Hardly had the MiG-25 “Foxbat” been fascinated, frightened, and confused so much than by the same time. During the Cold War, secret agents and intelligence officers from the West studying photos taken by satellites concluded that these were pictures of a new type of Soviet super-aircraft: huge wings, gigantic air intakes, and a shape that seemed created just for going at very high speeds.

To U.S. officials, it appeared to be an invincible fighter, one that outranked anything in the American arsenal. Merely looking at it helped hasten production on the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle. But under the intimidating silhouette was a vehicle with unusually targeted strengths—and glaring defects.

A Plane Designed to Counter a Particular Fear

The MiG-25 was not built to reign supreme in dogfights or spend hours prowling as a sentry. It was formed in direct response to a very particular problem: the emergence during the late 1950s and early 1960s of Mach 2-and-better American supersonic bombers, such as the B-58 Hustler and the XB-70 Valkyrie prototype.

These planes boasted a cruise speed of Mach 2 or better, far faster than the Soviet interceptors of the period. Because of this, Soviet engineers required something new: a high-speed, high-altitude intercept that would take off from the ground, destroy a nuclear bomber before it could drop its payload, and return to base in a hurry. Endurance, maneuverability, and multifunctionality were secondary considerations.

When Brute Force Meets Engineering

The Foxbat was built out of practical necessity. Rather than exotic titanium alloys, its airframe was predominantly nickel-steel, selected to resist the heat of prolonged speeds at more than Mach 2.8. This rendered the aircraft strong but heavy and seriously restricted its maneuverability.

Two powerful Tumansky R-15B-300 turbojet engines delivered the power. They imparted the MiG-25 incredible speed—up to Mach 2.83 for long-range flight, and even above Mach 3 in emergency sprints (though this would destroy the engines). The drawback was efficiency: the plane consumed fuel at a phenomenal rate, leaving it with only a fleeting combat radius of a few hundred miles. Also, the high-speed flights took their toll on the engines.

The MiG-25 set records, reaching heights of more than 123,000 feet and speed milestones. But these statistics concealed the fact: the jet could just barely tolerate 4.5 Gs, which made it a bad choice against highly maneuverable fighters. Its RP-25 “Smerch-A” radar was impressive, but it was unable to detect low-flying targets—an Achilles’ heel once Western bombers began using low-altitude attacks.

Cold War Showdowns and Stories of Combat

Combat experience was mixed for the MiG-25 on the battlefield. Reconnaissance models were highly successful, operating at speeds and altitudes that enemy fighter aircraft were unable to match. During the Iran-Iraq War and the Gulf War, Iraqi MiG-25s were able to shoot down a few Western aircraft, including a U.S. Navy F/A-18. They also lost some, and their vulnerabilities were discovered against advanced fighters such as the F-15.

The Foxbat’s mystique was dispelled in dramatic style on September 6, 1976, when Soviet pilot Viktor Belenko defected to Japan flying his MiG-25. Skimming low to evade radar and finally landing on almost depleted fuel, Belenko brought one of the Cold War’s greatest intelligence coups.

A Shattered Myth

Examination of Belenko’s aircraft was sobering to the West. Anything but a titanium-clad super-fighter, the MiG-25 was grossly overweight, employed vacuum-tube electronics, and had engines that could not safely maintain their maximum velocities. Its radar was old, and its missiles were no match for the U.S. SR-71 Blackbird, which routinely outclimbed and outlew Foxbats. Soviet pilots, Belenko disclosed, were instructed not to fly faster than Mach 2.5 in normal operations. The SR-71, on the other hand, appeared to mock the MiG-25s dispatched to intercept it—flying higher, faster, and uncatchable.

Legacy of the Foxbat

All things considered, the MiG-25 left a lasting legacy. It was a fighter built to counter a threat—the high-altitude supersonic bomber—that never became the focus of U.S. strategy. Its weaknesses had an impact on the design of its replacement, the MiG-31 Foxhound, which addressed many of the Foxbat’s issues with better avionics and armament.

For over a hundred years, the outcome of tank battles was mostly determined by sheer power, the use of heavily armored tanks, and high speeds. Bigger cannons, more durable armor, and faster engines were the main characteristics of tank fights, but the battlefield has become the arena of a new participant: small, cheap, and aerial. The drones are changing the battle by striking from places that tank crews have not thought of. Although armored vehicles are still the backbone of the ground forces, the latter now have a bigger difficulty in changing their tactics.

Here’s a countdown of the world’s top 10 tanks in active use today, and how each is standing its ground in this new era of aerial threats.

10. T-90 — Russia’s Workhorse

The T-90 marries an upgraded Soviet chassis with new armor and firepower. Its 125mm smoothbore cannon and reactive armor make it deadly against conventional opponents, and its light weight provides acceptable agility. But as recent wars have demonstrated, even a heavily armored T-90 can be defeated by a $1,000 drone with the proper targeting.

9. Type 99 — The Contender

Equipped with a 125mm cannon, composite armor, and computer fire control, the Type 99 is the Chinese response to NATO’s heavyweights. Active protection systems enable it to resist missile attacks and drones, but with UAV technology moving so rapidly, safety requires frequent upgrades.

8. Leclerc — France’s Digital Brawler

France’s Leclerc carries a 120mm smoothbore gun, modifiable armor, and a very high rate of fire. Its advanced electronics enable rapid target pickup, but as with all tanks of this type, its initial designers never expected a battlefield swarming with weaponized quadcopters.

7. K2 Black Panther — South Korea’s Tech Tank

The K2 is among the world’s most advanced tanks. Its 120mm gun, sensor technology, and networked systems are combined with active protection that’s designed to combat drones as well as missiles. Agile enough to complement its firepower, the K2 is built for today’s drone-heavy battlefield.

6. Type 90 — Japan’s Agile Striker

Japan’s Type 90 was designed to be fast and accurate. Its 120mm cannon and high-powered engine provide it with superior agility, and its computer systems improve crew effectiveness. Even this agile platform, however, needs to continue to adapt to remain superior to hordes of FPV drones.

5. Merkava Mk 4 — Israel’s Fortress on Tracks

The Merkava Mk 4 reverses the conventional tank design by placing its engine at the front, protecting the crew. Its 120mm cannon, modular armor, and advanced active protection are specifically designed for asymmetrical battlefields where drones pose a daily threat.

4. Challenger 2 — Britain’s Heavy Hitter

Renowned for its strength and precision, Challenger 2 has a 120mm rifled gun and heavy armor. It’s been upgraded with improved sensors and anti-drone technology, but increased use of UAVs is compelling even this battle-hardened veteran to change.

3. Leopard 2 — Germany’s Balanced Champion

Usually referred to as the world’s greatest all-around tank, the Leopard 2 provides a combination of pace, firepower, and protection that few can equal. Its 120mm smoothbore, powerful engine, and reliable design have made it a NATO darling. Now, new electronic warfare systems and active defenses are keeping it in the running against drones.

2. T-14 Armata — Russia’s Next-Gen Gamble

With an unmanned turret, 125mm gun, and heavy armor, the T-14 Armata is a daring advance in tank technology. Its sensors and battlefield networking are designed to counter both conventional and drone dangers, but its absence of a tested combat record leaves some things to guesswork.

1. M1 Abrams — The American Benchmark

The M1 Abrams has been the gold standard for decades. Equipped with a 120mm smoothbore gun, composite armor, and a steady stream of upgrades, it is still a force to be reckoned with. Newer variants are receiving top-of-the-line active protection and advanced sensors to deal with drones, so the Abrams is not losing its crown yet.

The Drone Factor

The conflict in Ukraine has demonstrated how much of a disruption drones can cause, sometimes only costing hundreds of dollars, but able to incapacitate million-dollar tanks. FPV drones, loitering munitions, and AI-controlled UAVs are turning the tables, compelling tank crews to reorganize or face annihilation at the hands of drones. Electronic warfare may be able to jam certain drones, but AI-controlled models can fly signal-free, rendering jamming futile. It’s an arms race where evolution means survival.

Lessons of the Past

Legends such as the Tiger I, T-34, and Sherman M4 continue to influence the design of tanks today. The sloping armor of the T-34 changed survivability forever, while the Tiger I established new levels of firepower. These lessons of balance, versatility, and protection remain the foundational principles for tanks today.

Rolling Into the Future

Tanks no longer battle only other tanks. Their foes now fly, swarm, and think. The greatest tanks in the world will be those that remain connected, remain armored, and remain mobile—whatever the battlefield becomes.

The B-1B Lancer used to be a significant contributory factor to the supremacy of the US air power for a very long time; however, during the first few months of 2024, the scenario was reversed. The Lancer was singled out to exhibit its ability not only to physically be there but also to communicate an unambiguous message. When a message in words was not enough and an impact had to be made, this bomber was the one to demonstrate that the US could enter the situation with a firm and clear decision made very quickly and at exactly the right time.

The reprisal for the destruction of Tower 22 in Jordan was the turning point for the use of the B-1B, strategically and tactically. The killing of three U.S. soldiers in that drone strike was a tragedy, but worse still, it was a trigger.

The attack, which was conducted by militia aligned with Iran using drones they had purchased abroad, killed and wounded dozens, disrupting an already precarious equilibrium in the area. Following over 160 previous attacks on US forces in Iraq and Syria from October 2023 to January 2024, Tower 22 necessitated a response that was simply greater than mere retaliation; it needed to establish deterrence. Meanwhile, the Air Force itself was in distress.

Just a week before that, a B-1B had crashed during training at Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota, shutting down the base’s sole runway and diverting temporary personnel and equipment to Dyess Air Force Base in Texas. Col. Derek Oakley, 28th Bomb Wing commander, called the crew’s flexibility and resiliency “a testament to the capability of the wing,” noting the operations continued even amidst disruption, building unit cohesion as well as readiness in general. And then there was the mission.

Two B-1Bs departed Dyess Feb. 2 at direct presidential direction to strike first-echelon militia targets in Syria and Iraq. The aircraft made a total of about 7,000 miles round-trip in 17 hours of travel time each way without ever departing or returning to any overseas bases beyond U.S. borders. Ross Hobbs of the Air War College observed that this was the initial such mission of this magnitude carried out wholly from and to the continental U.S.—the first in history.

The actual strike was fascinating. US aircraft attacked more than 85 targets with more than 125 precision-guided munitions, from command sites to intelligence nodes, storage sites for missiles, and supply lines. The B-1B led the operation and was selected based on range, payload, and flexibility.

Apart from the conditions of the operation, the greater message was there. With the ability to strike without having to use bases abroad, the U.S. was able to demonstrate it could go anywhere and not have to use foreign access or a coalition. President Biden did this very specifically, indicating that attacks on Americans would receive a strong and decisive response. The timing of the attack—with the bodies of the soldiers coming back home—gave more credibility to the action.

In the succeeding months, anti-American sentiment among troops in both Iraq and Syria plummeted. Although there was no outright open retaliation on a mass level, the decline in enemy activity showed that the mission had reoriented the near-term threat dynamics. It also demonstrated to the world that the U.S. is capable of projecting targeted, extended power without necessarily having to be nearby at the moment.

The mission also reinforced the importance of having bombers available, cooperation among the squads, and global striking capacity. Even while under scrutiny over the future of the B-1B, the mission proved that outdated systems, when serviced and used to maximum benefit, can continue to influence war dynamics.

Coordination between Striker units and Dyess crews, according to Col. Oakley, contributed toward greater efficiency, which was a testament to the cohesiveness as well as the rapidity of the bomber force.

In the years ahead, the Air Force will again be giving today’s operations for tomorrow’s needs. The short-term diversion of B-1Bs and airmen to Grand Forks Air Force Base, concurrent with Ellsworth runway construction on the new B-21 Raider, served to remind that strategic adaptability will always have a price for airmen and their families in both human and logistics terms.

As the B-21 nears operational status and the B-1B fades slowly into the past, this 2024 mission will be etched in history forever as a hallmark example of the bomber’s lasting legacy. It reminded the world that long-range strike airplanes remain potent weapons, with the capability to shape the battlefield before hostilities even commence, and put American power projection on public display still as fast, precise, and unobstructed as ever.

Aircraft carriers were the most potent and influential vessels of the naval forces, the “air fleets” through which their authority was felt anywhere in the world, for a long time. Creating a real supercarrier, however, could only ever be imagined in conjunction with Russia’s determination, pride, and desire to equal its sea-borne powerful adversaries. Ulyanovsk was where, at the end of the 1980s, this dream turned into reality that was to revolutionize Moscow’s navy, but, instead of the first, the ship became one of the talked-about “what-ifs” of naval history.

The Ulyanovsk began construction in 1988 at the Mykolaiv shipyard, Ulyanovsk—official designation Project 1143.7—intended to be the first Soviet carrier on par with the American behemoths of the day. Whereas the Admiral Kuznetsov employed a ski-jump to take off, Ulyanovsk employed steam catapults, which could safely carry heavily loaded aircraft.

Had she been almost 80,000 tons long and 324 meters, she could have been comparable to the largest carriers globally. Her nuclear power plant with four reactors, driving four turbines, allowed her to reach a speed of 30 knots, and her autonomy was limited only by the crew’s endurance.

The flight deck of the ship would be able to accommodate up to 70 aircraft: Su-33 fighter, Yak-44 early warning aircraft, and Ka-27 helicopters. The ship would also have substantial missile equipment consisting of P-700 Granit missiles, S-300 anti-aircraft systems, and some close-in weapon systems.

The term was straightforward. Ulyanovsk was more than a warship—it was a statement that the Soviet Navy could now challenge the carrier strike force of its adversaries. To Moscow, it was a badge of political presence and one of military necessities.

Fate, however, had other plans. The Soviet Union disintegrated at the time the carrier was breaking through. By the beginning of 1992, only a quarter of the ship had been constructed, and Moscow and Kyiv’s new governments had little money—or inclination—to finish it.

The expenses had increased far beyond early estimates to the billions. Economic survival now being the priority, the incomplete hull was ordered to be broken down into scrap metal. Soviet supercarrier dream expired on February 4, 1992, on the cutting room floor of a shipyard.

Waves of Ulyanovsk’s collapse still echo. Russia’s only carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, is now infamous for breaking down. Refurbishment fires, catastrophic crane collapse, and routine engine breakdowns have dogged the ship. Even when sailing, Kuznetsov has a tug escort attending it—insurance against early failure in the middle of the ocean. For most sailors, to work on the ship is now gallows humor, more ordeal than privilege.

But the idea of the Russian supercarrier persists. Designs for new classes, from the nuclear-powered Shtorm to concept designs connected with the navy’s modernization program, surface sporadically. But they remain on paper, hobbled by budget limitations and shifting strategic priorities. Ulyanovsk is a metaphor—and not a metaphor of what was built, but of what was lost.

The greater lesson is somewhere nearby. However, in the absence of a contemporary aircraft carrier, Russia is still limited in its capacity to carry out operations anywhere in the world. While the navy of intentions has a global reach, in reality, it is constrained by geography, finances, and technology. 

Incident of the Ulyanovsk is a historical lesson: even the most ambitious military excursions can be reversed by an economic crisis and political upheaval. It is a symbol of the sleepless nights of lost hopes for Russia and a source of unexpected difficulties in the country’s naval power to achieve maritime power.

For a long time, the F-16 Fighting Falcon has been recognized as one of the most versatile and nimble fighter planes ever engineered. In the 1970s, it was made under the concept of “blitz fighter”, meaning that it was absolutely light, quick, and for the use of close combat only, thus, giving the pilots not only a great view but also perfect controllability. However, the whole concept of air fighting has changed a lot since then, and with the new types of threats, the F-16’s primary rivals are no longer only characterized by their raw specs—they are a matter of technology, doctrine, and the pilots who operate them.

During the period of the Cold War, the fourth generation of aircraft, like the F-16, F-15, MiG-29, and Su-27, made a revolution in air-to-air combat by implementing cutting-edge avionics, installing powerful engines, and launching sophisticated missile systems. However, the development towards stealthy fifth-generation aircraft—like the F-22 Raptor and the Russian Su-57—has made the situation even more complicated. Take the example of the older versions of the F-16; these are generally slower in some cases, depending on which opponent they face.

Another significant issue that the Falcon faces is a beyond-visual-range (BVR) fight. Modern missiles like AIM-120 AMRAAM, R-27ER, and Meteor are capable of being launched from a spot that is far beyond the horizon, and thus, the pilots have to make very quick decisions. In this field, the power of the radar, the efficiency of electronic warfare, and the extension of the missile range play a bigger role than the aircraft’s agility.

In this area, the F-15C Eagle always proves to be one of the F-16’s most formidable adversaries. The Eagle’s longer radar, greater missile payload, and better endurance provide it mastery of the engagement, compelling the lighter Falcon into a second-guessing mode. As one commentator pointed out, the F-15 can draw the combat into its preferred envelope—either in high-altitude BVR battles or by exploiting one-circle turning fights. Its confluence of versatility and potency makes it a problematic adversary for the Viper.

On the Soviet side, the MiG-29 Fulcrum and Su-27 Flanker represent a different threat. Conceived with ferocious dogfighting in mind, the MiG-29 in particular is a master of close-range combat. Its thrust-to-weight ratio and aerodynamic profile allow it to execute vicious maneuvers at high angles of attack, a horror for any pilot committed to a turning duel.

The bigger Su-27 extends that equation with more radar range and endurance, but Soviet combat doctrine tended to favor ambush tactics—flying low to use terrain to one’s advantage and spreading out from road bases for surprise deployment. Even older Soviet aircraft, such as the MiG-23MLD, demonstrated they could give American planes such as the F-14 Tomcat fits in skilled hands, illustrating just how much pilot ability and doctrine could level the playing field.

Europe’s modern fighters, meanwhile, highlight the Falcon’s struggles against newer fourth-plus generation designs. Jets like the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, and Saab Gripen pack advanced AESA radars, networked data systems, and reduced radar signatures.

Armed with long-range Meteor missiles, they can often fire before an F-16 even registers a threat. In close-range encounters, their excellent energy retention and maneuverability—particularly at slower speeds—make them formidable. Even when the pilots are evenly matched, these machines tend to tip the scales against the Falcon.

And then there are fifth-generation stealth fighters, which change the equation nearly completely. The F-22 Raptor is even referred to as an “unfair” opponent, with stealth, supercruise, and unparalleled situational awareness of the battlefield. The F-35, China’s J-20, and Russia’s Su-57 all introduce their own mixture of stealth and high-tech sensors. Against those, F-16 pilots might not even know they’re being shot at until missile warning lights come on—sometimes after it’s already too late to respond.

Nevertheless, aerial combat has never merely been about machines. Operations like Red Flag and flight schools like TOPGUN have consistently demonstrated that tactics, training, and experience can bridge the gap between older aircraft and advanced hardware. F-16 adversary squadrons have pressured even top aircraft like the F-22 in simulated dogfights, reminding that a savvy pilot can take full advantage of the Falcon’s quickness and surprise. As one trainer said, “The pilot counts more than the plane.”

The contemporary air fight “meta” now favors observing first, firing first, and remaining concealed—not choreographed dogfights. With electronic warfare, stand-off sensors, and long-range missiles characterizing engagements, older models of the F-16 have a tall order to fill. But in the hands of an accomplished pilot, the Falcon still bites. Although it no longer has a monopoly on the skies as it used to, the jet still demonstrates that air combat is as much human creativity as it is engineering.

The T-72B main battle tank was never meant to be just a tank, but it has always been a great example of a very robust and versatile tank. It is often referred to as the tank of the Cold War era, and to many, it seemed as if it was the end of the story. Its chronicle is the gradual evolution of the armored fighting vehicles in different decades that strive to meet the changing combat requirements, thus achieving a balanced combination of firepower, protection, and mobility, which made them almost unrecognizable in the war terrains. The T-72B has been a fiasco with its performance from the 1980s production through to the last days of the war in Ukraine.

The T-72 was created as a less complex, less expensive companion to the sophisticated yet problematic T-64. It was manufactured in 1973 as an attempt to be rugged, mobile, and easy to operate, even for poorly trained operators. The initial models were plagued by approximately primitive fire control, microscopic nighttime vision, and armor that could only withstand low-caliber guns. As the advanced anti-tank guided weapons, such as the TOW and MILA, came into action, all these weaknesses soon surfaced and compelled the designers to upgrade their performance.

The 1984 T-72B introduced solutions to the majority of these shortcomings. Its enhanced composite armor has been referred to as “Super Dolly Parton” because of the typical turret cheek plates. KONTAKT-1 explosive reactive armor (ERA) mounting provided it with extra protection against modern anti-tank ammunition, providing it with approximately 700–900mm of equivalent armor protection against most threats. No tank is ever completely invulnerable, but it made the T-72B much more survivable in intense combat.

Not every T-72B was built the same. Export models, such as the T-72S ‘Shilden,’ included lighter ERA and other trade-offs. The tanks supplied the majority of armor to Polish, Czech, and East German units. Each country operated in its own way: Polish crews preferred aggressive assault, Czech units used large formations for morale, and the East Germans were very well trained in strict, accurate breakthroughs. These tanks were phased up over the years and thus remained operational even after several decades. To this day, the T-72B remains extremely sought after.

The fact that it is still being used in Ukraine attests to the versatility of the platform. The U.S., for one, paid for remanufactured Czech-produced T-72Bs for the Ukrainians because it realized that it would be too expensive, too time-consuming, and would require extensive training to bring completely new tank systems into the battlefield.

Ukrainian officers already accustomed to the system would have no problem adapting to these tanks, and they would have a disadvantage relative to Russian troops using the same tanks. War is different.

Drones, electronic warfare, and high-capability weapons now present persistent threats. Some predicted that tanks like the T-72B would be obsolete, but modernization like ERA, urban armor kits, and counter-IED technology helped keep them alive.

In the meantime, guns remain the “God of War,” and while FPV drones are commanding the headlines, they’re still beset by technical maladies, jamming, and the skill level of their operators.

Mortars and light guns are stable, consistent, and still not affected by these new guns. Despite modernization, the brutal realities of extended war have seen both sides deploy more old reserve tanks, some with no new optics or thermal imaging.

Russian forces, for instance, started equipping tanks with SOSNA-U thermal sight units from 2022, but battle forced older variants to be rammed back into action, where their varied capabilities were all muddled in a mess. In such situations, fire control equipment, optic quality, and crew training can be as controlling as the armor itself. The still-active use of the T-72B confirms the value in simplicity and heavy-duty platforms.

Though Western tanks like the Leopard 2 or M1 Abrams offer advanced technology, complexity, and logistical needs undermine forces committed to Soviet design to extend power quickly. The T-72B, on the other hand, integrates simplicity of design with incremental development, giving it versatility and reliability in attack as well as defense.

Into the future, the T-72B—and the concept of main battle tank—only improves. Drone swarms, electronic warfare, and precision-guided weapons will continue to compel armored forces to adapt. But what history shows us is that with the right adjustments and plan, the tank is far from archaic. The T-72B proves that tough, well-designed armor has its place on the battlefield today.

In the list of necessities for a fleet of today’s world, the grenade launchers that operate automatically are regarded as an ideal mix of heavy-caliber firepower, adaptability, and rapid engagement. Speaking of this, as well as the Mk 47 Strike, which is the successor to the Mk 19, are both among the leading examples of the latest changes in the wars that have been affecting the redesign of firearms.

The development of the Mk 19 started in the last years of the Vietnam War, when the US military was seeking a weapon capable of delivering intense bursts of explosive firepower—especially for use on river patrols and mounted vehicles. Manufactured by Saco Defense Industries, the Mk 19 entered service in 1968 and earned a reputation as a hardy, belt-fed, blowback-operated, air-cooled workhorse. It could shoot both single shots and in full-auto, being chambered for the powerful 40 mm grenade. Its open-bolt action, together with its ruggedness, saw it being installed in everything from patrol boats to Humvees, Strykers, and ship mounts.

Even today, its numbers are enormous. The Mk 19 tips the scales at 77.6 pounds and is usually crew-mounted, the most frequent being vehicle-mounted due to its weight. Firing 40×53 mm high-velocity grenades, it has a cyclic rate of 325–375 rounds per minute, with realistic sustained firing rates of 40–60 rounds per minute.

It can effectively engage point targets to 1,500 meters, and up to 2,212 meters for area suppression. Its main mission—the M430 dual-purpose high-explosive round—is lethal within a five-meter radius and can penetrate up to 50 mm of rolled homogeneous armor, giving it punch against light armor and hardened positions.

The rounds come in 32- or 48-round disintegrating link belts, whose cans range from 42–60 pounds. Low recoil and elastic mounts enabled it to proliferate in U.S. and allied troops, with over 35,000 made and utilized in the Vietnam War, until Iraq and Afghanistan. Its success even inspired similar designs like the AGS-17 and Heckler & Koch GMG.

Firearm training with the gun is made possible with tools such as the XM922 High-Velocity Dummy Round, which is equal in weight and size to live rounds but is inert—ideal for loading exercises, handling practice, and malfunction drills without the risks associated with live fire.

However, by the early 2000s, it was clear that the Mk 19’s design was getting old. New battlefield scenarios called for a lighter, more precise platform that could be teamed with advanced optics and smart ammunition. The answer came in the Mk 47 Striker. Ordered by General Dynamics in 2006 and built in Saco, Maine, featuring a Raytheon fire control, the Mk 47 represented a quantum leap in capability.

The Striker comes in at only 39.6 pounds for the launcher alone—half of the Mk 19’s weight—and with its mount and tripod tips the scales at around 90 pounds. It uses a closed-bolt firing mechanism, necessary to fire programmable grenades with the correct timing of the detonation. The Striker’s precision is made possible by the Raytheon AN/PVG-1 Lightweight Video Sight, which combines a ballistic computer, laser rangefinder, and 9x zoom, enabling soldiers to fire accurately at long ranges.

One of the greatest advances in lethality is its ability to use programmable prefragmented high-explosive (PPHE) rounds with airburst detonation. This means grenades can be programmed to explode over or behind enemy fortifications, making dug-in positions much less safe. With a range of 1,700 meters and a rate of fire of about 60 rounds per minute, the Mk 47 can fire an incredibly diverse selection of ammunition—from training rounds like the M385 and M918 to ammunition like the Mk 285.

Originally used by the U.S. Special Operations Command, the Mk 47 has also been used in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria, and embraced by allied nations’ forces seeking to modernize their arsenals. It is designed with accuracy, versatility, and keeping up with the times for decades to come.

The shift from the Mk 19 to the Mk 47 is not a tale of two guns—it’s a reflection of how military tech evolves. With threats more advanced and precision translating to raw firepower, automatic grenade launchers have adapted in response to stay ahead of the game, continuing to be an essential element of combat.