When the topic of advanced rifles is brought up, the AR-15 is probably what most people have in mind; nonetheless, the AR-18, its less noisy but more inventive sibling, has been quietly revolutionizing the field.

With features that included a short-stroke gas piston, compactness, and versatility, the AR-18 was the base for the development of many advanced military rifles, despite being an unpopular model. It was initially a product that failed commercially, but interestingly, it became a design that was used not only by one army but by soldiers from different parts of the globe.

The following is a glance at six rifles that bear the AR-18’s DNA, demonstrating that this “forgotten” firearm has left a legacy a lot larger than its sales numbers indicate.

6. SIG MCX Series

Consider the SIG MCX to be a middle ground between traditional design and contemporary innovation. It combines the AR-18’s piston-operated reliability with the ergonomically familiar AR-15, resulting in a platform that is comforting yet brutally capable.

From the MCX Spear—embraced by the U.S. Army as the M7—to the extreme-compact Rattler, this branch of rifles lives on flexibility. Suppressors? Short barrels? Full auto fire? No issue—the piston system accommodates them all while minimizing gas blowback and keeping the action cold. It’s little wonder that premier units ranging from SOCOM to Ukraine’s SBU Alpha Group have adopted it as their go-to gun. 

5. CZ-805 Bren

The Czech-manufactured Bren adopts the AR-18’s mechanical soul and encases it in a very modular, contemporary package. In its third iteration, the Bren is easily reconfigured for varying calibers and mission configurations.

That adaptability has earned it favor from units such as the Czech Army, Hungary’s military, and France’s GIGN. Behind its streamlined look is the same piston-driven ruggedness that made the AR-18 so lasting.

4. HK416

If there’s one rifle that most demonstrates the enduring legacy of the AR-18, it is the HK416. Heckler & Koch combined the AR-15 controls with the AR-18’s piston action to create a rifle that’s accurate, reliable, and simple to maintain—no matter the hostile conditions.

Deployed by special troops and taken up by the United States Marine Corps as the M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle, HK416 is best with suppressors and short barrels—much like the AR-18 used to be.

3. FN SCAR

Few rifles are more versatile than the FN SCAR. Available in both 5.56 and 7.62, with detachable quick-change barrels and accessory rails, it can be configured for nearly any mission. This type of modularity is directly from the AR-18’s playbook. Its piston design makes it clean and cool even when run hard, so it has earned the favor of SOCOM, the armed forces of Belgium, as well as Germany’s elite GSG 9.

2. FN F2000

The FN F2000 uses the AR-18’s piston system and puts it within a bullpup layout, creating a short, futuristic carbine that doesn’t compromise barrel length.

With the action behind the trigger, it’s extremely agile—perfect for close-quarters work. Armies in Ukraine, Slovenia, and Pakistan have all used it, demonstrating that the AR-18’s fundamental design suits alternative configurations.

1. Steyr AUG

One of the earliest and most famous users of the AR-18’s piston configuration, the Steyr AUG established the benchmark for the modern bullpup rifle. Its bolt carrier and gas system trace directly to the AR-18, packaged in a unique design that has been used by military and police units since the late 1970s.

Its modularity, reliability, and unmistakable profile have seen it serve for decades, with upgrades keeping it current to the present day.

Why the AR-18 Still Matters

When it came out, the AR-18 short-stroke piston design was prescient. By isolating hot gases from the bolt, it operated cleaner, remained cooler, and provided improved reliability—particularly in suppressed or short-barreled configurations. Its foldable stock provisions and field stripping ease made it ideally suited to contemporary combat requirements.

Though it never became a commercial hit, the AR-18 earned the nickname “the American AK” for its simplicity, toughness, and adaptability. Look beyond the AK-47 and AR-15 families, and you’ll find its engineering fingerprints on nearly every modern service rifle.

The irony? A rifle that history almost overlooked has been quietly shaping the battlefield for over fifty years.

While numerous aircraft fought alongside the Allies in the aerial battles of World War II, the Lockheed P-38 Lightning was probably the most unusual. Its unique twin-boom design, concentrated firepower from the nose, and exceptional range gave it a one-of-a-kind and lasting icon of the air war against the Axis—especially in the Pacific, where it overshadowed its rivals by such a wide margin.

The Lightning saga started in 1937, when the U.S. Army Air Corps made a challenge: design a high-flying interceptor with heavy firepower and scorching climb rate. The catch? No American engine of the day would be able to muster the necessary punch.

Lockheed’s Hall Hibbard and young Clarence “Kelly” Johnson opted to double the solution—literally—by placing two turbo-supercharged Allison V-1710 engines on an innovative twin-boom airframe.

This configuration not only gave the power needed but also enabled all guns—four .50-caliber machine guns and a 20mm cannon—to be placed in the nose. With all guns firing in a straight line, pilots could hit targets at half a mile without concern about wing-mounted gun spread.

The prototype made its maiden flight in January 1939, but early models had their share of issues, including hazardous tail flutter at high speed.

Lockheed engineers continued to hone the design, adding self-sealing fuel tanks, armor plating, and aerodynamic modifications. By the time the P-38J came out, it could reach 414 mph, reach 44,000 feet, and featured things well ahead of its time—tricycle landing gear, an all-weather cockpit, and a sturdy all-metal construction.

During combat, the Lightning was an honest multi-role aircraft. It could escort bombers deep into enemy territory, attack ground targets, perform bombing missions, or reconnoiter as a spy plane. In the huge Pacific theater of operations, its range was a war winner, allowing missions over open ocean that would be out of the question for many other fighters.

Its twin turbochargers performed at high altitudes, providing U.S. pilots with the decisive advantage over Japanese planes. Though not as dominant in Europe—where agile German fighters preferred low-altitude dogfighting—it was still crucial there.

The P-38’s reputation was also cemented by its aces. America’s highest-scoring fighter pilot with 40 victories, Richard Bong, was awarded the Medal of Honor flying a Lightning. Thomas McGuire trailed closely behind with nearly that many victories.

One of the P-38’s most legendary moments occurred in April 1943, during Operation Vengeance, when a squadron of P-38s made a bold low-level intercept over the ocean to ambush Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto—the mastermind behind Pearl Harbor. The success of the mission was a psychological and strategic setback for Japan’s war effort.

On paper, the P-38 was every bit as capable as its combat history implied. 52 feet wide and almost 38 feet in length, it weighed almost 20,000 pounds fully loaded for takeoff. Combined, its two engines produced about 2,000 horsepower, rising at 2,700 feet per minute and cruising comfortably at more than 39,000 feet altitude.

There were specialized versions, such as the F-5 photo reconnaissance model that sacrificed guns for cameras, and the “droop-snoot” variant that accommodated a bombardier in the place of its nose weapons to provide precision bombing leadership.

Though fewer than 10,000 P-38s were produced—well below the P-47 Thunderbolt or P-51 Mustang—it was a large impact.

Its innovative design put its mark on flight, one that has influenced subsequent aircraft like the F-35 Lightning II, which bears not only the name, but the forward thinking of its WWII ancestor.

The P-38 Lightning is a symbol of daring imagination and combat versatility today. Either in museums, flying at airshows, or in the memories of veterans, it serves as an inspiration that great engineering can shift history—and in some cases, the most unusual aircraft become the most legendary.

Unfortunately, the B-2 Spirit was for a long time the symbol of the best that the Air Force could offer – complete invisibility, very long range, and strategic power. This combination had changed the world in the most amazing ways. The United States had been able to carry out these very long-distance flights that went across half of the earth or that had penetrated even the most tightly closed defensive barriers. Now it is the B-2 replacement that is in flight testing, so it means that the day of the B-2 is gradually coming to an end. Some of the things that are being talked about here are the aircraft’s past, what it was capable of, and what will be the case with future technology.

8. Passing the Torch to the 11 Raider

The B-2’s replacement, the Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider, flew for the first time in November 2023. Designed for increased stealth and versatility—and capable of flight with or without a crew—it will one day replace the B-2 fleet. The U.S. Air Force anticipates ordering about 100 of them, so the Raider will form the backbone of next-generation strategic bombing raids, able to carry both nuclear and conventional munitions with advanced sensors and networked fighting systems.

7. Starting from Scratch on Stealth

Northrop Grumman didn’t just build a plane when they created the B-2—they created the tools and techniques to make it a reality. The airframe is nearly all carbon fiber composite, consisting of more than 10,000 discrete components, providing both strength and radar-absorbing properties.

In the 1980s and ’90s, this type of production necessitated equipment built to specific requirements and innovative 3D modeling software. Nowadays, the process is much more inclusive—automated fiber placement machines can be rented and fitted in weeks, and composite fabrication is now part of university curricula globally. Although the most sensitive technology of stealth remains classified, construction with these materials is no longer the uncommon activity that it once was. 

6. Living On Board During 44-Hour Missions

Endurance is just as much a component of the B-2’s mission as stealth. There are only two pilots on board, so the cockpit has been designed for both work and survival during missions that last almost two days. Behind the seats is a space for sleeping, along with a microwave, refrigerator, pantry, and even a small toilet. Pilots are chosen not only for their flying skills but also for their ability to work well together in high-pressure, cramped environments where teamwork is everything.

5. The Price of Perfection

At a cost of more than $2 billion per plane and operating costs reaching $135,000 per flight hour, the B-2 is the most costly plane in the world.

Its maintenance needs are just as drastic—after each mission comes anywhere from 36 hours of maintenance, and its sensitive radar-absorbing skin has to be kept in climate-controlled hangars. With so much attention, the fleet’s readiness rate for missions sticks at around 50%, a testament to how challenging it is to make these bombers mission-ready.

4. Unique Heavy Hitter with a Special Arsenal

The B-2 carries as much as 40,000 pounds of ordnance within its two bomb bays, ranging from the precision-guided JDAMs to nuclear warheads. Most significantly, it is the only American aircraft that can deploy the 30,000-pound GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, capable of penetrating 200 feet of hardened concrete. This provides the B-2 with unparalleled capability against deeply buried targets out of reach of other bombers.

3. Going the Distance

Perhaps the B-2’s greatest asset is its range. Without refueling, it has a flight distance of about 6,000 nautical miles, but actually, it allows it to attack anywhere on the planet from its Missouri home base through air-to-air refueling. The bomber’s most noted accomplishment was a 44-hour combat mission to Afghanistan in 2001—the longest combat sortie in history. It has flown in Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, and most recently, Iran.

2. The Science of Being Invisible

The stealth of the B-2 is a union of form and material. Its flying wing shape, carbon-graphite skin that absorbs radar, titanium parts, and its deeply buried engines all combine to reduce radar, infrared, acoustic, and even contrail signatures. At altitude, its radar cross-section is roughly the size of a seabird—small enough to pass by the most advanced detection systems.

1. Operation Midnight Hammer: The B-2’s Defining Moment

The biggest B-2 mission ever occurred during Operation Midnight Hammer, when seven bombers flew out of Missouri and bombed Iran’s buried nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan.

Accompanied by 125 supporting aircraft and a submarine that launched dozens of Tomahawk cruise missiles, the B-2s delivered 14 bunker busters in 25 minutes. Iran’s defenses never stood a chance. It was the second-longest B-2 mission ever flown and a dramatic demonstration of its capacity to penetrate the most heavily defended airspace on the planet.

The war gaming of the near future is changing by leaps and bounds, and the chief factor behind these changes is none other than technology. Among the various futuristic battlefield innovations, the only one that comes closest to the Lockheed Martin Mako hypersonic missile is. The Mako is not just a new weapon in the arsenal, but a complete upheaval where the characteristics of being able to survive, adapt, and move quickly are no longer seen as optional but essential ones.

From the start, the Mako was meant for something special. It would not be an off-the-belt, run-of-the-belt missile, but a quick, precision response to the most difficult targets—the ones that require an accelerated response. Lockheed Martin phrased it this way: the Mako “blazes down on time-sensitive targets when every second counts.” And it does. With its capability to fly hypersonic and still remain highly maneuverable even when at high altitudes, it can penetrate deep air defense systems and still have the capability to change directions when in flight so as to accurately land where needed.

Even more eye-catching, though, is the way the Mako appears. A few hundred 1,300 pounds, 13 feet long, and a bit over a foot in diameter, it’s compact enough to be housed within stealth planes like the F-35 and F-22. That is no small feat—housed in the fuselage, they can preserve their stealth, infiltrate enemy-controlled territory undetected, and hit before the enemy can hit them.

It is driven by a solid-fuel rocket motor, firing it tidily into the world of Mach 5. Speed is not sufficient, however. Its real strength is its agility at such breakneck velocities. It is far too difficult for even the most advanced defense systems to track or intercept, leaving competitors to stall until they can no longer respond.

Mako’s maneuverability is also one of its strengths. It can be used against any number of targets—anything from hardened bunkers and mobile air defense systems to sea-going vessels. And it’s not theory; it’s already been flight-tested for use on a powerful stable of aircraft: the F-35, F-22, F/A-18, F-16, F-15, and even the P-8 patrol aircraft. If standard 30-inch lugs will fit on the plane, the Mako can go on there. It is also still in the development stage for adaptation to be used on submarines and ships, expanding its use in other military service units.

The manner in which Lockheed Martin built the Mako differs as well. Instead of building it and then testing in between, the company built the whole system in a virtual environment. From blueprints to production procedures, all of that was in place and built in cyberspace before anything physical was made. It is also easy to change or swap out something, such as the warhead or guidance system, for a specific mission. Additive manufacturing by the process of 3D printing cuts costs and time to production, lessening even the complex guidance components’ cost and allowing them to be produced faster.

Affordability is also equally important. For the program managers, Mako was to provide best-of-class capability and best value for money. That is a recipe good not only for America, but for allies who wish to boost defence without selling out the future. Since it already exists in so many standard aircraft, it can be brought into service at allied military means instantly, adding to the security overall.

Tactically, the missile is a game-breaker. Enemies use multi-layered defenses and long-range missiles fired from distant locations to put their adversaries at arm’s length. Mako levels the playing field. With stealth fighters that can strike significant targets—like mobile launchers or radar installations—before they can get out of range or retaliate, it short-circuits the enemy’s reaction time. Militarily, it precludes options, with little prospect of survival.

Yes, it’s not easy to produce hypersonic missiles. Guiding and stabilizing a missile that can travel five times the speed of sound is one of the largest-scale engineering accomplishments of human beings. But Mako suggests that those issues are being addressed. It’s proof that not only is America not coasting on laurels in the hypersonic contest—it’s leading the way.

There’s also a decidedly strong foreign flavor here. Lockheed Martin has gone through extremely concerted efforts to draw attention to the aspect that Mako is beyond an American gun. The approach is to co-produce the gun with leading partners and produce it in countries such as the UK. It not only shares the load but also promotes industrial cooperation and makes everyone pray for the system to work. As one of the executives so aptly stated, the dream is a missile built by hands in accord with each other for their own good.

Although its critics can also say they have their own hypersonic capability, the Mako isn’t that sort of system. It doesn’t need bragging. Its strength is bringing together the highest velocity and intelligent design, deep penetration, and broad compatibility with the emerging generation of battle networks. That synergy makes it so much more than just another missile—it’s a quantum leap. As global security becomes increasingly complex and abstract, Mako is not merely a temporary weapon. It’s a quantum leap to deterrence, one that puts the U.S. and its allies not only playing catch-up afterwards but light years ahead of it.

F-35 Lightning II was just about the first aircraft to amalgamate the aerial powers of NATO forever. The design was sleek, with stealth capabilities and full of state-of-the-art technology. The idea was that it alone would be able to handle everything—dogfights, ground attack, spy, and even nuclear weapons delivery. Previously, that fantasy seemed attainable.

Countries across Europe went around taking turns procuring their own copies: Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Switzerland, the UK, Canada, and, naturally, the United States. Even non-NATO allies like Japan, South Korea, Australia, and Israel got into the program. But today, nonetheless, the hope of a single jet forging the cohesion of the alliance is starting to crumble.

The F-35 was never just another fighter. It was to be the future backbone of NATO, one aircraft that made coalition warfare easy. It was with shared communications, ammunition, training, and spares that the idea was simple: one type of aircraft equaled allies being able to fight more easily together and more effectively.

Fans still assert that there’s no other fighter that rivals its sensors, stealth, and versatility, and that its central role in NATO’s nuclear-sharing mission to drop the upgraded B61-12 bomb makes it an aircraft beyond classification. Replacing elderly aircraft with the F-35 was viewed as a giant leap toward keeping the alliance’s deterrent credible.

So, where did it all go wrong? Some of the fault rests in politics. Washington’s changing position on NATO in recent years has undermined confidence in the reliability of the U.S. as a partner. A handful of countries are delaying or reversing, while others, including Spain, have gone entirely to European-built fighters, because defense sovereignty takes precedence over being committed to an American program.

European powers have been talking more and more about building up their own defense industries, and several are funneling spending into domestic companies instead of buying American planes.

Whispers of a so-called “kill switch,” the idea that America might be in a position to shut down the plane by remote control, have contributed little but to skepticism. Authorities pooh-pooh it, but there’s substance in the rumor because it captures a real anxiety: owning the F-35 is not just about machinery, it’s about becoming dependent on America for software updates, spares, and technical assistance. If things go south, fleets could be immobilized. That weakness has led nations to ask themselves if they would rather use European substitutes, even if they lack the F-35’s revolutionary stealth.

Substitutes like the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, and Saab Gripen are gaining traction, not only because they’re European but also because they’re cheaper and simpler to maintain. Spain is doubling down on the Typhoon and the soon-to-be Franco-German-led Future Combat Air System, while France is actively marketing the Rafale to countries that are wary of the F-35.

But it is one thing to replace F-35s at a large volume. The program’s production numbers are unprecedented, shipping hundreds a year, while European jets have a much slower rollout. Even when European alternatives are chosen, the transition would be gradual, and many of their critical parts are still attached to supply chains outside Europe.

As this is going on, NATO’s nuclear-sharing purpose is ready to lose face. The F-35 was chosen to serve as the bearer of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, and countries like Germany acceded to it partly to express their dedication to that purpose. If allies were to withdraw, that threat of military action would then be weakened. The issue is compounded by NATO members going it alone. Turkey, a former hub of the program, was pushed out after buying Russian systems and is now shopping around elsewhere, a move that broke trust and strategy within the alliance.

NATO has a fragmented future ahead of it. Some will stick with the F-35, some who lean to the European jets, and future sixth-generation programs like FCAS and British-led Global Combat Air System in the long-term horizon, but still years away. The result is a patchwork rather than the integrated airpower vision that the F-35 once embodied. The crisis has confirmed that sovereignty issues, industrial independence, and alliance solidarity carry equal importance as performance requirements.

What was meant to be the jet that would unify NATO is now putting its unity to the test. Without the ability to establish trust and renew cooperation, the F-35 may come to be remembered not as the aircraft that unified Europe’s skies, but as the symbol of how difficult it is to keep allies singing from the same hymn sheet when politics, commerce, and strategy separate.

Very few aircraft have had the same effect on the imagination of the people and the enthusiasm of the pilots as the F-14 Tomcat. The unique configuration, variable-sweep wings, and a legacy as a star in several action films contributed to the making of the F-14 an icon of US naval aviation. However, the F-14 was not just another movie star; it was a feat of technology that marked a big step forward in the field of carrier aviation and was specifically designed to handle the dangers that no other fighter of its time could overcome.

The F-14’s history started with the ailing F-111B, which had weight, maneuverability, and carrier compatibility problems. Grumman created the F-14 as a twin-engine, two-seat fighter with variable-sweep wings, which enabled pilots to change wing angles while in flight. This made the Tomcat able to make high-speed intercepts while also staying stable during the precarious art of carrier takeoffs and landings. In essence, it was the Navy’s response to the requirement for an adaptable, high-performance fleet defense aircraft.

Technologically, the F-14 was superior to its contemporaries. It was the first U.S. fighter capable of attacking multiple targets at long range with look-down/shoot-down capability, unmatched until the AIM-120 AMRAAM entered service some nineteen years later. Its hallmark weapon, the AIM-54 Phoenix missile, could target enemy aircraft more than 100 miles away, providing the Tomcat with an unparalleled capacity to take out threats before they ever reached a fleet.

Early variants were equipped with Pratt & Whitney TF30 engines, which were eventually replaced by the more stable General Electric F110s. Although early engines possessed some idiosyncrasies, now-retired Topgun instructor and F-14 Radar Intercept Officer Dave “Bio” Baranek noted that the aircraft’s stamina and advanced weaponry systems were what really gave it an edge.

Within the cockpit, the F-14 demonstrated a considerate design philosophy for a fighter airplane. Pilots enjoyed unobstructed access to all vital instruments, and the rear-seat Radar Intercept Officer controlled the sophisticated radar and weapon systems. Baranek characterized the cockpit as roomy and complicated, necessitating close coordination between the two crewmen.

The Tomcat canopy provided great visibility—a Vietnam-era combat lesson learned. With time, technology in the cockpit was enhanced, especially in the F-14D model, which had a cleaner, more contemporary HUD. Although later fighter designs added to that with multifunction displays and helmet-mounted systems, the Tomcat cockpit was state-of-the-art for its time.

Operationally, the F-14 shared show-stopping missions with everyday fleet-defense tasks. Iranian F-14s initially proved the plane’s combat capability during the Iran-Iraq War. Subsequent U.S. Navy Tomcats flew no-fly zones over Iraq and assisted in Afghanistan operations, but their original mission was still the defense of naval units from long-range bombers.

With its prodigious radar, missiles of extended range, and outstanding patrol capability, the Tomcat was unrivaled during the Cold War in detecting and intercepting aircraft like the Tu-16 and Tu-22M at ranges to which no other Navy fighter could go.

When the F-14 was retired in 2006, the Navy lost not just an iconic fighter but also an unusual capability. Though newer early-warning aircraft, improved missiles, and linked command systems have filled some of the void, no platform now comes close to combining the Tomcat’s range, speed, and firepower. Despite changes in strategic priorities, there remains controversy regarding the utility of having such an independent long-range intercept capability.

The legacy of the F-14 extends far beyond its service record. Its variable-sweep wing and dual-crew design affected subsequent fighter designs, and its cultural impact—enhanced by movies such as Top Gun—guaranteed that it would become part of aviating lore. Museums, video games, and documentaries still celebrate the Tomcat, and pilots and maintainers who served in the aircraft recall its challenging complexity and its impressive performance. As Baranek pointed out, the F-14 stretched crews to their limits, rewarding competence and coordination with unrivaled flight experience.

In the end, the history of the F-14 Tomcat is one of innovation, improvisation, and unyielding technological advancement. Its retirement signaled the end of an age in naval aviation, but its legacy remains—in the development of newer-generation fighters, in the memories of those who flew and maintained it, and in the continued quest for speed, range, and survivability for carrier air wings. Years later, the Tomcat’s shadow still falls, a reminder of an airplane that was truly special.

Oceans are crowded with higher percentages of strategic imperatives than in the past, and the American Navy is facing a challenge of enormous proportions – to determine whether it still keeps its leading position in the undersea war or is outdone by the new undersea rivals. To solve the problem, the Navy has developed a program called SSN(X), a daring step to assemble the new generation of nuclear-powered attack submarines. Whatever piece of excellent technology is, there is always a trifecta of issues: technical, industrial, and strategic ones.

To understand why SSN(X) is important, it’s worth stepping back and examining U.S. submarine history. For years, the fleet workhorse had been the Los Angeles-class, valued for its speed, stealth, and Tomahawk missile capability. Seawolf-class came next, a deep-ocean mission-specialized with increased endurance and weapons carriage.

Virginia-class came next, special mission- and coastal operations-tuned, with innovations such as photonics masts and modularity payload tubes. Each subsequent class has been designed to meet new requirements, stretching the boundaries of submarine design and technology. The SSN(X) is built incrementally as the most technologically capable attack submarine ever built.

The Navy will combine the best of all its predecessors’ capabilities: the Seawolf’s speed and firepower, the Virginia’s sensors and stealth, and the Columbia-class’ operational availability and longevity. The break-the-surface submarine will be bigger than any of today’s ships, able to carry more payload, achieve stealth levels that heretofore were unimaginable, and integrate perfectly with high-grade sensor nets and unmanned underwater vehicles.

Ambition is costly. Originally, it was intended to acquire the SSN(X) in 2035, but it was pushed back due to production problems to 2040. One of the reasons, one of many, is to extend the industrial base—shipyard and contractor infrastructure already has its plate full building Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines while maintaining Virginia-class production on schedule. Shortage of trained manpower or essential components can result in a bottleneck in the SSN(X) itself, or even the entire submarine fleet. Cost is also an issue.

The Navy puts the cost per SSN(X) at approximately $5.6 billion, whereas independent estimates put the cost at $7.2 billion, close to twice that of a Virginia-class attack submarine with the Virginia Payload Module. With so many costly programs vying for scarce dollars, lawmakers will have to make difficult choices on defense dollars.

Technologically, SSN(X) will be shaped by digital engineering, artificial intelligence, and high-order analytics. It will counter manned and unmanned threats, operate in highly defended seas, and protect communications across the domains.

Submarine networking is probably the most challenging task. Because radio waves won’t pass through water, the Navy is seeking technology that will translate acoustic signals into intelligence to be picked up by surface ships, planes, and command centers. A success will allow submarines to target other platforms in real-time, a sea transformation in planning submarine-to-sea combat. Allied assistance is part of the program as well.

The U.S., U.K., and Australia AUKUS agreement is not only giving a political model but also an operational model to develop allied submarine capability and provide advanced technology. Australia will be acquiring the Virginia-class submarines and subsequently coproducing a new nuclear-powered submarine, SSN-AUKUS, with the U.S. and the U.K.

This alliance is stimulating investment in shipyards and training programs, and it may very well make its way into the SSN(X). It will need to go hand in hand with cooperative nuclear propulsion, though, which will have to be done with care. Huge coalitions also introduce disputed questions of technology transfer and proliferation that will require diplomacy and masterful management to avoid entanglements. Finally, SSN(X) is a high-risk undertaking to preserve America’s underwater warfare edge.

Its success will rely on consistent appropriations, overcoming past industrial bottlenecks, and taking advantage of allied partnership learning to work. The battle for supremacy beneath the waves has already begun, and the submarine that comes out at last from the SSN(X) program may chart the course of undersea operations for decades to come. 

The conflict between Ukraine and Russia has escalated to bizarre levels: nuclear power plants are the new protagonists of a soap opera that seems to have been written from a political thriller’s chapters. Such installations, which had been put in place with great care to ensure safety and stability, are now the stage on which the actors of the global tension, fear, and endless war of stories perform their plays. The earth is waiting at the theatre gates of these worryingly tall stakes from Zaporizhzhia to Kursk.

Setting the Stage: Ukraine’s Independence Day and Nuclear Fears

Ukraine’s Independence Day has long been a festive, pride-filled, and reflective holiday. In recent years, though, the holiday has served as a reminder of the constant specter looming over the country. This year, with parades and speeches, the looming shadow of nuclear dangers hung inescapably. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky spoke to the country in a call for peace, demanding that Ukrainians themselves determine the fate of Ukraine. But with nuclear power plants under constant bombardment, that vision of peace seems painfully within reach.

Kursk Nuclear Power Plant: Fires, Blame, and Alarm

Kursk was in the news again when a drone strike ignited one of its transformers. The Russian authorities were quick to blame Ukraine, assuring that the situation was under control and levels of radiation were within norms. Even the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had a say, adding that nuclear plants must always be defended.

But it doesn’t end there. Moscow portrayed the accident as evidence of Ukrainian irresponsibility, with Ukraine ready to trade nuclear security for geopolitical advantage. Ukraine hasn’t had much to say, and most analysts note that an attack on a nuclear power plant would be strategically suicidal for Kyiv. Russians reply that Russia’s account is a shallow attempt at perception management, a standard deployment of nuclear fear as a political tool.

Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant: A Festering Tension

While Kursk has only just come under scrutiny, Zaporizhzhia has been a focus of global concern for many years. Fires, aerial bombardment by drones, and shelling have become the norm of the day, with accusations flying left and right. Russia accuses Ukraine of attempting to create a nuclear crisis, but Ukraine accuses Russian forces of endangering the facility and of using it as a military target.

President Zelensky accused Russian-appointed staff of deliberately engaging in arson, presenting it as a strategy for putting pressure on Kyiv. Russian authorities, on the other hand, attribute blame to the Ukrainian military forces, perpetuating a vicious cycle. In the midst of turmoil, the IAEA regularly reports stable radiation levels and calls for restraint, but the tension below remains.

Russia’s Disinformation Strategy: Weaponizing Nuclear Fear

One of the most striking aspects of this war is the militarization of nuclear fear. By repeatedly telling Ukraine to prepare to strike nuclear facilities, Russian spokesmen seek to influence public opinion, divert attention from their own military activities, and instill a sense of crisis favorable to them.

Slogans claiming Ukrainian activities constitute “nuclear terrorism” are meant to shock, intimidate, and influence international perception—when the facts are flimsy. Experts call this strategy very clever: it keeps the world at arm’s length, deflects attention from facts on the ground, and puts Russia in charge of determining what comes next, no matter what the facts.

International Response: Balancing Safety and Diplomacy

The IAEA is constantly in the middle, always trying to prevent disaster but remaining impartial. Their experts see accidents unfold, always ensuring safety is in place. Western politicians have made strong declarations of Ukrainian solidarity, reasserting that any threat to nuclear security is unacceptable. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen reaffirmed solidarity with Kyiv, declaring that a free Ukraine is tied to a free Europe.

But still the propaganda war rages on. Russia accuses Western countries of sabotaging negotiations, and Ukraine holds firm that control of its nuclear plants is essential for final security. The IAEA urges restraint and wise action, but in such a big-stakes game, restraint seems a luxury. 

Why Nuclear Plants Are Such Powerful Political Tools

Why are nuclear power plants then at the center of this story? Because they represent titanic might and ultimate fragility. A small mishap is enough to make front-page news on a worldwide scale, create fear, and invite foreign scrutiny. Politically and psychologically, there is not much actual advantage in bombing a nuclear power plant, but strategically, the effect is tremendous.

Ukraine fully understands that to bomb a nuclear power plant would isolate its allies and bring contempt from the world. Russia appears to gain an advantage through holding the world at bay, utilizing threats of nuclear attack to distract, dominate, and dictate.

The nuclear crossfire at its heart is not about reactors or radiation—it’s about narrative control. Each explosion, each charge, and each foreign adventure is another page in a suspenseful, open-ended political thriller, and the world holds its breath waiting for each page.

Compared with the latest air defense systems, the S-500 “Prometheus” is the most techno-heavy and complex system by far of any other system of that kind. It aims to be the first system capable of fighting stealth aircraft, hypersonic missiles, and satellites in low Earth orbits, and thus not only the defense but also the strategic deterrence field shall be revolutionized by S-500.

Introduction: S-500 as a Next Generation Shield

S-500 is not a substitute for the canceled surface-to-air missile programs. S-500 represents a qualitative breakthrough, equating the strategic level of missile defense with the tactical air defense level.

S-500 is different from existing systems fielded today in that it will be engaging the most challenging targets to knock down—intercontinental ballistic missiles, hypersonic gliders, stealth aircraft, and even low-earth orbit satellites.

S-500 is thus an air defense system with multi-domain capabilities, extending the boundaries of what can be achieved by a ground platform.

Development and Technical Capability

The S-500 concept first gained traction during the early 2010s, at one point, when strategists were attempting to counter the new emerging threat that hypersonic missiles and fifth-generation stealth fighter planes presented.

It was first due for launch in 2014, but was delayed not only because of technology problems but also manufacturing defects. Initial releases were made sometime around 2021, with releases gaining pace by sometime in the mid-2020s.

As a technologically based capability, the S-500 is astonishing. It features a speed of 600 kilometers and an altitude of intercept speed of 200 kilometers, cutting through space with ease in its terrain.

Its interceptors supposedly are capable of keeping pace with targets moving at very high speeds, e.g., hypersonic missiles.

The system boasts state-of-the-art radar, command, and missile technology to sense, identify, and destroy multiple targets at a time; its coverage area is matched by only a few systems on the planet.

In air, missile, and near-space domains, the S-500 is a weapon but also a strategic asset that can affect defense strategy and geopolitics.

It is reflective of a worldwide movement towards highly mobile, multi-tiered air defense systems with the ability to counteract the very dynamic character of threats of warfare in the current generation.

Battle for Pokrovsk in Donetsk Oblast unfolded as a snapshot of the bigger war in Ukraine, revealing the harshness of attrition, the shortage of soldiers on hand, and the increasing role of technology in the modern battlefields. In the spring of 2024, Russian troops started their attack on Pokrovsk when Ukraine was understaffed and short-handed after the Western military support had declined. After several weeks of strong assaults, Russia still hasn’t captured the town, which has caused the Russian forces to redirect their work from the frontal attacks to the more complex envelopment operations that they carry out through the flanking towns of Selydove and Kurakhove.

This new Russian tactic is more than a tactical change on the battlefield—it shows the new contours of positional warfare in eastern Ukraine. Russian troops have made incremental gains, taking towns like Selydove and using their control over Vuhledar to advance into Kurakhove. But these gains have come at a cost. Ukrainian forces have inflicted huge losses with a mix of infantry resilience, artillery shelling, and, increasingly, drone bombing. They have been most significant, independent military experts say, limiting the speed and efficiency of Russian mechanized warfare and forcing infantry to push slowly, often on foot. Drone missions have been the backbone of Ukraine’s defense in northwestern Donetsk Oblast.

These special groups have been launching attacks on Russian armored vehicles, stopping the vehicles from moving in a larger area, and, as a result, troops have to go in smaller groups, using natural shelters such as forests and buildings. It is tactically appropriate to do so, but at the same time, it has affected the Russian pace negatively and escalated the war to a higher level of attrition. Russian strategists admit that small-scale ground assaults are not very efficient for fast grabs of territories, particularly in the regions where Ukrainian drones have air superiority. Both sides have shortages of personnel, but Ukraine is in the most difficult position.

The Ukrainian military started the war with experienced combatants, the majority of whom had fought in Donbas since 2014. Years of losses have drawn down these seasoned ranks, with more and more new, poorly trained, unmotivated troops. Spring mobilization in 2024 brought thousands of troops to the front, but their morale and endurance were not as great as those of the early volunteers. Desertion and insubordination are evident, as some troops, overwhelmed by the intensity of combat and the pervasiveness of enemy drones and artillery, simply refuse to return to the front.

The psychological cost of the war is illustrated in stories like that of battalion commander Dima, who, after losing nearly all his troops near Pokrovsk, turned to a Kyiv office job, unable to endure the constant grieving. Officers now spend more time providing minimal comforts—shower rooms, haircuts, brief respite—to allow soldiers to tolerate exhaustion and tedium. However, after years of continuous combat, many are trapped in a never-ending cycle. Russia has depended most on raw numbers to offset its tactical shortcomings.

The mobilization in 2022 fundamentally increased troop counts to allow Moscow to advance with human wave assaults that gained modestly restricted ground. But this comes at an extremely high cost. Russia’s casualties are reported to be accruing more quickly than can be replenished, and its production of tanks and armored vehicles is lagging. There have been some contributions from North Korean volunteers, but the underlying shortage of manpower remains.

Desertion is not a problem exclusive to Ukraine; Russian troops are deserting in increasing numbers as well. Hundreds of Russian soldiers flee every month, reports say, motivated by moral reasons, fear for their lives, or refusal to obey orders they deem criminal. Psychological pressure—round-the-clock observation, patrolling strategic locations, and the risk of being ordered into fatal attacks—has led some officers to risk everything to desert. Technology, however, is revolutionizing the way war is being fought in Ukraine.

There has emerged a support infrastructure of defense startups, research organizations, and programs like the BRAVE1 technology cluster to fill manpower gaps. The advent of the Unmanned Systems Forces indicates that Ukraine is focusing on a technology-led battlefield. Robots are performing tasks along the extended front lines, from planting mines to rescuing wounded troops.

Drone bombers carrying machine guns and heat vision are functional, but demand exceeds supply. Merging drones, robots, and AI poses risks, but the short-term goal is the priority: save lives and push back the Russian advance. Deep-strike drones targeting Russian supply hubs and fuel storage facilities have disrupted Russian supply chains and forced Russian air defenses to be redirected, adding to Moscow’s problems.

The stakes are beyond the city of Pokrovsk. The fight is a test of endurance, ingenuity, and will. Russia’s policy involves incremental gains, but increasing losses, and Ukraine’s asymmetric capabilities undermine that expectation. By shedding territory for time, inflicting disproportionate damage, and leveraging technology, Ukraine is dictating that victory will not be coming.

But the outcome is far from guaranteed. The success of Ukraine’s defense depends on timely Western aid, better leadership and training, and continued development of asymmetric capabilities. Delays in aid already incur their costs, and more is threatened to be added. As war enters its fourth year, Pokrovsk is a grim reminder: twenty-first-century war is less a matter of brute firepower and more a matter of responsiveness, tolerance, and strategic use of technology.