Ukrainian Military Criticizes US Abrams Tanks: Vulnerabilities and Battlefield Challenges Revealed

 The reputation of the US-supplied Abrams tanks, once considered a game-changer for Ukraine’s military, is now under heavy scrutiny. Ukrainian soldiers have reported weaknesses and flaws in these American vehicles, raising doubts about their effectiveness in the ongoing conflict with Russian forces.

Initially, the deployment of Abrams tanks, specifically the M1A1 models, was intended to bolster Ukraine's resistance. In January 2023, following persistent lobbying by Ukrainian officials, the US agreed to send 31 Abrams tanks. Each costing approximately $10 million, these tanks were expected to breach Russian defensive lines. By October 2023, all 31 tanks had arrived in Ukraine, igniting hopes for a strategic advantage.

However, battlefield experiences have revealed significant challenges. At least five Abrams tanks have been destroyed by Russian attacks, particularly from drones, undermining their anticipated impact. Ukrainian tank crews trained in Germany expressed concerns about the tanks’ armor, stating it is not strong enough to protect against modern weapons.

"The tank’s armor is not sufficient for this moment," said one crew member, known as Joker. "It doesn’t protect the crew. For real, today, this is the war of drones. So now, when the tank rolls out, they always try to hit them." Another crew member, Dnipro, highlighted that Abrams tanks have become the "number one target" on the battlefield, emphasizing the high risk to soldiers.

Despite reports suggesting a withdrawal of Abrams tanks from the front lines, officials from the 47th Mechanized Brigade confirmed that all Abrams tanks remain near the eastern front. Technical issues have further compounded the tanks' challenges. During a CNN visit, one tank was immobilized due to an engine problem despite being newly shipped from Poland. Additionally, rain or fog can cause condensation, potentially damaging the vehicle's electronics.

The crews also face ammunition issues, with the current supplies being unsuitable for their combat needs. "What we have is more for direct tank-to-tank fights, which happens very rarely," Joker explained. "More often, we work as artillery. You need to take apart a tree line or a building. We had a case when we fired 17 rounds into a house, and it was still standing."

Why Are Abrams Tanks Facing Challenges?

Main Battle Tanks (MBTs) play a critical role in modern high-intensity land warfare. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has shown that large-scale offensive operations require an adequate supply of these powerful machines. However, several factors have contributed to the struggles of US-supplied Abrams tanks on the Ukrainian frontlines.

Some Western sources have criticized Ukrainian leadership for poor operational planning. However, Ukraine's armed forces are at a severe disadvantage against a well-armed and deeply entrenched Russian Army. The effectiveness of Abrams tanks has also been hindered by the lack of crucial aerial support, which is vital for modern armored warfare. Ukrainian tank crews noted the critical difference between NATO and Ukrainian battlefield conditions. Abrams tanks were designed for a NATO style of warfare, which heavily relies on air power and artillery to prepare the battlefield before tanks and infantry advance. Kyiv has often expressed frustration over the lack of adequate artillery and air power.

Joker, a Ukrainian tank crew member, explained that NATO soldiers would never undertake similar advances without air support. "Call the aviation, call the artillery," he mimicked a NATO soldier, pointing out that Ukraine has neither adequate aviation nor artillery, only tanks.

Entrenched defenses can only be breached with decisive airpower and massing heavy armor. Without airpower, this tactic requires numerous tanks, but Kyiv's current arsenal is a patchwork of different vehicles. While Washington has supplied 31 Abrams tanks to Ukraine, experts argue that at least two brigades of Abrams tanks—approximately 200—are needed in a coordinated effort to make an impact on the battlefield.

Despite their advanced design and capabilities, the limited number of Abrams tanks cannot overcome the well-fortified Russian defenses. Ukraine has become a graveyard for tanks, as even these advanced vehicles succumb to the harsh realities of the battlefield.

Sweden Donates AEW&C Aircraft to Ukraine, Enhancing F-16 Capabilities Amid Threats from Russian MiG-31BM

In a major and unexpected move, Sweden has announced it will supply Ukraine with two Saab 340 airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft as part of a new SEK 13.3 billion ($1.25 billion) military aid package. This aid marks Sweden's largest support package to date, aiming to bolster collective air defense capabilities. The announcement came on May 29, when the Swedish government detailed its "Military Support Package 16," with the Saab 340 AEW&C aircraft, also known as the S 100D Argus or ASC 890, being the central component.

The Swedish Ministry of Defense stated that these aircraft would provide Ukraine with a new capability for airborne radar reconnaissance and combat control against air and sea targets, significantly enhancing Kyiv's long-range detection and targeting abilities. Equipped with advanced Erieye radars based on Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) technology, these aircraft will revolutionize Ukraine’s surveillance capabilities.

Currently, the Swedish Air Force operates only two of these sophisticated surveillance planes. The aid package indicates that one or both of these planes will be transferred to Kyiv, temporarily reducing Sweden’s AEW&C capability. To address this, Stockholm will expedite the acquisition of an additional Saab GlobalEye platform and accelerate the delivery of two units already on order, with the first new aircraft expected by 2027.

Sweden’s Minister of Defense, Pal Jonson, noted that sending the planes followed intensive discussions with coalition countries and emphasized that the ASC 890 aircraft would significantly bolster Ukrainian air defense. These advanced aircraft will complement the F-16 fighter jets to be supplied by Belgium, Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands, forming a robust air force coalition for Ukraine. The timeline for the delivery of the ASC 890 aircraft has not been specified.

AEW&C Aircraft for Ukraine

The deployment of these AEW&C aircraft holds significant strategic value. They offer extensive overhead surveillance, crucial for detecting low-flying threats like Russian drones and cruise missiles that often evade conventional radar systems. The Saab 340 AEW&C will play a vital role in coordinating F-16 fighter operations by detecting, prioritizing, and guiding targets for interception, thus enhancing Ukraine's defense posture.

Valerii Romanenko, a leading researcher at the National Aviation University of Ukraine, emphasized the transformative impact of these aircraft, highlighting their ability to unlock the full potential of the multi-role F-16 fighters. The Saab 340’s integration with the NATO-standard Link 16 datalink communications system ensures seamless coordination with allied air defense systems, providing a comprehensive air defense picture and targeting data to compatible systems both airborne and on the ground.

Russian Threats and AEW&C Vulnerability

Despite their operational advantages, AEW&C systems are vulnerable to hostile actions. Earlier this year, the Russian Air Force lost two Beriev A-50 AWACS planes to Ukrainian missile attacks, underscoring the strategic importance and susceptibility of these aircraft. The Saab 340 AEW&C, with a detection range of up to 450 km, would need to operate within Ukrainian airspace to be effective, making them targets for Russian MiG-31BM and Su-57 fighters armed with R-37 air-to-air missiles, which have a range of 300 kilometers.

While the MiG-31BM presents a detectable threat, the Su-57’s advanced stealth capabilities pose a significant detection challenge. Additionally, the R-37M missiles are exceedingly difficult to evade. The Mikoyan MiG-31BM interceptors near the Russia-Ukraine border extend the threat radius across Ukrainian airspace, often forcing Ukrainian fighter pilots to abort missions. The relatively slower and less agile Saab 340 is more vulnerable compared to the four-engine A-50, which can reach higher speeds and altitudes.

Conclusion

The introduction of Saab 340 AEW&C aircraft to Ukraine’s military will significantly enhance its surveillance and defense capabilities. However, these gains come with increased vulnerability to advanced Russian fighter jets and missile systems. The balance of power in the region will be closely monitored as these developments unfold. 

Global Advances in Sixth-Generation Fighter Jets: Emerging Technologies and International Collaboration

 Most fighter jets in service worldwide belong to the 4th and 4.5th generations, with over 1,500 fifth-generation fighters currently operational. Numerous fifth-generation aircraft programs are now integrating sixth-generation technologies, which are still developing and are expensive due to their cutting-edge nature. These advancements include enhanced communications, Internet of Things (IoT) capabilities, and extensive data sharing across platforms. A global look at the efforts to develop sixth-generation fighter aircraft reveals various international collaborations.

Many nations, unable to fund these expensive programs independently, are forming consortiums. The F-35 program exemplifies such partnerships. Some countries aim to enhance their defense industries and reduce reliance on American programs. The Global Combat Air Program (GCAP), involving Italy, Japan, and the UK, is a notable example.

The term "generation" in jet fighters refers to stages in design, performance, and technological evolution, though there are no official definitions. Understanding the fifth and sixth generations is crucial.

Fifth-Generation Fighters: The fifth generation began with the F-22 Raptor in 2005, designed for a network-centric combat environment. These fighters have advanced low-observable features, multifunction AESA radars, and integrated sensors for superior situational awareness. Key features include advanced electronic warfare systems, stealth technology, thrust vectoring for enhanced maneuverability, and internal weapon bays to maintain low radar visibility. Examples include the F-35, Russia's SU-57, and China's Chengdu J-20 and Shenyang J-31.

Sixth-Generation Technologies: These include advanced networking, AI, data fusion, cyber warfare capabilities, and modular designs allowing rapid upgrades. New stealth airframes, high-capacity networking, and integration with various platforms are expected. The Tempest program, led by the UK, Italy, and Sweden, exemplifies these technologies, including AI-supported operations and advanced radar systems.

Global Collaborations: The GCAP aims to merge efforts from the UK, Japan, and Italy to develop a sixth-generation fighter, combining the BAE Systems Tempest and Mitsubishi F-X programs. Development is set to start in 2025, with service induction around 2035. Challenges include harmonizing capabilities across partner nations and ensuring cost-effectiveness.

US NGAD Program: The USAF's Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program aims to succeed the F-22 Raptor with a family of systems, including manned and unmanned aircraft, expected to be operational by the 2030s.

Chinese and Russian Programs: China is advancing its sixth-generation aircraft development, aiming for completion by 2035. Russia, despite the incomplete operationalization of the Su-57, is also pursuing sixth-generation technology, emphasizing AI and automation.

Overall, the development of sixth-generation fighter jets is marked by international collaboration, cutting-edge technology integration, and the aim to maintain air superiority in future combat environments.

Turkey's Navy Showcases Unmanned Surface Vessels in Denizkurdu-II Drill

 The Turkish Naval Forces recently conducted the Denizkurdu-II exercise in the Mediterranean Sea, which prominently featured several unmanned surface vessels (USVs) alongside ships, submarines, and aircraft. The drill, held from May 7 to May 18, also included participation from the Turkish Air Forces.

Among the USVs involved were six Albatros-S vessels, designed by the domestic company Aselsan. These vessels are 7.2 meters in length and 2 meters in width, with a displacement of 2,200 kilograms. Powered by a diesel engine, they can reach speeds exceeding 40 knots and are capable of carrying a 200-kilogram warhead.

Another USV featured in the drill was the TCB 1101, the first such vessel commissioned by the Turkish navy. The Marlin platform, which previously participated in NATO exercises REPMUS and Dynamic Messenger in 2022 off Portugal's coast, was developed through a collaboration between Aselsan and Sefine Shipyard. This vessel measures 15 meters in length, 3.85 meters in width, and has a displacement of 21 tons. It is equipped with the Ares 2N electronic support measures system, Ares 2NC electronic countermeasures systems, and the Stamp remote-controlled weapon station, all produced by Aselsan.

The USVs were operated from both land-based and shipborne control centers. Retired Rear Admiral Cem Okyay highlighted the capabilities of these unmanned vessels, noting their utility in defending against asymmetric threats, conducting anti-surface and anti-submarine warfare, engaging in electromagnetic warfare, and performing mine countermeasure operations. Additionally, they enhance reconnaissance, surveillance, and intelligence gathering efforts.

In total, the exercise included 94 crewed ships, eight submarines, 10 maritime patrol aircraft, 16 helicopters, 28 unmanned combat aerial vehicles, 26 fighter jets, an airborne warning and control system aircraft, an A400M cargo plane, and a target-towing aircraft.

Aurora Advances to Next Design Phase for DARPA's High-Speed Vertical Takeoff X-Plane

 

Aurora Flight Sciences has completed the conceptual design phase of an innovative vertical-takeoff-and-landing aircraft for the Pentagon's SPRINT program and is now entering the preliminary design stage.

The SPRINT (Speed and Runway Independent Technologies) program aims to develop a vertical takeoff aircraft, also referred to as the X-plane, capable of achieving speeds between 400 and 450 knots. This is significantly faster than the V-22 Osprey, which has a maximum speed of 270 knots. The aircraft must be able to hover stably, transition seamlessly from hovering to forward flight, and feature a distributed energy system that powers all propulsion technology during these transitions.

DARPA has given companies the flexibility to design the aircraft as crewed, uncrewed, or autonomous. In November 2023, DARPA awarded six-month contracts to four companies—Aurora (a Boeing subsidiary), Bell Textron, Northrop Grumman, and Piasecki Aircraft Corp.—to begin their conceptual designs.

On April 30, Aurora received a $25 million contract modification to continue developing its version of the SPRINT aircraft. This significant funding boost follows an initial $4.2 million allocation. Currently, Aurora is the only company to receive further funding to advance in the SPRINT program, but more awards may follow. DARPA plans to eliminate at least one company from the competition after the conceptual design phase.

Aurora’s blended-wing design incorporates three embedded lift fans for vertical flight, transitioning to embedded engines for forward flight. This design reduces drag and allows high-speed travel, making it ideal for air mobility and special operations missions. New concept art from Aurora shows an uncrewed aircraft with a composite exterior capable of cruising at 450 knots. The design is adaptable, with the potential to add more lift fans or create a crewed version if military requirements change.

Aurora aims to complete the preliminary design review within a year and conduct the first flight in three years. Bell Textron, another competitor, is pursuing a tiltrotor design similar to the Osprey.

In addition to the SPRINT project, DARPA awarded Aurora an $8.3 million contract modification to continue developing an experimental heavy cargo seaplane, the Liberty Lifter.

How Russia Rebuilt Its Military Force and Surprised the West: Pentagon Insights

 

In March, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin detailed the extensive costs Russia has incurred from its invasion of Ukraine: over 315,000 troops killed or wounded, more than $211 billion spent, and 20 ships damaged or sunk in the Black Sea. Speaking at Ramstein Air Base in Germany, Austin emphasized the heavy toll on Russia due to President Vladimir Putin's ambitions.

However, by April, Austin's perspective had shifted. At a news conference, he and Gen. CQ Brown, the top U.S. military officer, acknowledged Russia's unexpected recovery. Austin noted that Russia had significantly increased its production, with its defense industry closely aligned with state directives, allowing rapid ramp-ups. Gen. Brown remarked that Russia had "aggressively reconstituted its military force."

This evolving view of Russia's military capabilities suggests a faster recovery than anticipated by the U.S. Initially, experts estimated that Russia's reconstitution of its military, especially its high-end equipment, would take five to ten years. U.S. Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines and other officials shared this long-term outlook in early 2023.

Yet, recent observations indicate that Russia's military has rebounded to pre-invasion levels. Gen. Christopher Cavoli, the top U.S. military officer in Europe, highlighted that despite some gaps, Russia's overall military capacity remains significant, with intentions to further expand.

Several factors have contributed to this rapid recovery:

1. Resilient Defense Industry: Russia has nearly tripled its defense budget, spending between $130 billion and $140 billion in 2024, equivalent to a substantial share of its GDP. This increased spending has boosted salaries and attracted more workers to the defense sector, with official figures showing a 20% rise in defense industry employment during the war. This funding has also facilitated the procurement of military hardware, doubling the budget share allocated for equipment.

2. Sanction Evasion: Despite a wide range of sanctions from the U.S. and Europe, Russia has managed to reroute its supply lines through allies like China. Trade between Russia and China hit an all-time high, with Chinese companies supplying critical components for Russian weapon production.

3. Support from Allies: Other U.S. adversaries, such as North Korea and Iran, have provided direct military aid to Russia. North Korea has supplied millions of artillery rounds, and Iran has sent numerous drones, which Russia has used extensively against Ukraine.

Russia's military growth raises concerns about sustainability. The U.K.'s Adm. Tony Radakin pointed out that while Russia is making progress, it relies heavily on Soviet-era inventories and struggles to train new recruits effectively. Despite substantial casualties, Russia continues to launch offensives, raising questions about how long it can maintain such operations.

Russia's reconstitution has involved refurbishing old equipment and leveraging partnerships with countries like Belarus and North Korea. However, the sustainability of these efforts remains uncertain, with varying estimates of Russia's actual production capabilities.

As both Russia and Ukraine face challenges in sustaining their military operations, the broader implications for NATO and global security continue to evolve. While Russia's recent advancements are significant, experts like Radakin believe that it will take about a decade for Russia to pose a serious threat to NATO again.

US Military Academy Report Reveals Three Strategies to Counter Kamikaze Drones

 The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has highlighted the impact of inexpensive drones causing significant damage to advanced, costly targets. This insight, combined with the effectiveness of Hamas's drone attack on Israel on October 7, has spurred the anti-drone industry to innovate technologies to combat drone threats on the battlefield.

Recently, Russia has deployed new AI-powered anti-drone systems, Abzats and Gyurza, in Ukraine. Abzats, a mobile jamming platform, uses AI to autonomously execute electronic warfare tasks, jamming frequencies utilized by UAVs. Similarly, Gyurza's AI selectively jams frequencies used by Ukrainian drones, neutralizing them. Oleg Zhukov, CEO of Geran, a Russian research company, affirmed the effectiveness of AI in electronic warfare for automatically suppressing enemy drones.

Ukraine, meanwhile, is receiving various counter-drone systems from the U.S., such as counter-drone gun trucks and laser-guided rockets. Additionally, Ukraine has acquired several CORTEX Typhon systems from Norway's Kongsberg, which detect drones via radar and shoot them down with missiles. Ukraine has also developed its own EW systems like the Brave1 and the L3Harris VAMPIRE, a laser-guided missile launcher used effectively against Iranian-produced Shahed drones.

Israel is a key player in the counter-drone sector with systems like Rafael's Drone Dome and Elbit's ReDrone, which detect drones and emit jamming signals to disrupt their operation. These systems are used by various countries to protect critical infrastructure and are considered highly effective.

The counter-drone market is growing rapidly, projected to reach $14.6 billion by 2031 from $1.3 billion in 2021, driven by key players like Lockheed Martin, Dedrone, and Raytheon Technologies. However, the cost imbalance between cheap drones and expensive countermeasures poses a significant challenge. Experts argue that the industry has yet to develop universally applicable, scalable solutions.

Brett Velicovich, CEO of Drone Experts, noted the vast number of counter-drone technologies, but no single solution guarantees complete protection against drones. The real challenge lies in creating an affordable, effective system adaptable to various situations.

There are four main categories of counter-drone systems: Tracking, Jamming, Kinetic, and Hybrid/Cyber approaches. Tracking and jamming systems locate and disrupt drone signals, while kinetic systems destroy drones with projectiles. However, these systems' effectiveness varies based on location and situation, especially against multiple drone attacks.

As drone technology advances, new vulnerabilities in sensors and radar coverage are exploited. Consequently, there is growing emphasis on building impenetrable shelters like bunkers against drone attacks.

A report from the "Modern War Institute" at the US Military Academy outlines three primary defense strategies against one-way attack drones: shooting them down, using electronic interference, or seeking shelter. Despite expensive technologies, simple measures like sandbags and concrete remain effective. Bunkers, combined with radars and concrete T-walls, provide essential protection, although overhead coverage is crucial against precise attacks.

In conclusion, counter-drone operations require a multi-layered defense combining active and passive measures. A single, simple solution is not feasible, and the ongoing conflict will continue to see evolving tactics between drones and counter-drone technologies.