relying on multi-role fighter-bombers for both missions. The last big, manned bomber may be the American LRS-B, assuming that project ever gets off the ground.

Honorable Mention

Grumman A-6 Intruder, MQ-1 Predator, Caproni Ca.3, Tupolev Tu-95 “Bear,” Avro Vulcan, Tupolev Tu-22M “Backfire.”

The U.S. Navy Doesn't Operate the Most 'Stealth' Submarines (Think Sweden) By Caleb Larson

Here's What You Need To Remember: Thanks to the high level of thought given to the class’ design, the Blekinge-class could be one of the quietest submarine class ever built once they’re finished. 

Saab’s Gotland-class recently enjoyed a refit, and is very quiet—the U.S. Navy even leased the first of the class, the HMS Gotland for two years in order to evaluate the sub’s capabilities and to improve their own anti-submarine techniques against a peer adversary. The Gotland-class is very stealthy, but pales in comparison to Sweden’s upcoming Blekinge-class, represented by two hulls, the HMS Blekinge and HMS Skåne.

Ghost

Saab’s Ghost stealth technology, which stands for Genuine HOlistic STealth, is Saab’s quietest technology ever—and even quieter than their upgraded Gotland-class submarine. This incredibly low acoustic signature is achieved through a variety of means. The Blekinge-class makes use of rubberized mounts and baffles inside the submarine to reduce noise cause by on-board machinery or crew. Additionally, frames within the sub are filled with “acoustic damping plates” that absorb ambient sound from within the submarine. 

Additionally, Saab claims that all interior surfaces are optimized to minimize noise, including “flexible hoses and compensators; and specifying maximum flow speed in air ducts, minimum bending radius on cables and pipes, and the design of out-board holes and cavities.”

The submarine’s exterior is also optimized for reduced noise. Saab says that the Blekinge-class uses a new hull shape and fin design that reduces hydrodynamic noise caused by water flowing along the hull surface and fins. Amazingly, the sub’s radar cross-section has also been taken into consideration and reduced through a careful mast design.

Air-Independent Power

In addition to above mentioned silencing features, perhaps the most significant is the Blekinge-class’ air-independent power technology. While the Blekinge-class is non-nuclear, it leverages a Stirling engine to remain submerged for longer than would otherwise be possible with conventional diesel generators.

Though complex, the Saab explains how the Stirling engine works, “in a Stirling engine, the necessary heat is produced in a separate combustion chamber and transferred to the engine’s working gas, operating in a completely closed system. The working gas forces the pistons in the engine to move, thus producing mechanical energy.” The Stirling engine is both more efficient, and has a very low acoustic and infrared signature.

It burns a mixture of liquified oxygen and diesel—the same diesel that onboard diesel generators use. These generators are used just for “long distance transit at medium speed in either a surfaced or snorting condition.”

Shocking

Saab says the Blekinge-class is resistant to mines and depth charges for greatly improved survivability. Full-scale shock tests were conducted using depth charges just feet away from the hull—with a full crew aboard—to ensure both onboard electronics and the hull’s resistance to shocks.

Postscript

Thanks to the high level of thought given to the class’ design, the Blekinge-class could be one of the quietest submarine class ever built once they’re finished.