MegaProjects https://megaprojects.pub en-us Sat, 18 Jul 2026 15:40:01 GMT https://megaprojects.pub/article/comac-china-rival-airbus-boeing https://megaprojects.pub/article/comac-china-rival-airbus-boeing Sat, 04 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT For decades, Boeing and Airbus have ruled the skies, supplying—between them—almost every commercial jetliner on Earth. They don't just sell airplanes; they sell ecosystems: multi-billion-dollar order books, decade-long service and training contracts, export-credit support, and parts depots from Dallas to Doha. Flag carriers, low-cost giants, and leasing firms across every region run on that machine. In short: they've been the only show in town. But now, a third name is starting to make waves: COMAC — China's state-backed aviation giant. With **billions** in funding, political backing, and a vast home market hungry for flights, they are out to break the duopoly, with their new jet, the C919, being pitched as a direct rival to the A320 and 737 – sleek and modern, but crucially, cheaper. It's already in service domestically. But there's a problem: the West isn't buying. And there are reasons for that. From certification hurdles to supply chain concerns, COMAC faces serious headwinds. Yet there's more to this story than simple engineering woes. Because behind the specs lies a tale of geopolitics, industrial espionage, and a country desperate to dominate the skies… ## A Long Hard Road China's civil aviation sector wasn't exactly what you would call quick off the mark – something that is important to understand so that you can appreciate just how far they have come with the C919. Case in point: the Shanghai Y-10, the nation's first attempt at making a modern jetliner. It flew in 1980, to much fanfare, but development ended up fizzling out after only three prototypes had been produced. Long story short, it was basically a reverse engineered Boeing 707 – which itself wasn't exactly cutting edge come 1980 – that ended up costing a fortune, was underpowered, overweight, and horribly fuel inefficient. Subsequent attempts at cracking the civil aviation nut, quite sensibly, were more modest. The Xi'an Y-7, for example, was a small turboprop transport aircraft based upon the Soviet Antonov An-24, which first flew in 1984, and similarly, there was also the Harbin Y-12, a small utility aircraft, again powered by turboprops, which first flew in 1982 – although it was indigenously designed. Both commendable efforts to be sure, as after all, how many nations produce aircraft, period, but, nonetheless, objectively, an aviation industry to rival that of the U.S., it was not. Come the 2000s, however, they started taking small, cautious steps beyond that initial foothold — with the Y-7 being further refined into the MA60. Further still, they also even made a few proper, as in not turboprop powered, airliners of their own, as McDonnell Douglas had allowed them to produce MD-90's under license – although only two were made before the company's merger with Boeing saw the scheme terminated. Again, nothing to be ashamed of for sure, but for Beijing, particularly come the mid noughties, such a state of affairs was simply **not** good enough. Their nation was on the up, they were increasingly wealthy, their advanced industrial sectors were booming, and they were to be one of the global big boys – therefore, an advanced and world leading aviation sector they just **had** to have. No ifs. No buts. And no excuses. In fact, with this attitude in mind, the development of large airliners was even made a key national priority in the 2006 'Medium-and-Long-Term Science & Tech Plan' – an economic to-do list that outlined how the nation was to develop over the next 15 years. As for how they were to do it, that would be with the formation of the Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China, or COMAC, in 2008. It was to be a state-owned champion that would concentrate the best and brightest aeronautical minds China had all in one place, throw a bugger load of money at them – reportedly **72 billion USD's worth by 2020** — and let them loose in the pursuit of a single goal: give the People's Republic an aircraft manufacturer to rival Boeing and Airbus. China was also in a **great** place to be doing that back then too. The absolute decimation of poverty and growth of wealth in the nation during the tenure of Deng Xiaoping and onwards was meaning that, increasingly, China was a nation with cash to spend – and Western aerospace firms wanted in. The price of admission? Build factories, set up joint companies, and transfer tech. Or, in other words: 'help expand our skilled labour pool and show us how things are done, or our hundreds of millions strong and still growing middle class won't be flying on your airplanes.' It was a frankly genius play… and it worked. Airbus, for example, agreed to set up an A320 assembly line in Tianjin in 2008, and companies like Honeywell, Collins, General Electric, and Safran entered partnerships with local firms to supply components for new Chinese made jets. And so COMAC's table was set. Unlike the forlorn Y-10 project, COMAC in 2008 had political mandate, ample funding, experienced workers, access to foreign technology, and a **massive** home market eager to fly…. Now they just had to *actually build* some jets. ## The Prodigal Children COMAC, as of the time of writing, has two jets that have made it to production, the C909 and the C919. The former is actually a project that predates COMAC, as development of the ARJ21 *Xiangfeng* – as it was originally called – actually began back in 2002, with it hitting the prototyping stage in 2008, just before the creation of COMAC, at which point its development was handed over to them, and they saw it through to completion, with it eventually entering commercial service in mid-2016. How 'Chinese' it actually *is* remains a contentious point though. Most in-country sources insist that it is a properly indigenous design, while many Western analysts are pretty convinced that it is heavily derived from the MD-80. The latter, however, is the more accurate interpretation, because while it was certainly Chinese minds that drafted the final design, and Chinese hands that bolted it all together, we also know that the wings came via Antonov in Ukraine, the engines are General Electric CF34's from the U.S., and the avionics are supplied by Rockwell Collins, again in the U.S… so yeah… To be fair to COMAC though, it does seem to be a perfectly competent little jet, with the latest models flying 90(ish) passengers as far as 2,000 nautical miles quite happily. **But**, despite that, an Embraer E-Jet, ultimately, it is not, as compared to them, the C909 is heavier, has less range, has reliability that is… sub optimal, and a cabin that gets rather toasty in the rear, next to where the engines are mounted – at least on the earlier models. Perhaps this is why it hasn't exactly been a sales bonanza for COMAC, because as of the time of writing, it has been in production for just over nine years, and has seen roughly 165–170 units sold; only four of which went to non-Chinese airlines — three to Indonesia-based TransNusa, and one to Lao Airlines, based out of Laos — as the name rather gives away — as well as a further two to Vietnam's VietJet, which are operated under a wet-lease from Chengdu Airlines. Don't mistake the Chinese airlines having received a decent number of them for enthusiasm on their part, either, as most that have been delivered, as well as confirmed orders pending delivery, are for smaller carriers, think Genghis Khan Airlines, Jiangxi Air, and China Express Airlines, rather the big players that are Air China, China Eastern, and China Southern. But really, the C909 is just a sideshow for COMAC, a stepchild they inherited, and that musters little enthusiasm as a result. Instead, what they **really** care about is the C919. After all, they weren't formed to just pump out regional jets, they were formed to take the fight to Airbus and Boeing, by making big, proper, full sized, turbofan powered, **serious** jets… and that's exactly what the C919 aspires to be: a narrow-body challenger aimed directly at the Boeing 737 MAX and Airbus A320neo. Its development began back in 2008 — pretty much the moment that COMAC was founded in fact – with it first flying in 2017, receiving type certification in 2022, and finally entering commercial service in 2023, with China Eastern taking the first unit, and immediately putting it to work on their prestigious Shanghai-Beijing route. Under the skin, it's a classic example of Chinese hybrid engineering, with the airframe being COMAC's, but the guts being mostly Western. The engines, for example, are Franco-American CFM International LEAP-1c's — the same basic type powering the A320neo and 737 MAX, incidentally. Then there are the avionics and flight control systems, which come from joint ventures with General Electric, Honeywell, both American, and others. Liebherr, German-Swiss, makes the landing gear. Parker Aerospace, American, does the fuel system. By value ultimately, when all is said and done, it's estimated that around **half** of the C919's parts are imported. Not that that's a scandal, however, as it's not like Boeing and Airbus don't use suppliers that fly different national flags outside their head offices, but for a program that's always pitched as China's "breakthrough" in aviation independence, it's certainly a tad ironic… Nonetheless, though, the C919 is a **big** step forward to be sure. It's certified — in China, they're still working on it elsewhere — it's flying, can seat 192 people in all economy high density configuration, can carry them up to 3,000 nautical miles – enough for most Chinese domestic and regional routes — and it offers a roughly comparable experience to the A320ceo or 737NG, i.e., the **last** generation of those aircraft. We want to stress that detail about it being on parity with the **last** generation of those aircraft in particular too, as compared to the newer ones, like an A320neo or a 737-MAX-8, the C919 is a bit heavier, slightly less efficient, and comes with some per-seat operating cost disadvantages. That last point, as far as potential customers are concerned, is a seriously, majorly, catastrophically **bad** prospect too. Airlines work on tiny profit margins you see, typical a single digit percentage, so to them, the prospect of an aircraft which is a smidge less efficient, and the like, could well represent a choice between profitability, and bankruptcy. COMAC, not lacking for grey matter as they are, however, have thought of a clever solution to increase its market viability: a lower sticker price, with the C919 reportedly selling for **101 million USD**, at least when it launched in 2022. For comparison, when LATAM Airlines out of Chile slapped down 1.8 billion USD for 17 A321neos in that same year, they paid 105.9 million USD per unit, and when Delta in the US did so for 100 737-MAX-10's, also in 2022, they paid 13.5 billion, or 135 million per unit. Annoyingly, because individual negotiation plays such a big part in deciding final sticker price, there isn't an easy, straight comparison we can make, but by breaking the numbers like those, which we do have, it does appear that, yes, COMAC's claims of undercutting the competition are indeed true. It's a strategy that seems to be working as well, as that pricing has seen them land **1,183 orders** from Chinese airlines, and that, no matter how you cut it, is a bloody **big** number – although, as of the time of writing, only 19 of that number, and indeed in total, have actually been delivered, all of them gobbled up by the big three airlines we mentioned earlier. As for foreign orders, currently, they have a grand total of **22** — 20 from AerCap, an Irish-American aircraft leasing company, and 2 from Lao Airlines. And 22, no matter how you cut it, is a **much** smaller number than 1,183. So, what gives? Why have the Chinese airlines leapt upon it with such enthusiasm, only for their foreign equivalents to be put off it so despite the price difference? And indeed, will they ever turn to it with such enthusiasm? A big question to be sure, and because big questions have big answers, we should probably draw a line here, and devote a whole chapter to answering that question… ## Going Global? Let's start with the most immediate and immovable roadblock: **certification**. As of the time of writing, the C919 is only certified by the Civil Aviation Administration of China, CAAC. That's perfectly fine for domestic use — and Hong Kong as of the 1st of January 2025 — but if you're an airline that wants to fly into the European Union or the U.S., i.e. the highest value markets in the world, you need type certification from their equivalents of the CAAC, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency, EASA, and the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, as examples. Without such validation, EU/U.S. airlines can **not** operate it in their home markets; foreign carriers can only enter under third-country approvals — which is very limited in practice. Negotiations with EASA are ongoing. There have been joint meetings and technical exchanges, and EASA has said publicly it's willing to work with China on certifying the aircraft. But that is a multi-year process even in the best-case scenario, and in April 2025, EASA Executive Director Florian Guillermet said European validation of the C919 would take **three to six years**. FAA certification, meanwhile, is… let's call it aspirational. COMAC isn't currently pursuing FAA validation; and given U.S.–China relations, and the recent export-license whiplash — Washington weighed blocking LEAP-1C exports in 2020, then suspended some export licenses affecting COMAC in late May 2025, before allowing GE's engine shipments to resume on July 3, 2025 — no one seems to expect an FAA green light any time soon. And even if they did move to give it the green light, it wouldn't be fast. The FAA notes new type certifications typically take **5–9 years**, with steps that include establishing the certification basis, detailed planning and standards, compliance testing and analysis, and then, if you've jumped through **all** of those hoops, an issuance of a type certificate. For context: the 737 MAX 8 took about five years from application to FAA certification, and the A350-900 logged over 2,600 flight-test hours on its way to approval. Then there's the issue of **support**. To explain, have you ever bought a car from a new to the market brand – think like Yugo back in the day — only for said brand to disappear, and leave you absolutely buggered when you needed a replacement part? Or, just found that the nascent brand in question has terribly scaled its operation, and just cannot keep the supply of spare parts flowing even when it is still in business? Any of our European viewers who rock a Dacia will know exactly what we mean. Well, *those kind of scenarios* are exactly what get airlines worried when assessing the C919. They wonder how long will it be supported? How reliable will the supply chain be? Will COMAC be able to get spare parts to the other side of the world at short notice? What happens if they need tech support mid-flight in Dubai or Dallas, do COMAC have everything in place to handle that? Don't forget the razor thin margins that airlines operate on, these are important questions – they need their planes up in the sky, carrying passengers, earning them money. And both Airbus and Boeing, through decades of experience now, have proven that they (usually) have this covered: they have the vast deeply embedded global support networks, the hangars, the training schools, the parts depots, the maintenance crews, and the digital support that their customers use every day. Yes, COMAC are expanding. Yes, they plan to roll out more international infrastructure. But that takes time – and the C919, remember, has barely left the runway. Put it this way: If you were the CEO of a major airline, with your own plush livelihood on the line, as well as the slightly less plush livelihoods of thousands of staff under you, would you take a risk on this new-fangled COMAC jet, when sure, on paper, it could increase your profit margins, but there is oh so many unprovens and unknowns about it? Odds are, you wouldn't, would you? Then there's **reliability** to consider, or a potential lack thereof. In some regards, it's unfair to put this one on the C919, as it really hasn't had the time to prove itself either way. But that's the problem, it isn't aviation enthusiasts, eager to see a greater diversity in the sky, who buy these jets, it's suit and tied sorts in the top of skyscrapers who buy them, who only care about keeping their company profitable – and if they make a bad judgement call, if they invest in a fleet of C919's and they turn out to be absolute heaps of junk, there's no two ways about it, their company, in all likelihood, is absolutely f*cked – and again, would you take that risk? Until there's a large pool of C919s flying daily in different environments, it's impossible to build the kind of safety and reliability profile that airlines crave. Next, there's **branding and public perception** to consider. Ask a random flyer in Europe or the U.S. what aircraft they're on, and there's a 60% chance – yes there's data for that – that they don't know. But one thing they do know, they hope it's not one of those bloody Boeing Maxi Pad things. You *seen* the news? Fall out the sky they do. Dangerous. **Lethal.** In fact, you've surely heard this particular phrase thrown about of late, "If it's Boeing, I *ain't* going." Optics, ultimately, matter. And if you're watching this channel – great taste by the way – odds are you are aware that the Chinese are capable of truly world leading manufacturing, or p*ss poor manufacturing, with it all hinging on how much you pay them. You want 25 million kazoos pumped out the factory for pennies by yesterday because they're trendy, for some reason – say no more, the People's Republic has got you covered. And on the inverse, you want a space station, or some kind of cutting edge pharmaceutical? Somewhere out there is someone on the other end of a +86 phone number who can sort you out… if you've got the cash. The average man and woman on the street, however, has been slower in getting the message. How often have you heard someone flatly write off all Chinese cars, because they're "made in China," or choose an iPhone, because – very ironically admittedly if you know where iPhone's are made – they don't want something 'poor quality' that's "made in China." Ultimately, if you are a CEO chiefly concerned with profits, by buying from the established brands, you are just completely cutting the risk of such consumer kick back and corresponding negative headlines out altogether. And with that, we arrive at **the** question. Will the C919 ever break out of its current domestic niche and find true international success – rather than be stuck with the paltry handful of orders its currently getting? If you ask us, yes, it's almost certainly going to happen, at least to a modest degree. China has ever more nations friendly to it, and even if the US and Europe remain unconvinced, that's a lot of potential friends who might not mind saving a few quid on some jets. Take North Korea as the most extreme example, when the Tupolev Tu-204's currently serving Air Koryo's international routes age out – they suddenly don't have to go to the Russians to replace them. For similar reasons, Iran and Cuba could both also be prime customers. We don't even have to look at nations firmly on Uncle Sam's naughty list to find potential customers either, Pakistan, Laos, Sri Lanka, and Brazil, to name just four – are all countries with ever closer ties to China. Also, frankly, don't rule out **Ryanair**. It's unclear just how much CEO Michael O'Leary actually has interest in the C919, versus is just saying he does to squeeze Boeing for a better deal, **but** he is a man with a proven track record for absolute fanaticism for driving operating costs down… so if you were to put a gun to our heads and forced us to bet which major Western airline might be the first to take the plunge, we know where we'd be putting our money. Of course, that hinges on it getting EASA certification, but then again, that should be said about **all** this speculation. If it doesn't get the necessary certification, it won't be flying anywhere – all the other reasons to not choose it be damned. ## The Future And while we're discussing the future, this is the perfect point to step away from the C919 specifically, and start thinking about COMAC's future more broadly, because they are not resting on their laurels. Instead, they have a grand long-term vision for the future — a future in which the C909 will be remembered as a mere set of training wheels, and the C919 will be remembered as just the first of **many** jets that earned them a full parity with Airbus and Boeing. At the heart of that push is the **C929**. Initiated back in 2016 as a China-Russia joint venture under the CRAIC — China-Russia Commercial Aircraft International Corporation — banner, the C929 was meant to seat 250–300 passengers and fly up to 6,500 nautical miles. China would build the widebody fuselage, Russia would design the wings, and Western suppliers were expected to provide engines and avionics. But then, geopolitics intervened. First, it was China and Russia clashing over workshare and ultimate control of the program. Then, it was Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which made Western suppliers – vital for the whole project — scatter. As a result, by 2023, China had ceased all co-operation, and was now going it alone. Progress, however, has been slow, and as of 2024, the C929 remains only in the design phase. Mockups show a twin-aisle aircraft reminiscent of the 787 or A330, and capacity is now quoted at being 250–280 seats in a 'standard' configuration, potentially scaling up to as many as 440 in a high-density all economy configuration. COMAC remains confident though, and says suppliers will start delivering major components by 2027, aiming for a flying prototype in 2028 or 2029. More realistically, most believe that the first flight will come in the early 2030s, with entry into service sometime mid-decade – assuming that there are no major delays. And hold that thought, because courtesy of their engines – or more rather a **lack** of them – there just may be such a delay on the cards. You see, widebodies need massive high-thrust turbofans – the sort produced by General Electric's GE90, and remember when we said the US had banned export of the LEAP engine to China, and then unblocked it? Well, the GE90 was affected by that ban too. And in such an environment, who is to say if they'll be able to get their hands on the engines needed to complete development within their original time frame. They **are** working on their own equivalent engine in the meantime, the CJ-2000, so all may still be well — but most still believe it is years away from commercial readiness, so it is not being proactively considered for inclusion in the C929 – but rather is an as and when, don't count on it kind of deal. Then there's the **C939**. Not too much to say about this one; it's going to be a 777 slash A350 kind of equivalent, and… that's about all we know about its design, at least if we want to be certain – even Chinese language sources are all over the place for this one. But they are all at least clear that it's going to be **bigger** than the C929. Such a situation makes sense however, because this one is **very** much in the nascent stage of its development, with early feasibility studies having been undertaken back in 2011, the odd leaked preliminary sketch finding its way to the media for the next decade or so, and then development proper beginning only in January 2025, at least according to Sina and Guangcha news. So yeah, probably going to be a while before you see this one, although we see no reason not to treat it as a matter of *when*, rather than *if*. Not that we can say the same about what COMAC is eyeing up to come after that: the **C949** – a **supersonic** airliner. It was only announced in February 2025, so it's still very much in its preliminary stages, but COMAC did release their target specifications: a top speed of Mach 1.6, so a smidge over 1,200mph at sea level, a range of just under 7,000 miles, and a sonic boom quiet enough to facilitate actually flying over land without ruining the lives of everyone who lives on the ground underneath. It'll also be small, as supersonic airliners do tend to be, with space for 100 passengers or so. Will we ever see it? Lord only knows on this one, it's so early in its development, and with such lofty goals, that we wouldn't even want to comment. However, it isn't like China doesn't have quite the well proven track record for surprising us all with just what it can accomplish when it sets its mind to it… so maybe we'll come back in to check on the C949 around 2040 or so! ## Conclusion Ultimately, COMAC's future is still unwritten. The C919's domestic rollout is a promising start, but it hasn't yet cracked the code to international success. The jet itself is decent, the price is aggressive, and the ambition is sky-high, but real challenges remain — technical, regulatory, and reputational. **But**, saying that, history also shows that when China decides to compete, it doesn't do half-measures. For example, remember when their cars used to look like cheap knock-offs, and then they started to look competitive, and then genuinely impressive, and then you started seeing them out and about on your own local roads? Yeah, for that reason alone, and countless other examples we could point to, we certainly aren't going to be surprised if COMAC ends up jumping **all** of those hurdles, and makes that long established duopoly a triopoly… ## Key Takeaways - COMAC's C919 aims to challenge Airbus and Boeing with a cheaper, modern jet. - The C919 faces significant hurdles, including certification and supply chain concerns. - China's aviation industry has progressed significantly, but faces reputational challenges. - COMAC's future plans include larger aircraft and even a supersonic airliner. - Historical examples suggest China's determination to compete in global aviation. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is COMAC and how does it compare to Airbus and Boeing? COMAC is China's state-backed aviation giant aiming to break the duopoly of Airbus and Boeing. Their new jet, the C919, is pitched as a direct rival to the A320 and 737, offering a cheaper alternative but facing certification and supply chain hurdles. ### What are the key challenges COMAC faces in the global market? COMAC faces several challenges including certification hurdles, supply chain concerns, reliability issues, and reputational barriers. The C919 is only certified in China, and obtaining EASA and FAA certifications is a lengthy process. ### How successful has the C919 been domestically? The C919 has seen significant domestic success with 1,183 orders from Chinese airlines, although only 19 have been delivered as of the time of writing. The lower sticker price has been a key factor in its domestic appeal. ### What are the foreign order numbers for the C919? As of the time of writing, the C919 has received 22 foreign orders, with 20 from AerCap and 2 from Lao Airlines. This is a much smaller number compared to the 1,183 domestic orders. ### What is the C929 and what are its development challenges? The C929 is a widebody aircraft project initiated as a China-Russia joint venture. Development has been slow due to geopolitical issues and supply chain problems, with the first flight expected in the early 2030s. ### What is the C939 and what is known about its development? The C939 is planned to be a larger aircraft than the C929, comparable to the 777 or A350. Development began in January 2025, and it is expected to take several years before it enters service. ### What is the C949 and what are its target specifications? The C949 is a planned supersonic airliner with a top speed of Mach 1.6, a range of just under 7,000 miles, and space for about 100 passengers. It aims to have a sonic boom quiet enough to fly over land. ### What is the historical context of China's aviation industry? China's aviation industry has had a slow start with early failures like the Shanghai Y-10. However, it has made significant progress with the formation of COMAC in 2008, which has political backing, ample funding, and access to foreign technology. ### What are the key differences between the C919 and its Western counterparts? The C919 is comparable to the A320ceo or 737NG but is heavier, slightly less efficient, and comes with some per-seat operating cost disadvantages compared to the newer A320neo or 737-MAX-8. ### What are the potential future markets for the C919? Potential future markets for the C919 include countries with close ties to China, such as North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Pakistan, Laos, Sri Lanka, and Brazil. Ryanair is also speculated to be a potential customer. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: COMAC: China's Rival to Airbus and Boeing. Should They Be Worried?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOjvKvODc0A) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Hannah_Bahng_performing_at_House_of_Blues_Dallas%2C_2025.jpg?utm_source=commons.wikimedia.org&utm_campaign=imageinfo&utm_content=original) by SammyJewel / openverse, by. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/a-29-super-tucano-propeller-plane-21st-century-war-machine https://megaprojects.pub/article/a-29-super-tucano-propeller-plane-21st-century-war-machine Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT In modern warfare, air power is everything, and when the nations of the world send flying machines to face armies on the ground, the results are often devastating. The American A-10 can annihilate all that stands in its way, nearly impervious to the beating it'll certainly take in return. The Soviet-made Su-25 can lay waste to enemy columns as its pilot sits safe and sound behind the stick. The Jaguar, the Ghibli, the Golden Eagle, and more, all fill the ranks of global air forces, dropping bombs, firing precision strikes, and carving canyons of cannonfire against all who dare stand opposed. They are raw power, rumbling across the skies in a brutal show of force, precisely as their makers intended. But raw power isn't always the answer, and a thundering attack jet, formidable as it may be, isn't always the right tool for the job. Believe it or not, the plane that serves as the global standard for ground-attack aircraft in the twenty-first century, isn't even on that list—and in fact, it doesn't even look like it's from this century at all. Meet the A-29 Super Tucano, a propeller-driven, profoundly subsonic, underwhelming little piece of kit…with the potential to kick butt, like it's nobody's business. ## Conception and Development Before we tell the story of how the A-29 Super Tucano came to be, we're going to start by explaining something equally important: Why it works. It's a bold claim that we made just a second ago, that this humble little propeller plane sets a gold standard that the Warthog, the Frogfoot, the Jaguar, and more, all try to match…but as counterintuitive as it may seem, the nature of 21st-century warfare has made it so. See, all those big, scary attack jets were built with one major role in mind: to oppose the military forces of a rival major power. The Americans built the Warthog with the intention of devastating Soviet armored troop columns, as they marched across the Iron Curtain into Western Europe…in an attack that never came. The Soviets built the Frogfoot with the intent of doing the same thing to the Americans and the Europeans…in an attack that never came. And while it's not unheard-of in the modern era, for rival militaries to clash on the ground in the great tank and artillery battles that these attack jets were meant to disrupt…it's certainly not a common occurrence. The nature of 21st-century warfare, at least to this point around the quarter-mark of the 21st century, has borne little resemblance to what the aircraft designers and strategists of the Cold War expected. Instead, it's looked a whole lot more like what America and NATO experienced in Iraq and Afghanistan; what both NATO and Russia experienced in Syria; and what other world nations have experienced in the Colombian rainforests, the scrublands of the Sahel, the mountains of the Caucasus, and more. It's bloody, unpredictable, asymmetric warfare, where modern air forces aren't going to dogfight with skilled adversary pilots in midair, but instead, wage a sustained campaign against insurgencies on the ground. And in a conflict like that, the problem isn't just that these powerful attack aircraft are overkill; it's that they provide a sledgehammer, to solve a problem more fit for a screwdriver. Back in the 1990s, the Brazilian aerospace and defense corporation Embraer was looking to build an attack aircraft of its own. In those days, the Embraer brass didn't yet understand the problem the world's military powers didn't know they had. But they did know, from firsthand experience, that not every nation that faced security threats would be able to invest in those sorts of warplanes. Since 1980, Embraer had been manufacturing a plane called the Tucano, a combination trainer and light-attack aircraft that was durable, capable of carrying significant ordnance despite its single-turboprop design, and capable of flying at long ranges while mounting all sorts of weapons systems. The Tucano was a smash hit with the militaries of the world, particularly those that couldn't afford more advanced attack aircraft, and it would serve in South America with Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, Peru, and more; in Africa with Egypt, Angola, Kenya, and others; and in the Middle East with Iraq, Iran, and Kuwait. The French and the British even picked up about 200 Tucanos between the two of them, and Britain went a step further, with Northern Ireland's Short Brothers aerospace company securing a license to produce the Tucano in-house. Very quickly, the Tucano became the go-to aircraft for basic flight training, and many of the nations who purchased them would send very favorable reports on how the Tucano had dealt with local insurgencies and rebel movements. So with the resounding success of the Tucano, Embraer's engineers and executives back in Sao Paulo understood that they had a real prospect on their hands…but choosing where to take the aircraft next, would prove to be a difficult process. At first, Embraer invested in an updated Tucano design that never came to fruition; then, they looked at building a helicopter-killer design, explicitly built to hunt down the attack helicopters that many smaller regional militaries will face as their biggest threat, if they go to war with a similarly small neighbor military. A handful of mismatched prototypes were constructed, but none were ever chosen to extend into production…until Embraer's own home government came to the company with a request. See, at around this time, Brazil had a border issue—and, more precisely, it had an issue with the porous nature of the Amazon rainforest. The outer fringes of Brazil's west were so hard to patrol that illegal flights, mostly involved with the regional drug trade, could come in and out of Brazil with hardly any issue. Brazil had come to Embraer hoping they could build a plane suitable for border intercepts and patrol—and, the Brazilian Air Force would quickly chime in, the country could really use a new advanced military trainer, to replace an aging model Brazil was relying on. The aircraft Brazil was asking for, was already imagined quite concretely before Embraer got its say. Brazil was looking for a plane engineered specifically to deal with the conditions of the Amazon: it should be able to withstand high temperatures, suffocatingly high humidity, and torrential rainfall. It should be a turboprop plane, rather than a jet aircraft, and it should be able to operate in challenging environments, relying on short airfields where there would be little to no infrastructure and minimal support for long periods of time. It was intended to operate in both daytime and nighttime conditions, featuring a long range, and it should be hardy, reliable, and well-armed enough to operate autonomously for extended periods of time. Finally, while it was meant to be rugged and survivable, it *didn't* have to be able to, say, land with a wing, an engine, half the landing gear, and parts of its metal skin ripped off, like America's A-10 could. This was to be an aircraft that would never have to withstand a direct shot from a tank or a barrage of dedicated anti-aircraft fire, but was instead meant to operate against adversaries who were equipped with small arms, shoulder-fired weapons, and not much else. Embraer would receive the equivalent of fifty million US dollars to build the aircraft, relying on its Tucano model as a base aircraft. Embraer and the Brazilian government had both agreed that the Tucano was a suitable foundation for this new plane. Full-scale design and development would kick off in 1995; two modified older Tucanos would make their first flights in 1996 and 1997; and a production-ready version of the new plane would take its maiden flight in 1999. Embraer would give its new plane superior engines, a far better airframe, better exterior armor, a wider range of onboard weapons, and advanced cockpits, datalinks, and avionics all befitting a plane prepared for the 21st century. By the time production was set to begin, Embraer's changes were so wide-ranging and extreme that they'd functionally made a new aircraft, and when it came time to pick a name, the answer was obvious. The plane's predecessor was the Tucano, but this new bird was better in just about every way. It was dubbed the Super Tucano, and starting in the year 2003, it got straight to work. ## Specs and Capabilities The Embraer A-29 Super Tucano, also designated the ALX or the EMB 314, is a two-seater aircraft, with a pilot's seat up front, and a rear seat that can alternately be designed for a navigator, in attack-and-counterinsurgency aircraft, or for a flight instructor, in the trainer model. From its nose prop at the front to its rudder at the back, the Super Tucano measures 11.38 meters, or 37 feet, four inches, with a wingspan giving it a nearly square profile, at 11.14 meters or 36 feet, seven inches. Sitting empty, the Super Tucano clocks in at 3,200 kilograms or just a bit over 7,000 pounds, barely more than a third of the weight of the world's most common fighter jet, the F-16. At takeoff, the plane can fly at weights up to 5,400 kilograms or nearly 12,000 pounds. It's powered by a Pratt & Whitney turboprop engine producing 1,600 horsepower, and driving a five-bladed, fully-feathering propeller of a diameter of 2.4 meters, or about eight feet. That propeller is designed to be quiet at high altitudes, allowing the Super Tucano to loiter as a little pinprick in the sky while doing reconnaissance, unlikely to catch the attention of an adversary on the ground. Although the Super Tucano's propeller-driven design ensures that it will never cross the sound barrier under its own power, it can manage impressive speeds for an aircraft of its type, hitting a top speed of 590 kilometers per hour, 370 miles per hour. Its cruising speed isn't far off, at 520 kilometers per hour or 320 miles per hour, but for reasons we'll get into later, its stall speed is one of its most impressive features. The plane doesn't stall out until slowing down to speeds of 148 kilometers an hour, or just 92 miles per hour, a similar speed to what a driver could achieve on the most permissive global freeways. On patrol or on long-flying training missions, it boasts a range of 1,330 kilometers or 830 miles, giving it over five hours in the air before returning to base, while in combat with a heavy weapons load, its range is closer to 550 kilometers or 340 miles. The aircraft can manage over eight hours of endurance in a single flight, and can hit altitudes comparable with commercial jets at over 10,000 meters or about 35,000 feet. And in the event that the Super Tucano is fitted out for combat, rather than training, it's the sort of aircraft that you absolutely do not want to run into. For the Super Tucano, versatility is the name of the game, and the combinations of kit that it can carry are seriously impressive. In addition to two internal machine guns, one per wing, the plane can carry up to five additional machine gun or cannon pods under the wings and fuselage, depending on the setup and the specific pods in use. On those same five pylons, the Super Tucano can mount unguided bombs and rocket pods, including several different rocket options, and incendiary and cluster bombs. Alternately, it can carry several air-to-air missiles, including the time-tested Sidewinder, or air-to-ground missiles. It's capable of mounting several different sorts of laser- and GPS-guided bombs, and if needed, it can carry pods for flares and chaff, special sensor pods, or drop tanks to extend its range. Under the hood, the Super Tucano brings some serious technology to bear, starting with several computerized attack assets including, but not limited to, systems to aid with so-called "toss bombing" where an aircraft pulls up while dropping its bomb and gives that bomb a longer time in flight, and optical reflex sights that superimpose markers around a tracked target in flight, sort of like a bulls-eye. The aircraft's onboard systems can predict and show the pilot a point of impact for the bombs it drops, they can provide a full and modern Heads-Up Display or HUD, they're equipped with onboard data hubs and encrypted data links, and they carry onboard GPS systems, helmet-mounted-displays for the pilots, onboard video cameras, airborne weather projection systems, wi-fi integration for certain smart bombs, electronic trainer systems, and, somehow, even more beyond that. The plane's onboard systems allow for detailed mission planning while in flight, they boast infrared systems, they can warn the pilot about approaching missiles like a sophisticated fighter jet could, and, in perhaps a more analog feature, it can also survive a bird beaning itself off the glass cockpit at up to several hundred kilometers per hour. Its sophisticated onboard technology, its highly varied weapons selection, and its payload capacity and range, mean that the Super Tucano only explicitly loses out to advanced modern attack jets in a few areas. Its cruising speed is almost directly comparable to the American A-10 or the Russian Su-25, it can mount many of the same weapons, and it does better in austere environments, as we'll discuss in just a moment. But the Super Tucano's proponents will also suggest that in certain situations, the Super Tucano is simply better for the air-attack job than any of the jets that would seem, at least outwardly, like more capable aircraft. To understand why, we've got to think about what the close-air-support role *actually demands* of an aircraft. On the one hand, the aircraft should be able to mount longer-range weapons, like air-to-ground missiles that can fire from a few kilometers, or a few tens of kilometers out. Both the Super Tucano and the modern jets can do that just fine. But on the other hand, they've also got to be able to get up-close and personal with enemy ground forces, and it's there, that the Super Tucano excels. For an aircraft in that role, a few critical characteristics matter, and they're almost the opposite of what you'd expect air forces to want from a highly sophisticated warplane. How slow, and stable, can an attack aircraft fly without falling out of the sky? How maneuverable is it at low altitudes, and how fast can it turn around for multiple attack runs? And when it comes to damage, the question isn't whether it can *avoid* being hit; its operators know full well, it's *going* to get hit. The question is, how much punishment can it take and *still keep* flying, and how much work, after the fact, will it take to make the thing airworthy again? In all those metrics, the Super Tucano truly excels above its shinier, flashier peers. The plane can fly very low and very slow, strafing ground targets with its gun pods or rockets, and dropping bombs with greater precision than it would while flying at higher speeds. It can use its onboard tech to achieve the same level of operator awareness as the pilots of those other aircraft would, and it's much more maneuverable at low speeds, where it can handle the energy losses involved with turns and sudden climbs, in that low-and-slow environment, more competently than a jet could. It can turn to take subsequent attack passes significantly faster, and while, again, it isn't meant to stand up to direct tank or anti-aircraft-weapons fire, it's also not meant to. It's built for engagements with insurgencies, rebel groups, drug smugglers, terror organizations, and other asymmetric threats—the same threats that the Warthog, Frogfoot, Jaguar, and more have found themselves facing, but were never properly built for. And beyond its advantages over more advanced jet attack aircraft, the Super Tucano offers something that may seem counterintuitive for those living under the auspices of North American, European, East Asian, or the more advanced ex-Soviet militaries, but that happens to be particularly important for just about everybody else. That would be the Super Tucano's autonomy, its capability to operate without dedicated maintenance facilities, tanker refueling, real-time command-and-control instruction, or even accompanying aircraft to back it up. In its border protection role for Brazil, by example, the Super Tucano works in tandem with a modified regional jet, mounted with an onboard early-warning sensor that can detect planes coming across the border, but once the jet spots those planes, the Super Tucano is basically on its own to depart from its tiny local airstrip, conduct an interception, and return safely. Said one Embraer strategist about the platform back in the early 2000s, quote: "Above all, the aircraft has to be autonomous. There is no infrastructure out there and, once you are in the middle of the Amazon, you are on your own." But as valuable as the Super Tucano is to have in the Amazon, it's also built to last in a range of other environments. From heavy jungles to open deserts to hilly badlands and more, the Super Tucano can go where more sophisticated jet aircraft simply couldn't. Those more sophisticated aircraft might be a good bit more capable, on paper, but they've also got to be babied in a way, between the long, perfectly level, manicured runways they expect to take off and land, and their many maintenance-hours required per flight-hour. Behind the stick of the Super Tucano, if you can see a strip of relatively flat land, you can probably land on it, and most of the maintenance required to keep it airworthy can be done with a few wrenches, a couple of pairs of hands, and a big box of spare parts dropped off when the plane was sent to a rugged airstrip. And as a trainer aircraft, it's earned rave reviews from trainees and flight instructors alike. Its versatility and high-performance potential makes it an ideal tool to prep pilots for a range of mission roles, and to baby new recruits when necessary, or push advanced trainees when they're ready to have some fun. They're able to handle and accommodate errors in flight, easily recoverable from stalls or from unexpected bad maneuvers, and their low-speed potential is unusually forgiving, in a plane that can also go much faster as needed. They're easily used for long training missions, they're easily turned around to work with multiple flight instructors across multiple shifts and trainees over the course of a day, and they're just as helpful in training ground controllers to call for, and coordinate attack runs. ## Operational Success With the versatility, the power, and the true multirole capabilities of the Super Tucano, it should be no surprise that the aircraft has been a favorite of any global military that can afford it. In addition to the hundred-odd aircraft in service to Brazil, they're popular in Latin America, operated by Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, and Honduras, The Philippines use them, Nigeria uses them, Indonesia uses them, and so do Lebanon, Mauritania, Burkina Faso, Turkmenistan, Ghana, and several others. The Taliban even has a couple of dozen, captured after the fall of Kabul from the previous Afghan government. Nations from Peru to Portugal to Thailand to Ukraine have explored picking up some Super Tucanos, and other nations, from Venezuela to Iraq to El Salvador and Sweden, have thought long and hard about picking the aircraft up, before ultimately not doing so, for reasons that only rarely had to do with concerns about performance or capability. Even the United States now flies several Super Tucanos, under the umbrella of its Special Operations Command, making it the *only* fully non-US-designed aircraft to serve in a direct combat role across the *entire* US military. And for those keeping score at home, yes, we *are* counting the Harrier, where the US played a major role in design. For the record, although the US didn't help to design the Super Tucano, it does now build some of them, under license via the Sierra Nevada Corporation. In combat, the Super Tucano has proved its worth again and again, whenever it's had the opportunity. Brazil's frontier patrol program, known as Sivam, has employed the Super Tucano since it went into service, and has used the aircraft to conduct several successful air interceptions—but more broadly, its mere presence has led to far fewer attempts at aerial border crossings. It was used in crackdowns on drug trafficking organizations and illegal mining syndicates, bombing airstrips, intercepting dozens of aircraft, and leading to immense seizures of drugs and weapons. In Colombia, the Super Tucano has gotten a far tougher workout over the years, starting in 2007, when a Super Tucano squadron became the first-ever of the aircraft to take part in a combat mission. In that mission, and in many missions since, the Super Tucano used its sophisticated targeting systems to drop bombs with high precision against the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, better known as FARC, and other associated rebel groups. In one attack in 2010, twenty-five Super Tucanos dropped seven tons of munitions onto a FARC camp during a massive special forces raid, and other attacks would see Super Tucano squadrons lay waste to a wide range of FARC targets, as one of, if not the most effective tool in Colombia's entire counterinsurgent arsenal. One Super Tucano would go down in Colombia during the aircraft's service, purportedly shot down by .50-caliber machine gun fire, though Colombia disputes that claim. In exchange, Super Tucanos would cripple FARC's military and economic potential, driving the collection of insurgent groups toward conditions that would eventually lead to a 2016 peace settlement. Elsewhere around the world, the Super Tucano has proven critical for the Dominican Republic, in its efforts to deter Haitian and international drug traffickers from entering Dominican airspace. In Indonesia, they've helped to quell unrest in several restive areas, although a crash between two of the aircraft would kill all four operators onboard in a crash in East Java. In the Sahel nations of Burkina Faso, Mali, and Mauritania, they've played a role in combating a range of Islamist insurgencies, and in Nigeria, they've been part of the effort to chase down the terror group Boko Haram. In the Philippines, they've carried out airstrikes on Islamic State fighters and other terror groups, while in Afghanistan, they were used in efforts to fight back against the Taliban until Taliban victory in 2021. And while the true extent of their combat use has almost certainly been kept partially secret by world nations, their use in a range of countries with ongoing insurgencies and porous borders would suggest that they're probably in frequent use in many rugged environments. As of now, the next step for the Super Tucano is likely to be the A-29N, a NATO-ready variant of the aircraft that Embraer is working hard to complete. As usual with the Tucano line, Embraer is looking to create a precise solution to a precise problem—integrating solid tech and fighting capabilities, to be sure, but integrating the ones that the situation calls for, rather than those that will look best on paper. In this instance, Embraer is looking to be in the right place at the right time for what's expected to be a large-scale rearmament of NATO nations, after Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. The NATO-variant Super Tucano is expected to integrate NATO-standard datalinks and a suite of other equipment that treaty member militaries are expected to have. It'll also come equipped with a suite of new training tools, including virtual-reality and mixed reality equipment to bring new pilots up to speed. Because of its low endurance and its likely inability to stand up to Russian tanks, it's not going to be the only ground-attack aircraft in NATO's arsenal, but when paired with advanced multirole fighters like the F-35, F-16, Rafale, and Typhoon, plus strategic bomber assets, it becomes a specialized tool that can be used to great effect in the right moments. NATO will be receiving a proven aircraft; as of now, the global Super Tucano fleet has logged well over 500,000 flight-hours across just 260 aircraft, including more than sixty thousand combat hours with just one Super Tucano shot down during a combat mission. It's done all of that while fitting budget constraints of less well-off nations, serving as a trainer, an armed reconnaissance platform, a border patrol aircraft, and an attack plane all at once. NATO will be receiving what every other Super Tucano-equipped air force has, quite happily, been able to make use of: a highly reliable, highly resilient, and very well-armed aircraft that was made to do a job, and does that job with the highest competence. In a world when fifth-generation fighters, near-invisible bombers, and sophisticated autonomous drones get all the headlines, it's the Super Tucano that was made to do the dirty work—and as the world is quickly realizing, the Super Tucano does that dirty work better than just about anything else. ## Key Takeaways - The A-29 Super Tucano is a propeller-driven aircraft designed for modern asymmetric warfare, excelling in close-air support. - Developed by Embraer, the Super Tucano is rugged, versatile, and capable of operating in austere environments with minimal infrastructure. - The aircraft's low speed, maneuverability, and ability to carry various weapons make it ideal for counterinsurgency operations. - The Super Tucano has proven effective in multiple countries, including Brazil, Colombia, and Afghanistan, demonstrating its reliability and resilience. - Its autonomy and ease of maintenance make it a valuable asset for nations with limited resources and infrastructure. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is the A-29 Super Tucano? The A-29 Super Tucano is a propeller-driven, subsonic aircraft designed for ground-attack and training roles. It is known for its versatility, durability, and effectiveness in asymmetric warfare. ### What are the key specifications of the A-29 Super Tucano? The A-29 Super Tucano is a two-seater aircraft with a length of 11.38 meters and a wingspan of 11.14 meters. It has a top speed of 590 km/h, a cruising speed of 520 km/h, and a range of 1,330 km. It is powered by a Pratt & Whitney turboprop engine producing 1,600 horsepower. ### What makes the A-29 Super Tucano effective in modern warfare? The A-29 Super Tucano is effective in modern warfare due to its ability to operate in austere environments, its versatility in carrying various weapons, and its low-speed maneuverability, which is crucial for close-air support missions against insurgencies and rebel groups. ### How does the A-29 Super Tucano compare to other attack aircraft? The A-29 Super Tucano excels in low-speed maneuverability and can operate in environments where more sophisticated jet aircraft cannot. It is designed to handle engagements with insurgencies and asymmetric threats, making it more suitable for certain missions than larger, more advanced attack jets. ### What are some of the operational successes of the A-29 Super Tucano? The A-29 Super Tucano has been successfully used in Brazil for border patrols, in Colombia against FARC, in the Dominican Republic to deter drug traffickers, and in various other countries for counterinsurgency operations. It has logged over 500,000 flight-hours with just one aircraft shot down during combat. ### What is the A-29N Super Tucano? The A-29N Super Tucano is a NATO-ready variant of the aircraft designed to integrate NATO-standard datalinks and other equipment. It is expected to be part of a large-scale rearmament of NATO nations following Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. ### What are the training capabilities of the A-29 Super Tucano? The A-29 Super Tucano is highly regarded as a trainer aircraft due to its versatility and high-performance potential. It can accommodate errors in flight, easily recover from stalls, and is forgiving at low speeds, making it ideal for training pilots and ground controllers. ### How does the A-29 Super Tucano operate in austere environments? The A-29 Super Tucano is designed to operate without dedicated maintenance facilities, tanker refueling, or real-time command-and-control instruction. It can land on short, unpaved runways and requires minimal maintenance, making it ideal for remote and rugged environments. ### What weapons can the A-29 Super Tucano carry? The A-29 Super Tucano can carry a variety of weapons, including unguided bombs, rocket pods, air-to-air missiles, air-to-ground missiles, laser- and GPS-guided bombs, and pods for flares, chaff, and sensors. It also has two internal machine guns. ### What is the role of the A-29 Super Tucano in NATO? The A-29 Super Tucano is expected to be a specialized tool in NATO's arsenal, complementing advanced multirole fighters and strategic bomber assets. It will be used for its effectiveness in close-air support missions and its ability to operate in rugged environments. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: The A 29 Super Tucano How a Propeller Plane Became a 21st Century War Machine](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unBUeCPEYTQ) - [https://historicalcenter.embraer.com/global/en/emb-312-tucano](https://historicalcenter.embraer.com/global/en/emb-312-tucano) - [https://www.key.aero/article/birds-brazil-40-years-tucano](https://www.key.aero/article/birds-brazil-40-years-tucano) - [https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/emb-312-tucano-trainer-aircraft/](https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/emb-312-tucano-trainer-aircraft/) - [https://www.airvectors.net/avtucano.html](https://www.airvectors.net/avtucano.html) - [https://defense.embraer.com/air/a29-super-tucano/](https://defense.embraer.com/air/a29-super-tucano/) - [https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/military-aviation/embraer-introduces-a-29n-super-tucano/](https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/military-aviation/embraer-introduces-a-29n-super-tucano/) - [https://www.twz.com/39976/special-operations-commands-new-a-29-super-tucano-pays-tribute-to-world-war-ii-air-commandos](https://www.twz.com/39976/special-operations-commands-new-a-29-super-tucano-pays-tribute-to-world-war-ii-air-commandos) - [https://www.sncorp.com/news-archive/a-29-super-tucano-delivered-to-us-air-force-special-operations-command/](https://www.sncorp.com/news-archive/a-29-super-tucano-delivered-to-us-air-force-special-operations-command/) - [https://www.flightglobal.com/tougher-tucano/42033.article](https://www.flightglobal.com/tougher-tucano/42033.article) - [https://www.forecastinternational.com/samples/F617_CompleteSample.pdf](https://www.forecastinternational.com/samples/F617_CompleteSample.pdf) - [https://www.sncorp.com/capabilities/a-29-super-tucano/](https://www.sncorp.com/capabilities/a-29-super-tucano/) - [https://www.sncorp.com/capabilities/a-29-super-tucano/#anchorTag](https://www.sncorp.com/capabilities/a-29-super-tucano/#anchorTag) - [https://www.airandspaceforces.com/weapons-platforms/a-29/](https://www.airandspaceforces.com/weapons-platforms/a-29/) - [https://www.sncorp.com/news-archive/the-a-29-super-tucano-light-attack-multi-mission-aircraft-affordable-combat-capability/](https://www.sncorp.com/news-archive/the-a-29-super-tucano-light-attack-multi-mission-aircraft-affordable-combat-capability/) - [https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/29-super-tucano-worthy-10-replacement-not-so-fast-210908](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/29-super-tucano-worthy-10-replacement-not-so-fast-210908) - [https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/super_tucano/](https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/super_tucano/) - [https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/super-tucano-counter-insurgency-plane-makes-inroads-into-africa-07348/](https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/super-tucano-counter-insurgency-plane-makes-inroads-into-africa-07348/) - [https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/ghana-air-force-embraer-and-snc-unveil-a-29-super-tucano-capabilities/](https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/ghana-air-force-embraer-and-snc-unveil-a-29-super-tucano-capabilities/) - [https://aviationweek.com/defense/light-attack-advanced-training/29-super-tucano-proven-performer](https://aviationweek.com/defense/light-attack-advanced-training/29-super-tucano-proven-performer) - [https://thedefensepost.com/tag/a-29-super-tucano/](https://thedefensepost.com/tag/a-29-super-tucano/) - [https://www.janes.com/osint-insights/defence-news/air/brazil-to-update-a-29-super-tucano-aircraft-fleet](https://www.janes.com/osint-insights/defence-news/air/brazil-to-update-a-29-super-tucano-aircraft-fleet) - [https://www.reuters.com/article/business/factbox-the-a-29-super-tucano-aircraft-at-a-glance-idUSKCN0XX09U/](https://www.reuters.com/article/business/factbox-the-a-29-super-tucano-aircraft-at-a-glance-idUSKCN0XX09U/) - [https://breakingdefense.com/2022/09/lethal-effects-coupled-with-low-cost-to-fly-the-light-attack-a-29-super-tucano-garnishes-foreign-military-sales/](https://breakingdefense.com/2022/09/lethal-effects-coupled-with-low-cost-to-fly-the-light-attack-a-29-super-tucano-garnishes-foreign-military-sales/) - [https://simpleflying.com/5-unique-features-embraer-emb-314-super-tucano/](https://simpleflying.com/5-unique-features-embraer-emb-314-super-tucano/) - [https://warriormaven.com/air/a-29-super-tucano-to-special-operations-a-counterinsurgency-warrior-supporting-ground-attack](https://warriormaven.com/air/a-29-super-tucano-to-special-operations-a-counterinsurgency-warrior-supporting-ground-attack) - [https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2021/11/03/the_a-29_super_tucano_is_transforming_the_way_nations_fight_violent_extremists_801879.html](https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2021/11/03/the_a-29_super_tucano_is_transforming_the_way_nations_fight_violent_extremists_801879.html) - [https://aviationweek.com/defense/budget-policy-operations/two-indonesian-super-tucano-turboprops-crash-killing-four](https://aviationweek.com/defense/budget-policy-operations/two-indonesian-super-tucano-turboprops-crash-killing-four) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/%C4%8C%C3%AD%C5%BEov_%28Zaisa%29_-_preserved_part_of_Iron_curtain.JPG) by Pudelek (Marcin Szala) / openverse, by-sa. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/admiral-kuznetsov-troubled-life-russia-lone-aircraft-carrier https://megaprojects.pub/article/admiral-kuznetsov-troubled-life-russia-lone-aircraft-carrier Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT The year following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 has been absolutely devastating for Russia's military reputation on the world stage. When the invasion began on February 24th, analysts the world over predicted that the war would be a short one, because inevitably the great and terrifying Russian war machine would have no issues subduing its much smaller, much poorer, and ultimately much weaker western neighbour. But that crushing and quick victory never came. Russian forces were completely repelled from the suburbs of Kyiv never to return, and now, after nearly a year of fighting, Ukraine continues to stand strong, and the initial lightning-paced advance of the Russian military has been reduced to a slow, brutal, and messy war of attrition in Ukraine's border provinces. In light of this unexpected turn, analysts naturally began to wonder what went wrong, and consequently began poring over all available data in search of answers. What was discovered, simply put, was that Russia was *never* the great and fearsome power it had made itself out to be, and that the world believed it was. In a desperate bid to present itself as a major military power, Russia had produced a litany of seemingly top-of-the-line and most fearsome military equipment that, in reality, was available in such small numbers that it served little strategic value beyond propaganda use, or simply was not of the quality that it was made out to be. The *Admiral Kuznetsov*, the Russian Navy's sole aircraft carrier, typifies this perfectly. For decades now, aircraft carriers have been considered one of the entry tickets to the military big boys club. Having one proves that you have an incredible military-industrial capacity, that you can project your power anywhere in the world, and that you are to be taken very seriously indeed. But scratch beneath the surface ever so slightly and you discover a ship whose service has been defined by accidents, disasters, and mishaps, and that now, due to a lack of funding and a military hierarchy that is corrupt from top to bottom draining what little funds would otherwise be available, the *Admiral Kuznetsov* is now little but a 40-year-old inherited wreck that the Russian Navy struggles to even keep in basic serviceable condition, let alone operate and deploy as a fearsome weapons platform—typifying the whole present situation with the Russian military. This is the beleaguered history of Russia's sole aircraft carrier, the *Admiral Kuznetsov*. ## History of Disaster The *Admiral Kuznetsov* was built at the Black Sea Shipyard in Mykolaiv, Ukrainian Soviet Republic, with construction beginning in 1982. It has carried multiple different names throughout its 37 years in service, originally being named the *Riga*, before having its name changed to the *Leonid Brezhnev*, then *Tbilisi*, before finally receiving the name that would stick on October 4, 1990, when it was named the *Admiral Flota Sovetskogo Soyuza N.G. Kuznetsov*, or *Admiral Kuznetsov* for short. Given the ever-deteriorating situation in the Soviet Union throughout the 1980s, its construction proved to be quite the drawn-out affair, reportedly only being around 70% complete by mid-1989, and eventually being finished on January 20, 1991, after which it was finally commissioned into the Soviet Navy. The first of its many career dramas would come in 1991 when it found itself embroiled in the events of the Soviet Union's collapse. Like most of the Black Sea Fleet, the *Admiral Kuznetsov* was posted to Sevastopol in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, and it happened to be in port when Ukraine declared independence on August 24, 1991. Leonid Kravchuk, President of newly independent Ukraine, wanted to ensure that this vital military asset—which, after all, was built, serviced, and operated in Ukraine—remained firmly in Ukrainian hands, and as such ordered it to stay put. What was left of the Soviet government naturally had other ideas and dispatched Deputy Commander of the Northern Fleet Yuri Ustimenko, who ordered the vessel to sail to Vidyayevo so that it could be taken into the custody of his fleet, a request to which the loyal Soviet captain at the helm was more than happy to acquiesce. Unbeknown to both the Ukrainian and Soviet authorities, however, the remainder of its service would be continually plagued by problems, and frankly, with hindsight they probably wouldn't have wanted it anyway. The first of those problems occurred during a 90-day Mediterranean deployment that took place from December 23 through March 22, 1996. This was intended to be a most grand affair, with the *Admiral Kuznetsov*, the now-independent Russia's flagship, being the lead ship of the cruise which was intended to mark the 300th anniversary of the Russian Navy, during which it would perform 24-hour-a-day aerial operations with its onboard complement of 13 Su-33s and 2 Su-25s while at sea. The affair proved to be most ungrand, however, when its evaporators—the vital piece of equipment that supplied its sailors with fresh drinking water—completely failed, and what water could be ferried aboard from supporting ships had to be rationed out to levels barely enough to stave off complete dehydration. Following this, the *Admiral Kuznetsov* managed to have a largely incident-free few years. It was a relatively new ship after all, and most of its systems performed perfectly adequately with the minimal amount of maintenance that was allocated to it by the new, and very frugal, independent Russian state. It was only later, when deferred maintenance began to *really* pile up, that regular and more serious issues would occur. The biggest disaster suffered during this period of relative placidity occurred on September 5, 2005, when its arrestor cables failed twice on the same day. One Su-33 managed to be saved by the skill of its pilot and remain on deck, but another went overboard and was lost to the sea, with its pilot fortunately managing to eject and get rescued. As time went on, however, those years of deferred maintenance began to cause serious problems for the *Admiral Kuznetsov*, and incidents began occurring with greater frequency. The next incident of note occurred on February 16, 2009, when one of its refuelling systems, long overdue for a total refit, completely failed and dumped 300 tons of oil and fuel into the waters off the south coast of Ireland. It was also around this time that the *Admiral Kuznetsov* began to be permanently escorted by an ocean-going tug, as Russian military leadership completely lost all faith in the ability of the ship to complete a single voyage without breaking down. This proved to be quite a prescient move on the part of the Russian leadership, as a few short years later, in February 2012, the *Admiral Kuznetsov* completely lost propulsion while passing through the Bay of Biscay off the coast of Spain. Every effort was made to get life back into the ship's engines while at sea, but all efforts in that regard proved absolutely fruitless, and it was eventually towed back to its home port of Severomorsk by its accompanying tugboat *Nikolay Chiker*. What certainly didn't help avoid this situation was the fact that the *Admiral Kuznetsov*'s engines were now being used to power shoreside facilities while it was in port, as its supporting infrastructure had deteriorated to such a state that by this point even keeping the lights on quite literally proved to be difficult—this, of course, unnecessarily ate away at its engines' limited operating time, and directly played a part in causing incidents like this. Another deployment followed from 2013 to 2014, at which point the ever-growing problems with the *Admiral Kuznetsov* appear to have become too great to ignore and solve with as little preventative maintenance as the navy's modest budget allowed, as following its return back home to Severomorsk, it would not put to sea again for another two years. The *Admiral Kuznetsov* returned to the seas in 2016 following what Russian authorities *claimed* was an extensive refit and modernisation program in order to assist the Russian Expeditionary Force in Syria, in what was the largest overseas deployment of the Russian military since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The tugboat that continued to accompany it, however, suggested that contrary to what they may claim in the media, the *Admiral Kuznetsov* was still suffering from major problems, and was not being trusted to actually complete a voyage under its own power. The first problem of this deployment came on November 3, 2016, when one of its MiG-29Ks crashed into the sea. The cause? A broken arrestor cable that took so long to repair that the MiG ran out of fuel and crashed. A similar incident then occurred exactly a month later on December 3, when its arrestor cables failed yet again, causing an Su-33 to run off the side of the carrier and crash into the sea. This deployment came to an end in early 2017 and it was announced—*yet again*—that the *Admiral Kuznetsov* would be undergoing an extensive overhaul and modernisation program, and this time, they meant it, totally, completely, 1,000%, for realsies, cross my heart and hope to die. With this overhaul, the Russian government also abandoned its pledge to replace the *Admiral Kuznetsov* by 2030, and instead announced that it would go on serving through to 2055, and this *absolutely* wasn't because they couldn't afford to replace it. Absolutely not. The *Admiral Kuznetsov* was just *that good* that there was no need to replace it. Naturally, further disasters soon followed, with the most notable being the sinking of the PD-50, a Soviet-era floating drydock which had been Russia's main apparatus with which to service the *Admiral Kuznetsov*, on October 30, 2018. As this was the only drydock in Russia which could fully accommodate the vessel, to say this was a slight problem would be a gross understatement. To make matters worse, the *Admiral Kuznetsov* was docked inside of it when it sank, and one of the PD-50's 70-ton cranes crashed through the flight deck, leaving a 19-square-metre hole behind, damage that was estimated to cost roughly $1,000,000 USD to repair. Not that this repair would come anytime soon, as it took until the end of the year just to remove the wreckage of the crane, never mind actually repair the damage. Then there was a series of fires aboard the docked *Admiral Kuznetsov*. A significant fire broke out in December 2019, which tragically killed two workers, injured dozens more, and caused damage to the ship estimated at $8,000,000 USD. Then, as recently as December 2022, another fire broke out aboard, which this time was promptly suppressed, caused no fatalities, and appears to have caused minimal damage. And so ends the timeline of disaster that has been the *Admiral Kuznetsov*'s life. A once-mighty flagship, inherited by a nation that couldn't afford to operate it, that has gradually spent less and less time at sea and more and more time in drydock as time has gone on and issues caused by a lack of routine maintenance keep continuing to grow exponentially. But what caused issues as profound as these? In this chapter we talked a lot about money, or more specifically the idea that the Russian Navy has essentially been lumbered with this ship that it can in no way afford, but out of a sense of nationalistic pride refuses to give up on, and certainly this is part of it, but in fact the real causes of the sorry state of the *Admiral Kuznetsov* go slightly beyond a simple lack of funds. So now, let us take the time to explore these causes in depth. ## Why? Ultimately, the source of the *Admiral Kuznetsov*'s woes is a lack of funding, as we previously mentioned. Defence spending as a proportion of GDP has collapsed to roughly twenty percent of its levels during the Soviet period, and of course, this is only a rough statistic, but it does at least serve as a general indication of the direction in which Russian military spending has trended since the fall of the Soviet Union, and as a result it can be seen clearly that the new, independent Russia simply does not have the funds to properly keep the *Admiral Kuznetsov*, let alone think about anything as grand as replacing it. But this is only the headline of the story, and in fact there is more to the situation than a simple lack of funds. Problems of Russian military maintenance and modernisation are not new and in fact are a much longer-run problem than many may first imagine. During the Soviet period, for example, yes, the gross amount of funding for the navy was significantly higher, but this funding was too heavily focused on ship development and production, with little left over for routine upkeep. Current Russian naval officers were trained by these Soviet officers, and as such a culture that promotes and encourages rigorous maintenance of vessels at the expense of new vessels procured simply hasn't been fostered, leading to many maintenance projects, chief among which being the *Admiral Kuznetsov*, to be neglected. Then there is the absolutely rampant corruption within the Russian military-industrial complex, which ensures that any money which does reach any naval officers forward-thinking enough to actually encourage more rigorous maintenance simply don't have the funds to do their job correctly. This corruption is endemic at every level of the Russian military. On the lower level, junior officers and NCOs have been routinely discovered selling their issued fuel and supplies to civilians and their issued armaments to gangsters and cross-border arms dealers, and to see the higher level of corruption we only have to look at Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu, who owns an $18,000,000 USD mansion and is allegedly worth over $100,000,000 USD. Given his salary is fixed at roughly $80,000 USD a year, you don't need an investigative exposé to be able to make a reasonable guess at where that money has come from. What's more, what we have just discussed represents the top and bottom most of the hierarchy. Make no mistake, some loyal and patriotic elements of the Russian military certainly exist, but at every level, you will find cogs in the machine all helping themselves to their own little slice of the pie. Ultimately we can't accurately measure the full extent of corruption within the Russian military, and we won't be able to until a regime change opens up the military archives to outside researchers, but using subjective circumstantial metrics such as these, we can clearly see that there is a big problem. The amount of military money disappearing becomes more apparent still when we compare the Russian military to militaries that, on paper at least, spend a similar amount on defence. For this specific instance, let's compare Russia to the United Kingdom, as barring a few million here and there, both nations spend essentially the same amount on their defence—and how do they stack up? Well, Russia has its one ancient aircraft carrier that it can barely manage to keep afloat, and the United Kingdom has two brand new and shiny hyper-advanced carriers, and while Russia flies legacy Soviet aircraft off of its carrier (when it works), the United Kingdom flies top-of-the-line fifth-generation fighters off of its carriers. Make no mistake, the United Kingdom's military procurement is far from perfect and has plenty of scandals of its own, but in this regard, suddenly the difference endemic corruption makes is absolutely crystal clear—and bear in mind also, Russia should be getting even more bang for its buck due to its comparatively cheaper labour costs. ## Sister Ship: Liaoning While it is undoubtedly important for us to understand the specific reasons for the Russian military's failures in regards to the *Admiral Kuznetsov*, analysts often overlook another broader point which goes a long way to really contextualise the true extent of the failures—that being the fact that the *Admiral Kuznetsov* has a sister ship which has actually gotten the funds and technical support required, and as a result has suffered from none of the issues so far discussed, proving the fact that its failures cannot be blamed on any factors intrinsic to the *Admiral Kuznetsov*, and instead are to be blamed entirely on how it has been handled by the Russian military—that sister ship being the Chinese aircraft carrier *Liaoning*. Originally also named the *Riga*, before having its name changed to *Varyag* in 1990, the *Liaoning* was the second ship of the *Kuznetsov* class. Like the *Admiral Kuznetsov* itself, it was laid down at the Nikolayev South shipyard in Ukraine, where its assembly began in 1985, before ultimately being abandoned in a state of 68% completion in 1991 due to the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the newly independent Ukrainian state lacking the funds to complete it. At this point it was little but a well-armoured husk of a ship, lacking propulsion, weapons, and electronic systems. But for the Chinese military, which had long had the ambition of a carrier fleet of its own, an unfinished Soviet carrier represented a fantastic opportunity to both gain some much-needed experience in the production of aircraft carriers and cost-effectively acquire their very first carrier by completing the *Varyag*. Therefore they purchased it in 1998 for $20 million USD, where, following a long and arduous voyage under tow, it eventually arrived at the Dalian Naval Shipyards in 2002. The Chinese Navy then took their time in completing it, making sure to arduously study everything that they had been left by the Soviets before forming a plan on how best to proceed. It was eventually 'completed' in 2006, at which point it was placed through extensive sea testing so that every single fault both in its original design and with its initial Chinese finishing work could be identified and rectified. So meticulous was this testing that it actually took longer than the work to complete it, and then, finally, after six long years of sea trials, with all its creases thoroughly ironed out, the *Varyag* was formally commissioned with the People's Liberation Army Navy in 2012, where it was given the name Type 001 *Liaoning*. The end product is a ship that, while certainly no *Nimitz* class in terms of complexity and sophistication, is a perfectly functional and reliable aircraft carrier that has suffered from none of the issues of the *Admiral Kuznetsov*. It operates a mixed air wing of up to 50 fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, mostly comprised of Shenyang J-15 carrier-based multirole fighter aircraft (a design which ironically is also an imported and improved Soviet design), but also including Changhe Z-8 naval utility helicopters, Kamov Ka-27 anti-submarine warfare helicopters, and Kamov Ka-31 airborne early warning helicopters. Like the Russians, the Chinese chose to discard the *Kuznetsov* class's deck guns and instead converted the *Liaoning* into a true aircraft carrier. Notably, however, it lacks any kind of catapult launching system as is now typical on Western aircraft carriers, and instead employs a bow ski jump angled at 12 degrees to launch aircraft. A ski jump is objectively worse than a catapult launching system, and as such precludes launching aircraft carrying heavy strike loads, but in the context of China's design philosophy of wanting to master the basics of aircraft carrier production and walk before they could run, it is a choice that in context is completely understandable. Like the *Admiral Kuznetsov*, the *Liaoning* has ultimately gone on to find itself largely relegated from front-line duties, but unlike the *Kuznetsov*, however, this decision was a choice rather than a compulsion. Whereas the *Kuznetsov* was soft-retired due to an increasingly worsening maintenance situation that the Russian Navy did not have the funds to solve, the *Liaoning* has been soft-retired to serve as a training ship for Chinese sailors, because as the Chinese aircraft carrier programme has continued to progress, significantly better and more advanced options have emerged. It is important to remember that this was always the plan as well; the *Liaoning* was only ever intended to serve as an interim measure and a jump-start to Chinese aircraft carrier production. It remains completely seaworthy and combat-ready, and as such is still deployed from time to time when required, such as a December 2021 deployment to the Yellow Sea and a May 2022 deployment to the South China Sea—and it does this without having its engines burn out due to supporting a crumbling shoreside infrastructure, without its dry dock sinking, and without repeatedly catching fire while in drydock. Understanding the *Liaoning* therefore proves critical in understanding the *Admiral Kuznetsov*; without it serving as such a shining example of how to handle a post-Soviet aircraft carrier, it would be easy to circumstantially dismiss the Russian Navy's failings as out of their control: 'well, it is an old ship after all,' 'so-and-so is wrong with its design,' 'Soviet carriers are just junk,' and the like. And certainly, one could make the case that it is unfair to compare the fates of the two sister ships, as China's defence spending is around five times that of Russia, with the former spending $293 billion USD annually and the latter spending a much more modest $66 billion USD annually, but given what we have already discussed about the drain that corruption places on the Russian military budget, and the *Liaoning* being only one of several aircraft carriers that China keeps afloat with that budget, is it impossible to imagine an alternative future in which a less corrupt Russia manages to keep a single old Soviet aircraft carrier afloat? No, not at all. ## The Future of Russia's Lone Carrier So ends the story of the beleaguered *Admiral Kuznetsov*, at least for now, as given the fact that the Russian government seems unwilling to abandon its Great Power charade, it certainly doesn't appear to be headed to the scrapyard anytime soon, and it may be many decades still until the old girl is finally allowed to retire with some dignity, rather than being kept alive on barely funded life support—an aircraft carrier that is testimony not to the great power and strength of the nation whose flag she flies, but to the hubris of its leaders and their antiquated imperial ambitions. But what if things were to be turned around? Who knows, maybe a great purge against corruption will finally see the *Admiral Kuznetsov* get the funding it actually needs to take to the seas again? Ultimately, no one knows. ## Key Takeaways - Russia's invasion of Ukraine revealed its military's weaknesses, contrary to initial expectations. - The Admiral Kuznetsov, Russia's sole aircraft carrier, has a history of accidents and poor maintenance. - Corruption and lack of funding have significantly hindered the Russian military's ability to maintain its equipment. - The Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning, a sister ship to the Admiral Kuznetsov, serves as a contrast in effective maintenance. - Russia's military spending has declined significantly since the Soviet era, impacting its operational capabilities. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is the Admiral Kuznetsov? The Admiral Kuznetsov is Russia's sole aircraft carrier. ### When was the Admiral Kuznetsov commissioned? The Admiral Kuznetsov was commissioned into the Soviet Navy on January 20, 1991. ### What are some of the major issues the Admiral Kuznetsov has faced? The Admiral Kuznetsov has faced numerous issues including evaporator failures, arrestor cable failures, propulsion loss, and fires aboard the ship. ### What caused the Admiral Kuznetsov to lose propulsion in 2012? The Admiral Kuznetsov lost propulsion in 2012 due to a complete failure of its refuelling systems, which had been long overdue for a total refit. ### How has corruption affected the maintenance of the Admiral Kuznetsov? Corruption within the Russian Military-Industrial Complex has ensured that funds meant for maintenance are often misappropriated, leading to deferred maintenance and operational issues. ### What is the sister ship of the Admiral Kuznetsov? The sister ship of the Admiral Kuznetsov is the Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning. ### How does the Liaoning compare to the Admiral Kuznetsov? The Liaoning has received proper funding and technical support, resulting in a functional and reliable aircraft carrier that has not faced the same issues as the Admiral Kuznetsov. ### What is the current status of the Admiral Kuznetsov? The Admiral Kuznetsov is currently in a state of disrepair, with the Russian Navy struggling to keep it in basic serviceable condition due to lack of funding and corruption. ### What happened to the PD-50, the drydock used to service the Admiral Kuznetsov? The PD-50 sank on October 30, 2018, while the Admiral Kuznetsov was docked inside it, causing significant damage to the carrier. ### What are some of the fires that have occurred aboard the Admiral Kuznetsov? Significant fires occurred aboard the Admiral Kuznetsov in December 2019 and December 2022, with the former causing fatalities and extensive damage. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: Admiral Kuznetsov: The Troubled Life of Russia’s Lone Aircraft Carrier](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPD3jCk6ICk) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Foreign_Secretary_David_Lammy_lays_a_candle_on_the_grave_of_a_Ukrainian_soldier_killed_in_the_conflict_with_Russia%2C_in_the_Lychakiv_Cemetery_in_Lviv%2C_Ukraine_on_9_May_2025.jpg) by Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office / openverse, by. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/africas-great-green-wall-stopping-spread-sahara https://megaprojects.pub/article/africas-great-green-wall-stopping-spread-sahara Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT "Imagine a living symbol of hope, the largest living structure on the planet, one that stretches eight thousand kilometers across Africa, ushering in a new era of sustainability and economic growth." This vision, as described by the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, is known as the Great Green Wall—a truly massive ecological undertaking, with the ultimate goal of stopping the Sahara Desert in its tracks. Part of a continent-wide effort to stop the spread of Africa's desert land, the Great Green Wall is the ultimate ecological restoration project, an impenetrable barrier of trees and undergrowth that would make desertification impossible, while returning the land it's built upon back to nature. It's an essential step in preserving food security, rehabilitating the economies of Africa's Sahel nations, and holding back the Sahara as the world grows hotter and hotter. The project is already underway—it has been for years—and its success or failure may well dictate whether Africa grows and prospers in the twenty-first century, or whether half the continent will degrade into a barren, scorched desert wasteland. ## Africa's Predicament In the year 2022, some sixty percent of the African population lived in areas prone to desertification: Dry, low-humidity land, often with significant winds and high levels of heat, where water-dependent agriculture is difficult to achieve at the best of times and food is often scarce. Over the past several decades, the global effects of climate change have had an outsize impact on these regions of Africa, where pre-existing problems like frequent drought and poor crop growth have gotten significantly more common and severe. Making matters worse, much of the Sahel region is made up of formerly fertile land that has been degraded over time, both due to that same process of climate change and the effects of overly aggressive agricultural practices. This sort of slowly dying land is highly vulnerable to desertification, a process in which pre-existing drylands lose so much of their former biological productivity that they become deserts. Rain falls less and less often, nutrients are drawn out of the soil or packed under hard layers of depleted topsoil, and existing bodies of water dry up. As a result, new plants cannot grow, any existing ones cannot thrive, and the wildlife dependent on that vegetation dies off, followed quickly by any animals higher up the food chain. In the Sahel region, this process means that the Sahara expands into the dead areas created by desertification—a slow, consistent march across the landscape that the rural or impoverished regions of sub-Saharan Africa are seemingly unable to stop. The effects have been devastating. In Kenya, two-thirds of the country's land have experienced severe and recurring drought, and almost half of its cattle supply has died off, along with twenty percent of the country's sheep and goats. In Tanzania, the deliberate destruction of hundreds of thousands of acres of forest land each year basically just gives that land over to the desert. In Senegal, the loss of trees and grassland has forced mass migrations out of the country, to alternatives like Gabon or out of the continent altogether. Nearly 98% of the nation of Mali is either already desert, or about to be, and Nigeria's northern half is being quickly overtaken as well. This problem repeats again and again in large portions of the African continent, but it's the Sahel region that gets the worst of it. The Sahara continues to expand outward, and takes everything it can. ## The Vision Desertification in the Sahel isn't new, and although its severity today is greater than ever before, it's been on the global radar for the better part of a century. In fact, it's been hard to miss; the Sahara has expanded by about 10%, or 8.6 million square kilometers, in the last hundred years. But a concrete plan for a solution didn't emerge until 2002, during a meeting between eleven Sahel countries at the World Day to Combat Desertification and Drought. The answer they proposed was a so-called Great Green Wall, a buffer zone of rich plant life that could prevent the desert from spreading further. It's not the first time that something like this has been considered—Algeria planted several million trees in the 1960s for the same reason, and China is undergoing a several-decade-long attempt to build its own Great Green Wall, in order to hold back the Gobi Desert from expanding outward and curtail the massive, intercontinental dust storms it can generate. But the idea of a Great Green Wall in Africa, especially along the Sahara's southern barrier, would have to happen on a greater scale and with greater international coordination and collective funding than either the Algerian or Chinese examples. In the case of the Sahel, regional governments envisioned a belt that would span from the Atlantic Ocean to the Gulf of Aden, some eight thousand kilometers long. All the way through, it would assume a width of at least fifteen kilometers, cutting across the northernmost frontier of the Sahel where it runs upon the desert. Running from Senegal to Djibouti, it would also pass through Nigeria, Ethiopia, Sudan, Chad, and several other countries. Primarily reliant on the native acacia family of trees, the Great Green Wall would serve several purposes at once: Blocking dry desert winds, increasing atmospheric and soil humidity, and rehabilitating land in order to welcome a greater diversity of plant and animal species with time. After several years of planning, the Great Green Wall was endorsed by the African Union in 2007. The project received significant support from Western nations, including infusions of cash in order to pay for the requisite number of trees. As the project was developed further, it also took on elements of developmental programming, with an overall goal to address social and economic impacts of land degradation as well. This expanded the Great Green Wall's reach significantly, outside of a fifteen-kilometer-long strip of land and into a total of 22 nations looking to share resources and strategies to fight desertification. By this time, the estimates on the Great Green Wall's potential impact were staggering. If all went well, it would restore one hundred million hectares of dead or degraded land; it would pull 250 million tons of carbon from the atmosphere; and it would bring ten million environmentally friendly jobs, most of them agricultural, into a region that hadn't been able to employ its working-age population for decades. The implications for regional food security, for economic opportunities provided to a young and quickly growing population, and for long-term climate resiliency were simply too big to pass up. The participating nations joined together to create the so-called Panafrican Agency of the Great Green Wall, an oversight body that was established to facilitate the project across the Sahel, and with some eight billion US dollars raised or pledged to back the project in its first few years, it got underway. ## Implementation Past and Present The effort to build the Great Green Wall got underway quickly across Africa, and despite political instability in the region and the specter of corruption in many participating nations, the following decade saw consistent gains toward completion of the project. Unlike some of our other videos on grand-scale projects like this, there's really not that many major pieces of chronological news—after all, we're dealing with an effort to plant some trees, keep them safe, and wait for their longer-term results to come around. But we can run through some of the initiative's major achievements to this point, which have had massive effects on the communities they touch. In the country of Nigeria, some five million hectares of degraded land has been restored. In Senegal, it's closer to twelve thousand hectares, and in Ethiopia, it's about fifteen thousand. That works out to literal billions of seedlings planted, including 5.5 billion in Ethiopia alone, and when translating those hectares into square kilometers, we're talking about an area greater than the country of Nepal or the US state of Iowa. In these areas, groundwater wells have refilled, agriculture has become productive again, and many villages and communities have been able to gain precious income via hundreds of thousands of new jobs. International partners like the European Union, the UN, the Arab Maghreb Union in Northern Africa, and the World Bank have all partnered on the project, and the governments of the region have been able to strengthen ties relating to conservation as well. But above all these successes, there lingers a more frustrating reality: even with so much work already done, this is only a small fraction of what is needed for a project that was supposed to be completed by 2030. Various estimates place the Great Green Wall anywhere from four percent completed, to fifteen percent, and even those more favorable estimates do not paint a rosy picture overall. The price tag to come this far has been about two hundred million dollars; according to a 2020 report by the UN, completion by that 2030 deadline would require an annual investment of $4.3 billion. That's not an impossible sum. For context, in fiscal year 2020, the United States budgeted $51 billion in foreign aid spending all by itself. But like other foreign aid from Western governments, that money is spread around the world, between many areas that need help just as badly as the Sahel. Some, like Ukraine, Yemen, and South Sudan, need it much more urgently. Many supporters and critics of the initiative suggest that the Sahel's own governments should bear a greater portion of the load than they have, but in a recent summit to discuss the initiative and other anti-desertification initiatives, many regional leaders pointed out that they cannot raise that sort of money themselves and have been underwhelmed by the backing from their international partners. A 2019 summit in France, for example, secured $19 billion to support the initiative—but that money has yet to make it to the Sahel. Making matters worse, they also pointed out that in many areas, the effects of climate change are beginning to accelerate past what the current plan for the Great Green Wall can keep up with, even under the best of circumstances. And on the ground, the Great Green Wall has also raised some very real problems in the communities along the northern Sahel, many of whom consider it less of a long-term help, and more of a short-term hindrance. The act of planting what is essentially a tree monoculture in agriculturally productive areas, means that the farmers and communities dependent on that land for growing cash crops have to withstand a major hit to their revenues or consider relocation. After all, the trees of the Great Green Wall can't survive any better in the baked topsoil of new desert areas than other forms of vegetation could. Not only that, but a huge part of desertification is that the water supply becomes more and more limited—and any new trees planted within the Great Green Wall, are going to need a meaningful amount of water to survive. It's the same problem seen in communities around the world, when they sit on the front lines of climate change. Often, governments or other oversight groups are able to offer solutions that would make a massive positive impact on those communities in the long term, but the path to achieving that impact frequently involves a higher level of interference in local matters than the population can accept. Sometimes, that's just a matter of inconvenience; at other times, it can impede people's livelihoods, contribute to local poverty, or even displace people from their homes. In the case of the Great Green Wall, many local leaders in the participant countries have argued that they have been left out of major decision-making, with their immediate needs not being considered—despite the fact that those needs are often a matter of survival. In other, similar environmental projects, that lack of local buy-in has been a nail in the coffin. For the impoverished communities surrounding the Great Green Wall, it's hard to blame them for cutting down newly planted acacia trees for firewood, given that those same acacia trees are planted on the land that used to provide enough revenue to buy firewood through legal means. ## Revisions and Future As the Great Green Wall continues to be cultivated, it's amidst a number of emerging and entrenched problems that have significantly impeded its overall progress. In relatively undeveloped nations like Chad and Burkina Faso, even enthusiastic local leaders have struggled to plant the amount of trees they could technically afford with the money already disbursed to them. Other countries, like Senegal, are suspected of having not been able to keep as many trees alive in the long run, as they planted in the first place. In many areas, ongoing violence has obstructed access to the degraded ecosystems that most need restoration. Monitoring and accountability within the Great Green Wall program have been severely lacking, and for money to pour in from Western nations and international aid organizations, those problems are most likely going to have to get dealt with beforehand. The concerns about tree death and the slow pace of implementation have also raised broader concerns from scientists, on whether the way we imagine the Great Green Wall today, might not actually be the best way to make it happen. Of course, it's certainly not our place to tell the countries of the Sahel how to do their jobs, or how to reinforce their own natural border against the Sahara. However, it's worth at least touching on some substantive changes that experts have suggested, in order to enhance the Great Green Wall's effectiveness and local utility in the future. As pointed out by David O'Connor and James Ford of McGill University, the Great Green Wall's current reliance on acacia trees has a few big problems: the trees are slow-growing, they require a fair amount of water especially in poor-quality soil, and their utility as firewood incentivizes struggling local populations to harvest the trees, rather than leave them be. Not only that, but acacia monocultures suffer from the same problems as any other monoculture—they're vulnerable to diseases and pest outbreaks, and they fundamentally change their local ecosystems such that many other native species are basically iced out. This hasn't been a shock to ecologists around the world, some of whom have derided the initial plan to "just plant more trees" as being flat-out stupid—and indeed, the idea that a simple wall of monocultured trees could fix such a complex problem is pretty damn reductive. The solution, according to O'Connor and Ford, might be in transforming the Great Green Wall from a wall of trees, into a wall of high-growing shrubs. And there's a few very good reasons why this could make a difference: Not only do shrubs grow faster, allowing them to stay ahead of desertification in a way that the acacia trees can't, but they're much better at being so-called pioneer species, plants that move into barren areas and inject vital nutrients into the soil through their growth and decay cycles. Through this process, shrubs can enrich the soil in a way trees can't, actually rehabilitating it to a level where it might be able to support larger-scale agriculture in the future. And finally, there's far lower incentive to remove these local shrubs, which are not only less useful when harvested, but consume far less water. They'll provide the same shade, wind-breaks, and increases in humidity that acacia trees will, but they do it way better, and they actually sink more carbon in the process. We'll grant you that "plant a shrub" doesn't have the same sexy, eco-friendly ring to it as "plant a tree", but overhauling the Great Green Wall or changing plans for its yet-undeveloped areas could be a major step in the right direction. Several local species of shrub, including the raisin bush and the blue bush, could be candidates for growth, and they'd also bring the potential to move a greater variety of plants in over time, especially with their greater ability to host pollinating insects and birds. With this kind of change, it's been shown in China and New Zealand that desertification can be not just stopped, but pushed back, and there's a halfway decent chance that a move to a shrub-focused local ecology could actually restore and return agricultural areas to the local community, instead of just preserving what hasn't yet been lost. In recent years, Sahelian governments have begun to take a similar approach toward more intentional plant selections, calling for global supply chains to find more of a use for plants like Bambara nut, baobab, and fonio, all of which are native or locally present cash crops that can tolerate the harsh conditions of the northern Sahel. Although the international market for those sorts of crops is limited at present, fostering a larger market demand could incentivize local communities to contribute to the Great Green Wall by planting and raising those crops themselves, thus alleviating poverty and creating jobs in those same areas. Similarly, many scientists and sociologists have stressed the importance of focusing on populated and agriculturally productive areas with soil restoration and water management products, rather than spending money on tree-planting expeditions into remote or unpopulated areas. In Senegal, farmers have taken to building circular gardens with outward-facing plants that can resist drought, while in Ethiopia, frankincense trees have proven excellent for use in water retention. Often, the central advice is simple: Listen to the indigenous farmers who have tended these lands for generations, use the methods that are historically and traditionally proven to work, and when a method does work, keep using it. The importance of these changes cannot be overstated, especially when projecting out the future of what the Sahel is going to be. Temperatures have risen in these regions about one and a half times quicker than the global average, and rainfall continues to become more scarce. When it does fall, more packed ground means more flash floods, where the majority of rainwater just flows away instead of entering the soil. Current estimates anticipate that the population of the Sahel could more than double by 2050, in a region where there are already far, far too many mouths to feed when compared to the amount of food it can produce. If the situation can be resolved at all, it's become quite clear that the solutions will be ones that actually reflect the landscape and needs of the Sahel, that can provide short-term gain, food security, and economic stability to its people without sacrificing the region's future. If that's going to happen, it will require a major rethinking of how the Great Green Wall looks, the ecology that it creates, and the distribution of funds that can make it a reality. Like so many elements of the global fight against climate change, the Great Green Wall is nearing a point of no return—it can adapt, and it must adapt, for if it doesn't, then there's no guarantee that the Sahel and its people will survive. ## Conclusion Even amid the dismay around the current state of the Great Green Wall initiative, it's important to remember that if this plan can be implemented, it will work. The portions of the Wall that have already been built, show that it is a resounding success—one that doesn't just hold back the expanding desert, but provides agricultural productivity, jobs, and a version of the Sahel that can and should be livable in the long term. As scientific input and global funding availability begins to catch up with the initial enthusiasm of the project, it'll be a hell of a needle to thread, if the Great Green Wall is going to be completed. The initiative may demand significant changes in how it's carried out, the nations of the Sahel are going to need to figure out how to productively leverage these international funds, and the path of the Wall itself may have to be redrawn, given that the Sahara has started to find ways through the cracks. Through it all, the stakes remain as high as the Great Green Wall itself. Success in this effort, especially if it really can be coordinated across the entire Sahel, would be nothing short of a panacea for the region. Of course, problems like poverty, instability, and political repression don't go away because there's a line of trees in the distance, but the Great Green Wall would transform the Sahel from what it currently is—a slow, ticking time bomb toward full desertification—to an environmentally stable, agriculturally productive region where those broader issues could be more easily worked out. Building strong nations and economies, rooting out corruption, providing health and education to the next generation…these are all things that stop mattering if a person doesn't know when they'll see their next meal, or if they are stuck in the crosshairs of an inevitable migration crisis where they know they've got nowhere to go. If it works, the Great Green Wall stands a chance at relieving some of that massive, existential pressure, and giving the entire Sahel region a chance to realize a better tomorrow. ## Key Takeaways - The Great Green Wall is an ambitious project to combat desertification in Africa, aiming to restore degraded land and enhance food security. - Despite initial progress, the project faces significant challenges including funding gaps, political instability, and local resistance. - Scientists suggest shifting from acacia trees to native shrubs for better soil rehabilitation and faster growth. - Local communities often view the project as a short-term hindrance due to the displacement of cash crops and water scarcity. - Successful implementation could transform the Sahel into an environmentally stable, agriculturally productive region. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is the Great Green Wall? The Great Green Wall is an ecological restoration project aimed at stopping the spread of the Sahara Desert across Africa. It involves planting a massive barrier of trees and undergrowth to prevent desertification and restore degraded land. ### How long is the Great Green Wall supposed to be? The Great Green Wall is envisioned to stretch approximately 8,000 kilometers across Africa, from the Atlantic Ocean to the Gulf of Aden. ### What are the primary goals of the Great Green Wall? The primary goals of the Great Green Wall include stopping the spread of the Sahara Desert, preserving food security, rehabilitating the economies of Africa's Sahel nations, and creating environmentally friendly jobs. ### What challenges has the Great Green Wall faced? The Great Green Wall has faced challenges such as political instability, corruption, insufficient funding, and local resistance due to the impact on agricultural lands. Additionally, the project has struggled with tree mortality and slow implementation. ### What are some proposed revisions to the Great Green Wall project? Some proposed revisions include shifting from planting acacia trees to high-growing shrubs, which grow faster and require less water. Additionally, there is a focus on using native cash crops and involving local communities in decision-making processes. ### How much of the Great Green Wall has been completed? Estimates place the completion of the Great Green Wall anywhere from 4% to 15%, with significant work still needed to meet the 2030 deadline. ### What are the potential benefits of the Great Green Wall? If successful, the Great Green Wall could restore 100 million hectares of degraded land, pull 250 million tons of carbon from the atmosphere, and create 10 million environmentally friendly jobs. ### What role do local communities play in the Great Green Wall project? Local communities have been involved in planting and maintaining the trees, but there have been issues with local resistance due to the impact on agricultural lands and the need for firewood. Involving local communities more in decision-making is seen as crucial for the project's success. ### What is the current funding situation for the Great Green Wall? The project has faced funding frustrations, with an estimated $4.3 billion needed annually to meet the 2030 deadline. While significant funds have been pledged, the actual disbursement has been slow, and there are calls for Sahelian governments to contribute more. ### What are some of the environmental impacts of desertification in the Sahel region? Desertification in the Sahel region leads to a loss of biodiversity, reduced agricultural productivity, and increased poverty. It also contributes to mass migrations and conflicts over resources. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: Africa's Great Green Wall: Stopping the Spread of the Sahara](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZABIV7RhY2o) - [https://www.earth.com/earthpedia-articles/desertification/](https://www.earth.com/earthpedia-articles/desertification/) - [https://www.prb.org/resources/africas-struggle-with-desertification/](https://www.prb.org/resources/africas-struggle-with-desertification/) - [https://borgenproject.org/desertification-in-africa/](https://borgenproject.org/desertification-in-africa/) - [https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/horizon-magazine/rise-and-fall-monoculture-farming#:~:text=Raising%20a%20single%20crop%20has,and%20control%20pests%20through%20predation](https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/horizon-magazine/rise-and-fall-monoculture-farming#:~:text=Raising%20a%20single%20crop%20has,and%20control%20pests%20through%20predation) - [https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/6/10/7142](https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/6/10/7142) - [https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/dozens-of-countries-have-been-working-to-plant-great-green-wall-and-its-producing-results/](https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/dozens-of-countries-have-been-working-to-plant-great-green-wall-and-its-producing-results/) - [https://ens-newswire.com/funding-frustrations-plague-africas-great-green-wall/#:~:text=Spearheaded%20by%20the%20African%20Union,to%20Djibouti%20in%20the%20east](https://ens-newswire.com/funding-frustrations-plague-africas-great-green-wall/#:~:text=Spearheaded%20by%20the%20African%20Union,to%20Djibouti%20in%20the%20east) - [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/07/africa-great-green-wall-just-4-complete-over-halfway-through-schedule](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/07/africa-great-green-wall-just-4-complete-over-halfway-through-schedule) - [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/great-green-wall-stop-desertification-not-so-much-180960171/](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/great-green-wall-stop-desertification-not-so-much-180960171/) - [https://www.eenews.net/articles/will-africa-ever-see-its-great-green-wall/](https://www.eenews.net/articles/will-africa-ever-see-its-great-green-wall/) - [https://african.business/2022/11/energy-resources/making-the-great-green-wall-a-reality/](https://african.business/2022/11/energy-resources/making-the-great-green-wall-a-reality/) - [https://reliefweb.int/report/chad/conflicts-climate-change-threaten-sprouting-africas-great-green-wall](https://reliefweb.int/report/chad/conflicts-climate-change-threaten-sprouting-africas-great-green-wall) - [https://www.bbcearth.com/news/five-ways-the-great-green-wall-is-helping-to-reforest-the-sahel-region](https://www.bbcearth.com/news/five-ways-the-great-green-wall-is-helping-to-reforest-the-sahel-region) - [https://www.bbcearth.com/news/five-ways-the-great-green-wall-is-helping-to-reforest-the-sahel-region](https://www.bbcearth.com/news/five-ways-the-great-green-wall-is-helping-to-reforest-the-sahel-region) - [https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/great-green-wall/](https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/great-green-wall/) - [https://www.greenclimate.fund/document/scaling-resilience-africa-s-great-green-wall-suraggwa](https://www.greenclimate.fund/document/scaling-resilience-africa-s-great-green-wall-suraggwa) - [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-021-00801-8](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-021-00801-8) - [https://earth.org/the-great-green-wall-legacy/](https://earth.org/the-great-green-wall-legacy/) - [https://www.un.org/africarenewal/web-features/africa-great-green-wall-close-18-million-hectares-land-restored-back-health](https://www.un.org/africarenewal/web-features/africa-great-green-wall-close-18-million-hectares-land-restored-back-health) - [https://earth.org/desertification-in-africa/#:~:text=Desertification%20in%20Africa%20Today,today%2C%20as%20well%20as%20globally](https://earth.org/desertification-in-africa/#:~:text=Desertification%20in%20Africa%20Today,today%2C%20as%20well%20as%20globally) - [https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/17/africa/africa-great-green-wall-sahara-desert-spc-intl-c2e/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/17/africa/africa-great-green-wall-sahara-desert-spc-intl-c2e/index.html) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Photo_de_famille_remise_des_prix_Wiki_Loves_Africa_2021_Cameroun.jpg) by Bile rene / openverse, by-sa. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/americas-infrastructure-neglected-hurricanes-helene https://megaprojects.pub/article/americas-infrastructure-neglected-hurricanes-helene Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT ## Introduction It was never supposed to be the storm of the decade. When, in late September, an atmospheric disturbance became a tropical storm, and that tropical storm became Hurricane Helene, it was thought to be just another chapter in what had been a pedestrian storm season in the Gulf of Mexico. Hurricanes are common there, they're expected, and while they're never to be taken lightly, they're a natural force that the nations of this part of the world understand how to manage. It was a significant storm, and a few hours before it made landfall, it grew into a major storm…but they could take it. Fast forward a week, and the sheer devastation that Hurricane Helene delivered to the United States has exceeded every forecast. Hundreds are confirmed dead, while hundreds more are missing. On the scale of American hurricanes, Helene is already the deadliest to impact US territory since Hurricane Maria, and the deadliest to impact America's forty-eight contiguous states since Hurricane Katrina. It traveled further than nearly anybody had expected, devastated communities that had thought they couldn't be hit, and brought a significant portion of America's southeast to its knees. But alongside the death and devastation, Hurricane Helene brought a warning sign: Storms, and particularly, America's very biggest storms, are changing…and America isn't ready. In this special episode of Megaprojects, we'll be closely examining Hurricane Helene: the storm itself, the devastation it wrought, and what that devastation reveals about the places it impacted most. And we'll be exploring Helene in context to one of the most major, and most critical megaprojects of all: How people formulate and execute responses to tremendously powerful natural disasters, at a moment when those disasters come more frequently than ever. ## The Hurricane The storm that would become Hurricane Helene, started out in the same way that every eventual hurricane does: as a low-pressure zone in the moisture of the tropical Gulf of Mexico. Those low-pressure zones, slowly moving westward, will interact with the ocean air, churning and sending cool, humid air upward to form rainclouds…and then, thunderstorms. As the storms grow, they rotate around their center, and as the winds accelerate, the storm becomes a hurricane. In order to even be called a hurricane at all, even a weak storm will sustain winds of seventy-four miles per hour, 119 kilometers per hour, at a minimum. A medium-strength storm's winds will sustain at 111 miles or 178 kilometers per hour. The strongest, known in America as a Category Five, will sustain winds of 157 miles per hour, 252 kilometers per hour, at a bare minimum…and there is no upper limit. The sheer energy contained in this sort of storm is nearly incomprehensible…but we'll at least try to explain it. If all the energy of a single hurricane's winds were harnessed with perfect efficiency, then that storm could match half the power-generating capacity of all human infrastructure on planet Earth. By the time then-Tropical Storm Helene caught the world's attention, in the last week of September 2024, it was well on its way to becoming a hurricane. But even in Helene's early days, there were subtle indicators that the storm had the potential to be especially bad. At the time that Helene was forming, the waters of the Gulf were at completely unprecedented temperatures; quoting atmospheric scientist Brian McNoldy, "This is pretty amazing: the ocean heat content averaged over the Gulf of Mexico is obliterating previous all-time record highs. It's 126% of average for the date." In some parts of the Gulf, the surface of the sea was up to 89 degrees Fahrenheit, nearly 32 degrees Celsius. Not only that, but it would travel over an extremely warm area of the Caribbean known as the Loop Current, injecting the storm with a further boost of energy even as the surrounding winds in the area were nearly nonexistent. In ideal conditions, those surrounding winds would have dampened a growing hurricane…but Helene had a clear path to get stronger, practically unopposed. Predicting a hurricane is notoriously risky business. That's largely because of environmental and weather factors that make modeling a hurricane's path and its power very difficult. In fact, the initial expectations around Helene were far from what would ultimately happen, with the worst of the damage predicted, before the storm made landfall, across the states of Florida and Georgia. It had already lashed Cuba, Mexico near the city of Cancun, and the Cayman Islands, indicating that worse was almost certainly on the way. In the stretch of open sea between Cuba and Florida, Helene was expected to rapidly intensify into a Category Three hurricane, with winds at around 120 miles per hour, 193 kilometers per hour. Even despite communities in Florida, especially the coastline, building their homes and businesses in a way that hardens them to hurricanes, such winds would still be enough to cause major damage, uproot trees, and knock out electricity and water for several days in the hardest-hit areas. The storm was expected to do its worst in Florida's Big Bend area, and impact the cities of Tallahassee, population 200,000, and Tampa, population 400,000. All in all, millions of people were thought to be in its path. But once the storm made landfall, it was expected to do what all hurricanes do on land: Rapidly drop in their intensity, returning to tropical-storm levels within a couple of hundred miles at most, and eventually peter out into scattered rain showers. But in the hours before Helene arrived, it continued to intensify, eventually turning into a Category Four hurricane with sustained winds of 140 miles per hour, 225 kilometers per hour. It crashed into the town of Perry, Florida, at just past eleven at night on Thursday, September the twenty-sixth, and then roared inland for a bit, before turning northward. The storm's projected path had already been expected to take it up through the state of Georgia and to the Appalachian mountain range that runs up and down America's east, into communities in the states of North and South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Kentucky. But now, the added energy roiling within the storm promised two tightly interrelated, and very dangerous developments. Now, the storm was going to reach further inland, and when it did, it would lash the land with high winds and dump rain characteristic of a hurricane or major tropical storm. Not only that, but the storm had changed in other ways; its rainclouds were far larger and more expansive than expected, meaning that as the slow-moving storm passed over any given place in its path, that place would have to weather extreme rainfall for far longer than previously believed. If any square foot of land might otherwise have expected, say, six inches of rain…now, it would get twelve, or even eighteen. In Florida, Helene would bring a devastating storm surge all across coastal areas, meaning not just high waves, but a swell of the entire sea, some eight feet higher than its usual levels. It was the worst hurricane hit to the Tampa Bay area of Florida in over a hundred years. Elsewhere in the state, the popular restaurant chain, Waffle House, would close down numerous locations, in a silly-sounding but actually very useful metric to indicate just how bad the damage in those areas would be. In Georgia, over eleven inches or 28 centimeters of rain crashed down on the state capital of Atlanta, the highest two-day rain total ever observed there, since record-keeping began in 1878. That water, not just in Atlanta, would flow into rivers and streams, swelling them to unprecedented crests in Georgia, North and South Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee. Many of the rivers would flood to levels that eclipsed even the biggest historical floods on record. In one community in South Carolina, rain totals would hit nearly 22 inches, 55 centimeters, while large numbers of communities would receive rainfall far beyond anything in living memory. The storm would spawn dozens upon dozens of tornadoes, some of which devastated neighborhoods to a level even beyond what the hurricane winds would achieve on their own. From Helene's winds, trees were ripped out from the ground and toppled; from Helene's rains, massive landslides cascaded unpredictably and, sometimes, fatally. By the time the storm finally dissipated, on September the twenty-ninth, the land it had traveled over was utterly devastated. ## In Helene's Wake In aggregate numbers, the sheer impact of Hurricane Helene is unlike any weather event the United States has endured in this decade. It is the most damaging storm to hit the US mainland since Hurricane Katrina in 2005. At the time of writing, the death toll sits at 227, including 113 from the state of North Carolina, 48 from South Carolina, 33 from Georgia, and another 33 between Florida, Tennessee, and Virginia. That death toll is almost certain to rise, and when it does, the names that must be added to the list will likely be removed from another one: the list of missing persons. At present, official sources place the number of missing at roughly two to three hundred, but there's reason to think that many more could be out there. Community-run lists of missing persons, maintained by private citizens in the wake of the disaster, list over 1,400 names still missing at the time of writing. A high proportion of the missing may have been swept away by floodwaters, and the hope of finding survivors is quickly diminishing. If all 1,400 missing truly are dead, then the death toll from Helene would eclipse that of even Hurricane Katrina, standing at over 1,620, beyond Katrina's 1,392. For the sake of comparison, 135 people are still officially listed as missing, in Katrina's wake. When it comes to material damages, that count still rises too. Current estimates tally damage at a value of nearly forty billion US dollars, but these figures are listed at a time when many areas still have yet to be closely assessed. Total economic losses, according to the Fiscal Times, may ultimately crest over 250 billion. But the numbers, by themselves, don't tell the whole story—and although we won't be going through an exhaustive list of the dead, the missing, and the accounts of survivors, we'll shine a spotlight on a few. In Florida, by example, the areas where Hurricane Helene hit hardest would weather levels of damage that they haven't seen in a generation. After all, this is Florida, a place that's well-hardened to hurricanes like this…yet in this case, it was not enough. In the Tampa Bay area, over a thousand people had to be rescued from the rushing storm surge after declining to evacuate; one local sheriff's office requested that people who chose not to leave, would write their personal details on their bodies in permanent marker to help authorities identify their corpses. The island community of Cedar Key was described by one resident as being, quote, "completely gone". In the state of Georgia, a local meteorologist named Bob Van Dillen would rescue a woman from her partially submerged car on live television; elsewhere across the state, flooding devastated many neighborhoods and left large numbers of roads entirely impassable. Well over a dozen deaths in the state would come after people were crushed or trapped by falling trees. Georgia's poultry industry, supplying nearly half of all chickens consumed annually in the US, was devastated, in an economic blow that will be felt across America for months. In North Carolina, the city of Asheville was inundated with incredible flooding, entirely washing out multiple districts of the city, while access to the city was cut off on multiple interstates due to landslides. Elsewhere in the state, a long section of an interstate highway was washed away, and numerous smaller towns were hit very, very hard by the flooding. The town of Spruce Pine was nearly wiped out, posing a major threat to global supply chains, because of Spruce Pine's sole US source of ultra-high-purity quartz, essential in semiconductors. Elsewhere in the state, a factory that supplies intravenous fluids to much of America was flooded and forced to shut down. The vast majority of one community, Chimney Rock, was either completely destroyed or heavily damaged by the swell of the nearby Broad River. In South Carolina, some 1.3 million people lost power, including several parts of the state that lost power completely. Tennessee's helicopter crews would log fifty-eight rescues from flood conditions, including in the town of Erwin, where a medical hospital was submerged completely. There, numerous bridges collapsed and several more interstate highways sustained heavy damage. Finally, in the state of Virginia, seventy more water rescues had to take place, while more minor damage was reported in the states of West Virginia, Illinois, Kentucky, and Ohio. ## Damning Failures We describe the impact of Hurricane Helene, in such state-by-state detail, partly for the simple reason that it's important to do so. Helene, like any major destructive weather event around the world, didn't just capture headlines; it changed millions of lives, and in at least several hundred cases, it ended them. But we also describe the scope and scale of the damage, because as we turn our attention to both what went right, and what went wrong, in the aftermath, it's important to remember that this was a massive natural disaster. What Hurricane Helene was, and what it did, was entirely outside of the control of any person, any community, or any government—and by a long shot. But that same reality is what makes a careful, competent, and most of all, effective emergency response so important. People can't control what the weather will do, but people can control how they respond—and it's the burden, not just of federal disaster management agencies but state and local governments, community leaders, and any other person with the power to save, or accidentally end the lives of others, to both plan for such a response, and execute, when the time comes. To that end, we'll start on the positive side, because, as has been the case with so many disaster management efforts in recent history, there are many elements to the response that should be regarded as a success. Across the American southeast, very few hospitals ever had to close down entirely, despite blackouts, flooding, and more. Power and water infrastructure repair personnel were on hand, ready to surge into hard-hit areas in massive numbers, and they did exactly that. The country's Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, has thus far distributed some 344 million US dollars to survivors of the storm, provided 17.2 million meals, and supplied 13.9 million liters of water, as of October the ninth. Over 3,200 people received direct assistance from search and rescue teams, and well over a hundred million dollars has been funneled to efforts to restore critical transportation infrastructure. Every state that has been impacted by Helene has been engaged in its own relief efforts. Furthermore, countless individuals took heroic action to save the lives of others over the course of Helene's devastation. In the hurricane's wake, communities are banding together everywhere; quoting one Associated Press article here, about the town of Black Mountain, North Carolina: "Alongside a fencerow, a makeshift message board listed the names of people still missing. In other areas, mules delivered medical supplies to mountaintop homes. Residents collected water from creeks and cooked over camp stoves. And across the region, people were looking after each other." In just about every catastrophe in history, people respond by banding together, whether because of their work in an official capacity or simple human decency and care for others…and Helene was no different. But despite many reasons for hope, Hurricane Helene revealed everything from neglected elements of American infrastructure, to failures and oversights in planning, to clear insufficiencies in emergency response protocol. Of all the individual items to talk about, however, perhaps none present the contrast so starkly as the missing list. At present, official counts of the missing, aggregated among the various states, put the total number in the 270-to-300 range. Private citizens, however, have put together a different list, and it's substantially longer, with the discrepancy between official and community reports of missing, being multiple hundreds of persons who are apparently not accounted for on official lists. The community lists are constantly updated with news of people who've been found, alive or deceased, but the names on the community lists don't appear to make it onto official ones—constituting a massive barrier to either finding any survivors who could still remain, or notifying loved ones of the fate of a missing person. Also high on the list of devastating hits to the American southeast, was damage to critical transportation infrastructure across the region. One key interstate, the I-40, is expected to be shut down for multiple months after a large part of the interstate washed out. The I-26 interstate will be shut down for months, too, with the combination of washouts making it very difficult for people to navigate between North Carolina and Tennessee at all. Numerous state highways suffered severe damage, and will be closed for repairs for the foreseeable future. Several key bridges have washed out due to floodwaters, or have collapsed, due to erosion where they were supported on riverbanks. Hundreds upon hundreds of roads across the region are shut down, many of which would take weeks to rebuild at the best of times, let alone when they'll be weighed as a priority against all the other roads that have to be put back together. Now, there's simply no timeline for getting a lot of them fixed, no matter how badly local residents may need them working. After the roads, there were the dams, where thankfully, the news during and after Helene was not nearly as bad as it could have been. Despite several incidents of dams overflowing, and widespread fears of catastrophic failures that could have killed hundreds or even thousands of people, most dams in the affected area managed to hold…but only just barely. In the state of Tennessee, evacuation orders were issued in the city of Newport after reports of a catastrophic failure of a dam upstream; luckily, the reports were identified as a false alarm. In North Carolina's Rutherford County, the Lake Lure Dam was observed with floodwater overflowing its 124-foot-high crest, and flowing, uncontrolled, around its side walls, causing authorities to urge locals to flee to high ground. The Lake Lure Dam was last identified to be in only "fair" condition, even before Helene arrived, and the fact that it held was little more than luck. Another dam in eastern Tennessee was found to be on the brink of imminent failure during the storm, and many across the region had to have all their floodgates opened at once, venting out as much water as was physically possible to reduce the strain. Make no mistake, the lack of dam collapses is a very good thing…but it's nothing short of a dodged bullet. And with so much infrastructure destroyed, emergency organizations have been unable to reach some of the hardest-hit communities by standard means…only to realize that they have very few alternative solutions. Airdrops by helicopter into affected areas are possible, and they've delivered some of the most critical supplies, including food, medicine, and limited amounts of water. But the rest, has had to come by way of private citizens doing what they can to help. Some of those private citizens come by way of their own helicopters, dropping off whatever supplies their choppers can carry. Others have had to use large numbers of pack mules, driving their mules through devastated communities and broken landscapes in order to deliver whatever the animals can bear on their backs. The communities devastated by Helene are mountainous, sometimes remote, and accessible by only a few scarce roads—which often followed the same low paths that would be a conduit for water to move in flash floods. The process for private citizens to intervene hasn't run smoothly, either; in one instance in North Carolina, a helicopter pilot attempting to rescue desperate people in an isolated community was threatened with arrest and ordered to stop his rescue efforts. Other accounts indicate, he may have been far from the only one. Then, there was Helene's effect on those less fortunate—particularly, prisoners who were in correctional institutions at the time Helene roared through. In one prison in North Carolina, inmates were never evacuated, and had to live for five days without running water or lights, while confined to their cells with only minimal interaction with prison personnel. In Florida, a jail located in the storm's path was not evacuated, despite evacuation orders for the entire surrounding community. Nor was this the only instance in which prisoners became more involved with the hurricane than they might have hoped. In Florida, low-risk prisoners were brought en masse to help deal with post-storm debris, in a form of prison labor. Unfortunately, Helene was further complicated by efforts within the United States to turn it into a political issue. It's no secret that the US is now less than a month away from a major election, and despite the imminent risk of harm to people who don't have the information they need, misinformation has spread like wildfire. One US Congressperson claimed on social media that an unspecified "they" were controlling the weather to cause Hurricane Helene, while numerous officials and leaders within America's right-leaning Republican Party have claimed, either outright or by strongly implying, that disaster relief may come slower to the areas hit by Helene because those areas tend to vote Republican, rather than for the Democrats, who control the presidency and thus the executive authority for emergency response. FEMA has had to launch an entire rumor response web page to deal with the onslaught of outright misinformation, debunking claims that FEMA lacks the money to assist with Hurricane Helene, that it was turning away volunteers, and that it was asking for donations in cash. At the same time, FEMA attempted to explain elements of its disaster response that have been misconstrued, and even co-opted, online. And then, there's the matter of simple human error—or, some might say, acts of blatant human stupidity. In one such case, a factory called Impact Plastics is now under investigation in Tennessee after several people were killed, and more were declared missing, after being trapped there. Those workers, according to their relatives and to other survivors, were made to show up to work regardless of the incoming hurricane, and they allege that they or their relatives were denied the opportunity to leave until it was too late. When they finally got permission to go, floodwaters had already inundated the parking lot with so much water that escape was impossible. The company, at least thus far, has attempted to direct blame elsewhere. In another instance, the town of Clemson, South Carolina, was devastated by Helene, with power and water infrastructure knocked out and gas scarce…but that didn't stop Clemson University from hosting eighty thousand out-of-towners for a college game of American football, placing immense strain on the community. Finally, there's an element to the Helene response that simply comes down to a fundamental lack of readiness for disasters this big. Federally, FEMA has long tried to draw attention to its dwindling funds; as FEMA administrator Deanne Criswell described in a National Public Radio interview after Helene, quote: "[…] we are running low in our disaster relief funds, and we went into what we call immediate needs funding in early August." Per Criswell, that regulatory change allowed FEMA to divert funds to urgent, lifesaving work, but it's a band-aid solution that can only keep up for a few months. Said America's Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, quote: "We are expecting another hurricane hitting. FEMA does not have the funds to make it through the season." Individual states, as well as private companies, are in a similar bind. In North Carolina, by example, repair crews were entirely unable to keep up with forecasts and projections on how quickly they'd restore power to residents, largely because of the sheer extent of the damage. As one spokesperson for the company Duke Energy put it, when discussing its hundred thousand customers in areas with catastrophic damage, quote: "We're talking about places where the homes no longer exist." That's the sort of damage that energy companies are capable of dealing with, when a river floods or a tornado devastates a town—but with an event as big as Helene, that catastrophic damage is repeated a hundred times over. From power companies to road repair to food distribution and more, what Helene has revealed, most of all, is the sheer lack of capacity to deal with weather events of this size. Go town by town, and the damage that Helene caused is bad, but not unprecedented. But zoom out on the map, and the devastation is on a magnitude that these states just don't have the infrastructure to handle. ## A Sign of What's to Come As we conclude today's special episode, we've got to turn toward the future, and the major implications that Hurricane Helene brings to not just the United States, but the entire world. It's difficult to overstate just how much of a historical anomaly Helene was; after all, much of the devastation was in areas where hurricanes simply don't go. Asheville, one of the cities most thoroughly devastated by Helene, was even referred to as a haven from natural disasters in recent years, given its high elevation, cool temperatures, and distance from the sea. This part of America isn't a world away from the Gulf of Mexico, but it's certainly far enough that by the time any remnants of a hurricane get there, they should be hardly more notable than any other passing storm system. But the reality that Hurricane Helene presented, was a very different one—and the results spoke volumes about what sorts of emergency prep had been done in the area, versus the sorts that had not. The problem wasn't so much that local, state, or federal assistance wouldn't be able to figure out how to fix the problems Helene caused, but that the scale and wide-reaching impact of such a massive disaster was previously unthinkable. In this part of the country, there's little of the appropriate infrastructure to deal with a massive hurricane, because massive hurricanes aren't a historically plausible event there. At the same time, America's broader infrastructural decay was put on full display. Thousands of American dams are known to be in poor condition; well over forty percent of American bridges are half a century old or more; and well over a third of them are in need of repair. The condition of over half of all rural interstate pavement is described as either fair, mediocre, or poor. Any one of those problems is fixable…but take them together, and they represent a broken system that simply isn't equipped to be resilient to challenge. As for the role of climate change in Hurricane Helene, the vast majority of credible scientists and experts on the matter agree that climate change was very much to blame—not for Hurricane Helene's existence, but for its intensity. Despite the cultural connotation of climate change—and particularly the phrase, "global warming"—evoking the idea that the world is simply getting hotter and hotter, the reality of the phenomenon is a bit different. The simplest way to conceptualize the way it actually works, is to think in terms of energy: the issue isn't that the energy within Earth's atmosphere is hotter or colder, there's just a lot more of it. Whether an atmospheric event is a heat wave, or a blizzard, or a hurricane or a drought, there's more energy being poured into that atmospheric event…and thus, whatever event we're referring to, there's going to be more of it. Droughts get longer and drier, blizzards come more frequently and dump more snow, and tropical storms accelerate into hurricanes faster, and become more powerful than they otherwise would. Helene, or a tropical storm like it, was going to be in the Gulf of Mexico around this time, even if the climate were in its pre-industrial state. But the damage of Helene, the power, the duration, and the eventual devastation of the storm, almost certainly owed themselves to a supercharge of energy that would not otherwise have been a factor. Of course, we do want to acknowledge that in some parts of the world, particularly the US, climate change remains a divisive issue—but we'll put it to you this way. Even if humans weren't to blame for climate change, the reality of weather observations around the world indicate that however the atmosphere got so supercharged, it's certainly supercharged now. Excuse the bluntness, but in truth, the effects of that change will care very little about the political affiliation of communities that will be devastated. In this particular case, a wealth of prior research and an ample number of expert analysts have been able to generate preliminary figures on just how much of a factor climate change was, for Hurricane Helene itself. The North Atlantic Ocean, for example, is estimated to store up to ninety percent of the excess heat caused by climate change, supercharging atmospheric events in that area with more and more energy. According to data from nonprofit research organization Climate Central, the record warm waters that bred Hurricane Helene in the Gulf of Mexico were between 200 and 500 times more likely than they would have been, in pre-industrial conditions. Climate Central, by the way, released a report in May of this year that emphasized climate change's role in increasing the likelihood of extreme inland flooding, in precisely the areas Helene hit hardest. Other climate research organizations have found, preliminarily, that Helene was 20 percent wetter overall, dropped fifty percent more rain on Georgia and the Carolinas, and was 20 times more likely to dump the sheer volume of water it did, as a result of climate change. In some places, Helene delivered a thousand-year flood, a flood that, historically, would only be expected once every thousand years. But with the way weather trends are moving, similar floods will most likely be observed long before the year 3024. As America's attention shifts from the cleanup from Hurricane Helene, to the cleanup from Hurricane Milton and more, the world's attention will need to shift elsewhere too. But in dealing with these sorts of growing disasters all over the world, it's simply not enough to take the lessons learned from Helene, and repeat them everywhere. We said it a moment ago, and we'll say it again: Climate change doesn't just make everything hot. It takes whatever major weather events happen to be common in a given area, it makes more of them, and it makes them worse. The real lesson to learn from Hurricane Helene, then, is to prepare for more and worse, whether we're discussing an area known for its droughts, its cyclones, its wildfires, or its snowfall. Disaster management can't be generalized, it can't be oversimplified, and it can't be done overnight…but it is absolutely critical, and the world can either put in the work now, or be caught unprepared when a crisis arrives. ## Key Takeaways - Hurricane Helene's devastation exceeded forecasts, impacting areas not historically prone to hurricanes. - The storm's intensity was amplified by record-high ocean temperatures and climate change. - Helene revealed significant failures in emergency response, including mismatched missing persons lists. - Critical infrastructure, such as roads and dams, suffered extensive damage, hindering recovery efforts. - The disaster highlighted the need for better preparedness for increasingly severe weather events. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What was the death toll from Hurricane Helene? The death toll from Hurricane Helene is 227, with 113 from North Carolina, 48 from South Carolina, 33 from Georgia, and another 33 between Florida, Tennessee, and Virginia. The number of missing persons is estimated to be around 270 to 300, but community lists suggest over 1,400 missing. ### How did Hurricane Helene impact the infrastructure in the affected areas? Hurricane Helene caused significant damage to critical transportation infrastructure, including the closure of key interstates like I-40 and I-26 for multiple months. Numerous state highways and bridges were severely damaged or washed out, and hundreds of roads were shut down, with no clear timeline for repairs. ### What role did climate change play in the intensity of Hurricane Helene? Climate change significantly contributed to the intensity of Hurricane Helene. The record warm waters in the Gulf of Mexico were 200 to 500 times more likely due to climate change. Helene was estimated to be 20 percent wetter overall, dropped 50 percent more rain on Georgia and the Carolinas, and was 20 times more likely to dump the volume of water it did. ### How did the response to Hurricane Helene highlight issues with American infrastructure? The response to Hurricane Helene revealed neglected elements of American infrastructure, including thousands of dams in poor condition, over 40 percent of bridges being half a century old or more, and over half of rural interstate pavement described as fair, mediocre, or poor. The sheer scale of the damage was beyond what these states were equipped to handle. ### What were some of the positive aspects of the emergency response to Hurricane Helene? Despite the challenges, there were many successful elements in the response to Hurricane Helene. Very few hospitals had to close down entirely, power and water infrastructure repair personnel were ready to surge into hard-hit areas, and FEMA distributed significant funds and supplies to survivors. Communities also banded together to support each other. ### How did misinformation and political issues complicate the response to Hurricane Helene? Misinformation spread rapidly, with claims that FEMA lacked funds or was turning away volunteers. Political issues also arose, with some officials suggesting that disaster relief might be slower in areas that tend to vote Republican. FEMA had to launch a rumor response web page to address these issues. ### What were some of the human errors and oversights that occurred during Hurricane Helene? There were several instances of human error, such as a factory in Tennessee where workers were trapped and killed because they were not allowed to leave before the storm. Additionally, Clemson University hosted a large football game in Clemson, South Carolina, despite the community's power and water infrastructure being knocked out. ### How did the damage from Hurricane Helene affect the poultry industry in Georgia? The poultry industry in Georgia, which supplies nearly half of all chickens consumed annually in the US, was devastated. This economic blow will be felt across America for months. ### What was the impact of Hurricane Helene on the town of Spruce Pine, North Carolina? The town of Spruce Pine was nearly wiped out, posing a major threat to global supply chains because it is the sole US source of ultra-high-purity quartz, essential in semiconductors. ### How did the community of Black Mountain, North Carolina, respond to Hurricane Helene? In Black Mountain, residents collected water from creeks, cooked over camp stoves, and looked after each other. A makeshift message board listed the names of people still missing, and mules delivered medical supplies to mountaintop homes. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: America's Infrastructure is Being Neglected and Hurricanes Show Us How](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1Dhrqx4yC0) - [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/storm-hurricane-helene-florida-gulf-coast/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/storm-hurricane-helene-florida-gulf-coast/) - [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tropical-storm-helene-hurricane-path-maps-track-forecast/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tropical-storm-helene-hurricane-path-maps-track-forecast/) - [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/27/hurricane-helene-landfall-florida](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/27/hurricane-helene-landfall-florida) - [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/live-blog/storm-helene-live-updates-rcna172604](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/live-blog/storm-helene-live-updates-rcna172604) - [https://www.bbc.com/weather/articles/c1jdzwgepgzo](https://www.bbc.com/weather/articles/c1jdzwgepgzo) - [https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/how-hurricanes-form.html](https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/how-hurricanes-form.html) - [https://www.weather.gov/mfl/saffirsimpson#:~:text=The%20Saffir%2DSimpson%20Hurricane%20Wind,loss%20of%20life%20and%20damage](https://www.weather.gov/mfl/saffirsimpson#:~:text=The%20Saffir%2DSimpson%20Hurricane%20Wind,loss%20of%20life%20and%20damage) - [https://www.axios.com/2024/09/25/hurricane-helene-large-size-rapid-intensification](https://www.axios.com/2024/09/25/hurricane-helene-large-size-rapid-intensification) - [https://apnews.com/article/hurricane-helene-asheville-north-carolina-1a2255b9d1dd5cd9554a76b45c7a695c](https://apnews.com/article/hurricane-helene-asheville-north-carolina-1a2255b9d1dd5cd9554a76b45c7a695c) - [https://www.npr.org/2024/09/29/nx-s1-5132108/fema-administrator-addresses-the-damage-done-by-hurricane-helene](https://www.npr.org/2024/09/29/nx-s1-5132108/fema-administrator-addresses-the-damage-done-by-hurricane-helene) - [https://apnews.com/article/helene-asheville-north-carolina-3f812f70c4d2649e2198362e9ae42b06](https://apnews.com/article/helene-asheville-north-carolina-3f812f70c4d2649e2198362e9ae42b06) - [https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/science-florida-hurricane-ravaged-north-carolina-rcna173256](https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/science-florida-hurricane-ravaged-north-carolina-rcna173256) - [https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/cities-prepare-for-future-influx-of-new-residents-fleeing-climate-change-110693957661](https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/cities-prepare-for-future-influx-of-new-residents-fleeing-climate-change-110693957661) - [https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/10/09/fact-sheet-hurricane-helene-recovery-continues-as-biden-harris-administration-prepares-for-hurricane-milton/](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/10/09/fact-sheet-hurricane-helene-recovery-continues-as-biden-harris-administration-prepares-for-hurricane-milton/) - [https://www.wdhn.com/weather/hurricane-helene/florida-sheriff-asks-residents-who-refused-to-evacuate-to-write-information-on-body-for-identification-after-helene-landfall/](https://www.wdhn.com/weather/hurricane-helene/florida-sheriff-asks-residents-who-refused-to-evacuate-to-write-information-on-body-for-identification-after-helene-landfall/) - [https://www.tampabay.com/hurricane/2024/09/27/hurricane-helene-tampa-bay-florida-rescues-flooding/](https://www.tampabay.com/hurricane/2024/09/27/hurricane-helene-tampa-bay-florida-rescues-flooding/) - [https://www.foxweather.com/extreme-weather/fox-weather-bob-van-dillen-rescues-woman-flood-georgia](https://www.foxweather.com/extreme-weather/fox-weather-bob-van-dillen-rescues-woman-flood-georgia) - [https://apnews.com/article/hurricane-helene-asheville-north-carolina-1a2255b9d1dd5cd9554a76b45c7a695c](https://apnews.com/article/hurricane-helene-asheville-north-carolina-1a2255b9d1dd5cd9554a76b45c7a695c) - [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/29/us/helene-destruction-florida-north-carolina.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/29/us/helene-destruction-florida-north-carolina.html) - [https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2024/10/03/Hurricane-Helene-Damages-Could-Top-250-Billion-Analysts-Say?amp=](https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2024/10/03/Hurricane-Helene-Damages-Could-Top-250-Billion-Analysts-Say?amp=) - [https://www.npr.org/2024/09/30/nx-s1-5133462/hurricane-helene-quartz-microchips-solar-panels-spruce-pine](https://www.npr.org/2024/09/30/nx-s1-5133462/hurricane-helene-quartz-microchips-solar-panels-spruce-pine) - [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hurricane-helene-satellite-images-north-carolina/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hurricane-helene-satellite-images-north-carolina/) - [https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/hurricane-helene/?id=113931821](https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/hurricane-helene/?id=113931821) - [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/live-blog/hurricane-helene-live-updates-rcna173973](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/live-blog/hurricane-helene-live-updates-rcna173973) - [https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2024/10/04/g-s1-26383/iv-fluids-shortage-baxter-hurricane-helene](https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2024/10/04/g-s1-26383/iv-fluids-shortage-baxter-hurricane-helene) - [https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/04/us/helene-recovery-friday/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/04/us/helene-recovery-friday/index.html) - [https://www.axios.com/local/charlotte/2024/10/03/hurricane-helene-north-carolina-recovery-photos](https://www.axios.com/local/charlotte/2024/10/03/hurricane-helene-north-carolina-recovery-photos) - [https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/06/us/how-helene-devastated-western-north-carolina/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/06/us/how-helene-devastated-western-north-carolina/index.html) - [https://www.npr.org/2024/10/03/nx-s1-5134866/rumors-conspiracy-theories-helene-social-media](https://www.npr.org/2024/10/03/nx-s1-5134866/rumors-conspiracy-theories-helene-social-media) - [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-georgia-hurricane-helene-b2623999.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-georgia-hurricane-helene-b2623999.html) - [https://apnews.com/article/hurricane-helene-congress-fema-funding-5be4f18e00ce2b509d6830410cf2c1cb](https://apnews.com/article/hurricane-helene-congress-fema-funding-5be4f18e00ce2b509d6830410cf2c1cb) - [https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4915979-fema-hurricane-helene-misinformation/](https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4915979-fema-hurricane-helene-misinformation/) - [https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/10/hurricane-helene-north-carolina-fema-interview/680136/](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/10/hurricane-helene-north-carolina-fema-interview/680136/) - [https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz04nl32e7yo](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz04nl32e7yo) - [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/02/hurricane-helene-destruction-timeline](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/02/hurricane-helene-destruction-timeline) - [https://www.weather.gov/ilm/Helene2024](https://www.weather.gov/ilm/Helene2024) - [https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/01/weather/hurricane-helene-path-of-destruction-climate-dg/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/01/weather/hurricane-helene-path-of-destruction-climate-dg/index.html) - [https://www.wcnc.com/article/weather/hurricane/helene/interstate-40-western-north-carolina-pete-buttiegieg-rebuilding-timeline/275-3760b666-11b0-4bde-b2a3-3ae7f45c305f](https://www.wcnc.com/article/weather/hurricane/helene/interstate-40-western-north-carolina-pete-buttiegieg-rebuilding-timeline/275-3760b666-11b0-4bde-b2a3-3ae7f45c305f) - [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/live-map-helene](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/live-map-helene) - [https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/10/03/hurricane-helene-was-americas-deadliest-storm-in-nearly-two-decades?utm_medium=cpc.adword.pd&utm_source=google&ppccampaignID=17210591673&ppcadID=&utm_campaign=a.22brand_pmax&utm_content=conversion.direct-response.anonymous&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwx4O4BhAnEiwA42SbVJ7MAXA59V31SieLxtWV2DAVuDjFDu2lsWCfuHH5LNGSbH2KTw1mXRoC338QAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds](https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/10/03/hurricane-helene-was-americas-deadliest-storm-in-nearly-two-decades?utm_medium=cpc.adword.pd&utm_source=google&ppccampaignID=17210591673&ppcadID=&utm_campaign=a.22brand_pmax&utm_content=conversion.direct-response.anonymous&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwx4O4BhAnEiwA42SbVJ7MAXA59V31SieLxtWV2DAVuDjFDu2lsWCfuHH5LNGSbH2KTw1mXRoC338QAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds) - [https://apnews.com/article/hurricane-helene-florida-storm-surge-0284042dade78e04e453ad821e6e15c3](https://apnews.com/article/hurricane-helene-florida-storm-surge-0284042dade78e04e453ad821e6e15c3) - [https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/05/us/helene-death-toll-rises-saturday/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/05/us/helene-death-toll-rises-saturday/index.html) - [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/live-blog/hurricane-helene-live-updates-rcna173767](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/live-blog/hurricane-helene-live-updates-rcna173767) - [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/05/hurricane-helene-storm-survivors-experiences](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/05/hurricane-helene-storm-survivors-experiences) - [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/1/d/1Pp41yMpPeMvZShN11xXAZdB3-6wu_cZyAB-QxgUoeEw/htmlview?fbclid=IwY2xjawFrmvRleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHUjOTdFuUedtsF8fxHSgCdQBqQyaOXupEnCno4CYU5n0fHSF98AvQPMkEw_aem_DupJ-34pYBxZxzMOS7KMgQ](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/1/d/1Pp41yMpPeMvZShN11xXAZdB3-6wu_cZyAB-QxgUoeEw/htmlview?fbclid=IwY2xjawFrmvRleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHUjOTdFuUedtsF8fxHSgCdQBqQyaOXupEnCno4CYU5n0fHSF98AvQPMkEw_aem_DupJ-34pYBxZxzMOS7KMgQ) - [https://apnews.com/article/hurricane-helene-north-carolina-asheville-f02869c7d01e68f2d7f0553abb82252f](https://apnews.com/article/hurricane-helene-north-carolina-asheville-f02869c7d01e68f2d7f0553abb82252f) - [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/04/us/hurricane-helene-missing-people.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/04/us/hurricane-helene-missing-people.html) - [https://apnews.com/article/helene-asheville-north-carolina-64fe5ca1b80f22fd2fd3b7c50b291d85](https://apnews.com/article/helene-asheville-north-carolina-64fe5ca1b80f22fd2fd3b7c50b291d85) - [https://thehill.com/homenews/4913942-pilot-helene-north-carolina-rescue-missions-arrest-threat/amp/](https://thehill.com/homenews/4913942-pilot-helene-north-carolina-rescue-missions-arrest-threat/amp/) - [https://floridapolitics.com/archives/697932-in-wakulla-county-all-residents-ordered-to-evacuate-but-some-inmates-are-left-behind/](https://floridapolitics.com/archives/697932-in-wakulla-county-all-residents-ordered-to-evacuate-but-some-inmates-are-left-behind/) - [https://www.hydroreview.com/environmental/southeast-u-s-dams-threatened-by-helene-are-now-stable-and-secure/](https://www.hydroreview.com/environmental/southeast-u-s-dams-threatened-by-helene-are-now-stable-and-secure/) - [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/hurricane-helene-lake-lure-dam-failure-b2621624.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/hurricane-helene-lake-lure-dam-failure-b2621624.html) - [https://www.hydroreview.com/world-regions/north-america/lake-lure-dam-failure-imminent-warns-national-weather-service/?utm_source=hydro_weekly_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2024-07-30](https://www.hydroreview.com/world-regions/north-america/lake-lure-dam-failure-imminent-warns-national-weather-service/?utm_source=hydro_weekly_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2024-07-30) - [https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/09/27/weather/hurricane-helene-florida](https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/09/27/weather/hurricane-helene-florida) - [https://www.foxweather.com/weather-news/greenville-nolichucky-dam-river-flooding-saturday](https://www.foxweather.com/weather-news/greenville-nolichucky-dam-river-flooding-saturday) - [https://www.knoxnews.com/story/weather/2024/09/29/tva-sets-douglas-dam-record-after-hurricane-helene-floods/75442460007/](https://www.knoxnews.com/story/weather/2024/09/29/tva-sets-douglas-dam-record-after-hurricane-helene-floods/75442460007/) - [https://www.wcnc.com/article/weather/hurricane/helene/interstate-40-western-north-carolina-pete-buttiegieg-rebuilding-timeline/275-3760b666-11b0-4bde-b2a3-3ae7f45c305f](https://www.wcnc.com/article/weather/hurricane/helene/interstate-40-western-north-carolina-pete-buttiegieg-rebuilding-timeline/275-3760b666-11b0-4bde-b2a3-3ae7f45c305f) - [https://www.newsweek.com/map-shows-north-carolina-interstates-closed-months-hurricane-helene-flooding-1962798](https://www.newsweek.com/map-shows-north-carolina-interstates-closed-months-hurricane-helene-flooding-1962798) - [https://www.nbcnews.com/video/aerial-video-shows-north-carolina-interstate-washed-away-by-helene-flooding-220471365678](https://www.nbcnews.com/video/aerial-video-shows-north-carolina-interstate-washed-away-by-helene-flooding-220471365678) - [https://www.wired.com/story/hurricane-helene-roads-flood-proof-climate-change/](https://www.wired.com/story/hurricane-helene-roads-flood-proof-climate-change/) - [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/05/us/politics/north-carolina-helene-recovery-roads-damage.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/05/us/politics/north-carolina-helene-recovery-roads-damage.html) - [https://www.npr.org/2024/10/09/nx-s1-5135530/devastated-roads-bridges-western-north-carolina](https://www.npr.org/2024/10/09/nx-s1-5135530/devastated-roads-bridges-western-north-carolina) - [https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/03/us/helene-recovery-roads-water-power/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/03/us/helene-recovery-roads-water-power/index.html) - [https://www.reuters.com/world/us/by-mule-helicopter-volunteers-deliver-aid-helene-victims-2024-10-04/](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/by-mule-helicopter-volunteers-deliver-aid-helene-victims-2024-10-04/) - [https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/video/mules-bring-supplies-to-hurricane-helene-victims](https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/video/mules-bring-supplies-to-hurricane-helene-victims) - [https://theintercept.com/2024/10/04/hurricane-helene-north-carolina-mountain-view-prison/](https://theintercept.com/2024/10/04/hurricane-helene-north-carolina-mountain-view-prison/) - [https://www.npr.org/2024/09/30/nx-s1-5133477/as-locals-struggle-post-helene-a-south-carolina-university-held-its-homecoming-game](https://www.npr.org/2024/09/30/nx-s1-5133477/as-locals-struggle-post-helene-a-south-carolina-university-held-its-homecoming-game) - [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/06/us/helene-tennessee-factory-deaths.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/06/us/helene-tennessee-factory-deaths.html) - [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/grief-anger-mix-tennessee-plastic-plant-survivors-say-permission-leave-rcna173517](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/grief-anger-mix-tennessee-plastic-plant-survivors-say-permission-leave-rcna173517) - [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/tennessee-investigating-plastics-factory-workers-trapped-hurricane-hel-rcna173597](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/tennessee-investigating-plastics-factory-workers-trapped-hurricane-hel-rcna173597) - [https://highways.dot.gov/public-roads/summer-1996/conditions-and-performance-interstate-system-after-40-years](https://highways.dot.gov/public-roads/summer-1996/conditions-and-performance-interstate-system-after-40-years) - [https://www.npr.org/2022/05/05/1096940224/dams-poor-condition-hazardous-dangerous-infrastructure](https://www.npr.org/2022/05/05/1096940224/dams-poor-condition-hazardous-dangerous-infrastructure) - [https://www.wired.com/story/climate-change-failing-aging-dams-us-america-catastrophe/](https://www.wired.com/story/climate-change-failing-aging-dams-us-america-catastrophe/) - [https://www.artba.org/news/new-data-shows-slow-steady-progress-repairing-americas-bridges/](https://www.artba.org/news/new-data-shows-slow-steady-progress-repairing-americas-bridges/) - [https://highways.dot.gov/public-roads/summer-1996/conditions-and-performance-interstate-system-after-40-years](https://highways.dot.gov/public-roads/summer-1996/conditions-and-performance-interstate-system-after-40-years) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/The_Paris_of_Appalachia_%2854229440282%29.jpg) by John Brighenti from Rockville, MD, United States / openverse, by. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/are-we-doing-nuclear-power-wrong https://megaprojects.pub/article/are-we-doing-nuclear-power-wrong Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Climate science presents a very clear demand. The planet must reduce greenhouse gas emissions on a scale that has no historical precedent, and the timeframe for doing so is limited. Every year of delay brings the world closer to severe climate disruption. Energy policy, therefore, requires a careful review of every option that can deliver electricity with very low emissions while maintaining stability and affordability. Nuclear power stands out as one of the lowest-carbon sources of electricity available. It can provide steady output without interruptions from changing weather. Yet, many countries with strong commitments to reducing emissions have slowed or cancelled their nuclear programs. Instead of expansion, long delays, financial problems, and public resistance have left nuclear power at a standstill across much of the industrialized world. This creates a paradox that warrants examination. Policies that focus on safety have placed so many hurdles in the path of nuclear construction that the technology has become difficult to build and difficult to support. These policies have created a situation where nuclear power is often treated as a threat rather than a way to reduce the far greater danger posed by carbon emissions. The question that follows is straightforward: Has the attempt to regulate every aspect of nuclear energy become a self-defeating strategy that prevents the very decarbonization the world urgently requires? The analysis that follows will consider nuclear power in terms of its technical advantages, its stalled deployment, the influence of regulation, the impact of cost, the possibilities created by new technologies, the lessons offered by countries with successful nuclear programs, and the influence of cultural fear. ## The Promise Unfulfilled: Nuclear's Climate Potential The potential of nuclear power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is established by data collected across the complete life cycle of different energy sources. Studies that include construction, fuel processing, operation, and decommissioning consistently find that nuclear energy produces emissions that are among the lowest of any available large-scale power generation technology. Only wind and solar show a similar result, while coal, oil, and natural gas release many times more carbon dioxide per unit of electricity. Nuclear energy holds an additional advantage that is rarely addressed with enough clarity. A reactor operates every hour of the year, providing a steady output that does not depend on weather conditions. Wind turbines and solar panels cannot maintain that constant supply without a system that stores energy for the hours when the sun is down or when the air is still. Those storage systems remain expensive and limited in scale. This constant production capacity means that a power grid can rely on nuclear energy for a continuous foundation of supply, with renewable energy feeding into that structure when it is available. Another important characteristic of nuclear power is land use. A single nuclear plant occupies far less space than the large areas required to produce a similar amount of electricity from solar panels or wind farms. This factor has become more important as nations consider how to balance energy production with agriculture and conservation. Despite these clear advantages, global progress in the construction of nuclear power plants remains slow. The most visible counterexample is France, where a national program built a network of reactors that supplies most of the electricity in the country with very low carbon emissions. That success demonstrates what nuclear technology can achieve when it is supported with long-term policy and consistent management. Other countries have not achieved a similar result. Instead, nuclear development has slowed, and the gap between technical capability and actual deployment has widened. The scientific and engineering knowledge required to expand nuclear energy exists. The problem lies in the inability to translate that capacity into action. This gap is one of the largest barriers to an energy transition that can meet climate goals. ## The Regulatory Maze: When Safety Becomes Counterproductive The global history of nuclear regulation changed dramatically after a series of accidents that shaped public awareness. The accident at Three Mile Island in 1979, followed by the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 and the Fukushima event in 2011, created a wave of legal and technical requirements that redefined the way nuclear facilities are approved, constructed, and monitored. These rules aimed to protect the public, but they have also slowed the deployment of nuclear power to a degree that now affects the energy transition. In many countries, a new nuclear power plant requires years of review before construction can begin. Once a plant is approved, the schedule often extends well beyond initial estimates as every modification must pass additional layers of review. These delays do not make the technology safer once the design has been verified, but they do increase the overall project cost and create a cycle where fewer companies are willing to invest in new nuclear capacity. A major influence on regulation comes from the linear no threshold model of radiation exposure. This model assumes that there is no safe amount of radiation and that even very small exposures can create health risks. While the model has been influential for decades, many scientists argue that it lacks evidence at very low doses. They suggest that other biological mechanisms reduce the impact of small exposures. Supporters of the model argue that the precautionary approach remains necessary, while critics believe it has encouraged fear instead of reasonable assessment. The structure of regulation differs between countries, and those differences have clear consequences. In the United States and the United Kingdom, long reviews and frequent rule changes have created projects that take more than a decade to finish. Every year of delay adds financing costs and sometimes requires design adjustments because the technology has aged before construction even ends. In contrast, South Korea has built multiple plants within shorter timeframes by using standardized designs and a predictable regulatory path. Their safety record has been very strong, showing that careful planning can produce safe reactors without extreme delays. Excessive regulation has another unintended result. By slowing the construction of new reactors, it leaves older designs in operation for longer periods. Those older plants may be less efficient and rely on safety systems that are decades old. Instead of allowing new designs that incorporate passive safety systems and new fuel types, the process makes it difficult for innovation to reach the grid. In some cases, companies have abandoned advanced designs because the cost and time required to satisfy regulatory procedures outweighed any benefit from building a safer plant. This effect extends beyond the technology itself. Utilities and investors respond to uncertainty by avoiding nuclear projects, even in countries where the demand for low-carbon energy is clear. Long regulatory schedules make project financing more expensive, and in the absence of strong public support, many projects are cancelled before construction begins. The result is a cycle where a strong focus on protection paradoxically delays the very systems that could provide safer energy. The problem does not lie in the existence of regulation. Safety oversight is necessary for a technology that uses radioactive material. The concern is the balance between precaution and practicality. When fear leads to rules that extend project timelines to fifteen or twenty years, the result is a grid that continues to depend on fossil fuels while safer and cleaner nuclear plants wait for approval. ## Next-Generation Technologies: Learning from Our Mistakes The limitations of current nuclear programs have increased interest in a new generation of technologies that aim to solve many of the challenges faced by the large reactors of the past. These designs approach construction, fuel management, safety, and cost from a different perspective. The most widely discussed among them are small modular reactors, advanced reactors that use new materials and coolants, and experimental concepts such as nuclear fusion. Small modular reactors, known as SMRs, are being developed with a focus on factory production of standardized units. These reactors are smaller than conventional reactors, which allows them to be assembled in controlled industrial environments and transported to a site for installation. By doing most of the construction in a factory rather than on site, SMRs aim to reduce delays, lower costs, and avoid many of the problems that have affected large projects. Their size also makes it easier to build several units in stages instead of building one very large plant, which can help companies manage risk. Advanced reactor designs explore new coolants such as molten salt, liquid metal, and high-temperature gas. Many of these designs operate at lower pressures and higher temperatures than current reactors, which improves efficiency and adds passive safety features. Passive safety means that the reactor can shut down and cool itself without human intervention or external power, which removes many of the risks associated with earlier reactor designs. Some of these designs also use fuel cycles that produce less long-lived waste. Microreactors represent an even smaller category (no pun intended), built to provide energy in locations that are far from large power grids. They can power military bases, data centers, or isolated communities. These systems are compact enough to be delivered fully assembled, sometimes inside a container that can be moved by truck or rail. A recent example is the Kaleidos microreactor designed by Radiant Industries, which has been proposed for manufacture in Wyoming. These microreactors use helium gas for cooling, which eliminates the need for water, and use TRISO fuel particles that are resistant to very high temperatures. The company describes these reactors as portable and easy to remove from a site when they are no longer needed. This example highlights one path that engineers are exploring to make nuclear technology more flexible and less dependent on complex infrastructure. Another area of research focuses on nuclear fusion. Fusion seeks to reproduce the process that powers the sun, combining light atoms at extremely high temperatures to release energy. Unlike fission, which splits heavy atoms, fusion does not produce long-lived radioactive waste and cannot create a chain reaction that continues on its own. Although many laboratories are working to achieve a controlled and continuous fusion reaction, the technology remains experimental. It is unlikely to make a large contribution to energy supply for several decades. The promise of these technologies depends on more than engineering. Regulations, financing systems, and public attitudes must be prepared to deal with different reactor sizes and new approaches. Without a change in these areas, even the best designs may struggle to leave research facilities and enter commercial service. Countries such as China and India are already moving ahead with pilot projects and test facilities, while many Western nations continue to spend long periods in the planning stage. These new reactors provide a clear demonstration that nuclear technology can adapt to lessons learned from previous decades. They also raise a question: Will governments and regulators allow these designs to be deployed quickly enough to make a difference in the effort to decarbonize electricity? ## The Global Perspective: What Other Countries Are Getting Right International comparisons show that the outcomes of nuclear energy programs depend heavily on consistent policy, clear planning, and public support. The countries that have managed to keep nuclear energy as a large part of their power supply share several common factors. They adopt stable strategies, maintain industrial capacity for construction, and build public confidence through long-term communication rather than short-term announcements. France is the most well-known example of a country that used a national strategy to build a large network of nuclear reactors. During the second half of the twentieth century, the French government directed a program that focused on standard designs and predictable schedules. The result is a grid that produces very low emissions and has delivered stable power for decades. While some maintenance and modernization work is now required, the contribution of this program to reducing carbon emissions is clear. South Korea has followed a similar path, with an emphasis on efficiency and planning. Standardized designs and a streamlined approval process have allowed that country to build reactors faster and at a lower cost than countries that use a more uncertain approach. These reactors supply a large share of the national grid, and South Korea has also exported its reactor technology to other countries. Other nations have taken a different direction. Germany decided to close its reactors while still importing electricity produced from coal and natural gas in neighboring countries. This policy has increased carbon emissions and placed greater pressure on the use of fossil fuels to stabilize the grid. In countries such as China, the government has continued to expand nuclear power while also developing renewable capacity. Large-scale construction programs combined with investments in new reactor designs have allowed China to grow its nuclear fleet quickly. Public opinion remains a powerful factor in each case. Where governments have communicated clearly and consistently, nuclear programs have gained the support needed to operate for decades without interruption. Where opposition has been strong and constant, projects have been cancelled even when they could provide safe and reliable energy. ## Rethinking Risk: Rational Fear vs. Radiophobia Nuclear accidents have been rare, but the public reaction to them has been intense. The result is that nuclear energy carries a reputation for danger that far exceeds the actual record of harm. To understand why, it helps to compare nuclear energy with other sources of electricity that have caused far greater harm without producing the same level of fear. Coal power causes air pollution that leads to thousands of deaths every year. Gas infrastructure has experienced explosions that damage entire neighborhoods. Hydroelectric dams have failed, releasing floods that kill large numbers of people in a single event. These tragedies are far more common than nuclear accidents, yet they do not carry the same influence over public policy. When nuclear accidents occur, the impact is very visible. News coverage focuses on the drama of an event, showing images of reactors, evacuations, and contamination. The accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima dominate public imagination decades after the events themselves. Studies of risk perception call this effect *dread risk*. Dread risk is a pattern in which people react strongly to events that are rare but frightening, while showing less concern for constant hazards that quietly cause damage year after year. The result is a distorted comparison. While coal pollution shortens lives across wide areas, it happens gradually and without a single dramatic moment. Nuclear accidents, by contrast, are immediate and easy to display. Public opinion has therefore been guided by fear rather than by a careful reading of actual statistics. Activism and media attention have amplified these fears and have often framed nuclear power as uniquely dangerous. Policymakers respond to this pressure with extreme caution, and the process leads to regulations that make nuclear construction slower and more expensive. A rational approach to risk would consider the full range of harms created by each type of energy, including long-term health effects and the effect of climate change itself. By comparing risks honestly, it becomes clear that nuclear accidents, while serious, have been much less harmful than the long-term and constant damage from fossil fuels. ## The Path Forward: Toward a Rational Nuclear Policy Nuclear energy offers very low-carbon electricity, yet it has been slowed by fear, cost, and slow approval systems. Moving ahead will require governments and industry to change the way projects are planned, reviewed, and explained to the public. Safety oversight will always be necessary, but safety rules must be applied in a way that does not create endless delays. Clear schedules, consistent standards, and early review of designs can make it possible to build new reactors without waiting for decades. A system that spends years moving projects from one step to another increases cost without improving outcomes. Communication with the public also needs to be handled better. Information about nuclear energy is often presented in isolation, while the risks of coal, oil, and gas receive far less attention. When every energy source is compared fairly, nuclear power has a much lower record of harm. People who understand this comparison are better prepared to decide what kind of energy they want for the future. Next-generation technologies such as modular reactors, advanced fuels, and new safety features cannot make a difference unless regulators and investors are ready to support them. Some countries are already proving that these approaches can work, while others are losing valuable time. A balanced policy would allow nuclear power to contribute alongside renewables and other low-carbon sources. Electricity systems that need stability and low emissions will benefit from this combined approach. Without it, the reliance on fossil fuels will remain strong, and the goals of reducing emissions will be harder to reach. The choice is clear. Nuclear energy can still play a meaningful part in slowing climate change, but if the current approach continues unchanged, its potential will remain locked away — perhaps until it is too late to matter. ## Key Takeaways - Nuclear power is a low-carbon energy source that can provide steady electricity, but its deployment is hindered by regulatory hurdles and public resistance. - Excessive regulation and fear of nuclear accidents have slowed the construction of new reactors, delaying the decarbonization of electricity. - Next-generation nuclear technologies, such as small modular reactors and advanced coolants, offer solutions to current challenges but require regulatory and public support. - Countries like France and South Korea have successfully implemented nuclear power through consistent policy and public support. - Public perception of nuclear risk is often distorted by rare but dramatic accidents, leading to overregulation and underutilization of nuclear energy. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What are the main advantages of nuclear power in terms of greenhouse gas emissions? Nuclear power is one of the lowest-carbon sources of electricity available. Studies that include construction, fuel processing, operation, and decommissioning consistently find that nuclear energy produces emissions that are among the lowest of any available large-scale power generation technology, similar to wind and solar. ### How does nuclear power compare to renewable energy sources in terms of constant energy supply? Nuclear energy holds an advantage over wind and solar because it can provide a steady output without interruptions from changing weather. Wind turbines and solar panels require energy storage systems for when the sun is down or the air is still, which remain expensive and limited in scale. ### What factors have contributed to the slow progress in the construction of nuclear power plants globally? The slow progress in nuclear power plant construction is due to long delays, financial problems, public resistance, and excessive regulation. These factors have created a situation where nuclear power is often treated as a threat rather than a way to reduce carbon emissions. ### How have nuclear accidents influenced public perception and regulation of nuclear energy? Nuclear accidents like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima have led to a wave of legal and technical requirements that have slowed the deployment of nuclear power. These accidents have shaped public awareness and created a fear of nuclear energy that has influenced regulation and public opinion. ### What are small modular reactors (SMRs) and how do they aim to address challenges in nuclear power? Small modular reactors (SMRs) are designed to be smaller than conventional reactors and are assembled in controlled industrial environments. They aim to reduce delays, lower costs, and avoid many of the problems that have affected large projects by being factory-produced and standardized. ### How does the regulatory environment in the United States and the United Kingdom compare to that in South Korea regarding nuclear power? In the United States and the United Kingdom, long reviews and frequent rule changes have created projects that take more than a decade to finish. In contrast, South Korea has built multiple plants within shorter timeframes by using standardized designs and a predictable regulatory path, demonstrating that careful planning can produce safe reactors without extreme delays. ### What is the linear no threshold model of radiation exposure and how has it influenced nuclear regulation? The linear no threshold model assumes that there is no safe amount of radiation and that even very small exposures can create health risks. This model has been influential in shaping nuclear regulation, leading to stringent safety measures and delays in nuclear power plant construction. ### How does France's nuclear energy program serve as an example of successful nuclear deployment? France built a network of reactors that supplies most of the country's electricity with very low carbon emissions. This success demonstrates what nuclear technology can achieve when supported with long-term policy and consistent management. ### What are some of the next-generation nuclear technologies being developed? Next-generation nuclear technologies include small modular reactors, advanced reactors using new materials and coolants, and experimental concepts such as nuclear fusion. These designs aim to solve many of the challenges faced by the large reactors of the past, focusing on construction, fuel management, safety, and cost. ### How does public opinion influence the success of nuclear energy programs? Public opinion plays a significant role in the success of nuclear energy programs. Clear and consistent communication from governments can build public confidence and support, while strong opposition can lead to the cancellation of projects even when they could provide safe and reliable energy. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: Are We Doing Nuclear Power Wrong?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPykj-f6MTs) - [https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2023/06/the-future-of-nuclear-power-in-a-low-carbon-world](https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2023/06/the-future-of-nuclear-power-in-a-low-carbon-world) - [https://oilcity.news/community/energy-community/2025/07/28/nuclear-crossroads-unpacking-radiant-industries-microreactor-manufacturing-plan-in-natrona-county/](https://oilcity.news/community/energy-community/2025/07/28/nuclear-crossroads-unpacking-radiant-industries-microreactor-manufacturing-plan-in-natrona-county/) - [https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/energy-policies-of-iea-countries_19900082.html](https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/energy-policies-of-iea-countries_19900082.html) - [https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gc/gc67-inf4.pdf](https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gc/gc67-inf4.pdf) - [https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2023](https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2023) - [https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/) - [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.04.017](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.04.017) - [https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/nuclear-power-plants.php](https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/nuclear-power-plants.php) - [https://doi.org/10.18356/c2861fd7-en](https://doi.org/10.18356/c2861fd7-en) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Three_Mile_Island_Nuclear_Generating_Station_%2851142893665%29.jpg) by formulanone / openverse, by-sa. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/b-36-peacemaker-absolute-unit-cold-war https://megaprojects.pub/article/b-36-peacemaker-absolute-unit-cold-war Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT The Second World War was a renaissance of strategic bomber technology, a time of desperate innovation and bootstrapped solutions that led to some of the great heavy bombers of history. From early bombers like the Short Sterling and the Flying Fortress, to the Liberator, the Lancaster, and finally the Superfortress, strategic bomber aircraft were instrumental in the Allied effort to win the war. For the entire conflict, the formula was simple: more bombers in the sky, to drop more bombs, on more targets, and bring the war that much closer to its conclusion. But in 1946, a new strategic bomber first took to the sky, and made one critical change to the way that long-range bombers would work: If this new aircraft ever, *ever*, carried out its primary mission objective…then the world, as we knew it, was already over. This is the story of the Convair B-36 Peacemaker, the behemoth of an airplane that ushered the United States, and the world, out of World War II, and into the long, tense winter of the Cold War. ## Design and Development If you'd taken the B-36 Peacemaker back in time to a decade prior to its first flight, it would have looked no more recognizable to the people of the day, than an alien spaceship might look to someone of the twenty-first century. Far bigger than any airplane the world had ever seen, featuring jet engines that were cutting-edge in their time, the Peacemaker was as much about technological advancement as it was about military strategy. But the problem that the B-36 addressed, had been on the mind of American military strategists for almost a decade before the plane entered active service. The program that eventually led to the Peacemaker was first conceived in 1941, amidst widespread fears in the US that Nazi Germany would be able to force a surrender or a favorable peace against the British—and thus, cement their place as Europe's new superpower. Even this early in World War II, it was clear to both the Germans and the Americans that their two nations were more likely to end up in conflict than to join forces, a prospect the German Ministry of Aviation, better known as the *Reichsluftfahrtministerium*, answered with their so-called *Amerikabomber* program. Both sides understood that with the Atlantic Ocean keeping them apart at their nearest point, and Imperial Japan standing in the way of either nation trying to get at each other through the Pacific and Asia, any hostilities that did take place would have to be resolved through ultra-long-range strategic bombing. But at that time, neither Hitler nor Roosevelt had any tools in their arsenal that would even come close to touching each other's territory directly. It was this predicament that led the US Army Air Force to issue a request for a new aircraft, one that could cross the entire Atlantic, bring Nazi Germany to its knees, and come back to land on American soil, all in a single flight. They listed their demands in no uncertain terms: a top speed of 450 miles per hour, a cruising speed of 275 miles per hour, a service ceiling high enough to keep it above anti-aircraft fire at 45,000 feet, and a maximum range of 12,000 miles, almost half the distance around the world. Trouble was, those demands were, in 1941, completely unfeasible, and just a few months after the Army Air Force released their first set of demands, to a discouraging reception, they tried again. This time, they requested a plane with a cruising speed between 240 and 300 miles per hour, a ceiling of 40,000 feet, and a bomb load of at least ten thousand pounds. Most important of all, they needed an effective combat range of at least 4,000 miles, far enough away that a B-36 flying out of the US city of Boston could reach Berlin, drop its payload, and come home. This time, American defense firms were interested, and with the outbreak of war in the Pacific theater shortly afterward, demand for a long-range strategic bomber only increased. Several companies submitted design proposals, and two of them, labeled the B-35 and B-36, were considered for production. By 1943, the Army Air Force was ready to enlist the Consolidated Aircraft Corporation to the project, with Consolidated having produced the most impressive bomber design. Because of the demands of wartime production, the USAAF waived their usual procedures around testing and procuring aircraft, and instead ordered a production run of 100 of the bombers, already named the B-36, before their two prototypes were even available. By then, Consolidated had merged with Vultee to become Convair, and the company got to work trying to meet their initial delivery deadline of August 1945. Unfortunately for the USAAF, Convair was not able to meet that particular expectation. The demands of the war had meant that the Consolidated B-24 Liberator's production line took precedence, and a change in the location of the B-36 project led to months of additional delays. So, too, did changes in the aircraft design, as well as USAAF requirements for a new radio and radar system. But luckily for the entire United States, World War II was won without need for the B-36. Instead, it was won on the back of the B-29 Superfortress, the plane that carried out the first attack of a hostile power using a nuclear weapon just fourteen days before the B-36 was unveiled to the public. From there, it took its first flight almost exactly a year later, on August 8, 1946, and by the time the USAAF became the United States Air Force in 1947, the plane was almost ready to enter active service. By 1948, American Strategic Air Command received its first operational model, and the Peacemaker was in business. ## Specs and Capabilities Of all the Peacemaker's impressive numbers, perhaps none stand out more than its sheer size. At a length of 162 feet and one inch, and a wingspan of 230 feet exactly, it was the largest plane ever made at the time it was delivered, and even today, its wingspan is the longest of any combat aircraft, ever. At its tallest point, the aircraft stood nearly as tall as a five-story building, at just under 47 feet, and its wing area, 4,772 square feet, was nearly five times the square footage of the average American home of the time. Sitting empty at over 166,000 pounds, or 83 tons, the plane could fly at well over double that weight, the final version of the B-36, the J-III, maxed out at 410,000 pounds or 205 tons. The plane was powered by six 3,800-horsepower Pratt & Whitney radial piston engines, each fitted with a three-bladed pusher propeller, and four General Electric J47 turbojets, producing 5,200 pound-thrust each and paired in mounted pods on each wing. At its maximum speed, the Peacemaker could push a pace of 435 miles per hour, although it was far more comfortable and fuel-efficient at its cruising speed of 230 miles per hour. The plane featured a combat range of 3,985 miles, and a ferry range of 10,000 miles, meaning that operating at cruising speed, a full tank of fuel could keep it in the air for upward of 43 hours. The Peacemaker hit its service ceiling at 43,600 feet, an altitude it could reach in just under twenty minutes at a climb rate of 1,995 feet per minute. Its payload capacity could go as high as 86,000 pounds of bombs, a full eight-and-a-half times what the Army Air Force had asked for. Not only was that over ten times the capacity of the B-17 Flying Fortress, but it was enough that someone could have conceivably chopped up an actual B-17 into little pieces, stuffed it into the bomb bays, and still had plenty of room to spare. In terms of its weaponry, the B-36 was fitted with a remotely operated tail turret, featuring two 20-mm autocannons, to cover its back. Early versions of the plane had an additional six retractable gun turrets, plus a fixed turret on the nose, but these were stripped out in the name of design efficiency when it became clear that air-to-air missiles had made them obsolete. The plane's massive size was largely a facet of its mission objectives, with bigger wings directly equating to more fuel storage capacity. So thick were the wings, in fact, that the crew could move through them in a crawlspace in order to access the engines during flight. The lift generated by the plane's wing area allowed it to fly higher than any piston or jet fighter aircraft of the 1940s, meaning that it was essentially untouchable by the planes that were seen as the greatest threat to such a bomber at the time it was built. With modifications, later versions could fly as high as 55,000 feet for short periods, and sustain flight at 50,000 feet. Its unique merger of propulsion systems was also to the Peacemaker's benefit, not just because it combined prop and jet engines, but because it used *pushing*, rather than pulling propellors in flight. This gave it high maneuverability at high altitudes, to the point where it could have evaded much faster jet interceptors at altitude just by making a tight turn. At that altitude, the jets of the time had hardly any turning capacity, meaning that so long as the B-36 could dodge, it didn't need much speed. That, plus the fuel-efficiency of its propellers compared to an all-jet design, gave it a cruise option that dramatically expanded its range. The jet engines weren't actually part of the aircraft at first, but they were grafted onto all planes once they were available, and the combination of engines gave the plane its signature slogan, "six turnin', four burnin'". In total, that's more engines than any other aircraft ever to be mass-produced, and it gave the plane a far better takeoff performance and the ability to dash at higher speeds if needed. If all engines were firing, the aircraft could command a total of forty thousand horsepower, the rough equivalent of over a hundred modern Mack trucks. Now, it's not unheard-of for similarly sized planes in the modern day to operate with fairly small crews. A 747 cargo plane, by example, requires just three crew members, two pilots and a flight engineer. But the Peacemaker, with such a complex mission, required as many as fifteen crew members to make it work. This included a pilot, a copilot, a radar operator-slash-bombardier, a navigator, a flight engineer, two radiomen, and a total of eight gunners, although this went down to one after later modifications. Long flights also required replacement crew members, seeing as it's not a fantastic idea to land a plane after being awake for forty hours straight, and the crew were provided a pressurized flight deck and crew compartment, plus flight suits to travel into unpressurized parts of the aircraft. Crew members slept in the nose compartment, stringing hammocks up on some occasions, and in six bunks and a special dining area in the rear compartment. Finally, there's the subject of nuclear weapons, and although the B-36 hadn't been designed with warheads in mind due to the intense secrecy of the Manhattan Project, it was able to carry early warheads and even the first-generation hydrogen bomb, the Mark 17. One single Mark 17 came in at a diameter of five feet, a length of twenty-five feet, and a weight of 42,000 pounds, making it the heaviest nuclear bomb the United States has ever produced, and although the B-36 had to be modified and have its bomb bays combined in order to carry the thing, it still did the job. In terms of conventional arms, it was also the only plane designed to carry the T-12, a so-called earthquake bomb that acted as a bunker-buster against underground targets. In another unique touch, early versions of the plane were built to accommodate the McDonnell XF-85 Goblin, a parasite fighter aircraft that would have defended it from interceptors. ## Service Life and Retirement In many ways, the Peacemaker was obsolete by the time it entered active service. Although it did utilize jet engines, it was essentially piston-powered in an age where first-generation fighter jets were already becoming abundant, and with time, they would inevitably give way to aircraft that could pose more and more of an issue to the B-36. But at the same time, the plane did things that no other American aircraft of the time was capable of matching. It was the only plane with the range to attack the Soviet Union from North America without refueling, it was able to carry nuclear weapons that its rival, the all-jet-engine B-47 could not, its payload capacity was better than both the B-29 and the later B-52, and its cruising altitude and ability to fly for nearly two days at a time meant that it could comfortably stay out of range of most contemporary interceptors and anti-aircraft guns. With ICBM technology nowhere near ready for use, the Peacemaker was the only option to deliver a nuclear strike on the Soviet Union, or, for that matter, anywhere else in the world. But it's here, that we get into that quandary we mentioned all the way back at the outset. The Peacemaker, as formidable as it was, was a nuclear-armed bomber in the early days of an emerging Cold War, and within about a year of its introduction to service, the other side had the Bomb, too. Very quickly, the Americans and the Soviets alike had figured out that the best way to ensure a nuclear weapon wasn't used against them, was to ensure that they could retaliate at a moment's notice, even if critical targets had already been destroyed. What that meant for the Peacemaker, was that if it ever was directed to carry out a nuclear strike on a target…then all was already lost, and the world had entered a countdown toward a sort of inevitable destruction that would take hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives. And so, the Peacemaker's ultimate mission objective was to simply exist, to be visible, public, and understood clearly by the Soviet Union as a plane that could visit death and destruction if the Soviets were to attack the United States or continental Europe. It was a deterrent, the sort of weapon that exists mainly as a threat, in hopes that conflict can be avoided entirely. Early in its service life, it was expected to be put aboard the proposed supercarrier, the USS United States, which would have been able to launch massive fleets of strategic bombers in future wars, but that carrier ultimately never came to be. Instead, the B-36 would fly in exclusive service to the Air Force for its entire service life, from 1948 to 1959. In those years, the plane was kept on constant readiness by the Strategic Air Command, crouching eagerly on its runways and flying patrol flights in order to respond to an outbreak of hostilities. From the perspective of its crews, the B-36 was something of a mixed bag. Sure, it was a highly capable, even incredible aircraft in terms of its feats, but it was also cramped despite its size, and it was seen as a rather unwieldy tool for its pilot. Crews on deployment generally lived and worked out of forward operating bases in Alaska and Greenland, faced with the constant awareness that if they ever were part of a flight that did launch a nuclear warhead, the B-36 wasn't believed to be fast enough to get out of the blast radius of its own bombs. The plane's frequent engine fires led from a change in slogan, from "six turning, four burning" to "two turning, two burning, two smoking, two choking, and two more unaccounted for", and its regular maintenance included the required replacement of 56 spark plugs on each of its prop engines, and the changing of several dozen lightbulbs in the bomb bay, which had a tendency to shatter anytime someone fired the plane's guns. The plane was too big to fit in most hangars, meaning that crews serving with their B-36s in the Arctic would have to perform maintenance outdoors in temperatures as low as -60 degrees Fahrenheit, while crews on desert bases in Africa would have to do their work in temperatures over a hundred degrees. Their guns tended to freeze, their electronics interfered with every radio on board, the propellers had a fascinating tendency to both ice over and catch on fire, and the engines vibrated wildly. And when it was ready to fly, its pre-flight checks included a total of six hundred steps. Despite all that, the plane was largely respected by its flight crews, and compared to the other aircraft of the time, they received special praise for their safety and construction. Luckily for, well, the whole world, the B-36 was never called upon to enter combat. The plane missed most of the Korean War, and was replaced a few years later by the B-52, which still forms a cornerstone of American strategic air capabilities to this day. A successor craft, the YB-60, was never put into production, and the Soviet MiG-15 fighter, with its speed and service ceiling, meant that the Peacemaker's altitude could no longer keep it safe. Add to that the Peacemaker's inability to receive aerial refueling, and the plane became obsolete not long after the conclusion of a war it wasn't part of. As for how it might have performed in combat in its heyday, either by dropping nuclear or conventional weapons, we'll simply never know. Unfortunately, the B-36 got a reputation for different reasons during its service life, specifically, for accidents. Although its safety record was better than most other planes of the day, its large crew complement meant that a single crash would have the human impact of fifteen single-seater plane crashes, and the magnesium in its airframe led crashed planes to burn easily, adding to the casualty count when it did crash. An accident in 1953 led to the deaths of 23 airmen in Newfoundland, Canada, including a brigadier general. In September 1952, a tornado swept through Carswell Air Force Base in Fort Worth, Texas, damaging a full two-thirds of the Air Force's B-36 fleet, and nineteen aircraft required extensive repairs. The planes were involved in two "Broken Arrow" incidents, accidents where American nuclear weapons were lost, including one in an unpopulated region of Canada and one near Albuquerque, New Mexico, both of which saw the conventional explosives in their bombs detonate. But the B-36's years of service weren't all bad; instead, it was a critical early reconnaissance aircraft before the arrival of the U-2 spy plane. The Peacemaker's altitude made it ideal to foil Soviet interceptors, and in reconnaissance versions of the plane, its interior was remodeled to include a manned camera compartment with a darkroom, plus photoflash bombs, an additional fuel tank, and defensive countermeasures. It could carry the era's heavy cameras, so precise that they could image a golf ball at 45,000 feet, and it could fly continuous routes from the Arctic, across Russia, and to Asia or Africa, or vice versa. In this configuration, the plane's crew swelled to twenty-two, on versions still armed with its many defensive guns. During the 1950s, the reconnaissance-designated RB-36 flew numerous flights over mainland Russia, although later advancements in Soviet anti-air defenses would push the plane out and away from the best-defended Soviet territory. Other versions of the plane were used for experimentation, most notably the NB-36H, a design that successfully completed dozens of flights while powered by a nuclear reactor. However, that design was never put into production. Given the role of a combat aircraft that would, essentially, fulfill its mission by never seeing combat, the B-36 was set up for failure where the press was concerned, and between its development delays and its general lack of use, it was termed a "billion-dollar blunder" by sources of the day. The US Navy was its leading critic, emphasizing the aircraft carriers and naval bombers that might have been built if the government hadn't listened to those fools over in the Air Force. Add to that the B-36's reputation for creating problems for its flight and ground crews, and it should have been no surprise that the B-36 was phased out as soon as the B-52 came along in large numbers. That newer, better airplane arrived in force in 1955, and by February of 1956, B-36s were being flown directly from their operational squadrons to an airbase in Arizona where they were to be scrapped. The planes that weren't taken immediately, had their lives extended for a year or two due to cutbacks to B-52 production, but by February of 1959, three years after the planes began to be phased out, the final B-36 concluded its service. Today, only four of the planes are preserved in museums, while the rest have given way to history, a quiet and rather end to the life of one of the biggest military behemoths ever to fly. ## Key Takeaways - The Convair B-36 Peacemaker was designed during WWII to address the need for a long-range strategic bomber. - The B-36 was the largest aircraft of its time, featuring a unique combination of prop and jet engines. - Its primary mission was to serve as a nuclear deterrent during the early Cold War, never intended to see combat. - The B-36 had a complex maintenance routine and faced numerous operational challenges, including frequent engine fires. - The aircraft was phased out by the B-52 in the late 1950s, marking the end of its service life. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What was the primary mission of the B-36 Peacemaker? The B-36 Peacemaker's primary mission was to serve as a deterrent during the Cold War, carrying nuclear weapons to attack the Soviet Union from North America without refueling, ensuring that the U.S. could retaliate at a moment's notice. ### What were the key specifications of the B-36 Peacemaker? The B-36 Peacemaker had a length of 162 feet and 1 inch, a wingspan of 230 feet, and could carry a payload of up to 86,000 pounds of bombs. It was powered by six Pratt & Whitney radial piston engines and four General Electric J47 turbojets. ### How many crew members were required to operate the B-36 Peacemaker? The B-36 Peacemaker required as many as fifteen crew members, including a pilot, copilot, radar operator-bombardier, navigator, flight engineer, two radiomen, and up to eight gunners. ### What was the significance of the B-36 Peacemaker's size? The B-36 Peacemaker's size was crucial for its mission objectives, as bigger wings equated to more fuel storage capacity. Its wing area allowed it to fly higher than any piston or jet fighter aircraft of the 1940s, making it essentially untouchable by contemporary interceptors. ### What was the B-36 Peacemaker's role in the Cold War? The B-36 Peacemaker served as a deterrent during the Cold War, ensuring that the U.S. could retaliate against a nuclear attack by the Soviet Union. Its ability to carry nuclear weapons and its long-range capabilities made it a critical part of the U.S. strategic air force. ### What were some of the challenges faced by the B-36 Peacemaker's crew? The B-36 Peacemaker's crew faced numerous challenges, including cramped conditions, frequent engine fires, and the need to perform maintenance in extreme temperatures. The plane's large size and complex systems required extensive pre-flight checks and regular maintenance. ### What was the B-36 Peacemaker's service life? The B-36 Peacemaker was in service from 1948 to 1959. It was phased out as the B-52 became the primary strategic bomber for the U.S. Air Force. ### What was the B-36 Peacemaker's role in reconnaissance? The B-36 Peacemaker served as an early reconnaissance aircraft before the arrival of the U-2 spy plane. Its high altitude made it ideal for avoiding Soviet interceptors, and it could carry heavy cameras capable of imaging small objects from great heights. ### What was the B-36 Peacemaker's reputation during its service life? The B-36 Peacemaker had a mixed reputation. While it was respected for its capabilities, it was also criticized for its development delays, lack of use, and the challenges it posed to its flight and ground crews. It was termed a 'billion-dollar blunder' by some sources. ### What happened to the B-36 Peacemaker after it was phased out? After being phased out, the B-36 Peacemaker was flown to an airbase in Arizona where they were scrapped. Only four of the planes are preserved in museums today. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: The Absolute Unit That Was The USS Enterprise](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZ0IOeqRVww) - [https://www.bankrate.com/real-estate/determine-square-footage-of-home/](https://www.bankrate.com/real-estate/determine-square-footage-of-home/) - [https://web.archive.org/web/20070209145429/http://denver.yourhub.com/HIGHLANDSRANCH/Blogs/Life/My-Life/Mixed-Bag/Blog~160407.aspx](https://web.archive.org/web/20070209145429/http://denver.yourhub.com/HIGHLANDSRANCH/Blogs/Life/My-Life/Mixed-Bag/Blog~160407.aspx) - [https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/history/b-36.html](https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/history/b-36.html) - [https://nuke.fas.org/guide/usa/bomber/b-36.htm](https://nuke.fas.org/guide/usa/bomber/b-36.htm) - [https://www.cnet.com/culture/six-turning-four-burning-a-closer-look-at-the-enormous-10-engine-b-36/](https://www.cnet.com/culture/six-turning-four-burning-a-closer-look-at-the-enormous-10-engine-b-36/) - [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/b-36-bomber-at-the-crossroads-134062323/](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/b-36-bomber-at-the-crossroads-134062323/) - [https://media.defense.gov/2020/Oct/14/2002517020/-1/-1/1/B-36%20PEACEMAKER%20PERSONNEL_SMALL.PDF](https://media.defense.gov/2020/Oct/14/2002517020/-1/-1/1/B-36%20PEACEMAKER%20PERSONNEL_SMALL.PDF) - [http://www.zianet.com/tmorris/b36.html](http://www.zianet.com/tmorris/b36.html) - [https://theaviationgeekclub.com/six-turning-four-burning-watch-interesting-footage-learn-something-gigantic-b-36/](https://theaviationgeekclub.com/six-turning-four-burning-watch-interesting-footage-learn-something-gigantic-b-36/) - [https://www.key.aero/article/convair-b-36-peacemaker-worlds-biggest-bomber](https://www.key.aero/article/convair-b-36-peacemaker-worlds-biggest-bomber) - [https://www.historynet.com/the-peacemaker/](https://www.historynet.com/the-peacemaker/) - [https://www.thoughtco.com/cold-war-convair-b36-peacemaker-2361072](https://www.thoughtco.com/cold-war-convair-b36-peacemaker-2361072) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Monument_to_the_Liberators_2024_-_02.jpg) by Serhii BobokIf you have any questions please contact with me. Other photos see here.Якщо у Вас є якісь запитання будь ласка зв'яжіться зі мною. Інші фотографії Ви можете переглянути тут / openverse, by. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/bayraktar-tb2-turkey-budget-drone-winning-wars https://megaprojects.pub/article/bayraktar-tb2-turkey-budget-drone-winning-wars Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT It’s one of the great predators of the sky. A gray-winged angel of death, gliding over the modern battlefield. On paper, the Bayraktar TB2 may not seem particularly impressive. A Turkish-manufactured drone (or UAV), it’s about the size and shape of a crop duster, with top speeds to match. Although armed with four laser-guided bombs, it seems like the sort of thing any halfway competent military should be able to knock out of the sky with ease. And yet—somehow—this doesn’t happen. Or at least it happens rarely enough that the remaining drones are still able to find their targets. When they do, it’s game over for whatever happens to be in their way. Intensely lethal, TB2s have played pivotal roles in multiple recent conflicts. In Nagorno-Karabakh, they allowed the Azeris to claim victory. In Ethiopia, they stopped Tigrayan forces from reaching the capital. In the early days of the Ukraine War, they helped unleash chaos on Russia’s ill-prepared troops. How is this possible? How is it that these budget drones—the UAV equivalent of Ryanair—are able to dominate the modern battlefield? ## The Budget Predator At first glance, it looks like little more than a small, gray airplane. The sort of one-propeller thing you might see floating over the crop fields of the Midwest. But this is no ordinary light plane. It’s an unmanned aerial vehicle (or UAV). Specifically, a “Medium Altitude Long Endurance Tactical” UAV armed with laser-guided bombs. And while it may pale in comparison beside sophisticated American drones like the Predator or Reaper, the Bayraktar TB2 is no poor man’s knock-off. Since 2016, it has been influencing the outcome of conflicts across the globe. According to the manufacturer, there are currently 257 TB2s in operation worldwide. Most are owned by Turkey, Qatar, Ukraine, and Azerbaijan, but other nations have put in orders too. Right now, Poland has a contract to purchase 24 of them. Romania is buying 18, Morocco 13, Niger at least six, Kosovo five—and then a whole bunch of nations, from Albania to Burkina Faso, have placed smaller orders for just three. What’s driving these nations—from Europe, to Africa, to Asia—to splurge on this one drone is a combination of things. Fears of missing out on a technological breakthrough. The bad record of Chinese-made UAVs, particularly in Africa. But a big part of it is surely the TB2’s impressive history. Open-source intelligence blog Oryx lists 913 confirmed targets destroyed by Bayraktar TB2s in the seven years they’ve been militarily active. This includes in conflicts ranging from the Middle East, to the Caucuses, to West Africa, to the battlefields of Ukraine. Undoubtedly, that number will soon skyrocket. Unlike the United States, Turkey attaches no conditions to those it sells drones to. That means they could soon be cropping up in conflicts on nearly every continent. ## Technical Specifications Standing at 2.2m with a wingspan of 12m (or 39 ft), the first thing to note about the TB2 is that it’s relatively small. Only slightly over half the size of American Reaper drones. That means it can be easily transported on the back of a regular truck. Not that owners have to get too close to the frontlines to launch. With a communication range of 300 km—or nearly 190 miles—TB2s can stay aloft for a maximum of 27 hours and 3 minutes. Cruising at 128 km/h a full seven and a half thousand meters above the Earth. That’s just cruising speed, though. If necessary, these UAVs can accelerate to 222 km/h—equivalent to 120 knots. Again, this is nothing compared to what a top of the range US military drone can achieve. But, then, that’s sort of the point. Compared to other UAVs on the market, the TB2 is intended to be the budget option. The Walmart of unmanned flying death machines. According to a *New Yorker* profile of the drone’s creator, TB2s “are sold as a ‘platform,’ along with portable command stations and communications equipment.” The same piece went on to note that a typical price might be that paid by Ukraine in 2019: sixty-nine million dollars for six TB2s, plus command stations, training, and servicing. Now, $69m is obviously a ton of money. The sort of money most of us will never see in our lifetimes. For a national military, though, it represents a bargain. Buying half a dozen Reaper drones will set you back almost six times as much—and you’ll have to be on Uncle Sam’s “nice” list to even make an offer. Turkey, meanwhile, will sell drones to just about anyone. Sometimes with a steep discount, if—like Nigeria—you’ve got minerals Ankara is desperate to get its hands on. In return, buyers get one of the most terrifying things to ever grace the sky. ## Death From Above One of the weirdest things about the Bayraktar TB2 is that it really shouldn’t work at all. Despite its top speed of 222 km/h, the craft’s regular cruise speed is significantly slower. So slow that “lumbering” is an adjective frequently used to describe it. Nor does its maximum altitude compare to an American Reaper, which can reach 15,000m (or around 50,000 ft). And that should be a problem. Because drones have been around for so long now, most militaries have countermeasures. Not just air defenses, but also jamming and electronic warfare systems. When the TB2 first appeared on a battlefield—bombing Kurdish militants—experts assumed it was useful for counterinsurgency operations, but would suck in conventional war. Flying so low and so slow that enemies would just blast it out of the sky. Fast forward seven years, though, and it’s clear this simply doesn’t happen—at least, not on the scale everyone foresaw. Now, that’s not to say TB2s are never downed by enemy fire. In the Ukraine War alone, Oryx has documented 18 shot down. Still, the original assumption wasn’t that *some* TB2s would be shot down in a serious conflict, but *all* of them. Instead, the UAV has proven remarkably adept at not just evading advanced air defenses, but destroying them. As Oryx summed it up: > “(TB2s have) successfully combatted systems such as the S-300PS, Buk-M2, Tor-M2 and Pantsir-S1 even when used in conjunction with electronic warfare (EW) systems like the Avtobaza-M, Repellent-1, Borisoglebsk-2 and Groza-S.” In this, the TB2 is helped by both its weapons, and its software. On the software side, each UAV contains around 40 computers, all of which receive multiple monthly updates to keep them ahead of improvements to air defenses. On the weaponry side, the four guided bombs each carries are terrifyingly accurate. In tests in 2015, the bombs were able to hit something the size of a picnic blanket from a distance of 8 km. Nor do they just fly straight there. Each one can change trajectory while in mid-air. For a budget option, this is really rather nifty. As a consequence of stuff like this, the 43-year-old designer of the TB2—Selçuk Bayraktar—is today something of a celebrity in Turkey. To be fair, it probably helps that he’s married to the daughter of long-time ruler Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. But at least part of it has to be with the performance of his drone, which has become a major tool of Turkish diplomacy. Just look at Ukraine. There, the successes of the TB2 in the first few months of the war were so legendary that people wrote folk songs about it. Animals in Kyiv zoo were named Bayraktar in honor of the machine’s designer. It’s not the only time something similar has happened in the Ukraine War. A giant mural named Saint Javelin likewise appeared in Kyiv, in honor of the anti-tank missile. Nonetheless, it does speak to the peculiar way people view the TB2. With a combination of awe, affection… and stone-cold fear. ## Confirmed Kills It was April, 2016, when the TB2 hit an important milestone for any weapons platform. That month, it recorded its first confirmed kill. The setting was Turkey’s mountainous southeastern region. The context was the ongoing counterinsurgency by the Kurdish separatists PKK against the Turkish state. Over the course of multiple flights, TB2s used their precision missiles to take out something in the region of 20 PKK leaders, badly damaging the organization—a terror group proscribed by the US, EU, and UK. By this point, the drone had been in the manufacturing and testing stage for about two years. But its origin could be traced back even further. Perhaps as far back as a decade. That’s because it was in the mid-2000s that Selçuk Bayraktar’s company, Baykar Defense, began to concentrate on building drones for military purposes. The original in this category had been something called the Mini UAV. Rather than an attack drone, the Mini was a simple reconnaissance device. One that weighed under 10 kg, and could stay aloft for slightly more than an hour. Considering that the first commercial drones were by then already becoming available, this wasn’t super-impressive. Yet it was just the start. As newer versions of the Mini were made, improving upon the original, it began to work better and better as a spy drone. Eventually, it got so good that Qatar would place an order. But the real change would be when the company switched its focus from reconnaissance to attack. Come 2014, the first TB2 prototype was undergoing flight tests, ahead of its modification to start carrying bombs. In many ways, it was the timing that would make the UAV such a hit. About 20 years ago, Ankara seems to have realized that its own defense industrial base was sorely lacking, leaving it reliant on allies to provide kit. What followed was a government drive to grow the local arms industry. In two decades, the sector would grow by a factor of ten, as the Turkish military desperately tried to onshore production of as much stuff as possible. That meant Baykar Defense was perfectly placed to ride this wave of money, becoming Ankara’s go-to company for UAVs. And that meant the first TB2s would be ready for the military to use as soon as it needed them. The same year the UAV scored its first kill against the PKK, ISIS unleashed a wave of terror across Turkey—culminating in a gun and bomb attack on Istanbul airport that killed nearly fifty people. Shortly after, the first TB2s to run missions outside Turkey’s airspace took to the skies. Their destination? Syria, where the chaos of the civil war had allowed a brutal caliphate to metastasize. The following years saw the drones rain death down upon Islamic State, just as they had upon the PKK. With brutal efficiency, their guided bombs dispatched jihadists as part of Turkey’s anti-ISIS campaign. Yet, while the TB2s performed well, it was hard to imagine them doing otherwise. Like the PKK, ISIS were an irregular group of fighters. One that managed to seize large reserves of gold and weapons, but far from an advanced army. No, if the TB2 was going to prove itself in battle, it would need to do so against a real military. One backed by a nation state. One fielding anti-aircraft systems designed to knock UAVs out of the sky. As the 2010s gave way to a new decade, the TB2 would finally get its chance. ## Lord of War To call the relationship between Turkey and Russia “complicated” would be like calling the Hindenburg Disaster “a bit of a bummer.” While Ankara buys Moscow’s military equipment and nuclear power technology, the two also have a frequently-brutal rivalry that comes from trying to shape themselves as major regional powers. Famously, this has included backing different sides in multiple wars. Multiple wars in which the TB2 has helped give Turkey’s candidate the necessary edge. The first major time this happened was across the years 2019–2020. As the decade of the 2010s closed out, Libyan warlord Khalifa Haftar decided to make a move against the internationally-recognized government in Tripoli. In this, he was backed by powerful regional allies Egypt and UAE, as well as Vladimir Putin in Moscow. As his Libyan National Army advanced, Haftar must’ve assumed sweet victory was mere days away. But it wasn’t to be. While the Russians furnished Haftar with Pantsir-S1 air defense systems, TB2s were still able to attack—ultimately destroying nine of them. This punched a hole in the LNA’s air defenses, allowing direct attacks on convoys approaching the Libyan capital. Backed up by Turkish warships firing surface-to-air missiles from the Mediterranean, the Tripoli government was eventually able to chase Haftar all the way back to his powerbase in the east of the country. It was an astonishing victory. One rightly celebrated by the Libyan government. And while it would be going too far to give the TB2 all the credit, it certainly played a major role in ending Haftar’s offensive. Just two years later, TB2s would help deliver a similar outcome in a completely different war. This time, the drones helped stop a 2021 advance on the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa by the Tigray People’s Liberation Front—perhaps the key battle in the bloody and horrifying Tigray War. But it would be in a conflict that landed between these two African civil wars that the TB2 really made its name. When it arrived in international consciousness in much the same way as the word “blitzkrieg” did in 1939. When the TB2 almost single-handedly won Azerbaijan the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. The ins and outs of the war are super complicated—involving ethnic Armenians trapped inside Azerbaijan’s borders after the fall of the USSR forging their own breakaway state with Yerevan’s backing. The important part is that Armenia was backed by Moscow, and operating Russian equipment. Azerbaijan, meanwhile, was backed by Turkey. And that meant—when war broke out in fall of 2020—that Baku was fielding a fleet of TB2s. The outcome of the war was perhaps best summed up by Oryx with the following statement: > “In the course of this short but intense conflict, a handful of Azerbaijani Bayraktar TB2 UCAVs essentially broke the back of the Armenian military.” Their team documented the destruction of 549 ground targets by the drones, ranging from 22 SAM systems, to 126 armored fighting vehicles—a tally that includes 90 T-72 main battle tanks. A huge part of this was the element of surprise. Analyst Rob Lee has written on how Azerbaijan used its drones to destroy Armenia’s air defenses within hours of the war starting. But an equally big part was sheer technological superiority. Despite the size and slowness of the drones, Armenia was unable to shoot most of them down. At times, radar and jamming equipment appeared to fail at its job while within eyesight of TB2s. By the end of the six-week conflict, things had gotten so bad that Armenian soldiers no longer hid from the UAVs, but simply walked out in the open while keeping a vast distance from comrades. The reasoning being that—since they couldn’t escape the UAVs—they might as well show the operators that they were alone. And, thus, not worth the expense of a missile. Impressive as the TB2’s record in the conflict was, though, the war was also notable for something else. As the scale of the UAVs’ successes became apparent, Azerbaijan’s dictator started playing footage of strikes on giant screens in the nation’s capital. It was perfect foreshadowing of the strange fame the TB2 would achieve in its next great conflict. ## Blue and Yellow The first weeks of the Ukraine War were like a greatest hits replay of everything anyone had ever said about the TB2. As the first missiles crashed into Kyiv on February 24, 2022, analysts and experts lined up to declare that the lumbering Turkish drones would be unable to match the firepower of Russia’s forces. That, within hours, all 20 UAVs that Ukraine had purchased would be destroyed. Of course, many of these were the same people who said that Ukraine would fall within 72 hours. Who assured us that there was literally no way Moscow’s military could fail. So, you can probably guess how their TB2 prediction went. What followed were several weeks in which the UAVs seemed to repeat their successes from Libya, Ethiopia, and Nagorno-Karabakh. Flying low, evading radar, and only appearing to strike Russian air defenses or advancing columns. At one point, things got so bad that the Russian ambassador in Ankara felt compelled to lash out against Turkey’s government, declaring: > “Explanations like ‘business is business’ won’t work, since your drones are killing our soldiers.” The weirdest part? Russia knew Kyiv had access to these UAVs. Prior to the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, it had spent months training pilots to knock them out of the sky. And now here they were: blowing up Russian trucks. Killing Russian soldiers. All while the Kremlin flailed around, unable to stop the carnage. For Ukrainians, the drone’s effectiveness turned the TB2 into a legend. In this era, in the early days of the war, the sight of TB2s annihilating Russian convoys was a source of hope. Something residents of Kyiv could take comfort in as they waited in air raid shelters for the missiles to stop falling. This was when folk songs began to be written about the UAV. When zoo animals and pets were named Bayraktar. There was even a concerted campaign in neighboring Lithuania to raise five million euros to buy Ukraine an extra TB2. When the money was raised in just three days, the manufacturer waived the fee and sent the drone to Kyiv for free. Spectacular as all this was, though, it didn’t alter the main, fundamental rule of war. No matter how great a technological leap, a well-funded army will eventually find a way to counter it. Today, deep into the Ukraine War’s second year, we no longer hear so much about the role of TB2s. Partially, that’s because the nature of the war has shifted—from a hurried defense against rolling columns of armor; to grinding advances and trench warfare reminiscent of WWI. From combat on fields and roads, to close-quarters urban fighting. Partially, though, it’s also because Moscow’s abilities at jamming and electronic warfare have dramatically improved. Although there remains a place for larger combat drones, they are no longer as effective as they once were. Even in retrospect, the role of TB2s in the opening days of the war is no longer seen in quite the same light. Whereas videos on Twitter and TikTok in early 2022 focused on the damage done to Russia’s forces by drones, Javelin missiles, and NLAWs, the 2023 assessment is that it was good old-fashioned artillery that saved Kyiv from conquest. ## The Future of Automated Warfare Still, that doesn’t mean the story of the TB2 is over. As you read this, countries all around the world are scrambling to buy this sky-based killing machine. To prepare themselves for the future of combat in a world where war will only become ever-more automated. That means the next few years should feature more conflicts where this ingenious, budget UAV stalks through the skies, looking for prey. A UAV that can tilt the balance of power away from an expected victor. There’s no doubt that, eventually, the TB2 will become outmoded. Replaced by better models, as happens to all kit. For now, though, it remains a fascinating, deadly weapon. A new kind of platform, driving innovations in a whole new kind of warfare. Where that will lead the militaries of the world next is something we shall have to wait to find out. ## Key Takeaways - The Bayraktar TB2 drone has played pivotal roles in multiple recent conflicts, including Nagorno-Karabakh, Ethiopia, and Ukraine. - Despite its modest size and speed, the TB2 has proven effective in evading and destroying advanced air defenses. - The TB2's success is attributed to its precise laser-guided bombs and frequent software updates, keeping it ahead of countermeasures. - Turkey's willingness to sell TB2s to various countries, without conditions, has led to its widespread use in conflicts globally. - The TB2's impact has been significant in shifting power dynamics, but advancements in jamming and electronic warfare are reducing its effectiveness. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is the Bayraktar TB2? The Bayraktar TB2 is a Turkish-manufactured drone, or UAV, about the size and shape of a crop duster. It is armed with four laser-guided bombs and has played pivotal roles in multiple recent conflicts. ### How many Bayraktar TB2 drones are currently in operation worldwide? There are currently 257 TB2s in operation worldwide, with most owned by Turkey, Qatar, Ukraine, and Azerbaijan. ### What are some of the conflicts where the Bayraktar TB2 has been used? The TB2 has been used in conflicts in Nagorno-Karabakh, Ethiopia, Libya, the Tigray War, and the Ukraine War, among others. ### What makes the Bayraktar TB2 effective in combat? The TB2's effectiveness comes from its software, which receives multiple monthly updates, and its guided bombs, which are highly accurate and can change trajectory in mid-air. ### How does the Bayraktar TB2 compare to American drones like the Predator or Reaper? The TB2 is smaller and less sophisticated than American drones like the Predator or Reaper, but it is designed to be a budget option and has proven effective in various conflicts. ### What is the communication range and flight duration of the Bayraktar TB2? The TB2 has a communication range of 300 km and can stay aloft for a maximum of 27 hours and 3 minutes. ### How has the Bayraktar TB2 been received in Ukraine? In Ukraine, the TB2's successes in the early days of the war were so legendary that people wrote folk songs about it and named animals in Kyiv zoo after the machine's designer. ### What is the history of the Bayraktar TB2's development? The TB2's development began in the mid-2000s with the Mini UAV, a reconnaissance device. The first TB2 prototype was undergoing flight tests in 2014, and it scored its first kill in April 2016. ### How has the Bayraktar TB2 influenced Turkish diplomacy? The TB2 has become a major tool of Turkish diplomacy, with its successes in conflicts like the Ukraine War leading to increased demand from other nations. ### What is the future outlook for the Bayraktar TB2? The TB2 is expected to continue being used in conflicts around the world as countries scramble to buy this sky-based killing machine, but it will eventually be replaced by better models. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: Bayraktar TB2: How Turkey's Budget Drone Keeps Winning Wars](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CN_FZXGGblk) - [https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/05/16/the-turkish-drone-that-changed-the-nature-of-warfare](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/05/16/the-turkish-drone-that-changed-the-nature-of-warfare) - [https://www.baykartech.com/en/uav/bayraktar-tb2/](https://www.baykartech.com/en/uav/bayraktar-tb2/) - [https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2021/09/the-conqueror-of-karabakh-bayraktar-tb2.html](https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2021/09/the-conqueror-of-karabakh-bayraktar-tb2.html) - [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/11/us/politics/ukraine-military-drones-russia.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/11/us/politics/ukraine-military-drones-russia.html) - [https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2021/12/a-monument-of-victory-bayraktar-tb2.html](https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2021/12/a-monument-of-victory-bayraktar-tb2.html) - [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/7/19/turkish-firm-wont-supply-uavs-widely-used-by-ukraine-to-russia](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/7/19/turkish-firm-wont-supply-uavs-widely-used-by-ukraine-to-russia) - [https://www.timesaerospace.aero/features/defence/armed-drone-makes-a-huge-impact-in-africa](https://www.timesaerospace.aero/features/defence/armed-drone-makes-a-huge-impact-in-africa) - [https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2021/11/an-unmanned-interdictor-bayraktar-tb2s.html](https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2021/11/an-unmanned-interdictor-bayraktar-tb2s.html) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/OSCE_PA_Network_of_Young_Parliamentarians_in_Albania_-_2023-10-30_%283%29.jpg) by oscepa / openverse, by-sa. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/c-390-millennium-brazil-strategic-airlift https://megaprojects.pub/article/c-390-millennium-brazil-strategic-airlift Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT If you had to go to war, what would you want to be *absolutely* sure you had with you? Perhaps you'd want to drive a tank, knowing you're safe and secure behind a wall of nearly impenetrable armor. Maybe you'd want a reliable firearm and some special-ops-levels of training, to give you the confidence to believe that you're the most dangerous warrior on the battlefield. Perhaps you'd want a great, big naval vessel, a destroyer or an aircraft carrier, a floating city armed to the teeth and all but impossible to overcome. Or maybe you want people alongside you, brothers and sisters in arms who you can lean on, and who can lean on you. But to hear quite a few current and former warfighters tell it, the real answer is something that outwardly seems far more mundane: A supply chain. Without it, that big, reliable gun will run out of bullets, that regiment will prove unable to get reinforcements, that tank will be stranded without gas in a foreign field, and that mighty destroyer will need to send its sailors scavenging on desert islands, lest their bellies remain empty for far too long. In modern warfare, logistics rules all, and if a nation wants to master the art of logistics, then they're going to have to figure out tactical airlift. Enter the nation of Brazil, where after decades of watching American, Soviet-Russian, and other global aircraft do their heavy lifting like everybody else, the nation's aerospace industry decided to make an attempt at a tactical airlifter of their own—and created a global game-changer, on their very first try. Its name is the Millennium, designated in Brazil as the C-390, and in just a few short years of operation, it's proven itself to be the very best in its class. This is Brazil's Millennium, the humble tactical airlifter that has set a new standard across the globe. ## Design and Development To find the origins of the Millennium, we've got to wind the clock back to the early 2000s, when Brazil's leading aerospace manufacturer, Embraer, began some serious speculation around the idea of getting in on the global tactical airlifter game. The idea was born partially out of ambition, with Embraer rapidly growing into a global name in aerospace manufacturing, and having already conquered areas like commercial jets and attack aircraft. But the idea *also* made sense on another level, as Embraer execs realized they could corner a market that much of the world hadn't yet considered. Military airlift capability is typically classed into two categories: Tactical, and strategic. The lines between the two are often blurry and ill-defined, but they do the job of delineating aircraft with different functions. Tactical airlifters typically move relatively small amounts of cargo for relatively shorter distances, while strategic airlifters lift as much as possible, as far as possible. For strategic airlifters, we can toss out names like America's C-5 Galaxy or the C-17 Globemaster, or the recently destroyed Antonov An-225 Mriya—rip to the GOAT. A tactical airlifter, by contrast, can be everything from a little militarized Cessna or Beechcraft, bumping through the air with perhaps half a metric ton of cargo onboard, to more considerable aircraft that might be refitted airliners or purpose-built from scratch. Around the world, however, there is perhaps no tactical airlifter as ubiquitous as the C-130 Hercules. An American-made, four-engine prop aircraft, the C-130 first entered service all the way back in 1956, and across almost seventy years of service, it's become everything from a gunship to an electronic warfare plane to an air-to-air refueling tanker and more. It's still rolling off production lines today, via the updated C-130J Super Hercules, making it the longest continually produced military aircraft in history. The list of nations that operates it or used to is *very* long, including all of North America, most of South America, about half of Africa, much of South Asia, and a sizeable proportion of the Middle East, among others. It's capable of carrying up to 94 passengers, three Humvees, or a self-propelled howitzer, it can hit a ferry range of 7,400 kilometers or 4,600 miles with a light load, and in a pinch, it's recently gained the ability to launch its own cruise missiles. It's a damn good plane, it's an asset to air forces around the world—and it's getting very, very old. The problem that Embraer had long since picked up on, is that not all C-130 aircraft were created equal. Many in service around the world were older models that were either approaching retirement, or were already well past due. Those that had been kept relatively modern had to do it by receiving, and paying for continual updates from Lockheed Martin, while nations with less-than-ideal relationships with the US or less-than-ideal budgets for the task have had to make do with less. What Embraer saw in advance was that at some point, sooner or later, those C-130s would need to be replaced—and they could either be replaced by newer copies of fundamentally the same aircraft, or by something far more modern and capable in its design. Embraer weren't the only aircraft designer around the world to see the C-130 problem coming. The Spanish manufacturer CASA, today part of Airbus, was already flying its C-295, an upgraded version of its own older military transport aircraft, the CN-235. Russia's Ilyushin design company was working on its Il-112, which still hasn't been introduced to service, while Italy's Alenia Aeronautica—today part of Leonardo—built its C-27J, the Spartan. Airbus was working on the considerably larger A400M Atlas, while China was getting ready to produce its Shaanxi Y-9. But all of those aircraft shared two critical things in common. Number one: they were *all* propeller aircraft, with real implications for their limited speed, their limited versatility, and more. Number two, and tightly related to number one: They were all basically direct replacements to the C-130 or its competitors, perhaps with technological improvements under the hood, or a cheaper price tag, but very little else worth boasting about. From the outset, Embraer was committed to charting a different path. Early designs centered around the company's pre-existing E190 jetliner, a successful and widespread aircraft that nonetheless proved to be not quite right for the job at hand. Instead, they focused on building a new design using elements of the E190 that could be easily grafted on, using proven parts and design elements they could already mass-produce, rather than starting from scratch. Their airlifter would be a jet plane, featuring high-sitting wings, modern fly-by-wire flight controls, and a brand-new fuselage that could at least rival, if not surpass, the internal hold capacity of the newest-model C-130Js. Inside, the C-390 would have to be able to carry at least nineteen metric tons of cargo, just a hair short of 42,000 pounds, loaded and unloaded via a rear ramp to handle various sorts of heavy load. It would have to be able to cruise at speeds of about 990 kilometers per hour, 615 miles per hour, while being able to approach runways at the same low speeds as the C-130J. Finally, it would need to do double-duty as both a tactical airlifter, and an air-to-air refueling tanker, in order to offer all the functionality of its competitor aircraft in its overhauled package. The program kicked off in full in the year 2009, with a lump of cash equivalent to one and a half billion dollars US to build its prototypes. Embraer picked out its engine, choosing to optimize its new airplane into a craft that would excel in relatively standard climates rather than having to survive under especially extreme conditions. The company began dropping hints and timelines to the global public, especially potential buyer nations, and announced that it would be able to carry more than initially anticipated, adding new capacity on the order of two metric tons. They also came out with a number, as early as April of 2011, that revealed what might end up being a booming market for their aircraft in the very near future. According to Embraer projections at that time, nearly seven hundred military transport aircraft would have to be replaced just in the next ten years, to say nothing of the numbers that might be requested during the following decades when the C-390's production lines would be operating in full force. By that time, Brazil had put in multiple orders for the aircraft, Argentina had asked for six modified into tanker versions, and Portugal, France, and the Czech Republic were already indicating a strong interest, all without ever having seen a prototype. Chile, Argentina, Colombia, and even America's Boeing company signed on to the project, although a brief attempt to start a joint venture between Boeing and Embraer in 2019 would ultimately fall through. Major aerospace designers from the UK, the Czech Republic, the US, Germany, and elsewhere contributed materials and design elements, in what was quickly becoming a chimera of an aircraft that could unify the best minds of many nations at once. In late October of 2014, the inaugural Embraer prototype saw sunlight for the very first time, and less than five months later, it would take its maiden flight. As the months wore on, the good vibes and good luck of the C-390 program continued to make themselves known; the aircraft was able to overcome an anticipated two-year delay in flight testing due to the state of the Brazilian economy, and instead pushed through to log hundreds of hours of flight testing in that time. The aircraft was pushed to its limits, reached operational capability, and even proved that it would boast a highly competitive price tag. Despite its jet engines, its all-new design, its better-than-anticipated carrying capacity, and a considerably higher top speed and service ceiling, it was expected to sell for fifteen million dollars *cheaper* than the C-130J it was meant to surpass, at no more than fifty-five million dollars US per unit. After innumerable tests, boundary-pushing missions on all seven continents, and a cascade of good press, airshow appearances, and interested client nations, the Millennium was finally cleared as fully operational in early 2023, paving the way for this highly impressive aircraft to change the world. ## Specs and Capabilities The C-390 Millennium is a twin-engine, high-wing jet aircraft, operated by a crew of three: a pilot, a copilot, and a loadmaster. It measures a length, tip to tail, of 35.2 meters or 115 and a half feet, against a wingspan of just over 35 meters, 115 feet even, giving it a functionally square profile from the top down. At full capacity, the 12-meter-tall, 38-foot-tall Millennium can take off at a weight of up to 87,000 kilograms; that's nearly 192,000 pounds. It's powered by a pair of V2500-E5 turbofan engines, the same ones that power the Airbus A320 family of commercial aircraft. Flying at full power, it can hit top speeds of 988 kilometers per hour or 614 miles per hour, while it cruises at speeds of 870 kilometers per hour, 540 miles per hour, comparable with a commercial jetliner. Despite its highly respectable top speed, it can fly very slowly as needed, only stalling out when it drops below 193 kilometers per hour, or 120 miles per hour. It can hit a service ceiling of 11,000 meters or 36,000 feet, again comparable to most commercial airliners around the world. But the Millennium's claim to fame, as should rightfully be expected of a tactical airlifter, is the intersection between its carrying capacity and its range. The C-390 can carry up to twenty-six metric tons or 57,000 pounds of payload, arranged in a number of ways. It can carry up to eighty troops at a time, up to seventy-four stretchers with room for eight onboard medics, sixty-six paratroopers, up to seven standardized master pallets, or thirty-six troops *while* still carrying six pallets. It can handle up to two fully-tracked M113 armored personnel carriers, each capable of rolling off and carrying a machine gun and up to fifteen passengers immediately into combat, or one copy of either Brazil's Guarani armored vehicle or the German-Dutch Boxer fighting vehicle. If needed, it can even transport a full Black Hawk helicopter inside. It's capable of airdropping loads of up to nineteen metric tons, 42,000 pounds, while onboard troops are granted a level of passenger comfort that most tactical airlifters don't even bother to match, including climate control, a highly accessible toilet, and vibration reduction features to stabilize the hold. While carrying a relatively standard load of fourteen metric tons, the Millennium can fly at a distance of over five thousand kilometers or 3,100 miles, enough to complete trips like New York to LA, Brasilia to southern Patagonia, London to Damascus or Kyiv, or Hong Kong to Tokyo on a single tank of fuel. Carrying the absolute most it can bear, the C-390 can still fly a distance of two thousand kilometers or over 1,200 miles, while it can hit a ferry range of up to 8,500 kilometers or 5,200 miles if it uses auxiliary fuel tanks. Onboard, the C-390 features a wide range of modern design elements to bring it up to a 21st-century standard, while maintaining flexibility in both its hauling function and the way it carries out its mission. The aircraft is built to be highly modular, with an interior and an exterior that can be rapidly modified to perform multiple mission roles in quick succession. It features a glass cockpit with head-up displays integrating to an enhanced flight vision system, which scans the scene around the aircraft using four cameras and relays those views to the pilots in real time. It flies using full fly-by-wire controls, advanced avionics, a tactical radar with several different operating modes, and a countermeasures suite including chaff, flares, and infrared self-defense. An onboard computer calculates all its drop points, before handing over to other software to handle precise drops, while another onboard system provides continual monitoring of all important hardware and software. The Millennium is proven in nearly all weather conditions, and has performed well everywhere from the Antarctic cold to the incredibly humid and hot Brazilian summer. It's able to descend under operator control at rates of up to 2,700 meters or 9,000 feet per minute, and it can land and take off on damaged, sandy, grassy, or otherwise subpar runways with ease. It can take off and land at short distances, it's surprisingly nimble for its size, and it can carry advanced targeting pods or air-to-air refueling equipment on three external hardpoints. It can refuel two aircraft at once while in flight, at speeds as high as 560 kilometers per hour to serve Brazil's advanced fighter jets or as slow as 220 kilometers per hour to serve its turboprop-driven attack aircraft; that's a top limit of 347 miles per hour, and a bottom limit of just 136. All that, the Millennium makes possible at altitudes from two thousand to thirty-two-thousand feet, 610 to 9,700 meters. And when the aircraft is measured directly against its competitors in the world of tactical airlift, it gets even more impressive than it already was. It beats out the best iteration of the C-130, the Super Hercules, by seven *thousand* kilograms, cruising over 200 kilometers per hour faster, and flying 1,700 kilometers further at a normal payload. That's to say nothing of how thoroughly the Millennium beats out older models of the C-130, the ones that Embraer was most looking forward to replacing. The Italian Spartan aircraft can carry twenty fewer troops or less than *half* the C-390's stretchers, it can airdrop less than half of what the Millennium can, and it lags badly behind in terms of speed, while it's got to trim down its load to just 4,500 kilograms to carry as far as the Millennium can carry *fourteen thousand* kg. The C-295 also falls short in carrying capacity when measured in soldiers, stretchers, pallets, or vehicles, while at a huge payload disadvantage and flying at a comparatively miserable cruising speed and altitude. China's Y-9 boasts a similar capacity to the Millennium but lags badly in both speed and range, while even the much larger A400M, by Airbus, doesn't offer nearly the improvements over the Millennium that should justify its larger size. We should be clear here; the direct comparisons between the Millennium and these other aircraft aren't always fair, since those aircraft's frankly lesser performance can make them *more* appropriate for certain operational assignments. But the C-390 still beats them all, at a price point that can compete with any of them, and is even considerably cheaper than the A400M and the C-130J. And even despite its jet engines, the C-390 can hang with *all* of them in the short-takeoff-and-landing, and low-stall-speed areas where turboprop aircraft *should* retain an advantage. ## Operation and Rapid Adoption The C-390 Millennium is still a very new aircraft, with just a handful of production models currently out in the world, and as such, it hasn't gotten *that* much of a workout in its tactical airlift role—certainly not in active combat. That being said, the aircraft has nonetheless proven its potential every time it's gotten the chance, in roles that closely mirror what it would be asked to do in a combat environment. Since the C-390 is not a combat aircraft, and *really* shouldn't ever be logging air-to-air kills, it can demonstrate its worthiness in just about every area where it's designed to operate—and thus far, it's done very well. In its first three and a half years in service to Brazil, the C-390 logged over eight thousand flight-hours across six thousand flights, boasting mission completion rates well over ninety-nine percent. All those stats, despite the Brazilian Air Force having less than half a dozen of the aircraft at that time. To date, the aircraft has taken part in a wide range of disaster relief operations, airlifting COVID patients out of the isolated and undersupplied Brazilian city of Manaus, responding to the 2020 Beirut explosion, bringing medicine and search-and-rescue equipment after Haiti's 2021 earthquake, and more. The Millennium has rescued Brazilians and other South American citizens from Ukraine, transported Black Hawk helicopters for Portugal, and taken part in a wide range of military exercises around the world. The Millennium has yet to suffer an airframe loss or a major accident, and it's proven more than capable of filling every mission role for which it was designed. And just as Embraer predicted all those years ago, the availability of a modern, jet-powered tactical airlifter has led to a wide range of world nations taking notice. Brazil flies just seven of the aircraft so far, but plans to field a total of twenty-six. Hungary has been delivered one, and will fly another shortly. Portugal has ordered five, of which it's received two at the time of writing. Austria plans to receive four, the Czech Republic plans to receive two, South Korea will pick up three, the Netherlands will obtain five, and both Slovakia and Sweden have announced plans to procure the aircraft, although the total number in each nation's order has yet to be announced. The aircraft has even been purchased by a mystery customer, with a contract for two of the jets established between Embraer and an undisclosed client somewhere around the world. In several of those nations, the C-390 has been chosen to directly replace a fleet of American C-130s, and has beaten out competitor offers from Lockheed Martin offering Super Hercules aircraft as a replacement. Several other nations are thought to be in the hunt for Millennium fighters of their own: Colombia for up to twelve, Greece and South Africa for up to six, Angola for up to four, Rwanda for up to two, and India for up to *forty*. Egypt appears hopeful to receive a yet-unspecified number of the jets, while Morocco has one for testing, Saudi Arabia is considering both buying them and building them locally, and BAE Systems is hawking them to the UAE, Qatar, Oman, and Kuwait. The Brazilian military is looking into creating a version for intelligence and reconnaissance missions at sea. They're even being targeted for adaptation into a civilian cargo plane by a Brazilian postal company, quite possibly opening the door to a whole new market. To our knowledge here at Megaprojects, the C-390 has yet to *lose* a bid for a contract, or to be turned down after having been considered by any world nation. As a result, the problem facing the C-390 today isn't one of poor performance or global disinterest, but the sheer difficulty of what will likely become a scramble to keep up with demand. On the broad spectrum of problems to have, we admit, that's a pretty good one to be dealing with—but it's a problem nonetheless. At current count, there are a total of just fifteen C-390s in the hands of global militaries, after main-line production began all the way back in 2018. Embraer currently forecasts a market demand for nearly 500 of its Millennium aircraft between now and the mid-2040s, comprising a market it assesses to be worth sixty billion US dollars, and doesn't count over 250 tactical airlifters around the world that have reached retirement age. According to the CEO of Embraer Defense, the company can currently assemble and deliver up to eighteen aircraft per year—but the aircraft's suppliers have had trouble getting component parts to Brazil in time. The company expects to produce just twelve aircraft a year by 2030, and the solution here isn't to simply build more assembly lines. Under current conditions, those lines would have nothing to assemble—and any relief will have to come from improvement by Embraer's parts suppliers around the world. It's a difficult bottleneck, limiting the potential of what is clearly a tremendously promising aircraft. If the delays persist, many of these global militaries that have already signed contracts will be forced to extend the lives of at least a portion of their pre-existing tactical airlift fleet—despite the fact that they'd very much like to offload that old stock. New potential clients, including many of the oil-rich Gulf states and the entire NATO alliance, might have to start second-guessing whether it's really worth waiting around for the Millennium, versus either selecting a less-capable competitor aircraft in order to get new capabilities sooner, or even designing an alternative themselves. In a worst-case scenario, they might even let their tactical airlift capabilities lapse, holding out for a Millennium program beset by delays and stretched too thin to satisfy everyone. All three options come at a considerable cost to the nations that would choose them, but time waits for no one, and time will certainly not wait for Embraer. Perhaps Saudi Arabia can assist with an infusion of new overseas production capacity, or perhaps other nations and corporations will step up to help this highly lucrative aircraft realize its true potential. Or, perhaps the program will fizzle out, far sooner than the Millennium deserves. No matter the real-world constraints on production, Brazil and the Embraer corporation have produced a phenomenal aircraft with the C-390. It's highly capable, it's flexible through a wide range of mission roles, and when you measure it against the competition, it's no contest at all. It's one of the most understated defense-world victories of the entire 21st century, how a company taking its first crack at a tactical airlifter put *all* of its global competitor aircraft to shame. But the story of the C-390 Millennium is one that might be told a good deal more often, in the years and the decades to come. ## Key Takeaways - The C-390 Millennium, Brazil's tactical airlifter, has set a new global standard. - Embraer designed the C-390 to replace aging C-130 aircraft with modern capabilities. - The C-390 outperforms competitors in speed, range, and carrying capacity. - High demand for the C-390 is challenging Embraer's production and supply chain. - The C-390 has proven reliable in disaster relief and military exercises worldwide. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is the C-390 Millennium? The C-390 Millennium is a twin-engine, high-wing jet aircraft designed and manufactured by Embraer in Brazil. It is a tactical airlifter that has set a new standard in its class, known for its versatility, carrying capacity, and range. ### What are the key features of the C-390 Millennium? The C-390 Millennium features a length of 35.2 meters, a wingspan of 35 meters, and can take off at a weight of up to 87,000 kilograms. It is powered by two V2500-E5 turbofan engines, can reach top speeds of 988 km/h, and has a service ceiling of 11,000 meters. It can carry up to 26 metric tons of payload and has a range of over 5,000 kilometers with a standard load. ### How does the C-390 Millennium compare to the C-130 Hercules? The C-390 Millennium outperforms the C-130 Hercules in several areas, including carrying capacity, speed, and range. It can carry seven thousand kilograms more, cruise over 200 kilometers per hour faster, and fly 1,700 kilometers further with a normal payload. ### What is the operational history of the C-390 Millennium? Since its introduction, the C-390 Millennium has been used in various disaster relief operations, military exercises, and humanitarian missions. It has logged over 8,000 flight-hours across 6,000 flights with a mission completion rate of over 99%. ### Which countries have adopted the C-390 Millennium? Countries that have adopted or plan to adopt the C-390 Millennium include Brazil, Hungary, Portugal, Austria, the Czech Republic, South Korea, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Sweden, and an undisclosed customer. Several other nations are considering or have shown interest in the aircraft. ### What are the potential future applications of the C-390 Millennium? The C-390 Millennium is being considered for various roles, including intelligence and reconnaissance missions at sea, adaptation into a civilian cargo plane, and potential use by oil-rich Gulf states and NATO alliance members. Embraer forecasts a market demand for nearly 500 aircraft by the mid-2040s. ### What challenges does the C-390 Millennium face in production? The primary challenge facing the C-390 Millennium is the difficulty in meeting global demand due to supply chain issues. Embraer can currently deliver up to 18 aircraft per year, but suppliers have had trouble delivering component parts on time, limiting production to 12 aircraft per year by 2030. ### What is the significance of the C-390 Millennium in the defense industry? The C-390 Millennium represents a significant achievement for Brazil and Embraer, as it outperforms all global competitor aircraft in its class. It is considered one of the most understated defense-world victories of the 21st century. ### What is the price of the C-390 Millennium compared to its competitors? The C-390 Millennium is expected to sell for no more than $55 million per unit, which is $15 million cheaper than the C-130J and considerably cheaper than the A400M. ### What is the carrying capacity of the C-390 Millennium? The C-390 Millennium can carry up to 26 metric tons of payload. It can transport up to 80 troops, 74 stretchers with room for 8 medics, 66 paratroopers, 7 standardized master pallets, or 36 troops while carrying 6 pallets. It can also handle two fully-tracked M113 armored personnel carriers or one Black Hawk helicopter. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: The C-390 Millennium: How Brazil Revolutionized Strategic Airlift](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svOmpggfyQo) - [https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/ASPJ/journals/Volume-31_Issue-1/V-Maywald_et_al.pdf](https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/ASPJ/journals/Volume-31_Issue-1/V-Maywald_et_al.pdf) - [https://scholar.afit.edu/facpub/1319/](https://scholar.afit.edu/facpub/1319/) - [https://www.flightglobal.com/farnborough-redesign-transforms-kc-390-into-all-new-market-threat-/113515.article](https://www.flightglobal.com/farnborough-redesign-transforms-kc-390-into-all-new-market-threat-/113515.article) - [https://www.flightglobal.com/brazilian-air-force-signs-deal-launching-embraer-kc-390-tanker-transport/85926.article](https://www.flightglobal.com/brazilian-air-force-signs-deal-launching-embraer-kc-390-tanker-transport/85926.article) - [https://en.mercopress.com/2011/04/19/argentina-joins-manufacturing-of-brazil-s-kc-390-jet-powered-military-transport](https://en.mercopress.com/2011/04/19/argentina-joins-manufacturing-of-brazil-s-kc-390-jet-powered-military-transport) - [https://web.archive.org/web/20160321110521/http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2016-02-17/embraers-kc-390-returns-flight-test](https://web.archive.org/web/20160321110521/http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2016-02-17/embraers-kc-390-returns-flight-test) - [https://www.flightglobal.com/embraer-announces-two-year-delay-for-kc-390/117789.article](https://www.flightglobal.com/embraer-announces-two-year-delay-for-kc-390/117789.article) - [https://www.flightglobal.com/embraer-kc-390-takes-maiden-flight/115805.article](https://www.flightglobal.com/embraer-kc-390-takes-maiden-flight/115805.article) - [https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/brazil/c-390.htm](https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/brazil/c-390.htm) - [https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/value-and-versatility-embraer-pitches-kc-390-to-the-usa/155028.article](https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/value-and-versatility-embraer-pitches-kc-390-to-the-usa/155028.article) - [https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/kc-390/](https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/kc-390/) - [https://www.asianmilitaryreview.com/2024/11/embraers-c-390-millennium-championing-modern-day-defense-needs/](https://www.asianmilitaryreview.com/2024/11/embraers-c-390-millennium-championing-modern-day-defense-needs/) - [https://www.key.aero/article/embraer-unveils-c-390-millennium](https://www.key.aero/article/embraer-unveils-c-390-millennium) - [https://defense.embraer.com/air/c-390/](https://defense.embraer.com/air/c-390/) - [https://militaryembedded.com/avionics/computers/c-390-millennium-multi-mission-aircraft-ordered-by-undisclosed-customer](https://militaryembedded.com/avionics/computers/c-390-millennium-multi-mission-aircraft-ordered-by-undisclosed-customer) - [https://www.janes.com/osint-insights/defence-news/industry/undisclosed-customer-signs-for-two-embraer-c-390s](https://www.janes.com/osint-insights/defence-news/industry/undisclosed-customer-signs-for-two-embraer-c-390s) - [https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/sweden-picks-embraers-c-390-new-military-cargo-aircraft-2024-11-09/](https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/sweden-picks-embraers-c-390-new-military-cargo-aircraft-2024-11-09/) - [https://aviationweek.com/defense/multi-mission-aircraft/embraer-c-390-millennium-innovation-performance-reliability](https://aviationweek.com/defense/multi-mission-aircraft/embraer-c-390-millennium-innovation-performance-reliability) - [https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/embraer-delivers-seventh-c-390-millennium-to-brazil/](https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/embraer-delivers-seventh-c-390-millennium-to-brazil/) - [https://simpleflying.com/embraer-sells-2-c-390-millennium-undisclosed-10th-nation/](https://simpleflying.com/embraer-sells-2-c-390-millennium-undisclosed-10th-nation/) - [https://www.aviationpros.com/aircraft/defense/press-release/21203475/embraer-embraer-delivers-the-fourth-c-390-millennium-airlifter-to-the-brazilian-air-force](https://www.aviationpros.com/aircraft/defense/press-release/21203475/embraer-embraer-delivers-the-fourth-c-390-millennium-airlifter-to-the-brazilian-air-force) - [https://www.edrmagazine.eu/embraer-strongly-pushes-its-c-390-millenium-on-the-international-market](https://www.edrmagazine.eu/embraer-strongly-pushes-its-c-390-millenium-on-the-international-market) - [https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/embraer-formalizes-c-390-sales-austria-netherlands-deliveries-2027-2024-07-22/#:~:text=Embraer%20is%20currently%20working%20to,2030%2C%22%20the%20executive%20said](https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/embraer-formalizes-c-390-sales-austria-netherlands-deliveries-2027-2024-07-22/#:~:text=Embraer%20is%20currently%20working%20to,2030%2C%22%20the%20executive%20said) - [https://simpleflying.com/embraer-c-390-production-rate-ramp-up/](https://simpleflying.com/embraer-c-390-production-rate-ramp-up/) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Lockheed_Martin_F-22A_Raptor_JSOH.jpg) by Rob Shenk from Great Falls, VA, USA / openverse, by-sa. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/char-b1-real-tiger-tank https://megaprojects.pub/article/char-b1-real-tiger-tank Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT The Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger, or Tiger I, is one of—if not arguably *the*—most iconic tank of World War II. Ever since it was first deployed 81 years ago in 1942, it has been the stuff of legend. Some say that during the war it was a tank which induced sufficient fear that the mere rumour of one's presence could halt localised advances and change the course of battle… and since the war's conclusion its legend has only grown. And yet, despite its undeniably legendary status, the Tiger I is an unbelievably contentious tank, one that divides historians alike. This debate is an interesting one, but today we will be presenting and evaluating a different hypothesis: one in which we reject this dichotomy altogether, and instead present a new claimant for the most illustrious legend that the Tiger I possesses. But what other tank could claim such a mantle? Well, *this* is the object of our awe today: the French Char B1. You may think we have gone a bit mad here… as this tank is decried by many as a sloth of a thing which was far too slow, equipped with a ridiculous short-barrelled and all but impossible to traverse short-barrelled howitzer. A tank often dubbed "the greatest First World War tank" to reflect just how obsolete its design was by the Second World War. But today we will be presenting a counter to these negative claims, because what if the supposedly laughable and horrific Char B1 was actually the *real* Tiger I—a tank which filled its opponents with dread, which could shake off cannon fire and keep on going, and whose sheer power could alter the flow of battle entirely on its own? ## The Char B1 Before we can assess whether or not the Char B1 was the real Tiger, it is vital that we understand its history. And like the Tiger, the development of the Char B1 was far from smooth. Design work began in 1921, and as with all interwar French military projects, the Char B1's development was at the mercy of unstable governments and their ever-changing whims. On top of this, the Char B1 also had to be designed around a French military elite that could not decide where they wanted to spend their money; one year the Renault offices were overflowing with cash, while the next year funding could all but disappear, as the French military decided that actually, no, a new breakthrough tank could wait—what we really need *now* is a new light machine gun, or battleships, or more money for the Maginot Line. Renault persisted, however, despite this difficult design environment, and eventually the design work on the Char B1 was finally finished in 1934 after 13 long years. Production of the neglected Char B1 then *finally* began in 1935, and would continue up until 1940, when France's defeat at the hands of Germany rather destroyed the French Government's need for new tanks. In this period two main variants of the Char B1 were produced: the "original" Char B1, and the "improved" Char B1 *bis*. At this point let's take the time to talk about the Char B1's unorthodox and bizarre looks: if you ask a child to draw a "typical" tank, what they draw will not resemble a Char B1. With a girthy, yet stubby SA 35 75mm howitzer mounted on a fixed forward-facing casemate, a long frame accommodating a sizable 16.5-litre 6-cylinder Renault petrol engine, and a tiny little one-man turret on top housing a more modest 47mm cannon, the Char B1's appearance certainly defies convention, even by the often bizarre standards of inter-war tank design. This unorthodox appearance was the result of the Char B1's unique development, which rather than looking ahead to the future to create the ultimate tank for the next conflict, harkened back to the Great War to create a tank that would have been perfect for the past. Envisioned as a self-propelled gun rather than a tank, French authorities initially requested a heavy armoured vehicle which could easily cross trenches—hence its long length—and easily bring heavy weaponry to bear against enemy fortifications—hence its 75mm howitzer mounted low in the hull, so it could be pointed into the vision slits of enemy fortifications. Midway through the Char B1's development, however, it was reasoned that this self-propelled gun configuration might leave the Char B1 vulnerable to flanking attacks, so a solution was sought to give it a bit more defensive punch. The solution? A little one-man turret plonked on top, equipped with a 47mm gun. It can be easy to forget when it is otherwise dwarfed by the 75mm monster in the hull, but by interwar and early WWII standards a 47mm tank cannon was quite the sizable thing in its own right. For example, the British Mk.II Crusader only carried a 40mm cannon, and the most common German tank of the Battle of France, the Panzer II, only sported a 20mm autocannon. Although certainly not up to snuff when late-war heavy tanks began making their appearance, for its time a 47mm gun was perfectly adequate. And not only were the B1's guns big, but in fact the whole tank was big—a whopping 21 feet long, 8 feet wide, and 9 feet tall, and weighing in at 31 tons. A lot of this weight came from the tank's armour, which was very thick due to its planned deployment against fortified positions: 60mm on the "original" Char B1 and 75mm on the "improved" Char B1 *bis*. For context, the main anti-tank gun employed by the Germans during the Battle of France, the Pak 36, when firing the best quality tungsten-core round available was only capable of penetrating a maximum of 64mm of armour. In light of this, it isn't surprising that the Char B1 was considered one of the most powerful tanks of its time. There's no doubt that it represented a fearsome prospect on the battlefield, but if we wish to come to an informed conclusion regarding how "Tiger-like" the Char B1 is, we shouldn't artificially venerate its merits. Every tank, no matter how groundbreaking, has its drawbacks; it is simply the reality of engineering, and the Char B1 is no exception. So to come to an informed conclusion, let us now look at those shortcomings. For starters, the Char B1 may have had a fearsome main armament with its 75mm SA 35 howitzer, but it was implemented in an ineffective way. The major drawback was that it only had one degree of traverse in either direction, and even this was only intended for zeroing the cannon, and not for use in combat. Consequently the cannon could only be traversed by turning the whole tank. Now, this isn't quite the disaster it may first sound, because Renault did engineer some clever solutions into the Char B1 to minimise the issues caused by this. The first such solution was to combine the roles of the driver and the gunner in the tank, so that the same crew member had direct control of both the firing of the gun and the traversing of the tank, theoretically eliminating any inefficiency that would be generated by these normally two separate roles having to communicate in battle. To further reduce complications from this, the Char B1's traverse was also improved through use of a "Naeder Steering System"—a sophisticated hydraulic system which assisted the tank in traversing, allowing the Char B1 to make the sort of fast and precise pivots that many other tanks simply were not capable of. These certainly served to minimise the negative effects of the design dead end that Renault had engineered themselves into, but a minimisation is not an elimination, and the Char B1's driver-gunners were still seriously overworked. Another major drawback of the Char B1 was one that it shared with all French tanks: its one-man turret. The logic goes that regardless of how big it may or may not be, a tank turret has to perform the same basic functions—shooting and spotting. In typical tank design this sees the turret made large enough to accommodate three crew members: a commander, a gunner, and a loader, who can split these duties. A one-man turret, on the other hand, sees all of these duties performed by one crew member, increasing the inefficiency with which all three roles are performed. If Renault had incorporated some clever workaround to minimise the impact of this design choice, as they had with the Char B1's traversing system, we could at least say it was a minimised detriment… but alas, no. There was no clever workaround, and there are no qualifiers to present—it was simply a bad design choice that led to the tanks performing poorly compared to their three-man-turreted counterparts. And with that, our overview of the Char B1's development history and technical specifications is complete, and we are one step closer to answering the question we posed at the start. So now, let us delve into the challenger for the title: the Tiger I. ## The "Real" Tiger Before we get into this, we must stop and ask ourselves: which Tiger are we comparing the Char B1 to? By this I don't mean which mark of the Tiger, or even which specific Tiger we are comparing it to, but as the Tiger I is such a contentious tank, we first must decide how we view it ourselves. And please note—we have no interest in spoonfeeding you one particular position; this article is intended to encourage you to come to your own conclusions, not to force ours upon you. So with that in mind, we will now cover both positions, then you can choose for yourself which sounds right. Tiger I detractors, or the Tiger haters as we will now call them, argue that tales of the Tiger I's awesome exploits are grossly exaggerated, and that these isolated exceptional events are not representative of the typical Tiger. This is best demonstrated by Michael Wittmann, arguably the most famous tank commander of World War II, who supposedly destroyed the entire British 4th County London Yeomanry Regiment on the 13th of June 1944 while in command of a Tiger I, in a daring act of derring-do which many claim is grossly exaggerated. Firstly there is the question of how one accurately counts "kills," because since combat tends to be quite the chaotic affair, self-attributed "kill counts" are often heavily contested; is that tank just smoking, or is it actually knocked out, etc., etc. This, of course, assumes that tank commanders generally, and Michael Wittmann specifically, were being honest in the first place, because when German "kills" were self-recorded, what glory-hungry commander wouldn't be tempted to fudge the numbers a bit? Michael Wittmann's attack on the 13th of June was certainly an impressive feat, make no mistake—but did he really knock out 13 tanks and 15 other vehicles, and all by himself at that? To deconstruct Michael Wittmann's legend further still, many will point to what made it spread: the Nazi Propaganda Machine. See, Wittmann himself didn't survive the war, and his famous figures actually come from Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels, who leapt on Michael Wittmann's success as a golden opportunity to convince the German public that actually, contrary to the horror stories they had heard from returning soldiers, and what the state of their bombed-out house would lead them to believe, the war was actually going marvellously! No need to stress—please keep turning up to work and feeding your sons into the meat grinder! Now, we are no scholars of Nazism here, but we feel confident enough to say that the Nazi Propaganda machine might have actually been a bit dishonest from time to time—an earth-shattering revelation, we know—therefore, if we are to assume that Michael Wittmann's exploits are exaggerated, be it from him or his superiors… is the Tiger in fact legendary? Those who do believe in the Tiger I legend, the Tiger enjoyers, build their argument around the hard factors of the tank: its big gun, its thick armour, and its surprisingly agile top speed. This view, which also makes it much easier to compare tanks to one another, forms a solid foundation of a belief in the Tiger as a most excellent tank, because it has big numbers! This foundation is then built upon by individual tales of excellence such as the aforementioned Michael Wittmann legend, legends which they typically believe to be by and large correct. To be fair to the Tiger enjoyers, it is certainly easy to argue that many critics of the Tiger I can go too far in their critiques, to the point of completely dismissing the importance of armour that can take a beating and a big gun that can deal big damage. But equally, one can certainly see the argument that focusing too much on these ultimately rather arbitrary statistics naturally lends one to a more simplistic understanding of the vehicle, as such base measurements simply don't lend themselves to understanding the nuance of its true situation. So now that we have a thorough understanding of Tiger's legend, let us now focus back in on the Char B1, and see if it has what it takes to match this legend. ## The Real Tiger? The high point of the Char B1's service came on the 16th of May 1940. It was the opening stage of the Battle of France, which had only just begun a few days earlier. The French Army had yet to collapse, morale was at an all-time high, and as far as anyone was concerned, victory in the Battle of France was still well within the Allies' grasp. The as-yet-undecided nature of the battle was no better summarised than in the ongoing situation in Stonne, a French village that sat 10 miles from the Belgian border. The village had changed hands multiple times the day prior, and was still anyone's for the taking. 90,000 German soldiers, supported by 300 tanks and three squadrons of Ju-87 dive bombers were determined to hold onto the village and push their advance further; 42,500 French soldiers and their 130 supporting tanks opposed them. Despite being outnumbered and pushed out of the village, the French clung on, determined to retake what was theirs. The French began the day with a counterattack, which began shortly after 5 a.m. Every man and machine available diligently did their part to retake Stonne, and then, God willing, push the Germans back to the border. In opposition was the 8th Panzer Regiment, which had brought their best hardware to the fore to resist the French effort—Panzer IIIs, the primary anti-armour tank, and Panzer IVs, the primary infantry support tank of the German Army. The men of the 8th Panzer Regiment were no doubt feeling confident: they were dug in, their hulls were down, and they knew exactly where their enemy would be coming from—the winds of fortune appeared to be blowing in their favour. That confidence quickly disappeared thanks to the efforts of a single French tank, a Char B1 named *Eure* of the 41st Tank Battalion. In a masterfully executed move, the tank's commander, Captain Pierre Billotte, ordered his hulking 31.5-ton beast to hold position 100 or so feet away from the German column. Then, without hesitation, the driver, Sergeant Durupt, fired the 75mm howitzer at the rearmost tank of the German column, and Captain Pierre Billotte unleashed the 47mm turret gun on the lead tank. At such a short range the German tanks never stood a chance: the rearmost tank immediately exploded into an enormous fireball as its ammunition racks detonated, knocking its supporting infantry off their feet and immediately killing all crew on board; the leading tank meanwhile suffered a critical hit to its engine block, immediately knocking it out and causing its few surviving crew to abandon their tank. This masterful move had completely boxed the German column in, leaving them nowhere to run. They did the only thing they could do in response: try to turn their front armour to the attacking Char B1 and empty everything they had into it. 37mm rounds from the Panzer IIIs and 75mm rounds from the Panzer IVs began to rain down on the Char B1's hull in a torrential downpour of tungsten-cored steel—but it was to no avail. With the 37mm rounds lacking the mass, and the 75mm rounds lacking the velocity to penetrate the Char B1's thick armoured hull, nothing happened. Over 140 rounds hit the B1 without a single penetrating hit being scored. The crew of the *Eure* naturally responded in kind, and one by one picked off the entire column. By the time the last German cannon fell silent, 11 Panzer IIIs and 2 Panzer IVs had been destroyed. This was not enough for the crew of the *Eure*, however; they further pushed their advance and added two Pak 36 anti-tank guns and their crews to their day's kill tally. This action caused a complete tactical-level collapse of the local German forces, and by 7 a.m., only two hours into the counterattack, Stonne was returned to French control. What is even more impressive is that this wasn't even the only example of outlandish successes won by the Char B1 in Stonne on that day. Later in the day, at around 5 p.m., the German 64th Rifle Regiment was attempting to push the recently reinstalled French defenders out of the village once again. Their effort proved surprisingly easy and was largely unopposed until they were 800 metres or so from the perimeter of the village, at which point they were intercepted by another Char B1 named *Riquewihr*, of the 49th Tank Battalion. The Germans lacked any heavy ordnance, but nonetheless did all they could to repel the oncoming tank, peppering the *Riquewihr* with mass volleys from their Karabiner 98k rifles and attempting to immobilise it with precise fire from their Panzerbüchse 39 anti-tank rifles. This achieved little except attracting the ire of the *Riquewihr*'s commander, Lieutenant Doumecq, however, who ordered the *Riquewihr* to advance on the Germans and perform a 360-degree traverse, crushing the attackers under the tracks of the tank. The subsequent sight of the *Riquewihr*'s gore-covered tracks caused mass panic among the remaining German attackers, who all immediately routed from the scene in terror, leaving Stonne still in French hands… at least for now. The second incident was certainly less tactically impressive than the *Eure*'s exploits, as in all frankness, dramatic though it may have been, opponents with nothing meaner than a 7.92×94mm Panzerbüchse to bring to bear were never going to pose a risk to any Char B1. But this matters little to us today—we are discussing the *legend* of the tank, and mythical stories such as this are key to understanding that legend. But these stories raise some questions. If the Char B1 was so great, and potentially "the real Tiger," why are incidents like this exceptions to the norm, and not the norm itself? If the Char B1 was capable of such outstanding victories, and the French Army had 369 of them in inventory, in addition to significantly outnumbering the Germans in overall number of tanks—why was the Battle of France such a disastrous loss for the Allies? Why didn't Char B1s drive the Germans back through the Ardennes and back to Berlin itself? In a word: tactics. The French Army did indeed have more tanks, and on paper higher quality tanks than the German Army, but they had absolutely no refined and modern doctrine of Combined Arms Warfare—different military branches all working together in an integrated and efficient hierarchy, and therefore able to act as a sum greater than the total of their parts. This inability to carry out coordinated actions was the real reason that the Char B1 and indeed French tanks more generally completely failed during the Battle of France. Notice how in the two accounts previously discussed we made no reference to supporting infantry or aerial support of the tanks; that was not an omission on the author's part—both tanks were operating essentially on their own, with little communication beyond their own squadron. This left the heroic actions of people such as Captain Billotte and Lieutenant Doumecq and their consequences as amazing openings that were completely unable to be exploited on the strategic level. The problem did not rest just in doctrine, however. Even if the revolutionary will existed within the French military hierarchy to pursue new tactical ideas, the French Army's equipment simply wasn't up to the task. Few French tanks had radios, with the Char B1 coincidentally being one of the few tanks that could be relied upon to have a set. The few radios that were in circulation were of dubious quality; they frequently failed even before they were exposed to the rigours of combat. This left French tank commanders in a position where they were barely able to coordinate themselves even on the tactical level, much less so on the strategic level where they needed to communicate effectively with units of infantry and aerial units. Compare this to German tanks, nearly all of which had modern and reliable radios, and consequently were able to achieve a level of cross-service coordination that the French could only have dreamt of. When problems arose or resistance was encountered, German tank commanders were able to reliably relay the situation to their senior officers and receive revised orders relevant to the developing flow of battle. The occasional time a radio did fail, German tank commanders had the well-established principle of *Auftragstaktik*, mission-type tactics, which kept disruption to a minimum. But does this flawed reality actually matter to our question today? A flawed reality has done little to dampen the legend of the Tiger, so should we view the Char B1 through the same lens? With such parallels, maybe it is *another* Tiger rather than *the* real Tiger? Historians may help us to come to an answer here. They certainly have a wide range of opinions, and both hate and love the Tiger as much as any enthusiast. On the former side we have historians such as Michael Green who firmly believe that the Tiger I was the greatest tank of the war—an all-but-flawless design which wreaked havoc on the battlefield, sowed fear into the enemy, and was a sound investment on the part of the demonetisable Austrian painter that proved to be worth every Reichsmark, with Green dubbing the Tiger "the most potent armoured weapon of the Second World War." On the latter side we have historians such as Christopher Lawrence who stated that many had "already made absurd statements that grossly overrated the Tiger's contribution to battles." But then we also have another position, those who reject such explicit frameworks altogether, a position held by historians such as Anthony Tucker-Jones, who in his book *Tiger I & Tiger II* attempts to rationalise the tank, frankly discussing what it did right, what it did wrong, and putting both in their appropriate context. With that, we finally have all the information we need to answer today's hypothesis. So now, all that is left to do is to decide. ## Verdict Personally, the author veers towards Anthony Tucker-Jones's position, and believes that on one hand the Tiger I probably doesn't deserve all the love it gets, but equally it doesn't deserve all the hate it gets either. Sure, on one hand the exploits of Michael Wittmann were grossly exaggerated for propaganda purposes before entering common legend, resulting in the Tiger I having a *rather* unjustified position in popular imagination. But on the flipside, sure, German kill/loss ratios have been chronically misunderstood by historians, but this does not necessarily mean the Tiger I was an abomination of a tank, and it is probably reasonable enough to say that it was "fine." Not great, not terrible, but "fine," and it performed the role it was intended to fill perfectly adequately. But equally, so did the Char B1—it too was a flawed tank whose capabilities have been grossly exaggerated by a few choice stories, but it was "fine." This, for me, is the answer. The Tiger and the Char B1 parallel each other in so many ways that I can only conclude that the Char B1 is not *the* real Tiger, but it is *another* Tiger. But what if this line of thinking itself is flawed? What if it doesn't actually matter how good or bad a tank was when discussing its legacy? Has the legacy of the Tiger I really been decided by historians like us, who analyse over the minute details of a story and come up with these nuanced frameworks regarding legacy to contextualise tanks? Or has it been decided by the millions upon millions of fans it has in the popular history community? The people whose love of the Tiger ensure its inclusion in any big-ticket war movie? The people whose love of the Tiger guarantees that TankFest is booked out every year thanks to Tiger 131? Certainly their input is as valid as our own, or any scholarly input on the topic—we aren't ones to gatekeep history. But they invariably outweigh us by a significant portion, and thus have much more power to dictate what the legacy of a tank actually is in the public zeitgeist. So what do they think? To answer this question the author headed to the pub and made a beeline straight for the middle-aged men who love tanks to see what they thought of the Char B1. The verdict? Most of them hadn't even heard of it, and if they had, it was a cursory knowledge at most. Consequently, according to this perspective the Char B1 is *not* the real Tiger I. The Tiger I is bigger, cooler, meaner, and has been in more war movies than the Char B1; therefore, by the weight of public opinion which dictates legacy, it wins. ## Closing Remarks As we stated at the beginning, our aim today was not to convince you of any particular position on either the Tiger I or the Char B1. Rather, we wanted to encourage you all to have a good think—to think about what *actually* makes a tank good or bad, and what *actually* constitutes a legendary tank, and come to your own positions about both of the tanks we have examined today as well as the way we think about them. It is important to stress that there is no right or wrong answer here; history is far from an objective science, and all of our opinions are moulded by the sources we have been exposed to and our prejudices and experiences that dictate how we interpret them. So long as you have a well-considered view backed up by sources and evidence, you have a valid opinion, and you have every right to shout that view from the rooftops with pride. So then, all that is left to do is to ask you, the reader, a question: Was the Char B1 the real Tiger? ## Key Takeaways - The Char B1, despite criticisms, demonstrated significant combat effectiveness during the Battle of France. - Both the Tiger I and Char B1 have contentious reputations, with historians and enthusiasts divided on their effectiveness. - The Char B1's design, while unconventional, included thick armor and powerful armament that made it formidable in combat. - The French Army's lack of combined arms tactics and reliable communication hindered the Char B1's strategic impact. - Public perception and popular culture significantly influence the legendary status of tanks like the Tiger I. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is the Char B1? The Char B1 is a French tank developed between 1921 and 1934, and produced from 1935 to 1940. It is known for its unique design, including a 75mm howitzer mounted in the hull and a small turret with a 47mm cannon. ### What are the main variants of the Char B1? The two main variants of the Char B1 are the 'original' Char B1 and the 'improved' Char B1 bis. ### What were the main drawbacks of the Char B1? The Char B1 had several drawbacks, including a poorly implemented 75mm howitzer with limited traverse, a one-man turret that increased inefficiency, and overworked driver-gunners due to the combined roles of driving and gunning. ### What was the significance of the Char B1's armor? The Char B1 had very thick armor, with 60mm on the original model and 75mm on the improved model. This made it highly resistant to the German Pak 36 anti-tank gun, which could only penetrate up to 64mm of armor. ### What was the Char B1's role in the Battle of France? The Char B1 played a significant role in the Battle of France, particularly in the Battle of Stonne on May 16, 1940. Two Char B1s, named Eure and Riquewihr, achieved notable victories against German forces, destroying multiple tanks and anti-tank guns. ### Why did the Char B1 fail to turn the tide of the Battle of France? Despite its capabilities, the Char B1 failed to turn the tide of the Battle of France due to the French Army's lack of modern Combined Arms Warfare doctrine and unreliable communication equipment, which hindered coordination and strategic exploitation of tactical successes. ### How does the Char B1 compare to the Tiger I? The Char B1 and the Tiger I are both flawed tanks with exaggerated capabilities, but they performed their intended roles adequately. The author suggests that the Char B1 is 'another Tiger' rather than 'the real Tiger,' highlighting their parallels and the influence of public opinion on their legacies. ### What is the author's stance on the Tiger I? The author believes that the Tiger I does not deserve all the love or hate it receives. They suggest that the Tiger I was a 'fine' tank, performing its role adequately, but not deserving of its legendary status. ### What is the public opinion on the Char B1? According to the author's informal survey, most middle-aged tank enthusiasts had not heard of the Char B1 or had only cursory knowledge of it. Therefore, by public opinion, the Char B1 is not considered the real Tiger I. ### What is the author's conclusion about the Char B1 and the Tiger I? The author concludes that the Char B1 is not 'the real Tiger' but 'another Tiger,' highlighting the parallels between the two tanks and the influence of public opinion on their legacies. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: The Char B1: The 'Real' Tiger Tank?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcyamkf06Xk) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/URN_NBN_no-nb_digifoto_AE0000029882_0015_F_01_Goebbels_in_Nazi_occupied_Norway_1940-11-29_WW2_German_cruiser_Bl%C3%BCcher_memorial_Askholmene_Oslofjorden_General_Engelbrecht_Korvettenkapit%C3%A4n_Ruhfus_G_W_Mueller._Ottar_Gladtvet_Nasjonalbib.jpg) by The photo is tagged as Public domain by the National Library of Norway. / openverse, by-sa. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/china-building-worlds-largest-dam https://megaprojects.pub/article/china-building-worlds-largest-dam Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Deep in the heart of Tibet the world is on the precipice of greatness, breaking new boundaries in size and scale for infrastructure that has never been seen before. China is building one hell of a dam. We're talking billions of cubic metres of water, tonnes upon tonnes of concrete, and the largest hydropower station ever built, capable of providing power to literal hundreds of millions of homes. If you forgive the pun, it promises to blow everything to ever come before it out of the water. But building something so massive comes with a whole host of challenges that are equally massive. How is it going to be built? Will it be able to manage natural disasters in a region known for its earthquakes? And what is the real reason that China wants to build it? ## Giving a Dam So, the biggest dam in the entire world, eh? China better have a good place to build it. And as luck would have it, they do! Deep in the West of China in the Tibet Autonomous Region and near the Indian border of the semi-disputed region of Arunachal Pradesh, there is a river known as the Yarlung Tsangpo, this is in the county of Medog (in Chinese it's called Mutuo) in Nyingtri prefecture. The Yarlung Tsangpo river exists in a very steep canyon, in fact it is the biggest canyon in the entire world, being three times deeper, and 37 miles longer than the United States' Grand Canyon. And this river simply has enormously high potential for immense hydropower generation. In one section alone, the river falls a full 2,000 metres (or 6,000 feet) in just 50 kilometres (or just over 31 miles) creating massive rapids and torrents of water that could turn turbines at high speeds until the cows come home. Within the canyon, the river makes a sharp horseshoe turn known as the Great Bend, and it is right here, right on the border with India, that the world's largest dam is being planned to be built. Back in 2020, it was announced that the project was being considered, and in 2024 it gained approval from the Chinese government to go ahead. So, for now it's still in the planning stages, but given China's track record of building huge infrastructure projects it would take something pretty spectacular for Beijing to change its mind. There will be a dam here. Ok, so what do we know about it? Well… actually… not a whole lot. We know that it's definitely been approved, and we also know how much energy China plans to generate with it, around 60 Gigawatts of power. That's hard to quantify so let's use a concept we all can understand, toast! A Watt, is one unit of electrical energy, a gigawatt is equal to one billion watts. A toaster depending on the make, model, and year it was made uses between 800 and 1500 watts to turn your boring old bread into delicious crunchy toast. Let's split the difference and call it 1,150 watts. That means that potentially, when completed, the Medog dam will be capable of powering over 52 million toasters at the same time. That's a lot of toast. We also know how much it is going to cost, at least according to rough estimates by the Chinese government for a project that hasn't even broken ground yet. One Trillion Chinese Yuan. Yes. Trillion. With a T. In dollars that equates to around $127 billion USD according to estimates by the Chongyi Water Resources. For that money you could buy the 52 million toasters to test the power output and still have some change left over for a plate and some eggs. That is an awful lot of money though for a single dam. By comparison, the current largest dam in the world, the famous Three Gorges Dam that sits on the Yangtze River, cost the equivalent of about $34 billion dollars by the time it was fully completed in 2012. That's over three and a half times cheaper. Ok, sure, but why is it going to be so expensive? Well, it is going to be the world's largest dam for a start, planning to completely dwarf the output of China's current world record holder. A bigger dam typically means greater expense. The amount of money that will need to be spent on equipment and manhours alone for this project will likely be extortionate; that's without even thinking about the sheer cost of the steel and concrete that will be required to build it. And that's also before a single generator gets put in or it gets hooked up to the grid. All those wires and piping cost money too you know. But the process to build a dam here is also part of why the Medog dam is going to be so pricey. This region of Tibet is pretty remote, because its basically on top of the world. The terrain is difficult to work in, especially at this altitude and there are a lot of geological problems that a project like this will need to overcome… but we'll get to that later. We also know the process of building the dam in and of itself will be expensive. When dams are built, the river water has to go somewhere, because it's really hard to hold soggy blueprints, and it's even harder to pour concrete when you're actively drowning. So, what can you do? Well, you have to divert the flow of the river, which is no mean feat, especially for Tibet's longest river, a process that is essentially China sticking its tongue out at mother nature. Diversion tunnels or channels have to be bored through the rock in order to get the river's flow out of the way. In the Medog dam's case, there needs to be four 20-kilometre-long tunnels drilled through the Namcha Barwa mountain and then be reconnected further downriver to handle all of the water. Diversion tunnels are often lined with concrete, so add that to the cost, and they're usually absolutely huge as well because they have a lot of water to handle, and one of those collapsing mid-construction would be very bad news for everyone involved. After this the bed of the river is usually excavated down to solid bedrock, and then the concrete can start to be poured and the dam built. Following this, the important stuff gets added in like spillways, intake towers, transmission lines, and of course, the turbines themselves which are carefully engineered hulking behemoths in their own right. After that the dam's reservoir is allowed to slowly fill back up again over the course of years or sometimes even decades, and voila! You have a functioning hydropower station. But it's fair to say that with this one being planned to be the largest on the entire planet, every step will need to be meticulously delivered by scores of engineers all perfectly working together in harmony. And it also remains to be seen whether the sheer size of this one will require alternative techniques to build it. That certainly isn't easy, but this is China we're talking about, if anyone can deliver a megaproject on this scale, it is Beijing. ## Unlimited Power So, obviously building this dam is an enormous undertaking the likes of which has never been seen on earth before. So there has to be a good reason to spend a trillion Yuan on it. And if you ask Beijing, there definitely is. For starters, it is estimated that the Medog hydropower station could generate at least three times more energy than the world famous Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze, with more ambitious numbers gauging that it could generate as much as five times the power at its peak. That's an awful lot of electricity, but China needs it, especially as its industrial capabilities continue to grow and its technological advancements get more and more complex. The Three Gorges Dam currently generates the most hydroelectric power of any dam in the world today, supplying electricity for between 70 and 80 million Chinese homes every year. So even by the most conservative estimates, that would equate to roughly the ability to power 210 million Chinese homes every year. China itself, with its 1.4 billion population, has around 474 million households as of 2021 according to Global Data, meaning that if accurate, even on the low end this dam could generate electricity for almost half the homes in China over the course of a year. That wouldn't be all at once of course like with our toaster example, but whichever way you look at it, that is astonishing. And obviously a lot of that electricity won't be used just for households, but it speaks to the sheer scale of China's clean energy revolution. It's also worth noting that the Yarlung Tsangpo river does change a lot seasonally with regards to water flow so it's unlikely to be able to be at that maximum capacity all the time, but that's really splitting hairs over what a staggering achievement this could end up being. For Beijing it's "go big or go home" every time when it comes to infrastructure. And with the Medog Dam potentially generating around 300 billion kilowatt-hours of energy per year, it's safe to say they've chosen the "go big" option once again. The Medog dam would also allow China to make significant strides towards its clean energy goals, especially those of reaching a peak in carbon emissions by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2060… if we're not all already underwater by then anyway. Whilst China is currently the largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world, it has been slowly transitioning to green energy, especially through the use of hydropower. Because of all the dams on rivers, China is single-handedly driving down the global use of coal. And no matter which way you shake it, that's a lot better for the planet. China also, to its credit, leads the world in green energy development, having invested the equivalent of $890 billion dollars in renewables in 2023 alone. Chinese state media has described the dam's development as "a safe project that prioritises ecological protection," as well as claiming that it will increase prosperity in the region through the arrival of infrastructure, money, and jobs. And as we all know the Chinese government would never lie about its infrastructure projects effects on the environment. But if you take it at face value, that's another potential positive. But the economic benefits may certainly be true, the Chinese economy's growth has slowed quite a lot since the pandemic (slow for China at least) and a big infrastructure project like this is just what the doctor ordered to give the economy a much-needed shot in the arm. Such a massive infrastructure project will create tens of thousands of jobs in various roles from construction workers and civil engineers all the way to hiring managers and administrators. In theory that will even help lift up the local prosperity of the region too with more money circulating through the local economy. The dam's reservoir of fresh water will help alleviate water shortages for people living across the Tibetan plateau too, especially as the locals rely on glacier melt for their water, which climate change is heavily disrupting. But it's not all sunshine and helping each other, China certainly has its practical reasons for building such massive infrastructure in Tibet. A positive from the perspective of Beijing will be that these enormous projects symbolise the power of the state, and is an ever-present massive concrete boot on the neck of Tibetans, who have opposed this kind of infrastructure before. When another dam was announced as going ahead in 2024 in Sichuan on the Jinsha river, it saw protests from the locals, and the Chinese state responded with beatings and arrests. The message is clear, Tibet is Chinese, and they have the massive dams to prove it. It's not just water and concrete; it's a gigantic statement of intent and a symbol of Beijing's power over a region which has resisted it since it was captured back in the 50s. The state will do as it wills, and the Tibetans will suffer what they must. ## Shake, Rattle, and Roll And that leads us nicely into the cons and critiques of this huge project. Because despite the many positive aspects of its creation for Beijing, especially in terms of raw power output, building something this large, and building it here specifically, poses a unique set of challenges and factors that the Chinese government will need to take into account. For starters, this project is going to be an extremely complex one to complete, even for a country like China and its civil engineering prowess. This is the deepest canyon in the world, travelling 500 metres down in some areas. It has no major highways currently connecting it to the rest of the country in any meaningful capacity like would be needed to set up a project this large, so that all needs to be built through high-altitude terrain. There are a lot of technical challenges to building a dam this size in a canyon full of water this deep, meaning it will likely take at least a decade if not longer to complete because of the geographic isolation of the Tibetan plateau making it costly and difficult. And that's even with China building it, the people capable of knocking up a bridge in an afternoon just for a laugh. Sure, if anyone can do it, it's the Chinese, but that doesn't mean it will be easy. However, it's not just the inhospitable geography that makes it challenging to build the Medog dam here. You see, this part of the Tibetan plateau is located on a fault line where the Eurasian tectonic plate meets the Indian plate, these two plates are currently pushing against each other and forcing the land upwards, which is what created the Himalayas and the very high altitudes in this part of the world. These plates are also pretty active and still continue to push against one another, as a result mountains like Mount Everest actually get taller by a few millimetres every year. But because of these active plates, this region is extremely prone to earthquakes, which threatens to cause a total disaster once the dam is built. Imagine for a minute that this dam isn't just an idea or a plan, but a completed piece of infrastructure, and one day a massive quake causes structural failures in to occur within it. The massive reservoir of water it was holding back overpowers the weakened structure and it breaks, cascading a torrent of water downstream, flooding and destroying everything in its path. See the issue now? This isn't just a hypothetical, this is a very real possibility that the Chinese engineers are going to have to overcome. But it's not even necessarily a potential earthquake that could damage the dam, it's the possibility of major landslides as a result of mud and rock shaken loose by the earthquake. The Himalayas are regularly hit by earthquakes, landslides, and avalanches and all of these kinds of events threaten the safety of dams even without the possibility of destroying them completely. Earlier this year in January of 2025, a magnitude 7.1 earthquake struck near the city of Shigatse, a Tibetan city that the Yarlung Tsangpo flows directly past to the North. 126 people were confirmed dead, 188 more were injured, and thousands of homes were destroyed. On top of that, cracks appeared on five of the 14 hydropower stations in Tibet, that's over a third. Three of them had to be completely emptied for repairs and to stop a catastrophic tidal wave crashing down stream. Meanwhile in March of 2021, a glacier collapse led to a huge landslide that blocked the Yarlung Tsangpo River with over 100 million tonnes of rock and ice. This caused water levels to rise over 10 metres in the river downstream, that's 30 feet, more than three storeys. Meanwhile back in October of 2018, debris from glacier-based landslides temporarily blocked the river and flooded the valley nearby as a result. Thankfully, in both situations, swift emergency evacuations prevented any deaths, but the floods caused a lot of damage to surrounding infrastructure. A hydropower station is a very complex piece of equipment, and the future Medog one getting flooded, damaged, or buried in debris would be a real issue and very expensive to fix, it simply adds a lot to the level of risk this part of the world already faces geologically. The massive construction and excavation efforts have also been touted as potential factors by Chinese researchers as a risk because it could increase the prevalence of landslides, as natural defences will be torn away. In 2022, a senior engineer from the Sichuan provincial geological bureau agreed, stating: "Earthquake-induced landslides and mud-rock flows are often uncontrollable and will also pose a huge threat to the project." The reality is, China can have all the contingencies and the best engineers and building plans in the world, but there's only so much humans can control the unpredictable wrath of mother nature. You can stick your tongue out at her, but she'll do a lot more than that in return. ## Hydro-Hegemony For being so complex and seismically risky, you would expect a hydropower station this large to serve a massive population centre, or other huge industrial projects in the region that need the extra juice. But Medog has a population of 15,000 people, a far cry from the tens of millions in other regions around the country. Tibet is generally pretty sparsely populated and does not need a lot of energy to function, nor are there enormous agricultural or industrial projects that would need the water or electricity nearby. The closest might be the massive agricultural lands and farms for growing cotton in Xinjiang, where the similarly oppressed Uighur population resides, but that's over 1,000 kilometres away as the crow flies. The dams capacity would also greatly exceed what other neighbouring provinces require to function, build, and grow. Nearby the regions of Sichuan and Yunnan have many hydropower plants, producing more energy than they need, so routing the power or water to them doesn't appear overly sensible when they have equivalent sources closer to home. Perhaps the region of Qinghai to the North could use it, but there's nothing to indicate that's the plan right now. Not to mention, sending that electricity and water hundreds or even thousands of kilometres to other parts of China is really inefficient and expensive. So, that leaves a bit of a funny question that needs to be asked. What is this dam actually for? In theory building this dam makes sense especially because of how much power it can generate, but building it here of all places doesn't. It appears indicative of strategic ambitions for the region as a whole, or it could have an international element to it, rather than it being about producing electricity. It might be that the Chinese government are intent on industrialising the region to bring it more in line with the rest of the country, but that would be a diversion from their strategy around Tibet thus far. It could be that China is planning to sell the access to fresh water or electricity to other countries, that would at least make use of the surplus and it being on the border, but that would likely require a lengthy negotiation process and regional powers could be sceptical of buying precious resources from China when they control the flow of them. It would also require the same massive transfer of energy and water long distances. It could also be that China are using the power and water for something specific that they are planning to build later, like a massive server farm for a powerful artificial intelligence. AI needs a tremendous amount of water and power to work, and cryptocurrency mining, or quantum computing would also be utilised this way, but does China want to put that kind of infrastructure within a dissident region, or on the doorstep of foreign powers? That's the CCP's judgement call to make but it doesn't appear very wise from a geopolitical standpoint. Other infrastructural agricultural projects could be built here on the plateau, but the landscape doesn't really lend itself to those kind of projects, whilst battery storage farms have that same issue of transferring the energy elsewhere even after its stored. So, what gives? What are they building this enormous dam with all of its energy generating capacity for? Officially, the state says its simply for clean energy and to promote prosperity of the region, but unofficially? Your guess is as good as ours here. China isn't exactly forthcoming when it comes to information about their massive strategic infrastructure projects, but that in of itself gives us a clue. Because the lack of information is likely to have other countries tugging at their collars, here's why. The glaciers of the Tibetan plateau are called many things, some refer to the area as "The Third Pole" because of the sheer amount of ice found at this altitude, but we prefer it's other name: the world's water tower. In taking control over Tibet's waterways, China becomes the upstream controller of seven of South Asia's largest rivers. The Indus, the Ganges, the Brahmaputra, the Irrawaddy, the Salween, the Yangtze, and the Mekong all originate right here before cascading down throughout South and Southeast Asia to provide life, food, and livelihoods for tens, if not hundreds of millions of people. And that is significant. The rivers that originate here, not just the seven largest, flow into Pakistan, Nepal, India, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Laos, and Cambodia. There is over 700 billion cubic metres of fresh surface water actively flowing out of Tibet, providing the largest river run-off of any location in the entire world. We're talking hundreds of millions of people, possibly over a billion individuals who rely on water to survive that starts right here. We'll give you two guesses as to why that might be advantageous to the Chinese Communist Party. Having control of the origins of these rivers fuelled by the glacial melt on the Tibetan plateau, gives Beijing an awful lot of power over what happens downriver in these other countries. This is called "hydro-hegemony" and it's a very strong position for China to be in. Say a country like Bangladesh does something that Beijing doesn't like; millions of people could find the river that keeps their people alive dammed, polluted, or diverted. Take the Mekong for example, there are 12 Chinese mega-dams built on the river and plans for a 13th. And China has largely operated them under the guise of self-interest over international cooperation. China doesn't even necessarily have to build anything new or embark on mass infrastructure projects to turn the screw on other countries. At present, countries that share these rivers with China also trade data on those rivers with Beijing, but if China chooses to, they can simply withhold upstream data which can cause major issues if there are trends that countries downstream can't see coming like advanced seasonal surge warnings for example. 48% of that over 700 billion cubic metres of water runs directly into India, and the Yarlung Tsangpo is no different, flowing through the Indian-administered, but Chinese-contested region of Arunachal Pradesh. And let's just say India and China haven't been getting along well lately between border clashes in contested regions and India's continuous rivalry with Chinese ally, Pakistan. The Medog dam on the Yarlung Tsangpo is one of the major tributaries that feeds the mighty Brahmaputra, and there suddenly being the biggest dam on earth there that can control the flow of water that over 100 million people rely on means that if push comes to shove, China has both India and Bangladesh in a stranglehold. Bangladesh is simply a casualty of war in this larger battle over control for South Asia, India is Beijing's real priority here. Especially with India starting to do the same kind of thing to Pakistan, even in spite of the Indus water treaty, it could compel China to do the same to New Delhi in return. And China does have a history of doing this, in 2020 after clashes between Chinese and Indian forces in the Galwan Valley, a part of the ever-contested region of Kashmir near the de facto Chinese line of control, China chose to limit the flow of the Galwan River, a tributary of the Indus which originates in the Chinese-administered Kashmiri region of Aksai Chin. They did this by blocking the flow of the river through dredging, whilst also diverting its flow. The same could happen to the Brahmaputra, especially with the enormous dam that China now wants to build upriver. This threatens to do more than just dry up the riverbed though, millions could be cut off from the fresh drinking water and fish that they would need to live, India could struggle to irrigate its crops leading to regional food scarcity in an already poor part of the world, and India's own dams could struggle to generate hydropower of their own. Meanwhile, sediment trapped by the dam can diminish soil fertility and accelerate erosion. In short, if they chose to, such a dam could cause an ecological disaster for both India and Bangladesh, and there's not a whole lot they'd be able to do about it. Shortly after China announced its plans for the Yarlung Tsangpo dam project in 2020, a senior Indian government official told Reuters that India's government was exploring the development of a large hydropower dam and reservoir "to mitigate the adverse impact of the Chinese dam projects". But this would likely not be able to totally offset China's dam by itself. It is a difficult position for New Delhi. China responded to India's concerns about the proposed dam in 2020 that China was well within its rights to dam a river controlled by its own territory, and that it had "considered downstream impacts." But that's like me saying that I have considered the impacts of punching you in the face, I could still do it anyway, but at least I considered them. ## Into the Unknown One of the most concerning things about the Medog dam project is how much we don't know. As we mentioned China aren't exactly giving their information away like Halloween candy, and so we have some pretty sizeable gaps when it comes to the effects the dam could have on the local people, flora, and fauna that live there. In terms of people, it's possible for the construction of a dam this large could displace local communities who often do not have a choice over being forced to move. What's concerning is that this is an ongoing theme for China in general. The Three Gorges Dam required the resettlement of 1.4 million people, and whilst the area around the Yarlung Tsangpo River is far less populated than that, people are still going to lose their homes. In Tibet alone over 120,000 people have already been displaced, and whilst China has done this across their nation, acts like this always look more sinister when done in places like Tibet, where opposition to Chinese rule is significant. Other dams built on the Tibetan plateau have ended up submerging ancient monasteries with sacred Buddhists relics and murals still inside them, ruining religious and cultural artifacts for the majority Buddhist Tibet. The potential loss of livelihoods, cultural heritage, and social cohesion could result in Tibetans becoming even more marginalised. But it's unknown whether for Beijing, this is more of a bug or an intended feature given the government's attitudes towards Tibet historically. For the government's part, whenever it has moved people from Tibet in the past it has stated that locals were compensated whilst ancient murals were moved to safety. However, it's hard to know whether that's really true as this would represent a change from the norm for the CCP, who don't care for religion or non-homogeneity, and it goes against reports from reputable news sources about Buddhist relics and monasteries being lost to the water. It's also worth pointing out that there are other ethnic minorities living in Tibet that are not Tibetan, in fact the word "Tibetan" can be used to describe several connected ethnic groups that live in the region, like Sherpas for example. They too may end up being moved by Beijing, and their cultural heritage could be lost as well. In terms of the wildlife, the Tibetan Plateau has a lot of unique local ecosystems that exist in the area where the dam will be built, which equate to some of the richest and most diverse on the entire Tibetan Plateau. The significant excavation, construction, and water diversion is likely to affect the flora and fauna in the area, which include plenty of endangered species like snow leopards and Tibetan antelopes for example. It affects the water-based species arguably even more, seeing as the natural river will be altered with the large reservoir of the dam. Downstream fish lose nutrients from the sediment that they would have used for food but is now trapped in the reservoir. Spawning grounds for some fish species and even insects can also be affected, fundamentally affecting the food chain and causing ecosystems over time to deteriorate and eventually collapse. Case studies from the Lancang-Mekong River reveal that the large dams along it reduced sediment flow by over 50 percent. This kind of decrease leads to less biodiversity and lower fish populations, and when so many people downstream of some rivers rely on those fish for food, that can become a problem. Ecosystems are fragile things, and destabilising with them with massive infrastructure building has yet to work out well for native species. Manshi Asher, a climate activist, and researcher based in North India, told Radio Free Asia when discussing the prevalence of this phenomenon: "As far as hydropower projects in the Himalaya are concerned, there is already substantial evidence of their negative impacts." So, there are an awful lot of downsides, or at the very least more negative consequences of building the Medog dam. But for China, it's likely that these impacts haven't just been considered, but likely acted upon because they work towards China's interests. Having another tool to potentially harm India with is strategically valuable for Beijing, whilst local Tibetan Buddhist populations getting more disconnected from their holy sites is likely a feature of building the Medog dam in an ongoing campaign to bring Tibet in line. Meanwhile China has never been one to let a few ecosystems get in the way of some top-quality infrastructure. Only the effects of natural disasters will have been seen to have any tangible effect on the Chinese state itself, and China either trusts their engineers to complete another ambitious project that can overcome these issues, or they see some natural disasters as the cost of doing business in this regard, and its in a remote dissident region anyway. No matter which way you shake it, for Beijing the upsides absolutely outweigh the downsides when it comes to the power generation. Especially when you consider that, just like with this video, the world will be watching, eager to ask China for help with their own projects as a result. ## What Comes Next? So how far are we in the process of the dam being built? What does the timeline look like? And how might it affect things for years to come? Well, the project's construction is yet to begin. It's been approved but surveys of the grounds will have to be done to find the exact right place to build before plans are properly drawn up and shovels break ground. Although we do know that it is likely to be built on the great bend itself. It's due to start being built around 2029, and is expected to enter into commercial operation by 2033. What that does do is give China, Tibet, and the surrounding regions in other countries time to work out the kinks with construction, as well as assuage any potential political or geographic challenges. Considering it was first proposed back in 2020, and given how quickly China can finish massive infrastructure projects, a 13-year gap from initial planning to commercial operation is a testament to the sheer scale of this one. Your classic five-year-plan this is not. With a timeline like that, the Medog dam won't immediately be able to offer solutions to China's existing and ever-growing power needs, if the plan is to use it for domestic power consumption, that is. What it will do is buoy the local area with a limited economic boost to investment through its construction. China's reassurances on all fronts, to the Tibetans, to the Indians, and to the Bengalis is unlikely to allay regional concerns over the impact this dam will have on their communities, landscape, and wildlife, especially because of China's dam-building track record in South Asia. It will likely be another thing to ratchet up the tension in the ever-expanding feud between India and China too, and whilst there's a lot of time for things to get better in that regard, there's also a lot of time for things to get significantly worse. Unease could turn into turn as water becomes scarcer, with disastrous consequences for millions of people. It is highly unlikely that India would be able to deter the Chinese from building the dam because of the strained relations between both countries, it would be taking away a tool that Beijing can use to hurt a country that is directly opposing its control for South Asia, why would they turn that down? There will be a resumption in talks around bilateral water rights and hydro-politics, with the last talks being in 2019 prior to clashes between the nations in Galwan. There is the potential for the relationship to be reset on this front, but I wouldn't hold your breath. Bangladesh will be forced to move even more carefully than India, it's relationship between China and India is complicated, and it doesn't have the power or capital to reasonably change either nation's mind. Sandwiched between superpowers, and likely unable to appease both at the same time, the underdeveloped nation's position is unenviable to say the least. And the final thing to think about is the future, especially in regards to our changing planet. The Tibetan Plateau is often referred to as the "third Pole" due to the sheer amount of ice in its high-altitude glacial permafrost, but this too is under threat. The Tibetan Plateau is warming at twice the global average rate, resulting in the rapid melting of these glaciers. This could cause a cascading disaster. As the ancient ice melts, methane trapped within it is released into the atmosphere, spurring on further warming in a vicious cycle. But it's not just about the loss of these glaciers. That melting ice will destabilise seasonal river flows, increase sedimentation in dam reservoirs, and cause greater natural disasters through things like landslides. Environmentalist and geological expert, Fan Xiao put it best when they said: "In view of the immense negative impact on the ecological and social environments in the Yarlung Tsangpo Great Bend, and the southeastern Tibetan region, it becomes clear that pursuing hydropower development in this area may not be worth the cost." But I'm not sure Beijing are going to listen. All we can say about that… is damn. ## Key Takeaways - China is constructing the world's largest dam in Tibet, aiming to generate 60 gigawatts of power. - The Medog dam's location in a seismically active region poses significant risks, including earthquakes and landslides. - The dam's strategic placement near the Indian border raises geopolitical concerns, particularly for India and Bangladesh. - Construction challenges include remote terrain, high altitude, and the need for extensive river diversion tunnels. - The project is expected to displace local communities and impact unique ecosystems and endangered species. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### Where is the world's largest dam being built? The world's largest dam is being built in the Tibet Autonomous Region, near the Indian border of the semi-disputed region of Arunachal Pradesh, on the Yarlung Tsangpo river. ### What is the estimated power generation capacity of the Medog dam? The Medog dam is estimated to generate around 60 Gigawatts of power, which is enough to power over 52 million toasters simultaneously. ### How much will the Medog dam cost to build? The estimated cost of the Medog dam is approximately one trillion Chinese Yuan, which is roughly $127 billion USD. ### What are the main challenges in building the Medog dam? The main challenges include the remote and high-altitude location, the need to divert the river through four 20-kilometre-long tunnels, and the region's susceptibility to earthquakes and landslides. ### What are the potential environmental impacts of the Medog dam? The dam could displace local communities, submerge ancient monasteries, affect local ecosystems, and reduce sediment flow, impacting downstream fish populations and ecosystems. ### What are the strategic implications of the Medog dam for China? The dam gives China control over the origins of several major rivers in South Asia, providing it with hydro-hegemony and potential leverage over countries like India and Bangladesh. ### How does the Medog dam fit into China's clean energy goals? The dam is part of China's efforts to reach a peak in carbon emissions by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2060, by generating a significant amount of hydropower. ### What is the timeline for the construction of the Medog dam? The construction is expected to begin around 2029 and enter into commercial operation by 2033. ### What are the potential geopolitical tensions related to the Medog dam? The dam could increase tensions between China and India, as well as affect Bangladesh, due to China's control over the water flow of major rivers in the region. ### What are the potential economic benefits of the Medog dam for China? The dam is expected to create tens of thousands of jobs, boost the local economy, and provide a significant amount of clean energy, supporting China's industrial and technological growth. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: China Is Building the World's Largest Dam](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9g8qPm7ePg) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Potala_Palace_Lhasa_Tibet_Autonomous_Region_China_%E8%A5%BF%E8%97%8F_%E6%8B%89%E8%90%A8_%E5%B8%83%E8%BE%BE%E6%8B%89%E5%AE%AB_-_panoramio_%283%29.jpg) by Hiroki Ogawa / openverse, by. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/china-water-based-battery-hype https://megaprojects.pub/article/china-water-based-battery-hype Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Change the fundamentals, and you'll change the world. In a megaproject-obsessed modern era, the ultra-tall skyscraper concept art, the flying cars that never actually arrive, and, yes, the hundreds-of-kilometers-long linear skyscraper city in the Saudi Arabian desert, seem to get all the headlines. But it's the more down-to-earth sort of inventing that really makes the world go round, the sort of inventing that lets you play slide-shows really fast as if you've made a moving picture, or that makes a cooking box filled with special energy that lets you have hot food anytime you want. If you think faster-than-light travel is cool, just imagine how much *less* cool your life would be without the flush-toilet or beer you can keep in a can. It's improvement on the basics that makes this whole world work, today just as much as ever. In the 21st century, few fundamental improvements have more potential to make a change, than figuring out how to improve the battery—and in 2024, a team of scientists out of China announced that they'd made a breakthrough. According to their research, a revolutionary water-based battery has the potential to turn the world upside-down, and open the door to an entirely new way of thinking about energy itself. Today on Megaprojects, we're going to ask three key questions about this purported new battery: How does it work, why is it important, and most important of all…is it any good? ## The Importance of Better Batteries Now, before we get into the new battery technology on the horizon, we're going to take a brief moment to review the basics: What are batteries like now, and how do they work? We'll spare you the in-depth explanation, although the battery nerds in the comments section would be happy to oblige if you'd like to know more, but the *basics* behind the technology go as follows. The vast majority of rechargeable batteries today are lithium-ion batteries, which hold a respectable amount of energy in a package that can be scaled up, for things like cars, scaled down, for things like smartphones, and plugged back in anytime they need some more juice. These batteries use two pockets of stored lithium, referred to as an anode and a cathode, and send positively charged lithium ions from the anode to the cathode, and vice versa, by traveling through a separator—which, you can probably guess, keep the anode and the cathode separate. The movement of lithium ions causes them to basically jettison off a bunch of electrons; those so-called "free electrons" are what creates an electric charge, and that charge is then used to power all the stuff that makes the world go. Simple enough. Lithium-ion batteries are all well and good, but humanity has been pushing against their outer bounds for years now. To put it simply…they can't hold enough energy. They're still improving, year over year, but in small and incremental improvements that aren't likely to change the game anytime soon. That's a problem, because the *rest* of human technological progress is very much prepared to start changing the game, in all manner of ways. We've got the technology to make crazy electric cars that could run for incredible durations without ever needing to stop, but lithium-ion batteries can only give them a few hundred miles, kilometers, whichever you prefer, of power before they need a recharge. We've got the technology to fly internet-repeater drones over the entire world indefinitely, and bring internet access to every person on Earth…but lithium-ion batteries can only keep them flying for so long. We've got the technology to build all sorts of implanted medical devices…but only if a person is willing to either have it scooped out every so often for a battery change, or get the kinds of body modifications that would put a Lightning charge port in their belly button. And we have the requisite technology to harvest incredible amounts of energy from the Sun, the air, the Earth, and the atom…but not nearly enough ability to store that energy for the long term. To put it simply, lithium-ion batteries are becoming a bottleneck to all manner of technological innovation, in fields where we have all we need to be successful…but just can't store energy to the extent that's required. Not only that, but lithium-ion batteries have also got a number of intrinsic problems. They're prone to overheating, and cause some nasty fires and toxic gases when they experience uncontrolled failure. They rely on materials like cobalt and nickel, elements that are extracted from the Earth at great expense to local environments, and there are multiple wars being fought over each of those elements as we speak. Go check out our sister channel Warographics, if you'd like to learn more. Nor can they be recycled, meaning that making more lithium-ion batteries is functionally the same thing as making more landfill space. And new research also suggests that they leave behind quite a lot of so-called "forever chemicals"—or, to move past the buzzword, they contain a whole lot of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances that are very, very hard to get rid of, lead to lots of health problems in humans and animals, and are, as it turns out, basically everywhere. Reassuring stuff. There *are* alternatives to lithium-ion batteries today, but they've all got their own issues, from being far harder to miniaturize, to being more volatile and unstable, to not being as easily rechargeable or not being rechargeable at all…that kind of thing. There are ongoing efforts to see if those batteries can transfer over, and fill some of the needs that lithium-ion batteries aren't sufficient for. At the same time, there are efforts to get lithium-ion batteries to be a little more efficient, year-over-year, and make incremental progress toward some of these broader worldwide goals. But if humanity is going to get to the places where it seems to be headed, it'll have to be some other piece of technology, not the lithium-ion battery, that gets it there…and that means that the race to develop something better, has the potential to be one of the most earth-shaking, and potentially lucrative technological competitions that nobody seems to be talking about. ## Building a Battery It was against that backdrop that in April 2024, the *Nature* publication—via its *Nature Energy* journal—published a study by way of a team of six researchers, working out of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. The study is a rather dense one, and rather than go through all the technical elements, we'll hit you with the biggest takeaway first. Using a water-based design, in a so-called "aqueous battery", the research team created a battery that, in laboratory settings, achieved a performance of 1,200 watt-hours per liter—a unit that basically quantifies how much energy a battery can hold, relative to the mass of the material it uses to store that energy. The figure the research team found, 1,200 watt-hours per liter, is nearly double the performance of modern lithium-ion batteries, at just a measly 700 watt-hours per liter—and that's just the results from this early study in lab settings, well before the minds and money of global industry get involved. The battery works by relying on a water-based solution using ions of two other elements: iodide, an ion of iodine, and bromine, an ion of bromine. By mixing the two ions with water in an acidic solution, the scientists were able to prompt a chemical reaction that turned the iodide into iodine, and then into another ion, iodate. Adding bromide to that process formed what's called a mixed-halogen electrolyte, basically a solution that takes the number of free electrons found in typical lithium-ion batteries, and boosts that number through the roof. Using specially built anodes that were made from the elements cadmium and vanadium, the research team was able to construct full batteries that were more energy-efficient than lithium-ion ones, and, perhaps just as important, were already suspected to be cost-competitive, meaning that even if they were a little more expensive than lithium-ion batteries, people would still be paying roughly the same or less per unit of energy storage. And not only that, but these batteries can *last*, too: per the research team, their battery can last over a thousand cycles of charge and discharge. By contrast, the battery of the standard iPhone 14 is designed to last just half that, 500 complete charge cycles, under ideal conditions…while losing up to 20 percent of its capacity over that time. Even before this particular study was published, the idea of aqueous batteries wasn't anything new. Water-based batteries have been understood decently well for some time, and they're widely considered to be much safer than lithium-ion varieties. They've got their own problems, however, particularly the fact that they operate in a pretty narrow voltage window—meaning that they can't really operate at too high a voltage without degrading over time. They're also not very energy-dense, meaning that even if they're safer and more stable, you can't actually store that much energy in them. Those aqueous batteries, however, typically only use iodine ions—and here, it's the addition of bromine ions that made all the difference. Bromide caused the critical, energy-generating chemical reaction to happen more, and faster, but it also stopped byproducts from forming—and specifically, stopped the formation of the byproducts that degrade these very same batteries over time. With that single tweak, the batteries became far more energy-efficient and saw a considerable rise in their storage capacity, while also addressing all the issues that aqueous batteries usually suffer from, and not losing out on any of their advantages. To put it simply, this new design is reported to offer improvements over lithium-ion batteries in every metric—and if those improvements can be shown in the real world, then the entire way the world works, could shift on a dime. ## What Does This Mean? When we turn to the actual implications of these aqueous batteries, it's important to begin with caveats…in a few different directions. First, there are the more pessimistic elements we've got to acknowledge: not only are these batteries just a laboratory finding, but at least to our knowledge here on Megaprojects, they have yet to be reproduced and verified by other researchers from other institutions. That sort of external validation is very, *very* important before we take *any* groundbreaking scientific discovery seriously, and at least for the time being, it's lacking here. But, that being said, these are the sorts of results that will likely get other organizations carrying out reproducibility studies fairly quickly, and that brings us to a far more positive caveat. If this design really does work, then it'll very quickly be seized on by global industry, working to create similar batteries or even improve on it—and there's no telling how massive those improvements might eventually become. Every mega-corporation, every industrial sector, and every scientific initiative that can benefit from better batteries, are going to be *very* interested in these designs if they can be shown to be reliable. As for whether this research itself is reliable, it'll come down to reproduction studies to show either way. While the study is likely to raise the hackles of skeptics mistrusting the close links between China's science and academia, and the political aims of the Chinese Communist Party, the truth of the matter is that China now produces more high-quality scientific research than anywhere else on Earth. Close links to the state *do* mean political advantage in seizing on optimistic or seemingly groundbreaking findings, but they also mean a whole lot of money allocated to research in the country—and by a wide range of international metrics, the investment has led to some truly excellent research. The institution that churned out this particular study, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, is among the best of the best regardless of nationality—and this particular study isn't likely to include sweeping false claims or scientific bluffs. The study clearly outlines the process required to create this specific type of aqueous battery, using materials that researchers from any developed nation can get their hands on and try to replicate. Give it a bit of time, and the world is likely to find out quite decisively whether this approach to battery technology is any good. In terms of the technological advancement that could be possible, if these batteries do work as advertised, it's honestly difficult to find ways to overstate it. Handheld devices and personal electronics could become significantly longer-lived, both getting through many more recharges before they begin to degrade internally, and lasting for longer each time they're charged—to the point that carrying charging cords around everywhere, could become just as retro as carrying around a boombox on your shoulder. The electric-car industry would see major improvement, with electric vehicles able to boast a range doubling what most gas-fueled cars can do on a full tank. Grid-scale electrical storage would become far easier, drastically reducing the number and size of batteries necessary to keep reserve power for renewable energies, and thus substantially improving the utility of wind turbines, solar cells, and more. That's just scratching the surface, but it's truly difficult to do justice to all the myriad implications here. Think of an element of everyday life where rechargeable electric batteries are used, and you've thought of a part of life that could be radically improved, if these aqueous batteries can catch on. And all that, with far less risk of overheating or of harmful battery failure, no problem with forever chemicals, far easier and less harmful waste disposal, and so much more. And with a different subset of elements used, these aqueous batteries can lead to major changes around the world, specifically when it comes to competition over precious resources. As we alluded to before, many of the critical materials used in modern electronics can only be found in a few places; cobalt, by example, is highly concentrated in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where war rages and countries have competed for a decade to exploit the resource by any means necessary. Nickel has been implicated as a root cause in major unrest in the French territory of New Caledonia, the one place in the world where Europe and the United States can get the stuff without having to ask potentially hostile nations like Russia and Indonesia, or having to rely on vulnerable nations like the Philippines. Rare-earth elements can be found all over the world, but are produced mostly in China, making them a huge potential flashpoint anytime tensions flare up between China and its adversaries. But iodine, one of the critical materials used to build these sorts of batteries, can be harvested from seaweed all over the world, and it's produced not just in Russia and China, but Western-allied Japan and Chile. Bromine can be extracted from salt lakes all over the world, with the US, China, and nations of the Middle East accounting for the highest shares of production. Cadmium is a relatively abundant heavy metal around the world, and vanadium can be found not just in ore reserves in Russia and China, but all across America's Colorado Plateau, known for the Grand Canyon and a whole range of other national parks. While we certainly wouldn't make the claim that switching to aqueous batteries is a path to world peace, we *do* need to emphasize that reducing reliance on scarce, highly exploited natural resources, however that happens, leads people away from international conflict, not toward it. With the universal importance of battery technology, it's a real, meaningful change to be able to relieve pressure on global mining and resource production, by taking lithium-ion battery production off the board. And there's even greater potential benefit around the world, when we account for the potential for lower-risk, longer-lasting, better-storage batteries to be sent around the world. Energy is a scarce commodity in many parts of the developing world, and certainly, there are a range of problems that simply sending more batteries, won't be enough to solve. But sending *better* batteries certainly doesn't hurt, and sending batteries with double the storage capacity and double the lifespan, makes it easier to do more in developing communities even with power infrastructure lacking. China, in particular, might be able to work these batteries into a broader solution for developing nations—namely, its initiative to build portable nuclear reactors and potentially send them to remote or under-powered regions around the world. Add the capacity for better power storage, and on the one hand, communities can better rely on these reactors despite the fact that they present a single point of failure. On the other hand, it also could become much easier and much less risky to use those reactors as a central generator, and send stored energy into smaller or harder-to-access communities using this same battery technology. That's just one example of a broader reality: that by using better batteries, and batteries with higher storage capacity, it makes more sense for people to harness sources of abundant energy in one place, and send that energy elsewhere. It doesn't make sense to build, say, a hydroelectric dam on a raging river if only a few people live close enough to build power lines…but if that same energy can be stored and shipped a few hundred kilometers in each direction, it can power a hell of a lot more communities than the ones living in proximity to that river. All this, of course, and we're still forced to acknowledge the possibility that perhaps, none of this will work at all. Again, this is one single study, and although there are reasons to be optimistic, there are no guarantees that the technology involved will ever be reproduced. That will take scientific investment, inter-organization and international cooperation, and, unfortunately, time. But if these aqueous batteries *do* function as promised, then we could very well be standing at the edge of a new revolution in energy—and there are a whole lot of technological breakthroughs just waiting to happen, as soon as that energy revolution arrives. ## Key Takeaways - Lithium-ion batteries are a bottleneck for technological innovation due to limited energy storage and environmental issues. - A new water-based battery developed by Chinese scientists shows nearly double the energy density of lithium-ion batteries. - The new battery uses iodide and bromine ions in a water-based solution, improving energy efficiency and longevity. - If validated, this battery technology could revolutionize energy storage, benefiting electric vehicles, grid storage, and more. - Reduced reliance on scarce materials like cobalt and nickel could decrease global conflicts over resources. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is the energy density of the new water-based battery developed by Chinese scientists? The water-based battery achieved an energy density of 1,200 watt-hours per liter in laboratory settings, nearly double the performance of modern lithium-ion batteries, which are at 700 watt-hours per liter. ### How does the new water-based battery work? The battery uses a water-based solution with iodide and bromine ions in an acidic solution. This prompts a chemical reaction that boosts the number of free electrons, making it more energy-efficient. ### What are the key advantages of the new water-based battery over lithium-ion batteries? The new battery offers improvements in energy density, cost-competitiveness, and longevity. It can last over a thousand cycles of charge and discharge, compared to the 500 cycles of a standard iPhone 14 battery. ### What are the potential global implications of adopting this new battery technology? Adopting this technology could reduce reliance on scarce, highly exploited natural resources, potentially leading to less international conflict. It could also improve energy storage and distribution in developing regions. ### What are the main issues with current lithium-ion batteries? Lithium-ion batteries have issues with overheating, toxic gas release upon failure, reliance on environmentally damaging materials like cobalt and nickel, and difficulties with recycling. They also contain harmful 'forever chemicals'. ### What elements are used in the new water-based battery? The battery uses iodide (from iodine), bromine, cadmium, and vanadium. These elements are more abundant and less environmentally damaging than those used in lithium-ion batteries. ### How does the new battery's lifespan compare to current lithium-ion batteries? The new battery can last over a thousand cycles of charge and discharge, whereas a standard iPhone 14 battery is designed to last 500 complete charge cycles under ideal conditions. ### What are the potential benefits of the new battery for electric vehicles? Electric vehicles equipped with this new battery could potentially double their range, making them more competitive with gas-fueled cars. ### What are the potential benefits of the new battery for grid-scale electrical storage? The new battery could make grid-scale electrical storage far easier, reducing the number and size of batteries needed to keep reserve power for renewable energies like wind and solar. ### What are the potential benefits of the new battery for developing regions? The new battery could improve energy storage and distribution in developing regions, making it easier to harness and distribute energy from sources like portable nuclear reactors. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: China has Made A Water Based Battery: But Does it Live up to the Hype?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SiDB-zA4MY) - [Nature Energy - Aqueous Battery Study](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-024-01515-9.epdf?sharing_token=ORErw3SD3ApjBbdAxGwzN9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PkLymivsoHnqXld5I33YIm0naHgBtJOnjOMW3Ixyt0j-pNbTui-pPAST85RfkMwASt4nEHOZRvcG7Cj88UznPpDLRkGppMSqpMlr6nx5QIvyeCAqAZxH6dkf7fyNMB48lzZ0OzdsqgGZxxLSu9WPRAdE46l0Atsn8BweO0BEEqtNvqZ9WbPGqqRUm9hlgWBVKqYNAnLJemeq1tkv-8ud271Uw_lSeXFx0t7s38PhQEqZeT0l1OLZw8JVTprl9Z6-vlyw-0qIBmnghtVx17z6FEEpORIXH_ygAu1QojLfq8bfokLYjYtjvBOWwYAomsZVE%3D&tracking_referrer=www.livescience.com) - [ThoughtCo - 20th Century Timeline](https://www.thoughtco.com/20th-century-timeline-1992486) - [U.S. Department of Energy - How Lithium-Ion Batteries Work](https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/articles/how-lithium-ion-batteries-work) - [Battery University - How Do Lithium Batteries Work](https://batteryuniversity.com/article/bu-204-how-do-lithium-batteries-work) - [UL Research - What Are Lithium-Ion Batteries](https://ul.org/research/electrochemical-safety/getting-started-electrochemical-safety/what-are-lithium-ion) - [The Verge - Forever Chemicals in Lithium-Ion Batteries](https://www.theverge.com/24194493/forever-chemicals-pfas-lithium-ion-ev-rechargeable-batteries) - [Greenly - Harmful Effects of Lithium Batteries](https://greenly.earth/en-us/blog/ecology-news/the-harmful-effects-of-our-lithium-batteries) - [UNSW - Lithium-Ion Battery Safety](https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2023/03/seven-things-you-need-to-know-about-lithium-ion-battery-safety) - [ACS Publications - Battery Research](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jz501387m) - [ScienceDirect - Battery Environmental Impact](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652619332135) - [Boston University - The Race to a Battery-Powered Future](https://www.bu.edu/articles/2024/the-race-to-a-battery-powered-future/) - [Saft - Three Battery Technologies for the Future](https://saft.com/media-resources/our-stories/three-battery-technologies-could-power-future) - [S&P Global - The Future of Battery Technology](https://www.spglobal.com/esg/s1/topic/the-future-of-battery-technology.html) - [Florida State University - Better Battery Design Research](https://news.fsu.edu/news/science-technology/2024/02/12/maglab-research-pinpoints-factors-for-better-battery-design/) - [MIT Technology Review - What's Next for Batteries](https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/01/04/1066141/whats-next-for-batteries/) - [RELion Battery - What Is Energy Density](https://www.relionbattery.com/blog/what-is-energy-density-why-does-it-matter) - [Live Science - Chinese Scientists Water Battery](https://www.livescience.com/chemistry/chinese-scientists-have-found-a-way-to-make-batteries-more-efficient-by-using-water) - [Interesting Engineering - China Energy Dense Aqueous Batteries](https://interestingengineering.com/energy/china-energy-dense-aqueous-batteries) - [Mining.com - New Water Battery vs Lithium](https://www.mining.com/chinese-scientists-say-new-water-battery-can-hold-more-energy-than-lithium-cells/) - [MIT Technology Review - Water Batteries](https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/09/07/1079138/water-batteries/) - [Nature - Energy Research](https://www.nature.com/articles/nenergy2016161) - [Science - China Most Cited Papers](https://www.science.org/content/article/china-rises-first-place-most-cited-papers) - [Ohio State University - China High-Quality Science](https://news.osu.edu/china-now-publishes-more-high-quality-science-than-any-other-nation/) - [Nature - China Scientific Research](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03762-4) - [The Economist - China Scientific Superpower](https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2024/06/12/china-has-become-a-scientific-superpower) - [Reuters - China Fourth Generation Nuclear Reactor](https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-starts-up-worlds-first-fourth-generation-nuclear-reactor-2023-12-06/) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Arabian_Sunbird_%28Cinnyris_hellmayri%29%2C_Aseer%2C_Saudi_Arabia_%282024%29.jpg) by Saudi press Agency (SPA) / openverse, by-sa. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/chinas-electric-car-industry-is-insane https://megaprojects.pub/article/chinas-electric-car-industry-is-insane Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Imagine an electric car, and what do you think of? For many, it's probably a Tesla that comes to mind, a sleek little sedan, or the strange robotic bug-larva shape of the Cybertruck. Perhaps it's the first electric or hybrid car you saw back in the day, a Toyota Prius or a Nissan Leaf, something like that. Perhaps it's a Volkswagen, a Skoda, an Audi, a Fiat, a Rivian—the list goes on. They're an increasingly visible part of the global shift away from fossil fuels, a near-ubiquitous presence on the roads, and, in many parts of the world, the proud occupants of some sweet little parking spots with a charging station right there, ready to use. But if it's those American and European automobiles that come to mind, then we'd be willing to bet that the electric vehicle industry's entire other dimension may have escaped your notice—even though they, not your favorite EV-maker, are the biggest dealership in town. That dealership would be that of China's electric vehicle industry, a modern-day behemoth of design and manufacturing. It produces more EVs than every other nation on Earth, combined. It corners the market in areas where the global West isn't even ready to compete. It's so good at what it does that the American, European, and East Asian auto industries that it can wipe iconic automakers like Ford, Toyota, Volkswagen, and more, completely off the map. This is China's absolutely wild electric vehicle industry, a beast so gargantuan and so ravenous that in the end, it might simply be unstoppable. ## Becoming a Giant For a nation that went all-in on electric automobiles relatively late in modern history, the idea of electric vehicles has been a part of Chinese ambition for a surprisingly long time. All the way back in the 1960s, Maoist economic planners were already moving to establish an electric bicycle industry, an idea that would be revived unsuccessfully in the 1980s, and then really take off by the turn of the 21st century. Although it was mostly an attempt to cut down on the congestion, pollution, and inherent risks with the mass use of gasoline-powered motorbikes across China, the change to electric bicycles caught on like wildfire, with over ten million e-bikes sold in China in the year 2005 alone. By contrast, figures from the US Department of Energy indicate that US customers only purchased one million e-bikes in a year for the first time in 2022, seventeen years after China sold ten times that. Back then, China's e-bike industry was already diversifying fast, with hundreds of models available for sale, and no charging stations beyond a simple wall outlet required to charge them up. Around that same time, China's scooter batteries could already compete directly with gas-powered scooters without being nearly so bulky as to become an inconvenience, and better yet, they were affordable, not just for well-off residents of the cities but poorer urban residents, and rural village-dwellers as well. But China's electric vehicle industry is about *way* more than just e-bikes, and its push toward the real global moneymaker, electric cars, was a product less of intentional societal reform in the cities, and more of an attempt to play catch-up. China did, of course, have its own automobile industry in the early oughts, but while it could produce a hell of a lot of cars, very quickly, it had missed the opportunity to become competitive in the global auto market. China's cars weren't well-known enough internationally to simply open up dealerships alongside Nissan and Chevrolet; they weren't of a quality that could compete with BMW or Mercedes Benz in the high-end market; and they weren't going to be able to simply undercut other international auto-makers, either. Traditional, internal-combustion automobiles simply weren't an area where China would ever catch up—but over in the electric-vehicle industry, there were some very interesting possibilities just starting to open up. China's late start, in this area, had its advantages. The US and East Asia, by example, had already watched companies like Chrysler, Ford, Toyota, and Nissan work overtime to produce consumer-worthy electric vehicles, but the issue had grown deeply political in the United States, and interest in fuel-efficient, hybrid, and electric vehicles had gone down the tubes in the US. Gas prices were low, the economy was good, and even the best electric cars still had a range under a hundred miles. Although Europe, Japan, and other important auto markets still had interest in EVs, consumer demand there was for low-range, low-speed vehicles that you could take puttering around your neighborhood or to the nearest city, but certainly wouldn't want to take on a cross-country road trip. More promising non-traditional vehicles were, for the most part, hybrids like the Toyota Prius and the Honda Insight. Although those cars still relied partially on internal-combustion engines, they were seen as both more appealing and trustworthy for consumers, and a safer bet for automakers that still feared that the world simply wasn't ready for an all-out push on electric vehicles. All that, taken together, presented China with a golden opportunity. If China could concede defeat on the internal-combustion and hybrid vehicles that the world was focused on, then it could pivot to what was, at that moment, a blind spot: full-electric vehicles that were, by then, just a few years off. China, with its ability to influence and manipulate market demand in its own country, could make the domestic transition to EVs a lot easier than, say, the United States could. And if it could invest in research and development early, taking advantage of a rapidly growing economy in the process, then China could not just have *any* electric vehicle ready to go, but better and more sophisticated ones than the US, Japan, or Europe. In the process, China could draw down its dependence on international oil, and reduce its staggering air pollution issues. As early as 2001, China was funneling money toward the required technologies to start making electric vehicles *en masse*, laying the groundwork for a potential manufacturing explosion, once the key technological advancements came along. The process was neither a quick, nor an easy one for China, but between a series of windfalls to help the process, and its inherent advantages in research and manufacturing, it made quick progress anyhow. In 2007, an auto engineer with a decade of experience with Audi and additional bona fides personally testing Tesla's first electric vehicle, 2008's Roadster, became China's Minister of Science and Technology. He's since been credited with the decision to boost EV research and production to the top of China's priority list. Then, China began subsidizing EV companies heavily, in order to get them through the tough early years of development and low sales, and in order to incentivize potential customers to buy the product they sold. Before the Chinese consumer was ready to buy electric vehicles directly, China issued contracts to its automakers to produce their EVs for use in public transit. In the big cities, waivers that usually make it difficult to get a license plate were waived for anyone willing to buy an EV, and individual cities engaged in their own pilot programs to spread the technology however they felt would lead to the greatest local success. International automakers, not just domestic Chinese ones, were welcome to take advantage of all those same subsidy programs and assistance packages, if they so wished. Tesla, in particular, was courted aggressively, and the approach worked. Tesla would open its first Gigafactory in Shanghai in 2019 after it was built in under a year, and today, about half of all Tesla cars are manufactured there. All the while, Chinese industry has been forced to raise itself to, and beyond the Tesla standard, to the extent that now, Tesla is forced to try and keep pace with China's EV makers, not the other way around. And on the technology side, rapid advances have come part and parcel with the evolution of the industry overall. China has led the way on lithium iron phosphate batteries, a safer, cheaper option that did, at one time, have real drawbacks when measured against the lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt batteries that most of the world has relied on in its EV development. Today, though, Chinese battery companies have been able to get past those technological barriers. At the same time, China controls much of the world's refineries for battery components like cobalt, graphite, and more complex compounds. On the manufacturing side, China has gone all-in on automating its production lines and digitalizing its design and manufacturing process. And when it comes to high-tech bells and whistles, China is out in front of the pack too, pushing for autonomous driving features, complex voice control, and other elements that create a user experience rivaling the very best that Western auto manufacturing has to offer—even when comparing to all Western automobiles, not just electric vehicles. ## Autos, Trucks, and Buses—Āi yā! Now, although the grand view of China's electric vehicle industry is, undoubtedly, quite impressive, we've also got to get down to brass tacks, and take a closer look at both the vehicles that have dominated China's EV industry, and the companies that have dominated it. In both areas, there's simply too much to talk about for us to present a comprehensive overview of any reasonable length, so rather than present an exhaustive list, we'll discuss the major players first and foremost. China's biggest electric vehicle manufacturer, by far, is BYD, an organization with a name that, when it was first founded, didn't actually mean anything, but has more recently been adapted into the long-form name, Build Your Dreams. At the end of 2023, BYD was the top-selling EV manufacturer in the world, over and above even Tesla. It became the first company in world history to produce six million individual electric vehicles, and it took an additional prize, as the third-most-valuable car manufacturer in the world. BYD is one of those companies that controls every step of its production process, from manufacturing of batteries and electric motors, to the component parts that make up the exterior and interior of their vehicles, to their computer chips, to even the lithium that their batteries rely on. Over the past few years, BYD has exploded in popularity in China, and it's introduced luxury, off-roading, and other specialized brands to match. Their vehicles have found purchase in Europe, becoming directly competitive with Europe's own electric and traditional combustion vehicles, and they're popular in Australia and Brazil as well. BYD offers a wide range of high-selling automobiles, but the most popular, by a significant margin, are the Qin Plus and Song Plus line of EVs. Both are adaptations of existing internal-combustion automobiles, but that hasn't stopped their electric versions from gaining major traction. The newest Qin Plus vehicles boast a range of 600 kilometers, or 373 miles, while the Song Plus can get just a little bit further. Then, there's the Dolphin, a hatchback car that's become near-ubiquitous in China as a family subcompact car. Featuring modern internal electronic infotainment systems, the Dolphin hits a range of about 340 kilometers or 211 miles, and it's recently been introduced across Europe, Oceania, Brazil, Japan, South Africa, and the nations of Southeast Asia. The Atto 3 SUV is made with an internal style meant to resemble the interior of a fitness gym, and it features a range of 430 kilometers, 267 miles, in standard models. Perhaps most impressive under the BYD banner is its high-performance supercoupe EV, the Yangwang U9, first unveiled in April of 2023. Developed by famed Lamborghini and Alfa Romeo head designer Wolfgang Egger, the U9 only went into full production in August of 2024, but its performance specs are very impressive on paper. Using four electric motors with a combined output of 1,300 horsepower, the U9 goes zero to sixty in 2.36 seconds, and has been tracked at 309 kilometers per hour, 192 miles per hour. It features a proprietary, BYD-designed system to redistribute torque among its wheels if a tire punctures while driving at speed, with the system's potential remedies even including a brief vertical jump function in which all four wheels of the car first shrink down, and then launch upward so that the car, and its driver, can momentarily take flight. Then, there's the SAIC Motor Corporation, formerly the Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation. The biggest of China's Big Four state-owned car manufacturers, SAIC ranks third in the world for combined electric and hybrid vehicle companies, and second in the world for the manufacture of full-electric vehicles. Between its directly owned brands and its numerous joint ventures, including some alongside Volkswagen and General Motors, SAIC is widely successful across various auto models, and it's making intense and continual attempts to break into European markets. SAIC launches new auto models at stunning rates, often accounting for an unusually high proportion of all new Chinese vehicle models launched in a given year. Among SAIC's more impressive cars is the L7, manufactured via the subsidiary venture IM Motors. In addition to an electric range of 615 kilometers or 382 miles, the L7 uses an intelligent driving system to drive fully autonomously on freeways, semi-autonomously on city streets, and both summon itself on command from a driver, and auto-park. It also introduces wireless charging, a critical departure from the corded charging models that most of the world still relies on. Alongside the L7 are the LS6, a crossover SUV with a range of 700 kilometers, 430 miles, and the ability to go zero to sixty in three and a half seconds. Under the British subsidiary MG Motor, SAIC offers the MG4 Electric, a car that can go from having an empty battery, to being able to drive 200 kilometers or 124 miles, after a charging time of just five minutes. From the same subsidiary, the crossover SUV, ZS, broke ground in Australia as the cheapest EV ever to be sold in the country, and it's now SAIC's bestselling model around the world. MG also produces an electric roadster called the Cyber GTS, featuring zero-to-sixty acceleration in 3.2 seconds, a top speed of 200 kilometers per hour or 124 miles per hour, and an infotainment system powered by the Unreal Engine 4 graphics package, as seen in games like *Fortnite*. SAIC's subsidiaries also produce the Rising Auto F7, an executive car with a range of over 660 kilometers or 410 miles, and the Rising Auto R7, a crossover SUV version with a comparable range. Its electric minivan, the Maxus MIFA 9, boasts a range of 650 kilometers or 400 miles. And far beyond the big brands, there's also the question of sheer performance—where, at the cutting edge of the EV market, China's fastest models are able to match the performance of top international sportscars. We've mentioned the Yangwang U9, topping out at 309 kilometers per hour, 192 miles per hour, but it's not even the fastest EV that China has to offer. That honor goes to the Nio EP9, top speed 194 miles per hour or 314 kilometers per hour, featuring a carbon-fiber chassis and a zero-to-sixty acceleration in 2.7 seconds, plus an advanced torque vectoring system that adjusts wheel-by-wheel power output. The Xiaomi SU7 Max, produced by the world's second-largest smartphone manufacturer, is capable of hitting top speeds of 265 kilometers or 165 miles per hour, plus a range of nearly 800 kilometers, 500 miles. The Aion Hyper SSR may be constrained to a top speed of just 155 miles per hour, but it features 1,200 horsepower under the hood, plus scissor doors and a reported range of 505 kilometers, or 314 miles. But even this still undersells the true range of China's electric vehicle industry; in fact, once we move past family passenger vehicles, the degree to which China has achieved international dominance only becomes more obvious. China is responsible for the vast majority of electric buses around the world, with just the BYD company having already delivered over a hundred thousand electric buses around the world, including its B12 double-deckers, and its B18 and K11 articulated models. The Geely company produces both city buses and tour buses, and the same is true for SAIC, producing several types of electric and trolleybuses for use all across China. All in all, Chinese manufacturers are responsible for over 95% of the global stock of electric buses, and that figure doesn't appear to be changing anytime soon. Chinese companies produces all-electric street sweepers, trash trucks, mining trucks, light- and medium-duty box trucks, panel vans, and even London-style black cabs. All the while, China's e-bike industry is still thriving, with an estimated thirty-four million units sold in 2023, and that number only expected to rise further in the next several years. Inside the country, foreign auto brands are largely irrelevant, other than the Tesla brand and some German models, while domestic automakers, especially EV manufacturers, now entirely dominate the market. ## Titans of Industry In the 2020s, China's electric vehicle industry is, by far, the biggest in the world. Two out of every three electric vehicles around the world are built by Chinese firms, while over three-quarters of EV batteries come out of Chinese factories. In the span of just four years, from 2020 to 2023, China's EV exports increased by 800 percent, and today, for every three new car models that American, Japanese, and European companies crank out, China releases four. On the research end, sixty-five percent of research publications on electric batteries come out of China, against less than twelve percent from the United States, while on the sheer production side, 2024 will likely see over ten million electric vehicles roll off China's assembly lines, a 1.1-million-unit increase over 2023. For China, the industry is nothing short of spectacular, a global leader in every possible metric, and well on the way to changing the world's automotive industry for good. Yet it's still critical to understand that China's EV industry, despite its stunning power, is still very much in development. The nation's automakers are still working overtime to fill any niche they can find, and to push performance metrics not just past their competitors, but to a level where their product would become impossible to ignore on the global stage. In some areas, China's EVs are still not particularly close to rivaling internal-combustion vehicles; in just one example, most of the country's electric pickup trucks feature a hauling capacity that can only be described as dismal. But just like any attempt to look at China's EV industry ten years ago, and call it a finished product, would have been misguided, the same is true now. In some ways, the approach seems almost as simple as, "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks", but China's approach is undergirded by the simple *maths* of large-scale innovation. Get enough companies working at a wide enough range of objectives, with substantial enough financial and industrial support, and advancements are bound to come along, sooner than later. Although, in 2024, a noted drop in China's EV production and sale rates certainly isn't irrelevant, attempts to frame the drop as a warning sign for the end of China's EV advantage…are simply premature. China's electric-vehicle industry simply isn't at the mercy of the consumer, at least to the extent that the rest of the world might be. Although China is headed into what appears to be some economically lean years, its EV industry remains a top priority, and it'll almost certainly continue to receive the state backing that that entails. In a practical sense, the incredible swell of China's EV industry has posed a real test for the US, Japan, and Europe. Although electric vehicles from these places can certainly compete with China for now, there are warning signs everywhere on the horizon that the balance is likely to shift. By example, China's competitor nations have lagged substantially behind when it comes to categories like electric buses and public transit, electric vans and utility vehicles, and large electric trucks, where machines like the German Daimler Truck manufacturer's eCascadia are only just coming onto the market. Meanwhile, the average US electric car only boasts a range of under 300 miles, while the most promising handful of longer-range EVs are only just reaching price parity with internal-combustion vehicles this year. All the while, China's long-range EVs are being produced across a far wider range of brands and manufacturers, and at higher volumes and lower prices overall. And the company that many in the US, Europe, and Japan see as the Western world's main counter to Chinese EVs, Tesla, is far less loyal to those markets than their consumers may have hoped. Just this summer, Tesla cars became the first foreign-owned electric vehicle brand to be placed on purchase catalogues for Chinese government officials, and that's no accident. Today, Tesla is more dependent on China than China is dependent on Tesla, and Tesla founder Elon Musk's cozy relationship with China's leader, Xi Jinping, is yet more proof positive. As that situation evolves, leaders across each nation with its own booming auto industry has faced pressure to try and stop the rise of Chinese electric vehicles, and in many places, that pressure has led to political action. In the United States, president Joe Biden has faced pressure for years to ban imports of Chinese-made electric cars, and in 2024, America's presidential administration opened investigations into the potential national security risks of Chinese EVs. On American leaders' collective minds are the risks posed by the data Chinese EVs would harvest *en masse* from their drivers and passengers, and their use of Internet-connected cameras and sensors to record, quoting the White House here, "detailed information on US infrastructure". Also listed among the leading concerns is the potential for these cars to be piloted and disabled remotely, perhaps even from China, and their proximity to critical US infrastructure. For now, the US has imposed severe tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, driving up costs for consumers to the point that they don't make sense to purchase. But even now, China has worked to get around those regulations, setting up shop in Mexico so that EVs produced there, and then sent straight to the US, aren't subject to the same tariffs. Without the price barriers, China's EVs cost about half of what America's do in the US market, meaning that China could dramatically undercut the US electric vehicle industry. The Alliance for American Manufacturing has warned that such an outcome would be a, quote, "extinction-level event" for the US auto industry. Meanwhile, the European Union raised its own tariffs on Chinese EVs in July of 2024, ratcheting up its imposed costs on individual car manufacturers until they reached anywhere from seventeen and a half percent, to nearly thirty-eight percent, on top of a ten-percent duty levied against all imported EVs coming from China. Taken together, these price controls can slow the tide of China's EV industry…but they can't stop it. Raising tariffs simply puts incentives on Chinese automakers, and even the CCP itself, to further lower the prices of their vehicles, with some cars, like the hatchback Seagull made by BYD, already less costly than comparable US vehicles even despite the tariffs. Like China is doing in Mexico, a ban on the import of these cars *from China* simply incentivizes China to outsource production so that cars are imported from other nations. The automobiles themselves can be banned, but this in turn risks devolving into a bitter trade war with China, where the rest of the world would have to suffer just as much hardship as China does, if not more. And with China still producing its vehicles, still rolling them out of factories at astonishing rates, it's not clear that the momentum China's EVs already have, could be stopped by such an effort. All indicators are, China's EV industry is here to stay, and the vehicles they make, are likely to cruise down streets across America, across the EU, across Asia, and elsewhere, in due time. If these other global governments want to stand in the Chinese EV industry's way, there's still time—but they're going to have to do a hell of a lot better than they've done so far. ## Key Takeaways - China's electric vehicle industry is the largest globally, producing more EVs than all other nations combined. - China's EV industry began with electric bicycles in the 1960s and has since expanded to dominate the market. - BYD is China's leading EV manufacturer, producing a wide range of vehicles and controlling every step of production. - China's EVs are highly competitive, with models like the Yangwang U9 and Nio EP9 matching top international sportscars. - The US and EU have imposed tariffs on Chinese EVs, but China's industry continues to grow and innovate rapidly. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### Which company is the largest electric vehicle manufacturer in China? BYD (Build Your Dreams) is the largest electric vehicle manufacturer in China and the world, having produced over six million electric vehicles by the end of 2023. ### What are some of the most popular electric vehicles in China? Some of the most popular electric vehicles in China include the BYD Qin Plus, Song Plus, Dolphin, and Atto 3 SUV. SAIC Motor Corporation also has popular models like the L7, LS6, and MG4 Electric. ### How does China's electric vehicle industry compare to the rest of the world? China's electric vehicle industry is the largest in the world, producing more EVs than every other nation combined. It leads in areas like electric buses, public transit, and utility vehicles. ### What role does Tesla play in China's electric vehicle market? Tesla has a significant presence in China, with its first Gigafactory in Shanghai. About half of all Tesla cars are manufactured there, and Tesla is forced to keep pace with China's EV makers. ### What are some of the technological advancements in China's electric vehicle industry? China leads in lithium iron phosphate batteries, controls much of the world's refineries for battery components, and is advancing in autonomous driving features and voice control systems. ### How has the Chinese government supported the electric vehicle industry? The Chinese government has subsidized EV companies, incentivized customers to buy EVs, and issued contracts for public transit use. It has also welcomed international automakers to take advantage of subsidy programs. ### What are some of the fastest electric vehicles produced in China? Some of the fastest electric vehicles produced in China include the Nio EP9, Xiaomi SU7 Max, and Aion Hyper SSR, with top speeds ranging from 155 to 314 kilometers per hour. ### How has the global response been to China's dominance in the electric vehicle market? The US, EU, and other countries have imposed tariffs and investigated national security risks related to Chinese EVs. However, these measures may not be enough to stop China's EV industry. ### What is the significance of BYD's Yangwang U9? The BYD Yangwang U9 is a high-performance supercoupe EV with four electric motors producing 1,300 horsepower. It can go from zero to sixty in 2.36 seconds and has a top speed of 309 kilometers per hour. ### What is the current state of China's electric vehicle industry? China's electric vehicle industry is still in development but is the largest in the world. It faces economic challenges but remains a top priority with significant state backing. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: China's Electric Car Industry is Insane](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xIE9seg6Os) - [https://www.best-selling-cars.com/europe/2023-full-year-europe-top-20-best-selling-electric-car-models/](https://www.best-selling-cars.com/europe/2023-full-year-europe-top-20-best-selling-electric-car-models/) - [https://escholarship.org/content/qt00m5410t/qt00m5410t_noSplash_a91274eb6d5a67e5ddca898436868080.pdf](https://escholarship.org/content/qt00m5410t/qt00m5410t_noSplash_a91274eb6d5a67e5ddca898436868080.pdf) - [https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1321-december-18-2023-e-bike-sales-united-states-exceeded-one-million](https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1321-december-18-2023-e-bike-sales-united-states-exceeded-one-million) - [https://www.caranddriver.com/features/g43480930/history-of-electric-cars/](https://www.caranddriver.com/features/g43480930/history-of-electric-cars/) - [https://www.energy.gov/articles/history-1electric-car](https://www.energy.gov/articles/history-1electric-car) - [https://itif.org/publications/2024/07/29/how-innovative-is-china-in-the-electric-vehicle-and-battery-industries/](https://itif.org/publications/2024/07/29/how-innovative-is-china-in-the-electric-vehicle-and-battery-industries/) - [https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-electric-vehicle-industrys-internationalization](https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-electric-vehicle-industrys-internationalization) - [https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/02/21/1068880/how-did-china-dominate-electric-cars-policy/](https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/02/21/1068880/how-did-china-dominate-electric-cars-policy/) - [https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%2520Files/Electric%2520Vehicles_89176bc1-1aee-4c6e-829f-bd426beaf5d3.pdf](https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%2520Files/Electric%2520Vehicles_89176bc1-1aee-4c6e-829f-bd426beaf5d3.pdf) - [https://hbr.org/2024/01/3-drivers-of-chinas-booming-electric-vehicle-market](https://hbr.org/2024/01/3-drivers-of-chinas-booming-electric-vehicle-market) - [https://money.usnews.com/investing/articles/the-10-most-valuable-auto-companies-in-the-world](https://money.usnews.com/investing/articles/the-10-most-valuable-auto-companies-in-the-world) - [https://insideevs.com/news/702783/byd-plugin-car-sales-december2023/](https://insideevs.com/news/702783/byd-plugin-car-sales-december2023/) - [https://apnews.com/article/china-byd-auto-seagull-auto-ev-cae20c92432b74e95c234d93ec1df400](https://apnews.com/article/china-byd-auto-seagull-auto-ev-cae20c92432b74e95c234d93ec1df400) - [https://carnewschina.com/2021/09/10/im-l7-is-a-new-tesla-killing-electric-sedan-from-china/](https://carnewschina.com/2021/09/10/im-l7-is-a-new-tesla-killing-electric-sedan-from-china/) - [https://www.theautopian.com/i-flew-to-china-and-visited-the-craziest-electric-car-brand-on-earth-it-blew-my-mind/](https://www.theautopian.com/i-flew-to-china-and-visited-the-craziest-electric-car-brand-on-earth-it-blew-my-mind/) - [https://www.topspeed.com/chinese-electric-cars-highest-top-speed/](https://www.topspeed.com/chinese-electric-cars-highest-top-speed/) - [https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20231206-climate-change-how-chinas-electric-vehicle-revolution-began-with-buses](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20231206-climate-change-how-chinas-electric-vehicle-revolution-began-with-buses) - [https://www.politico.eu/article/china-electric-vehicles-buses-european-commission-competition-subsidies/](https://www.politico.eu/article/china-electric-vehicles-buses-european-commission-competition-subsidies/) - [https://www.statista.com/statistics/1063918/china-production-volume-of-e-bikes/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1063918/china-production-volume-of-e-bikes/) - [https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/chinas-car-sales-slide-june-falling-third-month-2024-07-08/](https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/chinas-car-sales-slide-june-falling-third-month-2024-07-08/) - [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-06-07/long-range-evs-now-cost-less-than-the-average-us-new-car](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-06-07/long-range-evs-now-cost-less-than-the-average-us-new-car) - [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-16/musk-xi-meeting-shows-tight-relationship-china-has-with-tesla](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-16/musk-xi-meeting-shows-tight-relationship-china-has-with-tesla) - [https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/05/business/tesla-enters-chinese-government-purchase-list-for-first-time-intl-hnk/index.html#:~:text=For%20the%20first%20time%20ever,Jiangsu%20province%20in%20eastern%20China](https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/05/business/tesla-enters-chinese-government-purchase-list-for-first-time-intl-hnk/index.html#:~:text=For%20the%20first%20time%20ever,Jiangsu%20province%20in%20eastern%20China) - [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/27/world/asia/elon-musk-tesla-china.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/27/world/asia/elon-musk-tesla-china.html) - [https://thediplomat.com/2024/05/the-geopolitics-of-teslas-china-breakthrough/](https://thediplomat.com/2024/05/the-geopolitics-of-teslas-china-breakthrough/) - [https://www.wsj.com/world/china/why-musk-now-needs-china-more-than-it-needs-him-128e33b0](https://www.wsj.com/world/china/why-musk-now-needs-china-more-than-it-needs-him-128e33b0) - [https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy99z53qypko](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy99z53qypko) - [https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/13/cars/eu-ev-tariffs-china-effects-analysis-intl-hnk/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/13/cars/eu-ev-tariffs-china-effects-analysis-intl-hnk/index.html) - [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/7/4/eu-imposes-tariffs-of-up-to-38-on-chinese-electric-vehicles](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/7/4/eu-imposes-tariffs-of-up-to-38-on-chinese-electric-vehicles) - [https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyerg64dn97o](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyerg64dn97o) - [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bidens-chinese-ev-tariffs-dont-address-lingering-national-security-concerns/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bidens-chinese-ev-tariffs-dont-address-lingering-national-security-concerns/) - [https://apnews.com/article/china-vehicles-mexico-evs-automakers-tariffs-f526c5e52b95b624bb4b15d2038e289a](https://apnews.com/article/china-vehicles-mexico-evs-automakers-tariffs-f526c5e52b95b624bb4b15d2038e289a) - [https://apnews.com/article/china-byd-auto-seagull-auto-ev-cae20c92432b74e95c234d93ec1df400](https://apnews.com/article/china-byd-auto-seagull-auto-ev-cae20c92432b74e95c234d93ec1df400) - [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/27/business/biden-evs.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/27/business/biden-evs.html) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Baojun_Yueye_%28Yep%29_Plus_01_China_2024-03-22.jpg) by Navigator84 / openverse, by-sa. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/chinese-maglev-revolution-coming https://megaprojects.pub/article/chinese-maglev-revolution-coming Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT If there's one country that really 'gets' infrastructure, it's China – one of the few nations on earth that has a habit of regularly announcing vast and bewildering megaprojects of all stripes, and more often than not, actually seeing them through to completion. It feels like only yesterday that they were announcing a grand plan to completely revolutionise rail travel in the country with the construction of a vast and comprehensive network of high-speed lines that covered the entire nation – certainly no small feat given how big the place is. And yet, despite the scepticism and even mockery that they received from some western pundits at the time, here we are in 2024, and sure enough, China now has 28,000 miles (45,000 km) of the stuff, enough to make the majority of high speed rail in the world, period, Chinese. And yet, it appears as though Beijing is not satisfied with 'merely' just blowing the rest of the world out of the water when it comes to conventional rail, as they are currently in the nascent stages of doing it all over again with another, much more sci-fi type of rail: maglev. ## What is Maglev? Let's get things started by clarifying something crucial that will underpin this whole discussion – what even is a maglev train anyway? Well, to put it simply, a maglev train does exactly what it says on the tin – it is a train that uses magnets, mag, to levitate, lev, over the tracks it uses, rather than sit on them with those archaic wheel things that trains have otherwise used since the black and white days of top hats and mutton chops. To go into more detail however, maglev trains use two different sorts of systems: Electromagnetic Suspension (EMS) and Electrodynamic Suspension (EDS). EMS uses electromagnets built onto the train itself, which interact with ferromagnetic rails. When energized, these electromagnets create a magnetic field that repels the train from the rail, lifting it into a levitated state. This system requires stringent active control to keep the train stable and maintain a consistent gap between the train and the track, because should the train's electromagnets fail, or the magnetic field between track and train be disrupted, the people on board are not going to be having a good day. By contrast, EDS employs superconducting magnets on the train to generate magnetic fields that interact with conductive coils in the track. As the train moves, it induces currents in these coils, creating magnetic fields that lift the train by repulsion – a subtle but distinct difference, and one that still comes with the same very important safety concerns of EMS. For propulsion, both EDS and EMS trains use linear motors. Unlike traditional motors in a 'normal' electric or diesel-powered locomotive, which generate power on board and use a transmission to 'push' that power into a set of wheels, which turn, and move the locomotive along as they do so, a linear motor is instead positioned outside of the locomotive along the track, and the electromagnetic field it generates 'pushes' the locomotive forward. Speed regulation is achieved by altering the electrical current of the linear motor – draw more power, and you'll go faster; less, and you'll go slower; cut it all together, and you'll come to a halt. Since maglev trains don't actually touch their tracks, guidance is also quite a bit of a big deal. After all, a maglev train 'clipping' its rails and ploughing several hundred passengers into the ground at high speed wouldn't exactly be conducive to the operation of a reliable and profitable timetable. It is achieved, typically, through systems that integrate with the levitation mechanisms, but in different ways depending on the type of maglev in question. In EMS configurations, the electromagnets that levitate the train also provide lateral stability, keeping the train centred over the track, and by contrast, EDS systems often utilise the inherent stability provided by its magnetic fields, which naturally centre the train above the track as it moves. Why bother with all of this then, as it all sounds like a bit of a faff doesn't it, at least compared to just letting George Stephenson's 200 year refined mechanical child do its thing on good old fashioned metal rails? Well, partly it is due to maintenance, or rather the lack thereof that maglev lines need as compared to traditional lines; there is very little wear and tear on the tracks since nothing actually touches them, and thus a fortune can be saved on highly qualified, and very expensive permanent way engineers. Such a consideration is drab however, and a 'far' more exciting one is speed. Again, since maglev trains don't actually touch the track, it means that a particular demon that has cursed railway engineers for over two centuries now can be banished down to the pits of hell – friction. For the swiftly minded, friction is the enemy – always present, touching your wheels, slowing you down; by eliminating it all together, you eliminate one of the major caps to a locomotive's maximum speed. ## The Shanghai Maglev Now for some background context. China's current foray into maglev trains isn't actually its first attempt, as they last had a go back in the late 90s, a time when, to be blunt, its rail system was a massive pile of junk; its trains were old, they were slow, and they were uncomfortable – an absolute disgrace for a nation which was then in its nascent stage of becoming one of the big boys on the world stage. Finding this state of affairs irksome, Beijing resolved to do something about it by constructing a vast network of inter-city high-speed trains. But this presented a question: what form should the new network take? Did they go for Japanese style conventional bullet-trains, which were tried and tested, or did they go for this whizz-bang maglev stuff? Intrigued by the latter prospect, they commissioned the German company Transrapid, then pioneers in the tech, to build them a line in Shanghai – one that ran from Pudong Airport to the city centre. This was quite a sensible approach to be fair, because even if they didn't pursue maglev any further, Shanghai still got a belting airport connection out of it. Construction began in March 2001, and after a lengthy period of testing, it opened to public traffic in January 2004. The end result stretched for 19.5 miles (30.5 km), and still remains the fastest train in regular commercial service in the whole world, topping out at 268 mph (431 kph) in routine service, with an overall top speed of 280 mph (450 kph), which it hit in pre-service testing. Its construction was a monumental financial undertaking, costing approximately $39.759 million USD per kilometre, totalling around $1.2 billion USD for the entire line. As a result of this cost, and despite the impressive technological achievement that the line represents, it has struggled to achieve financial viability, and has more or less run at a loss every year of its operation. As a result of this, maglev was not selected for further development when the time came, and instead they went for conventional high-speed trains. Oh, and a small tangent before we bring this chapter to a close – we can personally vouch for what an utterly insane experience it is riding the Shanghai Maglev. The sensation of such speed simply cannot be accurately relayed with words alone, and we recommend everyone put it on their bucket list immediately. ## The Coming Revolution Following the failure of the Shanghai Maglev to be selected for wider adoption, it was assumed that that was it; that Beijing had placed all of its chips on the red spot of conventional high speed rail, and was not going to be making a cheeky flutter on the black maglev spot – and that the Shanghai Maglev was just going to be left doing its thing in isolation until it inevitably broke, became too expensive to repair, and was ferried off to a railway museum somewhere to sit gathering dust as a glorious monument to what could have been had Beijing felt just a tad more risky back in the early noughties. But then, in 2016, everything changed, as the China Railway Rolling Stock Corporation (CRRC), a state-owned rolling stock company, suddenly announced that it had begun work on a new maglev train, one that they hoped would reach a top speed of 373 mph (600 kph), which would make it the single fastest thing on earth, period. "Sure you are!" The western world's press said in unison as they patronisingly patted the CRRC on the head – completely blind to the fact that China is a country that regularly announces megaprojects of all kinds, and more often than not, actually sees them through to completion. Imagine their surprise then, when not even two months later, the CRRC announced it was going to start construction on a 3.1 mile (5 km) stretch of test track in Qingdao which would allow them to put the new train through its paces and run it up to its maximum speed, with a view to having it completed by the back end of 2018 – China really was serious about large scale maglev production. From there things went quiet for a time as CRRC's boffins retreated to their workshops and set about the long and arduous task of bringing a fully functional top of the line intercity high speed maglev train, and a system of tracks above which it could float, into reality. Slowly but surely, a few years down the line, more and more maglev lines got announced as CRRC's work only went from strength to strength. It started off small at first, with Beijing announcing in 2019 that it was going to build a 621 mile (1,000 km) network of nine different maglev lines, the most notable aspects of which were a 102 mile (164 km) stretch between Shanghai and Hangzhou, a 68 mile (110 km) line linking Guangzhou with Shenzhen, and a 188 mile (302 km) long Chengdu to Chongqing connection. From there, in true Chinese megaproject form, things got just a bit bigger, and by early 2021, lines linking Urumqi to Lanzhou, Chengdu to Deyang, Shanghai to Hangzhou, and Shanghai to Shenzhen were all announced as well. But wait, there's more, because then, by the close of 2021, further lines from Beijing to Shanghai were announced, as well as a cheeky little extra spur to pop Hong Kong onto the end of the Guangzhou to Shenzhen line – tot all of this up, and currently give or take 2,485 miles (4,000 km) of maglev lines have been announced. As for when this will all open, that is more difficult to say. Beijing is, perhaps quite sensibly given how subject to delays megaprojects tend to be, reluctant to put a hard date on any of these lines' opening dates, but looking at what Chinese newspapers say, expect to see the ribbons likely being cut around 2030, with maybe a few of the shorter ones opening a touch earlier. When it comes to cost however, we just don't have a clue. There's so little reliable reporting out there on this specific matter that it really is difficult to say. But just for the sake of having 'a' number to work with, if we note the fact that the Shanghai Maglev cost $1.2 billion USD for its 19.5 mile (31.5 km) track, which is worth just over $2 billion USD today, and that Japan is predicting to spend $82 billion USD on its 285 km Chūō Shinkansen line between Tokyo and Nagoya, it isn't unreasonable to suspect that the cost of all of China's maglev lines may well creep up to close to the trillion dollar USD mark when all is said and done. Sounds mad, but when you consider that that figure is around the yearly US military budget mark, that the Chinese economy isn't that much smaller, and that the cost is being split over many years, it is certainly in the realms of realism at least. Now, that's all fun and games – but what of the train that will glide over all of those tracks? That's the fast bit, that's the bit we really all care about, so what's going on with that? Well, worry not, because that question was answered in 2021, when the CRRC 600 glided out of the factory in Qingdao and was announced to the public. It is a five-car set, able to be expanded up to ten cars, and is designed to operate at speeds of 373 mph (600 kph), hence the name. Its unveiling followed extensive testing phases, including a successful test run of a prototype on a 1.5 km guideway at Tongji University in Shanghai back in 2019. It still hasn't finished testing and entered serial production, because CRRC really want to get it right, which is probably sensible given what is at stake if such a fast-floating train has a whoopsie daisy. The brakes alone, which work through using a magnetic pole to apply magnetic force in the opposite direction of travel, took over 19 months to develop and engineer. It is also planned to be fully autonomous, but not unmanned, with its driver being referred to as an 'attendant' in CRRC press releases – someone who can drive the train if they have to, but in 99% of operation will just be keeping an eye on things and making sure the automatic systems are functioning correctly. Now, this is all jolly exciting, but it's only one part of the story. Because while all of this big and fancy intercity maglev stuff is capturing the front pages, a much more humble story is unfolding on the back pages, one in which China is slowly but surely rolling out slower paced maglev tech on the inner city level, and on quite an impressive scale it has to be said. ## China's Provincial Maglevs The first such line was the Changsha Maglev Express, which runs for a length of 11.5 miles (18.5 km) and connects Changsha Huanghua International Airport with Changsha South Railway Station. Operation commenced on the 16th of May 2016, after construction began in May 2014 and trial runs started in December 2015. It had an initial operating speed of 62 mph (100 kph) which was later upped to 87 mph (140 kph) following the introduction of a newer model of train in July 2021. As things stand, the line has three stations, but there are plans to extend the system by 2.8 miles (4.5 kilometres) to include two additional underground stations at Terminals 2 and 3 (it currently just connects to Terminal 1). As for how much it cost, figures vary source to source, but the most commonly agreed upon amount is $749 million USD. Then there is the so called 'Skytrain,' which opened in early 2022. Built to serve Xingguo County in Guangzhou Province, this line took a rather different approach to its construction as compared to any of the others we have looked at, levitating itself above a rail which itself sits above the train, giving the passengers unmatched panoramic views of the surrounding landscape, and leaving them to feel as if they are flying as it glides above the ground – hence the name. Interestingly, unlike traditional maglevs, the Skytrain employs permanent magnets on the tracks rather than electromagnets, with the idea being to reduce the line's electricity usage, thereby making it both greener and cheaper to operate. It currently runs at a maximum operating speed of 80 kph (50 mph) along a half mile (800-metre-long) stretch of track, and has a capacity for 88 passengers. In many ways, it is the direct descendant of the Shanghai Maglev, as in the exact same way that that was essentially a large scale testing and proofing line for high speed maglevs that could claw back some of its operating costs from paying passengers, so too is the Skytrain for its vertical suspension system – and all appears to have gone well, because barely a year after its opening an extension to it was announced that will see it extended to 4.7 miles (7.5 kilometres) in length and opened up to a top speed of 75 mph (120 kph). As for how much it cost, no hard figures have ever been released, but Xingguo County officials have said that it set them back roughly 10% of the cost of a subway per kilometre – and since we know that a Chinese subway typically costs around $138 million USD per kilometre, we can have a reasonable guess that the 800-metre initial section of track cost them around $11 million USD. Then, in July 2022, Fenghuang in Hunan Province cut the ribbon on the 'Fenghuang Maglev,' a 5.7 mile (9.1 km) line that connects the city's high-speed railway station with the historic old city, stops off at several tourist hot spots along the way and runs at a maximum speed of 62 mph (100 kph). Constructed by the China Railway Engineering Corporation, the line was completed in just under two years for a reported cost of $329 million US Dollars. It is unapologetically a tourist line, and as such had enormous amounts of money put into building its stations in a way that reflected local architectural traditions – with an overall theme of the mythical fenghuang bird for which the city is named. Daily ridership currently sits at around 30,000, a little over the line's break even point, and seems to be suffering from no mechanical or reliability problems – so it was certainly a smart investment for the city of Fenghuang. And finally, there is also the 'Maglev Tourist Line,' currently under construction in Qingyuan, Guangdong province. Just like the previous line we looked at, it is to be an intentionally super high-tech top of the line system designed to bring in bucket loads of tourists cheaply and efficiently, and also to wow them with some whiz bang tech while doing so. It is being built in three stages, the first of which runs for 5 miles (8.1 kilometres), connects Yinzhan Station on the Guangzhou–Qingyuan intercity line with Qingyuan Chimelong Theme Park, and is due to open for full public operation later this year. It is expected to carry 315 passengers per train at speeds of up to 75 mph (120 kph). The second stage will see it extended to 23.6 miles (38 kilometres) in length and connect the South China Tiger Breeding Centre and Meilin Lake to the line, and the third stage has yet to be announced. Ultimately, all of that is just the tip of the iceberg, a small flavour to give you an idea of just how extensive provincial maglev construction has been in China – there are even more still, but if we were to go into all of them we would be here all day; so long as you have an awareness of there being loads of them, all is well! ## Conclusion And with that, our story is done, at least for now, as this is an ongoing story. Will this all come together as planned? In a decade's time will China be blowing us out of the water with a network of sci-fi trains while most of us back in the west struggle even with 'just' conventional high-speed trains? Frankly, we think it's a safe bet they will. Not only does China have a near unbeaten record on megaprojects generally, but their maglev projects specifically actually look quite reasonable when you consider that China already has the tech, has some of the best minds on the globe working to refine it further, and is actually slapping their wallet down where it counts to pay for it. Oh, and one last thing, China is also in the very early stages of developing a hyperloop system, a transportation system that uses capsules supported by an air-bearing surface within a low-pressure tube to achieve simply blistering speeds, and a prototype has already broken 387 mph (623 kph) in testing, and is aiming to go for a 621 mph (1,000 kph) record. So, we'll meet you all back here in ten years for a video all about China's obsolete and soon to be surpassed maglev system then? ## Key Takeaways - China has successfully built 28,000 miles of high-speed rail, making it a global leader. - Maglev trains use magnetic levitation to eliminate friction, allowing for higher speeds. - The Shanghai Maglev, operational since 2004, is the fastest commercial train, reaching 268 mph. - China plans to expand its maglev network significantly, with over 2,485 miles announced. - Provincial maglev lines in China are being developed for both urban transit and tourism. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is a maglev train? A maglev train is a type of train that uses magnets to levitate over the tracks instead of using wheels. There are two main systems: Electromagnetic Suspension (EMS) and Electrodynamic Suspension (EDS). Both systems use linear motors for propulsion and have mechanisms for guidance to keep the train stable and centered over the track. ### What are the advantages of maglev trains? Maglev trains offer several advantages, including reduced maintenance due to the lack of physical contact with the tracks, and higher speeds because they eliminate friction. This makes them potentially faster and more efficient than traditional trains. ### What is the Shanghai Maglev? The Shanghai Maglev is a high-speed maglev line in China that runs from Pudong Airport to the city center. It opened in 2004 and is the fastest train in regular commercial service, with a top speed of 268 mph in routine service and 280 mph in testing. However, it has struggled to achieve financial viability. ### What is the CRRC 600? The CRRC 600 is a maglev train developed by the China Railway Rolling Stock Corporation (CRRC). It is designed to operate at speeds of up to 373 mph and is intended for intercity high-speed travel. The train is also planned to be fully autonomous but will have an attendant for safety. ### What are some of the provincial maglev lines in China? Some of the provincial maglev lines in China include the Changsha Maglev Express, the Skytrain in Xingguo County, the Fenghuang Maglev, and the Maglev Tourist Line in Qingyuan. These lines vary in length and speed but are designed to serve both urban and tourist needs. ### What is the cost of building maglev lines in China? The cost of building maglev lines in China varies. The Shanghai Maglev cost approximately 1.2 billion USD for its 19.5-mile track. The cost of the upcoming maglev lines is estimated to be around the trillion-dollar mark when all is said and done, but this is a rough estimate. ### When are the new maglev lines expected to open? The new maglev lines in China are expected to open around 2030, with some of the shorter lines potentially opening earlier. However, Beijing has been reluctant to provide specific opening dates due to the subject of delays in megaprojects. ### What is the Skytrain in Xingguo County? The Skytrain in Xingguo County is a unique maglev line that levitates above a rail, providing passengers with panoramic views. It uses permanent magnets on the tracks to reduce electricity usage and is designed to be both greener and cheaper to operate. The initial section cost around 11 million USD. ### What is the Fenghuang Maglev? The Fenghuang Maglev is a 5.7-mile line in Fenghuang, Hunan Province, that connects the high-speed railway station with the historic old city. It runs at a maximum speed of 62 mph and is designed to be a tourist attraction, with stations built to reflect local architectural traditions. ### What is the Maglev Tourist Line in Qingyuan? The Maglev Tourist Line in Qingyuan is under construction and will connect Yinzhan Station with Qingyuan Chimelong Theme Park in its first stage. It is designed to carry 315 passengers per train at speeds of up to 75 mph and is intended to attract tourists with its high-tech features. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: A Chinese Maglev Revolution is Coming...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlbNzjVFDHo) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Shanghai_Pudong_Airport_2024_%28cropped%29.jpg) by User:Yuezhi_Huang / openverse, by-sa. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/choppers-vs-drones-skys-new-kings https://megaprojects.pub/article/choppers-vs-drones-skys-new-kings Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Death from above. The greatest military revolution of the 2020s has no doubt been from the growth of drone warfare. Sure, drones, or "unmanned aerial vehicles" as they're known, feel like they've been around forever. But the 2020s are when they've truly come into their own. As the technology has become more widely commercially available and shrunk in size, we now see more drones on modern battlefields than we do any other kind of aerial vehicle. And that got us thinking. Drones seem to have totally taken over, dooming pilots to an extended supporting role from the bench… or have they? Can drones really do everything that manned aircraft can do and more? Let's find out who's really the king of the skies. ## The Drone Zone So, how can drones be more beneficial to use on a battlefield than standard aircraft like helicopters or fighter jets? Well, a common phrase in the US military is that it's important to use "the right tool for the right job", and because drones have such a high variance in design, they can be the right tool for a lot of jobs. Firstly, you have a variance in size. Drones can go from the size of something that fits in the palm of your hand, to the size of a commercial jet. The Black Hornet is a tiny, helicopter-like reconnaissance drone that weighs just 70 grams. It's equipped with a 12-megapixel camera with thermal capability, it's so small and quiet that on a noisy and chaotic battlefield it's basically invisible from a few dozen metres away. Its newest variant has a flight time of over 30 minutes, it can fly in 22 mile per hour winds at 10 metres per second, it has an effective range of over two kilometres and it can be launched in under 20 seconds. Then compare that with the behemoth known as the RQ-4 Global Hawk, with a weight of 6,781 kilograms before a single thing is even put inside it, and a wingspan of 40 metres, it is absolutely enormous. It can travel at 18,000 metres in the sky, for more than 34 hours without refuelling at 357 miles per hour. You need three people to control the thing remotely and it probably takes a liiiitle longer than 20 seconds to get off the ground. So, the variance is pretty staggering, and you just can't have the same range of sizes in manned aircraft because of the "man" part. But that's the point, because drones can be the size of a bird or a bus, there are many kinds to choose from when picking "the right tool for the right job" that manned aircraft can't give you. But it's the miniaturisation of drone technology that is boosting its capability on the battlefield. In modern conflict, anti-aircraft systems have become advanced enough to shoot down helicopters and fighter jets with great efficiency. Russia has lost hundreds of fixed wing and rotary aircraft in Ukraine, many of which can be contributed to anti-aircraft systems like the PATRIOT. Small drones are much harder to shoot down and are not tracked as easily by this kind of technology unless you have man-portable air defence systems or MANPADS. But drones are a dime a dozen and those missiles don't grow on trees. So, it makes sense that drones are able to be utilised to a greater extent for missions that large aircraft simply can't get close to. Especially the smallest suicide drones are incredibly hard to shoot down with conventional firearms owing to their speed, which is why we've seen the growth of so-called "cope cages" around tanks to minimise these impacts. Until anti-air technology can be developed cheaply enough on a wide scale to deal with swarms of drones, they will be more effective than aircraft when AA systems are on the battlefield. AA guns like the Rheinmetall Skyranger show that they're starting to gain that kind of capability, but they're sparse and highly expensive. Drones obviously pose an enormous risk to those they're targeting, but arguably their biggest upside is how risk is minimised for their operators. Drones are able to be put in places that humans simply cannot go, whether that's due to environmental factors or the presence of the enemy. Say what you like about the morality of a 19-year-old college kid using an MQ-9 Reaper drone to target Taliban villages with an Xbox controller, but the chance of any US personnel getting injured in that exchange is zero. Even on the battlefield itself, soldiers are able to use drones from bunkers with ranges of multiple kilometres to drop grenades on enemies in trenches, or fly into military equipment all without ever being seen. What's more is that drones are capable of loitering for longer than traditional aircraft can. Aircraft tend to weigh more so they run out of fuel quicker, they're also piloted by people who need to go to the bathroom, and who get fatigued in combat environments. Drones have no such limitations. You can set a standard drone to loiter in the sky for hours before targets appear underneath. Small-scale drones can loiter at lower altitudes to provide real-time battlefield intel whilst larger ones can loiter miles in the sky for hours on end. Just look at the Global Hawk and its 34+ hours without needing to refuel for an example. Some gliders and other loitering munitions like the ULTRA can stay in the sky for days before spotting their targets. One army drone that was solar powered and tailored for endurance stayed in the air for 64 days straight. No matter how dedicated, regular pilots and aircraft simply can't match that. And the loitering brings us to another element of drone warfare that might give it an edge over traditional aircraft: fear. The psychological effects of always having drones loitering above you as a foot soldier is devastating for morale. Knowing at any moment when you're out in the open that something that you can't see until it's too late might try to kill you is… to put it mildly… highly distressing. The constant buzzing unnerves an enemy constantly struggling to spot threats around them, it's draining. At least with most helicopters or jets you can hear them coming, but because drones tend to loiter you can never really know where they are until you see them or they're loud enough to be close, by which point it's too late. Granted, it might not have the same effect as playing Fortunate Son from a helicopter over the jungle, but it's a much cheaper way to psych out your enemy. And that brings us onto an important point: after all of that, you simply cannot ignore the cost of unmanned aircraft. Generally, drones are cheaper to manufacture than standard military aircraft because they don't need things like life support systems or a cockpit. This makes them lighter, and therefore less costly. A lot of drones are also deemed expendable by their nature, it's why they're flown into things. They can be made out of much cheaper materials if they're going to blow up or get shot anyway. Good militaries tend to not have the same laissez-faire attitude when it comes to pilots and aircraft. The commercial-sized drones like we're seeing in the Ukraine conflict can range from in the hundreds to thousands of dollars in price. That's pennies compared to missiles and reconnaissance planes worth millions while providing a similar tactical utility. And when you consider the cost differential for what they can target, it's a no brainer. You can throw tens of suicide drones at a tank and not even have it rack up to a tenth of the cost of a missile that could do the same job. It's hard to deny that kind of use-case from an economic standpoint. And even if unmanned aircraft cannot do everything that a manned one can, the cost difference makes it a harder value judgement to make. An F-22 Raptor fighter jet costs 350 million dollars to build, let alone the maintenance; an Apache chopper is roughly 50 million; a Reaper is 30. Would you rather have one F-22, seven Apache choppers, 12 Reaper drones or hundreds of little quadcopters with cameras that can drop grenades? A lot of militaries might lean towards the Reapers and little drones for the extended capability they give you. Quantity has a quality all its own in warfare, and whilst it's by no means a guarantee of victory, it appears the more drones you have, the better your chances. Well, that's all well and good then! Soon we'll leave the war and death to the machines and we can all get on with our lives, right? Drones are clearly superior, aren't they? Well, you might be surprised. Because as much as we've made out that drones are far superior, they have their drawbacks, and manned aircraft are far from useless. ## The Downside to Drones Ultimately, while drones do have aerial dominance at the moment, there are quite a lot of reasons why they may not be overtaking traditional manned aircraft any time soon. Firstly, and most importantly, is the human element. Unmanned vehicles have a lot of utility in being able to be put in places that for manned ones would be considered suicide, but the downside of having no pilot or crew in the vehicle itself is you don't have a pilot and crew who can interpret what they're witnessing with their own eyes in real time. When a mission may hang in the balance if not for some quick thinking from a pilot, you'd prefer a manned aircraft every time. Another important element of having manned aircraft is for their use in both special operations and transport. Pilots, especially helicopter pilots, are able to take off and land very quickly. They can drop off or pick up troops while under fire and are able to do so in poor conditions and visibility. Drones simply can't do that. It's important to remember war is fought with logistics and certain special operations can make a big difference strategically. For example, it's just not possible for a drone to get a SEAL team into and out of a building in the dead of night with the present technology. What would have happened if you had left the raid on Bin Laden's compound to drones alone? It would have been a whole lot messier from the get go. Even in that very mission, one of the choppers carrying one of the SEAL teams crashed due to technical malfunctions and the mission was still completed with zero friendly casualties, showing that humans on the ground have the ability to adapt to situations where drones cannot. In fact, drones cannot easily defend themselves at all, with many relying on being hard to hit and hard to see in order to stay untargeted. Drones however could become extremely vulnerable to electronic warfare like hacking, jamming, and EMPs in the future. If a drone can be successfully hacked, or retrofitted to be controlled by the enemy, it could do all kinds of damage towards its operators or friendly soldiers. EMPs present even more danger. Whilst a strong enough EMP could take down the complex electronics of any drone, what happens after could be a problem. Some larger UAVs have internal navigation systems and fail safes that will return them to their operating bases when they lose GPS signal. It's a good way to recover drones that have their navigation systems knocked out, but if those drones can be successfully tracked back to base it could open avenues for attack or reveal important information. Drones being able to be hacked, rerouted or knocked out of the sky entirely show a major vulnerability in that they rely heavily on their communications to function. And the US military has experimented with EMP-related weapons since the early 2000s, but drone warfare may push electronic warfare to the forefront. Similarly, sabotage becomes an issue for drones. If somebody was able to hack or take out the communication hub itself, you could grind an army's entire reconnaissance apparatus to a halt. These kinds of issues don't exist in the same way with traditional aircraft with pilots. Take out the comms hub and now you just have a pissed off gunnery crew. For better or worse, you can't hack a person, and manned aircraft can still fly in a limited capacity if an EMP or another electronic weapon does hit them, they can't shut off an engine after all, and pilots are trained to fly manually even when their systems might fail. So as electronic warfare grows, some aircraft may regain an advantage on the battlefield. On top of that, as drones become more autonomous, they will develop vulnerabilities that standard aircraft won't have. As more autonomy gets built into drones, they will become more predictable. Software will ensure that drones operate with certain patterns of behaviour, and these patterns could be exploitable by an enemy. Humans, even with regimented training, are inherently unpredictable; we are not machines, we do not always choose the logical solution like an autonomous drone might for any number of reasons. And these things may make drones' predictability quite an important weapon against them. Mother nature is also in play here. Many drones, especially small-scale ones, struggle in adverse weather conditions for visibility, navigation, or flight. Just in late December of 2024, it was reported that winter conditions on Ukraine's Southern front were slowing down the use of kamikaze and surveillance drones from the Russian side. And any number of weather conditions can affect them, with rain, fog, or snow all making it difficult to fly. In certain scenarios the weather could severely limit the scope of what you're able to see and do on any given battlefield. Modern manned aircraft are generally big and robust enough to fly in bad weather and so can be used all year round and at any time of day, where cheap drones might not have night vision or infra-red cameras. More commercial drones like we see in Ukraine will also be affected by the temperature, with already short-lived batteries draining faster in the cold. Drones are great, but in some climates, they may be seriously inhibited for months out of the year, meaning you just can't rely on them all the time. And the final, and arguably most important issue to remember when considering drones and how they stack up versus aircraft, is that drones gaining the prevalence they have is a really recent development, more or less unseen until the war in Ukraine. What this means is we still may well be on the curve of "measure and countermeasure" as is present in all military technology. Just because there has not been an effective way to reduce the importance of drones on the modern battlefield yet, does not mean that one day there won't be. One of the current most important countermeasures to drones is staying out of sight, and stealth technology for individual soldiers may improve, rendering drones less effective. Soldiers are already finding their way underground more often in order to remain undetected, and it showcases that weapons don't develop in a vacuum, warfare itself will continue to develop alongside them. Manned aircraft for now appear to still have an important role to play on the battlefield when it comes to transport, fire support, destroying critical targets, and certain specialised missions, but drones have yet to see attempts to counter them beyond cope cages and heavy blankets in front of bunker doors. Eventually countermeasure technology like radiation weapons, EMPs, improved small arms anti-aircraft fire and more will catch up and become commonplace. It will then be the goal of those who utilise drones to get around those fixes to keep them effective as a force multiplier. It is the ever-escalating cycle of warfare and technology. A long time ago, the spear was the most effective weapon in the world. We've moved past it for a reason, but one day it could be the same for drones. ## Conclusion Ultimately crowning a "king of the sky" is a bit like a bad pencil, it's pointless. Drones and aircraft are lumped together and compared because they both fly and blow stuff up. In reality, whilst their roles overlap a lot, they are diversifying as warfare continues to change. Logic would tell you that an aircraft can't do everything a drone can do. But it'll also tell you that a drone can't do everything an aircraft can do either. And so, a mix of the two is required to make sure that in every situation, militaries are capable of picking the right tool for the right job. In some situations, you may well need both. Developments of concepts around fighter jets having "drone wingmen" to accompany them on sorties hit the news in 2024 and so soon we might see a future where the two kinds of systems are used together in certain missions. A perfect harmony of man and machine. And this example also illustrates an important point: that in military technology nothing is ever static, everything we've said today may well be subject to change. Some military boffin could come up with some new technology tomorrow that appears to make drones useless for six months, and then something else could come along later to undo it. We can't know what the future will hold. Drones may appear on top right now, but the reality for the title of "King of the Skies" is that nobody seems to sit on the throne for very long. ## Key Takeaways - Drones offer a wide range of sizes and capabilities, from tiny reconnaissance drones to large, long-endurance models. - Drones are more cost-effective and expendable, making them ideal for missions where manned aircraft are vulnerable. - Manned aircraft excel in special operations, transport, and adapting to unexpected situations on the battlefield. - Drones face vulnerabilities to electronic warfare and adverse weather conditions, limiting their effectiveness in certain scenarios. - The future of aerial warfare likely involves a mix of drones and manned aircraft, each used for their unique strengths. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is the main advantage of drones over traditional aircraft? Drones can be the right tool for a lot of jobs due to their high variance in design and size, ranging from palm-sized to the size of a commercial jet. They are also harder to shoot down and can loiter for longer periods, providing real-time battlefield intel and psychological pressure on enemies. ### How do drones minimize risk for their operators? Drones can be put in places that humans cannot go, whether due to environmental factors or the presence of the enemy. This minimizes the risk of injury to operators, as they can control drones remotely from safe locations. ### What are some examples of drones mentioned in the article? Examples include the Black Hornet, a tiny reconnaissance drone, and the RQ-4 Global Hawk, a large, long-endurance drone. The article also mentions suicide drones and solar-powered drones tailored for endurance. ### How do drones affect enemy morale? The constant presence of drones loitering above can be highly distressing for enemy soldiers, as they never know when or where an attack might come from. This psychological effect can be draining and demoralizing. ### What are the cost advantages of drones over traditional aircraft? Drones are generally cheaper to manufacture because they don't need life support systems or cockpits. They can be made from cheaper materials since many are deemed expendable. This makes them a cost-effective option for various military operations. ### What are some drawbacks of drones compared to manned aircraft? Drones lack the human element for quick decision-making and adaptability in critical situations. They also struggle with special operations and transport, and are vulnerable to electronic warfare and adverse weather conditions. ### How do manned aircraft still hold an advantage over drones? Manned aircraft can operate in adverse weather conditions, perform special operations, and transport troops quickly and safely. They are also less vulnerable to electronic warfare and can adapt to situations where drones cannot. ### What is the future of drone and manned aircraft integration? The future may see a harmony of man and machine, with concepts like fighter jets having 'drone wingmen' to accompany them on sorties. This integration could provide a mix of capabilities for various military situations. ### What is the current status of drones in modern warfare? Drones have gained significant prevalence in modern warfare, especially seen in the war in Ukraine. However, countermeasures are being developed, and the effectiveness of drones may change as technology advances. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: Choppers vs. Drones: The Sky's New Kings](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT5ij7Ht5iI) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Russian_drone_Gerbera%2C_downed_in_Ukraine_%282025-02-15%29.webp) by State Emergency Service of Ukraine / openverse, by. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/countries-stacking-militaries-2025 https://megaprojects.pub/article/countries-stacking-militaries-2025 Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Around 5am local time on the 24th of February 2022, the morning silence on the frontier between Ukraine and Russia was shattered by the roar of mechanised infantry vehicles, tanks, and armoured personnel carriers. Only minutes before, in Moscow, Vladimir Putin delivered an address in which he declared that Russians in Ukraine were facing "humiliation and genocide", and denounced what he described as a NATO military buildup in the country. In doing so, he announced the beginning of a 'special military operation' — in short, declaring open war on Ukraine. And with that, Putin's forces surged across the border. The ground invasion had begun. What followed was an intense and brutal conflict resulting in extreme devastation for Ukraine, and one of the most cataclysmic geopolitical events of the 21st century. Amidst the many lessons derived from the ongoing war, was that the reality of a Russian military invasion was absolutely no trifling matter. With this fact laid bare, much of the world sat up and paid keen attention. And some leapt into action. ## Poland's Military Supercharge Poland is a country whose economy is flying high. Its GDP leapt from 524 billion US dollars in 2017 to more than 820 billion by 2024. Poland's rapid growth has been described as an economic miracle, and several projections suggest that the economy will surpass that of the UK by the year 2030. But the transformation is even more striking in Poland's military expenditure. In 2014, Polish spending on defence was less than 10 billion dollars, and a paltry 1.88% of its then-GDP of 539 billion. On the eve of the Russian invasion in 2022, it had a higher — but still unexceptional — budget of around 15 billion dollars, roughly the same as Spain and still only around 2% of GDP. Once Russian troops crossed into Ukraine, however, Poland's defence spending went haywire. By 2024, its budget had soared all the way up to an eye watering 41.5 billion dollars, and no less than 4.12% of GDP. This percentage represented the highest of all NATO countries, higher than that of the US (at 3.3%), significantly higher than the NATO average of 2.7%, and more than twice the alliance's guideline of 2%. But Warsaw was nowhere near done. Around 150 military contracts were prepared in 2024, securing air-launched cruise missiles, Apache attack helicopters, dynamic support helicopters, F-16 fighter jets, air defence systems, a fresh batch of K2 tanks and rounds, satellite terminals, and new communications infrastructure. Poland ditched its Soviet-era BDRM amphibious scout cars and kickstarted the so-called Kleszcz programme, domestically producing almost 300 advanced armoured scout cars. Its manpower surged to 200,000 active soldiers, alongside an additional 16,000 allied soldiers stationed on Polish territory. The reservist Territorial Defence Force was also expanded — to 35,000 — and it has further bulwarked its artillery, infantry, and navy. As if Poland's military buildup hadn't already gone anabolic, it picked up pace even further still. In May 2024, the Defence Ministry announced plans for construction of the "East Shield", a 2.5 billion dollar sheath along its borders with Belarus and the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, and something which would make the Maginot Line look like a child's playpen. The Ministry also declared that it intends to raise its number of active servicemen further to 300,000 across all rungs of its armed forces. And before the end of the year, yet another dramatic budget increase was unveiled. At a record 49 billion dollars or 4.7% of GDP, Poland's 2025 defence budget stands as one of the highest in NATO, and more than twice its budget in 2022. Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski declared that the country plans to raise its spending in the coming years to 5% of GDP, which — as pointed out by Reuters — would result in a defence budget greater than all its post-communist central European and Baltic neighbours combined. Even so, Reuters had perhaps jumped the gun. Because Poland's frenzied armouring wouldn't quite be an isolated event. ## Lithuania Dials Up its Defence Now, let's say you are a resident of one of the Baltic countries of Lithuania, Latvia, or Estonia. Quite understandably, you'd be watching the War in Ukraine unfold with a high degree of alarm. Each of the three countries shares a land border with Russia, and were all occupied by the Soviet Union during World War II, going on to spend almost fifty years under the Kremlin's bootheel. Moreover, Estonia and Latvia have large ethnic-Russian populations — estimated at between 20 and 30% of the population — and this, many will recall, was part of the pretext used by Putin to invade Ukraine. Unlike Poland, no Baltic country has a buffer state separating them from Russia, none of them has its huge, homogenous population to provide safety in numbers, and all three are pinned against the Baltic sea — without an ally like Germany at their heel. Possibly in light of this, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have long taken their security seriously. Each one was among the few NATO countries to have a defence budget higher than 2% GDP before the Russian invasion, and all three have mandatory military conscription for males, with Latvia being the latest to reinstate the practice in 2023. But while the Baltic trio have each bolstered their defences in recent years, Lithuania has since sauntered ahead — and is taking absolutely no chances with its security whatsoever. As the first country to officially break from the Soviet Union in 1991, Lithuania never treated the threat of reoccupation with any kind of deference. Flanked by both the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad and Russia's ally Belarus, it lies in a precarious defensive military position: its only land connections with NATO allies are Latvia to the north — itself in a similar strategic position — and Poland through a tiny and vulnerable stretch of land known as the Suwalki gap. So while some countries hesitated when the Donbass War began in 2014, Lithuania did not. Military conscription for males was reinstated within a year, having previously been put to an end in 2008. An Enhanced Forward Presence base of 3,700 NATO soldiers was established in 2017 in the town of Rukla. And in the years between 2014 and 2022, Lithuania's defense budget went stratospheric: mushrooming four times its initial size of 430 million dollars to more than 1.7 billion, and from less than one percent of its GDP to 2.5. In 2024, military enlistment was expanded to 17-year-olds, and plans to blitz the defence budget further followed soon after. In January 2025, the Lithuanian Defence Ministry announced that defence spending between 2026 and 2030 would now rise to between 5 and 6% of total GDP per year. This would be proportionally double its defence spending of 3% in 2024 alone, and would see Lithuania leapfrog Poland as proportionally the biggest single spender on defence in NATO. In doing so, Lithuania also became the first member of the alliance to meet US President Donald Trump's new defence target of 5%, something he announced as a measure to counter the Russian threat and only two weeks before Lithuania did that. The source of this spending is quite clear: Lithuania has been stacking itself to the gills with military hardware. In only the month before the Defence budget announcement, the Ministry of Defence announced signed contracts for Joint Light Tactical Vehicles and UAVs from the US, Carl Gustaf 84mm antitank rifles from Sweden, C-27J Spartan aircraft maintenance from Italy, and a massive deal for no less than 44 Leopard 2 tanks from Germany. All this in addition to the domestic development of next-generation night vision equipment and Vilkas Infantry Fighting Vehicles by Lithuanian companies. Poland and Lithuania certainly lead the charge amongst European nations for defence preparation. But another massive spender emerged in a different geopolitical theatre entirely, albeit for quite different — if related — reasons. ## A Biting Reality Strikes Armenia Far from the battlefields of Ukraine, a bitter consequence of the Russian invasion took form for the small South Caucasus nation of Armenia. For years, Armenia has been locked in conflict with Azerbaijan over the tiny mountain region of Nagorno-Karabakh, something which led to war in the early 1990s. As the war dug in, Armenia — fearing invasion by Turkey — joined the newly-established Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), Russia's answer to NATO. This seemed to pay off in 1993, when Turkish troops massed on Armenia's western border but were deterred by mobilised Russian forces on the other side. The Armenians were thus able to overcome a disorganised and chaotic Azerbaijani army, and in the years after, it was in Russia's hands that the Armenians unwisely — if understandably — entrusted their fate. The Armenians had severely miscalculated. Russian support would — as it turned out — would only extend as far as a direct assault on Armenia proper, not the unrecognised and imperilled Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijan realised this, and spent years modernising its forces, laying the ground for a fresh assault on the region. The resulting attack in 2020 saw 75% of lost territory recovered by Azerbaijan. Russia did nothing to support its ally, and all remaining prospects of backing from Moscow vanished following the invasion of Ukraine. In late 2023, the end for Nagorno-Karabakh came on swift and terrible wings, and resulted in the flight of the entire Armenian population from the region. But Armenia's troubles didn't end there. What came next was a sustained period of skirmishes along the border, which saw Azeri troops occupy pockets of territory in Armenia itself. Once again, Russia looked away: making it painfully clear that Yerevan could not count on Kremlin support even in the event of an attack on its sovereign territory. It also became clear that Russian weapons were effectively useless in countering what was, by now, a tangible threat to Armenia's very existence. Beginning in 2022, Yerevan hiked its military budget by a massive 83%: rising from 795 million US dollars to more than 1.3 billion the following year. By 2024, after the fall of Nagorno-Karabakh, military spending increased further, as Armenia announced its budget would rise to 1.7 billion US. The same year, Yerevan revealed a string of new strategic partnerships, largely abandoning Russian support and announcing that its primary supplier of military hardware would be India. The two countries signed an arms contract worth 600 million dollars in June 2024, reportedly for the provision of Pinaka multiple-launch rocket systems, Akash medium-range missiles, ATAGS howitzers, and anti-tank and anti-drone equipment. But Armenia's military expansion didn't stop there. In July, Iran International reported that Yerevan had signed a secret deal with Tehran worth 500 million dollars, although this was denied by the Armenian MFA. The deal allegedly secured Iranian-made Shahed drones, as well as further air defence missile systems. Armenia also expanded active procurement from France, and by January 2025, it had signed a partnership agreement with the US for mostly non-lethal training and logistical support. By 2025, Armenia's defence budget shot up to 6% of GDP — proportionally more than Azerbaijan but still significantly less in absolute terms. In doing so, Armenia seemed to sacrifice part of its economy, downgrading projected growth from 5.6% to 5.1%, largely due to increased government spending. Amid the flurry of budget increases and strategic partnerships, Armenia also inferred veiled plans for other military reforms. It is believed that these are to target corruption and nepotism in army ranks, and to eliminate Soviet-era military doctrines which led to ruin in Nagorno-Karabakh. Yerevan aims to improve both the professionalism of its military leadership and the efficiency of its conscription system, possibly by reducing mandatory service from two years to ensure more efficient terms of service and maximising conscript morale. Armenia may not have the means of the European mega-economies to bulwark its security, but its precarious position has seen its defence spending rise to proportionally one of the highest in the world. ## The European Military Megaproject Now, while the geopolitical realities of all three countries may differ, there is one thing that Armenia, Lithuania, and Poland share. Their increased military fervour can all be traced back to the morning of the 24th of February 2022, and the sound of military boots crossing into Ukraine. When Vladimir Putin began his special military operation, he set in motion a chain of events which shattered any lingering apathy of nations near and far towards self-armament. For Poland, this meant setting into motion a military furore not seen for a hundred years. For Lithuania and Armenia, it meant supercharging existing military preparation to unprecedented levels. But these aside, a huge proportion of European NATO members also sprang into action, which resulted in new military megaprojects emerging all over the continent. In 2021, only six of the of the thirty-two NATO allies met the minimal Defence budget spend of 2%. By 2024, this had risen all the way up to twenty-three. Czechia, Finland and Denmark all dragged their defence spending forward by a full percent. France raised its budget up to 55 billion dollars, and announced plans for the purchase of next-generation aircraft carriers and a new naval frigate. Even Spain, the alliance's laggard, raised its defence spending from a measly 1% to 1.3, and promised to meet the 2% threshold in the wake of criticism from Trump. But perhaps the most significant surge came by way of none other than Germany. Before 2022, Germany's foreign policy had been described as one of pacifism, and its military — the Bundeswehr — operated with a budget of 1.45% of GDP. But in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Germany turned face, and raised its military budget beyond 2% GDP. Now that may not sound like much, but this represents a huge reversal for Germany, whose military has been described by Defence Minister Boris Pistorius as in a state of "neglect". 2% of GDP may be a relatively ordinary figure: but Germany is not an ordinary country. Even at 1.57% in 2023, Germany's defence budget was 68 billion dollars, the second-highest in NATO (behind the US), and ahead of France, Italy and the UK. 2% of Germany's GDP would offer a gargantuan budget of more than 80 billion, which would place it firmly into the top 5 defence spenders in the world. For comparison, the same figure would represent around 60% of the Russian defence budget of 130 billion for 2025, which is projected to eat up 6.3% of Russia's GDP and a mindnumbing 32% of its total state expenditure for 2025. With Germany and Poland at its helm, Europe — the sleeping giant of military affairs — may be waking from its slumber. And with countries like Lithuania, Estonia and others in tow, it might just be a force to reckon with. ## Key Takeaways - Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022 triggered significant military buildups in neighboring countries. - Poland's defense spending surged to 4.7% of GDP by 2025, leading NATO with extensive military contracts. - Lithuania increased its defense budget to 5-6% of GDP, aiming to be NATO's top spender proportionally. - Armenia's defense spending rose to 6% of GDP due to conflicts with Azerbaijan and reduced Russian support. - Germany's defense budget exceeded 2% of GDP, marking a shift from its previous pacifist stance. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What triggered the significant increase in military spending in Poland? The Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, triggered a significant increase in military spending in Poland. ### How much did Poland's defense budget increase by 2024? By 2024, Poland's defense budget had soared to 41.5 billion dollars, which was 4.12% of its GDP. ### What major military contracts did Poland prepare in 2024? In 2024, Poland prepared around 150 military contracts securing air-launched cruise missiles, Apache attack helicopters, F-16 fighter jets, air defense systems, K2 tanks, satellite terminals, and new communications infrastructure. ### What is the 'East Shield' project in Poland? The 'East Shield' is a 2.5 billion dollar defense project along Poland's borders with Belarus and the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, announced in May 2024. ### How has Lithuania's defense budget changed since 2014? Lithuania's defense budget increased from 430 million dollars in 2014 to over 1.7 billion dollars by 2022, and it plans to increase it to between 5 and 6% of GDP from 2026 to 2030. ### What military hardware did Lithuania acquire in early 2025? In early 2025, Lithuania acquired Joint Light Tactical Vehicles and UAVs from the US, Carl Gustaf 84mm antitank rifles from Sweden, C-27J Spartan aircraft maintenance from Italy, and 44 Leopard 2 tanks from Germany. ### What prompted Armenia to increase its military spending? Armenia increased its military spending due to the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan and the realization that Russia would not support Armenia in future conflicts. ### How much did Armenia's defense budget increase by 2025? By 2025, Armenia's defense budget increased to 6% of its GDP. ### What strategic partnerships did Armenia form in 2024? In 2024, Armenia formed strategic partnerships with India, signing a 600 million dollar arms contract, and reportedly with Iran for 500 million dollars, although the latter was denied by the Armenian MFA. ### How did the Russian invasion of Ukraine affect NATO countries' defense spending? The Russian invasion of Ukraine led to a significant increase in defense spending among NATO countries, with 23 out of 32 NATO allies meeting the 2% GDP defense spending threshold by 2024. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: These Countries are Stacking Their Militaries in 2025.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJctWbPX4iU) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Russian_drone_Gerbera%2C_downed_in_Ukraine_%282025-02-15%29.webp) by State Emergency Service of Ukraine / openverse, by. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/dornier-do-x-largest-heaviest-worst-flying-boat https://megaprojects.pub/article/dornier-do-x-largest-heaviest-worst-flying-boat Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT At the turn of the 20th century, air power was just beginning to revolutionise the world forever. Meanwhile massive cruise liners carried people across the planet in luxury. And in the middle of it all, one man dared to dream: What if these two incredible technical achievements could be combined into the largest flying ship ever built? Well, then you'd have the Dornier DO X. A boat that could fly and that pushed the very boundaries of what was possible in engineering. A massive marvel that mystified people wherever it went, and an antique that has influenced seaplane designs to this day. But soon we may discover why this long dead legend may not be truly dead after all. This is a story of ingenuity, of the inescapable passage of time, of war, and of one man's impossible dream. ## When Worlds Collide So, what is the Dornier DO X? Is it a ship? Is it a plane? Surprise! It's both. The Dornier company, owned and founded by Claudius Dornier, engineer extraordinaire, built the most ambitious, heaviest and luxurious flying boat that the world has ever seen at the time. Seaplanes had existed for decades, but not like this. The Dornier DO X is more like a medium-sized ship with a wing, engines and a tailfin. If you look at it from the front, it's unmistakably a flying boat. We're not exactly sure where the boat parts end, and the plane parts begin. The terms "flying boat" and "seaplane" will be used pretty interchangeably here, because the DO X defies easy categorisation. The thing to mention about the Dornier DO X was that it wasn't just any plane, it was absolutely massive. At almost 40 metres, or over 131 feet long, and with a 47 metre, or 156 foot wingspan, it's directly comparable in size to a Boeing 767-300 jetliner. And the 767-300's first took flight in 1986, almost 60 years after the Dornier DO X first did. Nobody at the time would have seen anything like this. Even the Spruce Goose, at one time the largest airplane ever built, didn't take flight until 1947. And as a seaplane, the Dornier DO X was truly unique. Bear in mind at this point, we were only about a decade further on from the Red Baron flying around in a biplane, it was barely over 20 years since the Wright brothers took flight in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. So, imagine something the size of a modern day jumbo jet flying around that also looked like a boat at the time. It would have made bystanders think the damn end times were coming. And the Dornier DO X did indeed fly despite its gigantic size, just not very easily. It was powered by 12 separate Bristol Jupiter radial engines that were mounted across the top of the aircraft on the wings. You might be confused to see propellors facing forwards and backwards here, but that is actually by design. Each block is made up of two engines, one facing forward and the other facing backwards, in what's known as a "push-pull" configuration. The forward facing engines "pull" air into the propellors, which moves the aircraft forwards, whilst the backwards facing engines "push" the air behind them to create more forward thrust. This was helpful if one or multiple engines failed, as the others would still work. This wasn't the only thing that made the Dornier DO X a modern marvel of engineering. It was constructed during an era where external wires, biplane layouts and wood for external structures were highly common. The DO X had a pretty modern construction by comparison. Its wings were composed of a steel-reinforced aluminium-copper alloy, which were then covered by a heavy linen fabric and aluminium paint for waterproofing. It even had strut bracing with limited wires and fuselage-mounted sponsons for greater stability. But its design had a few teeny tiny drawbacks. The engines were prone to overheating, and because the vehicle was so heavy, with a consistent weight of over 50 tonnes, they could barely drag the DO X to an altitude of about 425 metres, which as planes go really isn't very far off the ground. It definitely would have turned a few heads, with it flying so low over cities and buildings that the pilot could probably see the horrified expression on your face as this 50-tonne missile soared through the sky. And because of its engine setup, the layout of the plane isn't exactly what you'd find in modern aircraft today. Below the cockpit is a bridge like on an actual ship. Behind the cockpit is a navigation room, and behind that is the engine room. Inside it, an engineer would adjust the power of each of the 12 individual engines as was needed for the flight and also monitor the 12 separate gauges for those engines, in a very similar manner to how engineers on ships would alter their power. The pilot would send an engine order telegraph to the engineer, who would then carry out their instructions. There was also a radio room so the plane could make contact with ground crews. That was on the highest deck. Yes, because this really is a marriage between air travel and sea travel, the Dornier DO X was modelled off of transatlantic cruise liners at the time and had multiple decks. The main deck was where passengers would sit, but this is not your standard budget airliner. There was no crying baby behind you while you're stuck in the middle seat between two people hogging the armrests. No way José, this was a classic air-cruise liner, and so passengers travelled in luxury compared to airlines today. There were tables and comfortable chairs, so high society individuals could lounge drinking a nice set of tea during their flight. Additionally, there were also leather armchairs, as well as sofa-like options. Some of the seating could even be converted into sleeping compartments for overnight flights. But if you're not the type to snooze whilst flying, the Dornier DO X had something for you too. There was a dining room on the main deck in case you got hungry, as well as a smoking room and a fully stocked bar. Sure, there was no in-flight movie, but a newspaper would manage just as well. Behind the passenger spaces was an all-electric area for storing and serving food to the dining area, bathrooms and a cargo hold. All of this was replete with luxury Persian carpets and the richly decorated interior you would expect from a 1920s cruise across the Mediterranean. The DO X was built for its luxury. Lord knows it certainly was not built for its practicality. One likes to think that they had the option to make it lighter but chose not to, because what kind of a respectable 1920s gentleman would fly in a boat without some mahogany upholstery. One deck further down and you had the fuel tanks, which housed thousands of litres of the stuff. There are disputed numbers on just how much fuel the DO X could hold, with sources saying 12,000 litres all the way up to over 20,000 litres. Given that the Dornier was able to travel across the Atlantic Ocean even despite its thirsty engines, we will just say that the amount of fuel it had was "enough" for long-haul flights. It also had nine water-tight compartments on the lowest deck, only seven of which were required for full floatation. So yes, just like a ship, if the Dornier took on water in one of those compartments, it could be counter flooded on the other side to keep it stable. As far as we know however, this was never required throughout its life. It does beg the question: Why build something like this? Something so impractical, so massive, so strange? Well, as mentioned, seaplanes are nothing new. Granted, this blurs the line between plane and boat so much that we're not really sure whether to call it a seaplane or a flying ship, but there were a number of reasons why a combination of the two might have been built. One reason as good as any is simply to see if it could be done. No plane had existed on this scale yet and the ambition to see if a truly humongous plane for the time would even fly could have led to great commercial success. Airships existed, but we were only around a decade away from the Hindenburg proving why they weren't such a great idea anymore. Dornier was a visionary in that respect, he saw planes as the future, citing their reliability for long distance travel being better than airships. If an airship went down over the Atlantic it was a potential life-threatening disaster. If a seaplane or flying boat had trouble, they could simply land in the water. No dramas. Many seaplanes use this concept today, in areas like the South Pacific and across Oceania where island hopping by plane is much quicker and easier than building bridges between islands sometimes dozens of miles apart. Similarly, with something like the Dornier DO X, you didn't even have to build an airport, as photographs of it landing in the river Hudson prove. Just find the closest patch of water to the city you're aiming at and have at it. There were barely any regulations for air travel then compared to what we have today, so if you could land somewhere safely, and then taxi to shore, what was the harm? And also, weather wasn't as much of a disadvantage for something like the DO X. Whilst it wasn't able to fly above the clouds because it was so heavy, which did subject it to the weather beneath them, the whole plane was already built for the water. So, it may have been a little turbulent, sure, but at least the thing could actually fly in the rain when other aircraft would have been grounded. In the end, only three of these beautiful machines were ever built. The first, known as the DO X1, was used as something of a promotional vehicle for the company, flying all over the world presenting itself to the masses. The other two, creatively called the DO X2 and X3, were used by the Italian navy, although these last two had slightly different specifications to the original, being slightly larger and with different engines. But what is the story of Dornier and how this "sky-boat" came to be? Why, if it had so many upsides, did it not see commercial success? And where did the DO Xs eventually end up? ## The History of the Dornier DO X Claudius Dornier, mastermind behind the flying ship and the Dornier company, was a naturally smart guy. He completed his studies in engineering at Munich Technical College at the end of the 1900s, and being interested in those newfangled "planes" everyone was talking about, he looked for a position at an aviation company. Claudius eventually landed himself a position at the German Zeppelin factory at Friedrichshafen, eventually catching the eye of Count Von Zeppelin himself, becoming his chief scientific advisor. He mainly worked on the use of new lightweight metals for the frames of the airships, but Dornier always had more of an interest in planes and how these brand-new alloys could be used in fixed-wing aircraft. He designed the first all-metal plane in 1911 and the Count permitted him to open up his own division of the company: The Dornier Aircraft Works. When World War One broke out in the 1910s, one can imagine Dornier had some reservations around the whole thing, coming from a German mother and a French father. But he was loyal to the Kaiser's kingdom, building and designing airships and planes that were used throughout World War One. But on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, the last bombs fell as Germany surrendered and the Treaty of Versailles came into effect, which severely limited Germany from building any planes at all. And that is where the Dornier DO X's story really begins. To circumvent the Treaty of Versailles' restrictions on the German aviation industry, Dornier, who had gained full control of his factory after the war, moved operations just over the border to Switzerland, at a shipyard in Altenrhein on Lake Constance. His work was not funded by the defence ministry, but the transport ministry, and just like that, Dornier could start building planes again. In 1918, the Dornier works had built the Zeppelin-Linday Rs IV, which was also a seaplane, but it never saw any combat because the war ended too soon for it to reach the front lines. Soon after the Dornier Do J Wal (otherwise known as "the whale") was built. This had a lot of hallmarks of the DO X, such as the push-pull engines and the sponsons, and it proved to be a pretty long-lasting and reliable design. But Dornier, now unshackled by the war and the treaty, wanted to go bigger. The first designs for the DO X were put to paper in 1924, and by 1929, and after almost a quarter of a million-man hours, it was ready for its first test flight. And it worked. Granted, it didn't fly very high or for very long, but it worked. Not just content with being the biggest plane ever at the time however, on its 70th test flight in October of 1929, it set a new world record for the number of passengers carried on a single flight with over 150, a record that would stand for the next two decades. After a take-off run of 50 seconds, the DO X was able to climb to around 200 metres. For reference, that is low enough to crash into the Eiffel Tower about two thirds of the way up. The passengers inside the DO X were asked to crowd together on each side to help make turns. It had completed 103 flights by 1930 and after this proof of concept, the Dornier DO X would get a few upgrades. The inside of the plane would be redesigned to be the more luxurious layout for passengers that we know. And rather than 150, it would sit fewer passengers in greater comfort. Generally, for short-haul flights around 100 people would be seated, but for longer-haul ones it would only be around 66. Crucially, the next major modification was for the engines. The DO X was refitted with 610 horsepower Curtiss "Conqueror" water-cooled V-12s, which allowed it to reach a practically dizzying altitude of 500 metres. And this height made it possible for the DO X to be officially capable of crossing the Atlantic. The DO X was a technical and engineering marvel, so it would be sent all over the place on a tour to showcase the might of German engineering, but there was a slight issue. Whilst the DO X had been designed with transatlantic travel in mind, the new engines were gas guzzlers, which made the trip across the Atlantic difficult. In 1930 the DO X left Switzerland where it was built, flew to the Netherlands, the UK, France and Spain before landing in Portugal, where another mishap occurred when a fire consumed most of one of the wings. Repairs took weeks. It then hopped down the West Coast of Africa, reaching the Cape Verde Islands and finally setting off towards the new world, landing in Brazil. It then turned North, reaching New York in August of 1931, where it was hoped that the flying ship, which caused a sensation everywhere it went, would attract rich American buyers for the company. But at this point, the Great Depression had just hit the USA two years prior in 1929, and nobody really had any money to spare on extravagant luxury planes like the DO X. So, whilst causing a stir across Europe and the Americas, the transatlantic venture would ultimately be a failure. At least it would only take three days to do the return trip, rather than the months it took to get there. But even this in itself was an achievement. Charles Lindbergh had only flown across the Atlantic solo in 1927, five years prior. Now this behemoth was doing it with scores of passengers in relative luxury. Dornier had put a lot into the venture, but he was unable to fund more flights for the DO X so the original was turned over to the German flag-carrying airline, Lufthansa. Its next major tour was supposed to see it fly to Vienna, Budapest, and Istanbul in 1933, but it only reached the reservoir city of Passau in Bavaria after the tail of the boat was torn off during a botched landing on a lake. This effectively killed any market the DO X could have had in Europe. Lufthansa had no interest in maintaining an aircraft so large and so complicated. After it was repaired, it was transported to the Berlin Museum of Technology where it was permanently shelved. That didn't mean no other DO X planes existed though. The DO X2 and X3 were sold to Italy in 1931 with the intention of them being used as luxury passenger planes, but for whatever reason, this never happened. So instead, they were given to the Italian military to see if they could do anything with them. However, the Italian engines that they used were even less powerful than the original ones Dornier designed, which severely limited the already lumbering craft to little more than long range maritime patrol planes. And that's the unsatisfying end of it. The DO X2 and X3 were eventually scrapped by the Italian navy by 1937. Europe was on a war footing, and in Italy no material could be spared. In Nazi Germany, the DO X1 remained in the Berlin Museum of Technology during the war. Then during an allied air raid in late November of 1943, the museum was bombed and the original DO X was destroyed. Along with the machines, most of the construction plans were also lost along the way. Dornier himself died in 1969, having built many incredible machines, some for good, some for evil. But it would appear that his most ambitious and marvellous creation of all would go to the grave with him. Or would it? ## The DO X Reborn This incredible aircraft has garnered quite a few fans over the years. From its sheer scale, to its slightly ridiculous look, to the impressive mix of maritime and air design. There are a select number of people who are trying to bring the Dornier DO X back from the dead. The leader of such an effort is Peter Kielhorn, a former Dornier employee. After the DO X, Dornier the company lived on, as it was a successful element of the German war machine. Post war it continued as a private company to great success, building jets, military aircraft, spacecraft and yes, even still making seaplanes. After Kielhorn retired, he was looking for something to do, quoting: "After finishing my book, I looked for my next challenge of what to do, and I decided to write about the DO X or the construction of the DO X, and this was in 2013 / 2014." The DO X fascinated Kielhorn, and soon he met like-minded individuals who were also transfixed by the flying ship. But not content with it simply being an interesting engineering footnote lost to history, Kielhorn and several others conspired to rebuild an original DO X1 replica. Kielhorn didn't know how to rebuild an aircraft whose plans had almost all been lost decades before, but where there's a will, there's a way. He approached the University of Friedrichshafen in 2014, the same Friedrichshafen where the original Dornier company was founded almost a century before, to see if they could help. In 2018 the Universities of Lörrach and Mosbach joined in the effort. Slowly, The Friends and Support Association DO X, a volunteer organisation, formed around the project to get it built. But this would not be an easy task. There were very few surviving plans of the DO X left. And before any parts could be cut, a digital replica of the plane would need to be designed to the right specifications. That's where the universities come in. With a swathe of young minds, computer-aided-design software and final projects needed to be completed for course credits, the students built a digital version of the DO X with the volunteer's added specifications. And this was all based on drawings of three sides of the DO X, interior views of the flying ship, as well as high-resolution images of fuselage frames and structural components taken during the building phase of the original. The Flight Museum of Altenrhein even had an original DO X propellor that the team could scan with lasers to reverse engineer it. Overall, the Universities and their students contributed 96,000-man hours to create the digital data needed for the project. The final stage before parts get cut and built en masse is in the detailed design of the structural components, which is still ongoing, but thanks to some source materials from Dornier, progress is being made. By August of 2021, 54 ribs of the original fuselage had been designed in detail, meaning that the complete fuselage of the ship at that time was nearly ready for rebuilding. Plans for the next stages is to put the plane together as it is designed like a big LEGO set in Switzerland. A large facility which can accommodate the constructed nearby to Lake Constance makes the chances of the DO X seeing the water again a reality. As of January 2024, Peter Kielhorn estimated that roughly two percent of the replica had been constructed. The plan is for the digital DO X to be completed by 2026, with the fully realised and reconstructed replica to be built in time for the 100th anniversary of the DO X's first test flight: July 12th, 2029. But here's the crucial question: will it fly? Sorry to disappoint, but no, the replica as far as we know will not be able to fly. But it will be fully buoyant, built at full scale and it will even be able to taxi on the water using electric power. The team have even redesigned the Curtiss V12 engines thanks to Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio, who were able to provide a manual of the original. So, almost a century after the last remnants of the Dornier DO X were seemingly destroyed forever, soon it may be brought back from the brink of extinction for humanity to witness in awe all over again. And the flying boat is already gaining more popularity and traction in the mainstream again. You can buy and fly the plane yourself on Microsoft Flight Simulator, if that's your thing. But if you wait just a little longer, come 2029 you should be able to go and see the real thing yourself. Whilst the Dornier DO X was never a commercial success, it was still emblematic of the times it was built. Full of ambition, promise and striving for new ways to do old things. And whilst it wasn't the prettiest, or the easiest to fly, or the most efficient, the fact that it existed at all is something to be celebrated. It was a marvel of its time, demonstrating not only the force of nature that air power would soon become, but also showing that daring to dream moves us all forward a little at a time. A quote from the Friends of the DO X's website probably puts it, and probably Dornier's own thoughts best: "You just have to want it – then it will succeed." ## Key Takeaways - The Dornier DO X was a massive flying boat built in the late 1920s, combining air and sea travel. - It featured 12 engines in a push-pull configuration and had a luxurious interior modeled after cruise liners. - Despite its innovative design, the DO X faced practical issues like engine overheating and low altitude. - Only three DO X models were built, with the first used for promotional tours and the others by the Italian navy. - Efforts are underway to rebuild the DO X, with a full-scale replica planned for completion by 2029. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is the Dornier DO X? The Dornier DO X is a massive flying boat built by the Dornier company. It is both a ship and a plane, with a size comparable to a Boeing 767-300 jetliner. It was the largest and heaviest flying boat of its time. ### How was the Dornier DO X powered? The Dornier DO X was powered by 12 separate Bristol Jupiter radial engines mounted across the top of the aircraft on the wings. These engines were arranged in a 'push-pull' configuration, with some facing forwards and others backwards. ### What were the dimensions of the Dornier DO X? The Dornier DO X was approximately 40 meters (131 feet) long and had a wingspan of 47 meters (156 feet). ### What was the interior of the Dornier DO X like? The interior of the Dornier DO X was designed for luxury, featuring tables, comfortable chairs, leather armchairs, and sofa-like options. It also included a dining room, a smoking room, a fully stocked bar, and sleeping compartments for overnight flights. ### How many Dornier DO X aircraft were built? Only three Dornier DO X aircraft were ever built. The first, DO X1, was used for promotional purposes, while the other two, DO X2 and DO X3, were used by the Italian navy. ### What happened to the original Dornier DO X? The original Dornier DO X, known as DO X1, was destroyed during an Allied air raid on the Berlin Museum of Technology in late November 1943. ### Is there an effort to rebuild the Dornier DO X? Yes, there is an effort led by Peter Kielhorn and the Friends and Support Association DO X to rebuild an original DO X1 replica. The project aims to have the replica completed by the 100th anniversary of the DO X's first test flight in 2029. ### Will the rebuilt Dornier DO X be able to fly? As far as known, the rebuilt Dornier DO X will not be able to fly. However, it will be fully buoyant, built at full scale, and able to taxi on the water using electric power. ### What was the significance of the Dornier DO X? The Dornier DO X was a marvel of its time, demonstrating the potential of air power and the ambition to combine sea and air travel. It pushed the boundaries of engineering and influenced seaplane designs for decades. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: Dornier Do X: The Largest, Heaviest, and Worst Flying Boat](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVkSe5-UuGY) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Kitty_Hawk_Airfield.jpg) by Wusel007 / openverse, by-sa. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/dragon-gate-china-failed-stunt-sweden https://megaprojects.pub/article/dragon-gate-china-failed-stunt-sweden Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Ah, Sweden. Land of pine forests, lakes and wooded cabins. Think of Sweden and you probably think of moose, meatballs; maybe even Ikea. You probably don't think of Shaolin monasteries, Buddhist statues and Kung Fu schools. Or a 200-strong army of terracotta soldiers. But bizarre as it sounds, that's exactly what you'll find in the Älvkarleby Municipality, around 150 kilometres outside Sweden's capital, Stockholm. This is Dragon Gate: one of the strangest ghost towns you're likely to encounter. Because although this was imagined as a meeting place for Chinese and Swedish culture, and although it has the Terracotta Army ready and waiting to welcome guests, nobody is actually here. In fact, the site of Dragon Gate has been cursed by a string of bankruptcies and bad investments dating right back to the 1980s. Owner after owner has come and gone, while its echoing buildings remain eerily empty – built for crowds that never came. ## A Chequered Past In Uppsala County, on Sweden's east coast, Älvkarleby is known for its fishing waters, which attract anglers from all over Europe. Here, the Dalälven River flows down to the sea, creating waterfalls, rapids and islands on its way. For travellers on the European route E4 highway, it's a great destination to stop off, get outside, and spend some time in nature. You can walk, kayak, and even go on horseback tours. I know what you're thinking. A motorway hotel would be handy here. A place to rest, recharge, and explore the local area. Well, someone else had the same idea back in 1986, when the company Östanå – which was really owned by the Älvkarleby Municipality – built Hotel Älvkarlen. Affectionately known by locals as "Sweden's toilet", it was tacked on to the same complex that already housed a restaurant and information centre, built two years earlier. The hotel's appearance was distinctly "municipal", with a pretty heart motif doing little to soften its slab-like image. Despite this, local politicians hoped to capitalise on its placement to draw tourists into Älvkarleby. In short, their plan wasn't a success. The hordes of motorists dreamed of by municipal planners never materialised. Worse still, the property company's CEO, Kjell Hillgren, who also served as a local councillor, became caught up in a scandal when it came out that he'd accepted a free trip to Budapest from the project's winning contractor. Hillgren was forced to resign and was later convicted and fined for taking bribes. In 1988, just two years after its unveiling, Hotel Älvkarlen went bust. But that was just the opening act for this troubled site. Enter phase two. In 1989, the hotel reopened – this time, as a refugee centre. Three years later, in 1992, it was sold for five million Swedish kronor (around half a million dollars) to Erland Ågren and Eriks Friis. They renamed the complex Checkpoint Dalälven, as a nod to the nearby Dalälven River. And so it continued until 2004, when the site was sold to the Chinese investor Li Jingchun. He rebranded it Dragon Gate. ## The Vision Hailing from Zhejiang, businessman Li Jingchun grew his fortune selling mosquito repellent. With capital to spare, he set about making plans for a vast East-meets-West stronghold on the Älvkarleby site. This included completely reimagining the hotel in the style of a Chinese temple, with 56 rooms, a restaurant, museum and gift shop. The complex would also include replicas of the Great Wall of China and Tiananmen Square. If you're thinking that the Chinese-Swedish fusion feels strange, you're not alone. With over 4,000 miles (or around 6,500 kilometres) between their capitals Stockholm and Beijing, the two countries aren't ones our minds would naturally match up. Yet this approach was devised to echo some apparently historic touchpoints between Chinese and Swedish cultures. A Dragon Gate website pointed to several "meetings" between the countries, from early forays made by the Swedish East India Company in the 1730s to expeditions led by the Swedish archaeologist Johan Gunnar Andersson in the 1920s. These links became the premise for what followed. That original Dragon Gate website, which is still live, states, "The man behind the Dragon Gate building, Mr. Li, aims to create a cultural bridge between Sweden and China at the dawn of the 21st century. Visit us and be a part of this!" The cultural bridge Dragon Gate boasted included sizeable Chinese statues and architectural elements. We've mentioned the Terracotta Army and the Great Wall already, but to that list we can add a giant statue of the Buddhist saint Guanyin, two lion statues representing Yin and Yang, and even plans to import a real panda. Even the name, Dragon Gate, was rich in symbology. In Chinese mythology, the "Dragon Gate" or Longmen is found at the top of a legendary mountain waterfall. For carp swimming upstream, it's the final gate that must be leaped to transform into a powerful dragon. For Chinese students in particular, the idiom is used to encourage wealth and success through dedication and perseverance. While the complex would be open to welcome tourists, the main aim was to use Dragon Gate as an actual gateway of sorts. It would be a place for European businesses to be tempted across to China, and a base for Chinese businesses looking to set up operations in Europe. Both would, in theory, find that much-sought-after success through the Dragon Gate. Jingchun's "unique concept" also included the prominent inclusion of Chinese staff in all departments, keeping knowledge of Chinese culture close at hand. At the same time, there would be others with expertise in Swedish culture to solidify the sense of union. In a neat link with the past, former owner Erland Ågren became Dragon Gate's first CEO. In a 2007 interview for the Gefle Dagblad newspaper, hosted over a lunch that included fermented eggs, Jingchun waxed lyrical about his vision. He was, his interviewer Kerstin Monk wrote, "absolutely convinced that it is his destiny to build Dragon Gate in Älvkarleby. He is equally convinced that it will be a great success, for the region, for Sweden, for relations with China. And not least for himself." Jingchun comes across as an emphatically work-driven man with a strong belief in Dragon Gate's value and potential. At this time, the project was celebrated as one that would hugely benefit the region. Jingchun was even invited to dinner with the king at the royal palace in Stockholm. However, the build had its fair share of sceptics. In an interview, Lars Skytt, a former municipal councillor, commented, "It was an exciting project. He [Jingchun] had a few ideas, but in retrospect you can see that he wanted to move money to Europe, that's what it was about." And if Jingchun wanted to move his money, Sweden was only too happy to take it. As Erik Hemström, former municipal architect at Älvkarleby Municipality said, "You don't say no to someone who wants to invest and you don't just say no to 60 Chinese people." The project also gained support from Invest in Sweden (now called Invest Sweden): an agency created to encourage foreign investment in the country. As well as bases in Stockholm and Gothenburg, Invest in Sweden had offices in Japan, India and China, placing people on the ground in those countries to encourage projects just like this. Dragon Gate was one of around 130 annual investments made. Interestingly, another agency-backed project was the China Europe Business and Exhibition Center. This was planned as a sort of wholesale market, where foreign companies – mainly from China – could rent space to show off their products. Alongside this, there were plans for a four-star hotel, restaurants, 300 apartments, and a spa, with promises of 800 new jobs coming Sweden's way. But this was another project doomed to failure. The centre hit a number of controversies over claims it was luring Chinese businessmen to Sweden with the promise of residence permits and social benefits. There were also investigations into the treatment of Chinese construction workers, and concerns over safety violations. This is a theme we'll definitely circle back to in a few minutes. In autumn 2008, the project finally fell apart due to unpaid debts. A year later, the company behind it – Fanerdun Group AB – filed for bankruptcy. It wasn't a great sign for Chinese developments in Sweden. And the centre wasn't the only build raising eyebrows. Jingchun had a comprehensive vision for Dragon Gate, but bringing it all to life wasn't so easy. The project was barely off the ground before it ran into some serious pitfalls. ## A Troubled Execution Construction work began not long after Dragon Gate's 2004 purchase, with the giant Buddhist statue distracting E4 drivers by 2005. With this erected, the first phase encompassed the building of Dragon Gate's museum and cultural centre. According to an early press release by Invest in Sweden, work was due to be completed in October 2007. But just two years into the project, cracks began to show. In October 2006, Jingchun's building firm, Latep AB, was hit with a 1.1-million-kronor fine after repeated inspections of the site by the Swedish Work Environment Authority uncovered major safety issues. These were centred on the use of a construction elevator by workers. Swedish authorities had already vetoed the elevator's use in a previous inspection, branding it unsafe. But on returning, they found that restrictive seals had been removed and the equipment was again in operation. Work environment inspector Lars Nordström was on the warpath, threatening that the authority would pursue the dangerous practices as vigorously as it could. "We will possibly contact the Swedish Migration Board and question the workers' work permits", he said. "We don't think they should be able to act like this." But act like it, they did. In total, Nordström's team banned operations four times during 2006, prompting the exasperated official to declare it the first case he'd witnessed of its kind in his 30-year career. In December, the newspaper Byggnadsarbetarenarens awarded Dragon Gate the dubious badge of Sweden's worst construction project. Chinese workers had been brought in especially for the job, with Jingchun praising their time-honoured skills and expert knowledge of Chinese construction styles. But inspections found that these workers were operating in conditions that fell far below Swedish standards. For one thing, they were reportedly earning just 17 kronor per hour: around $1.80. This figure was later negotiated on their behalf to an hourly rate of 130 kronor, or around $13.74. The newspaper pointed to an argument that "cultural differences" informed the on-site practices. But these didn't hold much truck in a tightly regulated environment such as this. In his interview with Kerstin Monk, Jingchun waved away the controversy, saying: > "Today I can state that it is ignorance on our part that has led to these conflicts. Now we want to correct the whole thing, adapt and follow Swedish regulations." The ceasefire wouldn't last. Bad publicity began sticking to Dragon Gate like dust to a demolition site. In May 2008, reports circulated that parts of the complex had been built without planning permission. This rather dampened the mood when, just a month later, the project's first phase was completed and Dragon Gate's museum opened to the public. There, visitors could see a replica Terracotta Army, sourced through the museum's links with a partner museum in Xi'an. These made up just part of an exhibition about China's first emperor, Qin Shi Huangdi. Another exhibition featured the world's longest wooden relief, displayed in a 160-metre-long arcade. This opening became a very brief hiatus in Dragon Gate's otherwise troubled trajectory. In 2009, its new CEO, Jonas Jonsson, resigned after just a year when the promised hotel didn't open. Alongside this, the Älvkarleby Municipality was forced to file eight police reports against Dragon Gate. These included claims that workers had been burning and burying environmentally hazardous waste. The following year, several of the companies involved in Dragon Gate – including Latep AB, which had recently changed its name – filed for bankruptcy, effectively halting development. The environmental cases were later closed and those whopping fines from the Swedish Work Environment Authority would never be paid. Instead, a new company named Eastern Expo Center took over the site's tourism and cultural operations. A fresh CEO, Kenny Li, was appointed. However, the much-vaunted construction work had massively slowed. Despite all this, the minds and money behind Dragon Gate were still trying to drum up good publicity. On a freezing cold December day in 2010, a journalist from Sweden's Gefle Dagblad was invited for a private tour of the site by Museum and Conference Manager Henrik Sundin. Reading this now is slightly uncomfortable, as Sundin leads his interviewer around the deserted site. "We will reopen when the hotel is up and running," he says. "But I don't really know when that will be." As they reach the Chinese restaurant, completely empty at lunchtime, Sundin explains that it's the low season. "In the summer we have 1,000–2,000 guests per day". A date of summer 2011 was later mooted for the hotel, but with the vague qualifier that this was an intentionally long-term project. Two completed rooms featured lavish golden wallpaper and hand-carved beds. A stateroom, slated for use as a meeting and event space, was similarly decked in gold, with a gleaming marble floor. Yet from the elevator, the journalist wrote, it was still possible to see the blue plastered sheet metal of the original hotel. All that grandeur was just a façade. Things continued in this strange, semi-closed vein for the next few years. Despite a couple of false starts, the hotel never opened, and diners lucky enough to find the restaurant staffed often had the place to themselves. Dragon Gate became a destination for the curious, described as sad, bizarre, and "almost amusingly bad". Not much to show for a 250-million-kronor – or almost 26.5-million-dollar – investment. Far from being a cultural landmark, Dragon Gate had become a horribly embarrassing millstone. Even Jingchun and Sundin's sunny optimism couldn't hold out forever. In August 2018, after almost a decade spent on hiatus, Dragon Gate was sold. The new buyer, real estate company Sisyfos AB reportedly paid 25 million kronor, around 2.6 million dollars. It was a huge loss for Jingchun. But even with this relatively small outlay, Sisyfos couldn't make Dragon Gate pay its way. In the late 2010s, the venue was used for conferences and occasional events, including a techno music festival. While the new owners decided what to do with the site, they set about selling off the weird and wonderful merchandise that had been left behind under Jingchun's ownership. A warehouse was found to contain around a million items, including toothbrushes, slippers, lamps, and T-shirts, which were all set up in a temporary shop. Clearly, Sisyfos didn't sell enough toothbrushes. Dragon Gate continued in the same underwhelming vein for another six years, with things winding down even further with the arrival of Covid-19. The hotel and restaurant occasionally opened, but daytime visitors again found it an eerily empty place. The blog writer 'Explore Sweden with Alex' dryly observed, "Only the gas station feels alive." In June 2024, the whole site went back up for sale. ## All Roads Lead Here Sisyfos put Dragon Gate on the market with a starting price of 40 million kronor, around 4.2 million dollars. Announcing the sale, co-owner Thomas Sonesson quipped, "We need someone who is as crazy as we were". And it seems they found them. Just five months later, the site changed hands again, although the eventual sale price is still under wraps. The new owner, Arosslätten Properties, is owned by Lars-Gunnar Andersson and Ted Rundquist, who also own other developments in Uppsala. Under their umbrella, Dragon Gate is being reimagined as less of a Chinese cultural destination and more an upmarket rest stop for weary travellers. As we're writing this in September 2025, work is still ongoing, but the new Dragon Gate website gives a flavour of what's coming up. Now, the focus seems to be on practical needs: rest, commerce and services. With 15 hectares of land at their disposal, that's a lot of potential services. To draw in crowds from the estimated 30,000 vehicles passing Dragon Gate every day, refuelling is high on the list of priorities. The new complex will have a 24-hour fuel station and electric car charging points, as well as an Italian gelato shop. It's hard to know exactly how the development's Chinese architecture and embellishments will be incorporated into this new vision. Under the headline "All roads lead here", marketing materials describe the original Dragon Gate as "ahead of its time". "We are breathing new life into a place that has already captivated thousands of passersby, yet until now has only whispered the beginning of its story." Elements of the original are still firmly in place. For now, at least, the museum and its Terracotta Army are staying, and the hotel façade remains visible. But there are also plans to build here, on a bigger scale. A sustainable heating system, powered by woodchip boilers, is now under construction, with the potential to heat 35–40,000 square metres of new buildings. This heating plant will be housed in a wing-shaped glulam – that's glued laminated timber – building. Set for completion in spring 2026, the structure will also feature a vehicle hall, likely to be for caravan and motorhome sales. Arosslätten hopes to find other commercial partners keen to develop their own businesses on the site, stating that there's "strong interest" already. "We are in very good dialogue with Älvkarleby Municipality for the entire area," says Lars-Gunnar Andersson. "The common interest is to get the area up and running where business opportunities and jobs will be created in the long term". After twenty years as a static roadside oddity, it seems that Dragon Gate might, at last, be on the move. The eventual outcome is likely to be a far cry from Li Jingchun's original plans for the site. But if the latest round of vision boards and sales copy is to be believed, Älvkarleby could finally have a rest stop that drivers actually stop at. Now there's a novel idea. ## Key Takeaways - Dragon Gate in Sweden is a failed attempt to create a cultural bridge between China and Sweden. - The site has a history of bankruptcies and bad investments since the 1980s. - Li Jingchun's ambitious vision for Dragon Gate included replicas of Chinese landmarks and cultural elements. - The project faced numerous issues, including safety violations and environmental concerns. - Dragon Gate is being reimagined as a rest stop and commercial hub for travelers. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is Dragon Gate? Dragon Gate is a cultural and tourist site located in Älvkarleby Municipality, Sweden, approximately 150 kilometers outside Stockholm. It features Chinese cultural elements such as the Terracotta Army, replicas of the Great Wall of China, and a giant statue of the Buddhist saint Guanyin. ### What was the original purpose of Dragon Gate? The original purpose of Dragon Gate was to serve as a cultural bridge between Sweden and China, attracting tourists and facilitating business between the two countries. It was envisioned as a place where European businesses could be tempted to China and vice versa. ### Who was the original investor behind Dragon Gate? The original investor behind Dragon Gate was Li Jingchun, a businessman from Zhejiang, China, who made his fortune selling mosquito repellent. ### What were some of the issues faced during the construction of Dragon Gate? During the construction of Dragon Gate, there were several issues including major safety violations, use of unsafe construction equipment, and poor working conditions for Chinese workers. The site was fined multiple times and faced legal actions for these violations. ### What happened to Dragon Gate after its initial failure? After its initial failure, Dragon Gate went through several ownership changes and periods of inactivity. It was used for occasional events and conferences but largely remained a ghost town. In 2024, it was put up for sale again and eventually acquired by Arosslätten Properties, who plan to reimagine it as a rest stop for travelers. ### What is the current status of Dragon Gate? As of September 2025, Dragon Gate is undergoing redevelopment by Arosslätten Properties. The new owners plan to transform it into a practical rest stop with services like a 24-hour fuel station, electric car charging points, and commercial partnerships. ### What was the significance of the name 'Dragon Gate'? The name 'Dragon Gate' is rich in symbology. In Chinese mythology, the Dragon Gate is a legendary waterfall that carp must leap over to transform into dragons. It symbolizes wealth and success through dedication and perseverance. ### What was the initial reception of Dragon Gate in Sweden? Initially, Dragon Gate was celebrated as a project that would benefit the region and Sweden's relations with China. It received support from local authorities and investment agencies, but it also faced skepticism and criticism due to its ambitious and unusual concept. ### What are some of the unique features of Dragon Gate? Some of the unique features of Dragon Gate include replicas of the Terracotta Army, the Great Wall of China, a giant statue of the Buddhist saint Guanyin, and plans for a real panda. The site also includes a museum and cultural center with exhibitions about Chinese history and culture. ### What was the impact of Dragon Gate on the local community? Dragon Gate had a mixed impact on the local community. While it promised economic benefits and job creation, it also faced controversies and legal issues that tarnished its reputation. The site remained largely empty and underutilized for many years, becoming a roadside oddity rather than a thriving cultural landmark. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: Dragon Gate: China's Failed Stunt in Sweden](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4b31cKlyvk) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/%C3%84lvkarleby_Dragon_Gate_lub_2025-07-14_img04.jpg) by Lukas Beck / openverse, by. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/dubai-building-largest-airport-planet https://megaprojects.pub/article/dubai-building-largest-airport-planet Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT In 1959, the ruler of Dubai took a gamble. Against the counsel of his advisors, Sheikh Rashid bin Saeed Al Maktoum ordered the construction of the fledgling emirate's first proper airport. At the time, Dubai was a nascent, freewheeling trading post in the Gulf—still under British mandate, while limping along over half a century after the collapse of its once-profitable pearling industry. Its future growth was far from certain. A year later, the airport was up and running. It had just one terminal and one single runway made out of compacted sand—which had to be flattened before every single take-off or landing. Today, some sixty-five years later, Dubai's sprawling three-terminal airport—standing on the same site—is bursting at the seams. Dubai International, or DXB, is already the world's second-busiest airport, and it's only getting busier. To redress this, bold, bold projects are underway. Projects which once complete, will make the mighty DXB look like that dusty strip of compacted sand from the sixties. ## From Sand to Sky From its humble beginnings, Dubai's meteoric rise to global hub of tourism, finance and business has been nothing short of extraordinary; and Dubai International has mirrored its development every step of the way. The numbers speak for themselves. In 2000, the airport handled around 12 million passengers. By 2013, that figure had jumped to 66 million. 2024? 92.3 million. Dubai isn't just a major destination in its own right. Its strategic location makes it a crucial juncture between Europe, Asia, Africa and Oceania. Two thirds of the world's population live within an eight-hour flight from Dubai. The airport already holds the title of the world's busiest international hub, surpassing London Heathrow in 2013. Only Hartsfield-Jackson, in Atlanta, has more foot traffic, but, unlike Dubai, its passengers are mainly domestic. Dubai International now serves about 106 airlines, connecting Dubai to 272 cities across 107 countries. Terminal 3, built to serve Emirates airline, is the world's largest terminal by floor area, stretching over a staggering 1,713,000 square metres. When it opened in 2008, it was in fact the largest building in the world by floor space. Since the 1980s, the airport has undergone a series of major expansions—with the gradual additions of terminals, concourses, runways and other major infrastructure. But at the dawn of the new millennium, Emirati officials had already identified the likely need for another airport, given DXB's exponential rate of growth, and the serious strain it would eventually fall under. Enter Al Maktoum International Airport, named after the ruling House of Dubai. Opened in 2010 in Dubai South—the city's sparsely populated southwestern district—the site was initially built with cargo in mind. The first commercial flight landed in June of that year. Dubai International was oversaturated, after all, and air freight was booming in the Gulf. At its launch, Al Maktoum was therefore designed to handle 12 million tonnes of cargo annually, placing the airport as the world's largest in terms of freight capacity. And then, in 2013, the new airport—featuring just one 4.5 km runway—officially opened its doors to passengers, servicing a handful of international airlines—mainly low-cost carriers—as well as private planes and charters. It did go on to serve as a good relief airport. The big test came in May 2014, when Dubai International closed one of its runways for repairs. A number of airlines migrated their operations to Al Maktoum for several months, and their new hosts certainly delivered—handling nearly 1 million passengers that year, while operations ran smoothly. Still, the 1-million mark put it at near-full capacity. Meanwhile, DXB was feeling the logistical strain from exponential passenger increases each year, despite a designed capacity of 90 million—which it eventually surpassed in 2024. The two airports combined simply weren't enough to sustainably meet Dubai's demand for air travel. Now, expanding Dubai International wasn't an option. As it's maxed out on the land it was allotted—wedged in between dense urban districts and major highways—there's no room to grow. Slicing through neighbourhoods and vital infrastructure for future development is costly, logistically complex and politically delicate. So, officials faced the choice. Keep stretching a saturated airport, maybe capping air traffic to Dubai. Or, start anew. Build bigger and better. There was only one clear option—one, which by now, shouldn't surprise anybody when it comes to Dubai's officials. On the site of the cargo hub at Al Maktoum airport—one surrounded by vast tracts of desert land—they opted to build the largest airport the world has ever seen. By a landslide. One single airport. Five times the size of Al Maktoum airport, currently. Capable of handling 260 million passengers a year. ## Colossus The vision for Al Maktoum International Airport is staggering. At full build-out, it will dwarf every other airport on earth. Five parallel runways—each 4.5 kilometres long and 1.5 km apart—will allow four planes to arrive or depart at once. This, ladies and gentlemen, is unprecedented. Other airports, like Hartsfield-Jackson in Atlanta or Chicago O'Hare operate five or more runways, but can only use two or three at once because of constraints related to spacing and wind-direction. In contrast, Al Maktoum will be able to handle over two hundred takeoffs and landings every hour at peak capacity, outperforming individual world airports, but even entire city systems of airports like New York and London. The 4.5km length is also crucial given Dubai's scorching climate. Hot air is thinner than cold air, meaning that in high temperatures, there is less lift under an aircraft's wings at a given speed, compared with lower temperatures. The extra 1 to 1.5 km added onto the international average will ensure that even a fully loaded A380 can take off in forty-five-degree heat. All runways will be outfitted with some of the most advanced aviation tech the world's ever seen. Precision landing systems will allow planes to land safely even in sandstorms or heavy fog. Satellite-guided navigation and smart lighting will guide pilots right up to the gate. Meanwhile, ground radar and AI-powered control towers—the latter still under testing—will be able to track every single movement on the runway in real time. The airport will boast a whopping total of 400 gates by the time it's completed. That is more than double the number of Hartsfield-Jackson's in Atlanta, and triple that of London Heathrow. These gates will be spread across four enormous concourses—two to the East and two to the West—each concourse around 2.7 km in length, with a built-up area of 2.3 million square metres. For scale, that's around 320 soccer pitches laid out side by side. Since traipsing around the airport by foot would then be an unholy burden for most passengers, the airport will feature an underground 'people mover'—essentially, an automated metro inside the airport. While plans are still under tender, we know it will shuttle passengers between 14 stations across the terminals and concourses, drastically cutting travel time inside the airport—and making Al Maktoum especially attractive for layovers. Each of the four concourses will run along a central spine, 2.7 km in length, split into three vast atriums spanning multiple floors—reserved for departures and arrivals, special lounges, leisure and retail on steroids, and, of course, the underground stations for the people mover. Topping each atrium will be giant roofs resembling sand dunes. These are a nod to the UAE's geography and cultural heritage, but also have functional purposes. The airport's layout centres around optimal use of natural light. This is an aesthetic plus, lending airiness, majesty and a welcoming, ecological touch to the travel hub, but it will also drastically reduce the need for artificial lighting. The design, then, will be a balancing act of optimising natural light while reducing glare and heat intake. That will be in part thanks to the materials used—with emphasis on glazing, louvers, cladding and screens—but also on the roof's curvature, and the concourses' integral structure. From the early design renderings by the architects, green spaces appear to abound both within and outside the airport's walls. Travellers driving into the airport can likely expect vast artificial lakes, straddled by palm-studded oases. Inside the terminals and concourses, we'll find mini-forests, tropical zones, and possibly vertical gardens, together with various kinds of soothing water features. And since we're discussing the elements, diligent wind analysis has been essential—for the best possible roof design, but also while planning the wider airport. Runways are being aligned northwest-southeast to match the region's prevailing winds. This will reduce the risk of dangerous crosswinds during take-offs and landings. Unsurprisingly, the winds also carry significant volumes of sand and dust, hindering visibility and causing engine wear. Planners are therefore accounting for this in the layout of the runways, the taxiway spacing, and of the terminals' filtration systems. ## Convenience Capital Now for another big, bold promise for Al Maktoum: a hyper-sophisticated, absolutely trailblazing baggage service. One that'll make Dubai's current system—in itself a technological wonder—resemble a Temu marble run. Starting with departing passengers. Rather than queuing at traditional check-in counters, officials plan to roll out self-drop-off points. A momentous innovation is that the airport will accept luggage days before departure. This is already in place with certain airlines at Dubai International, but it seems likely the system will be normalised for Al Maktoum. It will, after all, be more than capable of handling the demand. Passengers will be able to drop off their luggage long before their departure—a welcome service for businesspeople and tourists alike—while hotel luggage pick-up will likely also be an option, as it is currently, albeit at a premium. Each bag will be tagged electronically, before being shuttled on its way down an automated, high-speed conveyor network beneath the terminals. To give you a sense of scale: at full capacity, the system is expected to handle up to 50,000 bags an hour. Dubai International's current system, the biggest and best in the world, maxes out at around 16,000. First, the bags are whizzed through several stages of security screening. X-rays and CT scanners will detect any irregularities nearly instantly, sending suspicious luggage to a separate inspection area. Once cleared, bags are sorted based on flight number, gate and departure time; if they're not ready to go, they stay in the central sorting network, either doing rounds on the conveyer, or remaining stationary in parking zones. If they are due for imminent departure, they get shuttled off to their designated gate, and, through vertical lifts and pop-up hatches, emerge right where the aircraft is parked, before being loaded onto the plane by means of short conveyer arms. Now, the lift-and-hatch feature is absolutely pioneering. Practically all airports around the world rely on trucks to deliver luggage from the baggage outlets over to the aircraft. It appears Al Maktoum wants to rely almost exclusively on these pop-up hatches—to help decongest the tarmac from the trucks and drastically cut down on service times. Notwithstanding, airport officials have confirmed that cutting-edge baggage tractors are under testing. The end goal is for these to be self-driving, moving along mapped routes, and capable of towing up to four luggage containers each. The latest models are currently running at 15 km per hour under human oversight. Now, these could be a temporary solution until the baggage system is fully operational, and services each and every gate. Most likely, they will carry on being operational as a safety net in cases of maintenance works, systems malfunctions or particular journeys. Overall though, it seems Al Maktoum wants to rely on them as little as possible. And as for arrivals—according to official targets anyway—the airport aims to have luggage ready for pick-up within about 15 minutes from the moment baggage offloading begins. That is, once the aircraft is fully stationary, the engines are off, and safety checks are completed. Gone, then, will be the days of loitering around the luggage carousel staring vacuously while sad-looking, orphaned suitcases drift lap after lap on the conveyor. If they deliver on their promise, the luggage will most likely already be on the carousel before passengers even reach the baggage hall. There's even talk of moving beyond the traditional carousel entirely, using biometric kiosks where you scan your face or boarding pass—and your luggage pops up directly to you. It's a bold ambition. It's also what you can expect from a futuristic hub like Dubai. Handling tens of thousands of bags every hour will require near-perfect coordination and efficient maintenance teams when things go wrong. There's little reason though—bar some kind of natural or man-made catastrophe—why planners and operators shouldn't deliver. And the same applies for the airport's other key passenger systems. Dubai International is already a world leader in biometric technologies. Smart gates are already available for eligible and registered passengers. At these, you simply look up, remove any facial accessories—preferably in the reverse order—while the system, which includes cameras, and AI-powered biometric tech checks you, then lets you through. And that's for the plebs, as it were. For Business and First class fliers travelling with Emirates, the biometric red carpet is rolled out in full splendour. Quite literally. Travellers at Terminal 3 walk along a red-carpeted 'tunnel', where even more advanced biometric technologies scan people's faces without them even needing to stop. The system can handle up to ten passengers in motion at once—and takes all of 14 seconds. No need to scan a boarding pass or a passport. At Al Maktoum, we can expect this technology to become the default for all passengers. The journey from "curb to gate", as officials put it, will be designed to be as frictionless as possible, with minimal to zero queuing or reliance on travel documents. Facial recognition will be integrated into check-in, security, customs and boarding. So at every single leg of the traditionally tedious airport journey, passengers will be recognised automatically, and breeze through the airport unhindered. ## 'Aerotropolis' This is what officials are cooking up inside Al Maktoum. But, now let's see what they're cooking up around it. As, if the airport is the heart and brain of this megaproject, encasing it will be the prodigious body fit for purpose. Yes, the world's largest hub for air travel will be the centrepiece of an entirely new city. As the airport's surrounding area is so vast, Emirati officials have already begun development for 'Dubai South', a great new metropolitan area being dubbed an aerotropolis. Its aspirations are neatly encapsulated in its other name, confusingly enough: Dubai World International. As Al Maktoum Airport will provide jobs for hundreds of thousands of people, the plan is for vast portions of these workers to actually live in Dubai South. The incentives are already piling up. Brand new housing, which will be far more affordable relative to downtown Dubai; corporate and government sweeteners like housing allowances and rapid visa processes. And one of the main draws for many—slashed commute times. Dubai's main roads are notoriously congested, likewise for the arteries connecting Dubai to the neighbouring emirates of Sharjah and Abu Dhabi. And unlike the older districts of Dubai, where rapid expansion far outpaced capacity, the aerotropolis is being built from scratch, with efficient transport in mind, and urban planning based on more realistic projections. Latest press releases boast being able to house one million people, providing a range of housing types, from worker accommodations to luxury villas. The city itself will be an economic powerhouse for Dubai, providing around half a million jobs. That of course includes the aviation and cargo sectors, but the vast majority will in fact be all across the many key industries already well-established in Dubai, whether it's construction, tech, or hospitality. The masterplan divides the area into eight themed districts. These will include, among others, the districts of Aviation, Logistics and Commerce, where related businesses and professionals will congregate based on their specialisation. Another sector will be the urban pocket originally planned to host Dubai Expo 2020. The grounds of Expo City, as it's now called, were reopened after the pandemic and showcased a panoply of cutting-edge designs in the fields of tech, architecture and engineering. Now, the site is being refashioned into a 'smart city'—a hub for green tech, digital industries and other future-leaning businesses. No surprise then that Dubai South is already taking off. Dubai South closed off 2024 with 415 new companies opening up for business, and office leasing booming by an average of 300% annually. Connectivity will be another major selling point, as well as a significant economic booster. A key passenger station of the soon-to-launch Etihad Rail is already in planning stages, connecting the airport to the UAE's government-backed rail network. It aims to interlink all seven emirates of the country and will be a game-changer for commuters, particularly from neighbouring Abu Dhabi or Sharjah. More importantly perhaps, Etihad Rail will form the UAE's segment of the historic Gulf Cooperation Council Railway. Once completed, it will connect, for the very first time, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and the UAE, by railway. It will be an unprecedented accelerant of regional integration for the Gulf states, revolutionising the flow of goods and people in the peninsula. And there's more. Dubai already has a good claim to being the world's foremost cargo hub. It's now doubling down. Just 20 or so kilometres from the airport lies Jebel Ali port, one of the world's largest man-made harbours and the busiest port in the Middle East. Along with Al Maktoum International, it will be a cornerstone of what Dubai calls its 'Logistics Corridor', an area spanning 200 square km, which will scale up the flow of cargo between sea and sky—to volumes and speeds historically unmatched. And thanks to the upcoming railway network, goods can flow between the emirates and the Gulf states, cementing Dubai's place as an epicentre of global logistics—the trade and travel nexus of the globe. Al Maktoum International is, of course, at the very heart of it. ## Raising the Giant Phase 1 of the masterplan is already underway, officially signed off in April 2024 by Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the oft-dubbed Sheikh CEO of Dubai. This act greenlit a whopping 35-billion dollar investment—on the first passenger terminal alone. At the helm are two key state-backed organisms: Dubai Aviation Engineering Projects, the agency handling the build, and Dubai Aviation City Corporation, in charge of the wider metropolis around the airport. At the core of this first phase is the West Terminal Building, together with the first of the four future concourses, with its sweeping atriums, one hundred gates, and dune-like roofs. What's more, the first new runways are already being carved into the sand, carefully spaced so that future phases can slot in the additional strips without disrupting operations. The baggage system and automatic people mover—including four of its stations—will be built, as well the airport's less glamorous—but no less vital organs, including energy centres, fire and rescue stations, ground-support roads, and maintenance yards. All told, by the time Phase One wraps up around 2032, Al Maktoum International should be able to handle approximately 130 million passengers a year—already fifty percent more than Dubai International manages today. Once that's in place, the second phase can begin, with the construction of a second, identical concourse, built parallel to the first. The baggage system, power supply, road network and people mover will all be expanded accordingly, pushing capacity toward 150 million a year. Then, for the third and final stage, which will crown Al Maktoum into the colossus Dubai has promised. Given the sheer scale of the project, full completion isn't expected until way into the 2050s, if not later. The two last concourses will be added, plus an East Terminal to mirror the West and balance passenger flows across the site. All five runways will be ready, allowing the airport to operate multiple simultaneous arrivals and departures without bottlenecks. The people mover will reach its final form—a fourteen-station network, and Al Maktoum will be plugged directly into Dubai's own transport grid. This will be achieved with the potential building of an express metro named the Purple line—still unconfirmed—the extension of the existing Red Line—already stretched to Expo City—as well, of course, the upcoming Etihad Rail. At full build-out, the numbers are astonishing: 260 million passenger capacity a year, close to four hundred contact gates, and more than 15 million tonnes of cargo. That's 15 times more than what they're handling currently. Even major hubs like Hong Kong and Shanghai handle only a fraction of that figure yearly. So—where do things stand now, in late 2025? The design is locked in, enabling works have been greenlit, and contracts for the big systems are already out for tender. A billion-dirham deal has gone out for the second runway, with foundations and utilities already being laid out. Bidders are also lining up for the automated train and baggage system, with awards expected by the end of the year. In the meantime, Dubai's colossal ground-handling company—dnata—has initiated tests on the autonomous baggage tractors, trundling between aircraft and baggage halls on pre-set routes. Some of you might be wondering—just what will happen to the existing juggernaut that is Dubai International? If it is operational, successful, and an infrastructural wonder in its own right, surely it would carry on as a secondary hub? Well, apparently not. Paul Griffiths, CEO of Dubai Airports told the press that the idea of splitting traffic between two mega-airports so close to one another simply doesn't make sense, and would amount to a logistical headache. For one, it would force passengers and airlines to shuttle constantly between two locations, killing the efficiency that makes Dubai so attractive as a global stopover in the first place. And not just this—we're also told that almost all assets at Dubai International will be close to the end of their operating life by the time Al Maktoum is ready after the first phase. So, instead of juggling two airports indefinitely, Dubai is going all-in on one: the largest airport in the world, purpose-built to anchor the city's future as a global hub. And, quoting Griffiths, it will be "more than sufficient" to absorb all of Dubai's aviation demands and pressures, handling every single one of the emirate's commercial flights for decades to come. When the time comes to shift Emirates airline and the rest of Dubai's aviation operations over from Dubai International, officials say it could happen in as little as three days. That is, moving one of the world's busiest airlines—including aircraft, staff, logistics and passengers—in a single weekend. This won't just mark the end of an era for Dubai International: it is a turning point for Dubai itself. That airport helped catapult the city into a global crossroads, putting this futuristic melting pot slash grind-and-play-ground on the map. Now, Al Maktoum is set to take that legacy further, consolidating Dubai's power and opening a new phase in its trajectory. The port of entry that opened up Dubai to the world will continue the tradition, but on a new scale reflecting the city's aspirations. One mega-airport, with a full-scale city to buttress it, built to handle the future of air travel on a scale the world has never seen. ## Key Takeaways - Dubai's first airport, built in 1959, has evolved into Dubai International, now the world's second-busiest airport. - Al Maktoum International Airport is being constructed to handle 260 million passengers annually, making it the largest airport globally. - The new airport features five parallel runways, advanced aviation technology, and a sophisticated baggage handling system. - Dubai South, an aerotropolis surrounding Al Maktoum, aims to house one million people and provide half a million jobs. - The transition from Dubai International to Al Maktoum is planned to occur in just three days. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is the current status of Dubai International Airport? Dubai International Airport (DXB) is currently the world's second-busiest airport and the world's busiest international hub. It serves about 106 airlines, connecting Dubai to 272 cities across 107 countries. In 2024, it handled 92.3 million passengers. ### Why is Dubai building a new airport? Dubai is building a new airport, Al Maktoum International Airport, to handle the increasing passenger and cargo traffic that Dubai International Airport (DXB) cannot sustain. DXB is maxed out on the land it was allotted and cannot be expanded further. ### What are the key features of Al Maktoum International Airport? Al Maktoum International Airport will have five parallel runways, 400 gates, and a capacity to handle 260 million passengers a year. It will feature advanced aviation technology, a hyper-sophisticated baggage service, and an automated people mover. ### How will Al Maktoum International Airport handle baggage? Al Maktoum International Airport will use an automated, high-speed conveyor network for baggage handling. It will accept luggage days before departure, use electronic tagging, and have pop-up hatches for direct loading onto aircraft. The system aims to handle up to 50,000 bags an hour. ### What is the timeline for the construction of Al Maktoum International Airport? Phase 1 of the construction, which includes the West Terminal Building and the first concourse, is expected to be completed by around 2032. The entire project is expected to be completed by the 2050s. ### What will happen to Dubai International Airport after Al Maktoum International Airport is completed? Dubai International Airport will be phased out once Al Maktoum International Airport is ready. All of Dubai's aviation operations will be moved to the new airport, which is designed to handle all of the emirate's commercial flights. ### What is the 'Logistics Corridor' in Dubai? The 'Logistics Corridor' is an area spanning 200 square km that includes Al Maktoum International Airport and Jebel Ali port. It aims to scale up the flow of cargo between sea and sky, cementing Dubai's place as a global logistics hub. ### What is Dubai South, and how is it related to Al Maktoum International Airport? Dubai South is a new metropolitan area being developed around Al Maktoum International Airport. It is designed to house workers for the airport and related industries, providing a range of housing types and job opportunities. ### How will Al Maktoum International Airport integrate with Dubai's transport system? Al Maktoum International Airport will be connected to Dubai's transport grid through an express metro line (the Purple line) and the extension of the existing Red Line. It will also be connected to the UAE's government-backed rail network, Etihad Rail. ### What is the capacity of Al Maktoum International Airport's baggage system? The baggage system at Al Maktoum International Airport is designed to handle up to 50,000 bags an hour. It will use advanced technology for sorting, security screening, and direct loading onto aircraft. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: Dubai is Building the Largest Airport on the Planet.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbHkTqTZ72c) - [https://dubaiairports.ae/corporate/our-story/dwc-dubai-world-central](https://dubaiairports.ae/corporate/our-story/dwc-dubai-world-central) - [https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/dubai-ruler-approves-new-35-bln-airport-terminal-2024-04-28/](https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/dubai-ruler-approves-new-35-bln-airport-terminal-2024-04-28/) - [https://apnews.com/article/dubai-international-airport-al-maktoum-air-travel-048de9e336d947846911fffe1685ab8f](https://apnews.com/article/dubai-international-airport-al-maktoum-air-travel-048de9e336d947846911fffe1685ab8f) - [https://perkinswill.com/project/al-maktoum-international-airport-sustainability-master-plan-report/](https://perkinswill.com/project/al-maktoum-international-airport-sustainability-master-plan-report/) - [https://www.timeoutdubai.com/news/al-maktoum-international-airport-plans](https://www.timeoutdubai.com/news/al-maktoum-international-airport-plans) - [https://www.timeoutdubai.com/news/dxb-airport-move-al-maktoum](https://www.timeoutdubai.com/news/dxb-airport-move-al-maktoum) - [https://www.timeoutdubai.com/news/driverless-luggage-al-maktoum](https://www.timeoutdubai.com/news/driverless-luggage-al-maktoum) - [https://elite-bricks.com/fr/2025/05/11/immigration-in-seconds-at-dubais-al-maktoum-airport-robots-smart-tunnels-to-ease-travel](https://elite-bricks.com/fr/2025/05/11/immigration-in-seconds-at-dubais-al-maktoum-airport-robots-smart-tunnels-to-ease-travel) - [https://gulfnews.com/business/aviation/dubais-new-airport-here-are-7-amazing-features-at-upcoming-al-maktoum-international-1.500120392](https://gulfnews.com/business/aviation/dubais-new-airport-here-are-7-amazing-features-at-upcoming-al-maktoum-international-1.500120392) - [https://enews.elmethaq.net/business/al-maktoum-airport-unveils-innovative-monorail](https://enews.elmethaq.net/business/al-maktoum-airport-unveils-innovative-monorail) - [https://www.archdaily.com/1020909/coop-himmelb-l-au-designs-new-al-maktoum-international-airport-in-dubai-uae](https://www.archdaily.com/1020909/coop-himmelb-l-au-designs-new-al-maktoum-international-airport-in-dubai-uae) - [https://dayofdubai.com/articles/dubais-al-maktoum-airport-to-revolutionize-air-travel-with-ai-powered-immigration-and-robot-assistance](https://dayofdubai.com/articles/dubais-al-maktoum-airport-to-revolutionize-air-travel-with-ai-powered-immigration-and-robot-assistance) - [https://media.dubaiairports.ae/dubai-world-central-dwc](https://media.dubaiairports.ae/dubai-world-central-dwc) - [https://gulfnews.com/uae/reshaping-dubai-2050s-new-world-1.464528](https://gulfnews.com/uae/reshaping-dubai-2050s-new-world-1.464528) - [https://www.daep.gov.ae/media-list/mohammed-bin-rashid-approves-designs-of-new-passenger-terminal-at-al-maktoum-international-airport](https://www.daep.gov.ae/media-list/mohammed-bin-rashid-approves-designs-of-new-passenger-terminal-at-al-maktoum-international-airport) - [https://www.daep.gov.ae/en/our-airports/al-maktoum-international-amia/amia-the-ultimate-airport/](https://www.daep.gov.ae/en/our-airports/al-maktoum-international-amia/amia-the-ultimate-airport/) - [https://www.rosauae.com/metro-map/?utm.com](https://www.rosauae.com/metro-map/?utm.com) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Gulf_macken_Kyrkviken_Orn%C3%B6_%281%29.jpg) by Salgo60 / openverse, cc0. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/egypt-building-new-capital-city-why https://megaprojects.pub/article/egypt-building-new-capital-city-why Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Egypt is a country with a very grand history. The year of the founding of Egypt is seen as 3150 BC, through the unification of the prehistoric kingdoms of Upper and Lower Egypt under Pharaoh Narmer. That makes Egypt a total of 5174 years old. Now granted, the profile of the state has changed much in that time, later becoming a part of Arab civilization and eventually an Arab Republic, adopting Islam, being colonised several times and gaining and losing various different parcels of territory. Nevertheless, Egypt remains one of the oldest continuous civilisations in existence, something not lost in its great monuments, some of which rank among the oldest man-made structures and — understandably — some of the most-visited sites in the world. Some of these sites lie directly next to the Egyptian capital of Cairo, itself an ancient city with its own storied history and beauty. As mentioned by World Population Review, the city of Cairo is so old that when Alexander the Great visited Cairo's precursor Memphis, the city was already older to him than he is to us in 2024. Yet, while it will remain all of these things — as well as home to many of Egypt's jewels — for many generations to come, it will, within the next decade, no longer be the capital of the modern state of Egypt. That title will soon pass to the as-yet-unnamed city around 45 kilometres to Cairo's east, which will inherit its capital city status, as well as around six million inhabitants. So today we take a look at this extraordinary megaproject, and attempt to piece together why it is being constructed, what shall its features be, and why the decision has been made to move the capital of this storied country to it, rendering the city of Cairo to a sprawling but somewhat less significant city than it has been for millennia. ## Cairo — Buckling Beneath its Inhabitants First, a little bit about the issues facing Egypt's current capital. Cairo is Egypt's largest city and one of the largest in the world. Brimming with history and culture, it is also brimming with about 23 million residents in its metropolitan area, up from 2.5 million in 1950. As a matter of fact, there are now more people living in Cairo than were living in all of Egypt in 1950. In general, Egypt's population is booming. Already at 105 million people, which makes it the 13th-largest country in the world, it continues to grow at a rate of around 1.6% per year according to Reuters. Not only this, but the population of Egypt is densely concentrated along the Nile Delta, and in its principal cities — above all Cairo. In fact, if the area of Egypt was counted only as the Nile delta, coast and the Nile valley, it would be one of most densely-populated countries in the world, ranking only behind the city-states of Monaco and Singapore. And Cairo's neighbourhoods are growing at an electrifying pace. According to the UN, the city's population grew by almost half a million people in the last year alone. This makes it one of the fastest-growing cities in the world and — at 50,000 people per square mile — also one of its most concentrated. With such a vast population, the city is struggling to cope with a range of problems. It is highly polluted, suffers from housing shortages and severe poverty, as well as circulation problems and road traffic backups. All this is hardly surprising for a city of its gargantuan size. Even Egypt's second city — Alexandria — is struggling to contain overcrowding and circulation issues, despite being only 30% the size of Cairo. And Cairo's growth is not projected to slow down any time soon. In fact, by 2050, it is expected to surpass 38 million inhabitants, more than the current biggest city in the world in Tokyo, and second only to Mumbai, if its own population projections prove accurate. Administratively, Cairo's massive traffic jams are causing a huge problem for the state, with too many of the most important administrative buildings being located in Cairo's downtown. The city centre — as in every major city — is the most congested part of Cairo, where traffic brings the city to a complete standstill on a regular basis. And when security lockdowns — necessary for certain state visits and summits — are added to this, it can lead to complete transit chaos in the middle of the city. Moreover, the massive use of cars and the resulting air pollution come at a cost to residents' health. According to the Clean Air Fund, air pollution is directly responsible for around 18,000 premature deaths per year, and around 2% of all deaths in Cairo are considered in some way attributable to its poor air quality. Cairo's population suffers from myriad health issues, including high rates of poverty-related malnutrition and microbiological diseases such as hepatitis and typhoid fever. The healthcare expenses resulting from the poor conditions also come at a major cost to the state, a problem Egypt shares with other countries of the MENA region, where — according to the World Bank, around 2% of GDP is lost to the economic consequences of air pollution each year. The problem of pollution caused by vehicle use is also something that the government has limited means to curtail, since reducing fuel subsidies for cars would mean disadvantaging the low-income families dependent on them, many of whom live in Cairo's poorer periphery and who are dependent on their vehicles for everyday mobility. So when the decision was announced by Egypt's housing minister in 2015 to build a high-tech new capital city, one with the capacity to hold more than six million residents, it was hoped that this would alleviate the significant burden of both Cairo's vast overpopulation and its administrative challenges, as well as offering a landmark new city full of new and impressive sites to the eye. However, the project has run into a series of potentially lethal problems, which have threatened to torpedo Egypt's economy with it. ## Development of the New City First, it should be noted that the decision to fashion a new city strictly for the purpose of functioning as the administrative capital of that country is not something without precedent. Brazil, for example, changed its capital city into the planned city of Brasília, which itself was built in the 1950s. This was done to offer a more central alternative to Brazil's erstwhile capital, the coastal city of Rio de Janeiro. Other countries like Australia and Canada have designated their capital city as one significantly less populous than their most major city, no doubt in order to enact a separation between the arms of the state and the problems coming with built-up urban areas. And these cities pale in comparison to the size and structural problems faced by the city of Cairo, accumulated throughout not only its vast history but also through the rapid recent rises in the number of inhabitants. It should also be noted that fashioning new cities out of nowhere is something not unusual in the Middle East and Arabian Gulf, with parts of Dubai and the King Abdullah Economic City in Saudi Arabia as recent examples. As a matter of fact, the new capital is not even the first such planned city constructed by Egypt. Take the 6th of October City, a satellite city of some 400,000 residents 30 kilometres west of Cairo, which was founded in 1979 to alleviate some of the administrative and corporate burden from the capital. Or perhaps New Cairo City, located to Cairo's East and adjacent to the New Administrative Capital, similarly founded at the turn of the century to provide alternatives to the pent-up capital city. In fact, all these projects remain concurrently under construction, as Egypt's government races to find solutions to its expanding population and to provide housing and offices helping to decentralise Egypt's various Cairo-based headquarters and institutions. Such projects are also taking shape in other parts of Egypt. In 2018, President Abdel Fatah El-Sisi announced plans for the development of New Alamein City, a seaside resort located west of the second city of Alexandria, on the Mediterranean coast. Construction of the Alamein resort is primarily intended to draw tourism, but also to draw some of Alexandria's residents away from the city and to ease the congestion present there. Nevertheless, the New Administrative Capital ranks somewhat apart — both in its significance, and in its scale. ## The New Administrative Capital Plans for the new city were announced at the Egypt Economic Development Conference on 13 March 2015. The project, largely overseen by Egypt's Ministry of Defense, was intended to consolidate and move government buildings into a tightly controlled arena, extensively monitored by thousands of surveillance cameras. Per the announced plans, the new city was set to include a brand-new government administrative district, a diplomatic quarter, a cultural district, 21 residential districts, a huge central park, a new airport, and a newly-built monorail system linking it with Cairo. It would rehouse around thirty government ministries (with a workforce of some 55,000 people), as well as foreign embassies, the country's parliament, the residence of the President, and of course the aforementioned 6.5 million residents. The new city is already home to the tallest building in Africa, the 77-floor tall Iconic Tower, as well as a huge presidential palace, multiple ministry buildings, schools, hospitals, and much more. The site is intended to be both modern and green, with the government having announced that it will allocate 15 square metres of green space per inhabitant in the new development. The new capital will have a central "green river", a combination of open water and planted greenery twice the size of New York's Central Park. All this in order to curb Egypt's massive problem with pollution and make the country generally "greener". And so, like a great pharaonic project of the 21st century, the city is growing out of the desert, complete with gigantic governmental buildings and other trappings. And it is easy to imagine that the New Administrative Capital, when complete, would not only be a necessity in order to reduce the overcrowding of Cairo, but also a sensible solution to the administrative problems faced by ministries in the capital. But with final completion not yet attained, the Egyptian government has gone deeply into debt, and some Cairo residents have declared that they cannot afford to live in the new city. For now, the city remains mostly bereft of human habitation, with an estimate of only around 1,000 families living in the city at the time of writing. The new city does not yet have a name, and continues to be referred to simply as the New Administrative Capital (NAC), with debate continuing on what to actually call it. And while construction of the new site has continued with aplomb since the project's inception, the project has faced mounting criticism due to its various backlogs, having by now bypassed both its intended completion date of 2022 and its original budget of 45 billion US dollars by some margin. As of 2024, the money piled into the project is estimated to be close to 60 billion USD, with construction expected to be complete later this year. And with all this accumulated cost and delay, the New Administrative Capital has resulted in a wide-ranging series of problems which have tarnished the project's fanfare, and which are seen as potentially lethal to Egypt's relatively fragile economy. ## The New Capital — an Exercise in Self-Ruin? Among the many areas of mounting criticism faced by the project are its massive cost, its relative impracticality for lower-income families, as well as the over-the-top elements which have been added to it. You see, unlike Saudi Arabia and Dubai, wherein such projects are financed by way of both countries' accrued oil wealth, Egypt is not a mega-rich state and the vast cost of the project has raised major concern. In the time since President El-Sisi came to power, Egypt has been struck by low economic growth, rising inflation, and a severe currency devaluation — with the Egyptian Pound having devalued by a startling 90% since 2014. The economy has especially floundered in the most recent few years, being hampered by world events such as the War in Ukraine (which greatly impacted Egypt's trading arrangements with both Russia and Ukraine) as well as both the Covid-19 pandemic and the War in Gaza, both of which curtailed Egypt's vital tourism industry. In light of this, some of the plush aspects of the city have come in for especially acute criticism. Take for example its grand mosque, the Masjid Misr Al Kabeer, which has come in for some particularly scathing commentary on social media. The mosque and accompanying community centre cover more than 19,000 square metres and cost 800 million Egyptian pounds (or around 20.7 million British pounds) to build. It is the biggest mosque in Africa and one of the largest Islamic centres in the world, and the inside is no less grandiose than its vast exterior. Among its features, the mosque includes the highest pulpit in the world, standing at almost 17 metres tall, as well as a colossal chandelier in its main hall, the heaviest in the world at over 24,000 kilograms. When the details of the mosque's lavish interior were revealed, it led to heated discussions in Egypt. It didn't help that at the time when the project was unveiled in March 2023, Egypt was suffering from its highest level of inflation in years, at around 30% in that month alone. Another source of great outrage lies in the rather lavish spending on the relocated Ministries to the city. And no Ministry stands to gain as much from the relocation as the Ministry of Defence, whose involvement in the whole project is in itself a source of great controversy. The MOD's new headquarters, known as the Octagon, will be a simply monumental structure of over 22,000 acres, becoming at once the biggest military headquarters in the world, and also the biggest administrative building of any kind in the world. Its cost has been closely guarded by the government, but is estimated to be in the region of around 400 million US dollars. Now, building a Defence Ministry headquarters of this scale would be perhaps understandable for a military megapower: one with an overwhelmingly vast military or with a boundless military budget. But Egypt is neither of those things. At 440,000 active personnel, Egypt's military is large but still smaller than both Vietnam and South Korea's armed forces, both of them significantly smaller than Egypt in population size. But it is in Egypt's defence budget where the lopsided cost and scale of the new Ministry is more keenly felt. At around 9.4 billion dollars, Egypt's defence budget is the 35th biggest in the world, smaller than that of Qatar, Kuwait, and the UAE, and roughly similar in size to Switzerland and Norway, neither one of which has an active personnel of more than 30,000 soldiers. But for many, besides the massive economic cost, it is the some of the other suspected reasons underpinning the Defence Ministry's involvement which are causing lingering cynicism. You see, in the 2010s, Egypt went through two successful popular revolutions, one which brought down the country's longtime dictator Hosni Mubarak and culminated with the democratic election of Islamist candidate Mohamed Morsi, and another which brought down Mohamed Morsi and undemocratically brought in El-Sisi. The latter event resulted in a bloody and economically-costly Islamist uprising in the Sinai region, and also in an outsized role in government for the country's military, where El-Sisi had served as Chief of Staff before assuming the Presidency. On both occasions, the congested nature of Cairo's city centre played a key role in the upheaval, as crowds of people were able to effectively block routes around the central square of Tahrir, bringing the city to a standstill and contributing to the success of both coups. But with the relocation of the capital and the rings of the state to the New Administrative Capital, this will no longer be very easy to accomplish. Unlike Cairo, the new city features wide open boulevards difficult to submerge with protests, and relatively easy to navigate by military forces and the police. Keep in mind also the sprawling Octagon, will also house the headquarters of the Egyptian Air and Ground Forces, as well as an unknown but probably significant number of troops. This will make it easy to mobilise and deploy troops to suppress any potential uprising. In addition, as mentioned before, the new city has been built with strict surveillance in mind, with around 6,000 mounted security cameras and a high-tech live feed surveillance system in place. And if the use of the new capital by the military as a bulwark against their overthrow wasn't enough, there is further suspicion about the nature of the financial arrangements behind the construction of the city. Initially, the project was intended to be financed by UAE and Chinese investments. However, as these deals began to fall through, responsibility for the construction fell into the hands of a new company, the Administrative Capital Urban Development Company, established in 2016. That company is owned in part by the Egyptian Ministry of Housing, but — suspiciously — its controlling stake of 51% is held by the military. In essence, much of the construction on the new city has been carried out by a company whose profits are directly tied to the upper echelons of Egypt's armed forces. The company — whose chairman is the former Deputy Minister for Housing in Egypt, recorded revenues of around 800 million US dollars in 2022, according to Forbes. So it seems that, in addition to being a sort of opulent fortress, the New Administrative Capital might also be a kind of get-rich-quick scheme for highly ranked members of the military. Don't forget, the military retains close ties to the government through President El-Sisi, who served in the armed forces for 37 years before retiring the year he became president in 2014. Even the location of the new city has come in for criticism, with some analysts pointing out that the location actually works against its intended aim. Given Cairo's extensive urban sprawl it is likely that it will continue to engulf surrounding settlements. And with the new capital situated already within touching distance of New Cairo, which is itself an outlying settlement attached to Cairo proper, there is a risk that all three cities may eventually simply merge, resulting in a sort of mega-mega-city. This would work against the intention of rebalancing the built up population of Cairo, and would only spread out the vast population to include more of the precious little inhabitable land available in upper Egypt without actually reducing the existing urban sprawl. Moreover, as has already occurred in other planned cities in Cairo's environs, the city is likely to attract the relatively affluent in Egyptian society, those either in a position to buy units in the modern new housing complexes, or those with comfortable state jobs which would bring them there. In short, an oasis for the wealthy, and not one which would attract many of the poorer classes in Egyptian society, therefore failing to resolve the massive growth of Cairo's poorer districts. With criticism reaching deafening pitch, with Egypt's economy continuing to falter, and with only a thin trickle of residents moving in to the new city, only time will tell if the project will stand in good stead, or if — as some have predicted — it will become a white elephant serving only the interests of Egypt's most privileged, and at the massive expense of its most deprived. ## Key Takeaways - Egypt's new capital aims to alleviate Cairo's overpopulation and administrative challenges. - The new city, overseen by Egypt's Ministry of Defense, includes extensive surveillance and grand structures. - Criticism surrounds the project's high cost, potential military benefits, and exclusion of lower-income residents. - Egypt's economy faces strain from the project's delays and increased debt. - The new capital's location may not effectively reduce Cairo's urban sprawl. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### Why is Egypt building a new capital city? Egypt is building a new capital city to alleviate the significant burden of Cairo's vast overpopulation and administrative challenges. The new city aims to provide a more controlled and modern environment for government operations and to reduce congestion in Cairo. ### What are the main issues facing Cairo? Cairo faces issues such as high pollution levels, housing shortages, severe poverty, circulation problems, and road traffic backups. The city's rapid population growth and dense concentration of people contribute to these problems. ### How many people live in Cairo? Cairo has approximately 23 million residents in its metropolitan area, making it one of the largest and most densely populated cities in the world. ### What are the key features of the new administrative capital? The new administrative capital will include a government administrative district, a diplomatic quarter, a cultural district, 21 residential districts, a large central park, a new airport, and a monorail system linking it with Cairo. It will also have extensive surveillance and green spaces. ### What is the estimated cost of the new administrative capital? The estimated cost of the new administrative capital is close to 60 billion USD, significantly higher than the original budget of 45 billion USD. ### What is the population growth rate in Egypt? Egypt's population is growing at a rate of around 1.6% per year, with a current population of approximately 105 million people. ### What is the significance of the new administrative capital's location? The new administrative capital is located around 45 kilometers east of Cairo. Its location is intended to provide a more controlled and modern environment for government operations, but there are concerns that it may eventually merge with Cairo's urban sprawl. ### What are some of the criticisms of the new administrative capital project? Criticisms include the massive cost, the relative impracticality for lower-income families, the over-the-top elements added to the city, and suspicions about the financial arrangements and military involvement in the project. ### How many people are currently living in the new administrative capital? As of the time of writing, only around 1,000 families are living in the new administrative capital. ### What is the expected completion date for the new administrative capital? The new administrative capital has bypassed its intended completion date of 2022, with construction expected to be complete later in 2024. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: Egypt is Building a Huge New Capital City. Here's Why.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auowZtMw0uQ) - [https://worldpopulationreview.com/cities/egypt/cairo](https://worldpopulationreview.com/cities/egypt/cairo) - [https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2023/08/photos-egypt-new-administrative-capital-megaproject/675179/](https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2023/08/photos-egypt-new-administrative-capital-megaproject/675179/) - [https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/egypt-plans-expansion-new-capital-first-residents-trickle-2024-01-04/](https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/egypt-plans-expansion-new-capital-first-residents-trickle-2024-01-04/) - [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-65165513](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-65165513) - [https://www.wfp.org/countries/egypt](https://www.wfp.org/countries/egypt) - [https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2023/08/photos-egypt-new-administrative-capital-megaproject/675179/](https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2023/08/photos-egypt-new-administrative-capital-megaproject/675179/) - [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-65165513](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-65165513) - [https://www.statista.com/statistics/264443/the-worlds-largest-armies-based-on-active-force-level/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/264443/the-worlds-largest-armies-based-on-active-force-level/) - [https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20211115-professors-criticise-egypts-new-administrative-capital/amp/](https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20211115-professors-criticise-egypts-new-administrative-capital/amp/) - [https://www.reuters.com/article/business/media-telecom/feature-cctv-cameras-will-watch-over-egyptians-in-new-high-tech-capital-idUSL8N33I0DO/](https://www.reuters.com/article/business/media-telecom/feature-cctv-cameras-will-watch-over-egyptians-in-new-high-tech-capital-idUSL8N33I0DO/) - [https://www.meed.com/egypt-establishes-capital-city-master-developer/](https://www.meed.com/egypt-establishes-capital-city-master-developer/) - [https://www.forbesmiddleeast.com/lists/most-impactful-real-estate-leaders-2024/khaled-abbas/](https://www.forbesmiddleeast.com/lists/most-impactful-real-estate-leaders-2024/khaled-abbas/) - [https://merip.org/1997/03/environmental-conditions-in-cairo/#:~:text=Microbiological%20Disease%20Diarrheal%20diseases%2C%20infectious,ten%20deaths%20among%20young%20children](https://merip.org/1997/03/environmental-conditions-in-cairo/#:~:text=Microbiological%20Disease%20Diarrheal%20diseases%2C%20infectious,ten%20deaths%20among%20young%20children) - [https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/02/07/mena-s-polluted-skies-and-seas-hurt-economies-livelihoods#:~:text=The%20economic%20costs%20of%20air,year%2C%20the%20highest%20level%20globally](https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/02/07/mena-s-polluted-skies-and-seas-hurt-economies-livelihoods#:~:text=The%20economic%20costs%20of%20air,year%2C%20the%20highest%20level%20globally) - [https://tradingeconomics.com/egypt/currency](https://tradingeconomics.com/egypt/currency) - [https://www.unicef.org/egypt/media/10766/file/The%20Socioeconomic%20Impact%20of%20the%20Russia-Ukraine%20Crisis%20on%20Vulnerable%20Families%20and%20Children%20in%20Egypt.pdf](https://www.unicef.org/egypt/media/10766/file/The%20Socioeconomic%20Impact%20of%20the%20Russia-Ukraine%20Crisis%20on%20Vulnerable%20Families%20and%20Children%20in%20Egypt.pdf) - [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-65165513](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-65165513) - [https://www.globalfirepower.com/defense-spending-budget.php](https://www.globalfirepower.com/defense-spending-budget.php) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Egyptian_Theatre_%282024%29-L1004366.jpg) by Frank Schulenburg / openverse, by-sa. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/everything-you-need-to-know-diamond-mining https://megaprojects.pub/article/everything-you-need-to-know-diamond-mining Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Marilyn Monroe said they were a girl's best friend. James Bond fans say they are forever. Of course we're talking about diamonds. The brilliant gemstones that give you cut, colour, and clarity in spades. Whether it's for the tip of a sawblade or the centrepiece of a dazzling ring, diamonds, with their natural rarity, glamour, and hardness, have driven us as a species to extreme lengths just to get them out of the ground. But what does it take, to get a diamond out of the earth and onto your finger? What are the swathe of complex processes it takes to turn "just some shiny rock" into an iced out disco ball on your wrist? And what is this sparkly industry's dark secret lurking just below the surface? A story a billion years in the making. This is everything you need to know about diamond mining. Time to bring the bling. ## Digging Deep – Where do Diamonds Come From? So, where do diamonds actually come from? Most of us know that they're formed out of carbon, but how does a diamond actually begin its life before it ends up on the finger of your beloved? Well, a diamond's life begins hundreds of miles under the earth's surface up to a billion years ago. There, miles under the earth, crushed by everything around it, the pressure is 45,000 times stronger than it is at sea level. At that pressure, atoms of carbon slowly crystallise into what we know today as diamonds. And this makes sense, as we know that diamonds are considered the hardest naturally occurring material on earth, they would have to be hard to survive all of that pressure. And that deep in the earth, it is hot, molten even. A kind of coarse igneous rock called kimberlite is where those diamonds formed primarily, although they can be found in other kinds of rock as well. But how do diamonds reach the surface? From time to time, over hundreds of millions of years, the pressure would be so intense that when tectonic plates began to shift, the molten kimberlite would force its way upwards in an eruption, at up to 30 kilometres an hour through the earth's crust. These volcanic events would cause an eruption of kimberlite, bringing diamonds to the surface, and the molten kimberlite forcing its way through the earth's crust would cool significantly and harden into what are known as "pipes" of kimberlite. And so that's where diamonds are often found, either buried shallow in the earth from the eruption, or deeper underground, still in their kimberlite pipes that formed hundreds of millions of years ago. The last diamond-bearing eruption on earth is believed to have happened over 100 million years ago, so if you, or someone you know own any diamonds (and you probably do), it may well be the oldest thing you own. But these eruptions weren't very common, and so today the number of diamonds that have reached the surface are pretty rare, which along with their hardness and general beauty, is what make them an expensive commodity. In fact, all the gem-quality diamonds ever mined would fit inside of one London double-decker bus. So, diamonds can be found in many parts of the world, but only in a small number of places are they found in great quantities, those being Russia (mainly Siberia), sub-Saharan Africa, Canada and Australia. Russia by itself mined close to 42 million carats in 2022. But as we said, diamonds are rare, so diamond mining companies can't just be set up anywhere. Before a single spade can hit the dirt, companies employ the help of geologists to explore for kimberlites. As where there are kimberlites, there's diamonds. They utilise satellites, geophysics, and sampling to gather information about the landscape, and any kimberlites discovered can then be drilled into to establish whether they contain economic quantities of diamonds. Basically, they need to know if there will be enough diamonds in the rock for it to be worth it to mine, as mining operations can be very expensive due to the power, man hours, and equipment needed. More so than that however, analysing a kimberlite core will give a diamond mining company an indication of the grade of diamonds they'll get, the cost per tonne and the average value per carat, all of these factors will determine whether the "okay" is given and ground can be broken on a new site. But then you actually have to get the diamonds from the ground to the jeweller's shop. Which is an incredibly convoluted and labour-intensive process every step of the way. So, how is it done? ## Ore Inspiring – How Does Diamond Mining Work? In general, there are four kinds of diamond mining operations ongoing at any one time on our planet. The first two are the most basic, pit mining and underground mining; sometimes known as primary source mining or pipe mining. Because we know that diamonds come from kimberlite pipes that were brought up close to the surface millions of years ago, if you go where the kimberlite is, that being underground, you will find the diamonds. Open pit mining is the most common and easiest mining operation to organise. It requires digging enormous pits dozens of metres into the earth. This is often done by removing the top layer of earth and rock with equipment and blasting the rest with explosives, because blasting at the right depth loosens the diamond-bearing rock and ore. At this point, enormous earth-moving machines, combined with the back-breaking labour of individuals, mine out the ore and loads it onto absolutely enormous 300-tonne mining trucks that take it to the diamond processing plant. Most open pit diamond mines are in highly remote locations and they can be ruthlessly efficient, but are also expensive to operate, as all the workers need to be flown in, housed, and fed for the duration of the mine's operation. So, diamond mine locations need to be selected carefully for the mining companies to financially sustain the process. The other half of this operation is underground mining, which is a lot like pit mining, but deeper and totally underground. Sometimes open pit mines, if they're profitable enough, will develop into underground mines as time goes on. Miners will tunnel to where they can find kimberlite pipes. In fact, they actually use two tunnels, one underneath the other, separated by a 25-metre gap and funnel shafts running vertically between them. The idea is that miners dig out the kimberlite pipes in the upper tunnel, which then falls through the funnels to the lower tunnel, which is then collected and transported out of the mine for processing. This is known as block carving and has been used for decades as an efficient and relatively safe mechanised mining method. It also helps collect other minable materials like precious metals which boosts profit. Of course, the downside is that this is even more expensive and still risky, but if you pick the right area, profitability is near guaranteed. But it takes a lot of work pipe mining requires moving 250 tonnes of earth to mine a single carat. They are rare after all. Following pipe mining, the next method is known as "Alluvial" diamond mining, and is what's referred to as "secondary" mining. This doesn't require miners to go directly to the kimberlite pipes themselves for diamonds, but instead focuses on sediment deposits in riverbeds and on beaches. Thousands of years of erosion from natural forces like wind, rain, and the current, wash diamonds from their primary kimberlite deposits into rivers and onto beaches, where it is often collected in the gravel layer. Alluvial mining seeks to extract that gravel for processing. This could be as easy as an individual person panning for diamonds with a sluice or a bowl, much like old gold prospectors would. Or it can turn into a large industrial operation including building dams to trap the water and gravel, which can then be extracted with machines and processed. It can even be used to divert rivers entirely, which then exposes the dried-up gravel layer where diamonds can be extracted from. This is a particularly profitable operation if the right location can be found, as the water washing the diamonds downstream causes them to impact rocks on the way, breaking the diamonds that have structural flaws. As a result, most alluvial diamonds found are comparatively smaller than in pipe mining, but are often of higher quality and value. This does require picking the right area though, so a lot of preparation is needed beforehand before the money can roll in. The final option is marine diamond mining, which seeks to extract diamonds from the ocean floor using specialised mining ships. This also is an indirect form of gathering diamonds and is split into two distinct categories. Horizontal marine diamond mining uses what's known as a "crawler", a large tracked piece of equipment that is attached to a surface vessel and dredges the seabed to gather the diamonds via a giant pipe that sucks sediment to the surface, from which the diamonds are then deposited and processed. Vertical diamond marine mining uses a large ship-mounted drill which works in overlapping circles on the sea floor instead, the rest of the process is the same. Of course, the biggest barrier to entry here is capital, specific ships designed for trawling and the equipment used to mine the diamonds are highly specialised and so are often reserved for the companies that can afford this kind of equipment. Sometimes digging a big pit is just easier. But if you can, it's highly lucrative as many areas of the seabed are untapped. ## From Tunnel to Tiffanys – How are Diamonds Processed? And so, once the diamonds are actually mined out of the ground and reach the processing facility, how are they processed? How do we go from chunks of ore and piles of gravel to the brilliant, dazzling, well-cut diamonds we see adorning jewellery stores today? So firstly, the larger rock is crushed via machines into smaller, more manageable pieces. Sometimes, a secondary crusher, known as a roll-crusher (think of those industrial shredders) are used to reduce the size of the ore and gravel even further. At the end of this process all of your ore and gravel is roughly the same size. By then putting it through a washing process, where the diamonds ore is scrubbed to remove as much loose excess material as possible. At this point anything smaller than one and a half millimetres in diameter is discarded by the machine, which looks something like a large horizontal rotating drum. This is because it would cost more to extract the small pieces of ore from pieces than you would get back from selling them, although some companies do sort them into a "fines" section for other uses. More scrubbing processes are used as well like log washers, high-pressure washers and attrition cells. So, now you're left mostly with pure diamond ore, but along the way other metals or even other gems will have made it this far in the cleaning process and still needs to be separated. To separate them, the diamond-bearing ore is then mixed with a water solution of iron and silicon powder known as ferrosilicon. This is a heavy liquid, and when you add this to the mix, the denser diamonds sink to the bottom, whilst other less dense materials float to the top. When this goes into a cyclone or a sluice with several panels and meshes, it's a lot like panning, the heavier material stays whilst the lighter stuff is carried away. Then finally the diamonds are sorted from the remaining heavy material. A relatively low-tech method for this is simply to use a greased belt which takes advantage of diamond's hydrophobic qualities. Diamonds stick to greasy surfaces where other materials that have absorbed water will slide off, then you just have to scrape them off. However, this isn't a perfect solution, on a fully automated scale, magnets are often used to remove metals, whilst x-ray luminescence and lasers are used to separate the diamonds from any other dense materials that aren't magnetic. Sensors are used to detect the flashes of light emitted by diamonds, this sends a signal to a microprocessor that fires a blast of condensed air at the diamond on the belt, which then spits it into a collection box. And if you can follow those simple 18,000 steps, you too can have a box of diamonds. It really is that simple. But actually, it's not quite the end of the road. The diamonds collected in this recovery process then need to be cleaned in an acid solution, washed, weighed, sorted, and packaged in sealed containers for transport. The diamonds are often sorted by carat weight, and then each size is sorted into their quality ranges. Not all diamonds are created equal after all. This is also the point that the gemstone-quality diamonds are separated from the industrial diamonds. Industrial diamonds are regarded as something of a byproduct in the diamond mining process. They certainly do have their uses, the lowest quality ones are still diamonds, as the hardest naturally occurring material on earth, they can still be used in various high abrasion sandpapers as well as on the tips of drill bits and saws. The reality is you just don't make as much money from industrial diamonds as you do from the prettier ones. And there are a lot of them, 80% of mined diamonds are considered unsuitable for use as gemstones for one reason or another. So, they too are sorted, and then the gemstone quality ones are placed in a box with an anti-tamper resistant seal, numbered on sight and issued with a certificate of origin. From there, they're viewed and sold by a confidential electronic auctioning process, usually to a licensed diamond trader. The highest bidder wins the parcel of diamonds and from there, some stay in their country of origin to be cut into gemstones, to ensure that the nation the diamonds are from is actually getting a cut of their own profits. Others are sold to jewellers and other diamond cutting specialists throughout the world where they're moulded, polished, and set into that engagement ring your partner simply has to have. But all that glitters is not gold… or in this case, diamonds. The diamond industry has a dark past, and a dangerous present that can't be separated from the jewellery we wear every day. But it also has a hopeful future that hopes to one day leave that all behind. ## All That Glitters? Controversy and Future Diamonds have commonly been a vector for colonial empires to exploit other parts of the world throughout history. When diamonds were discovered in what was German Southwest Africa (the nation now known as Namibia) at the turn of the 20th centuries, it led to untold amounts of atrocities, violence and brutality. The German treatment of the indigenous Herero people is only just starting to be recognised as one of the earliest attempted genocides in recorded history, all in the name of colonial greed, and that included the mass plundering of diamonds found there. British companies seized control of the diamond trade in 1930s Sierra Leone and for a long time none of that wealth was shared with the country's people. There have been many such cases all over the world across history, including in India, but much of the exploitation for diamonds occurred on the African continent. And worse yet, after those nations gained their independence, armed militias started to take control over diamond mines locally, they would use the proceeds from these highly profitable industries to further fuel their bloodshed and expand their operations. These are what are referred to as "blood diamonds" and the international community has been trying to eliminate them for over a generation. Now remember in the diamond separation process where we mentioned that rough diamonds are placed in sealed containers, numbered and issued a certificate? Well, this is in accordance with something called the Kimberley process. This was a process that was adopted when southern African diamond producing states met in Kimberley in 2000 to discuss ways to stop the trade in blood diamonds and ensure that diamond purchases were not financing violence. This, plus UN cooperation, resulted in the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (or KPCS for short). The KPCS sets out the requirements for controlling rough diamond production and trade, and it came into force in 2003. It requires diamonds to be certified as "conflict free" to stop any blood diamonds from entering the supply chain. And it worked. Before the KCPS was introduced, it was estimated that 4% of the world's diamond supply were sourced from conflict, today that figure is estimated to be just 0.2%. This is why you now get a certificate when you buy a diamond that tells you where exactly that it came from, and you can trace it all the way back to where it was mined. However, that doesn't mean everything is suddenly all good. Modern diamond mining operations are expensive, which means that unsavoury characters are always looking for a way to make their production costs cheaper so they can pocket more profit. But this leads to unsanitary, unsafe working conditions, and it also utilises indentured servitude, and sometimes child labour as well. Diamond pits, or really any mining operation, especially in Africa, can be highly dangerous places. Heavy machinery, minimum safety equipment, poor conditions, risk of cave-ins, and more, are all just par for the course. Organisations have discovered overcrowding of workers, abuse, long hours, and cheap or no pay. Child labourers in diamond mines suffer from a myriad of health problems, from their poor working conditions including eye strain, headaches, malnutrition, and respiratory problems. Many of them don't have a choice. When you are dirt poor, and your family relies on your work to survive, what other option is there? Human Rights Watch found in 2018 that the diamond mining industry still fuels this kind of suffering. The reality is some of the largest diamond companies in the world are at least complicit in it. They might not be blood diamonds but that doesn't mean the industry is clean. But before you tear your engagement ring off your finger, it's not all bad, diamond mining clearly has a long way to go but these problems are slowly being addressed. The poor conditions of some mines are not the case everywhere, and in other places the Kimberley process is doing its job to ensure that diamonds can be sourced from pit to pendant. Meanwhile the diamond trade is also helping some former colonial nations rise out of poverty. Botswana's diamond operations have given the nation a significant economic boost. Diamonds are 71% of their export revenue and make up 16% of the GDP. The nation even has a stake in several global diamond traders to ensure that profits from diamonds all over the world, many of which it supplies, benefits the nation in return. And if you're not convinced that diamonds can be mined ethically, soon, it could be the case that diamonds mined from the earth will be a thing of the past. Every year the lab-grown diamond industry grows even larger. Under laboratory conditions, the conditions to manufacture perfect, dazzling diamonds can be replicated, and they're also cheaper, costing on average between 60-85% less than their mined counterparts. They are otherwise totally identical, and as the industry grows, regular diamond mining might become less profitable over time. The one downside is that it is actually worse for the environment, as unlike many mining operations, diamond mining ironically has a very low carbon footprint because it doesn't use any chemicals. According to the Diamond Producers Association, the emissions of a one-carat, polished, natural diamond are less than that of most synthetic diamonds of a similar size. So, it seems diamond mining might be in for a shake up in the future, perhaps one day, this industry and the incredibly complicated series of steps it takes to orchestrate, hundreds of millions of years in the making, will be just as extinct as the dinosaurs that were around when they were first formed. Or perhaps the industry is simply too profitable to ever end, including the suffering it causes. At the end of the day, diamonds are forever, and for the effort it takes to actually get them out of the ground, they probably should be. ## Key Takeaways - Diamonds form deep underground under extreme pressure and heat, then reach the surface through volcanic eruptions. - Diamond mining involves four main methods: open pit, underground, alluvial, and marine mining, each with unique challenges. - The Kimberley Process aims to prevent conflict diamonds, but issues like unsafe working conditions and child labor persist. - Only 20% of mined diamonds are suitable for jewelry, with the rest used industrially due to their hardness. - Lab-grown diamonds are becoming more popular, offering a cheaper and potentially more ethical alternative to mined diamonds. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What are diamonds made of? Diamonds are formed out of carbon atoms that crystallize under extreme pressure and heat deep within the Earth. ### How are diamonds brought to the Earth's surface? Diamonds are brought to the surface through volcanic eruptions of kimberlite, a coarse igneous rock, which forms pipes as it cools and hardens. ### Where are diamonds primarily found? Diamonds are primarily found in Russia (mainly Siberia), sub-Saharan Africa, Canada, and Australia. ### What are the main methods of diamond mining? The main methods of diamond mining are open pit mining, underground mining, alluvial mining, and marine diamond mining. ### How are diamonds processed after mining? Diamonds are processed by crushing the ore, washing it, separating the diamonds using ferrosilicon, and then sorting and cleaning them for transport. ### What is the Kimberley Process? The Kimberley Process is a certification scheme aimed at preventing conflict diamonds from entering the market by ensuring that diamonds are certified as 'conflict-free'. ### What are the ethical concerns associated with diamond mining? Ethical concerns include unsafe working conditions, indentured servitude, child labor, and the historical exploitation of indigenous populations for diamond mining. ### How do lab-grown diamonds compare to mined diamonds? Lab-grown diamonds are chemically identical to mined diamonds but are generally cheaper and have a higher environmental impact due to their manufacturing process. ### What is the significance of the Herero people in the history of diamond mining? The Herero people of Namibia suffered atrocities and exploitation during the early 20th century due to German colonial greed for diamonds, which is recognized as one of the earliest attempted genocides. ### What percentage of mined diamonds are suitable for use as gemstones? Only 20% of mined diamonds are considered suitable for use as gemstones, while the remaining 80% are used for industrial purposes. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: Everything You Need to Know: Diamond Mining](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAyrfkbQMQ8) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Elisabeth_tiffany_%282025%29_autor_Velle_Tamme.jpg?utm_source=commons.wikimedia.org&utm_campaign=imageinfo&utm_content=original) by Shemadeitagain / openverse, by-sa. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/f1-what-are-the-specs-of-the-mercedes-w16 https://megaprojects.pub/article/f1-what-are-the-specs-of-the-mercedes-w16 Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT ## Introduction Do you like to drive fast? Many of us do, the wind in your hair, the speed of watching the world fly by, the feeling of controlling a machine capable of such speed. It's innately satisfying. And then you have the maniacs at Formula One, hurling themselves around the track at hundreds of kilometres an hour, with only a thin car to protect them if they crash. It's a magnificent sport. And it's full of magnificent machines. Formula One cars are some of the most well-engineered and resource heavy projects in the modern era. And today we're focusing on a brand new one. The Mercedes AMG W16. This is truly one of man's most remarkable creations, once you hear the story of how this car was made, and the effort that has gone into every little detail, you will see how it wasn't just thrown together, it was meticulously built for a single purpose. To gun for the checkered flag. This car is what happens when a racing team and their talented engineers commit to winning at all costs. It's what happens when you focus on weaknesses so hard they become strengths. It's what happens when speed and precision meet ingenious design. But is it enough to win it all? Strap in, and start your engines. Because we're about to find out. ## At A Crossroads – Birth of the W16 So, why did Mercedes need a new Formula One car in the first place? Beyond the fact that every team makes a new car every year to keep up with evolving strategies, technologies, and regulations? Well, the Mercedes Formula One team was actually at a bit of a crossroads by the end of the 2024 season. Formula One cars have specific regulations for how their cars can be built relating to power, shape, safety and more, but there is enough wiggle room for differing car designs to come out from time to time that can change the game. The last major technical changes to Formula One's car manufacturing regulations came in 2022, and whilst there have been brief spells of success, a win here, a fastest lap there, but the championship has simply eluded them. And historically, that's unlike Mercedes. Before 2022, the team won eight constructor's titles in a row, that's what you win when the team overall has more points than any other, as opposed to the points tallies of individual drivers. But since 2022 it's been spotty at best, since those new regulations came in, they've only won five races, which is not many. This decline in form and inconsistency also led to the departure of long-serving talisman and former world champion Lewis Hamilton. With only one year left until new regulations arrived in 2026, Mercedes knew it was their last chance to make it big on the current car design they were using. The previous model, the W15, simply didn't pass muster. Don't get me wrong, it was fast, really fast, but there were several issues with the car that led to its underperformance on race day. For starters, the outside temperature would play a large factor in the car's performance, and imbalances in the temperature of the different tires made the car handle and react differently from session to session. It might seem like quite a small thing, but when you're travelling at hundreds of kilometres per hour, every decimal point more efficient and reliable you can be, the better. The previous car was modelled around the optimisation of a super-low ride height. The lower your car is to the floor, generally the better it is. A low ride height creates a low-pressure area underneath the car, often less than three centimetres from the track, and this sucks the car like an aeroplane wing towards the ground, resulting in more grip without needing a huge wing on the back of the car which increases drag. Aerodynamics is everything in this sport. The W15 was created with this idea in mind, but for bumpier tracks, the ride height had to be raised, which lowered performance more than it did for other cars. If they had left it as it, it could have led to the car becoming unstable or damaged, and you don't want that when travelling at speeds you'd get pulled over for on the Autobahn. The car was also prone to understeer on slow corners. It was reluctant to turn, ruining the driver's preferred racing line and further lowering performance. Between that, the ride height, and the inconsistency from the temperature, winning races on any given day was like closing your eyes and trying to hit a bullseye on a dartboard from the basket of a hot air balloon. It just wasn't very likely. But what that did mean was that Mercedes had a goal. The car was already fast, iron out the kinks and you might be on the podium come race day. And so, the engineers got to work, designing and building what they hoped would be the car that would bring glory back to Mercedes. The W16. ## A New Era Ok, so what design changes were made between the W15 and W16 that was going to flip the game on its head and turn Mercedes from wacky racers to Lightning McQueen? Well, if you're not into F1, the W16 might look like every Formula One car you've ever seen before, like a go-kart and a spaceship had a baby. But when the cars are side by side, you can see some major changes in the design that had some F1 enthusiasts practically frothing at the mouth when the car was revealed ahead of the start of the season back in late February of 2025 in London. Technical director James Allison spoke on the team's vision for the car, quoting here; > "Being the fourth year of these regulations on the chassis side, the cars are in the more mature phase. Big gains in lap time are harder to come by but we've been focused on making improvements in the areas that held us back last year." But what exactly is different? And what makes this new design so unique? Well, it can only be so unique, the new car does use the W15's general chassis geometry and suspension layout, but other than that, almost everything is new. Looking at the cars side by side, you can see that the body work has been entirely aerodynamically re-engineered. Changes were made to every aerodynamic surface on the car. Despite the same layout of the suspension, the front suspension itself is brand new, and further changes under the skin of the vehicle have been made to remedy the flaws of the previous model. The issue with the W15 was that it was too extreme, too good in some areas, and nowhere good enough in others, Mercedes' aim with the W16 was to keep the car efficient, but also to bring a more harmonious set of traits to the new design that will allow for a more consistent range of speeds. And of course, the more consistent a car is, the more used to it any driver can become when operating it over time. Think about it like riding a tamed horse versus a wild bull. Both are dangerous, can run pretty fast and can kill you, but you know what to expect with one, whilst the other is a total unknown. So, the aim then in technical terms, was to balance the downforce, the force that pushes the car into the track and gives it more grip, with being able to reliably drive through both high and lower speed corners. Rounding off this edge in theory makes the W16 more of a balanced vehicle overall. You'll notice on the nose of the car in particular, the nose is narrower and there is no slot gap, the small space just at the end of the nose. A narrower nose pushes lets the air flow around it more easily and into the intended path the engineers designed, making the car more predictable. It also has a scalloped-out underside to create negative pressure, increasing airflow and downforce. Meanwhile the lack of a slot gap largely does the same thing, but enhances that effect. A slot gap is often used to avoid turbulence, loss of downforce and drag. Those all sound like reasons you would want a slot gap, so why did Mercedes get rid of it? It's all about those two old chestnuts, aerodynamics, and physics. Listen, you can't tell me that F1 isn't a sport for nerds and I love it. The lack of a slot gap pushes more air through the car as it travels at high speeds, as opposed to around it. This puts more downforce on the front axle of the vehicle, allowing the car to conquer corners without catastrophe, especially at slow speeds and makes the car more predictable in those corners. At higher speeds there is actually less downforce for corners, one of the many trade-offs when designing an F1 car, but seeing as the key issue of the previous model was the understeer on slow speed corners, this is exactly what the engineers and designers were trying to do. See what we mean when we say it makes for a more well-rounded vehicle? Now this change does make the car less aerodynamic in some areas, and on the old design this might have been a problem, but as we covered, the whole body has been reshaped to accommodate this. You might also assume that this would lower the speed overall because stability in slower corners through downforce comes at the cost of drag. But on straightaways you don't need all that extra downforce, and the drag created by a stop gap simply isn't there, reducing drag overall and allowing for higher speeds on straightaways. The Drag Reduction System, or DRS, will also help here. So, the W16 in theory can handle corners better whilst actually going even faster on straights than the previous car. That's some nifty engineering. Meanwhile another change is there is a twin turning vane assembly near the wheels and front suspension. These are two little devices that take the airflow being forced around the inside the tyre as it rotates on the track, and diverts it to the void area behind the tyre, this reduces tyre drag from pushing air inside the vehicle, especially underneath the floor of the car, which can have negative effects at top speeds, making it more aerodynamic overall. The rear wing is one of the only external parts of the car that is the same as the 2024 model. But that's because it's a bolt-on measure to create downforce, there will likely be several iterations of different wings throughout the season depending on the needs of the car for specific tracks. The final change to the structure of the car as far as we've been told is related to the carbon fibre that it's made out of. In an innovative new design, the classic carbon fibre material has been replaced with sustainable carbon fibre composites, making it the first time that such a material has been used to build key components of a Formula One car. The material is light and strong exactly like classic carbon fibre, but it's better for the environment. Overall, these composites comprise 75% of the car's materials, as part of the Mercedes team commitment to meet sustainability goals by 2040. Such composites owing to developments in the technology can flex more than they used to under the right speed, meaning they can form an even more aerodynamic shape over some other competitors through some clever engineering in their bodywork design. The company even believes such innovations can transcend motorsport, with an opportunity to take such developments into other areas, from aviation and aerospace to technical performance fabrics. Team Principal and CEO Toto Wolff commented, quoting here; > "When you combine performance and innovation, you create progress. I am proud to lead a team of problem solvers who are committed to driving sustainable change." Here's hoping it still leads to sustainable change on the track too, because when Formula One cars take millions of dollars to engineer, you'd rather be winning some races for your trouble. ## How To Build a Monster So, what about the internal specs of the W16? What are we looking at here when it comes to raw performance? Well, let's break it down to show how each element of this machine has been painstakingly engineered to get the absolute maximum speed, downforce, and the sexiest thing of all, safety. But how do they do this whilst reducing drag as much as possible, and gunning for that magical checkered flag and champagne popping celebrations? Let's start with the engine, since without it the car can be perfect but it won't go anywhere. Now, F1 engines these days are actually pretty small, as they need to be in order to keep the power to weight ratio in check, but that doesn't mean they're not powerful. The Mercedes W16 F1 car has a 1.6 litre turbo hybrid power unit, with six cylinders. This is also known as a V6 engine, which you might find in many sports, muscle, and performance cars. But those cars are typically much heavier than an F1 car, and when you think about that calculation you can start to see where the breakneck speed comes from. Whilst there is no top speed officially listed for the W16, many believe it to top out at around 230 miles per hour or around 375 kilometres per hour. It has a 90-degree bank angle, which means that's the angle at which the cylinders point away from the engine block, that's pretty wide and gives the car better balance and a lower centre of gravity, which is important for cornering. It also has 24 valves, four for each cylinder, which allows more air to get into the engine, making for more efficient combustion and performance. This little engine can generate a lot of power, up to 15,000 revolutions per minute, a road car might reach half that at the top end. 15,000 is the upper limit set by F1's regulatory body the FIA. It also has a fuel injection system, where the specialised fuel is sprayed directly into the combustion chamber at over 7,000 PSI. This improves combustion efficiency and the car's emissions, with each of the six cylinders having their own injectors commonly for precise control. And then on top of all of that you have the turbocharger, the exhaust turbine, and the energy recovery system, or ERS. The turbocharger uses exhaust gases to spin a turbine, which in turn forces more air into the engine through a compressor. More air means more combustion and more combustion means car go zoom. The exhaust turbine is connected to the turbocharger, which spins faster than a dentist's drill and is designed to recover energy from the exhaust that is then rerouted back into the car via the ERS. It uses units focusing on kinetic energy under braking, a bit like modern electric cars do, and heat energy, which as you can imagine Formula One cars create a lot of. That energy is then transferred into electricity that the car can use intelligently as races go on. This is what makes the engine a hybrid power unit, rather than a standard internal combustion engine you might see on the road. Inside the car itself is where the driver sits, I know this is the hard-hitting engineering-based content you come here for. This is generally referred to as the cockpit. The driver's seat is removable to reach other internals of the car and is made out of that same carbon fibre composite, keeping the frame light and strong, as lower weight means faster speeds, and carbon fibre is the only materials that can maximise safety when going that fast, at least in terms of what is commercially available for Formula One dev teams inside the restrictions they can operate in. The seat has a six-point safety harness to ensure that the driver won't be thrown out of the vehicle if they crash. That sounds counter intuitive, but trust me, road rash at hundreds of miles per hour and nothing to protect you from hitting a barricade other than a helmet might change your mind. It also has a HANS device, which stands for "Head and Neck Support" device, made of carbon fibre reinforced polymer, the HANS device attaches the helmet in conjunction with the harness to the rest of the driver's body, and has a support where they can rest their heads, whilst keeping their shoulders and neck in place. Again, this is a smart safety feature, many people experience whiplash when crashing at regular road speeds, imagine what that would feel like in a Formula One car, you'd stumble out of the car looking like Quasimodo without this thing. Basically, a HANS device is a lifesaver, whilst still allowing drivers to move their heads normally. In the cockpit is also the detachable steering wheel, which is also made of carbon fibre, you'll see a theme here. Around the cockpit and what the bodywork sits on is known as a "monocoque," no we're not talking about a singular chicken here, this is another internal safety structure to house the driver and cockpit, ensuring lightness, speed, and safety in the event of a crash because you guessed it, it's made of carbon fibre. You can also think of this as a lightweight, rigid chassis structure that integrates the body and chassis into a singular unit that also protects the driver. A lighter monocoque also means that the car will be able to handle corners better. Next, the bodywork, that's the carbon fibre composite we mentioned earlier, and it covers all major external elements of the car designed to be aerodynamic, like the engine cover, sidepods, floor, nose, front wing, and the rear wing as well. Let's talk suspension, because when I tell you that the W16 uses a carbon fibre wishbone system utilising push rod activated inboard springs and dampers, you might look at the screen like I've grown a second head. But that's all just engineering jargon. All it really means is that there's a carbon fibre rod that connects the wheel of the car to the suspension springs and dampers, which helps drivers pass over bumpy surfaces more smoothly. When the car goes over a bump, the wheel pushes this rod up and either directly into the springs and dampers (this is the case for the rear suspension on the W16), or that motion is then translated with a few different mechanisms to travel "inboard" towards springs and dampers in the nose (this is the case for the front suspension). The wishbone element just describes how the wheel is connected to the chassis via a suspension arm. This arm starts at the centre of the wheel and splays outwards in two directions connecting to the rest of the vehicle, which looks a bit like a wishbone. There you go, now you understand F1 suspension. The wheels are made from forged magnesium through a multi-stage forging process, ensuring that they're lightweight and high strength, as they need to be capable of handling whatever speeds a car can go, as well as the track they're driving on. They're typically a stock item in Formula One these days and have been made by the Japanese company BBS since 1992 when they started supplying them to the Ferrari racing team. They have been the official supplier of wheel rims since 2022. The tyres are Pirelli, the well-known brand supplies all tyres to F1 teams and has since 2011, although this agreement is up to be potentially changed in 2027. The 18-inch tyres comprise six "slick" rubber compounds ranging from hardest (which are the longest lasting but less grippy), all the way to the softest (the grippiest but last the shortest time before having to go into the pit). Three of these six are then included for race day and are colour coded to ensure nobody gets confused, but that's not all. Pirelli provides each team with 13 sets of dry weather tyres (these are the three of the six major compounds we were discussing) as well as several sets of "intermediate" and "full wet" tyres based on the conditions of the track that day. For steering those wheels and tyres, the W16 uses a power-assisted rack and pinion system. This uses a hydraulic pump and pressurised fluid to assist with turning the car's wheels which can be quite hard at speed with so much grip and downforce. Any of you have been go-karting or have had the power-steering fail in your car can understand a fraction of how hard it is to steer something without some extra help. "Rack and pinion" just refer to the mechanism that allows the wheels to turn. A pinion gear connected to the steering column rotates and meshes with a toothed rack which pushes the wheels left and right when you turn the steering wheel. Simple. Gearbox next, eight speeds forwards, and one reverse gear that you hope you never have to use mid-race. It's housed in a carbon fibre case for protection. As for brakes, they're made up of carbon discs and pads, and in the rear, there is a "brake-by-wire" system that monitors the driver's pedal input and then sends a corresponding electrical signal to the braking system rather than using mechanical connections. The callipers, the things that actually clamp down on the breaks are made from a light but sturdy aluminium alloy from a single bloc and are nickel plated to resist corrosion. This keeps the braking strong, which you need when travelling at hundreds of kilometres per hour. Finally of the main elements of the car you have the safety features. We've spoke about the cockpit and monocoque survival cell, as well as the HANS and the six point harness, but the rest of the car is also designed with safety in mind. The car has what Mercedes refers to as "penetration panels," in the monocoque which are designed to stop sharp parts of the car from penetrating the cockpit in the event of a crash. It's one thing to hit a barricade at top speeds, but it's another to be impaled by your own suspension rods. Best leave that one in for the next iteration methinks. The car also has crumple zones which are designed to deform, absorb energy and even break off during a crash, as they too are made from carbon fibre, they're very good at their jobs. Finally, you have the titanium driver protection structure, known as the HALO, which stop the driver from dying if the car flips over on its head. Imagine it like a mini roll cage just above the driver's head. This feature is universally popular and has saved driver's lives when they otherwise may well have been killed in a particularly bad crash. After that it's minor stuff, electronics, instrumentation, and the fuel system all are designed to ensure the car runs as smoothly as possible. PETRONAS, the well-known sponsor of Mercedes, provides all of the car's lubrication and fuel. And that's really all there is to it. You can see how the engineers were so meticulous in incorporating their design to ensure not a single gram of weight was spared, and that every ounce of power could be translated from the engine to the wheels with as little waste as possible. Now you don't just know how the W16 works, you have the basic building blocks for how all F1 cars operate. Most cars have the same systems or variations on them. So then, given that, how does the W16 stack up? It's been engineered well, and its main issues have mostly been dealt with from the W15 days, so what can be expected whenever you see this thing on a Grand Prix track? ## A Champion's Car? So, the W16 has been able to be driven in a number of Formula One Grand Prix races for Mercedes now, how is it doing? Pretty good, all things considered. Mercedes struggled in the 2024 season to get anywhere near the podium, and whilst McLaren are running away with it this season so far, Mercedes is comfortably second, and given that their driving stock has lost a multiple time world champion, that's a strong indictment of a car that is well designed and has mostly dealt with its predecessor's flaws. Even if they are yet to win any races. But it's still early, the season is long, and we won't really know how exactly the W16 stacks up for sure until the end of the season to see who comes out on top of that winners' podium. McLaren, the team currently in first, is actually using the same engine with differing design elements in other places, another strong indictment for the engine. In a sense, the fact they are so high up without winning any races is a testament to the greater reliability and consistency of the W16, which is exactly what Mercedes was aiming for, a more well-rounded car. George Russell, one of Mercedes' main drivers, generally has said he likes the car and that it performs well on the track, but with one small bugbear. Russell has mentioned that the car performs better in cooler conditions and the temperature is still affecting the consistency of the car from race to race. So, whilst the understeer appears to be fixed, and that's really important, the temperature issues persist. However, it is still shaping up to be a strong season for Mercedes thanks to the skill of their drivers and the W16. Because in the right conditions this thing can really fly. During the Japanese Grand Prix in Suzuka, Kimi Antonelli, the 18-year-old driver Mercedes chose to replace Lewis Hamilton, won the fastest lap. Another early notch in the W16's belt. It may not end up winning the whole thing, but it's pretty likely that the Mercedes W16 will see the podium at the end of the season if the W16 can keep up with the same pace for the foreseeable. And soon the cycle is going to begin anew, when the 2026 season is set to start a new set of regulations will be enforced by the FIA that will necessitate new and innovative car designs. One might argue its wasteful of Mercedes to redevelop to such an extent this year only for the whole thing to be thrown out the window next year anyway. If they're not going to win regardless why not cut their losses and focus on pouring resources into the 2026 car instead? That's a valid question, but it's not always how elite sport tends to work. Toto Wolff had the following to say on such a dilemma quote; > "This is the crux of the matter every year, and especially if you have such a big regulatory change, are you going to compromise one year or the other?" said Wolff, in an exclusive interview with Autosport. But I'd like to take it from Niki's (referring to the late great driver Niki Lauda's) motto, when being asked. 'Would you rather win this one or the next one?' And he says, 'Both.' And that kind of attitude is how you make champions. ## Key Takeaways - The Mercedes AMG W16 was designed to address the W15's temperature sensitivity and understeer issues. - The W16 features a narrower nose and no slot gap to improve airflow and downforce. - The W16's engine is a 1.6-litre turbo hybrid V6, capable of 15,000 RPM. - The W16 incorporates sustainable carbon fibre composites for 75% of its materials. - The W16 has shown strong performance in the 2025 season, securing second place. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is the Mercedes-AMG W16? The Mercedes-AMG W16 is a Formula One car designed and built by the Mercedes Formula One team. It is a meticulously engineered machine aimed at winning races and addressing the weaknesses of its predecessor, the W15. ### Why did Mercedes need a new Formula One car? Mercedes needed a new Formula One car because they were at a crossroads by the end of the 2024 season. The previous model, the W15, had several issues that led to underperformance on race day, and new regulations were coming in 2026. ### What were the main issues with the W15? The W15 had issues with temperature affecting tire performance, a super-low ride height that caused problems on bumpier tracks, and understeer on slow corners, making it inconsistent and unreliable. ### What design changes were made to the W16? The W16 features a narrower nose without a slot gap, a twin turning vane assembly near the wheels, and a rear wing that can be changed for different tracks. The car also uses sustainable carbon fibre composites for key components. ### What is the engine specification of the W16? The W16 has a 1.6-litre turbo hybrid power unit with six cylinders (V6 engine). It has a 90-degree bank angle, 24 valves, and can generate up to 15,000 revolutions per minute. It also includes a turbocharger, exhaust turbine, and energy recovery system (ERS). ### What safety features does the W16 have? The W16 includes a monocoque survival cell, a HANS device, a six-point safety harness, penetration panels, crumple zones, and a titanium driver protection structure (HALO). These features are designed to protect the driver in the event of a crash. ### How has the W16 performed in races? The W16 has performed well, with Mercedes comfortably in second place in the 2025 season. It has shown reliability and consistency, with drivers praising its performance in cooler conditions. Kimi Antonelli won the fastest lap during the Japanese Grand Prix. ### What is the top speed of the W16? The top speed of the W16 is believed to be around 230 miles per hour or 375 kilometres per hour, although no official top speed has been listed. ### What materials are used in the construction of the W16? The W16 uses sustainable carbon fibre composites for key components, which are light and strong. These composites make up 75% of the car's materials and are part of Mercedes' commitment to meet sustainability goals by 2040. ### What is the gearbox specification of the W16? The W16 has an eight-speed forward gearbox and one reverse gear. The gearbox is housed in a carbon fibre case for protection. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: F1: What Are the Specs of the Mercedes W16?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvi7F-DPSHE) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Formula_one.jpg) by Rick Dikeman / openverse, by-sa. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/fc-31-gyrfalcon-china-other-stealth-fighter https://megaprojects.pub/article/fc-31-gyrfalcon-china-other-stealth-fighter Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Around the world, air combat is changing fast. Between United States fighter-jet models like the F-22 and the F-35, the Chinese J-20, the Russian Su-57, and potential high-tech indigenous designs from Turkey, India, Japan, and Europe, fighter technology is evolving faster than ever before. Fifth-generation jets are functionally invisible to radar, prepared to lead swarms of drone aircraft, and capable of shooting down even fourth-generation fighters like the F-16 or the MiG-29 before they've even been detected. The implications for aerial warfare are only just beginning to be discovered, and with dozens of countries intending to either acquire such technology or build it on their own, fifth-gen aircraft may become either a great equalizer across regional and global powers, or the starting point for yet another worldwide arms race. But lest you think China is spoken for, with its Chengdu J-20 Mighty Dragon, think again. There is another aircraft on track to represent China and its global partners in the skies: the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation's FC-31, the Gyrfalcon. Bearing a strong resemblance to American fighter designs, the FC-31 has been a quiet, background competitor to the J-20 for years, and all indications are that in the 2020s, it may make the jump from prototype to the production line. ## Origins and Development Although we can't pinpoint precisely when the FC-31 was designed, due to the secretive nature of China's aircraft R&D process, we do know that it was entered into a competition by the People's Liberation Army Air Force, or PLAAF, in the late 2000s, in order to fill the role of China's next-generation fighter aircraft. The FC-31 proposal was submitted by Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, a private-ish company based in China with a long history of supplying fighter and bomber aircraft to the PLAAF. The FC-31 was a direct competitor with the J-20, and if we tell you that the J-series designation is reserved for aircraft that have been officially adopted for use by the PLAAF…well, that should be a good indicator that the FC-31 did not end up securing a contract. Just a note as we go forward; the naming conventions of this plane have been murky at best, and we'll get more into that soon, but for purposes of this article, we'll refer to it under the technically accurate designation of FC-31. While there's no direct confirmation, Western analysts believe that the FC-31's engines might have been the contributing factor that underwhelmed the Chinese air force, given that they seemed to lack some of the necessary kick for top-tier fighter performance. However, it's important to note that Shenyang Aircraft Corporation has been one of China's most trusted aerospace companies for decades, and a long series of successful contracts have ensured that if nothing else, the company's earned a whole lot of money. So when the PLAAF didn't bite on their offer, Shenyang decided to keep the FC-31 design alive on their own, and develop the aircraft privately with the hopes of eventually demonstrating its usefulness. Whatever happened afterward, happened behind closed doors, so we unfortunately can't bring you the level of inside info that we could for, say, the F-35. But what we do know is that the plane's existence began to leak out in the early 2010s, beginning when a model of a Shenyang-produced fighter aircraft circulated online in September 2011. Then designated the F-60 due to a label on one of its vertical stabilizers, the leak confirmed speculation that Shenyang had been working on their own competitor design to rival the J-20, which had had its own images leaked in late 2010. Almost exactly a year later, photos circulated of an aircraft that looked, at least outwardly, to be fully assembled on the tarmac at the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation's airfields. By this time, Chinese authorities had publicly acknowledged the program's existence, referring to it as the J-21, J-31, or F-60 in varying sources, although they hadn't made any official announcements about the plane. Keen observers of these photographs picked up on a few things: the plane had two wheels under the nose, not one, which typically would indicate a plane built to operate from an aircraft carrier. It also appeared to be designed in a way that would make it more nimble than the J-20, suggesting a role as an air-superiority fighter rather than a multirole aircraft. A nearby truck allowed observers to judge the plane as being smaller than the J-20, and analysts also noted its lack of canards, the small forewings that can be observed on many modern fighter aircraft. The J-20 design does include canards, which make it difficult for a plane to keep a truly stealthy radar cross-section, whereas this new plane didn't include them. All these observations painted a fairly clear picture of just what this new aircraft was supposed to be: a stealthy, highly maneuverable aircraft that could prove itself dominant over other fighter planes, launched either from Chinese bases on land or from aircraft carriers at sea. But there was one other observation we need to touch on: the plane's uncanny resemblance to the American F-22 and F-35 fighter designs. There's a halfway reasonable argument that simply looking like somebody else's fighter aircraft is no crime at all; after all, the American designs are certainly good at being stealth aircraft, and even if it were unintentional, well, there's not that many more ways to skin this particular cat. But the air of plausible deniability sours a bit, when we bear in mind that in 2007 and 2008 the United States' Joint Strike Fighter program was hacked and had several terabytes of its data stolen, almost definitely by China. This bred a longstanding suspicion that any resulting Chinese fighter plane designs would draw on stolen information from the US, and most Western analysts agree that the information has since been incorporated into the FC-31. ## White Elephant to the Production Line Over the following few years, more and more information slowly became available about the FC-31. For example, the moniker F-60 was eventually clarified as referring to the export version of the plane, whereas the J-31 would be the name for the aircraft if it were to be adopted by the Chinese military. The fact that Shenyang was looking to produce an export version was relevant in a few ways, not least because the J-20 aircraft has since been clarified as explicitly not for export sale. While the American F-22 Raptor has also been withheld from foreign markets, the American F-35 has been sold to or requested by some fifteen global allies, and thus become a valuable extension of the United States' global hegemony. Russia's Su-57 Felon aircraft was also developed with foreign customers in mind, although that effort has failed fairly miserably. Shenyang's interest in building an export product thus helped its ambitions with the Chinese military in two ways. First, it offered China a chance to get in on the game of upgrading its allies to fifth-generation aircraft, something that's become extremely relevant in a world where any regional power that lacks such fighter planes would be at a severe disadvantage in future conflicts. Most of the world's regional powers have either attempted to buy fifth-generation aircraft from a major producer, or build one themselves, so an adoption of the FC-31 would give China an inroad to that market without compromising whatever it wants to hide within the J-20. Relatedly, those sales would also allow China a valuable chance to expand its regional and global influence, in a time when it's been attempting to do just that. The world got its first clear look at the FC-31's design when a quarter-scale model was unveiled at AirShow China, 2012. The statements made at the airshow were telling: "Currently, the only fifth-generation fighter available for sale is the F-35 by the US. The 'J-31' will offer an alternative for non-traditional allies of the US". Despite the use of the J- prefix, the model still hadn't been adopted by the Chinese military, but it had made its maiden flight on October 31, 2012, in a Halloween demonstration that Western militaries would probably have found very spooky indeed. The chairman of the Aviation Industry Corporation of China claimed that the aircraft had been fully privately funded, which squares with what we now know about the FC-31's development and design. The next big news on the FC-31 came during the 2015 Dubai Airshow, where Shenyang announced that it was actively marketing the plane to the PLAAF—not that it had been bought, yet, but that it was still being marketed. Shenyang also expressed their goal to put a production version in the sky by 2019, with full operational capability by or before 2025. Yet again, Shenyang hammered home their focus on producing an export product, reiterating that they were open to a foreign partner. But beyond that, they gave a surprising level of detail on the fighter's design and capabilities. As they described it, the FC-31 was designed as a multirole fighter, with mission capacities ranging from offensive and defensive air superiority actions, to air defense suppression, to close air support and more. It was specified to have two internal weapons bays, an essential component for stealth aircraft design, plus six external hardpoints and an internal cannon, with a total payload capacity of 8,000 kilograms. The plane's top speed was reported at about 2,200 kilometers per hour, with a range of two thousand kilometers when using external fuel tanks. These numbers were favorably comparable to the F-35A, with a higher top speed and greater payload, albeit with a somewhat shorter range. Of course, these were still early measurements, and as the development of the plane continued, so too did its capacities and technology improve. Its lead designer indicated that the aircraft would, indeed, be built with carrier capability, and new technologies like electro-optical target-tracking systems were integrated into the design, with developers claiming that the specific tracking system the FC-31 incorporated could detect stealth aircraft like the American F-22 fighter and B-2 bomber at ranges greater than a hundred kilometers. A second prototype made its maiden flight in 2016, with outward indications to suggest that its stealth capabilities, maneuverability, payload, and electronic systems had all been enhanced. In 2018, the world learned that Shenyang's gamble on the FC-31 had finally paid off: both the Chinese air force and navy were seeking to acquire the plane, and the Chinese government had finally decided to dedicate its own financial support to the aircraft. This significantly changed international perceptions of the aircraft, which had previously been dismissed, in whole or in part, as a white elephant: something that the Chinese government didn't want and didn't need, but couldn't seem to get rid of. Instead, it appeared to have something to offer that the J-20 didn't. Since 2018, development of the craft appears to have ramped up, with a carrier version taking its first test flight in 2021. But with official military endorsement comes top-tier protocols to guard against leaks of sensitive information, and as of right now, we don't know much more about what the last few years of development have entailed. ## Specs, Operation, and Future With the FC-31 not yet confirmed for assembly-line production, it's likely that at least some of its currently known specifications are going to change with time. But as of right now, the airplane's features and performance metrics are eye-catching when compared to international competition. A single-seater, twin-engine fighter aircraft, it's built at a length of about seventeen meters, with a wingspan of eleven and a half meters. At sea level, it can cruise along at about 1.1 times the speed of sound, but at altitude, it hits about Mach 1.8 with supercruise capability. As of now, it's got a functional combat radius of 1,200 kilometers, and can fly at altitudes of sixteen thousand meters. Its carrying capacity is somewhat in question, currently with six known external hardpoints and two internal weapons bays with two hardpoints each. That's the same carrying capacity as the F-35, but Chinese state media has indicated that it has more hardpoints than the F-35, so there's an ongoing discrepancy there. For its stealth technology, the FC-31 uses external stealth coatings to minimize radar impact, rather than itself being constructed out of the same fiber-mat composites of, say, the F-35. Its avionics include advanced radar, early-warning systems, and that high-tech optical targeting system we've already discussed. Any other information on its cutting-edge technology, or lack thereof, is unknown to the public at this time, although it is important to note that Western assessments, which have found both China's J-20 and Russia's Su-57 aircraft a step short of true fifth-generation status, have had no such issues with the FC-31 as of yet. In this assessment, it's worth noting just how many points of similarity the FC-31 shares with the F-35, from large-scale elements like its visual profile to things like its mechanism to manage heat and airflow, which is the same one used by the F-35. There are obviously some significant differences—the FC-31 uses two engines compared to the F-35's one, for example—and there's still no telling what the FC-31 has under the hood. But some of the points of difference may actually be attempts to improve on the design of the F-35, especially if China may be in possession of stolen data that indicates points where the F-35 can be surpassed. In some realms, the FC-31 clearly falls short—for example, a significantly higher empty weight, and a lower payload limit, shrinking its carrying capacity from both ends. But even still, it's a clear improvement on anything China has in its arsenal, possibly excluding the J-20. If the fighter does hit production and enter service with the Chinese military, which it looks as if it will, then it'll replace China's J-15 Flying Shark aircraft, which currently serves as its carrier-based fighter. As of right now, China sails two aircraft carriers, the Liaoning and the Shandong, with a third, the Fujian, expected to be commissioned soon. A fourth carrier is already being constructed, and a newer-generation model equipped with nuclear propulsion may someday take over carrier operations. As such, China's demand for carrier-capable jet fighters is only going to grow as time goes on, one that its navy would be far better-off filling with a fifth-generation aircraft than models that are quickly becoming obsolete. The FC-31 will need some modifications in order to manage the ski-jump design of the two carriers China has already commissioned, but these would be fuselage and hardware changes that are well within China's technological capacity to manage. Upon entering service, the FC-31 will immediately outclass United States aircraft like the F-15 Eagle, the F-16 Fighting Falcon, and the F/A-18 Hornet and Super-Hornet. The same goes for Russian designs like the MiG-29, MiG-31, and Su-35, as well as European designs like the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Saab Gripen. It'll also prove a very interesting competitor with fifth-generation fighter aircraft, with a distinct possibility that it could directly challenge F-22 and F-35 planes. As we indicated in our assessment of the Su-57, that Russian fighter is likely to be more of an advanced-fourth-generation fighter than a true fifth-generation if it ever reaches mass production, and the FC-31 could probably hold up just fine against the Felon's known capabilities. The Su-75 Checkmate, still in development, might be better or worse. Who knows, with those Russian models. Granted, this is taking all the sorts of rosy assessments Western sources can make via airshows and data leaks, and there's certainly a possibility that the whole plane could be a massive dud. But if it's not, it could significantly change the landscape of global air supremacy, in a way that the United States and NATO will probably not enjoy. And speaking of international alliances like NATO, it's worth at least attempting to gauge the export potential of the FC-31. We'll grant you that the lack of current export customers isn't necessarily a great sign, but it's also not hard to imagine where skepticism might come from: China would be marketing an aircraft that it didn't even want in its own military. If the FC-31 becomes a cornerstone to the Chinese navy, and possibly even enters its air force, that could be a game-changer for smaller powers around the world. Pakistan, for example, has had its eye on a potential indigenous effort to develop a fifth-generation aircraft, but could save itself a hell of a lot of time and resources by just buying the FC-31. Elsewhere in the world, Turkey's status as the F-35's spurned ex-lover means that it could probably be courted by a Chinese equivalent model, although its fifth-generation TF-X prototype might have been unveiled by the time of this writing. The Aviation Industry Corporation of China recently announced a new office to promote the plane internationally, suggesting that there's a reasonable belief that someone out there is looking to buy. We still don't know when, or if, the FC-31 will be accepted for full production status in China. We don't know quite what it's capable of, or what kind of futuristic tech madness might be concealed within its systems. We don't know whether the Chinese air force will field it as a fighter aircraft, or whether the Chinese navy will, or whether it'll be given to some international buyer, or any combination of those possibilities. Frankly, we don't know if it's even going to be a legitimate threat, or whether it'll go the same way as the Su-57 did in Russia. But what we do know is that the FC-31 has battled back against all odds, and managed to create at least a hypothetical place for itself in China's airborne arsenal where none previously existed. If it assumes that place in real life, then one way or another, the world is sure to find out what it's capable of. ## Key Takeaways - The FC-31, China's stealth fighter, is a competitor to the J-20, with potential for both domestic and export markets. - Developed by Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, the FC-31 was initially rejected by the PLAAF but is now gaining traction. - The FC-31's design resembles American F-22 and F-35 fighters, raising suspicions of stolen technology. - China aims to use the FC-31 to expand its influence and upgrade allies with fifth-generation aircraft. - The FC-31's capabilities, including stealth and maneuverability, position it as a significant player in global air combat. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is the FC-31 Gyrfalcon? The FC-31 Gyrfalcon is a fifth-generation stealth fighter aircraft developed by the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation in China. It is designed to be a highly maneuverable, stealthy aircraft capable of operating from both land bases and aircraft carriers. ### How does the FC-31 compare to the J-20? The FC-31 is a competitor to the J-20, another fifth-generation stealth fighter developed by China. The FC-31 is designed to be more nimble and is intended for air superiority roles, whereas the J-20 is a multirole aircraft. ### What are the origins of the FC-31? The FC-31 was entered into a competition by the People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) in the late 2000s to fill the role of China's next-generation fighter aircraft. It was developed by the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation and initially did not secure a contract with the PLAAF. ### What are the key features of the FC-31? The FC-31 is a single-seater, twin-engine fighter aircraft with a length of about seventeen meters and a wingspan of eleven and a half meters. It has a top speed of approximately 2,200 kilometers per hour and a range of two thousand kilometers with external fuel tanks. It is designed with stealth technology, including external stealth coatings and advanced avionics. ### What is the export potential of the FC-31? The FC-31 is being marketed for export, with Shenyang Aircraft Corporation expressing interest in foreign partners. Potential buyers could include countries like Pakistan and Turkey, which are looking for fifth-generation aircraft. ### What are the operational capabilities of the FC-31? The FC-31 is designed as a multirole fighter with mission capacities ranging from offensive and defensive air superiority actions to air defense suppression and close air support. It has two internal weapons bays, six external hardpoints, and an internal cannon, with a total payload capacity of 8,000 kilograms. ### What is the development status of the FC-31? As of 2021, the FC-31 has seen significant development, including a carrier version taking its first test flight. The Chinese air force and navy have shown interest in acquiring the plane, and the Chinese government has dedicated financial support to its development. ### How does the FC-31's stealth technology work? The FC-31 uses external stealth coatings to minimize radar impact rather than being constructed out of stealth materials like the F-35. It also includes advanced avionics such as early-warning systems and an electro-optical target-tracking system. ### What is the significance of the FC-31 for China's military? The FC-31 is significant for China's military as it represents a potential fifth-generation aircraft that can operate from aircraft carriers, replacing older models like the J-15. It also offers China an opportunity to expand its regional and global influence through exports. ### What are the potential international implications of the FC-31? The FC-31 could significantly change the landscape of global air supremacy if it enters production and service. It could outclass older aircraft like the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18, and compete with fifth-generation fighters like the F-22 and F-35. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: The FC-31 Gyrfalcon: China’s “Other” Stealth Fighter](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S29XgvTBvNE) - [https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/AVIC-SHENYANG-AIRCRAFT-CO-7919712/company/](https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/AVIC-SHENYANG-AIRCRAFT-CO-7919712/company/) - [https://web.archive.org/web/20111001141311/http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/09/imgages-shenyang-f-60-ucav-ste.html](https://web.archive.org/web/20111001141311/http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/09/imgages-shenyang-f-60-ucav-ste.html) - [https://www.flightglobal.com/pictures-new-fighter-aircraft-emerges-in-china/107060.article](https://www.flightglobal.com/pictures-new-fighter-aircraft-emerges-in-china/107060.article) - [https://medium.com/war-is-boring/beijing-banned-export-of-its-new-stealth-fighter-6c50124fec6a](https://medium.com/war-is-boring/beijing-banned-export-of-its-new-stealth-fighter-6c50124fec6a) - [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/apr/21/hackers-us-fighter-jet-strike](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/apr/21/hackers-us-fighter-jet-strike) - [https://www.asiaone.com/news/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Asia/Story/A1Story20121113-383169.html](https://www.asiaone.com/news/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Asia/Story/A1Story20121113-383169.html) - [https://airrecognition.com/index.php/news/airshow/air-show-2012-daily-news/airshow-china-2012/555-chinese-aviation-defence-industry-unveils-officially-the-existence-of-stealth-fighter-aircraft-j-31-1111124.html](https://airrecognition.com/index.php/news/airshow/air-show-2012-daily-news/airshow-china-2012/555-chinese-aviation-defence-industry-unveils-officially-the-existence-of-stealth-fighter-aircraft-j-31-1111124.html) - [https://aviationweek.com/shownews/dubai-airshow/avic-begins-fc-31-export-drive](https://aviationweek.com/shownews/dubai-airshow/avic-begins-fc-31-export-drive) - [https://www.flightglobal.com/dubai-customer-sought-for-avics-new-stealth-fighter/118805.article](https://www.flightglobal.com/dubai-customer-sought-for-avics-new-stealth-fighter/118805.article) - [https://www.flightglobal.com/china-fighter-designer-compares-j-15-to-f/a-18-hornet/108987.article](https://www.flightglobal.com/china-fighter-designer-compares-j-15-to-f/a-18-hornet/108987.article) - [https://web.archive.org/web/20160604101850/http://www.janes.com/article/53064/beijing-tech-show-highlights-advances-in-chinese-fighter-sensors](https://web.archive.org/web/20160604101850/http://www.janes.com/article/53064/beijing-tech-show-highlights-advances-in-chinese-fighter-sensors) - [https://web.archive.org/web/20170101072559/http://www.janes.com/article/66559/china-s-second-fc-31-fighter-prototype-makes-maiden-flight](https://web.archive.org/web/20170101072559/http://www.janes.com/article/66559/china-s-second-fc-31-fighter-prototype-makes-maiden-flight) - [https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/avics-j-31-fighter-winner-after-all](https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/avics-j-31-fighter-winner-after-all) - [https://www.businessinsider.com/stolen-f-35-technology-used-china-fighter-2014-3](https://www.businessinsider.com/stolen-f-35-technology-used-china-fighter-2014-3) - [https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a36663403/china-new-fith-generation-carrier-fighter-jet/](https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a36663403/china-new-fith-generation-carrier-fighter-jet/) - [http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/j31.htm](http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/j31.htm) - [https://news.usni.org/2014/11/05/u-s-pilots-say-new-chinese-stealth-fighter-become-equal-f-22-f-35](https://news.usni.org/2014/11/05/u-s-pilots-say-new-chinese-stealth-fighter-become-equal-f-22-f-35) - [http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2020/june/8562-chinese-fc-31-stealth-fighter-to-possibly-enter-service-in-the-pla-navy.html](http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2020/june/8562-chinese-fc-31-stealth-fighter-to-possibly-enter-service-in-the-pla-navy.html) - [https://warriormaven.com/air/china-j-31-f-35](https://warriormaven.com/air/china-j-31-f-35) - [https://www.businessinsider.com/china-fc31-stealth-fighter-developing-but-still-has-weight-problem-2021-7](https://www.businessinsider.com/china-fc31-stealth-fighter-developing-but-still-has-weight-problem-2021-7) - [https://thediplomat.com/2021/02/the-fc-31-chinas-other-stealth-fighter/](https://thediplomat.com/2021/02/the-fc-31-chinas-other-stealth-fighter/) - [https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/china-to-promote-fc-31-for-export](https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/china-to-promote-fc-31-for-export) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Presidential_Complex_of_Turkey_2023.jpg) by Ayratayrat / openverse, by-sa. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/high-speed-rail-global-disaster https://megaprojects.pub/article/high-speed-rail-global-disaster Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT It's the sort of megaproject that almost everyone can agree is a good idea in theory: clean, efficient, wide-ranging high-speed railways that can connect cities, regions, or even entire countries together. More comfortable, more resilient to bad weather, and far easier on the environment than air travel, high-speed rail has looked like something of a shoo-in for the last couple of centuries: once the technology is available, *of course* people would want to build it. But the reality has been far different. From lagging technology to high costs of construction to mountains and mountains of bureaucratic red tape, many high-speed rail proposals around the world have gone from utopian fantasy to political nightmare. In this article, we'll take a close look at the state of high-speed rail, from massive potential to dismal results, to the lingering potential for change on the horizon. ## Valiant Attempts, Resounding Failures The first thing to understand about high-speed rail might sound simple, but at times, it's been a concept that's hard for policymakers to grasp: high-speed rail *can* work, and it can work *really well*. In Japan, nine high-speed rail lines connect twenty-two cities across three islands, with almost half a million passengers a day. Their trains reach top speeds of 320 kilometers per hour (200 miles per hour), and in fifty years, they've never had a passenger die or be injured due to a rail accident. Europe has done the same, with France's LGV network, the German Inter-City Express, and well-developed networks in Italy and Spain, with many of these networks being joined together via Europe's Ten-T program. Right now, China is the world leader in high-speed rail, projected to have 38,000 kilometers of high-speed track by 2025. In their network, a person can travel from Beijing to almost every other major Chinese city in the span of eight hours or less, at speeds sometimes reaching 350 kilometers per hour. China, too, wants to integrate its rail lines to the rest of the world via its Belt and Road Initiative. In China especially, some lines have turned profitable, raking in billions per year. The system works so well, in fact, that many regional flights have ceased to operate, and China's domestic airfares have plummeted. Not a bad deal. But around the world, high-speed rail has struggled to reach its potential, and many countries have had a hard time even converting their proposals into a construction effort. Even in China, by example, there's trouble in high-speed-rail paradise; although the Chinese government wants to add thousands of kilometers more rail in the coming decade, they've cut way back on where those new lines can be built, in a reflection that many of their further-flung railways are hemorrhaging money. France, similarly, has grappled with revenue and maintenance issues for its LGV for nearly a decade, and in Germany, the whole system has long suffered with delays because it shares tracks with slower passenger or freight trains. And even in Japan, development of bullet-train infrastructure was a drag on the economy for decades before it truly reached equilibrium. Around the world, though, the problem is far worse: a long list of countries that either struggle to get approval for high-speed rail projects at all, or watch their best attempts spiral out of control. Take, by example, a planned rail line that was supposed to run between Singapore to Kuala Lumpur, the capital of Malaysia. With a projected top speed of 350 kilometers per hour (217 miles per hour), the service was meant to make the journey between the cities in just ninety minutes, with potential to create over a hundred thousand jobs and massive economic growth over time. Not only that, but it was on an extremely busy transit corridor, where 24-hour-a-day bus lines and over eighty flights a day are currently doing the work that the rail line would have. But with a price tag estimated around $17 billion, the project was so tenuously balanced between what both nations could handle that when the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Malaysia chose to take the massive economic blow of pulling out of the project entirely, paying compensation to Singapore, rather than seeing it through. A similar story is taking place in the UK, where a high-speed rail line meant to run from London to Birmingham to Leeds to Manchester had initial projected costs of some fifty-six billion pounds—extremely expensive to start with—but at present, those projected costs have more than doubled. As a result, the plans for a rail line have been markedly curtailed, with large sections of planned track being outright removed from the plan. And in Brazil, a rail line that was supposed to connect Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo, a 378-kilometer stretch that the railway would have handled in barely more than an hour, was initially conceived in the mid-2000s with the goal to be open for Brazil's 2014 FIFA World Cup. But as of now, the line is planned to open no sooner than 2032, and in 2022, the Brazilian government quietly retracted its support from the project. At present, work has just been cleared to resume after a change in Brazil's government, but there's no guarantee that that goal of operational status in 2032 will be achievable. A follow-on route between the cities of Belo Horizonte and Curitiba, estimated for a length of over 1,000 kilometers, would serve an economic belt that makes up over half of Brazil's output and population, but it'll only be considered for building when the Rio-Sao Paulo line is complete. Across the world in India, the country's vast network of railroads has been badly in need of upgrades for generations, a problem that current Prime Minister Narendra Modi has sought to fix with the *Vande Bharat Express*, a rail line that hopes to connect all northern, western, and southern cities in the country, beginning with a 508-kilometer line between Mumbai and Ahmedabad. But while this rail line is far faster than anything else India has at present, it's also something of a misnomer to even call it high-speed rail; originally intended to operate bullet trains like Japan, and even announced with a cameo from Japanese then-Prime-Minister Shinzo Abe, the rail line now operates at a top speed of just 160 kilometers per hour (99 miles per hour), not enough to even qualify it as the high-speed-rail line it was first meant to be. The initiative has been hit with a long series of construction delays, especially relating to land acquisitions, where the government has had a very hard time securing the places they'd like to build new track. That track does have to be built from scratch, in hopes that they'll eventually run Japanese Shinkansen bullet trains. And lastly, we come to America, the land where high-speed rolling stock becomes a laughingstock. Although the country has one high-speed rail line, the Acela train running between Boston, New York City, and Washington, D.C., it's only got an average practical speed of 66 miles per hour, getting up to 150 miles per hour (240 kilometers per hour) only on select portions of its route. Other planned or considered high-speed railways, in the states of Florida, Texas, and California, have each taken some massive hits for a wide range of political reasons. No other state is even seriously considering high-speed rail at this time, and at present, the US has just fifty-four kilometers of track where high-speed train travel actually occurs. That's barely a third of what's found in the tiny nation of Luxembourg, and roughly one five-hundredth of what China can offer. ## Why All the Trouble? For nations that have nailed down their high-speed rail systems, things are looking halfway decent, but across the rest of the world, this sort of infrastructure is struggling to get off the ground. But why is that? The first reason, and perhaps the most salient, is just how expensive such a network is to build. Even just building one rail line that can support high-speed travel will typically generate a price tag in the billions—and yes, that's "billions" with a B. Building high-speed rail isn't as simple as building an ordinary rail line; just by example, high-speed track generally has to be welded together continuously to reduce the risk of misalignment at extreme speeds; it has to be paired with sturdy and extensive overhead power lines and advanced line switches. Often, new lines have to be built totally from scratch, and when a country's existing rail lines can handle high-speed travel, that's got to be coordinated with a whole, existing schedule of slower passenger and freight traffic. The trains, too, are expensive; they've got to be built aerodynamically, with tilting and other high-velocity turn effects in mind, with advanced engines that you simply wouldn't find on your standard commuter train. After that, there's the question of where to build a rail line—and that brings in a whole lot of external factors. On the one hand, individual cities and municipalities may advocate in favor of having a high-speed rail line in general, but strongly oppose building it in *their* town—the Not-In-My-Back-Yard sort of complaints. With that, come concerns about noise, traffic congestion due to railway crossings, and more, especially in towns that won't be getting their own station; they get all the drawbacks of high-speed rail, and few of the benefits. And in many countries, there's also the issue of land rights. Although most governments can requisition property in order to build rail projects, this is obviously very unpopular with the people who are having their property taken back, meaning that it's often a lot more palatable for a country to just try and negotiate with private landowners. But that, of course, means that those landowners can say no—and even if they say yes, it's for big chunks of cash that further increase the government's price tag for the project. Those payments can also be very slow to arrive, as farmers in both California and the south-Asian country of Laos learned recently, further contributing to public animosity toward the new rail line. Then, there's the problem of economic viability, something that high-speed rail critics have no shortage of evidence for. Unfortunately, for every booming line like the ones in China, there is an equal and opposite example of a high-speed rail line that overextended its range to service non-profitable lines, found itself unable to generate sufficient revenues, or gotten its prices undercut by the airline industry or even car-sharing services. In practice, these concerns have led even enthusiastic countries to try building rail lines piecemeal, investing a whole lot of time and money into one line, and only signing off to build others if that first line shows that it can be economically sustainable. In most cases, high-speed rail lines are not moneymaking ventures in the first place, relying instead on government subsidies to make up the difference between ticket sales and operating costs. When rail lines do make money, it's because they're traveling on booming economic corridors and central arteries. But because *some* lines make money, it's all too easy for detractors of high-speed rail to make profit a requirement. In a best-case scenario, that might lead to one thriving line that's able to support one or two lines that are losing money; at other times, only the thriving line might be built, or the entire project might be cancelled if the claim that a high-speed rail line would thrive at all, can be dismissed as conjecture. And although there's not much money to be made in high-speed rail, there's plenty of corporate revenue that could be lost if quick, affordable rail transport becomes available. That, of course, can only mean one thing: lobbyists. In the United States, a substantial pro-rail lobby does exist, but it's dwarfed by the power of the airline industry. For example, in the US state of Texas, legislators have been after a high-speed rail line since 1989, when they initially sought out a network to connect Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin, Houston, and San Antonio—but that network was buried courtesy of Southwest Airlines, who understood that such a railway would make their short-hop flights between those cities unnecessary. In Britain, too, the anti-rail lobby has stoked divisions around high-speed projects, at times becoming the subject of serious controversy. Even in China, various interest groups battle it out to establish when and where rail lines will be built, and who gets to benefit from their construction, making the conversation less about public utility and more about an opportunity for grift. Lastly, there are real concerns that high-speed rail might become obsolete, not long after major lines are completed. Magnetic-levitation trains, or maglev, have become an even faster alternative, and they'll require their own routes and rail lines, meaning that if a country or province wants to spring for a maglev in a decade or two, it doesn't make sense to blow that budget on high-speed rail now. Hyperloop technology poses the same risks, as well—as much as we empathize with the people chuckling at their phones right now because we said the H-word, hyperloop technology is slowly moving toward greater operational feasibility, and considering that the process to build high-speed rail is generally a matter of decades rather than a couple of years, it's not unreasonable to assume that these technologies might be available by then. ## Prospects for Change With such a bleak outlook on high-speed rail, it wouldn't be unreasonable to conclude that the whole thing might just never pan out—that Japan and China and continental Europe can have their trains, and everyone else can think of them longingly while sitting in six hours of inter-city traffic. But at the risk of showing a bit of pro-high-speed-rail bias, if it wasn't clear already… there's still hope that these other nations may be able to get their rail initiatives back on track. The reality is that high-speed rail does have every bit of potential to be profitable, and with the benefit of a lot of other nations who've already learned by trial and error, a country that does want to turn a profit on its rail lines has a pretty clear road map to doing so. Make sure there are strong, robust connections between major cities; don't go around connecting too many suburbs or small cities to the line just because it sounds nice; and treat the relatively low prices of rail travel, and any attempts by airlines to undercut those prices, as something that actually makes travel more affordable for the people who've got to use it. If a billion-dollar investment into high-speed rail ends up actually being a billion-dollar investment into making, say, regional airlines affordable, that result isn't half-bad, and it presents the nice collateral benefit of being able to slam some doors in lobbyists' faces. And this is all before we point out that when it comes to high-speed rail, profit really isn't the point, no more so than it would be for an interstate freeway system or a canal or a slower railway. The point is to move people and things from place to place, and if a mechanism to do that can also turn a profit, then that's a bonus—not a prerequisite. And the same can't be said for those other technologies we mentioned before—maglev, which has only been used in a couple of countries with limited effect, and hyperloop, where technology will take years if not decades to develop enough that it would be ready for use. Maglevs and hyperloops are highly experimental, they'll probably be very expensive for quite a while, and relative to high-speed rail, there's a lot of uncertainty about maglev and hyperloop safety and operating potential. With high-speed rail, you know what you're getting: a dependable, highly efficient, safe piece of tech, where costs are low enough to be feasible and all the requisite bells and whistles have already been developed. Lastly, there's the sobering reality that as time goes on, more and more methods of transportation will need to be overhauled or replaced completely for environmental reasons. High-speed rail pushes out far lower levels of greenhouse gases than road transport, and even less when compared to air travel, while also being a lot quicker than driving, and faster even than flying for short-distance travel, when you factor in getting to and from an airport and spending time in a terminal. A robust rail system also reduces the demand for future oil and fuel production, and it's far easier to modify a rail line to use newer, even more efficient technologies, than it is to upgrade or replace cars or airplanes. It's critical to remember that even in nations that have struggled with high-speed rail, the idea is a winning issue among the ordinary people who might one day use that service. In the United States, a 2022 study by the Rail Passengers Association found that nearly four out of five people supported more robust investments in high-speed rail, support that was strong across Democrats, Republicans, men, women, all ages, all socioeconomic groups, and in both rural and urban communities—and if you can find any issue in America that gets better consensus than that, then you're niche presidential candidate Vermin Supreme promising free ponies for everybody. In the UK, more than half of voters opposed the specific, struggling rail line currently being built, but the idea of other, hypothetically well-executed rail lines is received much more favorably. And in an already-contentious election cycle, the Brazilian government's decision to pull support from their high-speed rail line was reversed just a year after it was made. These sorts of projects are especially popular among young people, who are in the process of breaking into legislatures and public offices all over the world—and the choices they make on this issue might be very different than those of their forefathers. So as embattled as high-speed rail might be—and embattled, it most definitely is—there are reasons to be cautiously optimistic that across the slow march of infrastructure development, it'll be a winning investment. Certainly, the data is out there; the world now knows what works, and what doesn't work, where high-speed rail is concerned. As for whether the world listens, or acts accordingly… we'll just have to find out. ## Key Takeaways - High-speed rail is theoretically beneficial but faces significant real-world challenges. - Japan, China, and parts of Europe have successful high-speed rail systems. - Many countries struggle with high-speed rail due to high costs, bureaucratic hurdles, and economic viability concerns. - Lobbying from airlines and other industries often hinders high-speed rail development. - Despite challenges, high-speed rail remains popular among the public and has environmental benefits. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### Which countries have successful high-speed rail systems? Japan, China, and several European countries like France, Germany, Italy, and Spain have successful high-speed rail systems. ### What are some of the challenges faced by high-speed rail projects? Challenges include high construction costs, bureaucratic red tape, land acquisition issues, economic viability concerns, and opposition from lobbyists. ### What is the current status of high-speed rail in the United States? The U.S. has one high-speed rail line, the Acela, with limited high-speed sections. Other planned projects in Florida, Texas, and California have faced significant political and financial hurdles. ### Why is high-speed rail considered environmentally friendly? High-speed rail produces lower levels of greenhouse gases compared to road transport and air travel, and it reduces the demand for future oil and fuel production. ### What is the public opinion on high-speed rail in the United States? A 2022 study by the Rail Passengers Association found that nearly four out of five Americans support increased investments in high-speed rail. ### What are some of the economic concerns related to high-speed rail? Economic concerns include the high cost of construction, the need for government subsidies, and the risk of lines becoming unprofitable if they overextend their range. ### What are the potential alternatives to high-speed rail? Alternatives include magnetic-levitation (maglev) trains and hyperloop technology, but these are still experimental and may take decades to develop. ### What is the status of high-speed rail in Brazil? Brazil has plans for high-speed rail lines between Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo, and between Belo Horizonte and Curitiba, but these projects have faced delays and lack of government support. ### How does high-speed rail compare to other modes of transportation? High-speed rail is more comfortable, resilient to bad weather, and easier on the environment than air travel. It is also faster than driving for short-distance travel. ### What are some of the reasons for the failure of high-speed rail projects? Reasons include high costs, bureaucratic issues, land acquisition problems, economic viability concerns, and opposition from lobbyists representing other transportation industries. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: High-Speed Rail is a Global Disaster...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A45UNL916pA) - [https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-high-speed-rail-development-worldwide](https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-high-speed-rail-development-worldwide) - [https://www.iamexpat.de/expat-info/german-expat-news/problem-germanys-high-speed-rail-network#:~:text=The%20high%2Dspeed%20rail%20network%20in%20Germany%20was%20integrated%20into,which%20often%20leads%20to%20delays](https://www.iamexpat.de/expat-info/german-expat-news/problem-germanys-high-speed-rail-network#:~:text=The%20high%2Dspeed%20rail%20network%20in%20Germany%20was%20integrated%20into,which%20often%20leads%20to%20delays) - [https://www.cato.org/blog/lesson-japans-high-speed-trains](https://www.cato.org/blog/lesson-japans-high-speed-trains) - [https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55624103](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55624103) - [https://www.riotimesonline.com/brazil-news/brazil/brazil-ready-to-put-rio-sao-paulo-high-speed-train-in-private-hands/](https://www.riotimesonline.com/brazil-news/brazil/brazil-ready-to-put-rio-sao-paulo-high-speed-train-in-private-hands/) - [https://www.railwaygazette.com/high-speed/rio-sao-paulo-high-speed-line-planning-to-restart/63651.article](https://www.railwaygazette.com/high-speed/rio-sao-paulo-high-speed-line-planning-to-restart/63651.article) - [https://www.reuters.com/world/india/modi-launches-india-made-high-speed-train-modernisation-drive-2022-09-30/](https://www.reuters.com/world/india/modi-launches-india-made-high-speed-train-modernisation-drive-2022-09-30/) - [https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/india-high-speed-rail-cmd/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/india-high-speed-rail-cmd/index.html) - [https://railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/releases/new-poll-78-of-americans-want-increased-investments-in-passenger-rail-in-the-u.s/](https://railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/releases/new-poll-78-of-americans-want-increased-investments-in-passenger-rail-in-the-u.s/) - [https://www.statista.com/statistics/1165985/public-opinion-on-the-uk-hs2-high-speed-rail-project/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1165985/public-opinion-on-the-uk-hs2-high-speed-rail-project/) - [https://www.vox.com/2021/3/10/22303355/gen-z-high-speed-rail-biden-map-meme-buttigieg](https://www.vox.com/2021/3/10/22303355/gen-z-high-speed-rail-biden-map-meme-buttigieg) - [https://blogs.worldbank.org/transport/should-countries-invest-high-speed-rail](https://blogs.worldbank.org/transport/should-countries-invest-high-speed-rail) - [https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1383&context=jalc](https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1383&context=jalc) - [https://www.engineering.com/story/the-rest-of-the-industrialized-world-has-high-speed-rail-why-cant-the-us](https://www.engineering.com/story/the-rest-of-the-industrialized-world-has-high-speed-rail-why-cant-the-us) - [https://hsr.ca.gov/programs/private-property/](https://hsr.ca.gov/programs/private-property/) - [https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-train-cash-20190610-story.html](https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-train-cash-20190610-story.html) - [https://reason.org/commentary/why-california-cant-compare-with-china-on-high-speed-rail/](https://reason.org/commentary/why-california-cant-compare-with-china-on-high-speed-rail/) - [https://www.rfa.org/english/news/laos/land-10052021172730.html](https://www.rfa.org/english/news/laos/land-10052021172730.html) - [https://www.business-live.co.uk/economic-development/centro-boss-hits-back-anti-hs2-3922674](https://www.business-live.co.uk/economic-development/centro-boss-hits-back-anti-hs2-3922674) - [https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1010572](https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1010572) - [https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-plot-against-trains](https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-plot-against-trains) - [https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a345afcf-f50c-4ffa-8cda-58c2a526d56e](https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a345afcf-f50c-4ffa-8cda-58c2a526d56e) - [https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/high-speed-rail-us/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/high-speed-rail-us/index.html) - [https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/five-best-high-speed-rail-networks-world/164916/](https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/five-best-high-speed-rail-networks-world/164916/) - [https://www.travelandleisure.com/trip-ideas/bus-train/fastest-trains-in-the-world](https://www.travelandleisure.com/trip-ideas/bus-train/fastest-trains-in-the-world) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/The_G20_Leaders_-_Caricatures_%28update_11-16-2015%29_%2822648503257%29.jpg) by DonkeyHotey / openverse, by-sa. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/hitler-built-aircraft-carrier-never-used https://megaprojects.pub/article/hitler-built-aircraft-carrier-never-used Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT In the late 1930s, Nazi Germany embarked on an ambitious project to build its first aircraft carrier – the *Graf Zeppelin*. She was meant to be the flagship of a new carrier force that would firmly place her nation among the naval big boys of the day. Named by Hitler himself in honour of aviation pioneer Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin, she was launched on the 8th of December 1938, amid great fanfare. And frankly, you can see why, because at over 260 meters long and displacing around 34,000 tonnes at full load, she was happily comparable in size to the largest carriers of her day. Deep in her belly were to be 42 aircraft – a mix of fighters and dive bombers – and she was to steam at a brisk 33 knots, thanks to a very powerful 200,000 horsepower turbine plant. This would have made her as fast as British and American fleet carriers, and capable of projecting German air power far beyond the Baltic and North Sea, which had traditionally hemmed in its navy. And yet, as both the title and the tone of this introduction have given away, she never ended up doing that, did she? So, what gives? ## Germany's Inexperience with Aircraft Carriers Germany went into the *Graf Zeppelin* project with basically no experience of aircraft carriers. They had dabbled a bit with seaplane tenders during WWI, sure, as the SMS *Santa Elena* can attest to, but that was about as far as it went – so yeah, bugger all in real terms. With that in mind, the unenviable task of *Graf Zeppelin's* design work went to Wilhelm Hadeler, a naval engineer who had never even been on an airplane. Further still, because of Germany's inexperience with carriers, in the early 1930s, not one of its officers knew how to operate a carrier; indeed, carriers generally were a still novel technology, one only really mastered by the British, Americans, and Japanese. That all meant that the Germans had to essentially design their carrier using deductive reasoning, and whatever information they could glean from abroad. In 1935, for example, Britain allowed a German officer to briefly tour their old carrier HMS *Furious*, and more help also came from Japan, with a German commission of navy and air force experts visiting *Akagi* in that same year. The Japanese, for their part, allies-to-be as they clearly were, also generously provided about 100 blueprints of *Akagi's* flight deck equipment. These foreign insights reassured German planners that their ideas were on the right track, but many details still had to be figured out by educated guesswork, which led to some… interesting design choices. ## The Graf Zeppelin's Unusual Design Choices The first unorthodox choice was the decision to give *Graf Zeppelin* some shooty capabilities in addition to her aerial ones, specifically in the form of a battery of 16 15cm guns in eight twin turrets, mounted along her sides – that's basically the firepower of a light cruiser just on its own. This 'hybrid' way of doing things isn't exactly unheard of. The Soviets, for example, would later do it during the Cold War with their *Kiev* and *Kuznetsov* Class 'aircraft cruisers' – but it certainly wasn't the norm, either at the time or later on. The choice, however, was a logical one at least, with the Germans believing that their carrier would have to directly defend itself against enemy warships if a 'Battle of Jutland 2' type scrap was to go down. Not all logic is created equally however, and, as one naval analyst later noted, the Germans "failed to understand that airplanes and not guns were the ship's principal defence." Also notable was *Graf Zeppelin's* armoured flight deck – up to 45mm thick at its broadest points – and complementary armoured hangar deck underneath. This was a significant deviation from US and Japanese carriers, which in the 1930s tended to have wooden flight decks to save weight. The Germans, like the British, instead prioritised protection: with them reasoning that an armoured deck could help the ship survive bomb hits and shellfire, at the cost of having a heavier ship with a smaller aircraft capacity. And on that note, *Graf Zeppelin's* aerial contingent of 42 aircraft was indeed rather modest by the standards of the day. The Americans, for example, could squeeze 96 aircraft onto USS *Enterprise* if they really pushed it, and the Japanese similarly could squeeze 73 onto *Hiryū* – and they both displaced less than *Graf Zeppelin*. Even the Brits who, sure, also liked themselves a good armoured flight deck, but didn't mess about with the big guns, crammed more in, with *Ark Royal* able to fit 72 aircraft at her theoretical max capacity, and again, she also displaced less than *Graf Zeppelin*. ## The Struggle for Carrier-Based Aircraft And while we're on the subject of aircraft, we may as well segue into talking about the absolute nightmare that Germany had with getting them sorted out for *Graf Zeppelin*. As many of the nation's aerial woes often were, it was largely the fault of Hermann Göring, the Air Force Chief. A well noted smackhead, and haver of all the absolutely lovely character traits that tend to go along with that, Göring wasn't exactly happy to play ball with the *Graf Zeppelin* project. His dummy was well and truly spat out over the matter in fact, with him quipping that "Everything that flies belongs to me." This meant that the Kriegsmarine really struggled to get specialised aircraft for *Graf Zeppelin*, which delayed proceedings no end. Eventually, however, Hitler inserted his size 10s into Göring's arse with vigour enough to get him to play ball, and specialist naval adaptations of previously land-based aircraft began to appear, such as the Messerschmitt Bf-109T, 'T' being for *Träger*, or carrier, to serve as a fighter, and the Junkers Ju-87C, to serve as a dive and torpedo bomber. Additionally, a whole new torpedo-bomber/reconnaissance biplane called the Fieseler Fi-167 was also developed to operate from the *Graf Zeppelin*. As for how many of each she would have carried, at least by the original plans, that would have been 20 Fi-167s, 10 Bf-109Ts, and 12 Ju-87Cs. This mix also shows the early German view of the carrier's role: the lion's share of the aircraft were for scouting and attacking enemy ships with torpedoes, while a smaller number of fighters would provide cover. This mirrored, and indeed was copied from, British doctrine of the 1930s, which utilised their aircraft in much the same way. The Germans would eventually adjust their plans, and reverse the aircraft ratio, however – with later proposals envisioning *Graf Zeppelin* carrying 30 Ju-87Cs, 12 Bf-109Ts, and dropping the reccy biplanes altogether. In other words, the ship's mission profile shifted toward attack, with bombers taking precedence over scouting planes. ## The Outbreak of War and Delayed Construction When WWII broke out in September 1939, *Graf Zeppelin*, despite having been launched in '38, was only about 85% complete, and so had not been commissioned into service. Her hull was done, her engines were installed, and she was afloat, but many essential components – armament, the aircraft handling gear, electronics, and the like – were still unfinished. Initially, the Kriegsmarine had hoped to rush the carrier to completion, aiming to commission her in 1940. But the outbreak of war immediately forced Germany to rethink its priorities, with both U-boats, and their proven ability to wreak havoc upon Allied shipping, and immediate practical defensive needs, taking precedence over large, unfinished projects – no matter how potentially useful. Grand Admiral Erich Raeder, then commander of the Kriegsmarine, wasn't pleased with this at all. He argued that even a lone carrier could be useful, perhaps escorting German surface raiders such as the battleships *Bismarck* and *Scharnhorst*, or the cruiser *Prinz Eugen*, on Atlantic sorties. His Naval Staff, however, were sceptical, and agreed with the orders coming in from Berlin, with them concluding in October 1939, just weeks into the war, that a single carrier would have "no apparent place" in the ongoing conflict. As far as they were concerned, operating a carrier in the confined North Sea, within range of both British land-based bombers, and the abjectly underpant-browning prospect that was the Royal Navy's Home Fleet, was simply too risky, and not worth wasting even a single further manhour of labour on. They had a point too. *Graf Zeppelin*, Germany's sole carrier, would be the crème-de-la-crème of bags for the Royal Navy, one that would no doubt be remembered in much the same way as we remember the sinking of *Bismarck* today, so they'd have been rather keen to get her, and unlike the huge multi-carrier task forces used by the US, Japan, and Britain, Germany had basically nothing they could send out with her to help keep her safe. In fact, so small was the surface fleet of the Kriegsmarine, and so overstretched was it already, that it's doubtful Germany would even have been able to put a single carrier group together, at all. And so, with all of that in mind, in May 1940 – the same month Germany was launching its lightning conquest of France – work on *Graf Zeppelin* was officially suspended. ## The Changing Course of Naval Warfare and Hitler's Renewed Interest Now, had Nazi Germany had any sense – a big ask from that regime we know, but stay with us here – we would now be transitioning into the conclusion, with words to the extent of, "and so it sat in Kiel Port for the next 5 years, did bugger all, and was scrapped in whatever year." But alas, we are discussing Nazi Germany, aren't we, a nation headed by a fella with a… 'questionable' grip on reality at the best of times, and so, what actually happened was, the *Graf Zeppelin* was to finally be finished, at which point it would supposedly race out of the harbour, start giving the business to the Royal Navy, then, happy days, glorious fascist victory, Thousand Year Reich and all that, blah blah blah – you know how the Moustache Man's strategic spit balling tended to go. The first event that pushed Hitler towards irrationality, at least in the carrier department, was the Battle of Taranto in November 1940, which saw the Royal Navy launch a daring carrier strike against the Italian Fleet moored in the titular port. What really inspired Hitler however, was the fact that the British did it with rickety old Fairey Swordfish biplanes, so imagine what he could do letting his mighty Stukas rip from the deck of the *Graf Zeppelin*! That thought percolated around Hitler's mind for a time, before it was further strengthened in May 1941 by the sinking of the *Bismarck*, again by Swordfishes. As far as he was increasingly becoming convinced, the battleship was an obsolete concept, it was now the age of the carrier, and, what would you know, he had just the planes needed to fully cash in on this fact. And, in fairness, he wasn't wrong in that assertion objectively, but, just like a fresh graduate getting fleeced when financing a posh car, he was thinking about writing cheques he simply could not afford. We even have specific examples of his continued musing on this matter, with him commenting at a dinner in August 1941 that: > "There is something tragic in the fact that the battleship, that monument of human ingenuity, has lost its entire raison d'être because of the development of aviation." Admiral Raeder, for his part, was also happy as a pig in muck at Hitler's new line of thinking, and so took every opportunity to fan the flames as much as possible, hoping that maybe, finally, he would get his much coveted carrier finished. Then there was the Attack on Pearl Harbour in December 1941, such a devastating display, which provided many pictures of sunk or sinking American capital ships meeting their end at the hands of carrier launched aircraft and poured yet more petrol on the fire in Hitler's mind. The straw that broke the camel's back however, and made Hitler fully get back on board the carrier hype train, wasn't actually anything nearly as dramatic as the Battle of Taranto, or the Attack on Pearl Harbour, but a simple convoy interdiction action in March 1942. The convoy in question was PQ-12, sailing from Reykjavik, Iceland, to Murmansk, the Soviet Union, between the 1st and 12th of that month. The battleship *Tirpitz*, operating from occupied Norway, moved in to cause some damage, and was sent packing by a single attack run by Swordfishes – and not even one that landed any hits. That innocuous little action, for some reason, was what changed Hitler's mind, and so, before the month was out, Germany was all in on carriers once again. And we do mean all in, because not only was *Graf Zeppelin* ordered to be completed, but the unfinished heavy cruiser *Seydlitz* was also ordered to be completed as a converted carrier, and the ocean liners SS *Europa*, *Gneisenau*, and *Potsdam* were too ordered to be pulled in, and bodged into auxiliary carriers. Much like *Graf Zeppelin* herself, none of those conversions were ever finished, but still – proves the point! ## The 1942 Refit *Graf Zeppelin* made it into the drydock in May 1942, and at that point, several years had passed since she was launched – and naval technology had come a long way since then. With that in mind then, the task at hand became not just completing her, but also retrofitting her to bring her back up to top-of-the-line standards, and that proved extensive, to say the least. For one, her flight deck and hangar equipment had to be strengthened – the newer versions of the Bf-109 and Ju-87 that would fly from the ship were rather heavy you see, and the original deck equipment was simply not sturdy enough. Stronger launching catapults were therefore designed to ensure the oomph needed to get them in the sky, and the arresting gear – the wires that catch landing aircraft – were given strong winches to actually be able to stop them when they came back down. Her island – the command tower on the deck – was also redesigned to include a proper combat information centre fully loaded with radar and new fire-control systems, making it a vital (and essential) nerve centre to coordinate her defences and aerial operations. This also required additional armour protection and a taller funnel to vent smoke clear of the sensitive electronics. All of this added weight high on the ship, which threatened to make her top-heavy, and so, to compensate, engineers added large bulges along the lower hull for extra buoyancy and stability. These bulges could also double as storage for fuel and offer some torpedo protection by absorbing blasts – a trick pinched from other navies. *Graf Zeppelin's* anti-aircraft battery was significantly beefed up too. Originally, she had just a few light AA guns, but the refit planned to give her an array of 28 twin 20mm guns and 22 37mm guns to name just a few. Her crew complement was also upped to 1,760 officers and men so that she could actually use all the extra added equipment. Equally important was the change in air group composition mentioned earlier – but that's old water now, so we shan't retread it! By late 1942, work was well underway and coming along nicely, and German naval staff were aiming to have her ready for sea trials by mid-1943. Interestingly too, around this time, she also moved about quite a bit. She was now a top priority military asset, and so, whenever there were lulls in her refit, she was towed out into the Baltic to hide from potential aerial attacks. This drew the attention of Allied intelligence on more than one occasion, and was often a source of squeaky bum time, as concern set in that maybe she had been finished, and some action was imminent… ## The Final Cancellation and Abandonment So, where did it all go wrong then? Because that all sounds promising enough, doesn't it? Well, fate, as it turned out, had one last cruel twist in store for *Graf Zeppelin*—and naturally, it wasn't in her favour. You see, by the start of 1943, Germany's war situation had shifted dramatically – in that it was now absolutely dire. The Battle of Stalingrad alone, as an example, had ended in February 1943 with a decisive defeat for Germany; one that saw them suffer as many as 1.5 million casualties. The situation was just as dire in North Africa too, the campaign was still underway, don't get us wrong, but thanks to the Second Battle of El Alamein in late 1942, which saw the Germans get absolutely creamed, the final defeat, and withdrawal from that theatre, was obviously coming. Put simply, Germany had suffered, and was continuing to suffer, so many losses, that they were now on the defensive, and, despite the odd trend breaking attempt here and there, they would remain that way until the war came to the steps of the Reich Chancellery, and the Moustache Man did a bit of bunker redecorating with his grey matter. And on the subject of him, he really was not taking the news well, and big ships, which he had been oh so keen on not even a year prior, were now one of the many scapegoats he was pointing to in order to explain away his nation's ever worsening strategic situation. To that end, he even suggested during a December 1942 tirade, complete with stereotypically aggressive table banging, that Germany should scrap all of its so-called "luxury" ships and use all of the steel for U-boat construction. Raeder, for his part, had finally reached his wits' end and resigned from his post as Commander of the Kriegsmarine on the 13th of January 1943; with some sources saying it was because he simply couldn't deal with his ever more erratic Führer anymore, and others saying it's because he threw a tantrum over the fact he was never likely going to get his much coveted carrier. Whatever the reason, he was replaced by Admiral Karl Dönitz, a U-boat man by trade, and one who had little interest in surface warships at all. This was grand as far as Hitler was concerned though, because of course, the new hire was only too happy to go along with his idea of immediately halting all big ship construction, *Graf Zeppelin* included. And so, the order came in February 1943 to stop work on her once again – this time for good. At this point, *Graf Zeppelin* was still far from combat ready, so it wasn't exactly the most dire of losses. For example, only two of her four propeller shafts had been installed. The idea had been to get those working ideally by late 1942 to at least conduct minimal sea trials, but even that was never achieved. No aircraft had yet flown from her decks either, and many of her guns and electronics were not fitted. Germany's grand carrier was now an unfinished white elephant. And with Allied bombing raids intensifying, keeping *Graf Zeppelin* in a shipyard became increasingly dangerous – as no doubt her presence would only encourage more attacks. Therefore, in April 1943, she was towed to a remote backwater on the Baltic coast – a shallow arm of the Oder River, near the port of Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland). There, far from the reach of most enemy bombers, she was moored and camouflaged with nets and paint. A skeleton crew of about 40 caretakers, mostly civilian workers, was left to tend to the ship – basically just to prevent major deterioration. From then on, she served no military purpose except as a storage hulk. In 1944, one inspection considered turning her into a floating barracks for trainees, but even that idea was dropped, and another inspection by Vice Admiral Friedrich Ruge found the ship "absolutely useless" in its current state. Some of her remaining parts were scavenged – for instance, a few of her small engines were removed and sent off to help repair German battleships. Otherwise, she simply rusted away quietly. ## Scuttling and the Soviets' Interest By the time 1945 rolled around, any notion of getting her operational was pure fantasy. Even if Germany had somehow miraculously completed her that late in the war, she would have been hopelessly outclassed. Allied naval air power was simply overwhelming by 44-45, and dozens of Allied carriers, including many smaller escort carriers, roamed the Atlantic at any one time. A lone, hastily finished German carrier with no experienced aircrew would not have survived long. Even German naval staff admitted in 1944 that *Graf Zeppelin* would have been an antiquated vessel compared to Allied carriers, which by then benefitted from years of hard-won combat experience. As for her fate, that became sealed as Soviet forces started advancing into Pomerania in spring 1945. The Germans, determined to deny their enemy any usable war matériel, and on orders from Dönitz, began scuttling all ships moored up in Baltic ports that couldn't be either towed out, or fired up and sailed out under their own steam. The specific orders for *Graf Zeppelin's* scuttling came in late March, when the Red Army was nearing Stettin, and so, the crew opened every valve they could get their hands on to flood her lower compartments, including engine rooms, which caused the carrier to settle down by the bow and stick fast in the shallow mud of the Oder inlet. They then abandoned ship – reportedly even removing vital parts like the valve mechanisms and sending them west, so the Soviets wouldn't be able to easily refloat the ship if they captured it. Come the 25th of April, the Red Army had reached the area and began shelling anything of military value – and *Graf Zeppelin*, immobile and defenceless as she was, made for an obvious target. In a bizarre twist, however, as artillery began to pound away at her hull, Germans found their way aboard once again; as word had gotten back to Dönitz that she wasn't exactly sunk by the most strict definitions of the word, and he wanted that issue corrected – and so a German demolition team snuck aboard for one last act of destruction, setting off explosive charges in the ship's hull and machinery spaces, wrecking her engines and opening great rents in her bottom. The once-proud *Graf Zeppelin* was left a flooded, burned-out ruin stuck in the mud – as intended, she would be of no use to the Soviets. The war in Europe ended not long after, with Germany's surrender in May 1945. ## Conclusion However, her story doesn't quite end there. The Soviets, determined to claim whatever spoils they could, examined the shattered carrier, and they found that despite the scuttling and artillery damage, her hull was actually largely intact. And so, in 1946, Soviet salvage crews managed to refloat *Graf Zeppelin*. They patched holes, pumped water out, and on the 19th of March 1946, she was raised from the mud and towed out to deeper water. They designated the hulk 'PO-101' and reportedly considered whether it was worth repairing or studying. Ultimately, the answer to that was a firm no, and they decided to use her for target practice instead, with her finally disappearing beneath the waves on the 16th of August 1947; at which point, her story finally came to an end. ## Key Takeaways - Germany's first aircraft carrier, the Graf Zeppelin, was launched in 1938 but never saw combat. - The Graf Zeppelin's design was influenced by limited experience and foreign insights, leading to unique but flawed choices. - Germany struggled to develop specialized aircraft for the Graf Zeppelin due to internal conflicts and delays. - The outbreak of WWII and shifting priorities led to the suspension of the Graf Zeppelin's construction in 1940. - The Graf Zeppelin was ultimately scuttled in 1945 and later sunk by the Soviets in 1947. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What was the name of Germany's first aircraft carrier? The name of Germany's first aircraft carrier was the Graf Zeppelin. ### When was the Graf Zeppelin launched? The Graf Zeppelin was launched on December 8, 1938. ### What was the length and displacement of the Graf Zeppelin? The Graf Zeppelin was over 260 meters long and displaced around 34,000 tonnes at full load. ### How many aircraft was the Graf Zeppelin designed to carry? The Graf Zeppelin was designed to carry 42 aircraft, a mix of fighters and dive bombers. ### What was the top speed of the Graf Zeppelin? The Graf Zeppelin was designed to steam at a brisk 33 knots. ### Who designed the Graf Zeppelin? The design work for the Graf Zeppelin was done by Wilhelm Hadeler, a naval engineer who had never even been on an airplane. ### What unusual design choices were made for the Graf Zeppelin? The Graf Zeppelin had a battery of 16 15cm guns in eight twin turrets and an armored flight deck up to 45mm thick. ### What was the initial aircraft mix planned for the Graf Zeppelin? The initial plan was for 20 Fieseler Fi-167s, 10 Messerschmitt Bf-109Ts, and 12 Junkers Ju-87Cs. ### Why was the construction of the Graf Zeppelin suspended in May 1940? The construction of the Graf Zeppelin was suspended in May 1940 because the Kriegsmarine concluded that a single carrier would have 'no apparent place' in the ongoing conflict. ### What event in March 1942 led Hitler to renew his interest in completing the Graf Zeppelin? The convoy interdiction action involving PQ-12 in March 1942, where the battleship Tirpitz was sent packing by Swordfish aircraft, led Hitler to renew his interest in completing the Graf Zeppelin. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: Hitler Built an Aircraft Carrier… And Never Used It](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL9uLWZMvRk) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Ausflugsschiff_Graf_Zeppelin_liegt_fest_wegen_Niedrigwasser_2025.jpg) by Wikitarisch / openverse, by. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/how-billions-were-wasted-on-the-superconducting-super-collider https://megaprojects.pub/article/how-billions-were-wasted-on-the-superconducting-super-collider Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT In 1987, Former President Ronald Reagan approved a project that was so big, it could have changed science forever. The development of a particle collider buried beneath Texas, nearly twice the size of Washington, D.C., and designed to smash protons together at energies no one else on Earth could touch at the time. This wasn't just science for science's sake. It was the Cold War era, and Washington wanted to prove that American technology, not Soviet, would shape the future. The project was called the Superconducting Super Collider, and it carried a price tag in the billions. If it had been finished, the SSC would almost certainly have beaten Europe to the discovery of the Higgs boson, the so-called "God particle." Instead, after years of cost overruns and political battles, the U.S. walked away. Leaving behind half a tunnel, billions in sunk costs, and a question that still lingers: why did America abandon its shot at scientific supremacy? ## The Big Idea & Its Promise In the mid-1980s, America's particle physics scene was riding on decades of breakthroughs. Fermilab had smashed records. Brookhaven and SLAC had cracked open the subatomic world, revealing quarks, bosons, and the deeper architecture of the Standard Model. With all of these significant breakthroughs, the U.S was leading the world when it came to science, and it intended to keep it that way. A new home run in physics would show the world that the United States was way ahead in the quest to understand reality, which was significant because the Apollo program had proved that technological breakthroughs were just as potent a signal of national strength as any missile or submarine. So, in 1987, President Ronald Reagan threw his support behind a machine that was billed as the most ambitious experiment in physics history, and the Department of Energy, with guidance from the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel, started sketching the outlines. Their goal was a proton-proton collider capable of smashing particles together at 20 trillion electron volts per beam, more than twice the energy of anything else on Earth, and light years ahead of all other related ambitions at the time. And this wasn't just "a bit bigger." It was a whole other category. The machine, which would later be christened the Superconducting Super Collider, would require a circular tunnel fifty-four miles long, dug deep beneath the Texas countryside. Inside, over 10,000 superconducting magnets, chilled to within a few degrees above absolute zero, would bend and accelerate protons until they were hurtling at 99.999999% the speed of light. At full tilt, two beams would slam into each other with such ferocity that, for a fraction of a second, the conditions inside would mimic those just after the Big Bang. The detectors that were to capture and measure the collisions were multi-story buildings stuffed with electronics, sensors, and computing power that were far beyond what you would imagine the tech in the 1980s would be able to handle. An entire injector complex of smaller accelerators would feed the main ring, and above ground, research campuses would be built to house the thousands of scientists, engineers, and technicians who would run the accelerator. The dream was magnetic—figuratively and literally. Leon Lederman, fresh from his Nobel Prize, promoted the SSC as the next great leap for humanity's understanding of the universe. Roy Schwitters of the University of Texas at Austin was selected to lead the project. And in the scientific community, there was a sense that this was the chance to go after the big questions like: What gives particles their mass? Is the Higgs boson real? What's the nature of dark matter? Could there be entirely new forces out there, waiting to be uncovered? In Washington, the sales pitch was just as compelling, but also more strategic. The SSC was pitched as a national project that would cement U.S. leadership in physics well into the next century. Politicians talked about it the way Kennedy had talked about the Moon: an audacious investment in science and engineering that would inspire a generation, fuel economic growth, and send a signal to rivals that the U.S. still knew how to dream big and deliver. The initial price tag came in at around $4.4 billion, a lot of money, but in the context of Cold War budgets, not exactly unthinkable. And the Cold War urgency, combined with the agreement of opposing political parties, carried it through Congress. By 1988, after an intense nationwide bidding war, Waxahachie, Texas, was announced as the winning site. Texas offered land, political muscle, and a vision to turn the farmlands south of Dallas into the heart of global physics. And so it began. Ground was broken, and surveying crews fanned out to mark where the 54-mile tunnel would curve beneath the soil. But even as construction started, the winds had also started shifting. The soviet union was loosening its grip, and without the Cold War as a backdrop, the SSC project would have to justify itself on science and economics alone. Murmurs had also begun inside the scientific community. Some were worried that pouring so much of the U.S. physics budget into one colossal machine might starve other areas of research. And others wondered if the U.S. should be partnering internationally rather than doing it alone. At that moment, though, these concerns were just background noise. The SSC had momentum, money, and the backing of the most powerful nation on Earth, and the race was on to build a machine that could—quite literally—recreate everything we understood about the universe. ## How the Machine Was Supposed to Work, and Why It Was So Audacious The problem with building a machine like the superconducting supercollider is that protons don't exactly like being told what to do. At 20 trillion electronvolts, they'd much rather fly off into the Texas countryside than be polite and stay on track. So, to keep them in line, you would have to either make the ring absolutely enormous or make the magnets ridiculously strong. The SSC went with both. A giant ring, and superconducting dipole magnets pushing close to 6.8 tesla, which is about 132,000 times stronger than Earth's magnetic field. But the catch with this is that not every meter of tunnel bends the beam; you still need long straights for experiments, service areas, and access points. This meant the curved sections had to work even harder, cranking up the field strength just to keep the protons circling. And all of this hinged on the superconducting cable. The SSC used niobium–titanium wire bathed in liquid helium chilled to just four degrees above absolute zero. At that temperature, you could shove thousands of amps through it without resistance, generating the magnetic muscle needed to tame 20 TeV protons. Each magnet was about 15 meters long with an aperture barely two inches across. By the early '90s, prototypes were already hitting the target field strengths in testing, which was a huge technical win. Of course, bending the beam is only half the battle. You also need to focus it. Think of it like a garden hose. If the nozzle's loose, the water sprays everywhere. But if you tighten it, the stream stays sharp. Particle beams work the same way. Without precise focusing magnets, the protons would spread out and miss their collision point entirely. So there was a need for thousands of other magnets, quadrupoles, and sextupoles, to fine-tune the proton stream to prevent it from smearing out. Instead of cramming two beams into a single giant magnet, the SSC stacked them vertically. You had two completely independent rings running through the tunnel, one above the other. That choice simplified construction, but it also meant the tunnel had to be 12 feet wide, with room for both cryogenic pipelines and even a small transport vehicle. Getting the protons up to speed wasn't just a matter of switching on the big ring. It had to be step by step. First, there was the linear accelerator, then progressively larger booster rings, each one tightening and accelerating the beam before handing it off to the next. The last stop was the High-Energy Booster, a 10-kilometer ring that prepped the protons before they even touched the main collider. Only then were they injected into the SSC proper, where radio-frequency cavities (think giant oscillating electric fields) gave the final push. The chosen system ran at 360 megahertz, with superconducting cavities spaced around the ring. And the result was tens of thousands of little "buckets" of protons, around 17,000 per beam, each spaced a few meters apart, each bunch carrying billions of particles. When you added it up, that beam current was enough to generate collision rates high enough to make rare events routine. But those collisions came at a cost. Even at 20 TeV, protons radiate X-rays as they bend, a phenomenon called synchrotron radiation, so each beam dumped several kilowatts into the cold vacuum chamber. At room temperature, that's trivial. But when your magnets are sitting at 4 K, every extra watt is a nightmare. To handle it, the SSC was divided into ten cryogenic sectors, each more than 8 km long, each with its own helium refrigeration plant. It was one of the largest cryo systems ever designed, where even half a watt per magnet could translate into a massive power bill on the surface grid. Compared to Fermilab's Tevatron, the SSC was a canyon leap. The Tevatron almost reached 2 TeV, and the SSC promised twenty times that. Its magnets were set to hit over 6.5 tesla, and its detectors were supposed to dwarf anything built before. The whole design balanced on three pillars: the magnets, which were powerful enough to bend protons racing near light speed; the radio-frequency systems, which would define acceleration, and the cryogenics, which would keep miles of machinery cold enough to actually survive the strain. On paper, it was a darn elegant design. But balance can also mean fragility. If the magnets' fields ever drifted, luminosity would fall. If cryo loads crept up, costs would explode. If a detector ballooned in size, the optics had to be redesigned. Individually, every piece of the SSC was based on proven technology. But multiply those challenges by thousands, stretch them across a 90-kilometer ring, and suddenly "proven" turns into "precarious." And that's where the trouble started. Not in the physics itself — that part was sound — but in the brutal arithmetic of trying to build, operate, and pay for thousands of flawless machines all working in harmony. ## Engineering Reality & Mounting Problems On paper in 1987, the Superconducting Super Collider's construction cost sat neatly at $4.4 billion. By 1992, the Department of Energy had pushed that to $8.25 billion. And just a few months later, in mid-1993, the Government Accountability Office walked into Congress with a message saying they expected it to "exceed $11 billion." Why were costs getting out of hand? Well, there was the fact that two of the most important pieces of the whole machine were missing. The cathedral-sized particle detectors. Without them, the collider was just a tunnel and magnets. Admittedly still impressive, but scientifically mute. Neither detector had been factored into the original cost estimates, and each would chew up around $500 million. That's another billion right there. Then add up the costs from every challenge they faced, and the ones they did not see coming. And you had costs that went beyond what the congress could handle. The way the project was run also didn't help. Universities Research Association (URA) managed the lab under DOE oversight, but aspects such as cost/schedule tracking were not strictly followed. By February 1993, GAO was telling Congress that the prime contractor still hadn't implemented a working control system, and the DOE's solution was a strategy that delayed components to stay in line with the budget, which ran the risk of sabotaging the project before the machines ever came on. Then there was the design. The SSC's magnet system went through a major redesign after launch, and every change meant re-testing, re-tooling, and re-qualifying suppliers across the country. For a project this size, even the "littlest" ripple of change translated into millions. As if these were not enough, there were also delays in funds. With inflation rising, every delay meant that whenever the money came through, it wasn't enough anymore. The rescue plan was supposed to include outside money. Texas had pledged around $875 million in state support, and by the time the project was cancelled, it had delivered about $400 million. DOE also penciled in $1.6 billion from foreign partners by 1993, with Japan as the main target. But by late 1992, GAO reported that Japan was still "studying the merits" and hadn't committed a yen. Europe and Russia weren't in for cash. The only concrete international support was a modest in-kind offer from India worth about $50 million. But while the contribution was appreciated, it was a drop in the ocean. The first time the House of Representatives voted to cut the collider off, it only survived thanks to a rescue from some loyal supporters in the Senate. But it was a sign that things were getting shaky, and the SCC's support wasn't as strong as it used to be. Then came the hit that really damaged any credibility the SCC had. In a 1993 audit, the DOE's Inspector General found that $60 million already spent, and $128 million planned, on subcontracted expenses were deemed unnecessary, excessive, or poorly controlled. Another $143 million in spending (and $47 million planned) lacked sufficient documentation or justification. There was no way to justify spending all that money on catered lunches, office plants, and holiday parties. And if the project couldn't document its spending, Congress would definitely not trust its cost projections. In June 1993, the House voted again to kill the SCC project, and this time the votes were 280 to 150. President Clinton tried to intervene, and on June 16th, he sent a letter to the House Appropriations Chair warning that canceling would signal a retreat of U.S. leadership in basic science. In August 1993, Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary announced a management shake-up: URA would keep the science side, but construction control would shift to a new contractor with world-class project-management experience. It was the right idea — but arriving six years in, it looked like an emergency transplant after years of chronic illness. Meanwhile, investigations kept poking at the project's spending. None of it was a smoking gun, but combined with costs getting out of control and unmet schedules, the project was beginning to look like an unsafe gamble. By October, the SCC had exhausted all its chances. On the 19th, the House rejected funding again — 282 to 143 — and this time, all rescue efforts proved insufficient. On October 30th, Clinton signed the bill that officially killed the Superconducting Super Collider. He called it "a serious loss" for science. What made it die after all these years of the U.S fighting to stay at the top of innovations in Physics? For one, the Cold War was over. The collider's soft-power argument, that it kept America ahead of Europe, didn't quite land the same way without a Soviet rival breathing down the neck of U.S. science. Second, the fiscal climate was brutal. In 1993, the federal deficit was $255 billion. Every dollar in the discretionary budget was under scrutiny, and a decade-long, multibillion-dollar science project was always going to be an easy target. Third, even the scientific world wasn't united behind it. Big names in condensed matter physics — including Nobel laureates — told Congress the collider was hogging resources that could go to more practical research. And finally, the project simply kept tripping over its own feet. From costs going up constantly to schedules not being met, to political opposition, to lack of foreign support, it was just clear that the project had lost steam, and it looked right to just kill it. ## What the SSC Could Have Been vs. What It Was If it had been finished, the SSC would have had two enormous detectors — each the size of a small office block — sitting at collision points, with layers of sensors, calorimeters, and tracking chambers. They'd sift through hundreds of millions of proton-proton collisions per second, plucking out the rare, precious events from the torrent of noise. The data flood would then pour into on-site computing facilities built to process volumes no other lab could touch. Around it all, a new research campus would rise, housing thousands of scientists, engineers, and technicians. Waxahachie would have been the Texas twin of CERN's Geneva campus, or perhaps even grander. The local economy would boom with tech parks, housing developments, and other infrastructure. Construction alone employed over 4500 people during construction, so if the project had gone on, perhaps double that number or more would have been employed. And, of course, hundreds of highly skilled jobs would remain for decades. The SSC would have been the first to hunt down the Higgs boson, search for supersymmetric particles that might explain dark matter, probe why the universe favors matter over antimatter, and probably even stumble on particles or forces no one had yet imagined. Unfortunately, by the time Congress pulled the plug, the project was a long way from that vision. Only fragments of the tunnel existed, roughly 14 miles of the planned 54, scattered in disconnected segments. On the surface, there were only a handful of buildings, including the main campus with offices and labs, the central utility plant to cool the superconducting magnets, and warehouses for components. The magnets themselves, the heart of the machine, were left unfinished. Some had been built and tested, but many were still mid-manufacture at facilities across the country. Several never made it to Texas at all. The detectors lagged even further behind. Building sensors that could survive and measure 20 TeV collisions was a challenge in itself, and by cancellation day, no full detector had been installed. Partial prototypes existed, but the rest of it would forever be sentenced to life on paper alone. In total, about $2 billion had been spent. That covered tunnel boring, site prep, magnet R&D, land, and staff. The contrast was wild. On paper, it was an 87-kilometer ring that could unlock the deepest secrets of the universe. On the ground in Waxahachie, the only thing to be seen were unfinished tunnels, empty buildings, and crates of magnets that would never get to hum with current. ## Europe, the LHC, and the SSC's Aftermath For a lot of American physicists suddenly out of a job in Texas, the message was clear: if you wanted to keep chasing the Higgs boson, your badge was going to say CERN. Some went overseas to work on the LHC's detectors; others left physics entirely for Wall Street. No, really. Turns out the same skills you need to model particle collisions at 40 trillion electronvolts are pretty handy for modelling markets. In the mid-90s, firms like D.E. Shaw and Goldman Sachs started scooping up ex-SSC talent, and you can make a decent argument, as Oxford University Press bloggers and Scientific American have, that the SSC's death helped feed the quant boom. Not the only factor, but definitely part of the story. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, Europe smelled opportunity. Within a year of the SSC's demise, CERN, sitting on a perfectly good 27-kilometre tunnel from the LEP collider, got the green light from its member states to build the Large Hadron Collider. It wasn't going to be as long as the SSC — 27 kilometers versus 87 — but it had one critical advantage baked in from day one: it wasn't just Europe's toy. It was everybody's. Costs, components, headaches. All shared. That meant when the budget wobbled, there wasn't a single parliament or congress that could strangle it in one vote. With a new collider project came another opportunity for the U.S to be part of history. The only difference was that this time, it would be taking a small portion of the pie. By 1997, Washington had signed on as a major LHC partner, kicking in hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of hardware, detectors, and computing systems via Fermilab, Brookhaven, and Berkeley Lab. America went from "we're building the world's flagship collider in Texas" to "we're a key contributor to Europe's flagship collider." And when the LHC found the Higgs boson in 2012, you can imagine how many SSC veterans quietly did the math and realised their machine would've found it years earlier. And it wasn't just hindsight. The SSC's planned collision energy was nearly three times higher than the LHC's, and physicists point out that with that much headroom, the Higgs would've been squarely in range and likely confirmed well before the turn of the millennium. But it was a little too late for regrets, because in politics and science, the machine that could've been doesn't matter. What mattered was that leadership in high-energy physics at the time had shifted from the U.S. to Europe. And the way CERN pulled it off has become the template for big science: split the costs, split the credit, and spread the industrial contracts around so everyone's home industry gets a taste. That model has been used in proposals for future colliders, giant telescopes, and even fusion projects. Because the SSC taught the other lesson: if you go it alone on something that costs billions and takes decades, you're one election cycle away from the guillotine. Today, the superconducting super collider is remembered in physics circles as the ultimate "what if." Europe ended up with scientific prestige, the discoveries, and the working machine. The US got an abandoned tunnel in Texas and a generation of lost opportunity. ## Key Takeaways - The Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) was a Cold War-era project to build the world's most powerful particle collider. - The SSC was designed to smash protons at unprecedented energies, potentially discovering the Higgs boson years earlier than Europe's LHC. - Cost overruns, political battles, and lack of international support led to the SSC's cancellation in 1993. - The SSC's failure resulted in the U.S. losing leadership in high-energy physics to Europe. - The SSC's legacy includes influencing future big science projects to adopt international collaboration models. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What was the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) project? The SSC was a particle collider project approved by President Ronald Reagan in 1987. It aimed to build a 54-mile-long tunnel beneath Texas to smash protons together at unprecedented energies, potentially leading to significant scientific discoveries. ### Why was the SSC project initiated? The SSC project was initiated during the Cold War era to demonstrate American technological superiority over the Soviet Union. It was also intended to advance scientific understanding and maintain U.S. leadership in physics. ### What were the key technical features of the SSC? The SSC was designed to accelerate protons to 20 trillion electron volts per beam using a 54-mile-long tunnel with 10,000 superconducting magnets. It included advanced detectors, a complex injector system, and extensive cryogenic infrastructure. ### What were the initial cost estimates and how did they change over time? The initial cost estimate for the SSC was around $4.4 billion. By 1992, it had increased to $8.25 billion, and by mid-1993, it was expected to exceed $11 billion due to various cost overruns and additional expenses. ### What were some of the major challenges faced by the SSC project? The SSC project faced numerous challenges, including cost overruns, delays in funding, lack of international support, management issues, and political opposition. Additionally, there were concerns about the project's impact on other areas of research. ### What was the impact of the SSC's cancellation on the scientific community? The cancellation of the SSC led to a loss of scientific opportunities and jobs. Many American physicists moved to Europe to work on the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, while others left physics for careers in finance. ### What was the role of international partnerships in the SSC project? The SSC project initially lacked significant international support. While Texas and the U.S. government provided substantial funding, contributions from foreign partners were minimal, which added to the financial strain on the project. ### What was the political climate surrounding the SSC's cancellation? The political climate was marked by a shift in priorities after the Cold War ended. The high cost of the project, combined with a large federal deficit and lack of unified support, led to its cancellation despite efforts by President Clinton to save it. ### What was the legacy of the SSC project? The SSC project is remembered as a missed opportunity for the U.S. in high-energy physics. Its cancellation led to a shift in leadership to Europe, with CERN's LHC becoming the premier particle collider. The project also highlighted the importance of international collaboration in large-scale scientific endeavors. ### What were the potential scientific discoveries that the SSC could have made? The SSC could have discovered the Higgs boson, explored dark matter, probed the nature of matter and antimatter, and potentially uncovered new particles or forces. Its high energy capabilities would have allowed for groundbreaking research in particle physics. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: How Billions Were Wasted on the Superconducting Super Collider](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybFU5jbhreo) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Texas_Armed_Forces_Memorial_Flagpole_Austin_2025.jpg) by Larry D. Moore / openverse, by. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/how-landfill-works-way-more-going-on https://megaprojects.pub/article/how-landfill-works-way-more-going-on Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Unless you're a naturally curious or environmentally conscious person, chances are you don't think too much about your garbage once you put it out on the curb. Why would you? The science of garbage dumps, or landfills if you prefer, has pretty much been perfected, and if you're not thinking about it, it's a good sign that things are working exactly the way they're supposed to. You'd probably think about it a lot more after a bit of dysentery or bubonic plague, of course, but that these problems aren't occupying your mind on a daily basis, as they once would have, is testimony to just how effective modern sanitation is. Virtually all countries have adopted sanitation regulations, and to varying degrees, depending on where we're talking about, refuse disposal services operate according to these rules. Guidelines specify how refuse is to be collected, how environmentally friendly refuse disposal should occur, the acceptable conditions at landfills, as well as plans for landfills well into the future. The fact is that modern refuse collection standards and environmentally friendly disposal practices are some of the most underappreciated services today, ticking along in the background and in most cases remaining more or less invisible. Compare this to as recently as the mid-1800s when dumping garbage in the gutter was the accepted norm, including everything from dead animals to human faeces, and thank whichever deity you prefer that we live after the "Age of Sanitation." So before we get to the details of how modern refuse is handled, let's first get a better idea of how the Age of Sanitation transformed sanitation standards into what they are today. ## The Age of Sanitation First and foremost; public sanitation standards are a shockingly new addition to society. Now yes, there is a reference to the banning of throwing garbage in the street dating back to 3,000 BCE in Crete, and in Athens, 500 BCE, a regulation was passed decreeing that garbage had to be transported outside city limits. But these rare early mentions don't represent a global standard by any means, and the rather disturbing truth is that waste disposal didn't start to become a widespread focus until around the 15th century. Or at least, it was around the 15th century that the population density of major metros began to spike dramatically, and sanitation got so bad as to demand some sort of solution. Even then, the problem wasn't so much solved as it was moved around, as was the case with Paris. Paris during the 15th century had a reputation for being filthy even by the standards of the time, and when the levels of squalor got so bad as to start causing a public outcry the city eventually had to take action. Thousands of waste collectors were hired and refuse was transported outside the city walls for disposal, but since there were no clearly thought out regulations the hoped for solution devolved into a secondary disaster. The garbage was simply dumped outside the walls, and before long the piles grew so high as to provide easy access into the city to any would be attackers. We're not singling out Paris, of course, similar problems existed in virtually every major metropolis at that time, and, not surprisingly, this era also happened to coincided with rampant disease including the infamous Black Plague. The Age of Sanitation officially kicked off in 1842, prompted by a report in the United Kingdom that directly linked unsanitary conditions to widespread disease. The report was a breakthrough, and although really just confirming what had long been suspected, that the report came from official sources was enough to jumpstart governments into taking sanitation seriously. However, it certainly wasn't a case of the problem being solved overnight. On the contrary, over a very long and complicated timeline sanitation standards were generally first introduced starting with upper-class neighbourhoods until gradually spreading out across whole metros. Sewers and water treatment facilities were the primary focus, while refuse disposal remained a secondary priority for decades. Lacking any concrete regulations, the general approach to refuse disposal was an "out of sight, out of mind" mentality, meaning that refuse was simply piled where it wouldn't be seen without too much thought given to environmental impact. The position of landfills was also completely uncontrolled, and it wasn't uncommon for a dump to be located just a mile outside city limits. Refuse was simply piled as high as possible before moving on to a new location, and in some cases it was burned immediately upon arrival. Thankfully it didn't take too long before a connection was made between the toxic fumes wafting into cities and a new wave of serious respiratory ailments. Meanwhile, in places like New York City refuse was often dumped into waterways or even directly into the ocean, a norm that lasted until it was fully outlawed in the mid-1900s. Sanitation regulations were, of course, eventually introduced in every city in the world, though this occurred across different timelines and in general, although progress was made and sanitation did increase substantially, it wasn't until around the 1960s and 70s that the regulations we live under today were firmly in place. As far as landfills are concerned, the modern layout we use today was actually researched and sometimes put into practice since at least the early 1900s. But, due to the costs and efforts involved modern landfill compositions didn't become standard until laws forced garbage disposal companies to get on board. Speaking of modern landfill standards, let's get into the globally accepted standard by which a landfill must operate. ## Modern Landfill Science So what happens at landfills, can this sort of solution be environmentally friendly, and can it possibly be sustainable? Well, keeping in mind the situation of just a few decades ago, modern landfills really are incredibly well controlled and regulated, and although having garbage in the ground is always going to have environmental impact to some extent, the effects have been dramatically minimised. The core idea of modern landfills is to keep refuse separate from water and air, therefore allowing it to decompose without spreading harmful chemicals to the surrounding environment. As refuse begins to decompose the primary concerns are "leachate," contaminated liquid that may seep into the ground, and methane which naturally vents into the atmosphere. As far as methane is concerned, it has been linked to global warming which we won't be getting into in this video. For now, we're only going to acknowledge that the methane created in landfills is monitored to ensure that the venting process occurs normally and that there's no dangerous build-up. Methane can also be harvested and may even be fairly lucrative, which we'll get to later. Let's focus on the biggest immediate environmental threat; leachate. To prevent leachate contaminating the surrounding soil, and by extension leaking into ground water, each landfill is contained with a layer of plastic lining and an additional layer of compressed clay. Plastic liners are generally 30 to 100 millimetres thick and are carefully installed to ensure that no leaks occur. Compacted clay layers, meanwhile, although not always used are exactly what you think they are and act as a secondary safety layer. The problem with water-tight containing layers, however, is that they create a secondary problem, namely that the landfill will gradually begin to fill with natural rain water. Hence, each landfill also comes with a built-in drainage system. Drainage systems pipe rainwater out as it gathers, first to concrete or gravel lined ditches which provide filtering, then to collection ponds. Collection ponds, referred to as "sed ponds," are where the liquid is allowed to settle, and if no leachate contaminants are detected the water is allowed to return to the environment. If leachate is detected, it's a sign that the leachate filtering system isn't working correctly and action will be required to get the system back in order. The leachate drainage system is similar to the rainwater drainage system but concentrates exclusively on draining out harmful chemicals. Gravel layers between landfill cells collect leachate, and a network of pipes drain the liquid out into separate collection ponds, referred to as sumps. Liquid in sumps is drained into a treatment facility before also being allowed to return to the environment. Now, ensuring that harmful chemicals are contained is obviously a primary concern, hence why each landfill is required to have a set of mandatory monitoring wells. Wells are sunk on either side of a landfill, uphill and downhill, providing a means for testing ground-water prior to it moving beneath the landfill, and once it's passed beneath the landfill. The quality of water from each well is compared, thus giving a good indication of whether any contaminants are seeping through the containment layers. But what about the refuse itself? Solid waste delivered to landfills is first compacted by specialised machinery, after which it's arranged in the landfill in so called cells. Cells themselves may be arranged according to the type of refuse, but generally speaking are arranged in a layered grid, with each layer separated by the various drainage and filtration systems already mentioned. Once a layer is completed, it will again be heavily compacted before being covered with a final layer of soil. This pattern is repeated until the landfill reaches capacity, with enormous effort going into making the most of available space. Lastly, once a landfill reaches capacity it is capped and prepared for repurposing. Capping refers to putting an additional layer of containment plastic and clay over the top, an additional 2 feet of soil, as well as erosion mats and finally a layer of vegetation. Carefully selected low root penetration vegetation, along with the specialised mats, helps to prevent erosion. Once capping is complete, the landfill is monitored for an additional 30 years, though work generally starts on converting the space immediately. In most cases landfills are converted into parks or sometimes golf courses, with a perfect example being the now picturesque, ineloquently named Mount Trashmore in Virginia Beach. In the case of Mount Trashmore the developers clearly leaned into the area's reputation as a previous landfill, essentially inviting visitors to see for themselves how serene and beautiful the location is today. The primary draw of Mount Trashmore is an 18 meter (60 foot) tall by, 243 meter (800 foot) long manmade mountain created using compacted refuse. The entire area is 165 acres including two lakes, vast playgrounds, skate parks and multiple hiking trails. So, I guess this means that landfills really are a sustainable solution, and we have nothing to worry about. Of course, it's not that simple. ## Are Landfills Sustainable? In 1987 a fairly well-known story unfolded, now often referred to as the Long Island Garbage Barge incident. Residents of Islip Town and New York City witnessed a barge carrying 3,100 tons of solid refuse stuck out at sea for months, forced to sail back and forth as the delivery was denied again and again. It seems that landfill space on Long Island was rapidly dwindling, and so a deal had been struck for the garbage to instead be transported to North Carolina. However, once North Carolina residents got wind of the plan they weren't particularly pleased, and so the barge was turned away at the last minute. In desperation the trash shipment was rerouted to Louisiana, Texas, Florida, Mexico and Cuba, each of which also refused to let the barge dock. Mexico and Cuba allegedly even threatened to sink the barge with artillery should it approach, so anxious were they to not have the garbage anywhere near their shore. The barge was eventually accepted in Brooklyn where the refuse was incinerated, and the ashes buried. Now, that story is remembered as somewhat of a whimsical joke today, but it certainly does also raise more than a few questions. If landfill space was already so scarce in 1987, isn't it a sign that a serious problem was already brewing even back then? In fact, where does the refuse in that region go today, if there was such a drastic lack of space more than two decades ago? You've perhaps even heard that the world is projected to run out of landfill space in the next 10 years, or something along those lines, which must mean that humanity is already on the edge of catastrophe. We are, of course, not making light of environmental concerns, but if you stop and think about it for even a moment you'll quickly realise that clickbait claiming landfill space will run out any time soon is purposefully taking information completely out of context. There isn't, speaking in strictly practical terms, a shortage of space for landfills. There is, however, an escalating cost associated with creating new landfills, expanding existing landfills, transporting refuse to wherever available landfills happen to be, monitoring old landfills and transforming capped landfills into usable space. For a quick bit of perspective, it can cost 10s of millions, or even 100s of millions to convert a capped landfill into a park, and the return on that investment isn't exactly scintillating. As far as running out of space goes, the truth is that cities generally operate on a 15 to 20 year buffer, meaning that the space currently available will last for roughly that period before the situation starts to get critical. What this means in turn is that there is always around a 10 to 15 years period to organise new landfills and prepare them for future use. Now, let's go back to the Long Island trash-barge story for a moment. At the time the Long Island Barge was stuck out at sea, roughly 80 percent of all refuse in the area landed up in landfills, 13 percent was dumped in alternative locations, 6 percent was incinerated, and just 1 percent was recycled. Today in that same region 50 percent is incinerated, 35 percent recycled, and just 15 to 20 percent is put into landfills. So, does this mean that progress is being made and the situation has been brought under control? Again; it isn't really that simple. Relatively new initiatives have been adopted in various regions, and with a surface glance it does seem that rapid strides are being made in sustainability. However, these sustainability efforts themselves have been the source of much debate, recycling in particular. Critics refer to recycling as a "zero sum game," meaning that the amount of energy, effort and cost required to recycle more or less equals the environmental harm of the recyclable item itself. We won't be going into that controversy in this particular video, but let's just say that, as with most globe spanning issues of this nature, it's all much more complicated than it first seems. As for other sustainability initiatives, there is "gas to energy" and "waste to energy." Gas to energy refers to collecting naturally occurring methane from landfills, treating it and converting into energy. The practice can be rather profitable, with it being estimated that "gas harvesters" can potentially make around $12 million annually for 3 straight decades. "Waste to energy," meanwhile, refers to a process whereby refuse is incinerated, the heat generated used to create steam, and the steam used to generate electricity. There are, however, once again criticisms with these initiatives. "Gas to energy" is non-renewable and requires expensive infrastructure, while "waste to energy" allegedly creates air pollutants that outweigh any positive energy gains. To be clear; we aren't arguing in favour or against either; the point we're trying to make is that true sustainability isn't simple, and that existing solutions perhaps need more refinement before being widely accepted. So back to the original question; are landfills sustainable? There is no doubt that the world generates over 2 billion tons of refuse annually and that the overall number is expected to increase 70% by 2050. Taking that into account, as well as the exponential increase in costs, and that capped landfills aren't intended to be reused, it logically seems like certain, more densely populated regions are going to be running into problems at some point in the future, be those problems related to cost, logistics or both. But in reality, those impacted regions will likely be handling the problem on a local scale rather than a global scale, so it also seems likely we won't be seeing any sweeping, transformative changes that suddenly eliminate the challenges of refuse any time soon. With that being said, if you step out your front door and don't find yourself ankle deep in dead horses and human waste, you'll probably agree that humanity has made enormous strides as far as sanitation standards are concerned; and, in a remarkably short period of time. To put it another way; as much as we still have room to improve, it helps to remember that we live in the best possible time to be alive as far as sanitation is concerned. ## Key Takeaways - Modern sanitation standards have significantly improved public health since the mid-1800s. - Landfills are designed to minimize environmental impact by controlling leachate and methane. - The Long Island Garbage Barge incident highlighted early landfill space issues, but space isn't the primary concern today. - Sustainability initiatives like recycling, gas-to-energy, and waste-to-energy face debates and criticisms. - While landfills are well-regulated, future challenges include increasing costs and local waste management issues. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is the primary goal of modern landfills? The core idea of modern landfills is to keep refuse separate from water and air, therefore allowing it to decompose without spreading harmful chemicals to the surrounding environment. ### How do modern landfills prevent leachate from contaminating the environment? Each landfill is contained with a layer of plastic lining and an additional layer of compressed clay to prevent leachate from contaminating the surrounding soil and groundwater. ### What happens to the rainwater that collects in a landfill? Rainwater is drained out through a built-in drainage system into concrete or gravel-lined ditches, then to collection ponds where it is filtered and tested for contaminants before being released back into the environment. ### How is leachate managed in modern landfills? Leachate is collected through a network of pipes into separate collection ponds called sumps, where it is treated before being released back into the environment. ### What are monitoring wells in a landfill used for? Monitoring wells are used to test groundwater quality both before and after it passes beneath the landfill to ensure that no contaminants are seeping through the containment layers. ### What happens to a landfill once it reaches capacity? Once a landfill reaches capacity, it is capped with additional layers of containment plastic, clay, soil, erosion mats, and vegetation, and then monitored for an additional 30 years while being repurposed, often into parks or golf courses. ### What is the significance of the Long Island Garbage Barge incident? The Long Island Garbage Barge incident highlighted the scarcity of landfill space in 1987 and the challenges of finding alternative disposal sites, illustrating the growing need for sustainable waste management solutions. ### How has waste management in the Long Island region changed since the 1980s? In the Long Island region, the percentage of refuse sent to landfills has decreased from 80% to 15-20%, with a significant increase in recycling and incineration. ### What are some sustainability initiatives related to landfills? Sustainability initiatives include 'gas to energy,' where methane from landfills is collected and converted into energy, and 'waste to energy,' where refuse is incinerated to generate electricity. ### What is the current global trend in waste generation? The world generates over 2 billion tons of refuse annually, and this number is expected to increase by 70% by 2050, posing significant challenges for waste management. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: How Landfill Works: There's Way More Going on Here than You Think (REUPLOAD)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iv76vrAfAVI) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/Containers_in_Crete_2024-6.jpg) by Mustang Joe / openverse, cc0. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/il-86-soviet-union-botched-answer-747 https://megaprojects.pub/article/il-86-soviet-union-botched-answer-747 Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Ahh, the Cold War, that long since (kind of) put to bed period of intercontinental tally wacker swinging, when the superpowers sat across from one another, and shook their fists with ever more vigour, all the while backing said shaking up with increasingly tarty toys and Gucci kit, with them endeavouring to one up each other over and over again. It's a period that, naturally, attracts more than its fair share of attention from fancy machine enjoyers, and more often than not, it is attention that is directed firmly towards military machines. What is lesser appreciated, however, is that the perpetual one-upmanship competition that was the Cold War also extended into civil engineering, with results that were often times no less grandiose in their scope than their martial counterparts—and today, we're going to be looking at one such example; which would be the Soviet Union's attempt to cook up a Boeing 747 equivalent, that being the world's first jumbo jet, for themselves: the IL-86. ## Technical Design We'll start by putting the term 'jumbo jet' to bed for the rest of the article, and be technical about it instead, as what the IL-86, and indeed the 747 as well, was, was a so called 'wide body airliner,' that being a term that means exactly what it says on the tin: a girthy airliner meant to REALLY cram the people in—with the commonly accepted definition being "any passenger aircraft with a fuselage wide enough to accommodate two passenger aisles." This, naturally, meant that the IL-86 was a bit of a big boy, measuring 60.2 meters in length, with a wingspan of 48.1 meters. To help visualize its size, you can compare it to better known Lockheed L-1011 TriStar or the Douglas DC-10, with the former measuring 54.2 meters in length with a wingspan of 50.1 meters, while the latter comes in slightly larger, at 55.5 meters in length and a wingspan of 50.4 meters—so picture them, and you're about right. This size, in an all-economy nine abreast configuration, also gave the IL-86 a passenger capacity of 350. Powering the Il-86 were four Kuznetsov NK-86 low-bypass turbofan engines, each producing 127 kilonewtons of thrust. These engines were derivatives of the earlier NK-8 engines used on the Ilyushin Il-62, and, coupled with 70,000 litres worth of fuel tanks, afforded a maximum range of approximately 2,500 nautical miles, significantly less than its Western counterparts. A DC-10-30, for example, could happily squeeze just shy of 6,000 nautical miles out of its General Electric CF6-50C engines, and 138,000 litre fuel tanks. The Il-86's flight deck featured a three-crew layout, consisting of a pilot, co-pilot, and flight engineer. This configuration, which was actually quite common the world over at the time, was a notable step forward for Soviet airliners, as earlier designs often required a larger crew, including a navigator and radio operator. The cockpit was equipped with analogue instrumentation, again typical of the era, though it lacked some of the advanced avionics seen in contemporary Western aircraft. All in all, then, it's safe to say that this sounds pretty normal, right? So where does the archetypal Soviet weirdness come into it all? Well, we've actually already seen a little bit of it, and the eagle eared aviation enthusiasts among you all might have already picked up on it. For example, remember when we said it had "nine abreast" seating? Well, there's a little bit of weirdness right there, because, both nowadays and back in the day, most airlines go for a 10 abreast arrangement in their economy class, usually in a 3-4-3 configuration. This meant that the IL-86 was WEIRDLY roomy in the elbow department, even in economy class. Now, we know what you're thinking: "Oh, so its passengers had a touch more sideways room, HOW INTERESTING," but don't worry, that's just the start of things, and it gets WAY weirder from there. For example, did you notice that the IL-86 also did not have any storage bins above the central seating, and that the ones it does have to the side were WEIRDLY slim? This, of course, contributes to the 'roominess' of the thing, alongside the seating arrangement, but this wasn't actually done for the passengers benefit at all, but rather the *airport's*. You see, Soviet Airports were terrible, and that's an unfortunate fact. Whereas Western Airports, even pretty middling ones in terms of volume, were well set up to accommodate VAST numbers of passengers, Soviet ones simply were not, and this presented quite an issue, because if they nailed a wide-body, and start chucking more people up into the sky, how were they ever meant to accommodate all of that extra baggage, without an extensive and expensive rebuilding of basically EVERY major airport in the country? The answer: you keep your suitcases with you as you trundle through departures, and then chuck them on the plane yourself before taking your seat, thus totally eliminating the need to construct all new luggage handling facilities the nation over, just to accommodate the increased passenger volume the IL-86 would allow. And as for how this led to the elimination and shrinking of internal overhead compartments, off the back of that idea, a bright spark at Ilyushin had a complimentary idea: just get them to chuck all but their most immediate essentials into the hold while they were there, then we can make the cabin roomier and blag this bodge as a feature—genius! But wait, there's more weirdness still, because you know how Soviet Airports were, well, terrible? It turns out that contending with that fact led to even more peculiarities with the IL-86, such as the fact that the Soviets didn't really trust their civil runways to be happy dealing with MUCH heavier aircraft, and so, they incorporated a fourth landing gear, at the back, between the two 'normal' ones—spreading the weight of the aircraft over 14 tyres, rather than the 10 they'd otherwise have, and thus sparing their runways from excessive load. Large numbers of landing gears are normal on Western aircraft too, but to find them, we usually have to look at the REALLY big stuff; your 747s, which can happily weigh in at double and the rest of an IL-86, and the like. Take a look at one of the ones we said came in at a similar size to the IL-86 earlier, specifically the L-1011, and how many landing gears do you see? Yep, three. Then there's the fact that the IL-86 had elevators, three of them to be precise, which the cabin crew used to access the galleys mid-flight. This wasn't a design choice caused through a bodge, however, instead, the wrinkle brains at Ilyushin simply thought it was a better use of space than having galleys on the main deck, where they would eat into valuable passenger space, and that by using elevators to access them rather than stairs, the cabin crew would still be able to make use of those handy insulated trolleys that airlines always have. The IL-86 also made use of hydraulically folding out stairs for passenger disembarkation, simply because jet bridges, the airport-ese for those tunnels you walk through to get onto a plane, weren't really a thing at Soviet Airports; they were terrible remember, even by the Soviets' own admission. This, in and of itself, isn't THAT weird, and even today, there are plenty of aircraft that have them, modern Boeing 737-800's and MAX's being a great example, but they are narrow bodies, you basically NEVER find them on widebodies, at all, the assumption by their designers being that they'll always be using jet bridges anyway, and the odd time that you can't use one of them, for whatever reason, the airport will just tow external staircases into position. So yeah, the fact that they were such a key point to the IL-86's design and on the ground operation—WEIRD. Even the engines on the IL-86 were weird. Remember when we said it used four Kuznetsov NK-86 low-bypass engines? Well, it's the 'low-bypass' part of that which is weird, because starting with the introduction of the 747 in 1970, which used 'high-bypass' Pratt & Whitney JT9D engines, everyone knew that such engines were the way of the future. And if you're wondering what the difference is, don't worry, we got you covered. Put simply, the key difference between high and low-bypass jet engines is that high-bypass engines push most of the air that enters them around the engine core for more fuel-efficient operation, as that extra movement of air creates 'free' thrust, and low-bypass engines direct more air through the core for greater thrust and speed, but with higher noise and fuel consumption. For commercial service, a high-bypass engine is what you want then; as it'll still get up to basically the same speeds, but use far less fuel while doing so—and yet the IL-86 went for low-bypass, why? That would be because it turns out that high bypass engines are actually quite tricky things to engineer, and the Soviet Union simply wasn't up to it—and so it was good old-fashioned engines it got bolted under its wings instead. This, incidentally, is also no small part of why the IL-86 had such a limited range as compared to its contemporaries. And that should just about do us for our discussion of the IL-86's design, at least without going into the really, REALLY niche and technical stuff, but we're sure most of you won't be interested in the fact that it used a hydraulic servo rudder trim actuator mechanism rather than an electric motor-driven one, so we shall bring this chapter to an end, and move on! ## Development History The IL-86 has its roots in the 1960s and early 1970s, when Western widebodies were just entering onto the scene, with the Boeing 747 making its maiden flight in 1969, and both the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 and Lockheed L-1011 TriStar making theirs the following year. In short, the Soviets saw what the Americans were doing, and they wanted a bit of that for themselves. Don't think the decision was wholly one of chest beating and flag waving keep-up-ism, however, because while that very much was a part of it, it was the Cold War after all, there was also a very practical element to their desire; because Soviet passenger numbers were EXPLODING, with Aeroflot, the Soviet Union's only airline, predicting that it would soon be carrying over 100 million passengers a year—a figure which it sure enough hit in 1976. And so, the die was cast some time in the late 1960s, the sources aren't clear on exactly when, with the Soviet Ministry of Civil Aviation stating that it wanted a large capacity airliner capable of carrying at least 350 passengers, and subsequently ordering the country's various aircraft concerns to get on making it happen. This led to all sorts of designs coming across their desk, with the most peculiar of the lot being a proposal by Antonov, to turn their An-22 military transport aircraft into a gigantic double decker monster of an aircraft that could carry over 700 passengers. This idea was rejected however; partly due to the fact that with the An-22 being turboprop powered rather than by a 'true' suck in air make it hot and throw out the back to move type jet, i.e. a turbojet or turbofan, it was feared that the west would write it off as evidence of Soviet technological stagnation, but also because Antonov was VERY cordial with the recently disgraced and ousted leader of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev, and they didn't exactly want him finding a way to stick his nose into any important matters of state. As for Ilyushin, despite eventually winning the contract, they actually didn't propose a widebody at all to begin with, but a stretched variant of their Il-62, which was rejected for failing to meet the 350-passenger requirement. Luckily for them, however, the Il-62 was such a well-regarded bit of jet-powered kit, that they were given the contract anyway, just with the VERY clear warning that the passenger capacity was firm and non-negotiable, and thus development officially began in 1971. With the task before them being such an important one, some of Ilyushin's biggest names found themselves assigned to the project, with some notable examples being Genrikh Novozhilov, a man with no small hand in designing the previous Il-18, 62, and 76, as well as none other than Sergey Ilyushin himself, who, as you likely guessed from the name, was the man who founded the whole bureau. He had actually retired in 1970, but a burgeoning interest in the edge-pushing project, coupled with the fact that he actually found retirement quite dull, meant he was only too happy to pop back into the office and lend his talents. And that, pretty much, is the abridged story of the IL-86's development—those two and their subordinates got to work, and then, in 1976 five years after development began, voilà, the finished IL-86 took its first test flight. It, naturally, was hailed as a triumph of Soviet engineering when it entered flight, but curiously, it may not have been the indigenous wonder that it was touted as, and it all goes back to a clandestine meeting of American and Soviet engineers in Paris in 1971. You see, they both had something the other wanted: with the Americans knowing their way around a widebody, and the Soviets being clued up on supersonic airliners thanks to the Tupolev Tu-144, and while making small talk at that year's Paris Airshow, Novozhilov and Joe Sutter of Boeing got to the matter of potentially doing a bit of mutual backscratching, and with both of their respective governments being game, the pair later met up at a café, with CLEAR instructions about what they were and weren't allowed to share. With the pair soon running out of notepaper, and resorting to sketching on their tablecloth, Novozhilov told all on working with titanium, a vital heat-resistant material for supersonic aircraft, and Sutter explained all the rationale and methodology behind mounting engines underneath the wing. Ultimately, we don't know just how much this meeting went on to influence the IL-86, and the matter is still hotly debated by aviation historians. It's a legitimately tricky matter too, because sure, while Soviet jetliners before the meeting looked one way, so we might be inclined to assume Ilyushin ripped the idea straight from Boeing, their Il-76 did take its first flight two months before the Paris Air Show, and it looks rather similar—so yeah, who knows, at least until some more archive digging is done over in Russia anyway! ## Service History The IL-86 entered service in December 1980 when Aeroflot put them into their commercial roster. Its inaugural flight, from Moscow to Tashkent in the Uzbeki SSR also went off without a hitch, and from there it gradually became a vital part of the Soviet Union's domestic operations, slowly beginning to supplement its Tu-154 forerunner as and when more airframes became available. Do note, however, it did NOT replace the IL-62, despite the fact that that particular plane was a narrow body that first flew back in 1963. The reason for this? That would be its range, or rather, the lack thereof, which it turned out wasn't just terrible compared to western airliners, but also the IL-62, which could squeeze out around 5,500 nautical miles on a good day thanks to its lightweight construction and disproportionately HUGE fuel tanks, as compared to the IL-86's 2,500 or so. Consequently, if you were flying from, say, Moscow to Vladivostok, it'd be old dependable that got you there—really, despite the whole widebody arrangement naturally bringing images of a long-range jet to mind, and many pundits referring to it as such, for some reason, we are far better off thinking of the IL-86 as a medium range jet, that just so happened to be designed to properly cram the passengers in. It also flew internationally, because don't forget, while we think of the Soviet Union as an isolationist nation locked behind the iron curtain, it had plenty of friends locked in there with it, and so the IL-86 found its way to Berlin Schönefeld Airport in East Germany, Warsaw-Okęcie Airport in Poland, and Bucharest Otopeni Airport in Romania—to name just a few. And on the subject of international use, we also should mention the non-Aeroflot airlines that used it, of which there were quite a few. The vast majority of them were airlines founded in post-Soviet nations after the union collapsed, with examples being Armenian Airlines, Kazakhstan Airlines, and Ukraine International Airlines, but two of them were based outside of the Soviet and later post-Soviet worlds, with the two airlines in question being China Xinjiang Airlines, which bought three of them in 1990, and Hajvairy Airlines, Pakistan's first privately owned airline, which leased two of them from Aeroflot in the "early 1990s," whenever that actually means, our sources didn't bother to say, through to October 1993. As for its safety record, at least as far as we know, because the Soviet Union wasn't exactly a regime known for its transparency, that appears to have been pretty solid, with the IL-86 not suffering a single known fatal accident during passenger carrying operations. Emphasis on the words 'passenger carrying,' however, because it did suffer one BAD accident in July 2002, when Pulkovo Aviation Enterprise Flight 9560, taking off from Moscow and being a crew-only flight, suddenly went into the full-up trim position, which, in simple terms, means that the aircraft was set to tilt the nose as high as possible, and with the pilots not having the time to correct, it stalled, and crashed barely a minute after take-off, killing 14 of the 16 crew on board. It should be noted, however, that the Interstate Aviation Committee was unable to determine why it went full trim, so we aren't sure whether the blame lies with the aircraft itself, or someone involved in operating it. Then there's the matter of how many of them were produced, which would be 106 across its 15-year manufacturing run, which lasted from 1976 to 1991. And to put that figure into perspective, the Tu-154 it supplemented had a grand total of 1,026 units produced during a 29-year production run that began in 1968, and the IL-62 had 292 units produced during its 32-year production run. All in all, pretty poor numbers then, and it only gets worse when you start comparing it to Western jets. For example, the 747 that it had been intended to be the Soviet answer to, had 1,574 units produced over a whopping 55-year production run that only ended in 2023. Even the L-1011, which was a failure so bad that Lockheed completely pulled the plug on commercial aircraft production managed to see 250 units made before the plug was pulled. Of course, in many ways, comparing aircraft made in a planned economy to those made in a market economy is akin to comparing apples to oranges, and there's also the fact that the Soviet Union began to come apart at the seams not long after the IL-86 first took flight, which didn't exactly help expedite production, but nonetheless, such comparisons prove the objective point that it was an aircraft that simply wasn't made in great numbers. ## The Future of Russian Widebodies? Had the Soviet Union stayed duct taped together for just a while longer, it is likely that the IL-86, and its younger variant, the IL-96—which is just a slightly more polished version of the IL-86 that entered service in 1992, don't worry too much about it—would have been made in larger numbers, but it didn't, and so, basically every airline in the post-Soviet space started exercising their newfound economic freedom, and bought Western jets instead, with even Aeroflot's modern fleet using Airbus A330's and A350's, as well as Boeing 777's for its widebody needs. The Government of Independent Russia, as the inheritor of much of the Soviet Union's aerospace industry once the wall came down, was unwilling to totally abandon its legacy advanced industries however, and so has kept the IL-86 alive on life support, lest it lose those skills altogether. It has done this partly by retaining three old IL-86's for military use, but mostly, it has done this by REFUSING to close down production of the IL-96 variant, even as basically NO orders come in, with a mere 33 of them having been built in total, with that figure not being counted among the 106 IL-86's made, incidentally. Of those 33 too, all but four of them are used by the Russian government, with another single example being used by 'Sky Gates,' a Russian cargo and charter airline, and the other three being used by 'Cubana de Aviación,' the flag carrier of Cuba—who, because of sanctions, isn't exactly able to buy American aircraft. And for YEARS that was the end of the story, and soon enough, it was reasoned by most of the commentariat, the Russian Government would pull the plug and give it all up as a bad job. That all changed in February 2022, however, when the Russian Military commenced its invasion of Ukraine, because nearly overnight, Russia was totally cut off from the Western Aerospace Industry, both in terms of spare parts and technical expertise, as well as, of course, new airframe procurement. NOW, the commentariat shouted en-masse, the IL-96 would now have a renaissance, as Russian airlines would have nowhere else to turn... The enthusiastic chorus failed to appreciate two key points however, firstly, that Russian Airlines all finding themselves banned from the airspace of Washington aligned nations overnight RATHER reduced demand for their services and made buying new aircraft a moot point, and secondly, that they could keep the Western aircraft they already had going by simply buying parts through other countries that were cordial with Russia, but that Washington didn't deem naughty enough to be subjected to full lockdown sanctions. For the IL-96, however, this means that its prophesised renaissance hasn't really happened. There's been the odd order here and there as legitimate needs have arisen for new aircraft, three of them to be precise, but that's it. Never say never, however. Should the current state of affairs drag on and Russia's Western Widebodies start to age out of operability, it's within the realm of reason that IL-96 production might be PROPERLY restarted. Indeed, this is exactly what has happened with Russia's narrow body airliners, as orders for them have REALLY started to pile up in the last couple of years, with Aeroflot alone currently having orders for 89 Sukhoi Superjet's, 40 Tupolev Tu-204's, and 266 Yakovlev MC-21's as of the time of writing—so yeah, if those A330's, A350's, and 777's start to get too old, maybe we will indeed see IL-96 make a return. ## Key Takeaways - The Soviet Union's IL-86 was designed to compete with the Boeing 747, featuring a wide-body design. - The IL-86 had unique design features like nine-abreast seating and slim overhead bins to accommodate Soviet airports' limitations. - The aircraft used low-bypass turbofan engines, which were less fuel-efficient but easier for the Soviets to engineer. - The IL-86 had a shorter range compared to Western counterparts due to its engine limitations and fuel capacity. - Despite its initial success, the IL-86's production was limited, with only 106 units made between 1976 and 1991. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is the IL-86? The IL-86 is a wide-body airliner developed by the Soviet Union as an attempt to create an equivalent to the Boeing 747. ### What are the dimensions of the IL-86? The IL-86 measures 60.2 meters in length with a wingspan of 48.1 meters. ### How many passengers can the IL-86 accommodate? The IL-86 can accommodate 350 passengers in an all-economy nine-abreast configuration. ### What engines power the IL-86? The IL-86 is powered by four Kuznetsov NK-86 low-bypass turbofan engines, each producing 127 kilonewtons of thrust. ### What is the maximum range of the IL-86? The IL-86 has a maximum range of approximately 2,500 nautical miles. ### What is unique about the IL-86's seating arrangement? The IL-86 has a nine-abreast seating arrangement in economy class, which is unusual as most airlines use a ten-abreast arrangement. ### Why does the IL-86 have a fourth landing gear? The IL-86 has a fourth landing gear to distribute the weight of the aircraft over 14 tyres, sparing Soviet runways from excessive load. ### What is the service history of the IL-86? The IL-86 entered service in December 1980 with Aeroflot and was used for both domestic and international flights within the Soviet Union and its allied countries. ### How many IL-86 aircraft were produced? A total of 106 IL-86 aircraft were produced between 1976 and 1991. ### What happened to the IL-86 after the Soviet Union's collapse? After the Soviet Union's collapse, most airlines in the post-Soviet space switched to Western jets. The Russian government kept a few IL-86s for military use and continued producing the IL-96 variant, a slightly more polished version of the IL-86. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: The IL-86: The Soviets' Botched Answer to the 747](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9tLTlXQios) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/VN-A515_HAN_290325.jpg) by kitmasterbloke / openverse, by. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/irans-nuclear-project https://megaprojects.pub/article/irans-nuclear-project Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT The Iranian nuclear program—we have been hearing about this for over two decades at this point. Tehran has maintained that it is for peaceful purposes; Israel asserts it is for nuclear annihilation; others have fallen somewhere between the two extremes. Whatever you may think about it, it's nothing short of impressive. Deep beneath the Iranian desert, in halls larger than aircraft hangers, thousands of centrifuges spin nearly 63,000 times per minute. Each one stands about the height of a person but thinner than a telephone pole. The noise is deafening—a high-pitched whine that never stops. Together, they're doing something that only a small handful of nations have mastered: enriching uranium on an industrial scale. This facility is Natanz, and it's just one piece of Iran's sprawling nuclear megaproject—a decades-long engineering feat that's both surprised the international community and cost the country dearly. But what makes this truly extraordinary: they built this while cut off from the world. Especially in the last two decades, Iran has been under some of the harshest sanctions imaginable. So how did a country that went from having next to zero knowledge of nuclear engineering in 1979 end up allegedly on the cusp of joining the world's nuclear-armed states? This is the story. ## Disclaimer A quick note before we begin. This article was written in the immediate aftermath of Israel's Operation Rising Lion and the United States' bombing of several of Iran's largest nuclear facilities. It is unclear how much damage has been done or what comes next. This is not the story of where Iran goes next—it's the story of how it got here, up to May 2025. ## The Revolution's Aftermath November 4, 1979—a day that would shape Iran's relationship with the international community for decades. What started as a student protest quickly spiraled out of control. Within hours, angry crowds had stormed the US Embassy, overwhelming its defenses and trapping everyone inside. For 444 days, 66 American diplomats and staff would remain hostages in what became one of the most dramatic international crises of the twentieth century. This wasn't merely a revolution, it was a message to the world that the new Islamic Republic was uncompromising and would chart its own course, unconcerned by the implications its actions may have on its standing with world powers. And those implications came swiftly. The German engineers from Siemens who had been constructing two massive 1,200-megawatt nuclear reactors at Bushehr—each capable of powering a city the size of San Francisco—packed their equipment and expertise onto the first flights out. Behind them, they left billions of dollars worth of half-finished infrastructure and a nuclear program in shambles. But the revolution's isolation was nothing compared to what followed. When Saddam Hussein launched his war against Iran, he knew exactly where to aim his bombs. Between 1984 and 1988, Iraqi aircraft struck the abandoned Bushehr facility six times. These weren't random hits—they were precision strikes designed to obliterate Iran's most advanced technological assets, and there was no one left to stop them. The message that the Iranian government took to heart—partially because of Saddam's brutality, and partially through their own self-imposed isolation from the international community—was that they stood alone. No longer could they depend on Western expertise, nor could they leave their nuclear projects exposed to air raids. They would continue to build, in secret, and alone. In 1985, Iran's leaders made their fateful decision. They would rebuild. And this time, they would trust no one. ## The Underground Years To get a better feel for what Iran actually attempted, we need to take a moment to cover the physics behind all this and what uranium enrichment actually involves. Don't worry, we're not going to drag you through a university level nuclear physics course, we promise. In nature, uranium comes in two types: U-238 and U-235. They're nearly identical—you can't tell them apart without a chemical test. But they are radically different from one another and serve radically different roles: it's U-235 that's useful in terms of designing pretty much any type of nuclear project. Reactors to power cities need uranium that's 3-5% U-235. For a nuclear weapon, you're looking at needing 90% or higher U-235. The issue here is that uranium in its natural state is roughly 99.3% U-238 and 0.7% U-235. Getting this even to the 3-5% threshold needed for nuclear power plants is a feat of modern engineering. This form of uranium is slightly lighter than its more common U-238 counterpart, which gives scientists the ability to refine it to separate the two by spinning it at incredibly high speeds. Sounds simple, right? Well, let's just say we simplified that a little bit. These are not your home washing machine spin cycles. We're talking about aluminum tubes spinning at 60,000 to 70,000 revolutions per minute—that's over 1,000 times per second. This means that the outer edge of the rotor is moving faster than the speed of sound. This is such a fine-tuned operation that even a speck of dust can throw the whole thing catastrophically out of balance. The incredible thing is that despite these incredible speeds, each centrifuge only achieves only a tiny bit of separation. To get from natural uranium to reactor fuel requires thousands of machines connected in elaborate cascading setups, each one feeding slightly more enriched product to the next. The whole system has to run continuously for months or years. Given the extreme technical specs of such an operation, Iran knew that going it truly alone without any help from abroad would take decades. This is where their neighbor in Pakistan enters the fray—or, more specifically, the Pakistani A.Q. Khan network. Khan was himself a nuclear scientist who had stolen centrifuge designs from Europe in the 1970s and smuggled them to Islamabad and played a central role in the development of their own nuclear program. In a move of incredible irresponsibility for pure personal gain, he was now selling that knowledge and schematics to the highest bidder. Through intermediaries and secret meetings in Dubai hotel rooms, Iranian agents acquired the blueprints for the P-1 centrifuge from this network, the same basic design that Pakistan had used for its nuclear energy and weapons program. These weren't cutting-edge designs by any means—the P-1 was based on early 1970s technology that was already obsolete by international standards. They were limited to only being able to enrich a tiny amount of uranium, but they were nevertheless the start of Tehran's ambitions. The Iranians wasted little time and got to work, setting up shop covertly in the Kalaye Electric Company—they did not want this getting out when the project was still in its infancy. To the outside world passing by, this building was a nondescript factory that made electrical equipment. But inside, Iran's best and brightest got to work on the ins and outs of nuclear engineering. Progress was slow, and setbacks were frustratingly common—even a stray fingerprint on the machine could be enough to throw things out of alignment and grind the whole operation to a halt. They never managed to get a high degree of reliability from the obsolete designs. They initially started small. First, a test cascade of just 19 centrifuges. When those held up, they expanded to 129 machines. At each stage of expansion, though, they ran into new problems: these machines were so fine-tuned and operated at such an extreme fringe of what human design can produce that even something as simple as slowing them down can be problematic, and this presented an unexpected challenge given all the work that went into speeding them up. They require a slowdown process to stabilize the centrifuge, and something like a power outage would send vibrations through the machine that could trigger rotors to scrape their side casing, resulting in a fatal shower of metal destroying the whole centrifuge. While it's hard to know for sure how high failure rates were in these early years, IAEA officials have stated that the failure rates can amount to ten percent per year. But Iran was learning. By 1999, after more than a decade of trial and error, they achieved a milestone: enriching uranium from natural 0.7% up to 1.2% U-235. It was nowhere near the 3.5% needed for reactor fuel, let alone weapons-grade. But it proved—at least to themselves, who were the only ones who knew at this point—that they'd mastered the basic principles and, more importantly, had begun training a generation of Iran's best and brightest in real-world applications of nuclear engineering. While scientists were continuing their work in the Kalaye Electric facility, construction crews began an entirely new project in the desert near Natanz in the late '90s. Still scarred by the destruction that Saddam's air force had inflicted on their research facilities during the war, they wanted to ensure their future facilities would be as well-protected as humanly possible. In preparation for building Natanz, Iran's engineers had studied details about every air strike they could get their hands on. They analyzed what was known about America's bunker-buster bombs, which were a relatively new development then. They knew Israel had previously destroyed Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981 to prevent Baghdad from advancing its nuclear program. This became part of Israel's "Begin Doctrine," which they made clear would not be a one-time strike but rather the policy of all future Israeli governments to engage in preemptive strikes to prevent enemies from acquiring nuclear weapons. To put it mildly, Tehran was terrified of facing the same setbacks. They knew that if their program was discovered, they would likely face the same sort of strikes from Israel. This only further emphasized the importance of making their facilities as bomb-proof as possible. Natanz was designed to be enormous. The plans called for two underground enrichment halls, each one taking up 25,000 square meters—that's six football fields of floor space per hall. All of this was designed to be 8 meters underground, protected by a 2.5 meter thick concrete "shield" above the facility. Above this, engineers were to pile an additional 22 meters of dirt and rock. Altogether, this offered over 30 meters of semi-fortified protection from whatever their enemies could drop on them. This was more than capable of withstanding any conventional ordnance, and would even hold up against all but the most advanced forms of aerial bombardment. Building underground at this scale presented other obstacles, though. Most of these centered around the fragility and sensitivity of the centrifuges, which are incredibly sensitive to even the slightest vibrations. Engineers essentially put the entire facility on shock absorbers, installing special isolation systems that could absorb the impact from minor tectonic shifts that would be imperceptible to people on the surface. Temperature control and power were two more challenges: this enrichment process both requires a massive amount of energy and produces an enormous amount of heat. Remember, they were still compensating for efficiency with volume here: if one centrifuge draws, say, 100 watts—they had to multiply that by the 50,000 machines they were planning for. That's 5 megawatts for the centrifuges themselves, which doesn't even address the massive industrial-grade cooling systems they would need to compensate for the enormous amount of heat that the facility would generate. Despite these challenges, Iran was locked in. And it started paying off: with Natanz's completion, they were ready to scale up from a hidden workshop into something that could be considered more of an industrial scale. By 2002, all the pieces were beginning to come together: the first cascade of 164 centrifuges was assembled, with components for thousands more ready. Iran had at this point spent 17 years building in secret. But secrets this big don't stay hidden forever. ## Exposure, and the Race Against Time All of this development and research had gone on largely in the dark. US and Israeli intelligence had been suspicious that Tehran wanted to pursue a nuclear route and were keeping tabs on their efforts dating back to the 1990s—in particular, the growing imports of components required for centrifuge development. All of this was kept top secret though, with most of the international community knowing next to nothing about Tehran's ambitions or progress. That is, until 2002. In August that year, a group of Iranian dissidents made a startling announcement at a press conference in Washington, D.C. Alireza Jafarzadeh, who was the spokesperson for a controversial Iranian group that somehow had managed to get on the wrong side of both the US and the Ayatollah, announced to the world that Tehran had a secret nuclear program and was building two facilities that would be capable of producing material that could fuel a nuclear bomb. Given the group's isolated relationship with the international community, there was some skepticism about the validity of their claims. They would, however, prove to be largely correct: even a stopped clock's right twice a day. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) immediately demanded access to the facilities in accordance with international nuclear agreements. By February 2003, IAEA Director Mohamed El Baradei arrived at the Natanz facility and was alarmed at what he found. The sophistication of the Iranian program actually exceeded what the initial reports suggested. The plant at the time of his arrival contained 164 assembled centrifuges, along with components for 1,000 more in storage. Environmental samples revealed traces of enriched uranium, indicating that the facility was in operation. Iran was backed into a corner by this point and could only deny so much without losing all credibility with the international community. At this point, they admitted that they had been conducting secret nuclear research and development activities for the past 18 years, including hidden uranium enrichment experiments, plutonium separation tests, and massive facility construction. Despite getting caught and in spite of the widespread condemnation from its neighbors and broader international community, Tehran doubled down on its project. They had come this far and weren't going back—the die was cast, to borrow a phrase. By 2006, Iran had successfully overhauled the P-1 centrifuges which by this point had become massively outdated and had long since reached the limits of their enrichment capabilities. They constructed 164 centrifuges along their domestically designed IR-1 model, which successfully enriched uranium to 3.5%—reactor grade. Iran insisted—as it does to this day—that this was for purely peaceful nuclear energy. At this time, they had in certain circles the benefit of the doubt—3.5% is precisely the level you need to fuel a nuclear power plant. But even here, anything more than a surface level analysis raises questions as to just how honest they were: Iran was building far more centrifuges than they would need to fuel a nuclear power plant. The massive underground halls at Natanz were designed to hold 50,000 machines—this is enough to produce fuel for a dozen power plants. Keep in mind that on top of this, they had a total of one reactor—and it was unfinished. The UN Security Council wasn't buying Tehran's rationale. They passed multiple resolutions demanding Iran cease enriching uranium entirely—although this largely fell on deaf ears, as they only began installing even more centrifuges. The numbers can speak for themselves here: in 2007, they had 3,000 centrifuges spinning in Natanz. By 2009, that figure had grown to over 8,000. The underground halls, which had sat largely empty for years, began to fill with row after row of these machines. Another revelation came in September 2009, when Western intelligence agencies uncovered and made public a second massive nuclear facility at Fordow. This place took the security of Natanz to a different level—it is carved deep into a mountain, through 80 meters of solid rock and granite. This was a true mountain bunker and possibly one of the most difficult to penetrate facilities in the world. While perhaps impenetrable through conventional approaches, 2010 shook the Islamic Republic's confidence in the facility with the unraveling of the Stuxnet virus allegedly programmed by the US and Israel that began programming the centrifuges to literally destroy themselves. Given how sensitive these machines are to even the slightest change in operation, it didn't take much—no exploding pagers were needed here. All said and done, this destroyed somewhere in the vicinity of 1,000 centrifuges. While devastating in the moment, this proved to be only a minor setback for Iran though. Within a year, they'd not only replaced all of the destroyed machines but had massively upgraded their cyber security to ensure that such an attack would never be successful again. Perhaps more important, though, was their decision in the light of this attack to increase their enrichment all the way up to 20 percent. The physics of this comes into play again here: the difficulty of enriching uranium is not a linear process, where taking it to 10% would be as difficult as it would be to take it from 60% to 90%, for instance. Their announcement that they would enrich up to 20% meant that they were far closer capability wise to weapon-level purity than a linear understanding of the percentages would indicate to a lay observer. Iran's justification to the international community was that they would be using this to power the Tehran Research Reactor in order to make medical isotopes for cancer treatment. This has the veneer of authenticity: their reactor would use this uranium to create medical radioisotopes used in millions of cancer diagnostic scans worldwide. This did not hold up to scrutiny very well, though. The international community had access to the specs for the Tehran Research Reactor—it was tiny. It would take about 5 kilograms of 20% enriched uranium per year to keep it running. Their project was producing orders of magnitude more than this, and they were showing no signs of slowing down—quite the opposite, they were speeding up. The world was not fooled. It is here that Iran can really be seen as going it alone, breaking off any semblance of wanting to pursue this exclusively for non-weapons related purposes—and what followed was its result. ## Industrial Scale and the Nuclear Deal By 2011, Iran's nuclear program had reached truly industrial scale. The numbers speak for themselves: nearly 19,000 centrifuges installed across Natanz and Fordow, with about 10,000 actively enriching uranium. Iran was producing 150 kilograms of low-enriched uranium per month, plus 5-7 kilograms of 20% enriched material. They weren't just adding machines—the days of quantity over quality were over. They were innovating, which given their international isolation has to be acknowledged as a rather impressive feat. The IR-2m centrifuge that was rolled out in 2013 was four times as efficient as the IR-1 model, which in and of itself had been a large leap ahead from the days of the P-1 design they had purchased. This allowed Iran to accumulate over 7,000 kilograms of low-enriched uranium and nearly 200 kilograms exceeding 20%. Meanwhile, they achieved another milestone around this time: the Bushehr nuclear power plant, which had been abandoned by the Germans all those years ago, finally went critical—the technical term for achieving a self-sustained nuclear reaction. International concern was at an all time high. North Korea, one of the only other states that matched Iran's isolation on the global stage, was ambitiously pursuing its own nuclear program—and it seemed increasingly likely that they would be successful in this pursuit. Pyongyang had earned the title of the "hermit kingdom" because it truly was the most isolated country on earth, and did not seem willing to negotiate in good faith on just about anything—even if that meant widespread famine throughout the country as a result of international sanctions combined with their poor food production. Iran, it was hoped, would be more willing to negotiate. While talks initially went nowhere given then-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hardline approach. As a prerequisite to any negotiations, he insisted on several demands that amounted to essentially a poison pill from the get-go, especially demanding that any deal explicitly recognize Iran's right to enrich uranium. In general, he was a difficult man to work with—he intentionally antagonized the international community with repeated Holocaust denial statements as well as a rather frequent affinity for declaring that Israel would be "eliminated." The election of President Hassan Rouhani in 2013 presented a more realistic way to negotiate with Tehran. While much power rests with the Ayatollah, the President is free to engage in international negotiations—which Rouhani was willing to do. Amid sanctions that were crushing Iran's economy—oil exports, which formed the bedrock of their GDP, had plummeted from 2.5 million barrels per day to just 1 million, the Rial had lost more than 80% of its value, inflation was unchecked. Rouhani was far more willing to negotiate than his predecessor. After two years of intensive negotiations, the result was the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), finalized in July 2015. Under the deal, Iran accepted some restrictions: they would reduce operational centrifuges from 19,000 to just 5,060, limit enrichment to 3.67%, shrink their enriched uranium stockpile from over 7,000 kg to just 300 kg, pour concrete into the Arak reactor core to permanently disable it, and accept continuous IAEA monitoring with cameras and sensors throughout their facilities. The deal wasn't without controversy—critics pointed out that many restrictions would sunset after 10-15 years, potentially allowing Iran to resume large-scale enrichment legally. Arab nations like Saudi Arabia and the UAE viewed the agreement with deep suspicion, fearing it would legitimize Iran's nuclear capabilities and strengthen their regional rival. Israel was deeply skeptical about it, and Republicans in the United States were dead set against it. In exchange, Iran would get sanctions relief. Implementation was swift and dramatic. By January 2016, Iran had removed 13,000 centrifuges—more than two-thirds of their fleet. They shipped out tons of enriched uranium to Russia. The underground halls at Natanz that once hummed with thousands of machines stood largely empty. In one of the most dramatic moves, Iran removed the reactor core from Arak and filled it with concrete, rendering the reactor permanently inoperable. For three years, the deal held. But in May 2018, everything changed. The United States, under President Donald Trump, withdrew from the JCPOA and reimposed crushing sanctions. Iran's oil exports plummeted again. The other parties to the deal—Europe, Russia, and China—tried to salvage it, but they couldn't offset American economic pressure. Whether or not this was justified is a subject for another day, but it was a decision that led us to where we are today in 2025. ## The Threshold Approaches Despite ongoing attempts from Europe to salvage the JCPOA, the deal was effectively dead. If the US wasn't going to play ball, neither was Tehran. In the minds of many European leaders, this was a catastrophe that they believed would all but guarantee Iran would achieve nuclear proliferation. Others, most notably in Washington, Jerusalem, as well as several notable Arab states, viewed this as a better alternative—they believed that the JCPOA only prolonged the inevitable, and by the time the deal expired, Tehran would have benefited from the broad loosening of sanctions and would thus be both free to pursue a nuclear weapon while also benefiting from significant inflows of cash. Regardless of the mindsets here, Iran was done. They were not willing to re enter into nuclear talks for a newly negotiated deal and began breaching one limit from the JCPOA at a time. Each one was carefully calibrated to both demonstrate capability and test the international response. First, they exceeded the 300 kilogram uranium stockpile limit. Then, they started enriching above 3.67%. By this point more or less unchecked by anything the international community could throw at them—sanctions had already been cranked back up to high levels—Iran really went full speed ahead. They rolled out the IR-4 and IR-6 designs, which were ten times more efficient than the original IR-1, only to outdo themselves in short succession with the IR-8 and IR-9 models, with the latter claiming to be fifty times more efficient at uranium enrichment as their original model. Things really began to fall off a cliff by this point—in January 2021, they announced that they would begin enriching to 20% at Fordow, their mountain fortress. They achieved this within weeks, and by April that year made a follow-up announcement that they would enrich to 60%. Iran had maintained that their research and enrichment were all for peaceful purposes, and pointed to their membership in the Non-Proliferation Treaty and ongoing acceptance of IAEA monitoring. While they may have been able to pull off that claim in the beginning, all credibility that this program was for energy alone was lost by this point. There is simply no civilian justification for 60% enrichment. No power reactor uses it, no research facility needs it. Taking this material from 60% to 90%—weapons grade—is a very short step. It didn't take long to approach this level—only a matter of days after beginning the process with their IR-6 centrifuges at Natanz. By late that year, they were producing kilograms monthly. In 2022, they installed even more sophisticated cascades at Fordow that would take natural uranium—remember, this clocks in at 0.7% enrichment—to 60% in one continuous process. By 2023, a damning IAEA report revealed that they had discovered uranium particles that had been enriched as high as 83.7% at Fordow. Iran actually did address this—they claimed it was an "unexpected fluctuation"—although by this point it largely fell on deaf ears. The current numbers paint a sobering picture for anyone still maintaining that the Iranian program had not at least transformed into a weapons-aimed one. As of late 2024, Iran has over 12,000 operational centrifuges, including thousands of advanced models, more than 275 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium with no civilian use, and thousands more kilograms of 20% uranium. International analysts calculated Iran's "breakout time" in the lead up to the strikes—the time needed to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for one bomb—at just 4-5 weeks. With their advanced centrifuges and 60% stockpile, they've completed most of the journey to weapons-grade material. All this while containers of Iranian oil are quite literally sitting around going bad because the sanctions regime has made it impossible to sell. One thing is clear: this is not for energy. ## Conclusion Iran's nuclear program is different things to different people—and often gets combined in discussion without appreciating the nuances and differences in aspects here. To some, this is nothing other than an existential threat. To others, it's a symbol of national determination and progress for peaceful purposes in spite of widespread global opposition. To others still, it's a necessary weapons program that will offer the only deterrent that would stop Iran's enemies from seeking to topple it. Debates on this subject often lump together different components and aspects of this issue. Whether or not Iran does or should have a right to enrich uranium to levels needed for nuclear power is a separate question from whether they should have the ability to enrich as they have been lately. Regardless of the claims from the Iranian government, recent moves can be seen as nothing other than a clear indication that they are intent on developing this into a nuclear weapon. All this said, and regardless of the fallout from the 2025 conflict with Israel and the United States, this can be seen as nothing short of a monumental accomplishment for the Islamic Republic. Consider how far they've come: they've constructed elaborate and sophisticated underground facilities, developed indigenous technology progressing from 1970s Pakistani designs to cutting-edge centrifuges, and trained a generation of Iranian scientists in the specifications to do all of this. What's more, they did all this while essentially cut off—especially in the latter years—from international markets and without much technical support or training from outside their borders. That said, all this has come at a massive cost. They have impoverished much of their population because of the results of international sanctions which, depending on your perspective, they were either unwilling to work to improve for years or willing to endure without negotiating seriously since the program was unveiled in 2002. Where this program goes from here is anyone's guess—only time will tell, and we'll be sure to keep you updated as it unfolds. That is neither the subject nor scope of today's conversation, though—this is the story of how Iran built one of the most impressive megaprojects in total international isolation. ## Key Takeaways - Iran's nuclear program, despite international sanctions, has developed sophisticated underground facilities and advanced centrifuges. - The program began in the 1980s, driven by a desire for self-reliance after the Iranian Revolution and the Iran-Iraq War. - Iran's enrichment capabilities have progressed from obsolete Pakistani designs to cutting-edge centrifuges, enriching uranium to high levels. - The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) temporarily limited Iran's nuclear activities, but the U.S. withdrawal in 2018 led to renewed enrichment. - As of 2025, Iran's nuclear program is seen as a significant threat, with the capability to produce weapons-grade uranium quickly. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is the Natanz facility? The Natanz facility is an underground enrichment complex in Iran designed to house thousands of centrifuges for uranium enrichment. It is built to withstand aerial bombardment and is protected by a thick concrete shield and layers of dirt and rock. ### Why did Iran build its nuclear facilities underground? Iran built its nuclear facilities underground to protect them from aerial bombardment, particularly from Israel, which has a policy of preemptive strikes against nuclear threats. ### What is the significance of the 20% uranium enrichment level? Enriching uranium to 20% is a significant step towards weapons-grade material, as it is much closer to the 90% needed for a nuclear weapon than the 3-5% required for nuclear power plants. ### What was the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)? The JCPOA was a 2015 agreement where Iran agreed to limit its nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. It included restrictions on the number of centrifuges, enrichment levels, and stockpiles of enriched uranium. ### What happened after the U.S. withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018? After the U.S. withdrew from the JCPOA and reimposed sanctions, Iran began breaching the limits set by the agreement, increasing its uranium enrichment levels and stockpiles. ### What is the 'breakout time' in the context of Iran's nuclear program? The 'breakout time' refers to the time needed for Iran to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for one nuclear bomb. As of late 2024, it was estimated to be around 4-5 weeks. ### What was the impact of the Stuxnet virus on Iran's nuclear program? The Stuxnet virus, allegedly developed by the U.S. and Israel, caused significant damage to Iran's centrifuges, destroying around 1,000 of them. However, Iran quickly replaced the destroyed machines and improved its cybersecurity. ### What is the significance of the IR-6 centrifuge model? The IR-6 centrifuge model is significantly more efficient than previous models, capable of enriching uranium to high levels more quickly. It played a crucial role in Iran's ability to enrich uranium to 60% and beyond. ### What was the role of the A.Q. Khan network in Iran's nuclear program? The A.Q. Khan network provided Iran with blueprints for the P-1 centrifuge, an outdated but functional design that helped Iran start its uranium enrichment program. ### What is the Fordow facility? The Fordow facility is a highly secure underground nuclear site carved into a mountain, designed to be resistant to conventional aerial attacks. It is used for uranium enrichment and is one of Iran's most fortified nuclear sites. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: Iran's Nuclear Project](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qp9tUY6Irw) - [https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-uranium-enrichment-germany-israel-c9b3669a7721bd8929d465117c81b70f](https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-uranium-enrichment-germany-israel-c9b3669a7721bd8929d465117c81b70f) - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan_Rouhani](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan_Rouhani) - [https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/ahmadinejad-predicts-us-demise-israels-disappearance](https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/ahmadinejad-predicts-us-demise-israels-disappearance) - [https://www.reuters.com/article/world/in-new-york-defiant-ahmadinejad-says-israel-will-be-eliminated-idUSBRE88N0HG/](https://www.reuters.com/article/world/in-new-york-defiant-ahmadinejad-says-israel-will-be-eliminated-idUSBRE88N0HG/) - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad) - [https://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iran403/background.html](https://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iran403/background.html) - [https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/08/international/chronology-of-irans-nuclear-program.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/08/international/chronology-of-irans-nuclear-program.html) - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begin_Doctrine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begin_Doctrine) - [https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/31/damning-iaea-report-spells-out-past-secret-nuclear-activities-in-iran.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/31/damning-iaea-report-spells-out-past-secret-nuclear-activities-in-iran.html) - [https://www.criticalthreats.org/analysis/the-iranian-nuclear-program-timelines-data-and-estimates-v3-0](https://www.criticalthreats.org/analysis/the-iranian-nuclear-program-timelines-data-and-estimates-v3-0) - [https://www.criticalthreats.org/analysis/iran-prepared-to-deter-and-defend-against-a-military-strike-while-increasing-leverage-for-talks-with-the-biden-administration](https://www.criticalthreats.org/analysis/iran-prepared-to-deter-and-defend-against-a-military-strike-while-increasing-leverage-for-talks-with-the-biden-administration) - [https://www.timesofisrael.com/explainer-the-handful-of-facilities-at-the-core-of-irans-nuclear-program/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/explainer-the-handful-of-facilities-at-the-core-of-irans-nuclear-program/) - [https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/status-irans-nuclear-program-1](https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/status-irans-nuclear-program-1) - [https://www.nti.org/education-center/facilities/natanz-enrichment-complex/](https://www.nti.org/education-center/facilities/natanz-enrichment-complex/) - [https://www.iranwatch.org/our-publications/articles-reports/explainer-irans-centrifuges](https://www.iranwatch.org/our-publications/articles-reports/explainer-irans-centrifuges) - [https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-natanz-uranium-enrichment-underground-project-04dae673fc937af04e62b65dd78db2e0](https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-natanz-uranium-enrichment-underground-project-04dae673fc937af04e62b65dd78db2e0) - [https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2014-06/features/agreeing-limits-irans-centrifuge-program-two-stage-strategy](https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2014-06/features/agreeing-limits-irans-centrifuge-program-two-stage-strategy) - [https://apnews.com/article/iran-iaea-us-nuclear-talks-inspectors-585750d54eea24ed39f229b701313998](https://apnews.com/article/iran-iaea-us-nuclear-talks-inspectors-585750d54eea24ed39f229b701313998) - [https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/strange-bedfellows-saudi-arabia-israel-oppose-iran-nuclear-deal-for-different-reasons/](https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/strange-bedfellows-saudi-arabia-israel-oppose-iran-nuclear-deal-for-different-reasons/) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/Israeli_Airstrikes_on_the_Natanz_Nuclear_Facility_during_Operation_Rising_Lion.png) by WeatherWriter / openverse, by-sa. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/javier-milei-radical-plan-save-argentina https://megaprojects.pub/article/javier-milei-radical-plan-save-argentina Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT You may have heard of Argentina in the news quite a lot recently. From stories of great economic peril to bitter street protests, and to the firebrand President currently at the centre of all the furore, it is clear that something mega is taking place in Argentina. So what gives? Well first, it's important to get a background to the economic landscape in Argentina, which — for many years — has oscillated between 'okay' and terrible. Argentina has — for some time now — been an economy noteworthy for its high volatility. While it was at some point one of the world's fastest-growing economies, it has also experienced dramatic economic decline and stagnation which left its economy artificially propped up by its government. And all this has led to a vicious sequence of recessions and instability, which Javier Milei, an economist and university professor-turned President, is now seeking to undo. Let's explore. ## An Economic History of Argentina In the late 1800s, Argentina was described as a poor, agrarian society lacking amenities such as electricity and road infrastructure. But this changed as the 20th century progressed. In the early part of the century, a phenomenon known as the Great European Immigration Wave occurred in Argentina. Migrants, many of them from Spain and Italy but also other European countries, began arriving and settling in Argentina. They were joined by smaller streams of migrants from other parts of the globe, including many Syrians and Lebanese. This would change much for Argentina, not least by causing it to become incredibly diverse. Soon, large numbers of Argentinians claimed German and Middle-Eastern origin, with Argentina also having one of the largest Jewish populations in the world, something which remains true to this day. The jump in population, combined with the expertise brought by the immigrant populations, helped revolutionise Argentina's economy and its day-to-day standard of living. Suddenly Argentina became an exporter of meat as well as grain and other agricultural products. These became exported across the world and helped Argentina's economy to grow at pace. With a skilled workforce, a bountiful and fertile agricultural landscape, and with plenty of countries who'd ruined themselves with war in the early twentieth century being in need of food imports, Argentina became one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. But the happy evolution hit a wall with the Great Depression in 1929. Though Argentinian exports were thriving, this was largely dependent on people having the money in importing countries to buy their products. When the Great Depression levelled peoples' livelihoods, many no longer had the money to afford their homes, let alone Argentinian steaks and other produce. Exports dried up, as did imports from countries whose economic systems had been devastated by the shock. So Argentina began to wither too. The economy did recover, and new waves of migration helped Argentina to grow once more, doing so successively over several further decades. But the shock of the Great Depression brought into play political currents which would come to have a lasting effect on Argentina's development. One year after the Depression hit, Argentina's liberal government was ousted by a right-wing coup d'état. This led to what became known as La Concordancia, when no less than three Presidents exchanged power for more than a decade. The period, remembered in Argentina as the Infamous Decade, saw much corruption and mismanagement, as well as an increased presence in Argentinian politics of the military. This culminated in 1946 with the election (as President) of Juan Domingo Perón. ## Peronism Perón was known for combining elements of both socialism and fascism, and favouring an economic system focused on domestic self-sufficiency rather than reliance on exports — something known as 'autarky'. He led Argentina for nine years, and again for a year shortly before his death in the 1970s. Perón was the leader of the so-called Justicialist Party from 1946 for the rest of his life, and his political and economic outlook came to be known as Peronism. Peronism was a bit of a chaotic ideology, but nonetheless remained a potent force in Argentina for decades even after Juan Perón's death. Its policies included notions of social justice, economic nationalism, as well as international non‐alignment. The ideology is important in order to understand the relative disarray that the Argentinian economy later fell into. Argentinian Economist Emilio Ocampo has described Peronism as 'chameleonic populism'. According to him, while left-wing populism promoted class conflict and right-wing populism promoted xenophobia, Peronism simply alternated between both. After Perón's death, Argentina underwent a colourful changing of hands in the 1970s and 1980s — first a brutal military dictatorship, and later a centrist government under a liberal party, the Radical Civic Union. But by May 1989, Peronism was back under new President Carlos Menem — though his economic programme, including the privatisation of state‐owned industries to foreign buyers, quickly betrayed many Peronist principles. After a brief interlude between 1999 and 2001, when the Radical Civic Union returned to power, the Peronists returned to the fore with Néstor Kirchner, who was succeeded in 2007 by his wife, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. The Peronist streak was broken again in 2015 with the election for a single term of President Mauricio Macri of the right-leaning Republican Proposal or 'PRO', but by then the Justicialist Party had a huge presence in Argentina's Congress, and continued to dominate Argentinian politics right up until the election of Javier Milei. In short, by the 2020s, Argentina had been led by Peronists for twenty-four of the previous thirty years. And while Peronism — especially under the Kirchners in the 21st century — changed its colours many times, the programme has remained relatively steadfast on at least some policy areas. As described by Ocampo, the Peronist programme has consistently included: - high tax rates - high government spending on construction, public education, healthcare and social programs - increased trade union membership and labour regulation - significant business regulation and state intervention in economic activity - protectionism and restrictions on capital inflows and outflows - universal health coverage - national rent controls Practically all of these are things that Javier Milei would — in his own words — would seek to take a chainsaw to when he came into power. But more on that in a bit. ## A Political Muddle Now, before we get into Javier Milei and his bombastic notions on revamping Argentina, it is important to understand just why the Peronist platform — at least, in the current context — is seen by some as a spent ideology. And to do that, it is best to describe just what the recent economic history of Argentina has been like. For one thing, while Argentina and all of South America escaped the economic and infrastructural destruction of the First and Second World Wars, that did not mean that conflict escaped them — at least, not entirely. Much of Latin America became embroiled in political strife of various kinds during the mid and late-twentieth century. This typically involved revolutionary forces and leftist organisations battling it out with right-wing governments and militant factions. Argentina largely escaped this, but it meant that economic relations with surrounding countries were often thrown into the air according to which government was in place in either country at any given time — and many of these governments shapeshifted routinely throughout the late twentieth century. And then there was the fact that Argentina had its own — brief — war in 1982, when it occupied the British-owned Falkland Islands. The lead-up to the war had been marked by the declining performance of Argentina's economy. Like with many authoritarian governments, the Argentinian government of the time — a military junta — decided the best way to distract everyone would be to bring the long standing Falklands dispute back to the fore. But the occupation of the islands by Argentinian troops was met with a heavy-handed response by the UK government under Margaret Thatcher, and Argentina ultimately accomplished neither control over the islands nor military success of any kind. They lost over six hundred soldiers in the two-month conflict, and suffered a national trauma when the warship General Belgrano was scuttled by a British submarine, resulting in 323 deaths. This spelled the end of the junta, and started a new period in Argentina's political history. The following years led to soul-searching that ultimately brought the Peronists back into power, with the party having changed tack in the intervening period from its fascist origins to a more left-leaning platform. As the years advanced, the government doubled the size of the public sector and introduced expensive subsidies and tight regulation upon the economy. In general, Argentina's economy under the Justicialist Party became somewhat artificial, with the tight controls allowing favouritism, stagnant productivity and poor economic growth. And Argentina's staggered growth made it one of the most risky countries for speculators to invest in: when the good times roll, returns on investment are fantastic. When they don't; they are lethal. And at times, the weaknesses in Argentina's economy were not visible to the naked eye. Take the following case-in-point: on paper, in 2023, Argentina was a relative economic success story. At 632 billion dollars, its GDP was the highest in Latin America after Mexico and Brazil — both of which have population sizes many times larger than Argentina. But Argentina also has a very high rate of poverty, and has suffered cyclical recessions in recent years, alternating between growth and vicious decline. A lot of the comforts enjoyed by its citizens came from support provided by the state, all of which has become unsustainable as the years have progressed and inflation rose. It also didn't help the Peronist Justicialist Party that as the 21st-century advanced, ideological divisions in the party became apparent. Under the Kirchners — first Néstor and then his wife Christina — a new strain of Peronism emerged. Known as Kirchnerism, it took on an even more left-leaning guise, being described by some as left-wing populism. Naturally, this represented a rather huge departure from the fascist-infused positions of Juan Perón himself, and also didn't sit particularly comfortably with conservative Peronists, leading to the rise of so-called Federal Peronism in response. All this led to a confusing sequence of Peronist alliances at the national level, starting with the Front for Victory in 2003 when Nestor took power. This became Citizen's Unity in 2017, which in turn became Frente de Todos in 2019, and finally the Union for the Homeland was formed ahead of the 2023 election which the Peronists lost to Milei. Amidst all this, Covid-19 had flattened world trade and the Argentinian economy was floundering, limping from recession to recession. By 2024, Argentina had surged to an inflation rate of over 250 percent, a poverty level impacting half the population, and practically everyone agreed that something needed to be done to account for its post-Covid downturn. That's when a leather-busting, sideburn-rocking Economics professor rose to prominence. ## Javier Milei — the Rockstar Economist Milei identifies as an anarcho-capitalist, minarchist, and Classical Liberal. Those are all rather fanciful terms, so rather than delving into what they mean — or at least, what they mean to Milei — it is perhaps easier to understand what those terms reject. ### Anti-Keynesianism Keynesian economic theory owes its name to John Maynard Keynes, a famous British economist from the early 20th century. The theory is important to understand, as it has become a dominant school of thought in macroeconomics, and a common framework used by countries' governments to keep themselves afloat amid market fluctuation. One of the primary objects of Keynesianism is that governments — in times of economic difficulty — should spend more in order to provide as much boost to the economy as possible. While this seems somewhat logical, it went completely against the previous wisdom of reducing spending, as was (and is) commonly the case for a cash-strapped government. It also went against the tactic of doing nothing, one of the principle benchmarks of laissez-faire capitalism. Javier Milei rejects Keynes' theory entirely. In fact, he describes it as evil, and an enemy in disguise of economic prosperity. This is perhaps surprising. Keynesianism is, after all, one of the dominant schools of thought within capitalism, and Milei's enthusiasm for capitalism is not questioned. He loudly rejects communism and socialism, ruling out any cooperation with states subscribed to either one, and has referred to China — with which Argentina established close economic ties under Christina Fernández de Kirchner — as an "assassin" country. But Milei instead subscribes to a different branch of economic thought, the so-called Austrian School, a sort of counterpart theory to Keynesianism. The Austrian School focuses heavily on so-called marginal utility, believing that excess produce is harmful to an individual or economy only if the item does not have tangible use. This contrasts starkly with laissez-faire capitalism, which supports the production of as much of a given product as a country feels like and letting the market decide what is to be done with the excess, and also with Keynes' positions, which — in theory — favours high taxes on productive exporters, at least in times of prosperity. It seems to be this which Milei is trying to overturn, in line with Austrian theory, instead favouring less restrictions upon exporters. In essence, Milei wants to do away with state restrictions on economic activity as much as possible, and to provide as much freedom as possible to Argentina's industries to produce, sell and return the country to prosperity in an organic sort of way. ### Anti-Statism Amongst his many bullish statements while on the campaign trail, Milei made it clear that in addition to slashing taxes and government protections, he would seek to remove any barriers to entrepreneurship and production that he believed represented an overstep by the government into the personal freedoms of the people. In an interview with *The Economist* one month before the Presidential election, Milei declared: > "Liberalism is the unrestricted respect for the life project of others, based on the principle of non-aggression and defence of the right to life, liberty and property". Part of this statement made reference to Milei's opposition to abortion, a central theme in his social policy. The rest related to his planned economic overhaul, characterised by privatisation and anti-statism, or the desire to limit the intervention of the state in all that concerned citizens' economic freedoms, including state-funded economic supports. In the same interview, Milei declared that he did not believe the state to be a force of economic good for its citizens, and was instead something more like an insurer: one which would prevent its citizens from disaster, but was not a force which could or should allow them to accomplish prosperity without personal endeavour. Milei has gone so far as to label the state as 'a criminal organisation that lives off a coercive source of income called taxes'. He conceded that his model of economics, prioritising political and economic freedom at the cost of the welfare state, is not a model currently followed by any government that he could think of. But he remained resolved in his conviction that governments in general — and the Argentinian government in particular — had failed in their self-declared duty to free the citizens from hardship, and that his vision of an economically liberal state with few protections for the citizens would ultimately result in a greater prosperity for all. In his own words, Milei described the current system in Argentina as one giving the population fish, and his proposed vision would be one intended to teach them how to fish. He would soon get his chance. ## A Shock to the System With austerity hanging in the air, on October 23rd 2023, Argentinians went to the polls. The results turned out a decisive victory for Milei, winning 55.7 percent of the vote and triumphing over the Peronist government and their candidate, economy minister Sergio Massa. His Presidency secured, Milei went to work — and began to introduce the dramatic changes which he described as 'economic shock therapy'. When he took office in December, inflation for the month spiked to a record high of 25%. However, this was likely something of a false flag, attenuated because he abolished the price controls of the previous government, which masked the high levels of inflation which were otherwise occurring. One of his first moves was to devalue the ailing Argentinian peso by half. Due to Argentina's runaway inflation, the currency had already devalued from around 60 to the US dollar in 2020, to 330 by the time Milei was elected. As a result, black market trading of dollars had become a common occurrence in Argentina, and the cost of everyday items was soaring. Milei's devaluation caused the peso to immediately rocket to around 800 to the US dollar, and it is expected to hit 1000 by December 2024, although his ultimate intention is to slow the inflation down. Now, before we move on, a side note. It's important to note that Milei, while popular, does not — by any means — enjoy much support in the Argentinian political sphere, and it is unlikely he will have complete freedom to overhaul Argentina without some help. His party — La Libertad Avanza — was founded as a standalone party just one month before the election, and has little standing in either the Senate or Chamber of Deputies, the houses of the Argentinian Congress: where it holds just seven percent and fifteen percent of seats respectively. The Parliament remains largely dominated by figures from rival factions — including the Peronist Union for the Homeland, which alone holds almost half of all seats in the Senate, and 40 percent in the Chamber of Deputies. In order to pass new laws, Milei needs Congress to sign off on them — which, given that his government does not hold a majority of seats, is largely dependent on the consent of the opposition, especially the Union for the Homeland. But for Milei, a lack of partners in Argentina's Upper and Lower Chambers is not a problem. Prior to his election, he had mentioned he was willing to work with any faction which would favour the ideas of freedom, specifically referring by name to the Republican Proposal party under former President Mauricio Macri, with whom he now sits in a minority government. He also indicated he would be content to work with the opposition — in practice, the Peronists — although his presidency has so far been punctuated by a poor relationship with them. In general, Milei has enthusiastically pursued a bad relationship with the left, both domestically and internationally. Six months after assuming office, Milei visited Spain — but rather than first meeting with the King or government as would be the norm, he spoke at a rally organised by the right wing Vox party in Madrid, on the eve of the June 2024 European Parliament elections. And domestically, while Milei may need the Congress to sign off on new laws, he does have the power to issue Presidential decrees through existing laws. And he has used this power with reckless abandon. ## Milei Fires Up the Chainsaw Armed with his powers as Head of Government, Milei flung himself into action. Aside from devaluing the peso and cutting public spending, Milei set his sights on undoing other features of the Peronist system and state structures he deemed unnecessary. He had promised to reduce the number of ministries of the state to eight, keeping the Ministries of Economy, Infrastructure, Foreign Affairs, Human Capital, Security, Justice, Defense and the Interior — but doing away with all sixteen others. As promised, he began doing just that, dissolving the Ministries of Transport, Culture, Education, Tourism, Science and others, and converting them into Secretariats overseen by the eight remaining Ministries. He also cut back subsidies on oil, gas, water and public transport, which the socialist government that preceded him had put into place and which lowered costs for the citizens — but which were likely unsustainable. The dissolution of Ministries and spending cuts resulted in a sudden halt to many infrastructure projects, including schools, hospitals, highways, and administrative buildings. Thousands of construction workers were laid off. But Milei didn't stop there. He also sought to undo Kirchnerist policies as much as possible, especially where it resulted in the creation of unnecessary jobs. Perhaps the biggest casualty of this was Télam, a state-run media agency founded in 1945 by Juan Perón, and accused by Milei of spreading Kirchnerist propaganda. He also announced that the agency had accumulated a deficit of over 20 million US dollars, and Télam was dissolved in July 2024 at a cost of 770 jobs. A new news agency was established in its place, run by the Chief of the Cabinet of Ministers directly. Milei also promised that he would privatise public companies. So he set that plan in motion too. In September 2024, Milei announced plans to privatise the national airline — Aerolineas Argentinas — by Presidential decree. Two months before, he declared the same plans for Argentina's football clubs, declaring he would open them to investment from external entities. This is something common in Europe, but not in Argentina — where clubs operate effectively as charities, allowing them to be owned by civil associations representing the fans. In Milei's own words, "anything that could be privatised, would be privatised". He even announced plans to raise 800 million dollars by auctioning off more than 400 state properties across Argentina. One such property is the former headquarters of the dissolved Ministry of Women, Genders and Diversity, which was located in the Buenos Aires neighbourhood of San Telmo in a building valued at around 12.5 million US dollars. And the same month, Milei memorably presented his much-anticipated new budget to the Argentinian Congress. With his back turned to the Economy Minister, he doubled down on his acrimonious relationship with the Congress by calling lawmakers 'miserable rats who bet against the country'. In his plans, he moved assertively ahead with his plans for further cuts to public spending, targeting a primary surplus of 1.3% of GDP, a GDP growth rate of 5% for 2025, and an annual reduced to 18% — down from more than one hundred percent consistently in the past years. The plans are nothing short of ambitious. And as predicted — not least by Milei himself — his furious policies have resulted in a steep cost to the everyday Argentinian. The cuts to subsidies have resulted in the price of everyday goods having risen drastically. In practice, whatever was bought at a grocery store for 200 dollars previously would now be bought for 400 dollars. *Al Jazeera* added that the biggest distinction was felt by the lower-middle class, who saw their ability to pursue leisure activities reduced, and the bite was also felt by pensioners, who saw the purchasing power of their pensions reduced, as Milei vetoed a Peronist push to increase pensions in response to the cuts. Moreover, Milei's reforms have resulted in tens of thousands of redundancies, especially in the public sector. It remains rather unclear how many public sector employees he actually intends to lay off, but it is generally expected that at least 70,000 jobs are at risk, especially those on temporary contracts issued by the government. By October 2024, according to *El País*, around 24,000 public sector workers had been laid off. ## Will it Work? Despite his flurry of activity, Milei will require at least some cooperation from Parliament and Argentina's courts to push through some of his reforms. As an example, his contentious move to privatise Argentina's football clubs was blocked by a Buenos Aires court, and some of his bills — including his budget — need to be approved by the opposition-dominated Congress, the same ones he'd infamously called 'miserable rats'. The Congress already rejected a law to increase the intelligence services budget by 100 million dollars, and Milei can probably expect similar opprobrium on other proposed laws. With that said, Milei can counter by wielding his power to veto the opposition's own bills, such as those designed to reduce the pinch of austerity measures. That is exactly what he has done for practically all of them. Nevertheless, Milei may have to dial down some of his sharpest policy commitments, something he seems to be already doing in his promise to limit cooperation with China. Given its vast economic power, China may — if only for pragmatic reasons — have to be an outlier in Milei's tough talk on socialist states. Despite labelling it an assassin country, China is Argentina's single greatest trading partner, buying 27% of the country's exports in 2022. It is also the largest investor in Argentina's growing lithium-mining sector, and even prints large amounts of Argentina's currency, the peso. This is likely to continue, as Milei has set his sights on reducing the size of the highly-unionised and — according to him — inefficient national mint, the Casa de Moneda. With that said, Milei seems otherwise determined to follow through on his hard line on socialist countries. In October, he fired Argentina's Foreign Minister Diana Mondion after she voted in favour of lifting the US economic embargo on Cuba at the UN. Compromise also seems unlikely on other elements of his bullish agenda, and the cuts, redundancies, and restructuring seem likely to continue. In January 2024, Milei stated in an interview with the *Wall Street Journal* that his programme would continue for at least two years — therefore, to at least the end of 2025, before Argentina would see tangible benefit. Despite all this, Argentina's voters have mostly stuck with Milei. A survey by consultancy firm Aresco showed the approval rating of Milei's government was at 52.5% roughly one year after his election, practically the same percentage as the vote count he received in the election. It is as if the years of false promises have caused them to accept the reforms even when they must be hurting many of his electorate. And with all else said, despite the dramatic numbers of lay-offs and the climate of uncertainty generated for many Argentinians, there is justifiability to at least some of Milei's blunt cuts. In 2024, World Population Review ranked the number of public sector employees in Argentina at 19.3% of the total workforce — by no means the highest, but a high figure nonetheless. Some 3.5 million people are employed in the public sector, and the sector grew by around 34% in the 10 years before Milei took office. In particular, Milei has made it clear that he seeks to unmask so-called 'gnocchi' — people employed on government contracts largely through political connections, who have little tangible purpose in the organs of the state, and who supposedly attend office only on the final day of each month to collect their salaries. The government has also introduced a bill to ban 'hereditary' hires in the civil service — in other words, the hiring of a family relation of a deceased employee — something which had been discontinued during Mauricio Macri's Presidency but reinstated by the Peronists shortly after. In general, Argentina's current difficulties — especially for the working class — are consistent with the austere predictions made by Milei before he took office. And there have been some signs that Argentina's economy has begun to slowly rebound. In August, the government reported that economic activity rose against the previous year by 2.3%, despite being predicted to decline. Inflation, which reached a high of 25% in Milei's first month in office, has also fallen — to a monthly 3.5% one year on. And while unemployment and poverty levels have both increased, the disparity between the official dollar-peso exchange rate and same rate on the black market has narrowed, and investor confidence in Argentina has risen slightly, according to the *Financial Times*. With that said, Argentina has also been rocked by multiple protests against Milei and his reforms — this has included trade union groups, pensioners, and students, all of whom have been affected in some way or other by his reforms. The rise in prices and slowed economic activity have also contributed to aforementioned high poverty rates, in turn contributing to the protests, which have by now remained consistent throughout Milei's presidency. ## The Austrian School… to the Argentinian School? In all likelihood, it will be impossible to make an accurate assessment of the success of Milei's rampaging project to overhaul Argentina until further along in his Presidency. If he can succeed in meeting his declared objectives for 2025, this may provide a tangible insight as to whether his project has merit, or if it was just a load of bluster, providing all the difficulty he promised for little gain. Argentina's economy — already failing — will, in the case that Milei is unsuccessful…fail harder. And according to Milei himself: there is no Plan B. But if he can pull it off, righting the ruinous economic course Argentina has been mired in for some time, his economic and political worldview may be inherited by other countries suffering similar difficulties, and become an economic framework of its own to rival those commonly pursued by free-market countries across the world. In this case, Milei-ism may become a studied economic framework in its own right. Or perhaps Milei may be seen in the same guise as Nayib Bukele, whose brutal putdown of the gangs in El Salvador gained him infamy but also acclaim — and whose unapologetic blueprint has since been copied by other Latin American leaders in an effort to deal with their own gang problems. So could it be that Javier Milei will become the economic equivalent of Nayib Bukele, or leave his own mark on Argentinian political history like Juan Perón once did — what do you think? ## Key Takeaways - Argentina's economy has long been volatile, with periods of rapid growth followed by severe recessions. - Peronism, a mix of socialism and fascism, has dominated Argentine politics for decades, promoting high taxes and state intervention. - President Javier Milei, an anarcho-capitalist, aims to drastically reduce state involvement in the economy, slashing ministries and subsidies. - Milei's reforms have led to significant job losses and price increases, causing widespread protests but also some economic improvements. - The success of Milei's economic overhaul remains uncertain, with potential long-term benefits or further economic decline. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is the economic history of Argentina? Argentina's economic history is marked by high volatility. In the late 1800s, it was a poor, agrarian society. The Great European Immigration Wave in the early 20th century brought skilled workers who revolutionized the economy, making Argentina one of the fastest-growing economies. However, the Great Depression in 1929 led to economic decline, followed by periods of recovery and stagnation. ### Who is Javier Milei and what are his economic beliefs? Javier Milei is an economist and former university professor who became the President of Argentina. He identifies as an anarcho-capitalist, minarchist, and Classical Liberal. He rejects Keynesian economic theory and favors the Austrian School of economics, which emphasizes marginal utility and minimal state intervention. ### What is Peronism and how has it influenced Argentina's economy? Peronism is a political and economic ideology named after Juan Domingo Perón, who led Argentina from 1946 to 1955 and again briefly in the 1970s. It combines elements of socialism and fascism, favoring domestic self-sufficiency and state intervention. Peronism has been a dominant force in Argentina, influencing policies such as high tax rates, government spending, and protectionism. ### What are some of the key economic challenges facing Argentina? Argentina faces high inflation, poverty, and economic instability. In 2024, the inflation rate surged to over 250 percent, and nearly half the population lived in poverty. The economy has been propped up by government support, which has become unsustainable. ### What are Javier Milei's proposed economic reforms? Milei's reforms include devaluing the peso, cutting public spending, reducing the number of ministries, privatizing state-owned companies, and eliminating subsidies. He aims to reduce state intervention and promote economic freedom, believing this will lead to greater prosperity. ### How has the public reacted to Javier Milei's reforms? The public reaction has been mixed. While Milei's approval rating remains high, there have been consistent protests against his reforms, including from trade union groups, pensioners, and students. The cuts to subsidies and public spending have led to increased prices and economic hardship for many. ### What is the political landscape in Argentina under Milei's presidency? Milei's party, La Libertad Avanza, holds a minority of seats in Congress. He needs the support of opposition parties to pass new laws, but he has used his power to issue Presidential decrees and veto opposition bills. His relationship with the opposition, particularly the Peronists, has been contentious. ### What is the Austrian School of economics and how does it differ from Keynesianism? The Austrian School focuses on marginal utility and believes in minimal state intervention. It contrasts with Keynesianism, which advocates for government spending to boost the economy during difficult times. Milei rejects Keynesianism, describing it as an enemy of economic prosperity. ### What are some of the specific actions Milei has taken since becoming President? Milei has devalued the peso, cut public spending, dissolved several ministries, privatized state-owned companies, and eliminated subsidies. He has also introduced a new budget aiming for a primary surplus and reduced inflation, although these reforms have led to significant economic hardship for many Argentinians. ### What is the impact of Milei's reforms on the Argentinian economy? Milei's reforms have led to a steep cost for everyday Argentinians, with prices of goods rising drastically and tens of thousands of redundancies in the public sector. However, there are signs of economic rebound, with economic activity rising and inflation falling slightly. Investor confidence has also risen, but poverty and unemployment levels remain high. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: Javier Milei's Radical Plan to Save Argentina](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFeoigI_8vU) - [https://www.ft.com/content/38f718d3-0289-4b12-8faf-245c19d65cb0](https://www.ft.com/content/38f718d3-0289-4b12-8faf-245c19d65cb0) - [https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/238357/1/732.pdf](https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/238357/1/732.pdf) - [https://www.economist.com/news/2023/09/07/an-interview-with-javier-milei](https://www.economist.com/news/2023/09/07/an-interview-with-javier-milei) - [https://dialogue.earth/en/business/384031-what-do-argentinas-elections-mean-for-relations-with-china/](https://dialogue.earth/en/business/384031-what-do-argentinas-elections-mean-for-relations-with-china/) - [https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/argentinas-milei-plans-privatize-state-airline-by-decree-2024-09-27/](https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/argentinas-milei-plans-privatize-state-airline-by-decree-2024-09-27/) - [https://english.elpais.com/international/2024-04-02/president-javier-milei-fires-24000-government-workers-in-argentina-no-one-knows-who-will-be-next.html](https://english.elpais.com/international/2024-04-02/president-javier-milei-fires-24000-government-workers-in-argentina-no-one-knows-who-will-be-next.html) - [https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/public-sector-size-by-country](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/public-sector-size-by-country) - [https://www.bbc.com/mundo/articles/cerw93vj7v8o](https://www.bbc.com/mundo/articles/cerw93vj7v8o) - [https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/gdp?continent=america](https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/gdp?continent=america) - [https://www.indec.gob.ar/uploads/informesdeprensa/i_argent_02_23EC82BFFB1E.pdf](https://www.indec.gob.ar/uploads/informesdeprensa/i_argent_02_23EC82BFFB1E.pdf) - [https://english.elpais.com/international/2024-10-30/argentina-halts-banknote-printing-as-milei-turns-to-chinese-suppliers.html](https://english.elpais.com/international/2024-10-30/argentina-halts-banknote-printing-as-milei-turns-to-chinese-suppliers.html) - [https://noticias.ufm.edu/2023/12/javier-milei-en-la-ufm-el-keynesianismo-es-el-enemigo-enmascarado/](https://noticias.ufm.edu/2023/12/javier-milei-en-la-ufm-el-keynesianismo-es-el-enemigo-enmascarado/) - [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-07-18/argentina-economy-posts-best-month-under-milei-despite-austerity?embedded-checkout=true](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-07-18/argentina-economy-posts-best-month-under-milei-despite-austerity?embedded-checkout=true) - [https://www.dw.com/en/argentina-court-blocks-milei-move-to-privatize-football/a-70122667](https://www.dw.com/en/argentina-court-blocks-milei-move-to-privatize-football/a-70122667) - [https://kbindependent.org/2024/09/16/argentinas-milei-presents-austerity-budget-calls-lawmakers-miserable-rats/](https://kbindependent.org/2024/09/16/argentinas-milei-presents-austerity-budget-calls-lawmakers-miserable-rats/) - [https://www.batimes.com.ar/news/argentina/milei-government-to-auction-off-more-than-400-state-properties-across-argentina.phtml](https://www.batimes.com.ar/news/argentina/milei-government-to-auction-off-more-than-400-state-properties-across-argentina.phtml) - [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/8/23/argentinas-milei-to-veto-pension-reform-to-push-through-austerity-measures](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/8/23/argentinas-milei-to-veto-pension-reform-to-push-through-austerity-measures) - [https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/an-argentine-railway-builder-suffers-shadow-mileis-cuts-2024-05-22/](https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/an-argentine-railway-builder-suffers-shadow-mileis-cuts-2024-05-22/) - [https://www.ft.com/content/dfd94c80-47d2-4b34-a382-e6fe2c244361](https://www.ft.com/content/dfd94c80-47d2-4b34-a382-e6fe2c244361) - [https://www.voanews.com/a/milei-s-popularity-rebounds-as-argentina-s-markets-hit-record-highs/7842577.html](https://www.voanews.com/a/milei-s-popularity-rebounds-as-argentina-s-markets-hit-record-highs/7842577.html) - [https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/spains-far-right-vox-holds-mass-rally-with-argentinas-milei-foreign-allies-2024-05-19/](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/spains-far-right-vox-holds-mass-rally-with-argentinas-milei-foreign-allies-2024-05-19/) - [https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgl4y6w2r33o](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgl4y6w2r33o) - [https://www.batimes.com.ar/news/economy/report-public-employment-up-34-in-argentina-since-2011-private-up-only-3.phtml](https://www.batimes.com.ar/news/economy/report-public-employment-up-34-in-argentina-since-2011-private-up-only-3.phtml) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Marcha_contra_los_transfemicidios_y_travesticidios_en_el_Encuentro_Plurinacional_en_Jujuy%2C_Argentina_2024_crop.jpg?utm_source=commons.wikimedia.org&utm_campaign=imageinfo&utm_content=original) by Luis Fernando Flores (WJUY) / openverse, by-sa. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/kapustin-yar-russias-area-51 https://megaprojects.pub/article/kapustin-yar-russias-area-51 Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Night falls over the Kazakhstan steppe. In a Soviet control room, voices crackle through radio static, counting down in Russian. The concrete walls vibrate slightly with each number. *"Tree, dvah, odin."* Somewhere in the darkness, a missile streaks upward, its exhaust trail glowing. It arcs into the upper atmosphere, higher, higher, until— **FLASH.** This isn't just any flash. A massive second sun blooms at altitude, an artificial dawn that turns night into day across hundreds of miles of empty desert. For a moment, the entire steppe is illuminated. This wasn't a failed launch though. This was a live nuclear warhead detonation in the upper atmosphere – part of the Soviet Union's high-altitude EMP tests. And that blast? Well, it would fry telephone lines across an area the size of France. Today we're venturing into one of the most secretive military installations on Earth – a place where the Soviet Union learned to split atoms and reach for space, where dogs became the first Earth creatures to touch the edge of the cosmos. This is **Kapustin Yar** – a name that probably means nothing to you, but should. Because this patch of Russian steppe has shaped the modern world more than almost any other military facility you've never heard of. It's where Soviet rocketry took its first baby steps with captured Nazi technology. Where the first Soviet V-2s flew – and exploded, crashed, and occasionally worked. And where, even today, Russia tests air defense systems designed to swat hypersonic missiles from the sky. A closed world whose secrecy has fed decades of conspiracy theories about aliens and UFOs, earning it the nickname "Russia's Roswell." But here's the thing: the real story is far stranger than any alien tale. ## Stalin's Rocket Range Our story begins in the rubble of the Third Reich. 1945. Berlin has fallen, and American and Soviet "collection teams" – that's a polite way of saying "organized looters with PhDs" – are racing through Germany grabbing everything that isn't nailed down. V-2 rockets were a big get, the "wonder weapons" that had rained down on London, turning entire city blocks into rubble. But they weren't just after the hardware. They wanted humans too... German rocket engineers, the men who'd built Hitler's vengeance weapons. The Americans got Wernher von Braun, who would later put men on the moon. The Soviets? They got everyone else they could grab, including Helmut Gröttrup, von Braun's former assistant. Stalin wasn't subtle about his intentions. By decree on May 13, 1946 – less than a year after the war ended – he ordered the creation of a central rocket range. The chosen site? A patch of absolutely nothing, 100 kilometers east of what had been Stalingrad, now Volgograd. To understand just how remote this place was, imagine driving from London to Edinburgh, but instead of passing through cities and towns, you see nothing but grass. For eight hours. That's the Astrakhan steppe – an ocean of grass stretching to every horizon, broken only by the occasional lonely tree. They called it the 4th State Central Range, because Soviet bureaucrats were oh so creative. The world, though, we'd come to know it as Kapustin Yar. On October 18, 1947, something remarkable happened. At 10:47 AM Moscow time, the ground shook, a pillar of fire erupted from the steppe, and the Soviet Union's first V-2 – or A-4 as they called it, because they couldn't even admit they were using German designs – lifted off from Launch Pad Number 1. The rocket made it exactly 206 kilometers before crashing into the desert. By Nazi Germany's standards, this was a failure. By Soviet standards? This was the beginning of everything. Leading this operation was a man whose name deserves to be better known: **Lieutenant General Vasily Voznyuk**. He's exactly as you'd imagine a Soviet officer – stern face, iron will, and an absolute devotion to rockets that bordered on the religious. Voznyuk would command Kapustin Yar from 1946 to 1973 – twenty-seven years. Under Voznyuk's iron hand, the facility grew from a collection of tents and launch pads to something resembling a small city. Which brings us to one of the strangest aspects of Kapustin Yar. ## Building a Secret Town – and Erasing Another You can't just build a massive rocket testing facility in the middle of nowhere without somewhere for the workers to live. Not unless you want your rocket scientists camping in tents through Russian winters where the temperature drops to minus 30 Celsius – that's minus 22 Fahrenheit for our American friends, or "really fucking miserable" if you prefer. What started as a tent city gradually hardened into something more permanent. Concrete apartment blocks rose from the steppe. Schools appeared. Shops. A cinema. Even a park with actual trees – well, la-de-dah. They called this new town **Znamensk**, and it was unlike any other Soviet settlement. For starters, it didn't exist. Officially. You wouldn't find it on any map. Mail addressed to Znamensk would be returned as "no such place." To live there, you needed special permission. To leave, you needed special permission. To breathe, you needed special permission (not really, but also, maybe?) The town had one purpose: to house the men and women who were building the future of Soviet rocketry. These weren't just any workers – they were the cream of Soviet science and engineering, lured by good salaries, better food than most Soviets could dream of, and the chance to be part of something revolutionary. The catch? Once you entered Znamensk, you essentially disappeared from the normal world. But here's where our story takes a darker turn. The site chosen for this secret city wasn't entirely empty. The village of **Zhitkur** had the misfortune of being exactly where the Soviets wanted to expand their range. The solution was typically Soviet in its brutal efficiency. In 1953, the entire village was given notice: pack up, you're moving. No discussion. No compensation worth mentioning. Just "the motherland needs your land, goodbye comrade. Or you prefer bullet?" They'd just wake up one morning with military trucks outside, soldiers telling you that your village – the place your grandparents were born, where you were married, where your children took their first steps – no longer exists. By afternoon, Zhitkur was a ghost town. By the next week, it was bulldozed flat. This forced relocation would later fuel some of the more outlandish conspiracy theories about Kapustin Yar. "Why would they need to hide an entire village?" the UFO enthusiasts would ask. "What did those villagers see that required their silence?" The boring truth? They just wanted the land to blow shit up in the middle of nowhere. Hey ho. ## From V-2s to Nuclear Missiles Now, copying German rockets was just the start. Next was something far more ambitious – and terrifying. The progression went like this: First came the **R-1**, essentially a Soviet-built copy of the V-2. It could throw a one-ton warhead about 270 kilometers – roughly the distance from London to Paris. Not bad, but not world-changing either. Then came the **R-2**, which doubled that range. But then was the **R-5**, which first flew at Kapustin Yar in 1953. This beast could hurl a nuclear warhead 1,200 kilometers. That's London to Rome. London to Warsaw. Moscow to Berlin. And then, on February 2, 1956, something happened that should have made headlines around the world, except it was so secret that most people didn't learn about it for decades. At precisely 10:00 AM Moscow time, an **R-5M** lifted off from Launch Complex 4 at Kapustin Yar. This wasn't a test flight. This wasn't a dummy warhead. This was the real thing – a live nuclear weapon sitting atop a ballistic missile. The rocket climbed into the crystal-clear winter sky, its exhaust trail drawing a perfect white line against the blue. In the command bunker, men who'd fought in the most devastating war in human history watched instruments that showed them how to make the next one even worse… or maybe prevent it… Nukes are complicated. 1,200 kilometers away, in the empty steppe near Aralsk in Kazakhstan, monitoring equipment waited. The missile's nuclear warhead – estimated at around 80 kilotons, about four times the power of Hiroshima – detonated precisely on target. This was a world first. The atomic age and the missile age had just merged into something new and terrifying. For the first time in human history, a nuclear weapon had been delivered by ballistic missile. No bomber needed. No warning. Just death, delivered at the speed of a rocket. To put this in perspective, imagine sitting in London, having your morning tea, when someone presses a button. Twenty minutes later, London doesn't exist anymore. That's the world that was born at Kapustin Yar on that February morning. ## Dogs in Space – The Unwilling Pioneers But Kapustin Yar wasn't just about weapons of war. It was also where the Soviet Union took its first tentative steps toward conquering space. On July 22, 1951, at 4:00 AM – because apparently all historic moments in Soviet rocketry happened at ungodly hours – two dogs were loaded into a sealed capsule atop an R-1 rocket. Their names were **Dezik and Tsygan**, and they were about to become the first living creatures to reach space and return alive. Picture the scene: Soviet scientists in white coats, gently (one hopes) strapping two tail-wagging dogs into what was essentially a metal coffin with life support. The dogs had been specially selected – not too big, not too small, calm temperament, and presumably no strong opinions about being fired into the void. The rocket ignited with a roar that could be heard 10 kilometers away. It climbed to 110 kilometers – officially crossing the boundary into space – before the capsule separated and began its descent. Twenty minutes after launch, the capsule thumped back to Earth, and when the recovery team opened it, two very confused but very alive dogs emerged. Dezik and Tsygan had just become the first Earthlings to see the curvature of their home planet. Though I doubt they appreciated the view. Now, here's the heartbreaking part. Dezik's triumph was short-lived. Just a week later, he was sent up again with another dog named Lisa. This time, the parachute failed. Both dogs died on impact. The Soviet space program had claimed its first victims. These flights paved the way for **Laika**, the famous space dog who would orbit the Earth in 1957. Though unlike Dezik and Tsygan, Laika was never intended to return. Her spacecraft was a one-way ticket, a flying tomb that would orbit Earth for months with her body inside. Progress, it seems, demanded sacrifice – and in the Soviet Union, they started with man's best friend. ## Becoming a Cosmodrome By the early 1960s, Kapustin Yar had evolved from a simple missile range into something more sophisticated – a full-fledged cosmodrome, a gateway to the stars. The transformation was marked by a special moment on March 16, 1962. At Launch Complex 86/1 – catchy name again – a small rocket sat on the pad. Atop it was **Kosmos-1**, the first in what would become an endless series of Soviet satellites. The Kosmos program was the Soviet Union's catch-all designation for satellites they didn't want to talk about. Weather satellite? Kosmos. Spy satellite? Kosmos. Failed Venus probe that never left Earth orbit? Kosmos. By the time the Soviet Union fell, they'd launched over 2,500 Kosmos satellites, and nobody outside the program knew what half of them actually did. Kapustin Yar became the workhorse launch site for these smaller, mysterious payloads. While Baikonur got the glory launches – Yuri Gagarin, Sputnik, the Luna probes – Kapustin Yar did the dirty work, launching satellite after satellite into orbit with all the fanfare of a city bus leaving its stop. ## Sary-Shagan and Project K Here's where things get properly terrifying. Kapustin Yar wasn't just launching things into space – it was launching missiles 2,000 kilometers across the Soviet Union toward another test range called **Sary-Shagan** in Kazakhstan. It was kinda the world's longest (and most dangerous) shooting range. Kapustin Yar would fire missiles carrying dummy warheads, and Sary-Shagan would try to shoot them down with anti-ballistic missiles. It was like trying to hit a bullet with another bullet. But the real nightmare fuel came with **Project K**, conducted between 1961 and 1962. These weren't tests of conventional weapons. These were high-altitude nuclear detonations, designed to understand what happens when you set off a nuclear bomb in space. Because apparently that's just something they needed to know. On October 22, 1962 – right in the middle of the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the world was already seconds from midnight – the Soviets launched a missile from Kapustin Yar carrying a 300-kiloton nuclear warhead. That's about 15 times more powerful than Hiroshima. The warhead detonated 290 kilometers above the Earth, solidly in space. The results were spectacular and terrifying. The explosion created an electromagnetic pulse that swept across the steppe like an invisible tsunami. In the city of Karaganda, 1,000 kilometers away, the lights went out. A 570-kilometer telephone line – that's longer than the entire length of England – had all its fuses blown. The power grid across an area the size of France was disrupted. One witness described seeing the lights flicker in his apartment, then die. Then the radio went silent. Then he looked outside and saw the northern horizon glowing with an aurora that shouldn't exist at that latitude. The Soviets had instrumented the region to measure these effects. They wanted to know what would happen. They found out: you could cripple an entire nation's infrastructure without directly destroying a single building. It was a perfect Cold War weapon – maximum disruption, minimum (immediate) casualties. ## Submarines on the Steppe Of all the bizarre things that happened at Kapustin Yar, this might be the strangest. In the middle of the bone-dry steppe, thousands of kilometers from the nearest ocean, the Soviets built... a submarine simulator. The **SM-49 "rocking simulator"** was exactly what it sounds like – a massive mechanical system that could replicate the rolling and pitching of a submarine at sea. A full-scale submarine hull mounted on hydraulic actuators, lurching back and forth in the middle of a desert. Why? Because the Soviet Navy needed to test submarine-launched ballistic missiles, but they weren't about to risk an actual submarine – or its crew – on unproven weapons. So they brought the submarine to the desert. Engineers would load missiles into the simulator's launch tubes, the whole apparatus would start rocking to simulate rough seas, and then they'd try to launch. Early tests were... educational. Missiles designed to fly straight up had an alarming tendency to fly sideways when launched from a moving platform. Who knew? The absurdity wasn't lost on the workers. One engineer later recalled: "We used to joke that we were the Soviet Navy's desert fleet. The only submarines in history that needed to worry about sandstorms instead of depth charges." ## The Mach-3 Monster – Burya In the late 1950s, before intercontinental ballistic missiles became reliable, the Soviets explored another option for delivering nuclear death across the globe – the **Lavochkin La-350 "Burya,"** which translates to "Storm" by the way. The Burya was a cruise missile the size of a fighter jet, powered by ramjet engines that could push it to Mach 3.2 – over 2,400 miles per hour. The tests were spectacular. A Burya flew approximately 6,500 kilometers – that's Moscow to New York with fuel to spare – and hit within 10 kilometers of its target. For a weapon designed to carry a multi-megaton nuclear warhead, being 10 kilometers off target was… enough. But the Burya had a fatal flaw: ICBMs were getting better and cheaper. Why build a complex cruise missile that took 2 hours to reach its target when an ICBM could do it in 30 minutes? The program was cancelled, and the Storm never flew in anger. ## Eyes in the Sky A facility this important couldn't stay secret forever. The West had heard rumors – refugee reports, intercepted communications, the occasional defector's tale. But they needed proof. They needed pictures. Enter the spies in the sky. There are stories – never officially confirmed by the British government, because that's not the British way – of an RAF Canberra reconnaissance aircraft overflying Kapustin Yar in 1953. The Canberra was a jet bomber converted for high-altitude photo reconnaissance. According to the legend, the aircraft took off from West Germany, flew deep into Soviet airspace, photographed Kapustin Yar, and landed in Iran (friendly at the time) despite being intercepted by MiG fighters. The photos allegedly showed launch pads, assembly buildings, and most importantly, rockets. Big rockets. The kind of big rockets that could carry nuclear warheads. Soon after, the Americans got serious about watching Kapustin Yar. U-2 spy planes – those impossibly delicate aircraft that flew so high they were almost in space – made the range a priority target. Today, of course, anyone with Google Earth can look at Kapustin Yar. You can see the launch pads, the roads, even individual buildings. The secret base isn't secret anymore. But that doesn't mean it's not dangerous. ## The Modern Range – Still Deadly Fast forward to today, and Kapustin Yar is still very much in business. If anything, it's busier than ever. Between 2012 and 2015, Russia fired a series of Topol, RS-26, and RS-24 missiles from Kapustin Yar to Sary-Shagan. These weren't Cold War relics – these were modern ICBMs testing new warheads designed specifically to defeat American missile defense systems. In 2021, the Russian Ministry of Defense released video of **S-500 air defense system** tests at Kapustin Yar. The S-500 is Russia's answer to hypersonic missiles – a system supposedly capable of intercepting targets traveling at Mach 20. The video showed a missile streaking into the sky, then a distant flash as it destroyed its target. Russia wanted the world to see this. It was a message: "We're still here. We're still dangerous." But the range's continuing importance was dramatically illustrated in July 2024. Ukrainian long-range drones – basically remote-controlled aircraft packed with explosives – struck Kapustin Yar. Satellite imagery showed scorch marks at several facilities. Storage buildings damaged. Launch infrastructure possibly compromised. Just three months earlier, in April 2024, Russia had announced an ICBM test from the site – a not-so-subtle reminder to the world that despite the war in Ukraine, despite sanctions, despite everything, Russia's nuclear arsenal was still operational. After nearly 80 years, Kapustin Yar remains what it always was: a place where humanity's most destructive impulses take physical form. ## Myth vs. Reality – "Russia's Roswell" Now, we can't talk about Kapustin Yar without addressing the aliens… because of course. Get your tinfoil hats out. For decades, UFO enthusiasts have called this place "Russia's Area 51" or "Russia's Roswell." The stories are wild. Underground alien laboratories stretching for miles beneath the steppe. Crashed UFOs being reverse-engineered in hidden hangars. Alien bodies in cryogenic storage. Even alleged battles between Soviet forces and hostile extraterrestrials… Sounds so real! The conspiracy theorists point to the evidence: the forced relocation of Zhitkur village (what were they hiding?). The extreme secrecy (why so paranoid?). The strange lights in the sky (surely not all rockets?). The fact that even today, large areas around Kapustin Yar are strictly off-limits (what don't they want us to see?). Oh I don't know, maybe military secrets? One popular story claims that in 1948, a silver disc crashed near Kapustin Yar and was recovered by the Soviet military. Another tale describes underground tunnels where alien technology was studied and copied, explaining the Soviet Union's rapid advancement in rocketry. Here's what we actually have: **zero verifiable evidence** of any alien connection. No credible witnesses. No leaked documents. No physical evidence. Niet. What we do have is a thoroughly documented history of very human achievements. Thousands of declassified documents. Satellite imagery. Defector testimonies. Even Russian sources that openly discuss much of what happened there – the missiles, the satellites, the nuclear tests. The truth is, reality is more incredible than any alien conspiracy. This is where humans learned to throw nuclear weapons across continents at speeds that would have seemed like magic just a generation earlier. Where nuclear explosions in space fried power grids hundreds of kilometers away. Where cruise missiles flew at three times the speed of sound with deadly accuracy. Who needs aliens when humans are perfectly capable of building such magnificent and terrifying things all by themselves? ## The Human Cost But let's pull back from the grand narrative for a moment and talk about the people. Because behind every rocket launch, every nuclear test, every secret project, there were human beings paying the price. The engineers and scientists who worked at Kapustin Yar lived in a strange bubble. They had better food than most Soviets – fresh vegetables in a country where millions subsisted on cabbage and potatoes. They had cinema showing the latest films. Their children went to schools with the best teachers the Soviet Union could provide. But they also lived in a prison without bars. Letters were censored. Phone calls monitored. Travel restricted. Many couldn't tell their own families exactly what they did for a living. "I work with rockets" was about as specific as they could get (granted, pretty cool though). They missed weddings, funerals, birthdays, because leaving Znamensk required permission that might not come. One engineer's widow later recalled: "He would leave for months at a time. I knew he was at Kapustin Yar, but that's all. When he came home, he couldn't talk about his work. He'd have nightmares sometimes, calling out numbers and coordinates. But when I asked, he'd say it was nothing." Then there were the soldiers – young conscripts mostly, stationed at this remote base to guard secrets they didn't understand. They stood watch in temperatures that ranged from minus 30 in winter to plus 40 in summer. They cleaned up after failed launches, sometimes handling toxic rocket fuel with minimal protection. How many developed cancer years later? How many died young? The Soviet Union didn't keep those statistics, or if they did, they aren't telling. And what about the civilians affected by those nuclear tests? The people of Karaganda who lost power when the EMP struck? The telephone operators whose equipment was fried? They were unwitting participants in an experiment they never agreed to, collateral damage in a war that never quite happened. ## Why Kapustin Yar Matters So why should we care about a Soviet missile range in the middle of nowhere? Why does this place matter to anyone who isn't a Cold War historian or a weapons nerd? Because Kapustin Yar is where the modern world was born. This is where humanity learned to touch space. Before Kapustin Yar, rockets were essentially very large fireworks. After Kapustin Yar, they were vehicles that could carry life beyond Earth. This is where the nuclear age merged with the missile age to create the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction. The balance of terror that kept the Cold War cold was tested and proven here. And perhaps most importantly, Kapustin Yar reminds us that the most significant places in history aren't always the ones we remember. While the world watched Cape Canaveral and cheered for Apollo, Kapustin Yar was quietly reshaping the balance of global power. ## The Eternal Steppe Stand on the steppe around Kapustin Yar today, and you might not immediately realize you're at one of the most important sites in human history. The grass stretches endlessly in every direction, broken only by the occasional launch tower or radar dome. But look closer, and you can read the history of the last 80 years in this landscape. Those scorched concrete pads? They held the rockets that started the space age. Those craters in the distance? Failed launches that almost certainly killed their operators. In the end, Kapustin Yar was never really about aliens or even just about rockets. It was about the extraordinary and terrible things humans can achieve when driven by fear, ambition, and the vast pressure of history. Today, as new powers rise and old tensions resurface, as space becomes militarized once again, as hypersonic weapons and satellite killers join the arsenal of nations, Kapustin Yar stands as both warning and inspiration. ## Key Takeaways - Kapustin Yar was a Soviet military installation where the Soviet Union developed and tested rockets and nuclear weapons. - The site was used for high-altitude nuclear tests, which created electromagnetic pulses that disrupted infrastructure over large areas. - Kapustin Yar played a crucial role in the Soviet space program, including launching the first dogs into space. - The facility remains active today, used for testing modern ICBMs and air defense systems. - The secrecy and remote location of Kapustin Yar have fueled conspiracy theories, but its significance lies in its military and space achievements. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is Kapustin Yar? Kapustin Yar is a highly secretive military installation in Russia, often referred to as 'Russia's Area 51.' It is where the Soviet Union conducted significant rocket and nuclear tests, including high-altitude EMP tests and the first Soviet V-2 launches. ### What was the significance of the nuclear test conducted on February 2, 1956? On February 2, 1956, the Soviet Union successfully launched a live nuclear weapon atop a ballistic missile from Kapustin Yar. This was the first time a nuclear weapon had been delivered by a ballistic missile, marking a significant advancement in nuclear and missile technology. ### What role did Kapustin Yar play in the Soviet space program? Kapustin Yar was crucial in the early Soviet space program. It was the site of the first Soviet V-2 launches and the launch of the first living creatures, dogs Dezik and Tsygan, into space and back in 1951. It also served as a launch site for early Soviet satellites. ### What was the purpose of Project K conducted at Kapustin Yar? Project K involved high-altitude nuclear detonations to study the effects of nuclear explosions in space. These tests created electromagnetic pulses that disrupted power grids and communication lines over vast areas, demonstrating the potential for nuclear EMP weapons. ### How did the Soviet Union handle the relocation of the village of Zhitkur for Kapustin Yar? The Soviet Union forcibly relocated the entire village of Zhitkur in 1953 to expand the Kapustin Yar range. The villagers were given short notice and minimal compensation, leading to the village being bulldozed and erased from existence. ### What was the Lavochkin La-350 'Burya' and why was it significant? The Lavochkin La-350 'Burya' was a cruise missile the size of a fighter jet, capable of reaching speeds of Mach 3.2. It was significant because it demonstrated the Soviet Union's capability to deliver nuclear warheads over long distances, although the program was eventually canceled in favor of ICBMs. ### What is the current status of Kapustin Yar? Kapustin Yar remains an active military installation. It continues to be used for testing modern ICBMs and air defense systems, such as the S-500, which is designed to intercept hypersonic missiles. It has also been targeted by Ukrainian drones during the conflict. ### What was the human cost associated with working at Kapustin Yar? Workers at Kapustin Yar lived in a highly restricted environment with limited contact with the outside world. They faced health risks from handling toxic materials and were often unable to discuss their work with family. Soldiers stationed there endured harsh conditions and potential exposure to dangerous substances. ### Why is Kapustin Yar important in the context of global history? Kapustin Yar is important because it was a key site for the development of rocket and nuclear technology during the Cold War. It played a significant role in the space race and the arms race, contributing to the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction and the militarization of space. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: Kapustin Yar: Russia's Area 51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE34YKROS_o) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Kazakhs_in_Kazakhstan_2025.png) by Arnur.sarybai / openverse, by-sa. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/kc-46-pegasus https://megaprojects.pub/article/kc-46-pegasus Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT The ability to refuel without having to land allows fighter pilots to stick to their flight plans and keep crunching the ever-so-sweet miles under their wings, getting them closer to the target they'll inevitably erase from existence. To do this, though, you need a literal flying gas pump—meet the KC-46 Pegasus. A monster of an airplane designed to take off with a dozen Olympic swimming pools' worth of fuel, this air tanker is capable of flying around the entire planet and refueling dozens of fighters at a time, leading the line in the US Air Force's mid-air fuel logistics. The Pegasus's path to existence, however, was everything but clear skies and calm winds—this tanker is a child of bureaucratic hell, scandals, corruption, and controversies. In fact, the program that gave birth to the Pegasus was started because a few government officials couldn't keep their hands clean. ## The KC-X Program In the early 2000s, Boeing KC-135 Stratotankers were well known as the Air Force's old and reliable aerial tankers. They had been using them since the late 1950s, and the tankers proved invaluable in the Southeast Asia theater. You can check out our in depth video on the Stratotanker if you want to learn every tiny niche detail about it, but in essence, it allowed F-105s, F-4s, and B-52 bombers to reach targets that would be far too distant without aerial refueling. Four decades later, though, the Stratotankers were proving obsolete. Between 1993 and 2003, the number of maintenance hours on these massive birds doubled, while the overhaul costs tripled. Aside from already having to pay for the fuel and the crew, the American taxpayers had to cash out about $10,000 dollars for maintenance for every single hour of a Stratotanker's flight time. Father Time started doing his thing, and the bird was starting to lose its status as the old and reliable tanker. The costs would only grow with time, and it became clear that the Air Force needed new flying tankers. The first idea was to buy 80 and lease 20 Boeing KC-767 tankers, but this deal fell through. Why? Because of corruption of course! A government official by the name of Darleen Druyun boosted the price for Boeing while working for the Department of the Air Force. It was later found out that she was, at the time, preparing to leave the Department and join Boeing. This controversy, dubbed "the biggest Pentagon scandal in 20 years" by the media, was so monumental it resulted in the termination of Boeing's CFO Michael Sears and the resignation of their CEO Philip Condit, with Boeing having to pay $615 million dollars in fines—not to mention that almost everyone involved went to prison. After the 'buying existing tankers' fiasco, the Air Force decided to go back to the drawing board and get an entirely new fleet of tankers. A fresh start for a fresh fleet. In January of 2007, the USAF started the KC-X Aerial Refueling Aircraft program. The $40 billion dollar contract, which translates to about $62 billion today, called for 179 tankers—four for system development and demonstrations, and 175 for production. The only two companies gunning the contract down were Boeing with a design based on the 767, and Airbus who had partnered up with Northrop Grumman with a design based on the A330. About a year later, the Department of Defense opted for the latter option, dubbed the KC-45A. Boeing protested, submitting a note with the Government Accountability Office, and the GAO upheld the claim, recommending the rebidding of the contract. Just a few months later, the Air Force reopened the bidding a year later with clearer criteria. And wouldn't you know it, Boeing, in spite of their tarnished name, won after rebidding, with the official decision being made public in early 2011. Despite being massively behind schedule, the first prototype of the new generation of tankers was designated KC-46A, and it would take its maiden test voyage in late 2014. ## Pegasus Design The Pegasus is essentially a Frankenstein's monster type of airplane, incorporating elements from various Boeing 767 variants. They used the fuselage of the 200ER variant with the wings, landing gear, cargo door, and floor of the 300F variant. The flaps were copied from the 400ER variant, with a Dreamliner-like glass cockpit. Overall, the Pegasus measures 159 feet or 48.5 meters in length with a wingspan of 156 feet, or 47.5 meters. What's really relevant for an aerial tanker, though, is its cargo and fuel capacity. With a maximum takeoff weight of 415,000 pounds or almost 190 tons, it easily blows its predecessor, the Stratotanker, out of the air, as the grandaddy of air tankers tops out at 322,500 pounds, or 146 tons. The key of its transport capabilities doesn't lie in the weight, but in the layout of its cargo area. This is incredibly important since tankers aren't only expected to refuel other airplanes mid-flight—they're also expected to transport cargo and passengers. The Pegasus has three configurations for this purpose. In its cargo configuration, it can fit three times more pallets than the Stratotanker with 18 pallets of cargo. This is the same pallet capacity as the C-17 Globemaster, a plane designed for the sole purpose of transport. The KC-46 can also fit 30% more people than the Stratotanker with 114 in its passenger configuration, and two times more patients than a Stratotanker in case of an aeromedical evacuation with 54 patients. 24 of those patients can fit in with their rescue baskets, also known as litters, while the five-strong medical team is seated in the front of the Pegasus with the flight crew. The crew can switch between configurations in no more than two hours—a job that usually takes other cargo plane crews about five hours. Interestingly, the Stratotanker can still take on more pure weight, it's just that the configuration is less optimal, to put it mildly. The Pegasus can take off with a maximum cargo capacity of 65,000 pounds or 30 metric tons, or five fully grown African bush elephants for clearer measurement. The Stratotanker, in comparison, could fit 83,000 pounds of cargo, which is about 37.5 tons, or about six entire elephants and the trunk and head of another. Hopefully there would be enough room to fit a cage for the madman who butchered the seventh elephant. The most important element to an aerial tanker is, of course, the fuel capacity. The Pegasus can carry approximately 10% more fuel than the Stratotanker with more than 212,000 pounds or 96 tons of fuel on board. Its predecessor could carry no more than 200,000 pounds or 90 tons of fuel. The Pegasus can therefore refuel 30 F-16 Fighting Falcons, for example, while the Stratotanker couldn't refuel more than 28. But wait a minute—you might be thinking—that doesn't sound like that big of a difference, and truth be told, it isn't, until you consider the final factor that ensures the KC-46's supremacy—range. The Pegasus has an incredible range of more than 7,300 miles or close to 12,000 kilometers, which is almost five times greater than the Stratotanker's range. That means that the Pegasus could make the New York—Los Angeles trip three times, while the Stratotanker would run out of fuel and crash somewhere around New Mexico during its first trip. Additionally, the Stratotanker itself can be refueled mid air, essentially turning its range global. To push the flying tanker onward, Pegasus relies on two Pratt & Whitney PW4062 engines, with each one creating 62,000 pounds of force. This is another field in which the Stratotanker simply can't compare, as its four CFM F108 engines produce 86,400 pounds of force combined. When level, the Pegasus cruises at a speed of around 530 miles, or 850 kilometers per hour, while it can shift a gear and speed up to 570 miles or 910 kilometers per hour if necessary. Returning to our New York—Los Angeles example, the Pegasus makes that trip in less than five hours. Despite the many different things the Pegasus can do, it still requires no more than three crew members to operate. Two of them are, of course, the pilots, and the third crew member is the refueling boom operator. The boom is, for lack of better words, the long tube that extends from the Pegasus into another plane and pumps fuel in it. Many people find it incredible that the legendary B-2 stealth bomber has a bed in it because of how long missions can get, and the Pegasus isn't any different from that. It actually comes with three bunks, a kitchen, and a lavatory. At maximum capacity, the Pegasus can accommodate 15 crew members, and it's FAA certified to transport 58 passengers, even though it can, if necessary, onboard 114 people. However, it's likely that a Pegasus would onboard that many people only in the case of urgent evacuation. To keep all of those people safe, the Pegasus is equipped with top of the line countermeasures to detect and avoid threats. This includes an infrared missile system with flares, a hardened hull to protect the plane from nuclear, chemical, and biological threats, as well as additional armor for the flight deck. The massive bird is fitted with the Advanced Battle Management System, which connects it to other units on the water, ground, and in the air, allowing Pegasus to conduct reconnaissance tasks and relay that information to other units. This is, once again, why the range of the Pegasus is so important—staying in the air for longer during a recon mission can make the difference between life and death in the field. Aside from recon capabilities, the KC-46 also has some electronic warfare capabilities, but the specifics are, obviously, a military secret. A part of the design that the Air Force is particularly careful about, especially nowadays, is the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, known as MCAS. The MCAS is a flight stabilizing feature designed to avoid stalling, and it was introduced on the Pegasus because of the imbalances caused by fuel redistribution after refueling another plane. As the Pegasus loses fuel, it starts shifting around the containers, and this means that pilots constantly have to deal with weight redistribution mid-air, which is a huge no-no in aviation, as it can cause a disbalance and crash a plane. The purpose of this system is to automatically reposition the plane in such a way that the redistribution of weight doesn't destabilize it. In 2018 and 2019, however, this very same system was found guilty for causing two plane crashes. Two Boeing 737s operated by Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines, respectively, crashed, tragically killing everyone on board in both instances. It was later found that the MCAS, and I hope I don't get assassinated for saying this because it is Boeing's system we're talking about, was at fault for the planes nosing down for no reason. This system was introduced into the design of the Pegasus long before those accidents took place, though, and unlike those models, the KC-46 system automatically disengages if the pilot moves the stick—it doesn't take control away from the pilot. The Air Force nevertheless began reviewing training procedures in 2019, following the accidents. ## How The Flying Horse Operates The Pegasus is nowadays in service all over the world. The United States Air Force received their first Pegasus in 2019, which was well past the 2016 due date, and as if being late wasn't bad enough, the Pegasus was bogged with a plethora of problems. The first issue the Air Force spotted was the inadequate boom pressure during the refueling of the A-10 Warthog. The boom in the Pegasus uses 1400 pounds of thrust resistance, which is an international standard, while the A-10 can only generate 650 pounds. This was actually the fault of the Air Force, which they admitted, as they didn't provide Boeing with the specifications of the refueling requirements for the A-10. Another issue was the distortion of the Remote Vision System which happened because of glare in certain conditions. The problem of cargo locks would quickly present itself too. In September of 2019, the Air Force restricted the plane from transporting cargo and passengers because the cargo locks kept unlocking mid-flight—certainly not something you want happening with passengers on board. It would take another two years for all of these problems to get fixed on all existing KC-46s, and operational use was only allowed in 2021. Even then, however, it was limited. The Pegasus could only spread its wings in the United States, deemed unfit for deployment in combat areas as it could only refuel four aircraft—B-52s, F-15s and 16s, and the F/A-18. In 2022, six years after the original delivery date of the first aircraft and three years after the actual delivery, the Air Force greenlit the Pegasus for general operational use. In retrospect, it seemed like Boeing delivered a half-baked product that required years of work to get it up in the air safely. In 2024, however, one Pegasus completed a 45 hour-long flight around the entire planet as part of Project Magellan. During its flight, it refueled several aircraft and it itself was refueled a few times, proving its operational capacity. When refueling, the Pegasus can use both a refueling boom and drogue pods. A refueling boom is a rigid tube protruding from the back of an air tanker. A drogue is a completely different story. The drogue is a sort of a basket at the end of a long, flexible hose that comes out of a pod—the Pegasus has a drogue pod on each wing. Once the hose with the drogue is released, the drogue itself acts as a funnel for the aircraft receiving the fuel—the pilot of the refueling aircraft aims to essentially stab the drogue with the aircraft's probe. Once the probe and the drogue make contact, the drogue leads the probe to a valve, and when the valve locks, the refueling can start. Some planes, like the Pegasus, use both the stiff boom system and the drogue system, and it can, in theory, refuel up to three aircraft at once as they don't get in each other's way. This is a huge advantage in comparison to other tanker aircraft, as it's saving the refueling aircraft a whole lot of time, which can make the difference between success and failure during missions. To guide the refueling process, a crew member uses one of the two on-board Aerial Refueling Operator Stations. These stations use the remote vision system which is equipped with cameras, allowing the operator to aim the boom. To allow operators refueling in the dark, the system comes equipped with stereoscopic glasses. Despite the high technological capacity of this system, it too had some issues. As mentioned earlier, glare issues, depth depiction issues, and curvature distortions can occur with the remote vision system, which obviously makes it more difficult for the operator to aim the boom. This, however, will most likely be solved with the release of an update for the system. At this point in time, Boeing produced 98 Pegasi with the United States Air Force alone planning to obtain 188 of them, while that number might even go up to 288 if the Air Force decides to exercise all their options provided by the new tanker program. The United States, however, isn't the only operator of this aircraft. Japan made an order of six aircraft, with some of them already introduced. Israel already purchased four, with the contract allowing another four if Israel deems it necessary, and as of 2025, Turkey is also seriously considering renewing its tanker fleet with the Pegasus. ## A Work In Progress The Pegasus seems to be its own bad luck charm. When taking a retrospective look at the project, it seems everything around it went wrong at every step of the way. First of all, the program that requested a new design, and ultimately landed with the Pegasus, was pushed forward only because a corruption scandal prevented the United States from buying and leasing already existing aircraft. Then, the original proposal for the Pegasus was rejected, and it took years for the design to win the second round of proposals. The development of the Pegasus was painfully slow and it was delivered a few years after the due date, and even after delivery it was an unfinished product. A work in progress that the Air Force keeps upgrading to this day. Even today, its service record is not perfectly clean. Just recently, in July of 2025, the boom of one Pegasus was severely damaged during a routine refueling of an F-22 east of Norfolk, with the pilots landing the damaged bird safely. On top of all that, the Air Force won't be completing its 188-strong fleet of KC-46 tankers any time soon. With all of that in mind, it's right to ask—is there something going right with this aircraft? And truth be told, it did do one thing right—the Pegasus rejuvenated the Air Force's tanker fleet. Although the fleet is not complete, it is much younger and more durable than the aging Stratotankers which spent more time in the workshop than in the air towards the end of their service. Even though the Pegasus went through a very long period of both on-ground and aerial turbulence, the biggest problems are now ironed out and there's no reason not to expect a strong performance from this aerial tanker. ## Key Takeaways - The KC-46 Pegasus is a large aerial refueling tanker designed to carry significant fuel and cargo. - The Pegasus's development was marked by corruption scandals and bureaucratic issues, delaying its deployment. - The Pegasus can refuel multiple aircraft simultaneously using both boom and drogue systems, enhancing mission efficiency. - Despite initial problems, the Pegasus has proven its operational capacity with a global flight and ongoing upgrades. - The Pegasus has replaced aging Stratotankers, providing the US Air Force with a more modern and durable fleet. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is the KC-46 Pegasus? The KC-46 Pegasus is an aerial refueling tanker designed to carry a large amount of fuel and refuel multiple aircraft mid-flight. It is part of the US Air Force's mid-air fuel logistics. ### What was the KC-X Program? The KC-X Program was initiated in January 2007 by the US Air Force to replace the aging KC-135 Stratotankers. It aimed to procure 179 new aerial refueling tankers. ### What are the key design features of the KC-46 Pegasus? The KC-46 Pegasus incorporates elements from various Boeing 767 variants. It has a maximum takeoff weight of 415,000 pounds, can carry 18 pallets of cargo, 114 passengers, or 54 patients, and has a fuel capacity of over 212,000 pounds. ### What is the range of the KC-46 Pegasus? The KC-46 Pegasus has a range of more than 7,300 miles or close to 12,000 kilometers, which is almost five times greater than the KC-135 Stratotanker's range. ### What are the refueling capabilities of the KC-46 Pegasus? The KC-46 Pegasus can refuel up to 30 F-16 Fighting Falcons and can use both a refueling boom and drogue pods to refuel multiple aircraft simultaneously. ### What issues has the KC-46 Pegasus faced since its introduction? The KC-46 Pegasus has faced several issues, including inadequate boom pressure during refueling of the A-10 Warthog, distortion of the Remote Vision System due to glare, and problems with cargo locks unlocking mid-flight. ### What is the current status of the KC-46 Pegasus in the US Air Force? As of 2024, the US Air Force has 98 KC-46 Pegasus aircraft and plans to obtain up to 288 if all options are exercised. The aircraft has been cleared for general operational use and has completed long-duration flights around the globe. ### What other countries operate the KC-46 Pegasus? Japan has ordered six aircraft, Israel has purchased four with an option for another four, and Turkey is considering renewing its tanker fleet with the Pegasus. ### What is the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) in the KC-46 Pegasus? The MCAS is a flight stabilizing feature designed to avoid stalling caused by fuel redistribution after refueling. It automatically disengages if the pilot moves the stick, ensuring the pilot retains control. ### What is the significance of the KC-46 Pegasus for the US Air Force? The KC-46 Pegasus has rejuvenated the Air Force's tanker fleet, providing a more durable and younger fleet compared to the aging KC-135 Stratotankers. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: The KC-46 Pegasus](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NUzTTy3ZBU) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/KC-46_Pegasus_%2852253521656%29.jpg) by Airwolfhound from Hertfordshire, UK / openverse, by-sa. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/mongol-empire-unstoppable-force-crumbled https://megaprojects.pub/article/mongol-empire-unstoppable-force-crumbled Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT The British had their Navy, the Romans had their Legions, and Napoleon had his Grand Armée. But none of these forces could match what the Mongols could do on horseback. Genghis Khan and his descendants conquered much of the Asian landmass, ruling over history's largest contiguous land empire. Though one of the most fearsome forces known to humankind—laying waste to countless empires that stood in its way—the Mongol Empire also spurred innovations in administration, religious tolerance, and the arts that proved to be revolutionary. From the humble beginnings of a nomadic tribe to rulers of millions, the story of the Mongol Empire is a fascinating tale of ambition, warfare, and destiny. ## A New Ruler The Mongols in the 12th century were a scattering of nomadic tribes spread across the vast, treeless grassland plains of Mongolia known as the steppe. Each of these tribes was ruled by a khan who often had quarrels with opposing tribal leaders. This often made the political landscape as harsh as the land they inhabited. In 1162, though, a boy named Temujin was born who would rise to the top of the unforgiving arena of tribal politics and change the way that Mongol society—and the world—worked. When Temujin was still young, his father, the chieftain of their clan, was poisoned by a tribe they were at war with. Since his tribe would only follow a strong male leader, they deemed his son, Temujin, too weak to lead. Instead, they fell in behind a long-time rival of his late father and abandoned Temujin and his family. His mother had to remarry just to survive. Raised by his mother and stepfather, Temujin's childhood was one of poverty and hardship. It surely didn't show any signs of future greatness. As he grew older, Temujin managed to work his way into positions of power. Sources tell of his ability to win over loyal followers just by the sheer force of his personality. He made strategic alliances with khans to strengthen his standing among the tribes. These alliances would eventually allow him command over a sizeable force. A rising leader, he used new strategies to cement his hold on power. He promoted the soldiers in his army based on merit, unlike other Mongol commanders. He divided the spoils of his conquests equally among his soldiers. One of his more ingenious moves was to divide the people he conquered and spread them across his forces to prevent them from banding together against him. Temujin won many power struggles, demolished the Mongol nobility, bested all of his opponents, and united the previously disparate tribes of the Steppe to form the first ever united Mongolia. In 1206, a council elected him the leader of this new nation. Temujin was known as the "Universal Ruler" of the Mongols. He had become Genghis Khan. ## The Mongols Under Genghis Khan ### Conquest The story could have ended there. Genghis Khan, now the ruler of a united Mongolia, could have stayed put on the steppe and worried about governing his new nation. But the new khan was only getting started. The Mongol conquest began for a few reasons. First, the year 1206 saw lower temperatures than normal which led to a decrease in grass growing on the Steppe. With no sustenance for the horses and other animals their economy depended on, the Mongols were forced to search elsewhere. Second, nervous about the newly united nomadic tribes on their border, Mongolia's neighbors, namely China, cut off trade. The Mongols, surrounded by the barren steppe, would have to find another way to acquire the goods they needed. Third, and most importantly, Genghis Khan believed he had a mission from the gods. He believed that the sky god, Tengeri, who ruled above all else, had tasked him with uniting the entire world under one sword. If any army were to do it, it would be Genghis Khan's newly united forces. Their first conquest was the invasion of the Northern Jin dynasty in China. The Mongols took large swathes of Chinese land and forced the Jin emperor to move his capital further south. Around the same time, Genghis Khan sent envoys to Central Asia. The shah who ruled there had the envoys killed for even talking of challenging his power. In response, Genghis turned the might of his army against the shah and toppled his regime. Over the next twenty years, Mongol forces would push farther south into China and west into the Middle East. During the campaigns under Genghis Khan, they would conquer more land in two decades than the Romans did in 400 years. To understand how they built such a vast empire, we need to examine the Mongolian forces in more detail. ### Battle Tactics The Mongols were warriors by nature. Growing up on the steppe, Mongolians had been hardened by its unforgiving habitat. The men were trained in cavalry and hand-to-hand combat from a young age. Battle accounts claim that Mongolian cavalry could lean almost completely sideways on their horse, keep a firm grip with their legs, and get off accurate shots with a bow. Horses played a pivotal role in the Mongols' strategy. They were constantly on the move, outpacing the enemy, and making for impossible targets. Genghis Khan's battle repertoire was highly dependent on surprise attacks. One of his go-to's was the "feigned withdrawal," in which Mongolian forces would seem to flee from the enemy, drawing them close, then turning in an instant and surrounding them with cavalry. You can imagine what happened from there. These merciless tactics offered the Mongols an edge over armies that seemed to have every other advantage. Mongol forces were often outnumbered and the soldiers they clashed with were often bigger, stronger, and better equipped. But traditional advantages hardly mattered when staring down the Mongol horde. ### The End of an Era No matter how fearsome a conqueror he was, though, Genghis Khan was still human. During a campaign in 1227, the great khan met his end. Riding back from a campaign in either Persia or Jin China—sources differ on this point—Genghis Khan died. His forces went to great lengths to hide his burial site, leaving us clueless where his body is today. Because of this, we know next to nothing about how he died. Some legends claim he was struck down by lightning or by a vengeful lover. Other sources say he succumbed to wounds from battle or even to the Bubonic Plague. Either way, the reign of the Universal Ruler was at an end. ## Succession, Consolidation, and Expansion Genghis Khan's legacy was carried on by his descendants, often referred to as the "Golden Lineage." His son, Ogedei, assumed control of the throne after his father's death, keeping Mongol power consolidated in one person. Under Ogedei, the territorial expansion of the Mongols reached its peak. They continued their incursion into the Jin Dynasty, this time bringing the emperor to his knees and forcing his people to submit to Mongol rule. Mongol forces spread further into the Islamic west, conquering the Khwarezmian Empire and the Abbasid Caliphate in Persia. In Russia, many principalities fell victim to invasion. And in Eastern Europe, Poland, Hungary, and surrounding territories came under Mongol control. The Mongolian Army was on the verge of sweeping across the rest of Europe and had Christendom trembling at the knees. In 1241, though, Ogedei died after an all-night drinking bender, forcing the Mongolian horde to return home to deal with their khan's death and the ensuing power struggle. At the time of Ogedei's death, the Mongolian Empire stretched from the Sea of Japan to the Mediterranean, and from Siberia to Southern China. However, after the death of Ogedei, the Mongols were without a ruler. ## Fragmentation With no clear decree on who would assume power, Genghis Khan's grandsons waged war against each other. For nearly 20 years, they fought for control of the empire. By 1260, the once-united Mongols were split into four. In Persia, the Ilkhanate reigned supreme. They overthrew what was left of the Abbasid Caliphate and occupied Baghdad, then the crown jewel of the Arab world. The Chagatai Khanate ruled in Central Asia. Though not directly related to Genghis Khan, Timur carried on the Mongol legacy and established the Timurid Dynasty. Timur's descendants would later establish the Mughal Empire in India, ruling over the subcontinent for centuries after. Russia and Eastern Europe came under the control of the Golden Horde. This dynasty lasted for centuries until overthrown by a trading post called Muscovy. Muscovy would establish the Russian Empire under the tsars, which ruled for three hundred years until it was overthrown and replaced by the Soviet Union. The most well-known descendant of the Mongol Empire, though, is the Yuan Dynasty in China. ## The Mongol Dynasty in China ### Conquest Born in 1215, during the reign of his grandfather, Kublai Khan grew up appreciating Confucian thought. Seen by many historians as the greatest successor of Genghis Khan, Kublai rose to power in 1260 after his brother, the original inheritor of power in Mongol China, died. Though the Jin Dynasty in China had been toppled, the Song Dynasty in the south still stood. In 1279, though, Kublai Khan brought the Mongol offensive against the remnants of the southern Chinese to a definitive and victorious end. In doing so, he completed the conquest of China his grandfather started nearly 70 years before and united all of China under Mongol rule. The empire he built came to be known as the Yuan Dynasty. Though Kublai Khan had united all of China for the first time in over three hundred years, that success did not put an end to his military ambitions. The Mongol army toppled the Dali and Cham Kingdoms in present-day southern China and Vietnam, respectively. Though they had early successes as they pushed farther into Southeast Asia, the Mongols were eventually stopped and forced to retreat by the hot weather and diseases of the region. Kublai Khan also attempted to invade Japan twice. He built up massive fleets for the campaigns, using some of the biggest ships of the time. However, his army was turned back both times. Two storms, which the Japanese people subsequently called "kamikaze" or "divine wind," laid waste to his fleets. It seemed only forces of nature could stop the Mongols in battle. ### Governance Kublai's reign would last over 30 years and is seen as a golden age of science and culture. His power extended over all of China, Mongolia, Tibet, and even into the Korean Peninsula. He built his new capital in two parts, one in Xanadu, a city that became known for its wealth and luxury, and the other in Beijing. The Yuan Dynasty would produce such cultural achievements as the development of the novel, landscape art, and the distinctive blue and white pottery still prominent in China today. The invention of movable type printing allowed for works on medicine and agriculture to be spread across the empire. Though Mongol rule over China left an indelible mark on the country, the opposite also proved true. As one of Kublai's Chinese advisors told him, "One can conquer China on horseback, but one cannot rule it from horseback." This meant that the Mongols would have to adapt to Chinese ways to rule successfully there. However, tribal traditions softened with the adoption of Confucian values. For example, the Yuan Dynasty used Chinese methods like the civil service examination to organize the government compared with the familial inheritance that usually characterized Mongolian administration. However, the social hierarchy still placed Mongol elites at the top of society and the Chinese peasantry at the bottom. Kublai Khan also allowed many foreigners to assume positions in his government, the most notable of which being the famous Venetian traveler, Marco Polo. ### Decline As the various Mongol dominions spread their power over a growing number of peoples, cultures, and political systems, it became harder for these once-nomadic tribes to hold on to the traditional values that had led them to such success. The sedentary cultures they conquered made the Mongols into more sedentary people. Mongol administrators were faced with the dilemma of sticking to tribal ways that did not serve well in imperial governance or adapt to the societal and political standards of the conquered people, but lose their identity in the process. ### Fall in China Economic woes plagued the Yuan Dynasty. Inflation, currency devaluation, and economic mismanagement led to the crumbling of their influence and power. Add corruption and government favoritism to the mix and you get an empire ready to topple. The greed with which the Mongols gathered wealth during conquests did not translate well to everyday administration. Rumblings of discontent in Mongol-controlled China began from the lower classes. Uprisings erupted among the peasantry and ethnic minority groups. Eventually, in 1368, a revolt, led by the Red Turbans—a religious movement led by a monk—overthrew the Yuan Dynasty and began the reign of the Ming Dynasty. Though other dominions of the Mongol Empire outlasted the Yuan Dynasty, the fall of the Yuan is seen as the beginning of the end. Mongol power in the regions it once dominated was irreparably damaged. ## Legacy and Impact of the Mongol Empire The Mongol Empire's legacy was a far-reaching one whose effects can still be felt today. At its height, the empire facilitated cultural, economic, and technological exchange along the Silk Road, a network of trade routes that linked China and Europe. Commodities from across the land were combined to create luxurious goods that attested to the empire's vastness and opulence. For example, skilled artisans from Baghdad wove gold brocade, using Chinese silk and Tibetan gold. These exquisite fabrics adorned the Mongol elites' housing, clothes, and horses, giving them an air of grandeur and sophistication. One of the most remarkable aspects of the empire was its support for merchants and artisans, even if they were forcibly relocated across the empire. The Mongols recognized the importance of trade and commerce and facilitated it by establishing a code of law that provided general rules and punishments throughout the empire. This helped to promote order and stability, which allowed for the flourishing of economic activity. Mongol leadership fostered religious tolerance, allowing people to practice their own faith without fear of persecution. This promoted cultural exchange and the spread of ideas, as people from different parts of the empire interacted and shared their beliefs and practices. Perhaps most significantly, the Mongols were responsible for the spread of many Chinese inventions to the West. Gunpowder, paper, printing, and compasses all made their way to Europe thanks to the Mongols' trading networks. These inventions transformed the world, ushering in a new era of scientific and technological progress. ## Key Takeaways - The Mongol Empire, led by Genghis Khan, conquered vast territories through superior horsemanship and tactical innovation. - Genghis Khan's strategic alliances and merit-based promotions unified Mongol tribes and expanded his military power. - The Mongol Empire facilitated cultural, economic, and technological exchanges along the Silk Road, spreading inventions like gunpowder and printing to the West. - Under Kublai Khan, the Yuan Dynasty in China saw advancements in arts and governance, but economic mismanagement and corruption led to its downfall. - The Mongol Empire's legacy includes fostering religious tolerance and promoting trade, which had lasting impacts on global cultural exchange. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### Who was the founder of the Mongol Empire? The founder of the Mongol Empire was Temujin, who later became known as Genghis Khan. ### What were some of the key reasons for the Mongol conquests? The Mongol conquests were driven by environmental factors such as lower temperatures leading to decreased grass growth, trade restrictions by neighboring countries, and Genghis Khan's belief in a divine mission to unite the world under one sword. ### What were some of the innovative tactics used by the Mongol army? The Mongols used tactics such as the 'feigned withdrawal,' where they would pretend to retreat to draw enemies into a trap, and relied heavily on their superior horsemanship and archery skills. ### How did the Mongol Empire facilitate cultural exchange? The Mongol Empire facilitated cultural exchange by supporting merchants and artisans, establishing a code of law that promoted order and stability, and fostering religious tolerance, which allowed for the interaction and sharing of beliefs and practices across the empire. ### What significant inventions were spread to the West thanks to the Mongols? The Mongols were responsible for the spread of Chinese inventions such as gunpowder, paper, printing, and compasses to the West through their trading networks. ### What happened to the Mongol Empire after the death of Genghis Khan? After Genghis Khan's death, his son Ogedei assumed control and continued the territorial expansion. However, after Ogedei's death, the empire fragmented into four khanates due to power struggles among Genghis Khan's grandsons. ### What was the Yuan Dynasty and who was its most notable ruler? The Yuan Dynasty was established by Kublai Khan, a descendant of Genghis Khan, who completed the conquest of China and united it under Mongol rule. Kublai Khan is seen as one of the greatest successors of Genghis Khan. ### What led to the decline of the Yuan Dynasty? The Yuan Dynasty declined due to economic woes such as inflation, currency devaluation, and economic mismanagement, as well as corruption and government favoritism. These issues led to uprisings among the peasantry and ethnic minority groups, ultimately resulting in the overthrow of the Yuan Dynasty by the Ming Dynasty in 1368. ### What was the impact of the Mongol Empire on global trade? The Mongol Empire facilitated global trade by establishing a code of law that promoted order and stability, supporting merchants and artisans, and fostering religious tolerance. This allowed for the flourishing of economic activity and the exchange of commodities along the Silk Road. ### What was the significance of the Mongol Empire's support for religious tolerance? The Mongol Empire's support for religious tolerance allowed people to practice their own faith without fear of persecution, promoting cultural exchange and the spread of ideas as people from different parts of the empire interacted and shared their beliefs and practices. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: The Mongol Empire: The Unstoppable Force that Ultimately Crumbled](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ic1_npPY6DE) - [https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/347e310a43df4cce8268f3019e5e63da](https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/347e310a43df4cce8268f3019e5e63da) - [https://www.britannica.com/place/Mongol-empire](https://www.britannica.com/place/Mongol-empire) - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire) - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUVvTqvjUaM&t=1s&ab_channel=TED-Ed](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUVvTqvjUaM&t=1s&ab_channel=TED-Ed) - [https://www.britannica.com/summary/Mongol-Empire-Timeline](https://www.britannica.com/summary/Mongol-Empire-Timeline) - [https://www.historyhit.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-mongol-empire/](https://www.historyhit.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-mongol-empire/) - [https://www.britannica.com/summary/Decline-of-the-Mongol-Empire](https://www.britannica.com/summary/Decline-of-the-Mongol-Empire) - [http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/mongols/conquests/conquests_4.htm#:~:text=The%20result%20of%20these%20difficulties,on%20The%20Mongols%20in%20China%5D](http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/mongols/conquests/conquests_4.htm#:~:text=The%20result%20of%20these%20difficulties,on%20The%20Mongols%20in%20China%5D) - [http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/mongols/conquests/conquests_4.htm#:~:text=The%20result%20of%20these%20difficulties,on%20The%20Mongols%20in%20China%5D](http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/mongols/conquests/conquests_4.htm#:~:text=The%20result%20of%20these%20difficulties,on%20The%20Mongols%20in%20China%5D) - [https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/Directors-Select-Articles/Genghis-Khan/#:~:text=The%20largest%20force%20Genghis%20Khan,Europe%20never%20exceeded%20150%2C000%20men](https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/Directors-Select-Articles/Genghis-Khan/#:~:text=The%20largest%20force%20Genghis%20Khan,Europe%20never%20exceeded%20150%2C000%20men) - [https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ogodei](https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ogodei) - [https://www.britannica.com/biography/Kublai-Khan](https://www.britannica.com/biography/Kublai-Khan) - [https://www.britannica.com/topic/Yuan-dynasty](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Yuan-dynasty) - [https://smartplayer.captionsync.com/play.php?vid=1596043180ehenderson_add735c9643c#:~:text=After%20his%20father's%20death%2C%20the,of%20the%20Steppes%20by%20themselves](https://smartplayer.captionsync.com/play.php?vid=1596043180ehenderson_add735c9643c#:~:text=After%20his%20father's%20death%2C%20the,of%20the%20Steppes%20by%20themselves) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Zeekr_009_01_China_2023-04-17.jpg) by Navigator84 / openverse, by-sa. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/mount-yamantau-complex-russia-mysterious-underground-fortress https://megaprojects.pub/article/mount-yamantau-complex-russia-mysterious-underground-fortress Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Deep in the southern Ural mountains, in an area completely inaccessible to Russian civilians, construction continues on and around Mount Yamantau, where rumor has it that a massive, underground bunker of some sort is being built. Some have said it's a vast mining project, others say it's for nuclear Armageddon, but, kept far from the prying eyes of the public, no one knows for sure, despite the project running for several decades now. Today we're going to dive into the mysteries surrounding the Mount Yamantau Complex, give you everything we currently know about this elusive Russian facility, and see if we can get to the bottom of this Soviet-era secret. ## A Mysterious Past When Leonid Brezhnev took power in the Soviet Union in the 1960s, he was inheriting a tense geopolitical situation, as just a few years earlier, the Cuban Missile Crisis had shaken the world when we came as close as ever to nuclear war. Although that had fortunately been avoided, relations between the superpowers were still struggling, especially now that there was a new heated disagreement over US intervention in Vietnam. And so, the threat of nuclear Armageddon remained as prevalent as ever, and Brezhnev was prepared to take the necessary steps to ensure that if push came to shove, the USSR would not lose the great atomic showdown. Sometime in the 1970s, a massive construction project began in the south Ural mountains, centered around Mount Yamantau. Translating to 'wicked mountain' in the local Bashkir language, it is the tallest peak in the Southern Urals, standing 1,640 meters, or 5,400 feet at its highest point. When construction began, two military garrisons were stationed around the mountain, Beloretsk-15 and Beloretsk-16, along with a possible third, known as Alkino-2. These garrisons, totaling as many as 50,000 workers, excavated and constructed rail systems for transport for the first few years, until in 1979 they were all unified into a single city, known as Ufa-105, and later called Mezhgorye. Mezhgorye is what is known as a closed, or secret city, meaning there is absolutely no access to the public, foreigners, or anyone that does not have proper clearance. Closed cities were constructed all across the Soviet republics, and were almost always home to highly classified research in weapons testing, nuclear engineering, space travel, and other advanced fields. They were so secretive that even the families of specialists lived in the towns, were rarely allowed to leave, and completely forbidden to discuss the city's inner workings. Even if they wanted to tell an outsider about it, they would find it difficult as none of these cities were shown on any maps at the time. Over the years, the workers continued to excavate inside of the mountain, digging through granite and quartz and shipping the stones out through the massive rail network, and the project stayed completely hidden. But as the 1980s rolled around, things were starting to get tough for the USSR. It's no surprise in hindsight, but their war in Afghanistan had gone from what was supposed to be a quick invasion to a decade-long quagmire, and this was starting to take a heavy toll on the nation's military budget. Generally, when money gets tight, excess or experimental projects are the first to lose funding, but despite the economic turmoil setting in across the Soviet republics, construction at Mount Yamantau pressed forward unabated, and even more workers were sent to the site. Even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, which would certainly put an end to any unnecessary spending, the workers at Mount Yamantau continued digging around the clock, and by the early 1990s, the population of Mezhgorye was 73,000. In 1994, a daring Russian journalist named N. Starkov decided that he wanted to get a peek at the mysterious site, but knowing that he would be denied access on all available roads, he took the path less taken. After carefully hiking through the thick birch forests surrounding Mezhgorye, he got a glimpse of a massive hole in the ground, surrounded by a huge construction site and even a helicopter landing pad. Writing in the local newspaper, *Beloretsky Rabochy*, he said, "There was so much iron junk down there, from water mains to rail car wheels … Good Lord. How did it get there? The scale was enormous." But Starkov and his readers weren't the only ones to take notice of such an enormous site, as US Satellites started watching the area around the same time, and they were just as confused as everyone else. At the time, the United States and Russia had an interesting relationship, as they both were taking mutual steps to increase transparency and deescalate tensions. This included the US giving Russian officials a tour of the Cheyenne Mountain Complex in Colorado, and each side disclosing exact numbers and types of nuclear weapons. Along with this, Russia was in possession of thousands of old, Soviet nukes that needed to be disposed of, the United States agreed to send money to help with their dismantling since Russia had no spare money in their budget for such an undertaking. However, part of the agreement to receive US aid was that Russia would only spend the rest of their budget on purely defensive, minimal military expenditures, and the Mount Yamantau complex seemed to be in direct contradiction to this agreement. As stated by a perplexed Pentagon official at the time, "The toughest question we can get from Congress when we ask them for funds to help disarm and dismantle the Russian strategic arsenal is why are they using their meager rubles to build such a thing as Yamantau mountain." And that is a great question. When their wallets were empty and their debt was as high as ever, why was the Russian military so intent on finishing what they started in the Ural Mountains? Let's get into the theories. ## Doomsday Prep When the US first started taking notice of the construction around Mount Yamantau, they went directly to the Russian government for an explanation. But, in typical government fashion, they offered little in the form of an explanation, other than reassuring the United States that whatever was happening was of no threat to any other nation, and in the 1997 federal Russian budget, the project was simply listed under the Ministry of Defense. Hoping to shed some light on the topic, one Russian official, Tsikurnov, stepped forward with some information, and, claiming to be the director the project, said that the whole thing was actually a business venture, and that he was the founder of an enterprise known as the Ural Mining and Ore Dressing Combine. This would make a lot of sense, as the Ural Mountains are home to plentiful reserves of copper, iron, and other metals, and, let's be honest, it would be far from the first time Russian government funds were used for personal gain. But it leaves more questions than answers: if it was just an ore mining site, why the secrecy, and why not disclose it to the Americans earlier? It gets even more confusing when he later took back what he said about mining, and said that it was actually an underground storehouse for military food and clothing. Safe to say, he was lying about something. Russian media outlets began to speculate that this mining company was a front for a nuclear waste disposal site, albeit without any evidence, and pretty soon the locals were up in arms, sending in letters demanding an explanation and the removal of any dangerous material. And their fears weren't unfounded, as this would also be far from the first time Russia stored nuclear waste material in a dangerous location next to a population center. For an example of this, look no further than Lake Karachay, which is so radioactive due to nuclear waste dumping that a human will receive a lethal dose of radiation if they stand near its shores for less than an hour. Adding to the mess, another Russian official stepped forward, and confirmed everyone's suspicions. He claimed that the site was indeed a bunker for Russian officials to escape to in the event of a nuclear war. According to globalsecurity.org, this official's name was "MZ Shakiorov," and he was a former communist figure in the local government. But because this is a topic with a ton of speculation and misinformation online, we decided to dig a bit deeper and see if this Shakiorov guy is actually legit. It took a bit of digging, but it turns out that he does exist. He's mentioned in a footnote in a 1987 economic journal article called "Gorbachev and the Reform of the Soviet System" and also in a 1983 report of the status of the USSR by the US Department of Commerce. So yes, he does exist, and according to both of these sources he was indeed the first secretary of the Bashkir region, though the mentions of him online do have his name slightly misspelled, with an extra 'o'. And this lends some credibility to his explanation of Mount Yamantau. According to him, when the US nuclear doctrine in the 1970s was largely aimed at taking out Soviet leadership, Brezhnev authorized the construction of a massive facility to avoid a total decapitation of the government. The plan was for Mount Yamantau to be a complete survival center that would allow the Soviet leadership to remain afloat even if the rest of the country had been annihilated. Mount Yamantau was selected specifically for two reasons: one, the distance from other major population centers minimalized risk of a direct nuclear attack, and two, even if the bunker was targeted the complex was designed to withstand the blast from any weapon in the US arsenal. This includes US bunker busting weapons, which were specifically designed to counter such facilities, but simply aren't strong enough to pound through an entire mountain. Perhaps this is what Vladimir Putin was alluding to in a 2020 press conference when he stated that Russian nuclear command and control will remain entirely functional even in the event of a nuclear attack. According to one intelligence report, the facility has been constructed with 3,000 feet of mountain as a ceiling, though this did cause major issues with the bunker's radio communications. To get around this, radio equipment has to be placed outside the mountain, with communication lines drilled through the rock. This rather fragile communication network indicates that the facility might not be intended as a complete command and control center, but rather a somewhat luxurious hideout for the Russian elite if everything goes south. This all sounds highly believable, but it isn't the only potential explanation. One fact that somewhat contradicts the idea of it being a big survival bunker for the rich is the facility's incredible size: coming in at around 400 square miles, or a little over 1000 square kilometers, an area roughly equivalent to San Antonio, Texas. This seems really excessive, unless the invite sent to the Russian oligarchs has a plus one for all their super yachts. Another explanation is that the site is home to Russia's national treasures. Russia is home to loads of precious metals, so it's possible that Mount Yamantau is nothing more than a safe place to store gold, silver, and other expensive investments. The final possibility is that Mount Yamantau is a Russian version of Area 51, a place where experimental and highly classified technologies are developed and tested. After all, the Soviet Union was a leading producer of numerous biological and chemical weapons, and since many of those have since been banned, perhaps the mountain is a safe place for Russia to continue testing them away from the prying eyes of American satellites. Whatever the case, this is just about everything we know about the complex, as the Russian government has been tight-lipped regarding it for decades now. So, unless another Russian official decides to step forward with some inside information, the megaproject at Mount Yamantau is likely to remain a mystery for years to come. ## Key Takeaways - Mount Yamantau is a highly secretive underground complex in Russia's southern Ural mountains. - The facility has been under construction since the 1970s, with various theories about its purpose. - One prominent theory suggests it is a doomsday bunker for Russian officials in case of nuclear war. - The Russian government has been vague about the project, listing it under the Ministry of Defense. - The complex's immense size and secrecy have led to speculations ranging from a nuclear waste site to a storage for national treasures. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### Where is the Mount Yamantau Complex located? The Mount Yamantau Complex is located in the southern Ural mountains, in an area inaccessible to Russian civilians. ### What is the height of Mount Yamantau? Mount Yamantau stands 1,640 meters, or 5,400 feet at its highest point. ### When did construction begin on the Mount Yamantau Complex? Construction began on the Mount Yamantau Complex sometime in the 1970s. ### What is a closed city in the context of the Soviet Union? A closed city in the Soviet Union is a secret city with no access to the public, foreigners, or anyone without proper clearance. These cities were home to highly classified research in various advanced fields. ### What is the population of Mezhgorye? By the early 1990s, the population of Mezhgorye was 73,000. ### What did a Russian journalist observe at the Mount Yamantau site? In 1994, journalist N. Starkov observed a massive hole in the ground surrounded by a huge construction site and a helicopter landing pad. He noted an enormous amount of iron junk, including water mains and rail car wheels. ### What was the initial explanation given by a Russian official about the Mount Yamantau Complex? One Russian official, Tsikurnov, initially claimed that the Mount Yamantau Complex was a business venture for the Ural Mining and Ore Dressing Combine, suggesting it was a mining site. ### What is one of the theories about the purpose of the Mount Yamantau Complex? One theory is that the Mount Yamantau Complex is a bunker for Russian officials to escape to in the event of a nuclear war, designed to withstand any weapon in the US arsenal. ### What is the size of the Mount Yamantau Complex? The Mount Yamantau Complex is approximately 400 square miles, or a little over 1000 square kilometers, roughly equivalent to the size of San Antonio, Texas. ### What are some alternative theories about the purpose of the Mount Yamantau Complex? Alternative theories suggest that the Mount Yamantau Complex could be a storage site for Russia's national treasures or a facility for developing and testing experimental and highly classified technologies, similar to Area 51. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: The Mount Yamantau Complex: Russia's Mysterious Underground Fortress](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_46bimKA4N0) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Yamantau.JPG) by Yamigos / openverse, by-sa. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/ngad-americas-masterstroke-sixth-gen-fighter-innovation https://megaprojects.pub/article/ngad-americas-masterstroke-sixth-gen-fighter-innovation Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT ## Introduction Imagine an aircraft that breaks all the rules, one that sets a new standard for what human beings are capable of creating. Imagine an aircraft so advanced in its technological capability, so capable of blurring the lines between man and machine, that it and its human pilot form a symbiosis that science-fiction writers couldn't dream of. And imagine an aircraft, despite its small size, that can outclass and handily defeat any plane in the skies today. It's the one plane, to rule them all. If the United States Air Force has its way, the aircraft we're describing is closer than we might think—so close, in fact, that a prototype has already taken to the skies. This air-superiority fighter, if it does exist, is the brainchild of the Air Force's Next Generation Air Dominance program, or NGAD, and it's slated to make even the Air Force's own F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II obsolete. One way or another, this will not be the last time you hear us talk about the NGAD on Megaprojects. The program is currently in its early stages, with the vast majority of the answers we're most curious about being guarded under lock, key, and top-secret classification. But here in the NGAD's first days, before it's even received its proper name, we're going to take a deep dive into what a next-generation fighter aircraft might be, what we know about the NGAD, and when, if ever, it might take command of the skies. ## Entering the Sixth Generation In March of 2014, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, announced that it had completed its so-called Air Dominance Initiative Study—an investigation into the technologies and resources that would define the next generation of aerial combat. In response to the study, the United States Air Force kicked off the NGAD program, alongside the US Navy, who kicked off a separate NGAD program that's basically looking to do the same thing, and which we're going to assume will follow after the Air Force's version. The Air Force's NGAD program is meant to build a next-generation fighter aircraft, and for most of the world, building a "next-generation" fighter plane would translate to building a so-called fifth-generation plane. Fifth-gen fighter aircraft have a few key characteristics: enhanced stealth capabilities, the ability to fly at supercruise, advanced avionics, and supermaneuverability, all of which put them a league above the fighter aircraft that most of the world possesses. But the United States, as well as China and, if you're particularly gullible, Russia, all have fifth-generation fighters already, meaning that for the US, a next-generation fighter would move toward territory that the world hasn't yet attempted to traverse: a sixth-generation fighter. It's obviously very hard to put a finger on precisely what will define a sixth-generation aircraft—partly, because we just won't know until somebody actually builds one, and partly because whichever country is next-up in building a really advanced aircraft, is probably going to call it sixth-generation just because nobody else can really correct them without building their own. But military experts have identified a few key characteristics that future sixth-generation aircraft are likely to possess, and what that list doesn't include, is just as important as what it does. A sixth-generation aircraft, at least generally, is not going to be wasting its time in close-quarters aerial dogfights with other combat aircraft. Instead, it'll be more than able to shoot enemy aircraft down using long-range weapons before the enemy aircraft can even see them—and perhaps, before the enemy even knows that the sixth-generation fighter is there. Instead, sixth-gen fighters will likely have enhanced abilities to attack ground targets, engage in electronic and cyber-warfare, and even travel into space. As in all things 21st-century, automation and artificial intelligence are also crucial in a sixth-generation aircraft, which will likely be able to operate in both manned and unmanned modes. Finally, they will sit at the center of a battlefield in a command-and-control role, communicating with unmanned drones, other fighter aircraft, soldiers on the ground, tacticians at a base far from conflict, and even the plane's own suite of hyper-advanced sensors and technology. Data fusion, machine-learning, and even virtual-reality tools for pilots could all play a central role in the fighter aircraft to come. Stealth technology might become even more advanced, and some theorists believe that directed-energy weapons—that is, lasers—might be included with sixth-generation aircraft too. Now, a quick look at the United States' current Air Force, compared to the rest of the world, might have you asking why, exactly, the US would need a sixth-generation aircraft so quickly. Although China's J-20 fighter is being mass-produced, it's still vastly outnumbered by American fifth-generation planes, and the oncoming J-31 isn't likely to turn the tides. The Russian Su-57 appears to be one hell of a dud, and although we've done a recent video on some of the other fifth-generation aircraft popping up around the world, it's unlikely that any of those aircraft will be mass-produced within the decade. The American F-35, with software updates, is expected to remain in front-line service for a very long time, and given that thousands of those planes are already built or on order, it doesn't seem feasible that any other world power could catch up. But a closer look around the world suggests that some nations might be looking to skip over the fifth-generation fighter entirely, and instead, go straight for generation six. Japan's F-X program may include sixth-generation elements, and although we take this with some healthy skepticism, Russia has claimed that it's started work on the PAK DP aircraft, a super-advanced interceptor. India has made allusions to their desire to lay the groundwork for sixth-gen research, and the Future Combat Air System, a collaborative effort between Britain, Sweden, Italy, France, Germany, and Spain, endeavors to bring Europe its first indigenously-produced sixth-gen aircraft. Finally, and perhaps most concerning for the US military, China has built on its successful production of the J-20 with exploratory research into a sixth-generation fighter of their own. Taken together, this spells the sort of trouble that the American military loves to address, an urgent reason—or, a convenient excuse, depending on how you see it—to throw a metric fuck-ton of money at the Air Force's R&D budget, in hopes that the American military might just remain ahead of the curve. On the American side, the Air Force and the Navy both expect to retire a number of older fighter aircraft in the coming decades, with no new orders of F-35s expected to replace them, meaning that if the US is going to keep its bases and aircraft carriers stocked, then a sixth-generation fighter is the best way to do it. ## A Murky Program The exact participants in the NGAD, like most other things about the program, are currently unknown, but given that Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman have all expressed their own dedication toward researching sixth-generation technologies, it's probable that at least one, and perhaps all of those companies are involved with the NGAD program. Lockheed Martin, in particular, has produced both of America's fifth-generation fighters, suggesting that they might be especially well-equipped to help the Air Force out on this one. What we know for certain, is that once DARPA had completed its exploratory study, they launched a second program—this time, with the goal of developing X-planes, experimental planes that the US government can then then test, tweak, and refine at their leisure. A year later, the Air Force announced their Air Superiority 2030 plan, which didn't call for the development of a specific plane, but instead, a list of technological capabilities which could then be adapted into multiple aircraft. Eventually, the 2030 plan became the NGAD program, which, according to the Air Force, has four publicly acknowledged technological priorities. The program is supposed to produce advanced engine technology, providing more power for the same amount of fuel, while running cooler engines. It's looking to include uncrewed aircraft, which we'll talk about later, in addition to a manned air-superiority fighter. The program will develop new composites and structures to perform the job of an aircraft better while being lower-cost, and the eventual finished product will include a range of sensors and electronic capacities that should significantly one-up anything that you could attach to a plane today. And although the NGAD program is fairly new—or, at least, that's what the public believes—the Air Force announced in 2020 that they had already designed, assembled, and flown a technology-demonstrator prototype. It's unclear just how many of the features eventually intended for the fighter, were ready for inclusion in this early prototype, but two years later, the Air Force announced that the NGAD's technology was far enough along that the program was moving into the engineering, manufacture, and design phase. That is to say, the Air Force already has the bulk of the technologies they need to incorporate into the fighter, so now it's just a matter of finalizing the craft itself and figuring out how its production lines will work. What the Air Force has announced, is that their technology demonstrator has "broken a lot of records"—although whether those are altitude, speed, payload, design, or some other sort of record, is completely unknown. And despite a couple of pieces of artwork by Lockheed Martin, which depict a super-advanced manned fighter that some analysts believe might be the NGAD, there is no way to verify any aspects of the NGAD's true outward appearance. It's hard to say whether this means that the hard part is over, or just getting started, but regardless, we're currently three years past the announcement of a flight demonstrator. The F-22 program took seven years to get from the first flight of an industry prototype, to the first flight of a development version of the plane, while the F-35 program took six years to go from the first flight of an experimental craft to the first flight of a production-line model, suggesting that at this stage, the NGAD is probably roughly halfway between demonstrator and the beginnings of assembly-line production. Using the F-35 program as a comparison, experimental versions of the craft had completed flight testing by the three-year mark, and though we certainly can't confirm that the NGAD has done the same, it's entirely feasible that some folks with a very high security clearance might have a clear idea of the plane, inside and out. One other detail the Air Force has revealed, is the NGAD's price tag. The program requested an allotment of $1.66 billion in 2023, with projections indicating that it will need another $11.7 billion between 2024 and 2027. These are a significant hike when compared to the program allotments prior to 2022, which called for under a billion dollars annually, but according to the Air Force themselves, a billion dollars might not get the US very far when it comes to the aircraft itself. Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall has indicated that a single NGAD aircraft is likely to cost well into the hundreds of millions. That may be comparable to, or greater than the F-22's price tag, $143 million in today's money, and it certainly outpaces the F-35 at $75 million a copy, but given that the Air Force and Navy have well over a thousand F-35s on order, the NGAD's projection may not be too daunting for America's military super-budget. Finally, we've got to discuss the idea of the so-called "digital Century Series", a reference to a policy that the Air Force pursued during the 1950s and 1960s. In the original Century Series, the Air Force responded to the development of rapidly advancing jet technology by producing relatively quick runs of a variety of aircraft, prioritizing flexible production lines and adaptability, because they knew that any aircraft they produced in a given year, would probably be obsolete ten years later. Today's Air Force is hoping to develop that same flexible production ability, producing a higher number of aircraft designs and production lines, in order to cope with the rapidly changing demands of the digital world. This could potentially mean that different companies might receive contracts to work on the same aircraft—that, say, an aircraft design firm might get a long-term contract to produce multiple aircraft designs, which they'd then pass off to a company whose contracts allow it to produce all the aircraft they can, only for the completed aircraft to move into the care of a company contracted to give it operational support during its service life. The implications of this approach could be game-changing, not just for the American military-industrial complex, but for the Air Force as well. While the F-35, by example, is expected to have a service life through the 2070s, the NGAD program might actually be meant to field a whole collection of aircraft, each of which would assimilate the top-of-the-line technologies that the program is trying to provide. This, obviously, would be a bit of a dream situation for us here on Megaprojects, and it would be a fascinating process to observe, as short runs of individual aircraft quickly respond to the needs of a given moment. Having these aircraft built in a modular approach, where various individual systems can be rapidly overhauled and re-integrated into a given old or new aircraft, would bring a sort of cutting-edge versatility that modern air forces can only dream of. An April 2022 announcement by the Air Force's Chief of Staff, who disclosed that the NGAD's flight control and mission system software would be developed separately, gave at least one early hint that this is precisely where the NGAD program is headed. ## The Loyal Wingman And there's one other wrinkle in the NGAD program that we've really, *really* got to talk about: the concept of the loyal wingman, a series of uncrewed drones that Secretary Kendall has announced will fly directly alongside the NGAD's manned fighters. In a 2023 conference in Aurora, Colorado, Kendall announced that the Air Force is looking for an initial run of 200 NGAD fighters, which, in itself, was a big revelation. But he also specified that along with the 200 fighters, the Air Force expects to procure 1,000 drones to back those planes up in combat. Of those thousand, four hundred will be allotted to the NGAD fighters—basically, two drones per fighter. The other six hundred will fall in behind three hundred specially modified F-35 fighters, potentially with the option to upgrade the rest of the F-35 fleet to get drone buddies of its own. Drone wingmen are one of those things that have been talked about in military aviation for decades, but they're particularly difficult to actually build, and before 2023, there were only minimal indicators that they might pass from science fiction to science fact. While most drones are either controlled by operators on the ground, or otherwise have fairly simple functions to carry out by themselves in the sky, a wingman for a fighter aircraft would have to be fully autonomous, and capable of participating in fast-paced, unpredictable aerial combat, with no dependence on outside input. After all, it would be basically unfeasible to employ enough drone-operator teams to keep a thousand wingman UAVs in the sky at a given time. It's a very tough challenge to design, but it's exactly what the Air Force is hoping to introduce. Named the Collaborative Combat Aircraft, or CCA, this loyal-wingman drone is said to be able to participate in electronic attacks, and carry and fire air-to-air or air-to-surface missiles. Since stealthy aircraft need to store their missiles in internal weapons bays, they can't carry very many, but a pilot with two drones' worth of additional missiles is a hell of a lot more dangerous on the battlefield. Drone wingmen would also be able to sacrifice themselves in a battle environment much more easily than a human pilot would, transforming US air power into a force where two-thirds of its airborne casualties won't matter much in the long run, making a whole range of previously unthinkable attack and defense tactics perfectly reasonable. These drones could also fly complex patterns without having to worry about the effects of G-forces, and they'd be quite a bit easier and cheaper to produce than an equal number of additional NGAD fighters. The Air Force's Service Acquisition Chief, Andrew Hunter, is on record describing these CCA wingmen as "very much within grasp", strongly implying that they're likely to enter service around or at the same time that the NGAD starts showing up in Air Force squadrons. According to Secretary Kendall, "One way to think of CCAs is as remotely controlled versions of the targeting pods, electronic warfare pods or weapons now carried under the wings of our crewed aircraft". This could potentially be a way of simplifying the technology required for a drone wingman; after all, even current fifth-generation fighters are meant to conduct air-to-air combat at very long range, with the basic assumption that if they find themselves needing to dogfight in close quarters, then something has gone very, very wrong. As such, it may be a lot more feasible to teach these CCAs to stay close to their manned fighter plane and launch weapons as needed, with more advanced aerial combat capabilities coming later. Brigadier General Dale White, who oversees the Air Force's program on advanced aircraft, has specified that much of the AI and aircraft-team operating programs needed for the CCAs already exist, as part of the Air Force's so-called Project Skyborg, and the XQ-58 Valkyrie prototype is expected to be a test-bed for future advancements. ## Squinting At a Timeline So if the NGAD really is what it appears to be, the final, and perhaps most critical question is: When will the program's first fighter aircraft enter active service? In 2022, Air Force Secretary Kendall has stated that at least some of the NGAD's capabilities will be delivered by 2030, but this is obviously very vague. Kendall also stated that the NGAD would be approaching production by the end of this decade, but as for how that squares with only *some* of the NGAD's capabilities being available by then, is hard to say. Perhaps the Air Force really does intend to pursue several iterations of a fighter aircraft, with their first iteration featuring only a smaller proportion of the NGAD's eventual suite of technologies, or perhaps one of Kendall's statements was meant to take precedence over the other. One hint comes from the US Navy, rather than the Air Force, which is working on its own NGAD program, but also looking at the production of a new surface warship and a new submarine. According to the Navy, their NGAD program will begin acquiring production-line aircraft before either their warship or submarine programs award any contracts, and given the Navy's reliance on the F-35 for their latest fighter acquisition, it's entirely possible that the fighter/attack aircraft they're looking at for their NGAD is the same one the Air Force wants. This could imply production-line assembly beginning within the next four to six years, with deliveries on an aircraft matching up well against the timeline Secretary Kendall provided, and since the Navy has a number of other programs waiting for approval, we can reasonably assume that they've got some very clear expectations around their own acquisitions timeline. And a second indicator comes from the Air Force's statements about its F-22 fighter, which, despite being a cutting-edge aircraft even twenty-plus years after it first took to the skies…well, it's getting old, and it's not likely to be survivable in air-to-air battles far past 2030. The Air Force's decision to fast-track the NGAD likely isn't a coincidence, and it's understandable that they might want to be able to slot a new fighter cleanly into the combat role that the F-22 leaves behind. That being said, a number of Air Force and Pentagon personnel have expressed skepticism about the prospect of having a production-line NGAD fighter by the end of this decade. Given the myriad delays behind the F-22 and F-35 programs, a level of concern about such an ambitious timeline is already understandable, but with only a few years between now and 2030, it becomes less and less likely that the Air Force can thread that particular needle in time. Perhaps a delivery timeline closer to 2035 will make a bit more sense—and for the record, it's highly unlikely that any other nation would have their own sixth-generation aircraft, anytime remotely close to that deadline. So, at present, that's just about all we know about the NGAD, about its technological sophistication, its potentially innovative approach to short-run, high-tech aircraft creation, and about when we might expect to see it in the skies. But with such a potentially groundbreaking aircraft, one that seems to be just inches away from an official announcement, you can bet that we'll be back here on Megaprojects one day, diving into the sixth-generation fighter plane—or, even, multiple planes—that the NGAD will introduce to the skies. ## Key Takeaways - The NGAD program aims to develop a sixth-generation fighter aircraft, surpassing current fifth-generation capabilities. - The NGAD aircraft will focus on long-range engagements, electronic warfare, and autonomous operations. - The Air Force plans to produce 200 NGAD fighters and 1,000 uncrewed drones, known as Collaborative Combat Aircraft. - The NGAD program is expected to enter production by the end of the decade, with some capabilities delivered by 2030. - The NGAD's development includes advanced engine technology, new composites, and enhanced sensor and electronic capacities. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is the NGAD program? The NGAD (Next Generation Air Dominance) program is an initiative by the United States Air Force to develop a sixth-generation fighter aircraft that aims to outclass and make current planes like the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II obsolete. ### What are the key characteristics of a sixth-generation fighter aircraft? Sixth-generation fighter aircraft are expected to have enhanced abilities to attack ground targets, engage in electronic and cyber-warfare, operate in both manned and unmanned modes, and act as command-and-control hubs. They will likely feature advanced stealth technology, directed-energy weapons, and sophisticated sensors and avionics. ### Which companies are likely involved in the NGAD program? Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman have all expressed dedication toward researching sixth-generation technologies, making it probable that at least one, if not all, of these companies are involved in the NGAD program. ### What is the timeline for the NGAD program? The NGAD program is expected to deliver some of its capabilities by 2030, with production-line assembly potentially beginning within the next four to six years. However, there is skepticism about meeting this ambitious timeline, and a delivery timeline closer to 2035 might be more realistic. ### What is the cost of the NGAD program? The NGAD program requested $1.66 billion in 2023, with projections indicating a need for another $11.7 billion between 2024 and 2027. A single NGAD aircraft is likely to cost well into the hundreds of millions, comparable to or greater than the F-22's price tag of $143 million in today's money. ### What is the 'digital Century Series' approach? The 'digital Century Series' approach refers to the Air Force's plan to develop flexible production lines and adaptability, allowing for the production of a higher number of aircraft designs and production lines to cope with the rapidly changing demands of the digital world. ### What are 'loyal wingman' drones in the context of the NGAD program? Loyal wingman drones, also known as Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCAs), are uncrewed drones designed to fly alongside manned NGAD fighters. They are expected to be fully autonomous, capable of participating in aerial combat, and carrying additional weapons. ### How many NGAD fighters and loyal wingman drones does the Air Force plan to procure? The Air Force is looking to procure an initial run of 200 NGAD fighters and 1,000 loyal wingman drones. Of these, 400 drones will be allotted to the NGAD fighters, and the remaining 600 will support specially modified F-35 fighters. ### What is the significance of the NGAD program for the US military? The NGAD program is significant for the US military as it aims to maintain air superiority by developing a sixth-generation fighter aircraft that can outclass current and emerging threats. It also represents a shift towards more adaptable and flexible production methods, aligning with the 'digital Century Series' approach. ### What is the current status of the NGAD program? As of the latest information, the NGAD program has already designed, assembled, and flown a technology-demonstrator prototype. The program is moving into the engineering, manufacture, and design phase, with the bulk of the necessary technologies already developed. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: NGAD: America's Masterstroke in Sixth-Gen Fighter Innovation (Reupload)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYJsgfKEqTY) - [https://www.japcc.org/articles/fifth-generation-air-combat/](https://www.japcc.org/articles/fifth-generation-air-combat/) - [https://www.businessinsider.com/what-features-and-design-will-a-6th-generation-fighter-have-2022-9](https://www.businessinsider.com/what-features-and-design-will-a-6th-generation-fighter-have-2022-9) - [https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/1009fighter/](https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/1009fighter/) - [https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL31673.html#:~:text=The%20first%20flight%20of%20an,was%20delivered%20in%20June%202003](https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL31673.html#:~:text=The%20first%20flight%20of%20an,was%20delivered%20in%20June%202003) - [https://view.ceros.com/lockheed-martin/the-f35-history-timeline/p/4](https://view.ceros.com/lockheed-martin/the-f35-history-timeline/p/4) - [https://www.airandspaceforces.com/30-billion-f-35-deal-will-see-prices-rise-deliveries-dip/#:~:text=The%20unit%20cost%20of%20the,fighters%20in%20Lots%2015%2D17](https://www.airandspaceforces.com/30-billion-f-35-deal-will-see-prices-rise-deliveries-dip/#:~:text=The%20unit%20cost%20of%20the,fighters%20in%20Lots%2015%2D17) - [https://defensebridge.com/article/how-much-does-the-f-22-raptor-cost.html#:~:text=The%20current%20price%20tag%20for,exceed%20%24228%20million%20per%20aircraft](https://defensebridge.com/article/how-much-does-the-f-22-raptor-cost.html#:~:text=The%20current%20price%20tag%20for,exceed%20%24228%20million%20per%20aircraft) - [https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/IF11659.pdf](https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/IF11659.pdf) - [https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/usafs-6th-gen-fighter-in-development](https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/usafs-6th-gen-fighter-in-development) - [https://news.usni.org/2023/01/18/cno-gilday-next-generation-air-dominance-will-come-ahead-of-ddgx-destroyer](https://news.usni.org/2023/01/18/cno-gilday-next-generation-air-dominance-will-come-ahead-of-ddgx-destroyer) - [https://www.aero-mag.com/next-generation-air-dominance-11102021](https://www.aero-mag.com/next-generation-air-dominance-11102021) - [https://news.usni.org/2023/01/18/cno-gilday-next-generation-air-dominance-will-come-ahead-of-ddgx-destroyer](https://news.usni.org/2023/01/18/cno-gilday-next-generation-air-dominance-will-come-ahead-of-ddgx-destroyer) - [https://ig.space/commslink/next-generation-air-dominance-ngad-sixth-gen-fighter-overview](https://ig.space/commslink/next-generation-air-dominance-ngad-sixth-gen-fighter-overview) - [https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022/09/27/the-air-force-wants-to-start-delivering-ngad-by-2030-can-it-be-done/](https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022/09/27/the-air-force-wants-to-start-delivering-ngad-by-2030-can-it-be-done/) - [https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/ngad-fighter/](https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/ngad-fighter/) - [https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a43250851/air-force-wants-200-sixth-generation-ngad-fighter-jets/](https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a43250851/air-force-wants-200-sixth-generation-ngad-fighter-jets/) - [https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/new-next-generation-air-dominance-fighter-renderings-from-lockheed](https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/new-next-generation-air-dominance-fighter-renderings-from-lockheed) - [https://warriormaven.com/air/navy-air-force-6th-gen-f22-f35](https://warriormaven.com/air/navy-air-force-6th-gen-f22-f35) - [https://breakingdefense.com/2023/03/air-force-plans-nominal-buy-of-200-ngad-fighters-1000-drone-wingmen-kendall-says/](https://breakingdefense.com/2023/03/air-force-plans-nominal-buy-of-200-ngad-fighters-1000-drone-wingmen-kendall-says/) - [https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2023/5/8/air-force-fleshing-out-key-component-of-ngad-program](https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2023/5/8/air-force-fleshing-out-key-component-of-ngad-program) - [https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/03/ngad-the-6th-generation-stealth-fighter-that-could-change-everything/](https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/03/ngad-the-6th-generation-stealth-fighter-that-could-change-everything/) - [https://aviationweek.com/special-topics/air-dominance/nearly-decade-long-story-led-ngad-flight-demonstrator](https://aviationweek.com/special-topics/air-dominance/nearly-decade-long-story-led-ngad-flight-demonstrator) - [https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/07/09/how-two-f-16s-from-the-air-forces-boneyard-will-find-a-second-life-as-the-digital-model-for-the-fleet/](https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/07/09/how-two-f-16s-from-the-air-forces-boneyard-will-find-a-second-life-as-the-digital-model-for-the-fleet/) - [https://breakingdefense.com/2021/07/digital-design-revolution-key-to-all-domain-ops-air-space-officials-say/](https://breakingdefense.com/2021/07/digital-design-revolution-key-to-all-domain-ops-air-space-officials-say/) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Secretary_of_State_Liz_Kendall_delivers_a_landmark_speech_on_AI_and_its_impact_on_economic_security_and_defence%2C_the_UK%E2%80%99s_sovereign_tech_capabilities%2C_and_Britain%E2%80%99s_place_in_the_world._-_55235457752.jpg) by Department for Science, Innovation & Technology / openverse, by. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/nuclear-trains-why-we-cant-have-these https://megaprojects.pub/article/nuclear-trains-why-we-cant-have-these Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT The idea of a nuclear train was one of many engineering projects that was born out of the mid-20th century nuclear boom. This period paved the way for hundreds of theoretical ways scientists could use nuclear power to improve our everyday lives, and transport made up a large part of that list. Nuclear powered aircraft, submarines, cars, aircraft carriers, and trains were all seen as very realistic possibilities, but only some of them became reality. Nuclear trains, for one, were seen as an easy enough upgrade from traditional locomotives, one that would save on fuel and lower the entire planet's carbon footprint. There were, in fact, several detailed designs, some of which were even patented, and even military projects with government backing. However, despite the vehement enthusiasm surrounding the idea, after careful analysis, it was concluded in every single case that developing a nuclear locomotive simply made no sense. Here's why. ## Where It All Began In the 1950s, nuclear power was in its infancy. Although some scientists very accurately predicted its capabilities, nuclear power was, at the time, a new field of exploration. As it started becoming more and more apparent that humans have just stumbled upon a source of energy so powerful it could seemingly solve all the world's problems, brand new engineering ideas started surfacing left, right, and center. All of a sudden, 'nuclear' was the one size fits all solution for all the world's problems, and trains were just another entry on the list of things we could improve with nuclear energy. This idea is, more than anything, a product of its time. In theory, nuclear trains could entirely replace traditional locomotives that have to stay close to power lines or regularly stop to take on coal or oil. A nuclear train could keep chugging down the rails for months, or maybe even years before refueling. In fact, the X-12, the world's first design for a nuclear locomotive, could have, in theory, traveled around the world twice before its first refueling. We, of course, can't know this for certain, as the X-12 was never built, but the man behind its design, Dr. Lyle Borst, said that in an interview with *Life* magazine. Aside from the astounding fuel efficiency, a nuclear train would also make power line maintenance much easier. Since it would operate completely independently, without any reliance on the electric grid, less time and fewer resources would have to be invested into maintenance. This would be especially useful in countries such as the United States and the USSR, which have hundreds of kilometers of train tracks dislocated far away from populated areas. A nuclear locomotive could do all of that while minimizing its carbon footprint. That, unfortunately, wouldn't have been quite the selling point in the 1950s as it is today as the public wasn't as informed about the potential impact of rising levels of carbon dioxide. It was, however, important to physicists, who were well aware of how important the lowering of our collective carbon footprint could become. With all of these positives, it's only natural that the two greatest world powers at the time, the United States and the USSR, showed affinity toward the idea. ## Designs and Real Life Applications There were dozens of atomic train ideas and proposals around the entire world at the time, but the first to present an actual design with feasibility calculations was the aforementioned Dr. Borst of the University of Utah. We've already done a deep dive on Dr. Borst's X-12 if you're interested in a detailed breakdown, but in short, the X-12 was a breathtaking idea at the time. The locomotive would be powered by an atomic reactor which would split uranium atoms, release tremendous amounts of energy in the form of heat, and generate steam by boiling water. The steam would pass through a pressurizer and rotate turbines, which would be connected to generators, converting the mechanical energy into electrical. This is, in essence, how all nuclear power plants work, only this generator would be small enough to fit in a locomotive. The massive electric motors would produce 7000 horsepower and roll the train onwards. The X-12 would predominantly transport cargo, but it could, over time, become a passenger train too. The Soviets had a similar idea, albeit two years after the Americans. In 1956, the Ministry of Transport kickstarted a campaign for several atomic train designs. It's no surprise that the Soviets were particularly interested in nuclear-powered trains—they had one of the largest railway networks in the world at the time, and the idea of saving on fuel was certainly tempting. One of those designs was made by the forgotten Soviet engineer Yuriy Moralevich, who also happens to be one of the engineers behind the world's first nuclear-powered icebreaker, and the world's first nuclear-power ship in general—*The Lenin*. Moralevich planned to completely revolutionize the Soviet railway system. For one, the train he had designed was not only a double-decker, it was much wider than Soviet trains at the time. He planned on widening the rails from 1.524 meters, which was the standard distance for Soviet tracks set in the 19th century, to 4.5 meters. For reference, the tracks in New South Wales, which were modernized in 2012, almost 70 years after Moralevich's idea, are precisely 4.5 meters apart. This is just a testament to how ahead of his time he was. By widening the tracks, the freight cars could be increased threefold in width, height, and length, while the cargo capacity of each car could increase by approximately 27 times. As Moralevich puts it, a single car could, for example, carry 1600 tons of wheat instead of the standard 60 tons from Moscow to Vladivostok. One of the biggest issues behind this revolution was the source of power—what could power monstrously large trains Moralevich planned on building? He found the answer to that in nuclear energy. In his detailed breakdown of his nuclear-powered train design, he hypothesized that a small nuclear reactor could develop thermal power of about 30 thousand kilowatts. This would translate to between 5000 and 7500 horsepower, which could operate for months before replacing. Moralevich also wrote about nuclear batteries, claiming that they would be able to power the electric motors for an entire decade before needing replacing. These batteries are similar to nuclear reactors as they also generate electricity from nuclear energy, but there are a few major differences between the two. For one, a battery doesn't rely on a controlled chain reaction to release heat. Instead, they generate heat, and in turn electricity, through the decay of radioactive particles. The downside of this method of energy generation lies in the scale, as nuclear batteries cannot hold a candle to nuclear reactors in terms of sheer power. However, this is just perfect for a nuclear train, at least in theory. Perhaps the biggest crux of the nuclear train conundrum, and this is something we'll discuss in detail later, is its relative safety. All scientists agree that if you put a nuclear reactor in a train, you need to build a shield around it to prevent a nuclear disaster. This shield needs to be massive, weighing hundreds of tons, which means that you need even more power to push the train onward. You also need a team of experts controlling and maintaining the radioactive core at all times. This wouldn't be necessary with a nuclear battery, as it's passively controlled with the process of decay dictating power output, and generally less likely to cause a disaster. Even in the case of a crash, the radioactive energy released would be incomparable to the release from a nuclear reactor. Because of this, nuclear batteries have been in use for decades in various fields. They're common in satellites, moon landers—with *Perseverance* Mars rover using them—and they were even used in pacemakers before lithium-powered pacemakers were invented in the late 1980s. Yes, nuclear batteries were deemed safe enough to install them in human bodies, and Moralevich claimed they could power trains decades before that! Whether they'd rely on a nuclear reactor or nuclear batteries, the engines of the Soviet atomic train could, in theory, exceed speeds of 200 kilometers per hour, but the train wouldn't sway thanks to wider tracks. Moralevich's atomic train could take cargo and passengers from Moscow to Saint Petersburg, known as Leningrad back in the day, within four hours, which is roughly how long the trip takes today! Despite the detailed and sensible design, Moralevich's train was never built, and this seems to be the end result of every single nuclear train blueprint. West Germany had a similar idea, one based on Nazi Germany developments of nuclear power submarines in the 1940s. In fact, the German manufacturing company Krauss-Maffei seriously considered developing a 35 kilometer-long nuclear train in the fifties, but ultimately abandoned the project. The closest the idea ever got from blueprint to reality was for military means. Both the US Army and the Soviets had the idea for an all-terrain, nuclear-powered land train. For the Americans, it was a purely logistical solution. The Army was actively looking for ways to exploit nuclear energy, and aside from making more nuclear bombs, logistics was an area that showed room for improvement. The Army operated many remote bases, some of which were, and still are, located in meteorologically hazardous areas. All army bases need to move fuel, water, food, supplies, and personnel back and forth, and the difficulty of logistical operations increases with the distance between the base and the closest populated area. With its very recent experience of World War II and first-hand accounts of just how easily fuel burns during a war, the Army recognized the importance of a transport solution that minimized fuel consumption. Cue, the land train. This train would consist of multiple cars that were prepared for both on-road and off-road trips. Unlike a traditional train, it wouldn't need tracks to move, and it would save on fuel at the same time because it would be powered by a small nuclear reactor. In contrast to the X-12, this land train was small and light, so it wouldn't need as nearly as much power, opening the door for a tiny nuclear reactor, or even nuclear batteries. The Army actually designed a diesel-powered prototype, and followed it up with a nuclear prototype, but neither ever made it out of the testing phase. Although the lightweight and high-powered design allowed for ludicrous amounts of cargo to be transported with virtually no fuel consumption, the design was, for reasons unknown, never approved for production. The Soviets, however, went a step further. Although part of the reason was logistical, they also wanted to establish presence in the Far North, and transporting supplies to extremely cold environments was painfully difficult at the time. An idea was proposed by the Soviet Minister of Medium Machine Building Yefim Slavsky—the same guy who insisted upon the development of the Tsar Bomba, the most powerful thermonuclear weapon known to man, and yes, one of the men responsible for the Chernobyl disaster. In 1955, he suggested the development of a mobile nuclear power plant that could supply remote military and civilian facilities with electricity. The self-propelled nuclear train would approach a settlement, provide it with power for a few years, and move on to another place. It was certainly a more viable solution than building an on-site power plant in a permafrost desert. Just two years later, the first design of the TES-3 was ready. Originally conceived as a nuclear train, the rail-dependent design was quickly discarded for tank tracks. Although the land cars would still be attached to one another with cables and pipes, the engineers realized that the TES-3 would be too dependent on the railway—not only its reach, but its state as well—so they opted for an off-road design. The bodies of the cars were described as "wagon-type" in the original plans, but they replaced the train chassis with an elongated heavy-tank chassis. This was poetic as the TES-3 was built in Saint Petersburg's Kirov Plant—the same factory that pushed KV-1 tanks off its production line during the Second World War. In 1961, this train-tank hybrid became the world's first mobile land-based nuclear power plant, and the presence of Yuriy Gagarin, the first man in space, at the unveiling speaks to the magnitude of this achievement for Soviet nuclear engineering. During its testing phase, which started in 1961 and ended in 1965, the TES-3 operated for 13,000 hours without any accidents. Despite the favorable testing results, the TES-3 never actually voyaged to the Far North and fulfilled its purpose. The entire project was scrapped, the reactor was shut down, and the components of the nuclear land train are now collecting dust at the Obninsk Institute of Physics and Power Engineering. The Soviets, however, had another idea, and this one actually came to fruition. To hide their intercontinental ballistic missiles from American spy planes, Soviet leadership came up with a plan to load them on a train. The train would cruise on the USSR's endless railways in random patterns, making it borderline impossible for the spy planes to spot it. The ICBMs would only be launched as a retaliatory measure, if the USSR found itself under attack. It was the Soviet way of saying "If I am going to hell, I'm taking you with me." The missiles weighed more than 104 metric tons, and to move them around, alongside the added weight of the train, operating modules, facilities, and crew, you would need a whole lot of fuel. Naturally, the idea of powering the train with a nuclear reactor came into play. It was, after all, tested with great success with the TES-3, but for reasons unknown, the Soviets opted for a traditional power source. The RT-23 Molodets, as is the official name of the ICBM system, stepped into service in 1987, but the only 'nuclear' parts of the system were the warheads. That was the last the world has heard of atomic trains for a while. Then, in 2008, a Mr. William Gregory Taylor filed a patent proposition with the US Patent and Trademark Office. In his proposition, he described the pairing of an on-board nuclear reactor with a magnetically levitated vehicle, which was the world's first, and so far last mention of a nuclear maglev. The final mention of a nuclear train, at least at the time of recording, was in 2011. Then, the vice president of Russian Railways said that they would present a nuclear train by the end of the year. The 11-wagon train was supposed to be powered by a small nuclear reactor, and in its initial stage, it would only be a scientific exhibition. The train, however, never even reached the exhibition stage, and it's completely unknown what happened to it. There seems to be an emerging pattern with nuclear trains. They're most often designed, and don't move an inch further, or in some cases, a prototype is built but never mass-produced. Why is that? Why is it that there were so many ideas, designs, and even prototypes of nuclear-powered trains that never made it out the testing phase, and in some cases, never left the drawing board? ## Why The Nuclear Train Never Left The Station The biggest selling points of a nuclear train are its fuel efficiency and low carbon emissions, but if we look past that, we can see that the idea is plagued by a plethora of logistic problems and safety concerns. The first of many logistical issues is the price of a nuclear train. The X-12 would cost $1.2 million dollars to build in 1954, which translates to about $14 million today. For comparison, you would need to cash out around $5 million dollars to build a passenger locomotive today, which means that you could build almost three traditional locomotives for the price of one X-12. This is already a major financial setback for the project, but Dr. Borst insisted that his project, the X-12, would be financially feasible—paying for itself down the line. Whether that's truly the case is irrelevant now, though, because there are so many other problems that stopped this idea from becoming reality. One of those problems presents itself in the form of maintenance. Although traditional trains need regular maintenance, an atomic train would require a team of experts regularly checking the core. This on-board team would also need to be present at all times to react in case the core starts heating up too much, and since nuclear physicists don't exactly grow on trees, their salaries would significantly impact the cost of running the train. Radioactive waste management would present another massive issue. The good thing about, according to the World Nuclear Association, is that radioactive waste is not as hazardous nor hard to manage in comparison to other types of toxic waste as people think. On top of that, the sheer amount of it is unimpressive in comparison to other electricity generation technologies. Once we look past that, though, you do need to store it for about 100 thousand years, and time isn't your only enemy in this regard. Space would be another issue, especially if an entire fleet of nuclear trains is built. They would leave tons of radioactive waste as they chugged along the world's railways, requiring storage room that doesn't come for free. Radioactive waste would thus present another box to check on a nuclear train's to-do list, and it would require further investment in the form of transport and storage. However, perhaps the most common argument proposed against nuclear trains is their redundancy. We already have nuclear trains…sort of. In 2013, the UK agreed to rely on EDF Energy's nuclear power plants to electrify its trains. Network Rail is, after all, the UK's largest power consumer, and in 2024, only 38% of it was electrified. Railway electrification is actually one of the biggest infrastructural projects in the UK at the moment, and when it's finished, trains could, in theory, all be powered by electricity transferred from nuclear power plants. This would be a great step towards greening up the entire country, and it would play a huge part in the country's goal to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050. Unfortunately for nuclear trains, it is also a great example as to why it makes no sense to load up a tiny nuclear reactor on a locomotive. We already have a very efficient way of moving electricity from nuclear plants and powering trains with it. Shrinking the power source and placing it on the train it's supposed to power would take a lot of effort and a lot of man hours, while achieving essentially the same results. It would also put a lot of people at risk, which brings us to the most damning argument against nuclear trains. Safety and security of nuclear power have been the critical talking points on this matter ever since 1945, when the world first witnessed what that power can do when weaponized. In terms of safety, we're talking about moving a nuclear reactor through cities, towns, counties, and even countries. Crossing jurisdictions with the most powerful source of energy known to man on board is bound to cause a legal catastrophe, and it's quite unlikely that every country would welcome a nuclear train with open arms—and with good reason. There is a clear sense of public paranoia surrounding nuclear energy. The Chernobyl disaster is, in fact, one of the main reasons why the Soviets abandoned most of their nuclear projects, and a more recent incident, one pertaining specifically to trains, proposes an even stronger argument against nuclear trains. In June of 2002, a train transporting a nuclear flask—a type of shipping container used for active nuclear materials—collided with a lorry at a crossing in Kent. Emergency teams immediately went out and, to everyone's relief, they found the flask to be empty. Despite that, anti-nuclear campaigners rightfully called out the safety of this type of transport, the most important question being "What if the flask had been full?" This is a perfectly reasonable argument, as it doesn't matter whether the locomotive is powered by a diesel engine or a nuclear reactor—the train can still crash. The result of a radioactive leak caused by a train crash could be catastrophic, and the designers of atomic trains knew this, which is why the reactors in their designs are always protected. A valid solution, certainly, but it is at the same time digging the design into an even deeper financial hole. Taking the X-12 as an example, this locomotive would be powered by a small reactor core, measuring only 36 by 10 inches—certainly not something you'd call big. In order to protect the reactor, however, a ludicrously large safe would need to encase it. This safe would weigh about 200 tons, accounting for about 55% of the weight of the entire locomotive. Moralevich's train design had an even larger shield, one weighing between 500 and 600 tons. In either case a massive chunk of energy created by the reactor would be wasted on moving the reactor's shield, which is an incredibly inefficient design. This massive drawback stems from the simple fact that we still cannot guarantee the absolute safety of nuclear reactors—no matter how small they are. However, even if these shields could keep the reactors perfectly safe, and even if the idea for a nuclear train would pass legislation and it somehow attracted investors, there is yet another glaring issue standing in its way to reality—terrorism. No country will risk the safety of its citizens just to lower its railway's carbon footprint. Nuclear terrorism is a security threat of such magnitude that the United Nations developed a specialized program dedicated just to the prevention of the development of nuclear weapons of mass destruction by terrorists. The reason security experts are so committed toward keeping nuclear materials out of terrorists' hands is because, frankly, a dirty bomb is not that difficult to build. In fact, a US Senator once invited representatives of several weapon laboratories to discuss nuclear weapons, and asked them if they could build an off-the-shelf nuclear device. One of the laboratories reached out a few months later and simply told him "We built one." That Senator's name was Joe Biden, and he told this story in 2004, long before he'd become vice-president. In that position, he influenced Obama's policies by shedding light on the importance of keeping nuclear weapons out of terrorist hands, which he considered one of the most important duties of that administration. Building a nuclear device is not a problem—getting your hands on nuclear material is. If you were to build a nuclear train, you would have to keep a security team on board at all times. Security would have to go past that, however. Screening for threats would have to be done beforehand, as it's almost a guarantee that there would be someone interested in grabbing the nuclear reactor. There is no shield to mitigate this threat—a mobile nuclear reactor would present such a weak spot, such a vulnerability, that every world leader would be rightfully concerned about it. Even if we could somehow bypass all other drawbacks of a nuclear train design, this vulnerability alone strikes the final nail in the atomic train's coffin, which is why it is highly unlikely that we will ever get to see one. Would it work? Yes. Would it pay off? Strictly environmentally speaking—yes. But at the same time, it would develop into a financial black hole, and present a massive safety and security threat. We already possess methods that allow us to power trains through nuclear energy, and when you draw the line, the risk to benefit ratio of those technologies fares far better than that of nuclear trains, which is why this idea will likely stay on paper forever. ## Key Takeaways - Nuclear trains were envisioned in the mid-20th century to improve fuel efficiency and reduce carbon footprints. - Several detailed designs and prototypes were created, but none progressed beyond testing due to logistical and safety concerns. - The high cost of building and maintaining nuclear trains, along with the need for expert teams, made them financially unfeasible. - Safety and security risks, including the potential for radioactive leaks and terrorist threats, were major obstacles. - Existing methods of powering trains with electricity from nuclear plants are more efficient and safer than on-board nuclear reactors. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What was the X-12? The X-12 was the world's first design for a nuclear locomotive, proposed by Dr. Lyle Borst. It was designed to travel around the world twice before its first refueling. ### What were the main advantages of nuclear trains? Nuclear trains were seen as advantageous due to their potential for long durations between refueling, reduced reliance on power lines, and lower carbon emissions. ### Why were nuclear trains not developed despite initial enthusiasm? Nuclear trains were not developed due to various logistical issues, safety concerns, high costs, and the redundancy of the concept given existing nuclear power infrastructure. ### What was the TES-3? The TES-3 was the world's first mobile land-based nuclear power plant, developed by the Soviets. It was designed to supply remote military and civilian facilities with electricity. ### What was the RT-23 Molodets? The RT-23 Molodets was a Soviet ICBM system that used trains to move intercontinental ballistic missiles around the USSR's railway network to avoid detection by American spy planes. ### What were the main safety concerns with nuclear trains? The main safety concerns with nuclear trains included the risk of radioactive leaks in case of accidents, the need for massive protective shields, and the vulnerability to terrorism. ### What was the cost of building the X-12? The X-12 was estimated to cost $1.2 million dollars to build in 1954, which translates to about $14 million today. ### What was the proposed use of nuclear batteries in nuclear trains? Nuclear batteries were proposed as an alternative to nuclear reactors in trains. They generate electricity through the decay of radioactive particles and are safer and less powerful than reactors. ### What was the proposed design by Yuriy Moralevich? Yuriy Moralevich proposed a double-decker nuclear train with wider tracks, allowing for significantly increased cargo capacity. The train was designed to be powered by a small nuclear reactor or nuclear batteries. ### What was the UK's approach to using nuclear power for trains? The UK agreed to rely on EDF Energy's nuclear power plants to electrify its trains, making it one of the largest infrastructural projects in the UK aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: Nuclear Trains: Why We Can't Have These...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4Pqo6PskpQ) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/2025_BYD_Shark_6_front.jpg) by LuvsMG481 / openverse, by-sa. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/quarterhorse-future-hypersonic-flight https://megaprojects.pub/article/quarterhorse-future-hypersonic-flight Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT It has been six decades since the SR-71 Blackbird first took to the skies, and yet it remains, even today, at its place atop the mountain of global aviation. No manned, air-breathing aircraft has ever flown faster or higher, nor dared to brush so close to the edge of space itself. Since it was retired, rumors have abounded of successor craft that could do more, fly even better, than the Blackbird ever could, but they have remained just that: rumors, banished to aviation legend with no promise that the truth will ever be revealed. But roaring to life out of Atlanta, Georgia, is a fast-growing organization that intends to blow the SR-71 clean out of the record books. Its name is Hermeus, and already, it has drawn comparisons to Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works both for its ambition, and its immense technical potential. Yet even more captivating than the Hermeus company itself, is its flagship project, a series of aircraft known as the Quarterhorse line, with the ultimate objective of shattering the SR-71's airspeed record once and for all. In this examination of the Quarterhorse aircraft, we will be taking a closer look at how they are made, what they will be able to do, and why, after a long line of aircraft proposals from companies far bigger and more famous than this one, Quarterhorse might just be the one to make its vision into reality. ## Meet Hermeus In order to understand the Quarterhorse aircraft, we have first got to understand the company behind it. A recent start-up founded in 2018, and led by CEO and aerospace engineer AJ Piplica, Hermeus has very quickly become a darling of the venture-capital world. Big names like OpenAI's Sam Altman and tech entrepreneur Peter Thiel have poured cash into the project, encouraged, in part, by the expertise of the organization's leaders. Prior to founding Hermeus, Piplica and his top executives led Generation Orbit Launch Services, a group that was instrumental in developing a hypersonic testbed aircraft for the US Air Force that was eventually designated the X-60A. In an industry known for its flights of fancy around bold, high-supersonic aircraft designs that never manage to get built, Hermeus has already developed a strong reputation, not just for its technical vision, but for its apparent potential to actually make good on what it has promised. Uniquely for a relatively small, relatively young company, Hermeus has already proven itself able to produce new technology demonstrators at high rates. Rather than waffle on about funding constraints or stay vague about what it hopes to achieve, Hermeus has made a reputation for itself with a timeline to crank out its flashy new toys quicker, and with greater operating efficiency, than any other private company in recent memory. In fact, they have drawn comparisons to the early years of Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works, responsible for generation after generation of groundbreaking aerospace innovation, not just for the scope of Hermeus' ambition, but also for its ability to actually produce tangible products along each step of the way. As journalist and defense expert Alex Hollings described the company in a recent YouTube episode for Sandboxx: "This Hermeus team has the technical prowess, they have the pragmatic optimism, and they have the audacity to change the world all over again." Those sorts of distinctions are very important for a company like Hermeus, at a moment in time when the American military is increasingly open to relying on newer, smaller companies to produce new ideas and technology demonstrator craft. With well-established aerospace companies like Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing, already hard at work developing incredibly sophisticated future aircraft, both the US Department of Defense, and the private world of venture capitalists, have started to branch out toward other organizations that have the requisite knowledge to take the United States even further. But when it comes to actually putting money down in support of new startups, the Pentagon has been far more skeptical; after all, it is all too common to see even the best-intentioned organizations fail to deliver even after they receive the massive checks they ask for. But when it comes to the current field of startups, especially those brave or foolish enough to believe that they can take on the prospect of hypersonic flight, Hermeus is head-and-shoulders above the rest. And just as important for a company hoping to make a major impact, they appear to be at the right place at the right time. ## The Hypersonic Challenge Before we actually get into specifics on the Quarterhorse line, we have got to be specific about what kind of problem Quarterhorse is supposed to solve. There are many, many barriers that make hypersonic flight difficult to achieve, but "hypersonic flight" itself is not a monolith. By example, ballistic missiles have been more than able to travel at hypersonic speeds for decades—and, by the way, hypersonic speeds are anything at or above five times the speed of sound. But ballistic missiles, rockets, and other vehicles that can consistently achieve hypersonic flight, do it in parabolic arcs where they fly very high up into the sky, level off, and, if they are going to return to Earth, fly basically straight down toward the ground. They have got only minimal ability to maneuver, and they cannot really evade air defenses, so while their hypersonic speeds certainly confer a lot of benefits, they are not nearly as good as they *could* be. What Quarterhorse, the US government, the governments of Russia and China, and anybody else on the cutting edge of aerospace design *really* wants to achieve, is the capacity to achieve hypersonic flight without leaving Earth's atmosphere, during sustained level flight. Imagine something that can fly like an airplane, but do it while going bloody fast. When it comes to *that* sort of mission role, the SR-71 is still the best operational aircraft in history, although it still fell far short of the Mach-5 criterion to go hypersonic. The US and other nations have what is called boost-glide vehicles, ones that use rocket boosters to achieve hypersonic speeds, but those are very difficult to design in a way that would get them to a target and enable them to come back, without dropping below hypersonic speeds. So, these are more likely to be one-way systems like missiles, or drones that are not likely to slow down enough that they would be recoverable after, let us say, smashing into the sea after they have flown over a target. There is also experimental technology like scramjets, specialized engines that allow fuel combustion to take place while the air present in the engine is moving faster than the speed of sound, which should enable high-performance, high-efficiency flight at extremely high speeds. Unfortunately, though, these are still *very* much in the experimental phase, and because scramjets do not work at subsonic or low-supersonic speeds, any aircraft that uses them also has to have a second propulsion system onboard in order to get to their required speed to function. Most challenging of all, is the prospect of designing an aircraft that can take off from a runway, get up to supersonic speeds, then go hypersonic, before slowing down again to speeds that would allow it to land intact and perform more missions in the future. With current technologies, that is a *really* hard ask for even entire governments to achieve. As recently as 2023, the US Pentagon estimated that even one single-use hypersonic missile could cost more than a brand-new F-35A, meaning that a reusable, recoverable hypersonic aircraft should, in theory, be much more expensive…except Hermeus begs to differ. According to the startup, it should be possible to field a reusable hypersonic aircraft not for an order of magnitude more than the price point of a hypersonic missile, or for two or three times the price, but for roughly the same—meaning that *if* Hermeus' calculations are right, then the company has the potential to completely upset the conversation on hypersonic aircraft. And the path to getting there, runs directly—and exclusively—through the Quarterhorse. ## The Quarterhorse Line When we consider the nature of the Quarterhorse aircraft, it is important to preface what we are about to see with the fact that these are technology demonstrators. None of the designs we will explore from Quarterhorse, not even the finished product, are ever expected to be able to fulfill a role with the US military or any other. Instead, they are meant exclusively to prove that Hermeus' proposed technology solutions, have the potential to work as well as the company says. Prove *that*, and that is when the real party starts, as Hermeus' technology gets snapped up by the Department of Defense, and the design once known as Quarterhorse begins to evolve into a weapon. ### The Chimera Engine The program starts with the element at the core of any hypersonic aircraft: the engine. In Hermeus' case, they use a homegrown, first-of-its-kind engine called the Chimera, which holds the distinction of being the world's first commercially developed turbine-based, combined-cycle engine. This, alone, is a very impressive piece of engineering, a unique engine design that marries a turbojet—the powerful, but low-supersonic engines that can be found on today's fighter aircraft—with a ramjet, a hypersonic-capable engine that includes a mechanism to compress incoming air to subsonic speeds, fire it through an engine, and produce speeds well above Mach 5 for the aircraft that carries it. Already, Chimera has proven itself to work, pushing first into turbojet mode before cycling up to its ramjet function, and then cycling back down to turbojet, all in one engine. When in flight, the turbojet component will be capable of bringing an aircraft up to around Mach 2 all by itself, before the ramjet kicks in and works together with the turbojet, to bring the aircraft up to about Mach 3. Then, the turbojet switches off and the ramjet takes over, in a process that goes in reverse when it is time to slow down to subsonic speeds. Even more important, Hermeus was able to go from zero to a fully functional Chimera in just the span of twenty-one months, and for the shockingly low cost of 18 million dollars US. Hermeus was able to 3D-print a full fifteen percent of the Chimera's components, and build it in-house using an older-model General Electric J85 turbine that is, as Hermeus describes, "readily available, off-the-shelf". In fact, it is the same engine used in the F-5 fighter aircraft and the T-38 trainer aircraft, of which nearly 4,000 have been constructed worldwide. A hypersonic aircraft that can carry Chimera onboard will have no need for a rocket, no need to find extra space within the airframe for a separate hypersonic-capable engine, and the capacity to be easily maintained and turned around for subsequent flights. ### Quarterhorse Mk 0 Then, there are the Quarterhorse technology demonstrators themselves, starting with the Mk 0 craft. Fitting with its designation of zero, this particular demonstrator is capable of exactly zero flight, but it is not intended to be a flyable aircraft at all. Instead, Mk 0 is an ode to the idea of walking before you can run, something that Hermeus achieved in 2023, when the Mk 0 began taxi tests on the ground. Remote-operated, stripped down to the bare bones, and less than forty feet long, the Mk 0 is not much to look at. But nonetheless, it was a critical piece of Hermeus' approach to building a craft—what it refers to as "rapid prototyping". As Hermeus itself explained in a press release, "Rather than consolidating all uncertainties and variables into a single Mach 4 aircraft, we are spreading the risks across multiple vehicles, which will enable us to learn more quickly. This iterative, hardware-intensive method is our key to speeding up aircraft development." By all accounts, Mk 0 was a success, clearing the electrical, hydraulic, pneumatic, steering, ground propulsion, and command-and-control systems Hermeus intends to use, so that now, as they progress to bigger and badder prototypes, no more time will have to be wasted validating those systems. ### Quarterhorse Mk 1 And by all outward indicators, Hermeus wasted no time at all in getting to the Mk 1. Built and ground-tested while the Mk 0 was still completing its own tests, the Mk 1 is the first real-life aircraft that Hermeus will send up into the sky. Powered by the same GE J85 engine that has since been adapted into the Chimera, Mk 1, like the rest of the Quarterhorse line, will be uncrewed. It incorporates software and hardware changes based on lessons learned from the Mk 0, and its primary purpose is to demonstrate that it can take off and land at high speed. The "high speed" portion is particularly important, since it is that critical element that would make a hypersonic aircraft of this type practically feasible. The same narrow-body, narrow-delta-wing design that allows hypersonic aircraft to slice through the air at speed, makes it impossible to slow down to normal-plane speeds to land. Instead, the Quarterhorse, with its sleek design, will need long runways to do its work, something that the Mk 1 will get squared away rather quickly. But even before it flies, the Mk 1 has scored a major success; wrote Hermeus CEO AJ Piplica on X: "We designed and built this airplane—from scratch, like literally napkin to airplane—in 204 days. Let that sink in. 204 days. The standard here is about 1,400 days – 3.5 years. We missed the P80 record by 61 days. This is the way." ### Quarterhorse Mk 2 And if the Mk 1 is about getting into the sky, then the Mk 2 is about showing exactly what this Quarterhorse platform is *really* capable of. About the size of an F-16, hauling a Pratt & Whitney F100 engine that will be modified into a more advanced Chimera successor, the Chimera II, the Mk 2 is not about beating the Blackbird—at least not yet—but it is about trouncing the competition of the 21st century. Capable of hitting high-supersonic speeds just south of Mach 3, the Mk 2 will aim to go faster than nearly every manned fighter aircraft and unmanned UAV on the planet, at least the ones that are publicly disclosed. With that, the Mk 2 will become the fastest re-usable jet in history, as well as the first high-Mach autonomous aircraft in the world. As of now, Hermeus is believed to be well on the way to having a working Mk 2 in its hands, equipped with parts manufactured rapidly via titanium 3D printing, and designed using iterative improvements on the Mk 0 and Mk 1 in real-time as those prior platforms were tested. The company's profile on X promises a big reveal in the summer of 2025, keeping pace with the delivery schedule they have promised: one aircraft per year. ### Quarterhorse Mk 3 Finally, there is the Mk 3, the end-stage of the Quarterhorse line. It is the Mk 3 that will beat the Blackbird's airspeed record, flying at expected speeds past Mach 4, bringing it just to the edge of true hypersonic flight. To do that, the Mk 3 will be the first Quarterhorse model to use the Chimera II engine to its fullest potential, and carry out the complete cycle from turbojet, to combined propulsion, to pure ramjet, and back down. It is not yet clear whether Hermeus will push the Mk 3 past the threshold to hypersonic flight, or whether they will settle for claiming the all-time airspeed record for the world's fastest aircraft, but in theory, the Mk 3 will have the capacity to break that final boundary as well. Its anticipated top speed is said to be somewhere around Mach 5.5, or just over 4,200 miles per hour—fast enough to cross the continental United States in some forty-five minutes. As for when the Mk 3 will emerge, Hermeus' own promises would suggest that it will be out in the world, in some form, by the end of 2026, and judging by the company's ambitious testing schedule, it will likely take to the skies soon after. ## Progress and Potential As of now, Hermeus is charging through its estimated progression of technology demonstrators, with no end in sight. At the end of March 2024, the Mk 1 was unveiled to the media, revealing a stripped down, but very impressive-looking aircraft sporting a cylindrical fuselage, a delta wing set far back across its length, and a long, pointed nose with an engine air intake just below. It is expected to take its first flight in the summer of this year. In other news for the Quarterhorse series, Hermeus recently signed a multi-year contract to partner with the US Department of Defense's Defense Innovation Unit, in order to use Quarterhorse as a testbed prototype for other advanced technology relating to hypersonic flight. While the DoD has at least seventy programs across the military focused toward developing the requisite tech to make hypersonic flight happen, it lacks airframes in order to actually see whether that technology works. Hermeus has the Quarterhorse, available in up to four distinct editions, each of which can be reproduced and used for testing depending on what the Pentagon needs. ### Military Applications And what the Pentagon *needs*, might turn into a much more expansive slate of next steps for Quarterhorse. Although the Mk 1 prototype is not likely to be a ton of use, on account of how the US military already knows how to take off and land aircraft at high speeds, the Mk 2—with its UAV design and capacity to fly just as fast as any manned aircraft in America's current arsenal—is a candidate to be modified into several mission roles. If even the Mk 2 were to enter service with the US, capable of flight up to around Mach 3, it would immediately become the fastest known UAV in the American arsenal. Strap a camera to it, and it offers unparalleled reconnaissance capabilities, filling a role that, at least officially, has not been accounted for since the Blackbird left service. In its hypothetical ISR role, the Quarterhorse might become a priority for the US military on its own, or be wrapped up into a larger program called Replicator, which the Pentagon intends to use to field a massive fleet of drone aircraft in the coming decade or so. Beyond just its potential to fill a high-speed, unmanned ISR role for the US military—that is intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance—the Mk 2 also has considerable potential to serve as part of America's so-called "Loyal Wingman" program. This is an ongoing effort that runs alongside the United States' attempt to field a sixth-generation fighter aircraft, the Next-Generation Air Dominance program, although since its conception, aerospace and defense experts have speculated that the Loyal Wingman could go well beyond just the NGAD. The basic idea here is that the planes of the future, as well as the advanced models of the F-35 in service today, will be able to operate at the heart of small formations mostly comprising unmanned drones. Those drones might be able to do anything from carrying extra weapons or electronic warfare equipment, to distracting an enemy air force, to even, one day, dogfighting and actively engaging in aerial combat operations. At present, it appears that the US is looking to field not just one line of Loyal Wingman drones, but a whole collection, adding and integrating new capabilities as they become feasible. If Hermeus' Mk 2 drone continues to develop at its current pace, it should be able to physically keep pace with the F-35, the Next-Generation Air Dominance aircraft, and the other fighter, bomber, tanker, and early-warning-and-command planes that are likely to leverage Loyal Wingmen in the future. The only question, then becomes whether the Mk 2—or even the faster Mk 3 successor craft—can be fitted with the requisite technology and equipment to be useful in that role. ### Darkhorse: The Military Endgame And for Hermeus, the Quarterhorse Mk 2 and 3 are still just the beginning. Next up, after the Mk 3, is the Darkhorse, the military uncrewed aircraft that Hermeus *really* wants to build. Powered by two side-by-side Chimera II engines, the Darkhorse is intended to be a fully hypersonic aircraft, designed specifically for use by military clients—meaning, in the case of Hermeus, the United States. It will measure a length of about 45 feet, and at a minimum, its Mach 5 speeds will put it at a top speed of 3,850 miles per hour—with an actual top speed well above 4,000 miles per hour, being somewhat more realistic. As of now, details on the Darkhorse's ultimate purpose—other than its incredible speed—are as-yet unknown. But a platform with those capabilities would almost certainly be effective in fulfilling ISR duties, and if Hermeus or someone else can develop relatively affordable weapons that can either launch from a hypersonic platform and attain hypersonic speeds themselves, or decelerate in a way that both scores a hit on a target and avoids disintegration, then the Darkhorse has the potential to become a new worst nightmare for America's adversary nations around the world. No matter what else, the Darkhorse is very clearly meant to be a reusable platform, potentially costing as little for the US government as 100 million US dollars per plane. If that is a mind-boggling amount on paper, worry not; in reality, it is just a bit under the per-plane cost of the F-35, at least using current cost and production estimates on the F-35 program, less than a third of what the F-22 program cost per-plane several decades ago, and well under a tenth of the cost of a B-2 Spirit bomber. Those numbers, by the way, are not the sticker price advertised for each of those planes, but instead the program's actual cost, divided by the number of aircraft that were ultimately produced. Per Alex Hollings, who we referenced previously, the Pentagon's current price estimates to procure just one single-use hypersonic missile run as high as 106 million US dollars—and that is for a piece of technology that will either detonate on impact with a target, disintegrate when it hits land or sea, or be, in some other way, completely unrecoverable. For Hermeus to produce a multi-use aircraft that can hit the same speeds, at a lower cost, would be game-changing for America and its allies, as well as anybody else who can get their hands on a Darkhorse aircraft. ### Halcyon: The Civilian Vision And Hermeus' ultimate ambitions extend even beyond the Darkhorse line. The final grand project on the company's slate—or, at least, the longest-term goal they have publicly announced so far—is not a military project at all. Known as Halcyon, the aircraft Hermeus ultimately hopes to produce would be a passenger aircraft, capable of hitting hypersonic speeds and performing trans-oceanic routes across the globe. According to Hermeus' website, the Halcyon would be capable of running a route from New York to London in 90 minutes—including not just hypersonic flight, but the acceleration and deceleration processes involved to go from airport to airport. That is so fast that it would save a full six hours of one-way flight on every journey. Marketed toward business-class customers, the 20-seat Halcyon will tap into a market that currently sees half a million business customers fly from New York to London annually, and potentially grow that market, as well as other international-route air markets, exponentially as a result of the new aircraft's capabilities. Per Hermeus, hypersonic travel along these routes has "the potential to add more than $4 trillion of global GDP growth per year by radically accelerating the speed of commerce and cultural exchange". According to a feature done by CNN back in 2021, Halcyon will feature a range of some four thousand miles—not enough to cross the Pacific, but enough to enable trips from Boston to Mexico City, Singapore to Tokyo, Beijing to New Delhi, London to Lagos, Paris to Dubai, and many more intercontinental pathways that are relatively under-utilized today, but could become immediately feasible if Halcyon can take to the skies. ## Limitations and the Road Ahead Unfortunately, the entire Hermeus line of planned aircraft do have a key drawback; specifically, they have all got a speed limit. Granted, it is a very, very *high* speed limit, but nonetheless, it is unlikely that a ramjet-powered aircraft like the Quarterhorse line would be able to push past roughly Mach 6. Make no mistake, that is still very, very good, but so-called scramjets, which do not require air to slow down to subsonic speeds, can theoretically boost an aircraft to Mach 10 or even further. Where this becomes an issue, is if Hermeus wants to stay competitive—not with the industry that exists today, but with the one that might exist twenty to thirty years from now, when the Darkhorse and the Halcyon are just two among a wide variety of aircraft capable of extraordinary things. For now, Hermeus will be just fine; according to public knowledge, no nation, and no private company, has ever been able to make a scramjet work in anything more developed than a technology demonstrator. But in order to keep its edge for the future, Hermeus will need to address that scramjet issue. Perhaps, they will do it by designing an even more revolutionary turbo-to-ram-to-scram Chimera III engine, perhaps by building aircraft that integrate Chimera-style engines with additional scramjets, or perhaps by working to shift the way the market will work. Prove that an aircraft that operates at, or just past, the doorstep to Mach 6 is capable of doing anything you could ever want, without the costly addition of a scramjet at all, and the incentive to grow into a new niche is replaced by incentives to excel at a niche where Hermeus is already building a considerable edge on the competition. ## Conclusion But whether Hermeus ultimately becomes an enduring symbol of flight innovation, trekking across the same hallowed ground as Skunk Works and a tiny handful of other peers, or whether its contributions are tied only to this moment in time, one thing appears relatively clear—or, that is, as clear as predictions around highly ambitious engineering can ever be. We will not go so far as to claim that Hermeus is guaranteed to be the future…but there are a fair number of companies out there insisting that they will be the one to unlock the secrets of hypersonic flight, and quite frankly, there is a reason they are not the subject of this examination. Alongside its ambition, Hermeus has shown a rare degree of efficacy among its peers, not just dreaming big, but proving, year after year, that it can bring those dreams to life. In twenty years' time, we could be living in a world where hypersonic flight is practically normal, a new, but safe, trustworthy, and ubiquitous technology across the globe. Go back in time twenty years before this was written, and even just describing a first-generation iPhone would have generated more skepticism than optimism; time moves *very* fast, where truly valuable technological innovations are concerned, and hypersonic flight could work the same way. Or, in twenty years, we could be no closer to hypersonic aircraft than we are today, running up against a barrier that humanity just cannot seem to *pass*. What we *will* say, with a great degree of confidence, is that if we humans really can cross that barrier, then the Quarterhorse will be remembered as one of the aircraft most critical in getting there. ## Key Takeaways - Hermeus aims to surpass the SR-71 Blackbird's speed record with its Quarterhorse aircraft series. - The Quarterhorse line includes technology demonstrators like the Mk 0, Mk 1, Mk 2, and Mk 3, each progressively faster. - Hermeus' Chimera engine combines turbojet and ramjet technologies to achieve high supersonic speeds. - The company has rapidly developed prototypes, with the Mk 1 built in just 204 days. - Hermeus' ultimate goal is to create a reusable hypersonic aircraft for both military and civilian use. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is the Quarterhorse project? The Quarterhorse project is a series of aircraft developed by Hermeus with the ultimate objective of shattering the SR-71's airspeed record and achieving hypersonic flight. ### Who is behind the Quarterhorse project? The Quarterhorse project is led by Hermeus, a fast-growing organization based in Atlanta, Georgia, founded in 2018 by CEO and aerospace engineer AJ Piplica. ### What is the Chimera engine? The Chimera is a first-of-its-kind turbine-based, combined-cycle engine developed by Hermeus. It combines a turbojet and a ramjet to achieve hypersonic speeds. ### What are the different models in the Quarterhorse line? The Quarterhorse line includes the Mk 0 (ground-testing prototype), Mk 1 (first flyable aircraft), Mk 2 (high-supersonic speeds), and Mk 3 (aims to beat the SR-71's airspeed record). ### What is the Darkhorse project? The Darkhorse is a fully hypersonic, military uncrewed aircraft intended to be a reusable platform capable of hitting Mach 5 speeds, designed for use by military clients. ### What is the Halcyon project? The Halcyon is a planned passenger aircraft by Hermeus that aims to achieve hypersonic speeds, capable of running routes like New York to London in 90 minutes. ### What are the potential military applications of the Quarterhorse? The Quarterhorse, particularly the Mk 2 and Mk 3 models, has potential applications in high-speed unmanned ISR (intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) roles and as part of the Loyal Wingman program. ### What is the significance of the Chimera engine's development time and cost? The Chimera engine was developed in just 21 months at a cost of $18 million, showcasing Hermeus' ability to rapidly prototype and build advanced technology. ### What is the current status of the Quarterhorse Mk 1? As of March 2024, the Quarterhorse Mk 1 has been unveiled to the media and is expected to take its first flight in the summer of 2024. ### How does Hermeus plan to address the speed limit of the Quarterhorse line? Hermeus may need to develop a more advanced engine like the Chimera III or integrate additional scramjets to stay competitive with future hypersonic technologies. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: Quarterhorse: The Future of Hypersonic Flight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgNjLLNirRo) - [https://www.hermeus.com/aj-piplica](https://www.hermeus.com/aj-piplica) - [https://www.hermeus.com/skyler-shuford](https://www.hermeus.com/skyler-shuford) - [https://www.hermeus.com/glenn-case](https://www.hermeus.com/glenn-case) - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egCRc9fSaT8&ab_channel=Sandboxx](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egCRc9fSaT8&ab_channel=Sandboxx) - [https://www.wsj.com/tech/defense-startups-risk-becoming-failed-experiment-without-more-pentagon-dollars-dc9e663a](https://www.wsj.com/tech/defense-startups-risk-becoming-failed-experiment-without-more-pentagon-dollars-dc9e663a) - [https://www.forbes.com/sites/josipamajic/2023/11/02/vcs-fuel-the-boom-in-defense-and-military-startups-amid-global-conflicts/?sh=688011b9bdd5](https://www.forbes.com/sites/josipamajic/2023/11/02/vcs-fuel-the-boom-in-defense-and-military-startups-amid-global-conflicts/?sh=688011b9bdd5) - [https://armscontrolcenter.org/fact-sheet-hypersonic-weapons/#:~:text=A%20hypersonic%20weapon%20is%20merely,have%20long%20possessed%20these%20speeds](https://armscontrolcenter.org/fact-sheet-hypersonic-weapons/#:~:text=A%20hypersonic%20weapon%20is%20merely,have%20long%20possessed%20these%20speeds) - [https://www.sandboxx.us/news/hypersonic-firm-hermeus-proves-their-mach-5-jet-engine-works/](https://www.sandboxx.us/news/hypersonic-firm-hermeus-proves-their-mach-5-jet-engine-works/) - [https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/hypersonic-developer-hermeus-teases-first-flight-of-quarterhorse-this-summer/157570.article](https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/hypersonic-developer-hermeus-teases-first-flight-of-quarterhorse-this-summer/157570.article) - [https://www.hermeus.com/chimera](https://www.hermeus.com/chimera) - [https://newatlas.com/aircraft/quarterhorse-mk-0-challenge-sr-71-speed-record/](https://newatlas.com/aircraft/quarterhorse-mk-0-challenge-sr-71-speed-record/) - [https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/hermeus-satisfied-with-quarterhorse-mk-0-testing-constructing-mk-1](https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/hermeus-satisfied-with-quarterhorse-mk-0-testing-constructing-mk-1) - [https://www.globalair.com/articles/hermeus-begins-testing-on-quarterhorse-mk-0-prototype?id=6496](https://www.globalair.com/articles/hermeus-begins-testing-on-quarterhorse-mk-0-prototype?id=6496) - [https://www.hermeus.com/blog-quarterhorse-mk-ready-for-test](https://www.hermeus.com/blog-quarterhorse-mk-ready-for-test) - [https://www.supercluster.com/editorial/the-science-of-speed-understanding-hypersonic-flight](https://www.supercluster.com/editorial/the-science-of-speed-understanding-hypersonic-flight) - [https://www.hermeus.com/quarterhorse](https://www.hermeus.com/quarterhorse) - [https://www.sandboxx.us/news/hermeus-hypersonic-aircraft-takes-another-big-step-toward-flight/](https://www.sandboxx.us/news/hermeus-hypersonic-aircraft-takes-another-big-step-toward-flight/) - [https://www.theengineer.co.uk/content/news/quarterhorse-mk-1-puts-hermeus-on-route-to-hypersonic-flight/](https://www.theengineer.co.uk/content/news/quarterhorse-mk-1-puts-hermeus-on-route-to-hypersonic-flight/) - [https://newatlas.com/aircraft/quarterhorse-hypersonic-aircraft-program/](https://newatlas.com/aircraft/quarterhorse-hypersonic-aircraft-program/) - [https://theaviationist.com/2024/03/30/hermeus-quarterhorse-mk-1/](https://theaviationist.com/2024/03/30/hermeus-quarterhorse-mk-1/) - [https://www.sandboxx.us/news/hermeus-hypersonic-aircraft-takes-another-big-step-toward-flight/](https://www.sandboxx.us/news/hermeus-hypersonic-aircraft-takes-another-big-step-toward-flight/) - [https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/hypersonic-developer-hermeus-teases-first-flight-of-quarterhorse-this-summer/157570.article](https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/hypersonic-developer-hermeus-teases-first-flight-of-quarterhorse-this-summer/157570.article) - [https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/sr-71-vs-quarterhorse-blackbird-might-not-be-fastest-plane-earth-soon-208863](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/sr-71-vs-quarterhorse-blackbird-might-not-be-fastest-plane-earth-soon-208863) - [https://www.19fortyfive.com/2024/04/quarterhorse-meet-what-could-be-the-worlds-first-reusable-hypersonic-aircraft/](https://www.19fortyfive.com/2024/04/quarterhorse-meet-what-could-be-the-worlds-first-reusable-hypersonic-aircraft/) - [https://www.freethink.com/transportation/hypersonic-aircraft-hermeus](https://www.freethink.com/transportation/hypersonic-aircraft-hermeus) - [https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aerospace/2024-01-05/hermeus-completes-iron-bird-quarterhorse-testing](https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aerospace/2024-01-05/hermeus-completes-iron-bird-quarterhorse-testing) - [https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/hypersonics/2023/11/13/hermeus-quarterhorse-to-test-hypersonics-for-defense-innovation-unit/](https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/hypersonics/2023/11/13/hermeus-quarterhorse-to-test-hypersonics-for-defense-innovation-unit/) - [https://www.hermeus.com/press-release-mk1-unveil](https://www.hermeus.com/press-release-mk1-unveil) - [https://www.airforce-technology.com/features/uncrewed-ambitions-of-the-loyal-wingman/?cf-view](https://www.airforce-technology.com/features/uncrewed-ambitions-of-the-loyal-wingman/?cf-view) - [https://www.sandboxx.us/news/airpower-en-masse-americas-new-approach-to-warfare/](https://www.sandboxx.us/news/airpower-en-masse-americas-new-approach-to-warfare/) - [https://www.sandboxx.us/news/what-is-the-mysterious-drone-model-we-spotted-in-our-interview-with-general-bob-behler/](https://www.sandboxx.us/news/what-is-the-mysterious-drone-model-we-spotted-in-our-interview-with-general-bob-behler/) - [https://www.hermeus.com/press-release-mk1-unveil](https://www.hermeus.com/press-release-mk1-unveil) - [https://fortune.com/longform/lockheed-martin-f-35-fighter-jet/](https://fortune.com/longform/lockheed-martin-f-35-fighter-jet/) - [https://simpleflying.com/how-much-does-an-f-35-cost/](https://simpleflying.com/how-much-does-an-f-35-cost/) - [https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-f-22-raptor-stealth-fighter-so-expensive-208120#:~:text=As%20the%20Governmental%20Accountability%20Office,Falcon%20costs%20about%20%2463%20million](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-f-22-raptor-stealth-fighter-so-expensive-208120#:~:text=As%20the%20Governmental%20Accountability%20Office,Falcon%20costs%20about%20%2463%20million) - [https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/b-2-spirit-bomber-most-expensive-aircraft-ever-210354#:~:text=Despite%20initial%20plans%20for%20132,per%20plane%20hits%20%241.4%20billion](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/b-2-spirit-bomber-most-expensive-aircraft-ever-210354#:~:text=Despite%20initial%20plans%20for%20132,per%20plane%20hits%20%241.4%20billion) - [https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-b-2-spirit-stealth-bomber-most-expensive-plane-ever-207195](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-b-2-spirit-stealth-bomber-most-expensive-plane-ever-207195) - [https://www.globalair.com/articles/hermeus-gives-sneak-peek-of-hypersonic-uncrewed-darkhorse?id=5316](https://www.globalair.com/articles/hermeus-gives-sneak-peek-of-hypersonic-uncrewed-darkhorse?id=5316) - [https://breakingdefense.com/2024/03/hermeus-rolls-out-new-uncrewed-aircraft-as-company-edges-toward-goal-of-hypersonic-flight/](https://breakingdefense.com/2024/03/hermeus-rolls-out-new-uncrewed-aircraft-as-company-edges-toward-goal-of-hypersonic-flight/) - [https://www.forbes.com/sites/erictegler/2023/06/08/hermeus-is-plugging-an-f-15-engine-into-its-hypersonic-test-aircraft/?sh=be3b644138d6](https://www.forbes.com/sites/erictegler/2023/06/08/hermeus-is-plugging-an-f-15-engine-into-its-hypersonic-test-aircraft/?sh=be3b644138d6) - [https://www.hermeus.com/darkhorse](https://www.hermeus.com/darkhorse) - [https://www.hermeus.com/halcyon](https://www.hermeus.com/halcyon) - [https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/hypersonic-airplane-hermeus/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/hypersonic-airplane-hermeus/index.html) - [https://newatlas.com/aircraft/quarterhorse-hypersonic-aircraft-program/](https://newatlas.com/aircraft/quarterhorse-hypersonic-aircraft-program/) - [https://breakingdefense.com/2024/03/hermeus-rolls-out-new-uncrewed-aircraft-as-company-edges-toward-goal-of-hypersonic-flight/](https://breakingdefense.com/2024/03/hermeus-rolls-out-new-uncrewed-aircraft-as-company-edges-toward-goal-of-hypersonic-flight/) - [https://robbreport.com/motors/aviation/hermeus-hypersonic-aircraft-quarterhorse-mk1-test-1235569117/](https://robbreport.com/motors/aviation/hermeus-hypersonic-aircraft-quarterhorse-mk1-test-1235569117/) - [https://www.sandboxx.us/news/hermeus-reveals-flying-prototype-in-their-pursuit-of-a-reusable-hypersonic-jet/](https://www.sandboxx.us/news/hermeus-reveals-flying-prototype-in-their-pursuit-of-a-reusable-hypersonic-jet/) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Lockheed_Martin_F-16D.jpg) by Alexandro Dias / openverse, by-sa. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/railguns-useless-billion-dollar-weapon https://megaprojects.pub/article/railguns-useless-billion-dollar-weapon Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT The railgun was supposed to be a revolution. A gun that didn't need gunpowder. A slug fired at seven times the speed of sound. Range? Up to 200 miles. It was sleek, sexy, and straight out of science fiction — and the U.S. Navy wanted it bad. For years, it was the crown jewel of Pentagon wish lists, promising pinpoint strikes with the raw power of physics alone. But by 2021, the dream was dead. No deployments. No mass production. Just a half-billion-dollar money pit and a pile of broken test rails. So, what happened? How did the Navy manage to fumble what looked like a game-changing weapon? And why are China, Japan, and others still chasing a dream that Washington already buried? This is the story of how the railgun went from battlefield miracle to a half billion-dollar mirage. ## A Shocking Idea The quest to hurl projectiles with electricity, not explosives, began, surprisingly, well over a century ago. Specifically, during WWI, when French inventor André Louis Octave Fauchon-Villeplee built a prototype "electric cannon" in 1918 – essentially the first railgun. The concept was simple in theory: use electromagnetic forces to accelerate a metal – specifically a magnetic metal – projectile to extreme speeds. In practice, however, it was like trying to bottle lightning. Early designs remained experimental; with even German scientists toying with an electric anti-aircraft gun during WWII that never left the drawing board. For decades, that was the sum total of the railgun's development. A bit of tinkering here, a bit of fettling there. Enough to reconfirm over and over again that electromagnets could indeed make metal slugs go fast… and that's about it – nothing even remotely approaching a fully actualised and ready to go weapons system for the real world. And so it was that railguns lived only in research papers and science fiction, a tantalising what if that promised to revolutionize firepower – if only the engineering could catch up. Little did those early pioneers know, however, that their ideas would spark one of the Pentagon's most expensive wild goose chases a century later. ## The Pentagon's Big Bet Fast forward to the 21st century, and in 2005, the United States Navy – ever in search of its next war winning toy – decided enough was enough, and placed a daring bet on electromagnetic railguns. They really were dreaming big too, with the Office of Naval Research promising a weapon straight out of sci-fi: a gun that would use no gunpowder, yet could fire projectiles at Mach 7 to hit targets accurately 100+ nautical miles away. It wouldn't even need any fancy kind of warhead either – sheer kinetic energy alone would be more than enough thanks to that absurd speed. To be fair to them, the appeal was obvious. Name a single conventional cannon that could manage that sort of range at all – never mind reliably. You can't, can you, because they don't exist. Take the mighty Paris Gun, Imperial Germany's 282 monster designed to lob shells at its titular city from afar – even it could only manage 81 miles, on a good day. Then there's the M1299 Howitzer, BAE Systems' failed attempt at making an ultra-long range – but actually accurate – howitzer for the 21st century; it could do 68 miles at best. Consider finally the M65 Atomic Cannon, for which range, for obvious reasons, was rather important – 20 miles. You get the idea then, an accurate 100+ mile range out of a cannon – bit of a big deal. And for a time, all appeared rosy for the Navy's new toy, and by 2008, enthusiasm was sky-high. The Navy's Chief of Naval Operations had witnessed a record-setting test of a prototype made by BAE Systems at Dahlgren, Virginia, in January of that year, and they liked what they saw so much – in addition to two other successful tests in October 2006 and January 2007 – that they revised their range estimates up even further, with 200 miles at Mach 7 now being promised. To think of the railgun's provisional figures in a specifically naval context too, rather than just an 'oooh, other big cannons don't go as far' one, they were eyeing it up to supplement, and maybe even replace, their 5-inch Mark 45 gun, which has been their go-to ship gun since 1971 – and it can only push out to 20 miles on a good day. Naturally, with promises like that, and the progress to achieving it seemingly coming along so nicely, the railgun became something of a military tech celebrity, a claim that is best evidenced not by the vast litany of articles that discussed it in excited terms back then, but from its appearance in 2009's *Transformers 2*, in which one is shown giving one of the film's baddies the business from atop a US Naval ship. As enthusiasm like this demonstrates, as far as anyone was concerned back then – the railgun was near future tech which was just around the corner. Come 2010, the Navy had poured tens of millions into prototypes by both BAE Systems, as we've already mentioned, and also General Atomics. That same year too, the latter started to catch up with, and even surpass, the former, as General Atomics' Blitzer test system set a new world record by firing a projectile at Mach 5, and generating 33 megajoules of muzzle energy while doing so – roughly the same kinetic punch as a small hatchback car travelling at 100mph. From there, the Navy started talking openly and publicly – bragging even – about deploying railguns on warships. The Zumwalt-class destroyers were chalked up as the first that would receive them – as back then said ships were still shiny, new, and futuristic, with the realisation that they were actually big old piles of wank having yet to have set in. As for dates, they stated that they wanted to be testing prototypes at sea by 2016, with the proper roll out – subject to said testing going well – coming as soon as possible after that. Except, that roll out date never came, did it? How did this happen? How did a technology that appeared so full of potential, just, well… fail? A good question to be sure, and one that we shall indeed answer – after we've taken the time to get to grips with how railguns *actually* work. ## How to Shoot a Bullet with Lightning In simple terms, a railgun is essentially a giant electric circuit shaped like a gun barrel. It consists of two parallel conductive rails and a sliding armature – or a conductive projectile – between them. When an enormous electric current – millions of amps worth – flows from one rail, through the armature, into the other rail, it creates a powerful electromagnetic force: the Lorentz force. This force launches the projectile down the rails at extreme speed. In essence, the railgun turns electricity into kinetic energy. To grasp the insanity of the speeds involved: the Navy's goal of Mach 7 is about 5,369 mph at sea level. That's nearly three times faster than a high-powered rifle bullet, and about five times the muzzle velocity of the Iowa-class battleship's 16-inch guns from WWII. A projectile flying that fast carries staggering kinetic energy; even a 10kg slug could hit with the force of a Tomahawk cruise missile. Unlike a missile, though, the slug has no explosives – it relies purely on sheer kinetic energy to obliterate the target. This also means that because the ammo is basically 'just' the warhead, i.e. without a casing or powder charge behind it, a ship could theoretically carry many more rounds as a result – the space that used to be used to carry those things, instead just carrying more rounds instead. There are other perks to this electromagnetic marvel too, with the US Navy noting that eliminating gunpowder and explosives would make warships much safer from accidental fires or enemy hits. Remember when HMS Hood went up in a oner during WWII? That'd be all but impossible with a powder-free ship. No powder also means less noise from the ship's gun – aside from the sonic boom of the projectile breaking the sound barrier. In theory then, a railgun-armed ship could sit offshore and bombard targets far inland with precision-guided hypervelocity projectiles, or swat down incoming aircraft and missiles at a fraction of the cost of firing interceptors. These physics look glorious, on paper, but theory and reality can often be two very different things, and as we already know – railguns were exactly one of those instances… so let's now see what the problem was. ## Hype Meets Hard Reality To get us started, remember when we said that railguns, to be effective, needed millions of amps? Well, turns out, that's actually quite a lot. Take the lightbulb you are probably sat under right now; if it's the old school incandescent kind, odds are, it's drawing a single amp, at most. For those of you reading this on your phone, the charger you yanked it out of this morning likely draws in the region of one to five amps, and if you're reading this on a really, *really* meaty PC, it's likely drawing five to ten as we speak. So, a million amps then, yeah, it's a lot. Then there's the matter of actually storing and delivering that massive pulse of electricity to the railgun. Remember when we said the Blitzer set a record breaking 33 megajoules of energy delivered? Well, doing that required bulky banks of capacitors or advanced alternators, all of which took up a huge amount of space and weight. Only a few ships in the US fleet – such as the Zumwalt – could even produce enough juice to even consider running the thing. The Navy's most common combatants, like the Arleigh Burke class destroyers, would need a complete redesign to support a railgun – unless the Navy could figure out a several thousand mile long extension cord, anyway. Those issues might have been fixable, however; after all, this is the US military we are talking about – if any organisation on earth could convert a load of ships into floating power banks to support a tarty new bit of kit, it'd be them. When the matter of energy is compounded by yet further problems however, justifying doing so becomes all the more tricky. For example, barrel life also proved to be quite the issue. You see, firing a projectile at Mach shitloads causes extreme friction along the rails, resulting in intense heat, metal vaporization, and gargantuan pressure. As a result, the rails – typically metal like copper – erode a little – or not so little – each time you pull the trigger. This led to test rails cracking or deforming after just a few dozen shots. The materials science simply hadn't caught up to the power of the weapon. Engineers tried stronger alloys and clever designs, but a field-ready railgun barrel that can fire hundreds of rounds without melting down proved elusive. And what about rate of fire? The Navy initially wanted a railgun that could fire six to 10 rounds per minute to deal with swarming threats. That goal ran into the cold reality of capacitor recharge times and heat dissipation. In practice, testers found it might take at least a minute to recharge for the next shot without frying something. This slow rate of fire also undermined one of the railgun's touted roles: air and missile defence. To shoot down a manoeuvring missile, you might need multiple shots in quick succession, thanks to them being rather tricky things to hit, and a round a minute? Nah, that ain't it chief. Then came guidance and accuracy concerns. A 5-inch dart flying at hypersonic speed is great, but only if it actually hits the target. The Navy did work on a so-called 'Hyper Velocity Projectile' that could be fired from the railgun, which had onboard guidance electronics. But cramming guidance chips and fins into a projectile that can withstand 40,000–60,000g's of acceleration and searing plasma is a materials engineer's nightmare. By late 2010s, when these issues were starting to be fully appreciated, the Navy had already spent over 500 million dollars on railgun R&D. Getting it ship-ready would require hundreds of millions more for integration and prototypes, and even then there was still no guarantee of success. ## The World Tries to Catch Up It's also worth noting that while they very much led the charge, the US Navy was far from the only one wrestling with the railgun. China, in particular, took note and decided it wanted in on the action too. By 2018, photos emerged of a Chinese warship – the Haiyang Shan, a retrofitted tank landing ship – with a massive turret on its bow that looked suspiciously like a railgun. They had turned it into a floating testbed, complete with shipping containers full of likely power equipment, and eventually, they sent it to sea for trials. As early as 2019, US intelligence reports were claiming that the Haiyang Shan was seemingly getting shots off well enough, and that, at full wacker, it may even be able to hit targets over 124 miles away at speeds of Mach 7+. A breathless CNBC report in 2018 even went so far as to predict China's railgun would be operational by 2025, beating the US to the punch. And given that – if you're reading this early – it's currently mid-2025, are CNBC going to be vindicated? Well, while we'd bet a kidney on the fact that they won't be operational in 2025, they actually might be in the future, as China, for all of the technology's many flaws and hurdles, really doesn't seem ready to write it off just yet. Back in February 2022, for example, the *South China Morning Post* quoted researcher Wang Xiaohe of the China Huayin Ordnance Test Centre, who revealed plans to "step up testing of railguns to an unprecedented level", with Chinese scientists working to solve wear and erosion issues by refining rail coatings and pulse characteristics. Then came a jaw-dropper: in late 2023, a team at the PLA Naval University of Engineering reportedly achieved 120 consecutive shots at Mach 6 without serious barrel damage – an endurance milestone that the US never came close to matching. If true, this would certainly mark a significant breakthrough. And actually, they didn't even attribute this success as being entirely down to ever more exotic and fancy materials used in their railgun's construction, but in the software it was hooked up to, with China claiming to use a sophisticated AI-powered measurement and diagnostic system, one that collects data from more than 100,000 sensors simultaneously – more than 10 times the number on a modern aircraft – and then uses that data to figure out exactly how far the railgun can be pushed on the next shot before getting all blowy uppy. Of course, Beijing has been characteristically secretive, so confirmed beyond all doubt details are few and far between, but we also know that their program is being led by Rear Admiral Ma Weiming, a sort of rockstar engineer who also drove China's development of electromagnetic catapults for aircraft carriers… so it ain't like they're lacking in brains suitably wrinkled to just maybe pull it off. Beyond China, however, India has been pursuing railgun tech. In 2017, for example, India's Defence Research and Development Organisation, DRDO, successfully test-fired a modest 12 mm electromagnetic railgun, accelerating a tiny projectile to about Mach 6. Buoyed by that experiment, India then announced plans for a larger 30 mm prototype and ultimately a 1 kg projectile going around Mach 6. In 2025, DRDO even inaugurated a dedicated Centre for Electromagnetic Launch Technology to develop futuristic railgun systems. Indian defence officials tout that such guns could give the Indian Army and Navy a strategic edge – blasting targets in high-altitude border regions or arming warships with ultra-fast shot against aerial threats. Japan, meanwhile, has also quietly become a leader in electromagnetic guns – perhaps not shocking given the nation's high-tech pedigree. Their efforts began in 2016, when the Japanese Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Agency started a railgun development program that aimed for a muzzle velocity of a little over 6,500 feet per second, and a barrel life of 120 shots. Impressively, Japan met those goals: by experimenting with different rail materials (switching from copper to other alloys), their engineers achieved 120 continuous firings without significant rail damage, and in October 2023, Japan conducted its first ship-board test of a railgun, firing from a test ship – marking the world's first at-sea railgun firing since the Chinese tests. Japan's motivation is particularly pointed too: they are developing railguns as a potential defence against the new threat of hypersonic missiles – which their neighbour China, who they aren't exactly bezzies with, has been really stockpiling of late. The European scene is also noteworthy. The European Defence Agency ran Project PILUM – Projectiles for Increased Long-range effects Using electroMagnetic railgun – from 2020 to 2023, assembling scientists and industry from France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, and Poland to study a naval/land railgun with 200 km range capability. By 2023, they reported that "results exceed expectations" in key areas – from durable barrel coatings that mitigate wear, to a conceptual hypervelocity projectile that can survive Mach 6 acceleration. And following PILUM's wrapping up, a follow-on effort named THEMA – TecHnology for ElectroMagnetic Artillery – now aims to test a full-scale demonstrator by 2028, and possibly have a roadmap for a deployable system by 2035. In plain English: they're not rushing a railgun to the battlefield next year, but they're quietly trying to solve pieces of the puzzle (and no doubt observing the Americans' expensive lesson with a knowing smile). The global interest in railguns shows that the concept isn't dead – yet. It's become something of an engineering Holy Grail: nations are drawn to it, despite the US experience, thinking they are going to be the ones to crack it. As for the matter of whether or not any of these upstarts to the railgun throne will succeed where the US failed… frankly, who knows. We aren't prophets, and neither are we triple PhD'd material slash electrical engineers. But what we do know is that a split in the path is coming along. Down one end, lies sweet sweet vindication for the US, as all these other countries will piss God only knows how much money away, only to find out that old Uncle Sam was right all along – and they should have followed in his example. And down the other end, lies an Uncle Sam who looks like a bit of a tit, and a right nobhead, because for once, he would have actually bothered to cancel a program whose costs were spiralling up into the heavens… only for it to end up being one that actually could have been completed with a bit more time, a bit more cash, and a bit more belief. And speaking of Uncle Sam, we never actually told you how he came to throw in the towel, did we? So let's do that now. ## End of the Line For the US Navy, their railgun dream officially hit the end of the line in July 2021. In a curt, bureaucratically worded announcement (with just a whiff of disappointment), the Navy stated it was pausing railgun R&D at the end of 2021 due to "fiscal constraints, combat system integration challenges, and the prospective technology maturation of other weapon concepts." In plain speak: we're out of money and patience, and by the way, missiles and lasers have gotten *really* good. Then, the final nail in the coffin came with the quiet euthanizing of the Hyper Velocity Projectile program in the 2022 budget. The American railgun, officially, was now dead. We want to focus in on that "maturation of other weapon concepts" point in particular now though, because we're well enough acquainted with their railgun's issues by now, and we don't want to retread old water. Basically, while they were tinkering away with railguns, guided missiles kept getting better, smarter, and in some cases, even cheaper. The Navy, as far as it was concerned, had simply realised that a 2-million-dollar hypersonic missile that could deliver a precise blow from 1,000 miles away *now* might be a better investment than a 500 million dollar and counting gun that on its best day might only manage to reach out to 100 or 200 miles or so. Then there's the matter of shipborne lasers – because as of recently, they're not just the preserve of science fiction anymore. The technology has matured well beyond the lab bench and one-off prototypes, with operational systems now quietly entering service at sea. Leading the charge is the U.S. Navy's HELIOS system – short for High Energy Laser with Integrated Optical-dazzler and Surveillance – which was installed aboard the USS Preble in 2019. Mounted where a traditional Close-In Weapons System would go, HELIOS is a 60-kilowatt solid-state fibre laser integrated directly into the Aegis combat system. Unlike past bolt-on tests, this is a full combat-ready suite that can not only burn drones out of the sky, but also blind hostile sensors and provide real-time target tracking. It's already demonstrated the ability to shoot down UAVs in real-world tests, and its only real limitation is the amount of electrical power the ship can feed it—because in theory, it can fire as long as the lights stay on. And it's not just the Americans. In January 2024, the UK announced successful test firings of its DragonFire system from a static site in Scotland, hitting aerial targets with remarkable precision. Developed through a £115 million joint effort by MBDA Missile Systems, Leonardo, and the UK Ministry of Defence, DragonFire is expected to be installed aboard Royal Navy warships as soon as 2027, with installation contracts already signed for an initial four vessels. British officials have been blunt in their goals: this isn't about lab curiosity – it's about burning drones and missiles out of the sky for pennies per shot. Meanwhile, across the Pacific, China has quietly joined the naval laser race too. In 2024, satellite and social media images revealed a People's Liberation Army Navy Type 071 amphibious transport dock – likely Siming Shan or Yimeng Shan – outfitted with a dome-covered laser turret mounted just behind its 76 mm bow gun. The system appears designed to counter drones, small vessels, and possibly to serve as a dazzler sensor disruptor. Beijing has even reportedly escalated laser use in active scenarios – coast guard vessels have been accused of shining military-grade lasers at Philippine ships in the South China Sea, temporarily blinding crew members during confrontations at Second Thomas Shoal. In all these cases, the appeal is obvious. Lasers engage at the speed of light. They cost next to nothing to fire – mere dollars in electricity versus hundreds of thousands for interceptor missiles. They never run out of ammunition so long as the ship has power, and they bring incredible precision, from dazzling enemy optics to searing holes through UAV fuselages. Unlike the railgun, which promised big but burned through barrels and budgets, naval lasers are here, now, and scaling up – quietly turning the once-impossible into another tool in the arsenal. In short, the railgun lost the race – not just against the laws of physics, but against its own competition. Analyst Matthew Caris summed it up neatly when he suggested that hypersonic missiles and lasers alike had simply leapfrogged the railgun, offering more range, better reliability, and fewer headaches. Why keep pouring cash into a troublesome prototype when other, shinier toys were already delivering? ## Key Takeaways - The U.S. Navy invested $500 million in railgun technology, aiming for a revolutionary weapon. - Railguns faced significant technical challenges, including high power requirements and barrel erosion. - The Navy abandoned the railgun project in 2021 due to fiscal constraints and advancements in missiles and lasers. - Other countries, like China, India, and Japan, continue to pursue railgun technology despite U.S. setbacks. - Naval lasers and hypersonic missiles have emerged as more practical and effective alternatives to railguns. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is a railgun? A railgun is a type of gun that uses electromagnetic forces to accelerate a metal projectile to extreme speeds, eliminating the need for gunpowder. ### How fast can a railgun fire a projectile? The U.S. Navy aimed for a railgun that could fire projectiles at Mach 7, which is about 5,369 mph at sea level. ### What was the range of the U.S. Navy's planned railgun? The U.S. Navy planned for the railgun to have a range of up to 200 miles. ### Why did the U.S. Navy stop developing the railgun? The U.S. Navy stopped developing the railgun due to fiscal constraints, combat system integration challenges, and the advancement of other weapon concepts like hypersonic missiles and lasers. ### What are some of the technical challenges faced by railgun development? Technical challenges include the need for millions of amps of electricity, issues with barrel life due to erosion, slow rate of fire, and difficulties in guidance and accuracy. ### How much did the U.S. Navy spend on railgun development? The U.S. Navy spent over $500 million on railgun research and development. ### Which other countries are developing railgun technology? Countries like China, Japan, India, and several European nations are also developing railgun technology. ### What are some advantages of railguns over traditional cannons? Railguns offer advantages such as eliminating the need for gunpowder, reducing the risk of accidental fires, and potentially carrying more rounds due to the absence of casings or powder charges. ### What is the current status of railgun development in China? China has made significant progress, reportedly achieving 120 consecutive shots at Mach 6 without serious barrel damage, and is continuing to refine the technology. ### What are some alternatives to railguns that the U.S. Navy is considering? The U.S. Navy is considering hypersonic missiles and shipborne lasers as alternatives to railguns, which have shown more immediate promise and practicality. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: Railguns: the Useless Billion-Dollar Weapon](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqhXsUwncfE) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/2025_Ford_Mustang_Mach-E_Rally_in_Desert_Sand%2C_front_left.jpg) by Mr.choppers / openverse, by-sa. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/rapid-dragon-usaf-missile-system https://megaprojects.pub/article/rapid-dragon-usaf-missile-system Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT At some point in our distant past, faced with a snarling predator that intended them harm, one of our ancient ancestors realised that throwing a stone was a far better defensive technique than charging in and going head to head. Thus was born a military technique that's stuck with us to this day; hurting an adversary from a distance while being out of claw range, thus granting a much better chance of walking away un-mauled. From throwing spears, to bows, to cannons and mortars, global militaries have sunk untold billions into keeping allied soldiers out of range while doing as much damage to the other side as possible. With that concept in mind let's take a look at one of, if not *the* most advanced cruise missile deployment system currently in use: Rapid Dragon. Rapid Dragon is a United States Air Force (USAF) and Lockheed developed cruise missile deployment advancement that is more or less a perfect solution as far as offensive military missile operations are concerned. The impressive system is able to deploy long range, highly accurate cruise missiles in seconds, though not only does Rapid Dragon launch from an airborne platform granting enormous manoeuvrability, it also does so with astounding cost efficiency. Best of all, the risk to the soldiers involved in deployment is remarkably low, more or less giving us the military holy grail: effectiveness, flexibility, safety and cost efficiency. There is, however, one more factor that officially pushes Rapid Dragon over the top and into legendary status. That ancient ancestor, still faced with a snarling predator, just had another realisation; throwing a handful of stones rather than a single stone greatly increases the chances of at least one projectile finding its target, even if the barrage does come at the cost of overall accuracy. The ancestor perhaps didn't refer to throwing a handful of stones as a "swarm attack," but we do today, and it's a brute force solution that militaries have been relying on for centuries. Today, of course, the situation is somewhat different, but even if we're talking about a barrage of cruise missiles rather than a hail of arrows, the same basic principle still applies; launch many projectiles, hope that some projectiles do manage to score a hit, and the worst that can happen is a wasted stock of arrows. Cruise missiles are somewhat more expensive than arrows, mind you, at a cost of $1 million a pop, but at least you only have to deal with justifying military costs rather than writing letters to grieving parents. Rapid Dragon, as well as being efficient, manoeuvrable and safe, is also capable of deploying between 4 and 45 cruise missiles simultaneously. All the missiles will seek out their targets, and all are capable of autonomously traveling nearly 1,000km to find that target. If you're wondering how Rapid Dragon is capable of this impressive feat, why it launches so many missiles at once, and if it's the new ultimate answer in all military conflicts going forward; well, that's exactly why we're here today. ## The Rapid Dragon Reborn Enormous, ballista-like crossbow carts firing multiple bolts simultaneously are mentioned throughout history. One description from 950CE quoted by a Tao Gu describes: > "They had crossbow catapults such that when one trigger was released, as many as 12 connected triggers would all go off simultaneously. They used large bolts like strings of pearls, and the range was very great. The Jin people were thoroughly frightened by these machines. Literary writers called them Ji Long Che (Rapid Dragon Carts)." This is where the modern Rapid Dragon cruise missile deployment system gets its name, and, but for a few key words Tao Gu's description isn't that far off in either case. But before we get into exactly how Rapid Dragon works, let's first get a bit of context. In the grander scheme of military evolution the concept of Rapid Dragon perhaps isn't as ground-breaking as you might think. The biggest advancement it's currently providing is in terms of cost above all else, with similar concepts going back as far as the 80s. In the 80s, when it seemed like the B-1 bomber might be cancelled the Cruise Missile Carrier Aircraft (CMCA) Project was developed, a then fairly revolutionary idea to transform existing Boeing 747-200 cargo planes into rapid deployment missile systems. Should CMCA have been fully developed, 50 to 100 cruise missiles would have been ejected out the side of the plane via a rotary deployment system, with a semi-autonomous, dynamically capable targeting computer feeding coordinates to each missile as needed. The US military ultimately decided to go with the B-1 bomber instead, but this is an example that the concept of autonomous missile swarm attacks goes back at least 40 years. Later, in 2010 the Air Force Institute of Technology proposed the idea of a palletised missile drop solution; a design far closer to how Rapid Dragon eventually turned out. Notably, in this case the research kicked off due to reports that near-peer adversaries of the United States, those capable of similar or equal military research and development, were exploring area-of-denial tactics specifically designed to counter the US's projected naval and aerial capabilities. So, the origin of Rapid Dragon itself was a counter to what the US thought its adversaries were developing, demonstrating rather eloquently that military conflict really is just an endless race to counter an enemy's technology, or even to pre-counter what it's assumed the enemy is developing. The 2010 palletised concept was further refined and ultimately gave us the Rapid Dragon deployment system that is in use today. The finished product works as follows; a customisable, disposable "deployment box" or "palette" is loaded into the cargo hold of virtually any unmodified, airdrop capable supply plane, with the common C-130s and C-17s being prime examples. This flexibility, right off the bat, is enormously beneficial, with militaries around the world far more likely to already be in possession of supply-drop planes as opposed to enormous, specialised bombers like the B-52 Stratofortress. More to the point, a B-52 requires a vast runway of about 3,000m (10,000ft), while a C-130 supply plane can make do with a runway of just 910m (3000ft). Each Rapid Dragon deployment box, once fitted into the cargo hold of a supply plane, can hold up to 4 cruise missiles, in this case AGM-158B JASSM-ER missiles, Joint Air to Surface Standoff missiles. The ER refers to "extended range," and "Stand-off" refers to the missile being launched outside the range of enemy counter attacks. Once airborne the supply plane simply dumps the deployment box as it would any other cargo and flies off to engage in other missions, leaving everything else to the Rapid Dragon. The plane's crew need not even designate a target as this is done remotely, meaning that only a standard supply-drop mission crew without any additional training is required. The Rapid Dragon disposable deployment box, rather astoundingly, is fully autonomous in virtually all regards; target information is provided to the missiles instantaneously once received, and each missile will ignite to seek out its target upon being deployed. Plus, you can bet that once arriving at the target the missiles aren't likely to miss. Or, at least they aren't likely to miss depending on circumstances, which we'll get to in a bit. Looking at the deployment process in more detail, each palette operates via a deceptively simple, yet rather brilliant airborne configuration. First, the palette deploys a parachute which it uses to slow its descent and achieve stability. Once stability is attained, the missiles are released via gravity, thus allowing them to clear the box and ignite their engines. Each missile must then execute a sharp "pull up manoeuvre," allowing it to level out and reach an appropriate altitude, after which the missile proceeds with its strike mission as any other cruise missile would. Only, in this case we're talking about a swarm of cruise missiles ranging between 4 and 45. Additional palettes can be loaded into a cargo plane as the situation and space allows, with the current stated maximum pegged at 45 based on the cargo space available in the larger C-17. Now, if the thought of 45 cruise missiles heading your way isn't enough to make you uncomfortable, it's probably because you aren't aware of what a cruise missile with a 450kg (1000 pound) warhead is capable of. Each AGM-158B JASSM-ER missile is equipped with a 450kg WDU-42/B penetrator armour piercing warhead, and the best context we can give is that if you think you're safe in a tank or other armoured vehicle; probably not. You're not safe short of either not being anywhere near the impact zone, or perhaps being in a well-fortified underground bunker; more on this later as well. So with all of this being said and sounding very impressive, is Rapid Dragon an ultimate barrage missile attack that simply can't be defended against? ## Pick Your Target and Pray The short answer is that, yes, missile swarms are incredibly effective, doubly so when they're coming from an elusive, distant platform such as a mobile aircraft that may attack from an unexpected angle. To get an idea of just how effective a Rapid Dragon swarm attack is, let's approach it from the position of a defender rather than an attacker. According to US military doctrine, there are four methods of defending against cruise missile attacks; active defensive measures, attack operations, passive defensive measures, and control, communication, computers and intelligence (C4I). Active measures and attack operation measures both refer to destroying cruise missiles before they have a chance to impact a target, though each option in a very different way. Starting with the second option, attack operations are the idea that destroying cruise missiles in enemy territory before they launch, or destroying the infrastructure required to launch them, negates the problem entirely. You might suggest that this is the best solution, but it also happens to be extremely difficult to achieve. Not only does it require knowing where the launch sites are in advance, itself a monumental task, it also requires penetrating an appropriate means of attack into enemy territory. Keep in mind that launch sites may be established relatively quickly, can be hidden in the landscape such as in thick foliage, or may even be left out in the open but be disguised to be undetectable from the air. Take, for example, that in World War 2 allied forces launched a catastrophic, sustained air attack in which 98,000 tons of bombs were dropped in an effort to destroy V-1 missile launch sites. Despite these efforts, using various deceptive means Germany managed to keep V-1 missile sites operational. So consider then how difficult it must be to attempt attack operations against cruise missiles that can be deployed not only from virtually any airstrip, but may also be launched from very common, non-descript supply planes. Moving on to the second means of defence; active measures. Active measures refers to shooting down a cruise missile while it's in flight, and as you can imagine shooting down a small, relatively silent missile flying close to the ground is even more challenging than destroying them before they launch. But, it is technically possible depending on a number of factors. For a cruise missile to be shot down the defender must have an incredibly capable air defence system, one that can detect the incoming missile at as long a range as possible, then rapidly communicate with the appropriate forces with enough time for defensive action to be taken. Just this is challenging and requires advanced, properly calibrated long range radar capability. Now, as is always the case in warfare, as touched on earlier, when a new threat is introduced to the battlefield an attempt at a counter measure is just as quickly developed, at least it is if the defender wants to maintain some balance of power. Such was the case when long range missiles were introduced in WW2, ultimately giving rise to defensive Surface to Air Missile (SAM) systems. The S-300 and S-400 family of SAM systems are a prime example, developed by Russia over many decades to automatically detect and shoot down incoming missiles and aircraft. This family of technology includes mobile land-based SAM systems, as well as those designed to operate on ships. So if you had sufficient advanced warning, and assuming you were able to move your vehicle or ship mounted SAM defensive systems into place, would you be able to deal with a Rapid Dragon cruise missile barrage? Sorry to say, but that's exactly why Rapid Dragon was designed for swarm attacks in the first place. Automated SAM defensive systems are notorious for not only struggling with low flying cruise missiles, able to engage only at short distances, but also for being unable to deal with more than a certain number of targets at once. So chances are you're not getting all of them even if you do manage to get some, and it's probably best you move quickly in the direction of an underground bunker. Alternatively, you can try and shoot down the incoming Rapid Dragon barrage from the air, though, spoiler, you are going to run into the exact same problem. If the missiles are detected at long range and an aircraft with the required look-down/shoot-down radar capability is in the right position, you can attempt to shoot down the incoming missiles. But, once again we're talking about a barrage, and although you can make an effort to prioritise certain missiles and try to minimise the damage those that do get through inflict, your options ultimately also boil down to ducking, covering, and hoping for the best. At this point it's really starting to seem like the Rapid Dragon missile system is an unstoppable game changer. But before you get comfortable with that idea, let's take a look at the last two defensive solutions. ## Can't Hit What You Can't See The last two defensive methods, the ones that the US relies on prominently, also happen to be the most effective, at least right now; passive and C4I. These techniques refer to simply making it as difficult as possible for an enemy to identify a strategic location in the first place, as opposed to the last resort of trying to shoot missiles down. As with Germany in WW2, if there are no visible targets to shoot at you've more or less diffused the situation, at least for the time being. Yes, the enemy can endlessly carpet bomb locations they suspect you're inhabiting, but as we already know from Germany's success this isn't particularly effective. The US boils its passive defensive techniques down to "deceive and disperse," meaning that military forces are spread out and strategic ground targets are hidden by camouflage and other deceptive means. Most importantly and perhaps most obviously, key military assets are also not all stationed in the same location. So, if one strategic target is discovered and destroyed, the military operation as a whole can still continue on effectively. It's a lot more complicated than just this very brief summary, of course, with it being significantly more difficult to disperse military assets when arriving at a battlefield, as opposed to already being entrenched in a battlefield when adversaries arrive. Hiding is also only a tenuous solution at best, and the threat of being discovered and attacked is a constantly monitored problem that all active militaries face on a permanent basis. Now, all these stealth and trickery solutions aren't to say that Rapid Dragon or long range cruise missiles are being taken lightly, and in fact missile attacks of this nature are considered one of the biggest, evolving challenges on modern battlefields. But, as with all military technology, cruise missiles only make up part of a much bigger, much broader game of chess being played in multiple complicated layers across many different fields. It will be interesting, if somewhat alarming to see how modern warfare does develop from this point onwards, though how the US's adversaries respond to the new threat is something we'll probably tackle in a different video. As far as the existing Rapid Dragon is concerned, reports say that development is currently revolving around palettes being adapted to accept AGM-158C LRASM, Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles, as well as AGM-158D JASSM-XRs, extreme range missiles. XR missiles will effectively increase the range of Rapid Dragon to a rather astonishing 1,900km. There is also word that the system is being adapted to drop precision mines, as well as to rapidly deploy mass fleets of drones. If anything, images of fleets of drones being dropped from the bottom of a plane really do make it seem like we're finally in the science fiction future promised by "futuristic" 80s and 90s action films. ## Key Takeaways - Rapid Dragon is a US Air Force system that deploys multiple cruise missiles from cargo planes. - The system is cost-efficient, flexible, and minimizes risk to soldiers during deployment. - Rapid Dragon can launch between 4 and 45 missiles simultaneously, each capable of traveling nearly 1,000km. - Defending against Rapid Dragon is challenging due to its swarm attack capability and low-flying missiles. - The US employs passive defense and C4I strategies to counter Rapid Dragon and similar threats. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is Rapid Dragon? Rapid Dragon is a United States Air Force (USAF) and Lockheed developed cruise missile deployment system that can deploy long-range, highly accurate cruise missiles in seconds from an airborne platform. ### How many cruise missiles can Rapid Dragon deploy simultaneously? Rapid Dragon can deploy between 4 and 45 cruise missiles simultaneously. ### What type of missiles does Rapid Dragon use? Rapid Dragon uses AGM-158B JASSM-ER missiles, which are Joint Air To Surface Standoff missiles with extended range. ### What is the range of the missiles deployed by Rapid Dragon? The missiles deployed by Rapid Dragon can autonomously travel nearly 1,000km to find their target. ### How does the Rapid Dragon system work? The Rapid Dragon system uses a customizable, disposable 'deployment box' or 'palette' loaded into the cargo hold of an airdrop-capable supply plane. Once airborne, the plane drops the palette, which deploys a parachute to slow its descent and release the missiles. ### What are the defensive measures against Rapid Dragon? The defensive measures against Rapid Dragon include active defensive measures, attack operations, passive defensive measures, and control, communication, computers, and intelligence (C4I). ### What is the warhead capacity of the AGM-158B JASSM-ER missiles? Each AGM-158B JASSM-ER missile is equipped with a 450kg WDU-42/B penetrator armor-piercing warhead. ### What planes can be used with the Rapid Dragon system? The Rapid Dragon system can be used with virtually any unmodified, airdrop-capable supply plane, with common examples being C-130s and C-17s. ### What future developments are planned for the Rapid Dragon system? Future developments for the Rapid Dragon system include adapting palettes to accept AGM-158C LRASM (Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles) and AGM-158D JASSM-XRs (extreme range missiles), as well as deploying precision mines and mass fleets of drones. ### What is the historical inspiration behind the name 'Rapid Dragon'? The name 'Rapid Dragon' is inspired by ancient Chinese descriptions of enormous, ballista-like crossbow carts that could fire multiple bolts simultaneously, known as 'Rapid Dragon Carts.' ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: Rapid Dragon: The USAFs Incredible New Missile System](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiQ2rcn-leE) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/AGM-158_Joint_air-to-surface_standoff_missile.jpg) by Duch.seb / openverse, by-sa. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/rbmk-shoddy-nuclear-reactor-nearly-killed-millions https://megaprojects.pub/article/rbmk-shoddy-nuclear-reactor-nearly-killed-millions Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT At 1:23 and 48 seconds exactly on the 26th of April 1986, Reactor Number 4 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the Ukrainian SSR of the Soviet Union exploded, and then, two to three seconds later, it exploded again; the single greatest nuclear disaster in human history had begun. At the centre of it all was a single, now battered and mangled RBMK Reactor; a device that had previously been lauded and celebrated as a monument to both socialist construction generally, and the advanced glories of Soviet industry specifically, thanks to its ability to provide cheap and clean energy to countless amounts of people. Now, however, it was but an obelisk to its blind naivety; one that was billowing radioactive material right up into the atmosphere, and foreboded abject disaster if the situation wasn't brought under control and contained, both literally and figuratively, with all possible haste. And it is the RBMK Reactor itself that we are going to be taking a look at today. The disaster more broadly has been discussed many, MANY times before us, so there's no sense in retreading that stagnant water, but the reactor itself, and its bungled design that directly led to the disaster, THAT is something that is direly under appreciated… so… let's begin! ## Basic Principles of Nuclear Reactors Before we get into the 'meat' of the video, as it were, it is worth us taking the time to get our heads around how nuclear reactors ACTUALLY work. Partly, this is because it'll be a useful grounding for the rest of the video, but it's also just due to the fact that such things are interesting; and if you've found yourself on this channel, we're happy to assume that machines of all stripes, particularly the big and powerful ones, are right up your street. And let us begin the explanation with the basics, that being that nuclear reactors produce energy via the process of splitting atomic nuclei, a naturally occurring phenomenon dubbed 'nuclear fission.' In man-made environments, this naturally occurring process can be concentrated and made controllable, where it then produces an IMMENSE heat, which is used to boil water, creating steam, which is then used to spin turbines attached to whopping great generators, and there you have it – electricity. It really is a remarkably simple process at its core, the real challenge in it all comes from allowing nuclear fission, and the subsequent production of electricity, to happen efficiently, and above all else, SAFELY. Now, to go into a bit more depth, so we can show you what we mean about the challenges, nuclear reactors operate by initiating and maintaining a so called 'sustained chain reaction,' i.e. a continuous series of nuclear fission events where each reaction produces enough neutrons to maintain the process at a steady rate; giving you a constant flow of heat, therefore steam, therefore electricity – happy days! As for what that 'fission event' that actually splits the fissile atoms is, it's a simple collision, specifically a collision between neutrons, and the nuclei of fissile atoms such as Uranium-235. '235' in this instance refers to the mass number of the Uranium, which is the total number of protons and neutrons in its nucleus (92 protons and 143 neutrons), other sorts of Uranium, such as 238, which has 92 protons and 146 neutrons making up its mass number, are NOT fissile. As for why, to simply it QUITE a bit; Uranium is quite happy and content with 146 neutrons, and very unhappy with 143 of them, and so it becomes 'unstable,' and is more susceptible to having its bonds messed about with – as it wants to get to its happy place. A fission event, as you may have already deduced, also releases a LOT of energy, with the energy released from but a single gram of Uranium-235 going through fission being equivalent to the energy that released by burning three tons of coal. Primarily, this energy comes in the form of kinetic energy, which keeps the atoms moving, and enables that 'sustained chain reaction,' and heat, which is then harnessed to boil the water, and generate electricity. A question, though. Because if you have a whole load of fissile material inside of a reactor, bouncing about the gaff and having a grand old time of it splitting away, what stops the total reaction rate just exponentially growing, to both literally and figuratively explode? Well, if just left to do its thing, absolutely nothing at all is the answer to that, and so, if left to its own devices, that is exactly what a nuclear reactor will do: it'll just keep going and going and going, and then, BANG, once the reactor can no longer contain the pressure. As a result, you need systems and mechanisms in place that allow to you calm down the reaction rate and keep it at a nice balance point between producing plenty of heat, but not so much that it gets out of hand and becomes dangerous. This is done through the use of 'Coolants' and 'Moderators.' A coolant is exactly what it sounds like; something that is pumped into the reactor to absorb the heat of the fissile events. Usually, it will be water or gas which is used for this purpose, which also in turn then goes on power the turbines when heated up. Moderators, on the other hand, directly disrupt the rate of fissile events in the reactor, and calm things down that way. They also can be the same substance as used as a coolant, with water, for example, also being used in this way, because whereas it will absorb heat, it will also slow down the neutrons produced during fission. Then there's various mechanisms that can be used to slow down the rate of reaction; chief among which are the 'control rods.' Composed of materials like boron or cadmium, these rods absorb excess neutrons, which would otherwise be off on their way to produce more fissile events, and thus allow operators to regulate the reaction rate. This REALLY do work a treat too, as during the Three Mile Island incident, for examples, the rapid insertion of all control rods completely halted the nuclear chain reaction; preventing a catastrophic meltdown despite the fact the reactor had lost the bulk of its coolant and moderators. Do remember control rods specifically too, as they'll become VERY important in the Chernobyl story later on. It's also worth noting that different reactor types have evolved differently to optimise the balance between safety, efficiency, and economic viability, as their creators see it. This has led to the creation of two dominate reactor types, 'Pressurised Water Reactors,' or PWRs, and 'Boiling Water Reactors,' or BWRs. The former uses high-pressure water to transfer heat to a secondary loop for steam generation, while the latter generates steam directly within the reactor vessel to drive turbines. Don't stress too much about the technical nitty gritty of those types, however, as what we REALLY want you to take away is the fact that they are the dominate types today, and the RBMK reactor is NEITHER type. It instead is its own unique thing, that uses graphite as a moderator and water as a coolant, and also makes use of individual pressure tubes for each fuel assembly. That last detail in particular is an interesting one. For starters, it's why RBMK reactors look so weird as compared to other types, with the hundreds of squares arranged in a big circle – each one of them is a fuel assembly, but its also interesting as a choice that reflects THE issue with the RBMK: cost cutting. You see, while such a design does have legitimate advantages; such as being able to refuel while the reactor is in operation by just popping those fuel assemblies out and quickly sticking a new one back in, in reality the major advantage was cost saving, as such a design allowed the Soviet Union to avoid having to manufacture a single, robust, and enormous pressure vessel for each of its reactors; something that was both expensive, and very, VERY difficult given the state of Soviet Industry. And if you think the lack of a pressure vessel is bad given, you know, explosions and all that, well then that's nothing compared to the fact that the RBMK worked using something called a 'positive void co-efficient.' More generally, a 'void co-efficient' when it comes to nuclear reactors, refers to how the reactor's reactivity changes when steam bubbles, 'voids,' replace liquid coolant in the reactor core. A positive one of those, as in an RBMK, means that as steam bubbles form in the coolant, the reactor's reactivity increases instead of decreasing; literally 'positive,' 'plus,' 'more' – goes up! This occurs because steam absorbs fewer neutrons than liquid water, allowing more neutrons to sustain the fission chain reaction, which can lead to a dangerous feedback loop of rising power and temperature. In contrast, a negative void coefficient, as you find in both PWR and BWR reactors, works in the opposite way: as steam bubbles form, the reactor's reactivity decreases. This happens because the reduced density of the coolant absorbs fewer neutrons, but instead of increasing reactivity, the slowed reaction rate stabilizes the system. This negative feedback loop acts as a natural safety mechanism, preventing the reactor from overheating and helping to maintain steady operating conditions even during power fluctuations. A positive void coefficient, naturally, is not ideal. Think of it almost like air brakes on a railway locomotive; in the same way that we have figured out that having air brakes which are applied by default, and lifted off by air pressure, and so will slam themselves back on if anything goes awry, is far safer than having brakes which are unapplied by default, and so risk being locked in the 'open' position during operation, a nuclear reactor with a negative void co-efficient, that naturally wants to reduce its reactivity as steam is generated, and requires a bit of titivation to keep reactivity up, is FAR safer than one which naturally wants to rise, and requires titivation to push it down instead: far better to have a cold reactor in the event of a whoopsie daisy than a blown up one. Normally, however, a positive void co-efficient is something you can work with, and it's no major issue. But if, say, you find yourself in a situation that is getting a bit bum squeaky, and your immediate priority is killing reactivity for the sake of safety, due you think the whole 'initial spike in reactivity when you add more coolant' thing might just come back to bite you on the arse a bit? It certainly did at Chernobyl, that's for sure, as we are slowly reaching towards explaining. ## The Specifics of the RBMK Now, where were we? Ahh yes, that was it, the RBMK being a corner cut heap of junk. And let's continue the explanation by coming back to control rods. Because, given that they are designed to not just keep the reactivity manageable, but also be the last line of defence against disaster, by being able to all just be slammed in on a oner and kill the reaction dead… how big of a tit do you suppose you'd have to be to tip your control roads with a material that INCREASED reactivity? Well, in the case of the Kurchatov Institute of Atomic Energy, the designers of the RBMK, the answer to that question would be a pair of giant, bouncing, swinging down to the knees double-z's, because that's exactly what they chose to do; with the control rods being mostly boron carbide, with just a little smidge of graphite on the end. Amusing anecdotes aside, however, and in contrary to what a certain 2019 telly show would have you believe, the control rods were NOT graphite tipped to save on cost, and instead, they were designed that way to enhance 'neutron economy,' i.e. the efficient use of neutrons to sustain a controlled chain reaction by maximizing fission events while minimizing losses through absorption or leakage, and graphite, being an excellent neutron moderator, slows down fast neutrons into thermal neutrons that are more likely to sustain the nuclear fission process. When the graphite tips were inserted into the reactor, they displaced neutron-absorbing water in the control rod channels, momentarily increasing reactivity by boosting the local neutron flux. This design choice was made to improve reactor efficiency and operational flexibility, especially at low power levels; essentially, you could tease the reactor with 'just the tip' of the control rods to keep its reactivity up, and if you wanted to kill reactivity, you could just push through that spike, and which point the boron carbide would start doing its thing, and reduce reactivity FAR more than the graphite was increasing it. And if you're wondering what that little spike of reactivity from the tip of the rods would to a RBMK that was right on the brink of going bang, if you were to say, slam all the control rods in to initiate an emergency SCRAM shutdown and kill the reactivity, just like they did at Three Mile Island; hold that thought – because yes, you have seen EXACTLY where this is going. There's A LOT more we could talk about, as the RBMK was just full of unnecessary cost cutting measures, such as the lack of pressurised containment vessel, and weird little design quirks, such as the graphite tipped control rods, but as our main goal here is to just give you a detailed enough understanding of both nuclear reactors generally, and the RBMK specifically, so that you can have a quality idea of what went down back in 1986… we'll leave it there. And that means we can get onto THE main event of the story… ## The Chernobyl Disaster The sequence of events that led to disaster began with preparations for a planned safety test designed to evaluate the reactor's ability to maintain cooling during a power loss; in short, using the energy present in an already spinning turbine to keep the reactor's coolant pumps going during the minute or so it took for a set of emergency diesel generators to kick in and take over. This test required the reactor to operate at a reduced power level. However, RBMK reactors, as explained earlier, were highly unstable under low-power conditions due to their positive void coefficient. Despite this known risk, plant operators faced significant pressure to complete the test, leading to the circumvention of key safety protocols. Automatic shutdown systems were disabled, and the emergency core cooling system was overridden, removing critical safety layers. At midnight, operators attempted to lower the reactor's power output, but a procedural misstep caused the power level to plummet to near-zero. In response, nearly all control rods were manually withdrawn to restore power—an action that drastically reduced the reactor's safety margin. By 1:23 a.m., the reactor was in an extremely precarious state, with minimal coolant flow, a dangerously high positive void coefficient, and almost no control rods in place. The test commenced, triggering a chain of events that quickly spiralled out of control. As the turbine slowed, the coolant flow decreased, and steam began to form within the reactor channels. Due to the RBMK's positive void coefficient, the formation of steam caused a rapid increase in reactivity. This feedback loop escalated the reactor's power output, pushing it far beyond safe operating limits. The operators activated the AZ-5 button to initiate an emergency SCRAM shutdown, inserting all control rods simultaneously. However, as detailed earlier, the control rods' graphite tips temporarily increased reactivity upon insertion. This design flaw caused a sudden and catastrophic power surge. Within three seconds, the reactor's output skyrocketed to an estimated 10 times its maximum capacity. The intense heat generated during this surge caused the fuel rods to rupture and the reactor's pressure tubes to burst. The resulting steam explosion destroyed the reactor core and blew the 1,000-ton upper biological shield into the air – straight up and out of the reactor building via the roof. The explosion exposed the graphite moderator to the atmosphere, igniting fires that further spread radioactive material. A secondary hydrogen explosion, caused by a zirconium-water reaction, compounded the devastation. The initial blast and subsequent fires released a massive plume of radioactive isotopes, including iodine-131, cesium-137, and strontium-90, into the atmosphere. Emergency responders arrived quickly but were ill-equipped for the scale of the disaster. Many were unaware of the radiation levels they faced and worked without adequate protection. Their efforts to extinguish the fires and stabilize the site were heroic but came at a great cost. Dozens of first responders succumbed to acute radiation sickness within days, and many more suffered long-term health consequences. ## And Yet, it Could Have Been Worse Estimates of the death toll from Chernobyl vary widely. The International Energy Agency, for example, reports that there were approximately 30 immediate deaths among plant workers and first responders, immediate in this instance being defined as death within a week or so, for radiation exposure on the night of the explosion, with a further 30 or so being added for deaths caused by radiation exposure among those groups immediately after the blast, but that took longer to claim their victims. This is roughly in line with the Soviet Union's official stance, which right up until its collapse maintained that 'only' 31 people were directly killed by the disaster; all of them being plant workers and first responders. Both figures, however, mask an unpleasant reality; that being that the true death toll is much, MUCH higher. So high in fact, that if we apply a lens of 'lives shortened because of the disaster' to get a more accurate picture, that initial figure of 30-60 or so LEAPS, with the United Nations placing the figure at 4,000, and Green Peace and the book Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment placing the figure at up to 200,000 and 985,000 respectively. This huge variation in total predicted death toll is rooted in the simple fact that linking specific cancer cases directly to the disaster remains VERY challenging due to a plethora of difficult to gauge factors such as general background radiation exposure, genetic predispositions, and variations in data collection methodologies across different regions, and all of that's before you get to the matter of the latency period of radiation-induced cancers, as cases may emerge years of even decades after initial exposure. But while we know for certain that the REAL figure is far higher than it initially appears, whatever it may actually be, the truly mind-boggling thing about the death is that even despite the inflated true figure, things could have easily been way, WAY worse, had the disaster played out differently. Among the chilling possibilities was the risk of a second explosion, one that would have been inconceivably more devastating than the one we did get. You see, after the first explosion ruptured the reactor core, intense heat from the molten fuel rods began melting through the reactor's base, and beneath the reactor lay a large water reservoir, part of the emergency cooling system. Had the molten core material, or 'corium' as it is known, reached this water, a massive steam explosion could have ensued. According to physicist Valery Legasov, such a secondary explosion could have had a yield of 3 to 5 MEGATONS of TNT equivalent; for reference, an American W87 warhead, as used in the LGM-30 Minuteman ICBM, has a maximum yield of 'only' 475 kilotons… Using 'Nukemap' as our reference, as their maths is actually VERY well done, such a blast, at its maximum predicted yield of 5 megatons at ground level, would have a fireball big enough to completely burn the towns of Pripyat and Chernobyl off of the map, killing every single one of the 63,000 people who lived in the two cities instantly. Then there's the matter of radiation, as not only would nearly ALL the radioactive materials of Reactor 4 be thrown up into the atmosphere, but so would that of Reactors 1, 2, and 3 – as they would be totally obliterated by the blast. Exact numerical predictions for the total death toll are hard to come by, not least due to the fact that the number of variables at play make it almost a matter of quantum science to even begin trying to figure out; but to give you an idea, Valery Legasov predicted that such an event would render the Western Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and even select slithers of Central Europe TOTALLY uninhabitable for centuries, as cleanup of the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone was hard enough, and so to do the same for half a continent would be flatly impossible. Of course, those living under the vast cloud of radiation as it settled would too be condemned to death, sooner or later, and that constituted untold MILLIONS of people. But while that alternative scenario was by far the most terrifying, there were others that still presented the possibility of the disaster being FAR worse. For example, another scenario involved the possibility of widespread ignition of the reactor's graphite moderator. The initial explosion and subsequent fires exposed portions of the graphite core to the open air, where it could have easily caught fire and spread uncontrollably. A fully engulfed graphite fire would have dispersed radioactive particles over a far greater area than the actual disaster did, due to the unique thermal and chemical properties of graphite. Graphite, which serves as a neutron moderator in RBMK reactors, is highly combustible when exposed to oxygen at high temperatures, as it can sustain a fire even under low-oxygen conditions. This risk was exacerbated by the intense heat generated during the explosion and subsequent fires, which created an environment where ignition was nearly inevitable. Once ignited, the burning graphite could have released significant amounts of radioactive isotopes such as cesium-137 and strontium-90, further contaminating the surrounding regions and posing severe long-term health and environmental hazards. Fortunately, the gallant efforts of the first responders prevented that situation from occurring, but, had they been a bit later in their arrival, or a bit more "f*ck this we're bailing" when they started tasting metal in the air, this nightmare scenario could well have played out. ## Conclusion In the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster, sweeping changes were implemented to address the RBMK reactor's critical design flaws. The most significant modification was the redesign of the control rods to eliminate the graphite tips, ensuring that their insertion would no longer cause a temporary spike in reactivity. Additionally, automatic shutdown mechanisms were improved, and the emergency core cooling systems were upgraded to enhance reactor safety during low-power operations. Operational protocols also underwent significant revision. A stricter regulatory framework was established, with enhanced oversight to ensure compliance with safety procedures. Training programs for operators were intensified, focusing on the importance of adhering to safety measures and understanding the unique dynamics of RBMK reactors. Today, seven of the 26 RBMK reactors made are still in operation, but the extensive improvements have mitigated the risks that once made them so dangerous, and so, these reactors are now considered safe, with international nuclear safety bodies acknowledging the effectiveness of the modifications… so no need to worry! ## Key Takeaways - The Chernobyl disaster began with an explosion at Reactor Number 4 on April 26, 1986, due to a flawed RBMK reactor design. - RBMK reactors use graphite as a moderator and water as a coolant, with individual pressure tubes for each fuel assembly. - The RBMK's positive void coefficient and graphite-tipped control rods contributed to the catastrophic power surge during the disaster. - Emergency responders faced severe radiation exposure, with initial deaths and long-term health consequences. - Post-disaster modifications have improved RBMK reactor safety, with seven still operational today. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is the RBMK reactor? The RBMK reactor is a type of nuclear reactor that uses graphite as a moderator and water as a coolant. It is known for its unique design, which includes individual pressure tubes for each fuel assembly, allowing for refueling while the reactor is in operation. ### What happened at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant on April 26, 1986? On April 26, 1986, Reactor Number 4 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant exploded twice within a few seconds, marking the beginning of the worst nuclear disaster in history. The explosion was caused by a series of events during a safety test, leading to a catastrophic power surge and subsequent explosions. ### What is a positive void coefficient? A positive void coefficient in a nuclear reactor means that as steam bubbles form in the coolant, the reactor's reactivity increases. This can lead to a dangerous feedback loop of rising power and temperature, making the reactor less stable. ### What design flaws contributed to the Chernobyl disaster? Several design flaws contributed to the Chernobyl disaster, including the use of graphite-tipped control rods that temporarily increased reactivity upon insertion, the lack of a pressurized containment vessel, and the positive void coefficient which made the reactor unstable at low power levels. ### What were the immediate deaths attributed to the Chernobyl disaster? Approximately 30 immediate deaths among plant workers and first responders occurred due to radiation exposure on the night of the explosion, with an additional 30 or so deaths caused by radiation exposure among those groups immediately after the blast but took longer to claim their victims. ### What is the estimated long-term death toll from the Chernobyl disaster? Estimates of the long-term death toll vary widely, with the United Nations placing the figure at 4,000, and Green Peace and the book 'Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment' placing the figure at up to 200,000 and 985,000 respectively. ### What could have made the Chernobyl disaster even worse? The disaster could have been much worse if a second explosion had occurred, potentially with a yield of 3 to 5 megatons of TNT equivalent, which would have rendered large areas of the Western Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and parts of Central Europe uninhabitable for centuries. ### What changes were made to RBMK reactors after the Chernobyl disaster? After the Chernobyl disaster, significant modifications were made to RBMK reactors, including the redesign of control rods to eliminate graphite tips, improvements to automatic shutdown mechanisms, and upgrades to emergency core cooling systems. Operational protocols were also revised to enhance safety. ### How many RBMK reactors are still in operation today? As of the information provided, seven of the 26 RBMK reactors made are still in operation. These reactors have undergone extensive improvements to mitigate the risks that once made them dangerous. ### What is the role of control rods in a nuclear reactor? Control rods are used to regulate the rate of nuclear fission in a reactor. They are composed of materials like boron or cadmium, which absorb excess neutrons, allowing operators to control the reaction rate. In an emergency, they can be inserted to halt the nuclear chain reaction. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: The RBMK: The Shoddy Nuclear Reactor That Nearly Killed Millions](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNsUAlu0oWI) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/4th_block_of_the_Chernobyl_Nuclear_Power_Plant.jpg) by IAEA Imagebank / openverse, by-sa. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/republic-f-105-thunderchief-jet-to-end-world https://megaprojects.pub/article/republic-f-105-thunderchief-jet-to-end-world Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT ## Introduction At the height of the Cold War, nothing was more important than the question of nuclear war. If an all-out nuclear exchange between the United States and the Soviet Union was possible, then how could it be avoided? If it couldn't be avoided, how could it be won? And if it couldn't be won, in a final world war that would end with mutually assured destruction, then how could either side ensure that if it went down, then it was taking its sworn enemies down with it? In the bitterest, and most difficult moments of the Cold War, from the Cuban Missile Crisis, to the creation of the Berlin Wall, to the outbreak of the Vietnam War, the United States of America had one single answer to all of those questions. That answer, the key to America's own security and to the destruction of the Soviet Union, was the aircraft known as the Thunderchief. Capable of flying at double the speed of sound, and designed with the sole purpose of delivering nuclear apocalypse upon the Soviets, the F-105 represented a historic breakthrough in Cold War engineering. But unreliable, dangerous to fly, and trusted with the riskiest missions America's Air Force carried out, it was an aircraft that left a difficult and complex legacy. This is the story of the F-105 Thunderchief, the jet that was made to end the world. ## Design and Development The dawn of the global jet age was a time of rapid progress in military aviation. At the start of the 1940s, jet-powered aircraft were little more than a dream for any faction of World War II, but by the decade's end, the Soviets and the Americans were flying jets that regularly pushed against the sound barrier: the F-86 for Washington, and the MiG-15 for Moscow. By the mid-1950s, those jets had given way to even more powerful creations, aircraft that could shatter the sound barrier without issue: the MiG-17 and MiG-19 for the Soviets, and the Super Sabre, the Voodoo, the Delta Dagger, and the Fury for the Americans. It was a period in which all sides understood that innovation would proceed at a breakneck pace, that American and Soviet industry would churn out hundreds or even thousands of a given jet today, despite knowing full well that they'd be obsolete tomorrow. At a time when a slight miscalculation or an accidental encounter could lead to an all-out nuclear exchange, there was no price too high to ensure that each nation was ready for the worst-case scenario. At this time in American military aviation, any given aircraft could be expected to perform one of a few critical tasks. This was still about a decade off from the introduction of the first true American multirole fighter, the F-4 Phantom, and as a result, any new aircraft in development could be expected to perform one of a few key functions. Interceptors were tasked with confronting an incoming attack, timing a rendezvous with Soviet strategic bombers and bringing them down before they could lay waste to their targets on American soil. Dedicated fighter aircraft were meant to meet the fighter jets of their adversaries in tactical engagements, winning air-to-air battles that were typically part of a wider war. Carrier-based jets were meant to project American air power as best they could, using the runway space and limited munitions available to them at sea. Strategic bombers, meanwhile, were precisely what they sounded like. But the mission role that the Thunderchief would eventually fulfill, was that of a fighter-bomber: an aircraft with the required weapons, maneuverability, and other attributes to be able to bring down aerial adversaries, but an aircraft where the real objective was to deliver a bomb payload to a fixed target. Unlike strategic bombers, smaller fighter-bombers were expected to be able to deal with flying enemies themselves, thunder into contested airspace, and deliver precise attacks at low altitude. And in the case of the aircraft that America was looking for in the early 1950s, those precise attacks were to be of the nuclear variety. The Thunderchief was created by the Republic Aviation Corporation, a company that was founded in 1931 and would eventually be bought by Fairchild, the creator of the A-10 Thunderbolt. By the early fifties, Republic was already known for a highly successful fighter-bomber, the Thunderstreak, with nearly 3,500 copies built and distributed to America, Taiwan, Israel, and many nations of the NATO alliance. But as impressive as the Thunderstreak was, it was already on the verge of being outdated by the time it entered service in 1954, and Republic knew it. By then, Republic was already three years into designing the jet that would take over for the Thunderstreak, delivering previously impossible capabilities in the process. As the designers of this new aircraft saw it, the US Air Force was lacking a jet that was capable of performing high-speed, low-altitude nuclear bombing runs, deep into enemy territory. As such, they set out to design a jet that could do precisely that, trying to hit a precise balance between maximum speed, maximum flying range, and the required payload capacity to transport a nuclear warhead. The aircraft they designed would have to be survivable on long missions by itself, with minimal support from other aircraft and possibly no escorts of a different fighter type, with the structural stability to handle the aerodynamic challenges of low-altitude flight as it hugged the landscape. And when it came to self-defense, the fighter jet would have to be capable of one, out of two things. Either it would have to be able to dogfight, with the weapons capacity and maneuverability to face down the jets that would be coming to intercept it, or it would have to be able to outrun them, and ensure that a confrontation never happened at all. The Republic corporation chose the latter, and with that, the concept for the Thunderchief was born. When they were shown the idea a year later, the US Air Force were very happy to learn that such an aircraft had been designed, especially because of the lessons American pilots had learned from the Korean War. The Air Force promptly told Republic to stop any further work on the Thunderstreak, its previous fighter-bomber, and go full-bore on getting this new aircraft ready for service. It ultimately wouldn't be ready in time to help bring about a victory in Korea, but by 1954, the Air Force was ready to place its first order. By then, the new plane had been paired with a powerful engine that hadn't been available any earlier, and it had been given a designation, the F-105. It was the fifth aircraft produced as part of America's Century Series, and it would enter service alongside another fighter that had just taken to the skies for the first time, an interceptor known as the F-104 Starfighter. The process of actually building the F-105, would turn out to be a messy one. The first prototype would get off the ground for the first time in October of 1955, but it would quickly endure so much damage during testing that it was nearly unflyable. The second prototype had to be built with an inferior engine, as a copy of the new engine couldn't yet be spared. Both aircraft bore design elements that Republic already knew wouldn't carry over to the final product, and as a result, the prototypes were underwhelming, compared to what Republic had promised. But as one element after another was reworked, the Air Force was convinced that it could place its trust in the new aircraft anyway. Production orders started rolling in, the first few planes were handed over, and in the summer of 1957, the F-105 was designated the Thunderchief, the fourth fighter plane made by Republic to bear reference to thunder in its name. In 1959, the first squadron of Thunderchief aircraft finally went operational, out of a total 833 that would ultimately serve the United States. ## Specs and Capabilities The F-105 was modified into about a dozen variants over the course of its service life, some of which would be built, and others of which would be abandoned on the drawing board. The first major production run of the jets would produce the F-105B, in seventy-one copies that were phased out of frontline service by 1964. But the vast majority of Thunderchief aircraft were of the F-105D variant, and it's the capabilities of those aircraft that we'll focus on, when we dig into what the Thunderchief could do. The F-105 was a single-seat aircraft, and like so many aircraft of its day, it came with some strange physical proportions. Measuring at a length, tip to tail, of about sixty-four feet or nineteen and a half meters, the F-105's wingspan measured just thirty-five feet, or ten and a half meters. The aircraft utilized back-swept wings, angled at forty-five degrees, with a relatively large surface area for purposes of maneuverability. It flew with the aid of a single Pratt & Whitney J75 turbojet engine, complete with afterburners, capable of producing 26,500 pound-thrust of force when firing at maximum power. That engine was fed by a pair of air intakes, one at the leading edge of each wing, with fuel stored in three separate tanks inside the fuselage, plus the option to add up to four specialized tanks if extra range was required. Sitting empty, the F-105 weighed in at just shy of twenty-seven thousand pounds; that's a bit over twelve metric tons. But when fully loaded up, it could take off at nearly double that weight, maxing out at about twenty-four metric tons or fifty-three thousand pounds. When flying at altitude, the Thunderchief could hit top speeds of over twice the speed of sound, capping out a bit shy of 1,400 miles per hour, or 2,250 kilometers per hour. It could fly at altitudes of nearly fifteen kilometers or 49,000 feet, with an impressive combat range for its time, nearly eight hundred miles or well over twelve hundred kilometers. On one-way trips, including nuclear bombing runs where the pilot of a Thunderchief was realistically unlikely to escape detonation alive, the aircraft could travel some 2,200 miles without external fuel stores, or 3,500 kilometers. It could climb to altitudes of thirty-five thousand feet, or eleven kilometers, in under two minutes, although it was said to be capable of even faster climbs than that. It could receive air-to-air refueling through a side-fuselage boom, the only combat aircraft in US history to come with that particular feature. In terms of its armament, the Thunderchief could pack a fairly serious punch for its time, leveraging five external hardpoints in total, including four under the wings and one on the aircraft centerline. On those hardpoints, the F-105 could carry up to four rocket pods, launching seven rockets each, or several kinds of conventional bombs. When they became available, the aircraft could also mount missiles on the outer two pylons, including the air-to-air Sidewinder and the air-to-surface Bullpup. It also featured an internal weapons bay, where the F-105's ultimate payload was meant to be stored. Within the bomb bay, the aircraft could carry a single nuclear warhead, loaded up into one of a few kinds of bomb deliverables that were compatible with the aircraft's design. For close-range dogfighting and ground strafing, the aircraft was equipped with a six-barreled Gatling gun, with about a thousand rounds of ammunition carried onboard. In all, the maximum weapons payload of the F-105 was up to three times greater than that of the four-engine B-17 bomber of World War II, and considerably greater than that of the larger and much-improved bombers of the later war. Just as important was the F-105's avionics suite, as one of the first jet aircraft to integrate the types of onboard systems that would later become synonymous with modern fighter planes. In the case of the Thunderchief, those systems included a specialized ranging radar, allowing the aircraft to track itself and its surroundings mid-flight, as well as a proper fire control system. The radar was designed for terrain mapping and avoidance, still a very new feature to have on a combat jet, while the cockpit was designed for far better pilot utility than had been a feature of prior fighters. Meanwhile, the fire control system would do the hard work of figuring out precisely when to release the nuclear bomb that the Thunderchief was carrying, after the pilot identified the target via radar, and basically gave the plane approval to release a warhead at a position that the plane's onboard computers tracked thereafter. That meant that the Thunderchief could engage in a practice called toss-bombing, where the plane would pull up and release the onboard warhead in hopes that it would fly far enough, before detonation, that the pilot stood a chance at surviving. It also meant that if the pilot was under pressure from any number of possible external factors, the plane could be maneuvered and still release the onboard warhead at the right moment. When it was used in combat, the F-105 was meant to fly low and fast, skimming the landscape and hugging the ground as close as possible. Unlike nap-of-the-earth flight tactics that became popular later in the decade, when flying close to the ground was a good way to avoid enemy radar installations, the F-105's low-altitude flight was meant to exploit the limitations of enemy aircraft. At sea level, the Soviet Union's MiG-17 could only hit speeds of about 1,100 kilometers or 680 miles per hour, well below the sound barrier, while the MiG-19 and the MiG-21 could get past Mach 1, but not by much. In the thicker air at or near sea level, the Thunderchief was built to thrive, traveling a good deal faster than any of the Soviet planes that would have tried to stop it. So long as it had enough fuel to keep flying, the F-105 would have been all but impossible to intercept as it approached the targets for a nuclear bombing run, unless the aircraft that would try and interdict it, happened to be placed just perfectly. Even then, there were no guarantees that they'd survive an encounter with the F-105 once they got close. ## Operations and Legacy When the F-105 began its service life in the late 1950s, it entered a relatively peaceful phase of the Cold War. Korea had been split and ceded to each of the world's dueling superpowers, and although things were already ramping up in Vietnam, it would be half a decade before the large-scale bombing campaigns of the Johnson era. As such, America and its fighter pilots had ample time to get to know the F-105, but unfortunately for the Air Force and the Republic corporation, the result was not the warm reception that they had hoped. While the aircraft was undeniably powerful and well-suited to its role in theory, it proved to be difficult for its pilots to handle—in part, because it took off and landed at very high speeds, where the slightest error could lead to fireballs on the runway. Although the aircraft was aerodynamically suited to its role as a low-flying, fast aircraft, it was unwieldy when sitting in the cockpit, while its initial lack of an ejection seat didn't exactly inspire confidence. For the F-105D variant, the reception was hardly any better; it would be referred to, by its pilots and maintenance crews, as the Thud—widely understood to mean the noise the aircraft made when crashing into the ground. It would alternatively be called the Lead Sled, while its pilots used to helpfully explain that it could kill America's enemies in precisely three ways: Bombing them, strafing them, or crashing onto their heads. The plane was difficult to maintain, and was grounded repeatedly, while its reputation for in-flight disasters was well-known among those unfortunate enough to pilot it. Nor were those issues easily fixed; problems with the plane would persist well into the era when the D-variant had taken over combat operations. But after the F-105's pilots had a chance to really get comfortable with their aircraft, opinions on the Thunderchief slowly grew more favorable over time. The aircraft was fast as hell, it could drop explosive ordnance in amounts that would have been impossible on a jet of that size just a few years ago, and when pilots mastered its handling, it excelled at its low-and-fast mission as long as all of its parts remained attached. Not only that, but it improved steadily with time, as pointed pilot feedback led to the addition of better armor, better gun sights, electronic countermeasures, and more. It was hardened against water, which had been responsible for many early crashes as it found its way into the plane's internal systems, and it was standardized to fix many of the problems that made regular maintenance so difficult. As such, the Thunderchief and its pilots were poised to take a leading role in the Vietnam War when it first broke out, with the F-105 rapidly becoming the US Air Force's favored plane to carry out airstrikes. Between its large payload, its long range, and its optimization for ground-hugging attacks that offered greater precision in heavily forested areas, the Thunderchief was an ideal platform for the role. Yet unfortunately for both the F-105 and its pilots, the aircraft was only so potent as long as enemy MiGs didn't show up. Heavy, laden with ordnance, and limited in mobility, the F-105 was often a sitting duck when more nimble enemy aircraft showed up, especially considering that it could only carry a very small number of air-to-air missiles. Although F-105s often traveled with a fighter escort, MiG pilots who could hide until the last possible moment would quite frequently manage an attack of opportunity. They'd strike the Thunderchiefs while they flew in formation, before turning around and putting distance between themselves and the aircraft acting as escort. Not only that, but if America's adversaries could figure out in advance that Thunderchiefs were on the way, then anti-aircraft guns would reliably have a brief, but perfect window of opportunity to pelt massive, low-flying, bomb-laden aircraft with a hail of bullets face-first. When its hydraulic systems were hit, the F-105 tended to pitch downward almost immediately, and with the aircraft usually flying very low and very fast, that was a recipe for a rapid and unpreventable crash. Meanwhile, its fuel tanks were positioned too close to the hot engines, so that even minor shrapnel damage could cause fuel to leak and then ignite. Losses of the aircraft were common, although they did manage to get some of their own air-to-air kills in the process, primarily with their cannons in a time when air-to-air missiles were notoriously unreliable. But standard bombing runs weren't the only sort of attack that the F-105 could deliver. In the early days of America's involvement with Vietnam, pilots of the F-100 Super Sabre and the Navy's F-4 Skyhawk had started work on a new series of missions, known as the Wild Weasel. By all accounts, the Wild Weasel is one of those tactics that's best described as, "so crazy it just might work", although a pilot tasked with the mission would also be well within their right to describe them as, "absolutely insane". Around this time, North Vietnam had come into possession of surface-to-air missiles, used in air defense systems that were quite sophisticated for their time. Those missiles relied on ground-based radar to identify incoming aircraft, with missiles subsequently being launched to bring them down. The United States had a way to take out enemy radar: specifically, anti-radiation missiles that picked up on a source of radar emissions, and then treated that source as a target. The tough part, however, was that America was less interested in the standalone radar that tracked incoming aircraft, than they were in the radar that identified targets on behalf of the anti-air battery itself—and was, as a result, very near to where the missiles in question were located. But in order to stay hidden, those radar systems only activated when aircraft were inbound…and America's pilots could make that happen, by being the inbound aircraft in question. Basically, their job was to fly directly into known or suspected enemy air defenses, allow those air defenses to get a lock, and then destroy the source of radar emissions before they, themselves, were shot down. That job was precisely as dangerous as it sounded, and neither the F-100 nor the A-4 were suited to the task…but the F-105 was a far more potent tool. Before long, F-105 pilots were regularly running Wild Weasel attacks, relying on two-seater aircraft with a backseat electronic warfare officer who was in charge of pinpointing enemy air defenses, and warning the pilots about the locations of incoming missiles. Working in groups of four, the F-105s would bait North Vietnamese air defense systems, then swoop in with heavy weapons as quickly as possible. As such, it was the job of one lucky F-105 pilot to make themselves as obvious and as tasty as possible for North Vietnamese SAM crews. If all went well, that pilot would be able to dodge incoming missiles or otherwise avoid them, but to say that the mission was dangerous, would be an incredible understatement. Pilots in this role would be deployed to fly for either a year, or a hundred missions, whichever came first, and about seventy-five percent of pilots ultimately made it to the finish line. Quite a few would fall victim to so-called "ninety-ninth mission syndrome", where a combination of fatigue, eagerness to get home, and more dangerous missions for more experienced pilots, led them to be shot down just before they would have gone home. Despite their success in Wild Weasel operations, the F-105 proved to be relatively ineffective in most other roles during the Vietnam War. While their in-flight attributes made them a potent weapon in the right circumstances, Vietnam simply wasn't the right circumstances, and with more capable aircraft like the F-4 Phantom able to take on most of the airstrike role of the F-105, it was largely phased out by the midpoint of the war. Some of the aircraft, particularly the ones purpose-built for Wild Weasel missions, would continue through to the war's end, but they were a rare sight in the later years of the conflict. Once America's involvement in Vietnam concluded, and the Air Force had an excuse to get the Thunderchief off the front lines permanently, they did exactly that. By the time that the F-105 left service, nearly half of the 833 copies produced had been lost in Vietnam, including three hundred and thirty-four that were brought down by the forces of North Vietnam directly. To this day, it is the only American warplane ever to be taken out of service early, because of the sheer number of aircraft that were lost. That wasn't all; by the time that the aircraft left service completely, over six hundred had been lost for some reason or another, nearly three-fourths of the entire production line. Although those loss rates were partly attributable to bad luck, in that the F-105 had ended up fighting in a conflict that was very different than the one it was designed for, luck didn't account for all of it…or anything close. The aircraft had been built with such a narrow mission focus that it lacked any real operational versatility, in a way that made it unsuitable for a complex warfighting environment. It was versatile in some ways, in that it could carry many different sorts of ordinance based on the mission, but it flew too much like a bomber for it to be very much use in a dogfight. For its 334 losses to North Vietnamese forces, it claimed just twenty-seven and a half kills of MiG fighter aircraft. Not only that, but its high rate of malfunctions and in-flight accidents contributed to an even higher loss rate than it otherwise would have endured. Although Vietnam presented opportunities, like Wild Weasel operations, where the F-105's narrow capabilities could be adapted to a new mission set, its adaptability only went so far as America's ability to find new ways for the Thunderchief to do the same old thing. Trusting the aircraft with a new task, simply didn't go well. As such, the legacy of the Thunderchief can charitably be described as rather mixed, although whether many of its pilots felt like being charitable after having flown the thing, is a different question. Like so many combat aircraft, it's judged for its performance in a war that was fundamentally unlike the war for which it was intended, and it's impossible to know how the Thunderchief would have performed, if entrusted with the missions of nuclear destruction for which it was made. But it never flew those missions, and the missions it did fly, it flew at substantial risk to its pilots, and thus to the war effort. Making matters worse, it flew primarily in what would go down as failed campaigns, as part of a failed war, and as a result, their reputation was tied forever to a difficult period in American military aviation. By the end of its service life, many of the pilots who'd survived flying it, would sing its praises for decades…but that love from the people who knew it best, ultimately wasn't enough to ensure the Thunderchief's place in history. ## Key Takeaways - The F-105 Thunderchief was designed during the Cold War to deliver nuclear payloads. - The aircraft was capable of flying at twice the speed of sound and carrying a nuclear warhead. - Despite its powerful capabilities, the F-105 was unreliable and dangerous to fly. - The Thunderchief saw extensive use in the Vietnam War, particularly in Wild Weasel missions. - Nearly half of the 833 F-105s produced were lost in Vietnam, leading to its early retirement. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What was the primary mission of the F-105 Thunderchief? The F-105 Thunderchief was designed to deliver nuclear apocalypse upon the Soviets, capable of flying at double the speed of sound and performing high-speed, low-altitude nuclear bombing runs deep into enemy territory. ### Who designed and built the F-105 Thunderchief? The F-105 Thunderchief was created by the Republic Aviation Corporation, which was later bought by Fairchild, the creator of the A-10 Thunderbolt. ### What were the key specifications of the F-105D variant? The F-105D variant had a length of about sixty-four feet, a wingspan of thirty-five feet, and could reach speeds of over twice the speed of sound. It had a combat range of nearly eight hundred miles and could carry a significant weapons payload. ### What challenges did the F-105 face during its service life? The F-105 was difficult to handle, had a high rate of malfunctions and in-flight accidents, and was vulnerable to enemy aircraft and anti-aircraft defenses. It was also criticized for its lack of operational versatility. ### What was the 'Wild Weasel' mission and how did the F-105 contribute to it? The 'Wild Weasel' mission involved flying directly into known or suspected enemy air defenses to destroy the source of radar emissions. The F-105 was adapted for this role, with two-seater aircraft carrying an electronic warfare officer to pinpoint enemy air defenses. ### How did the F-105 perform in the Vietnam War? The F-105 was effective in Wild Weasel operations but struggled in other roles due to its vulnerability to enemy aircraft and anti-aircraft defenses. It was largely phased out by the midpoint of the war. ### What was the legacy of the F-105 Thunderchief? The legacy of the F-105 Thunderchief is mixed. It was praised by pilots who survived flying it but was criticized for its high loss rate and lack of operational versatility. It was the only American warplane ever taken out of service early due to the number of aircraft lost. ### What were some of the nicknames given to the F-105 by its pilots? The F-105 was nicknamed the 'Thud' and the 'Lead Sled' by its pilots, reflecting its reputation for being difficult to handle and prone to crashes. ### How many F-105s were produced and how many were lost? A total of 833 F-105s were produced. Nearly half were lost in Vietnam, and over six hundred were lost for various reasons, making it the only American warplane to be taken out of service early due to losses. ### What was the significance of the F-105 in the context of the Cold War? The F-105 was seen as a key to America's security and the destruction of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. It represented a historic breakthrough in Cold War engineering but left a difficult and complex legacy due to its reliability issues and high loss rate. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: Republic F-105 Thunderchief: The Jet to End the World.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehruThikotA) - [https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/196054/republic-f-105d-thunderchief/](https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/196054/republic-f-105d-thunderchief/) - [https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/republic-f-105d-thunderchief/nasm_A19820064000](https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/republic-f-105d-thunderchief/nasm_A19820064000) - [https://www.hickoryaviationmuseum.org/aircraft/republic-f-105-thunderchief/](https://www.hickoryaviationmuseum.org/aircraft/republic-f-105-thunderchief/) - [https://www.sacmuseum.org/visit/exhibit/f-105-thunderchief/](https://www.sacmuseum.org/visit/exhibit/f-105-thunderchief/) - [https://museumofaviation.org/portfolio/f-105d-thunderchief/](https://museumofaviation.org/portfolio/f-105d-thunderchief/) - [https://sandiegoairandspace.org/collection/item/f-105f-collection](https://sandiegoairandspace.org/collection/item/f-105f-collection) - [https://simpleflying.com/republic-thunderchief-fighter-bomber-facts-list/](https://simpleflying.com/republic-thunderchief-fighter-bomber-facts-list/) - [https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-the-u-s-air-force-learned-to-love-the-f-105-thunderchief](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-the-u-s-air-force-learned-to-love-the-f-105-thunderchief) - [https://www.si.edu/object/republic-f-105d-thunderchief%3Anasm_A19820064000](https://www.si.edu/object/republic-f-105d-thunderchief%3Anasm_A19820064000) - [https://nuke.fas.org/guide/usa/airdef/f-105.htm](https://nuke.fas.org/guide/usa/airdef/f-105.htm) - [https://theaviationgeekclub.com/heres-f-105-dubbed-thud/](https://theaviationgeekclub.com/heres-f-105-dubbed-thud/) - [https://www.combatairmuseum.org/aircraft/republicf105thunderchief.html](https://www.combatairmuseum.org/aircraft/republicf105thunderchief.html) - [https://www.airvectors.net/avf105.html](https://www.airvectors.net/avf105.html) - [https://www.aviastar.org/air/usa/republic_thunderchief.php](https://www.aviastar.org/air/usa/republic_thunderchief.php) - [https://www.slashgear.com/1582856/differences-between-f-105-and-mig-19-fighter-jets/](https://www.slashgear.com/1582856/differences-between-f-105-and-mig-19-fighter-jets/) - [https://www.historynet.com/why-pilots-loved-the-f-105-thud-despite-its-vulnerability/](https://www.historynet.com/why-pilots-loved-the-f-105-thud-despite-its-vulnerability/) - [https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/f-105-thunderchief-fighter-bomber-f-35-vietnam-war-180367](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/f-105-thunderchief-fighter-bomber-f-35-vietnam-war-180367) - [https://theaviationgeekclub.com/thud-drivers-former-f-105-pilots-explain-what-it-was-like-flying-the-mighty-thud-in-peace-and-war/](https://theaviationgeekclub.com/thud-drivers-former-f-105-pilots-explain-what-it-was-like-flying-the-mighty-thud-in-peace-and-war/) - [https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/197447/f-105f-thud-wild-weasels-and-rolling-thunder/](https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/197447/f-105f-thud-wild-weasels-and-rolling-thunder/) - [https://theaviationgeekclub.com/thud-vs-sams-f-105f-wild-weasel-operation-rolling-thunder/](https://theaviationgeekclub.com/thud-vs-sams-f-105f-wild-weasel-operation-rolling-thunder/) - [https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the-story-of-the-wild-weasel-mission-of-f-105f-lincoln-03-and-the-medal-of-honor-awarded-to-maj-merlyn-dethlefsen/](https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the-story-of-the-wild-weasel-mission-of-f-105f-lincoln-03-and-the-medal-of-honor-awarded-to-maj-merlyn-dethlefsen/) - [https://www.ospreypublishing.com/us/f105-wild-weasel-vs-sa2-guideline-sam-9781849084710/](https://www.ospreypublishing.com/us/f105-wild-weasel-vs-sa2-guideline-sam-9781849084710/) - [https://www.thoughtco.com/vietnam-war-republic-f-105-thunderchief-2361076](https://www.thoughtco.com/vietnam-war-republic-f-105-thunderchief-2361076) - [https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a42178643/why-the-f-105-thunderchief-is-such-a-badass-plane/](https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a42178643/why-the-f-105-thunderchief-is-such-a-badass-plane/) - [https://substack.com/home/post/p-161855933?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web](https://substack.com/home/post/p-161855933?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/250114-D-LS763-1019_%2854267120727%29.jpg) by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from Washington D.C, United States / openverse, by. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/russia-ai-superweapon-avangard-hypersonic https://megaprojects.pub/article/russia-ai-superweapon-avangard-hypersonic Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT It is December 2018, and a missile launched from southern Russia lights up the sky with an eerie glow. Travelling at more than twenty times the speed of sound, it moves faster than anything most radar systems can track. What observers saw was the Avangard, a hypersonic glide vehicle that descends from the edge of space, steers itself through the atmosphere, and reaches its target with blinding speed and no predictable arc. Unlike traditional warheads that follow a ballistic path, the Avangard adjusts its course during flight. It turns, dives, and climbs as it glides, making it crazy difficult to intercept. Equipped with an internal navigation system that requires no live guidance once launched, it charts its own course without ground control signals. Avangard lives to defeat systems designed to protect against nuclear threats. When Russia announced that Avangard had entered service in 2019, it was a shot across the bow. The balance between offense and defense had been challenged. Missile shields built over decades could now be sidestepped. The Avangard is more than a weapon. It is a glimpse into the next era of warfare, where decision-making, automation, and intelligence have become design features in a new arms race. Let's talk about what the Avangard is, how it functions, and what the technology signals. It represents the arrival of weapons that can act independently and strike before being detected. And it may only be the beginning. ## What Is the Avangard? The Avangard, sometimes spelled "Avanguard," is a hypersonic glide vehicle developed by the Russian Federation. This means it is a warhead that rides on top of a missile, then glides back through the atmosphere at high speeds to hit its target. After reaching the edge of space, the glider detaches and re-enters the atmosphere, maneuvering toward its target at speeds exceeding Mach 20. Unlike traditional warheads that follow a fixed ballistic arc, the Avangard can adjust its path mid-flight, making it much harder to detect, track, or intercept. First announced in 2018, the Avangard was introduced alongside several other advanced Russian strategic systems. It represents a shift in nuclear delivery: one that relies not only on speed but on unpredictability. Mounted on a modified SS-19 missile, it is believed to carry a nuclear payload of up to two megatons, over one hundred times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. In trials, it has successfully struck targets over 6,000 kilometres away. Russian officials have positioned the Avangard as a response to evolving missile defense systems, particularly those developed by the US. It was designed to guarantee that Russia's nuclear deterrent could not be undermined. As such, the weapon serves both strategic and symbolic purposes: a demonstration of capability and a challenge to any adversary's defenses. ## The AI Element: Why It's Different Beyond its speed and destructive power, the Avangard marks a turning point in how weapons think. Unlike older systems that simply follow pre-set flight paths, the Avangard adjusts its route as it flies. Once it separates from its launch vehicle, no human is in control. It identifies its position, makes course corrections, and executes evasive actions on its own. All of this occurs at 20 times the speed of sound. This is not science fiction. It is not fully sentient, but it operates with enough autonomy to make split-second decisions that no human operator could manage at those speeds. Its onboard systems use complex equations to guide the glide vehicle across thousands of kilometres. It slips past early warning networks and defensive shields. That kind of independence at the strategic level is new. It is also deeply unsettling. The Avangard reflects a growing trend where weapons no longer wait for orders. Military technology is changing from human-guided to machine-executed. In Russia's case, this is a statement of intent. The Avangard represents the belief that future conflicts may be won not by faster missiles alone, but by faster thinking code. That makes it far more dangerous than a missile. It is a signal that autonomy in warfare has arrived. And it is moving fast. ## How It Works: The Mechanics of a Monster Understanding how the Avangard operates helps explain why it has captured global attention. This is not simply a faster missile or a tough to track warhead. It is a system designed from the ground up to defeat every layer of deterrence. Its power lies in its flight path, its speed, and its ability to function without real-time human control. Each stage, from launch to final impact, represents a step away from conventional strategy and a move toward something far harder to stop or even predict. ### Launch and Release The Avangard begins its mission like a conventional intercontinental ballistic missile. It is mounted atop a multi-stage rocket, launched from a hardened silo deep within Russian territory. The most common launch vehicle used is the SS-19 "Stiletto," a legacy missile repurposed for this. In future deployments, Russia aims to pair the Avangard with its newer Sarmat ICBM, which would provide increased range and flexibility. Once launched, the rocket propels the Avangard to the edge of space. At roughly 100 kilometres above the Earth, near the boundary of the atmosphere, the glide vehicle separates from the booster. This is where the differences between a traditional warhead and the Avangard become clear. ### The 'Glide' Through the Atmosphere After separation, the Avangard begins its descent. Unlike a typical re-entry vehicle, which follows a fixed ballistic arc, the Avangard enters the atmosphere and begins to sail. Its form is designed to generate lift. While details are closely guarded, it may resemble a wedge-shaped body or a compact, shuttle-like craft. The glide phase is what gives the weapon its signature capabilities. Travelling at hypersonic speeds, reportedly up to Mach 20 or higher, the Avangard skims the atmosphere like a stone skipped across a pond. The combination of extreme speed and aerodynamic lift allows it to alter its trajectory mid-flight. It can shift course laterally, change altitude, and adjust approach angles in ways that make it nearly impossible to predict or intercept. ### Surviving the Descent The conditions faced by the Avangard during this phase are punishing. Moving through the dense atmosphere at hypersonic speeds creates enormous friction. Temperatures on the outer surface can exceed 2,000 degrees Celsius. To withstand this, Russian engineers developed heat-resistant composite materials capable of enduring both thermal and mechanical stress. Aerodynamic pressure adds further complexity. The glide vehicle must balance manoeuvrability with structural integrity. Excessive turns at these speeds could cause instability or cause the vehicle to lose velocity. Despite these constraints, the Avangard is designed to perform sophisticated evasive manoeuvres as it nears its target. ### Guidance and Autonomy The Avangard's ability to manage such a flight path depends on internal systems. It likely uses inertial sensors, onboard computers, and pre-loaded flight data to stay on course. Communication from external sources is limited or impossible, as the surrounding ionised air can block signals. The glide vehicle operates independently once deployed, executing its path with no further human input. ### Final Approach and Impact As it nears the target, the Avangard descends steeply. Unlike traditional warheads, its path remains unpredictable until the final moments. This makes it especially difficult for defensive systems to track and respond. It can carry a nuclear payload estimated at up to two megatons. Yet, even without a nuclear warhead its kinetic force alone would be devastating. The Avangard is built for strategic use. Its design prioritises one goal: delivering a payload anywhere on Earth with speed, surprise, and no effective opposition. ## Strategic Impact: Why Militaries Are Terrified The arrival of the Avangard has forced defense planners to reassess long-held assumptions about nuclear deterrence. It is not only a new missile or a more agile warhead. It is a challenge to the very concept of response time, interception, and control. Its speed and autonomy make it harder to track, harder to stop, and harder to predict. These characteristics have triggered concern among global military analysts, not only because of what the weapon can do, but because of what it represents. ### Rewriting the Balance of Deterrence Since the Cold War, nuclear stability has relied on mutual vulnerability. Each side knew it could retaliate after a strike, which discouraged the use of nuclear weapons. Systems designed to intercept missiles were considered useful but limited. They could protect against accidental launches or small-scale threats, not a full assault. The Avangard disrupts that structure. A weapon that cannot be intercepted, even in small numbers, can force adversaries to reconsider their entire strategic posture. A handful of these systems could bypass missile shields that took decades to develop, undermining confidence in layered defences. ### The Psychological Edge The effect of the Avangard is not purely physical. Its psychological impact may be even more powerful. Defense systems that once offered reassurance now appear inadequate. Military planners must consider the possibility of a strike that arrives without warning, following a path that cannot be traced or blocked. Even the potential for this scenario introduces a sense of instability. Nations may respond to this uncertainty by rewriting their launch protocols. Some analysts warn that reduced reaction time might push countries to adopt a "launch on warning" doctrine, where decisions to retaliate are made before an incoming weapon even lands. In tense situations, this kind of pressure could lead to catastrophic mistakes. ### The Hypersonic Arms Race In practical terms, the Avangard has triggered a new competition. China and America have accelerated their development of hypersonic vehicles. Prototype systems are being tested, and billions are being spent on research. Unlike earlier arms races, this one includes AI integration and autonomous targeting. And existing treaties do not cover these systems. Key agreements are expiring or have already lapsed. As new capabilities emerge, the lack of regulation creates room for rapid, unchecked escalation. ### NATO Vulnerability and Global Doubt For NATO members and allied states, the Avangard's global reach neutralises geography. Missile defenses designed for one region may be useless if a glide vehicle arrives from an unexpected direction. Even a few operational systems can unsettle alliance confidence. ### Strategic Uncertainty Some experts believe the Avangard does not change the balance as much as it reinforces it. Nuclear warheads have always been hard to intercept. What this weapon changes is the perception of predictability. It is no longer clear where the next threat may come from or how quickly it may arrive. In military planning, that kind of uncertainty can be as dangerous as any new weapon. ## Disputed Claims and Propaganda From the moment Avangard was announced, it has been surrounded by bold claims and considerable doubt. Russian state media have promoted it as a super-weapon that guarantees national security for decades. Demonstration videos and computer-generated animations depicted fiery impacts and evasive manoeuvres, and officials spoke of the system in terms usually reserved for historic breakthroughs. The presentation of Avangard served both domestic and international messaging purposes. By describing the weapon as unbeatable, the Kremlin aimed to project power, boost morale at home, and influence global perception. Its announcement coincided with periods of political pressure and elections, making the timing as strategic as the system itself. Despite the fanfare, military analysts and experts have questioned several aspects of the official narrative. Although Russia declared the system operational in 2019, some viewed this as a symbolic gesture rather than a genuine military milestone. The number of available units remains uncertain. The Avangard is expensive, difficult to produce, and is reportedly being built at a slow rate. Experts believe that only a limited number of launch platforms exist, and the total inventory remains small. There are also doubts about its performance in actual combat. Physics sets clear limitations that marketing cannot erase. While the vehicle can manoeuvre at high speeds, doing so aggressively will reduce velocity and range. Some believe that evasive turns, while effective on paper, could undermine the weapon's ability to reach its target efficiently. Others argue that hypersonic gliders may eventually be countered with advanced sensors, lasers, or new forms of high-speed interception. The technology is still evolving, and no system is beyond the reach of innovation. Critics also suggest that the Avangard's real value may be political. Russia already maintains a powerful nuclear deterrent. Older systems remain deadly and capable of overwhelming defences through numbers alone. From that standpoint, Avangard may not be a necessity, but rather a demonstration of capability. By deploying it first, Moscow claims a technical edge over rivals and reinforces its narrative of resurgence. The story surrounding Avangard plays into a national identity that values scientific achievement and strategic dominance. In short, the Avangard exists. It has been tested and deployed, but many of its capabilities are still unverified. What cannot be denied is its impact as a psychological weapon. Its image alone has shaped conversations around the future of warfare, even as questions remain about how many are in service and what they can truly do. ## AI Weapons and the Future of War The Avangard is not only a remarkable standalone weapon, but it is also part of a wider trend toward autonomy and artificial intelligence in warfare. Around the world, militaries are developing systems that can operate faster, respond quicker, and function with minimal human oversight. From high-level platforms like Avangard to battlefield drones and munitions, AI is becoming an embedded feature across every domain of conflict. In recent conflicts, drones with onboard vision systems have identified targets without real-time instructions. Loitering munitions have been used to locate and strike vehicles independently. Some operations have employed swarm tactics, allowing groups of drones to coordinate and react as a unit. These developments reveal the direction modern militaries are heading, where decision-making speed becomes as important as firepower. Avangard pushes this concept into nuclear strategy. This means a system that adjusts its course during flight, reacts without human correction, and follows a pre-programmed plan represents more than engineering progress. It signals a changing relationship between people and machines at the highest levels of military decision-making. As autonomy increases, the judgment becomes harder to define. Some experts warn that giving algorithms control in life-or-death scenarios raises serious ethical concerns. Simply put, the faster machines operate, the harder it becomes for humans to retain control. In this environment, nations are experimenting with swarms of guided munitions that share data in real time. These systems can identify optimal targets, redirect themselves, and work around obstacles all without waiting for outside input. Programmes like these suggest that large-scale attacks may soon be coordinated by networks of machines, not human planners. While this may improve tactical efficiency, it also introduces unpredictability and opens new avenues for miscalculation. The conversation about regulating autonomous weapons is ongoing, but so far, there is no global agreement. Many of the most advanced powers continue to develop these technologies without firm international guidelines. As a result, progress is accelerating faster than policy can keep up. The risks of an unregulated race are growing. Avangard's introduction shows what is possible when AI and speed come together at the strategic level. It highlights both potential and danger. The future of warfare may depend not on who builds the largest arsenal, but on who builds the smartest. The question is no longer whether this future will arrive. It is how prepared we will be when it does. ## What Comes Next? The story of Avangard isn't over. As of the mid-2020s, Russia reportedly has only a small number of Avangard-equipped missiles. Each unit is costly, technically demanding, and slow to produce. Reports suggest the system remains limited in scale, despite its strategic value. Yet, Russian officials have signalled continued commitment to expanding the program. The plan includes pairing Avangard with the next-generation Sarmat missile, potentially allowing one launcher to carry multiple independent glide vehicles. If realised, this would dramatically increase the threat posed by each missile. The financial and logistical challenge of scaling such production remains an open question. The US and China are actively pursuing their own hypersonic and AI-enabled weapon systems. The United States is developing land-based, air-launched, and sea-based variants. Although behind Russia in deployment, America benefits from substantial funding and tech depth. China has already tested medium-range glide vehicles and is likely progressing toward longer-range models. If all three powers possess such systems, the strategic environment could become increasingly unstable. These weapons might reinforce deterrence, but they also increase the temptation for a first strike under the illusion of superiority. Advances in countermeasures are also underway. Potential solutions include high-speed interceptors, directed-energy systems, and improved tracking satellites. While these technologies are promising, most are still experimental and not yet ready for deployment. This growing arms race is unfolding in a regulatory vacuum. Arms control agreements have not kept pace with emerging technologies. Older treaties have lapsed, and no binding framework exists to manage hypersonic or AI-controlled weapons. Diplomatic discussions may soon begin addressing this gap. Proposals include transparency requirements or new agreements to limit specific capabilities. Verifying compliance will not be easy, especially with technologies that operate autonomously or at high speeds. Without some form of regulation, the spread of these weapons could escalate tensions and reduce decision-making time in future crises. More nations, including smaller nuclear powers, may pursue similar systems, increasing the risk of miscalculation. Looking ahead, AI weapons could become standard features in global arsenals. Avangard may prove to be a prototype for a new class of fast, intelligent strategic systems. The real danger lies in the pace of innovation outstripping the capacity to manage it. Avangard has set a precedent. The arms race may not be all about warheads, but rather the algorithms used to put them on target. ## Key Takeaways - The Avangard is a hypersonic glide vehicle that can adjust its course mid-flight, making it difficult to intercept. - Avangard operates autonomously, using onboard systems to navigate and evade defenses without human guidance. - Russia's deployment of Avangard challenges traditional missile defense systems and nuclear deterrence strategies. - The Avangard's development has triggered a global hypersonic arms race, with China and the US accelerating their own programs. - The weapon's psychological impact is significant, forcing military planners to reconsider response times and launch protocols. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is the Avangard? The Avangard is a hypersonic glide vehicle developed by Russia. It is a warhead that rides on top of a missile, then glides back through the atmosphere at high speeds to hit its target. It can adjust its path mid-flight, making it much harder to detect, track, or intercept. ### How fast can the Avangard travel? The Avangard can travel at speeds exceeding Mach 20, which is more than twenty times the speed of sound. ### What makes the Avangard different from traditional warheads? Unlike traditional warheads that follow a fixed ballistic arc, the Avangard can adjust its path mid-flight, making it much harder to detect, track, or intercept. It operates autonomously once launched, using internal navigation systems to chart its course. ### What is the nuclear payload capacity of the Avangard? The Avangard is believed to carry a nuclear payload of up to two megatons, which is over one hundred times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. ### How does the Avangard's guidance system work? The Avangard uses inertial sensors, onboard computers, and pre-loaded flight data to stay on course. It operates independently once deployed, executing its path with no further human input. ### What is the strategic impact of the Avangard? The Avangard challenges long-held assumptions about nuclear deterrence. Its speed and autonomy make it harder to track, stop, and predict, forcing defense planners to reassess their strategies and potentially adopt more aggressive launch protocols. ### How does the Avangard affect the global arms race? The Avangard has triggered a new competition among major powers to develop hypersonic and AI-enabled weapon systems. This arms race is unfolding in a regulatory vacuum, with existing treaties not covering these new technologies. ### What are the potential countermeasures to the Avangard? Potential solutions include high-speed interceptors, directed-energy systems, and improved tracking satellites. However, these technologies are still experimental and not yet ready for deployment. ### What is the current status of the Avangard's deployment? As of the mid-2020s, Russia reportedly has only a small number of Avangard-equipped missiles. Each unit is costly, technically demanding, and slow to produce. ### What is the psychological impact of the Avangard? The Avangard introduces a sense of instability by making defense systems that once offered reassurance appear inadequate. It forces military planners to consider the possibility of a strike that arrives without warning, following a path that cannot be traced or blocked. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: What Do We Know About Russia's AI "Superweapon"?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPSsA7txqSI) - [https://afresearchlab.com/technology/vanguards/successstories/golden-horde](https://afresearchlab.com/technology/vanguards/successstories/golden-horde) - [https://www.voanews.com/a/fact-check-putin-avangard-hypersonic-weapon/6742028.html](https://www.voanews.com/a/fact-check-putin-avangard-hypersonic-weapon/6742028.html) - [https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2020/06/the-risks-of-autonomous-weapons-systems-for-crisis.html](https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2020/06/the-risks-of-autonomous-weapons-systems-for-crisis.html) - [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50927648](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50927648) - [https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/avangard/](https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/avangard/) - [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/jul/14/ais-oppenheimer-moment-autonomous-weapons-enter-the-battlefield](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/jul/14/ais-oppenheimer-moment-autonomous-weapons-enter-the-battlefield) - [https://cis-fpn.rs/the-avangard-weapon-for-the-avant-garde-identity-exceptional-strategic-asset-or-status-symbol/](https://cis-fpn.rs/the-avangard-weapon-for-the-avant-garde-identity-exceptional-strategic-asset-or-status-symbol/) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/2025_Ford_Mustang_Mach-E_Rally_in_Desert_Sand%2C_front_left.jpg) by Mr.choppers / openverse, by-sa. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/saab-35-draken-groundbreaking-fighter https://megaprojects.pub/article/saab-35-draken-groundbreaking-fighter Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT ## Introduction It was among the most record-breaking fighter aircraft ever built, a singularity of cutting-edge, jet-age design and an absolutely badass range of capabilities. Built by Sweden in the early years of the Cold War, the Saab 35 Draken, or, in English, the Dragon, rewrote the rules on what a fighter aircraft could be, and when it thundered into the sky, it immediately became one of the few warbirds that Soviet Russia ever truly feared. On today's episode of Megaprojects, we'll be taking a close look at the Draken: the unique mission responsibilities it had to undertake, the stunning capabilities it could add to its pilot's toolkit, and the long, long list of records it shattered during decades upon decades leading the pack. ## Design and Development In the years immediately following World War II, the victorious powers of the world felt as if they might be able to take a breather. Although the Americans and the Europeans could see Soviet leader Josef Stalin giving them side-eye from his throne in Moscow, they knew that Stalin was just as battered and bruised as they were, and with politicians and generals alike feeling entirely fatigued with war…well, just for a moment, they took their foot off the gas when it came to aircraft development. As the world stumbled into the Jet Age, aircraft like the Vampire and the Meteor in Britain and the Shooting Star and the Thunderjet in America seemed as if they might just be enough to hold over the trans-Atlantic powers until the next wave of military buildup began. But over in Sweden, the ruling Social Democratic Party and the Swedish people had no such luxury. With a population of barely seven million, a strict policy of neutrality with either the emerging NATO bloc or the Soviet Union, and a whole lot of strategically significant territory, Sweden understood acutely that it was going to be in the crossfire if NATO and the Soviets ever started trading blows. During these years, Sweden's government understood acutely that their policy of neutrality would see them steamrolled in a third World War, but then again, the entire word would be steamrolled anyhow by a massive nuclear exchange. Much more important, from Sweden's perspective, was that it would be able to defend itself during such a cataclysmic war, and ensure that its people at least survived a first, crippling nuclear exchange. And in an age when bomber aircraft were still the primary means of delivering nuclear payloads, that could only mean one thing: Sweden needed an interceptor aircraft. Now, unlike, say, the British, whose lack of foresight on the Cold War left them stuck with the Hawker Hunter, or the Americans, who could throw together a whole series of fighter aircraft in no time at all, the Swedes understood that they were both racing against a ticking clock, and at a material disadvantage in terms of how much they could produce, and how fast they could produce it. So all the way back in 1949, even before the Americans and the Soviets had tested MiG-15 and F-86 aircraft against each other at scale in Korea, Sweden was already laying the groundwork to procure an interceptor aircraft that would put both the Americans and the Soviets to shame. The Swedish Air Force was highly specific in what they were looking to acquire, in order to fit the unique wartime environment that Sweden would have to operate in. Of course, Sweden had the list of the speed and combat requirements you'd expect, and a forward-looking version at that. Their new fighter jet would have to hit a top speed well above the speed of sound, roughly Mach 1.4 to 1.5, an expectation that would be revised upward multiple times before the plane was ultimately produced. It would also have to be capable of performing an interceptor role at roughly the speed of sound, with the expectation that it could deal with heavy bombers and their fighter accompaniment in time to prevent them from flying over Sweden's long, but narrow stretch of territory. But the plane also came with some more particular requirements. It would have to be able to fly in all weather conditions, day or night, including in the intense winter cold of Sweden's northern reaches. They would have to be a single-pilot aircraft that could, nonetheless, destroy heavy bombers without a dedicated gunner or navigator, and they'd have to be able to operate out of rough airstrips, including even reinforced public roads that were expected to serve as part of Swedish airbases in times of war. Finally, they had to be really, *really* easy to replenish between flights, to the point that a team of military conscripts with basically no training could have them refueled and rearmed with ten minutes or less from landing to takeoff. The specifications were for a fighter meant for a single, absolute defense of Swedish territory, an all-out, breakneck effort to defend Sweden's airspace before the entire nation was destroyed along with the rest of the world. By Sweden's own expectations, its fighters would never have to see a foreign war; Sweden had no need, no desire, and no ability to project power abroad. Instead, their cutting-edge aircraft would be a massive investment strictly for national defense—and it would be an aircraft that, in a best-case scenario, never saw combat. If it did, then the world was most likely in the process of being destroyed. The aircraft would be built by the Saab corporation, who planned it to enter service when two fighters they had in development, the stubby Saab 29 Tunnan and the Saab 32 Lansen night fighter, would have already been introduced, lived out their service lives, and become obsolete. That time allowance would end up being particularly important for the team at Saab, who had to explore a wide range of new technologies that were either badly underdeveloped, or didn't exist at all when the aircraft was in its early design phases. A team of five hundred or more technicians would work on the new Saab fighter by the time all was said and done, but one engineer led the pack: Erik Bratt. Bratt's approach to the new fighter was a highly creative one, and both he and the Swedish government were willing to take significant engineering risks and experiment with the limits of the available technology, in hopes that they could seize on advantages that less bold aerospace designers might have left on the table. Chief among them was the new plane's so-called "double delta" design. Looking at the eventual Draken design from the top down, it essentially uses two wing shapes at once: a pair of very narrow wings that run along nearly the entire aircraft body at an eighty-degree sweep, and a pair of wide, stubby wings toward the back of the aircraft that formed a much more traditional, sixty-degree triangular sweep. Those two wing shapes were basically fused together into one, in a first-of-its-kind design choice that offered two major benefits. First, the double delta gave the wings a significantly higher storage volume for fuel, and second, the double-delta design was much stronger in a structural sense, meaning that the aircraft would be able to resist damage, buffeting external winds, and strain of maneuvering in a dogfight better than a comparable aircraft of traditional wing design. The design's major sacrifice—specifically, its drag in midair—would also eventually confer an advantage onto the Draken, but we'll get to that later. The first aircraft to come out of the Draken program wasn't a full-size aircraft, but instead the Lilldraken, which is both Swedish for "Little Dragon", and a fantastic SoundCloud rapper name, if any of our viewers at home would like to use it. It was a prototype of about seventy percent scale, meant to try and figure out whether a double-delta wing would be able to fly competently at low speed. High speed was much less of an issue; anything with wings and decent proportions will stay airborne pretty well when it's blasting across at Mach one-and-a-half. The Lilldraken made its maiden flight in January of 1952, and after an intense several months of flight testing, it was modified to have its air intakes pushed back to the position they'd end up in on the eventual Draken aircraft: starting directly alongside the cockpit, in order to give the pilot far better vision when looking down toward the ground. In an age before computer programs or flight simulators, it was the Lilldraken that confirmed that a full-size Draken was worth building. And build it, they would, with a trio of full-size prototypes. The first of the three took its maiden flight in the autumn of 1955, and the second, flying a bit later, unintentionally took the Draken past the sound barrier for the first time. In its maiden flight, the plane's afterburners had proven so powerful that they blasted it through the sound barrier even as it was climbing into the sky. The plane was ordered for production, its testing crews pushed it further and further, and in January of 1960, it reached Mach 2 for the first time. By then, the first Draken aircraft had already been delivered to the Swedish Air Force, and a few months later, they'd prove their worth in a series of exercises that were just as intense as the testing process had been. Over three days and nights, the first round of Drakens and their pilots flew the aircraft practically constantly, proving they could scramble to intercept an incoming target again and again, get back into the sky rapidly, and maintain complete readiness continually. By the end of the year, the aircraft had been delivered to multiple fighter wings, and the Draken fleet was finally in business. ## Specs and Capabilities When discussing the J 35 Draken, we're going to run through the specs of the first-line model, the J 35A. As will become clear in just a moment, there have been a *lot* of variants and export versions of the Draken, and for us to attempt to go through all of them would keep us here for quite a while. But rest assured that each subsequent variant after the J 35A offered its own improvements over the top of the baseline model. But even that baseline model, when it first entered service in 1960, was something to behold. A one-seater aircraft powered by a single Rolls Royce Avon Mk.48A engine, and fitted out with a Swedish afterburner, the Draken measured an overall length of 15.2 meters, about 50 feet, with a wingspan of 9.42 meters, or 31 feet. When sitting empty, it weight just above 6,500 kilograms, roughly seven and a quarter tons. It wasn't designed to be able to carry a whole lot of heavy bombs; instead, it was meant to carry a whole lot of internal fuel, a total of 2,240 liters, or 590 US gallons, giving it an impressively long range for such a high-powered fighter aircraft, even without any drop tanks. It could hit a maximum speed of 1,900 kilometers per hour, 1,200 miles per hour, and it needed less than a kilometer of runway to take off, as few as 810 meters or 2,660 feet. It could fly as high as 20 kilometers above the Earth's surface, 66,000 feet, with a neck-breaking climb rate of nearly 40,000 feet, 12 kilometers, per minute. In terms of its weaponry, it came equipped with two fixed 30mm cannons in the wings, with each gun equipped to fire ninety rounds. Externally, the plane was fitted with nine hardpoints, including eight under-wing and one under the belly. Of those nine, six wing hardpoints were meant to hold high-explosive air-to-ground rockets to fill an attack role—say, if Soviet tanks were rolling across Sweden *en masse*. The other two wing hardpoints were meant to hold Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, which entered service in the US four years before the Draken did in Sweden. On the belly, the Draken could mount either two more Sidewinders or a drop tank for fuel. Because of the limited amount of space under the wings, Drakens could either carry under-wing missiles *or* rockets, not both, meaning that these fighters could be configured for either an interceptor role—that is, with two to four Sidewinder missiles onboard, plus their guns—or, for an attack role, with their rockets and perhaps two under-belly Sidewinders for protection. The plane was equipped with French-made radar, and an advanced gyro gunsight that used the aircraft's own data to help aim the plane's cannons more accurately. But as impressive as the J 35A's numbers were, especially at that time…that was still just the base version. Ninety 35As were produced for Sweden, with the last one being delivered in December 1961. The next round, the 35B, would see some of its copies modified into a day fighter, with its radar removed but the hardpoints armed to the teeth with offensive weaponry. Most 35Bs would instead be an all-weather fighter, featuring a Swedish-made radar, a radar gunsight, and a full avionics suite. The 35B day fighters would eventually be modified into the same successor version. These were the first Swedish planes ever to receive digital orders from the ground to the aircraft, using computers that could store the data for pilot access rather than making the pilot memorize anything. The 35C featured a rebuild of the front section of the aircraft to make it more flyable, and a second seat in order to let it work as a trainer version, while the 35D featured greatly improved engines that raised the top speed from 1,900 to 2,150 kilometers per hour. It also got a second underbelly hardpoint, allowing it to fly even farther missions than the previous Draken iterations. The 35E was built as a reconnaissance version, featuring a total of nine cameras in the nose and fuselage, and a setup to mount up to four drop tanks or an infrared reconnaissance pod. Finally the 35F version cranked up the speed even more, all the way to Mach 2; that's nearly 1,500 miles per hour, or 2,400 kilometers per hour. It also featured new missiles, new avionics, and just one cannon rather than two. Subsequent designs for a ground-attack Draken were ultimately never built. Regardless of the specific variant of the Draken that was in the sky at a given time, the entire line of Draken fighter planes demonstrated a truly impressive level of performance in the sky. It was capable of punching through the air with incredible force, giving it a particularly high speed at altitudes closer to sea level when taken relative to other fighter aircraft. Although it was designed for an interceptor role, the Draken proved in tests and exercises that it was more than capable of functioning as a dogfighting aircraft. It was easy to maintain, cheap to keep in the Swedish air fleet, and relatively simple to fly considering just how much power was behind the stick. Early sensitivity problems with how quickly it was willing to pitch up and down, were quickly brought under control, and it could be easily taken apart and put back together for engine access. But that's not to say that the plane wasn't demanding to fly. In reality, Draken pilots had to be very careful not to enter superstalls, when tilting the plane upward or even downward while traveling at high speeds would cause a tremendous amount of drag and make it difficult for the plane to keep enough momentum to fly. It was also quite unstable in the air, due to its lack of a tail section, and it was hard to land as well. But all that being said, the Draken was still an incredible gift to its own pilots once they mastered its peculiarities. The only people with real complaints about the Draken, at least within the Swedish Air Force, were the flight instructors forced to sit in the backseat in the trainer position. With only minimal forward visibility, those trainers were forced to peer through a periscope that flight instructors themselves described as, quote, "staring through two toilet paper tubes". But there's one other special capability that the Draken had in its arsenal, that no other aircraft of the time could demonstrate. Its name, is the Cobra maneuver. Now, we'll pause for a moment and take a breath while the legions of fighter plane nerds watching this video go crazy like frat boys watching a keg-stand, so that we can explain what the Cobra actually is. Basically, it's a maneuver that takes advantage of the Draken's ability to superstall. During the course of training pilots to avoid these dangerous superstalls, Swedish airmen learned that it was possible, when flying a Draken at a moderate speed, to raise their nose quickly to a vertical, and then a slightly-past-vertical attitude. That sends the plane into a stall, and slows it down *very* quickly, but as the Swedish Air Force realized, if you were to hit your airbrake right afterward while still stalled out, you could drop your plane back into its normal position. Fire the engines at full power, and you'd be flying safe again. That particular maneuver gets so much acclaim, because at least on paper, it's a very effective way to go from a bad situation in an aerial dogfight to a good one. Basically, if you're in a Draken and you're being chased by an enemy pilot, the Draken maneuver will allow you to slow down rapidly and cause the pursuing aircraft to overshoot your position—basically flying straight past you, so that when your nose comes back down, you're the one in pursuit. It's also an incredibly demanding move to pull off, with both the plane and the pilot having to undergo extreme physical stress in the process, while the pilot in particular needs to remain exceptionally aware of their situation in order to recover the superstall. But in the Draken's case, not only did the plane's Swedish pilots manage to teach it to themselves and each other, but they pulled it off with the first aircraft for which the Cobra was really an option. The Cobra name itself came later; in Sweden, the move was known to pilots as the Kort Parad, or the short parry, a term borrowed from fencing. Pilots Bengt Olow and Ceylon Utterborn were credited with the discovery, which took place in the first couple of years of Draken service in the 1960s. ## On Standby Now, as we mentioned previously, Sweden's use of the Draken was going to pay off in one of two ways. In an ideal world, it would keep Sweden's airspace safe over the course of its service life, in a prolonged situation of peace in which World War III did not break out. In a significantly less-ideal world, the Soviet Union and the United States would decide to begin a nuclear apocalypse, and the Draken would do its best to keep Swedes safe from immediate death in bomb blasts while they made ready for decades of nuclear winter. Look around, pinch yourself to make sure you're not dreaming, and rejoice; Sweden, like everybody else, got the non-apocalypse option. But with Sweden disinterested in participating in any conflict less cataclysmic than a World War, that also meant that the Draken, at least in Swedish service, never had to handle the demands of combat. But what the Draken did have to handle, was a whole lot of aerial interceptions in peacetime. With Sweden sharing the Baltic Sea with the Soviet Union, both nations were at liberty to use the sea's designated international waters for their patrols, but whenever Soviet planes came close to Sweden, it was on the Draken to be able to intercept them and escort them away. In the first few years of Draken flights, we can only imagine how the aircraft must have looked to Soviet pilots, an ultra-advanced aircraft in comparison to the MiG-21 and Su-9 aircraft they were flying at the time. It's sort of like the modern US flying F-35s over Central America, only for Guatemala to send some hyper-advanced alien spacecraft to ask those F-35s to choose another route. In the case of the Swedish pilots and their Drakens, they often chose to use the Cobra as a surprise tactic, sometimes with a more playful, "look what I can do" tone about it, and sometimes with an air of, "never forget that we Swedes can ruin a lot more than your day." Word about the maneuver actually didn't spread past these encounters for quite a while; in the early years, it was kept secret by Sweden, and when the Soviets eventually figured it out, they took credit for its creation. Elsewhere in the Swedish Air Force, the Draken waited ready for any indication that it might be needed. In times of potential crisis, it was the first aircraft to be shifted into Sweden's network of wartime-only bases, a network of runways that gave the Draken quick and complete coverage of the entire Swedish territory. During more peaceful times, the plane was very well-liked by its pilots, and used for all manner of purposes to set new Swedish flying records, perform feats of daring and ingenuity, and all the other forms of aerial swashbuckling you'd expect from pilots with a very capable aircraft and lots of time on their hands. A total of 651 Drakens would ever be produced, with the vast majority of them spending their entire service lives in Sweden. Now, when it came to export potential for the Draken, Sweden wasn't exactly in a rush to hand their technology out. The Swedes were big believers in export controls regardless of the product, and the Draken especially, at this time in history, was not the sort of plane you'd want falling into a potential enemy's hands. But three world nations were lucky enough to get their hands on the Draken: Austria, Denmark, and Finland. It was offered to several other nations, including Switzerland, Argentina, Singapore, Belgium, Malaysia, and others, but was ultimately refused. The Drakens in the nations that adopted it, did get a few tweaks; the Danish versions flew through 1993 and were modified to be able to fill a better ground-attack role, while the Finnish Drakens were upgraded during the 1990s and finally replaced in 2000 by the F/A-18 Hornet. Austria flew theirs through 2005, while the US acquired six of them and flew them through 2009 as part of the National Test Pilot School. Like Sweden, none of these international Drakens ever saw combat, instead flying patrols and waiting on ready mode whenever things seemed as if they might pop off. However, the Finns and the Austrians did at least figure out the Cobra, with the Finns using it on one occasion while intercepting a Hawker Siddeley Nimrod aircraft and impressing the hell out of the plane's British pilots. But both in Sweden, and everywhere else, the Draken era couldn't last forever. Sweden was not the sort of nation to leave defense matters till the last minute, and by the time the Draken entered service in 1960, the Swedish Air Force had already decided on a successor aircraft. Its name was the Saab 37 Viggen, translating to either the Thunderbolt, or the much less threatening Tufted Duck, depending on which meaning of the Swedish word "Vigg" that you use. The Viggen prototype took its first flight in 1967, just a few years after the Draken had been dispatched around Sweden, and by 1971, the Viggen was in service too. With greater operational versatility, a higher maximum speed, and much more powerful engines, the Viggen was a clear successor craft to the Draken, meant for a whole new generation of fighter aircraft. Of course, it's not a great look for a dragon to get beaten out by a tufted duck, and the Draken and its pilots put up a good fight against the Viggen. In mock dogfights between the two aircraft, Draken pilots very frequently utilized the Cobra maneuver against the Viggen, which couldn't perform the move safely at any useful speed. Viggen pilots were never taught the maneuver *en masse*, and although their fellow Swedes could use the move behind the controls of a Draken, no other aircraft at the time were believed to be able to use it, so Viggen pilots weren't taught to defend against it either. Thus, they were often *very* surprised to learn it was possible during the heat of a mock dogfight itself. The Cobra would be retired not just for Viggen pilots, but for pilots of the JAS 39 Gripen, Sweden's current multirole fighter aircraft. But one maneuver couldn't stop the passage of time, and the Viggen was, all things considered, a better and more appropriate plane for Sweden's evolving needs. Over the coming years, the Draken would be slowly phased out of service, although the many delays and cost overruns of the Viggen's successor program, the Gripen, meant that some Draken models had to be modernized and have their service lives extended. The initial goal was for the Draken to keep flying through the 2000s, an exceptionally long life for any fighter aircraft in a modern military, but because of budgetary issues and the increasing cost of maintenance on such a vintage plane, the Draken fully ended its service life in Sweden in December of 1999. By just a hair, the Draken was consigned to memory as a plane of exclusively the twentieth century, although a few would be kept in operation for things like airshows and other non-combat applications. ## Legacy When it comes to the legacy of the Draken, it's an aircraft that's forced to take the same critical knock on its service life that a whole, wide range of modern fighter jets have endured. It simply never saw combat, and whether it would have been a complete dud or the best aircraft of its era, we'll simply never know. But what it most certainly was, was an innovator from start to finish. In its early days, it was a technology testbed for ambitious aerospace engineers who, in retrospect, got just about every element of the Draken's design just right. In the hands of its pilots, it was capable of incredible feats that would take decades for the major powers of the world to replicate, and while it wasn't an outright better plane than the one that replaced it, it was a grizzled veteran with more than enough tricks up its sleeve to prove it still belonged. The Draken never saw combat, and it never will…but as far as neutral Sweden was concerned, that was the best-case scenario regardless of what its plane might have been capable of. Sweden still exists today, and thus, the Draken's entire reason for existence has been conclusively validated. Of all the legacies the Draken might have had, we'd hazard a guess that its real-life legacy is one that its pilots must have been proud to leave behind. ## Key Takeaways - The Saab 35 Draken was a groundbreaking Cold War-era fighter designed for Sweden's defense. - Its unique double delta wing design provided structural strength and fuel capacity. - The Draken's Cobra maneuver allowed it to rapidly decelerate and evade pursuers. - Sweden's Draken fleet never saw combat, fulfilling its role in a non-apocalyptic scenario. - The Draken's legacy includes innovative design and impressive aerial capabilities. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What was the primary role of the Saab 35 Draken? The primary role of the Saab 35 Draken was to serve as an interceptor aircraft for the Swedish Air Force, designed to defend Swedish airspace during the Cold War. ### What unique design feature did the Saab 35 Draken have? The Saab 35 Draken featured a 'double delta' wing design, which combined two wing shapes to provide higher fuel storage volume and better structural strength. ### What was the top speed of the J 35A Draken? The J 35A Draken had a maximum speed of 1,900 kilometers per hour (1,200 miles per hour). ### How many Draken aircraft were produced in total? A total of 651 Draken aircraft were produced. ### Which countries besides Sweden operated the Draken? The Draken was operated by Austria, Denmark, and Finland, in addition to Sweden. ### What was the 'Cobra maneuver' and which aircraft could perform it? The 'Cobra maneuver' was a high-stress aerial maneuver that allowed the Draken to rapidly slow down and change direction, making it difficult for pursuing aircraft to keep up. The Draken was the first aircraft capable of performing this maneuver. ### What was the successor aircraft to the Saab 35 Draken? The successor aircraft to the Saab 35 Draken was the Saab 37 Viggen. ### When did the Draken end its service life in Sweden? The Draken fully ended its service life in Sweden in December 1999. ### What was the significance of the Draken's 'double delta' design? The 'double delta' design provided the Draken with a significantly higher storage volume for fuel and better structural strength, making it more resilient to damage and better at resisting buffeting winds and maneuvering stress. ### What was the Draken's role in Swedish air defense? The Draken was designed to defend Swedish airspace by intercepting and destroying heavy bombers and their fighter escorts, ensuring that Sweden could survive a first, crippling nuclear exchange. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: The Saab 35 Draken: The Groundbreaking Fighter Nobody Talks About](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOdEud5wXeE) - [https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/saab-35-draken-one-remarkable-fighter-one-mission-208029](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/saab-35-draken-one-remarkable-fighter-one-mission-208029) - [https://www.airvectors.net/avj35.html](https://www.airvectors.net/avj35.html) - [https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/saab-35-draken-fighter-jet-russia-never-wanted-battle-207482](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/saab-35-draken-fighter-jet-russia-never-wanted-battle-207482) - [https://medium.com/a-short-history/saab-35-draken-a-short-history-2afdf73cbad7](https://medium.com/a-short-history/saab-35-draken-a-short-history-2afdf73cbad7) - [https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.php?aircraft_id=121](https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.php?aircraft_id=121) - [https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/draken.htm](https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/draken.htm) - [https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep24665.7](https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep24665.7) - [https://icds.ee/en/from-isolationist-neutrality-to-allied-solidarity-the-swedish-road-to-nato-membership/](https://icds.ee/en/from-isolationist-neutrality-to-allied-solidarity-the-swedish-road-to-nato-membership/) - [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/sweden-ends-200-years-of-military-neutrality-joins-finland-in-seeking-nato-membership](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/sweden-ends-200-years-of-military-neutrality-joins-finland-in-seeking-nato-membership) - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RzZ5edBhVI&t=1125s&ab_channel=AircrewInterview](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RzZ5edBhVI&t=1125s&ab_channel=AircrewInterview) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Council_of_the_Baltic_Sea_States_%28CBSS%29_meeting_in_Finland_on_13_June_2024_-_CBSS_Haikon_Kartano_240613_-_8.jpg) by Estonian Foreign Ministry / openverse, by. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/sea-vixen-strangest-fighter-jet-british-history https://megaprojects.pub/article/sea-vixen-strangest-fighter-jet-british-history Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Humanity's introduction to the jet age was like the start of a sprinting foot-race, one in which everybody from Olympic athletes, to the reasonably fit, to the clumsy, uncoordinated couch potato were represented all at once. The Americans and the Soviets took off with the mad desperation of bitter enemies, desperate to ensure that they, and not the other, would see their hand raised by the day's end. The French and the Swedes set out at a brisk marathoner's jog, knowing that with care and patience, they'd be leading the pack by the day's end. A handful of other nations started to walk, started to chat, and started trading around snacks from their fanny packs, all just happy to be outside in the sunshine. And Britain… well, Britain fell flat on its face. The aircraft responsible was the de Havilland Sea Vixen, a twin-engine, twin-tailed air defense fighter that's been panned alternately as the weirdest-looking jet fighter in British history, and the outright worst. With a design so goofy that it could only be from the early jet years, and a crash record so appallingly long that it could be its own book, the Sea Vixen was more of a wake-up call than anything, a clear message to the UK that if it was going to have a future in military aviation, then that future would have to involve an aircraft that simply wasn't this one. But, hey… at least he's winking at ya. ## Design and Development The Sea Vixen was first conceived in the same era of aviation history as iconic aircraft like the American F-86 and the Soviet MiG-15, both intended to be their country's first truly valuable, long-term jet fighter aircraft. The early introduction of jet-turbine and rocket aircraft, particularly by Nazi Germany in the waning months of World War II, had kicked off a sort of cover-your-ass arms race, as nations scrambled to put even rather rudimentary warbirds into the sky that could compete with these much faster, much higher-powered aircraft. But in the years after the war, as aeronautical engineers and military aviators began to realize just how fast this technology was developing and how much potential it had, the victorious nations of the world—Britain among them—endeavored to lay claim to a jet fighter that could really *be* something. In the UK, the de Havilland Aircraft Company was among those who got the call. Coming off a productive and lucrative few years of war, where its Mosquito multirole aircraft had taken center stage, de Havilland had already proven itself competent at manufacturing jet fighters, specifically the Vampire, which was introduced to the Royal Air Force in 1946 with a total of nearly 3,300 constructed. But the Vampire was still among those early stopgap aircraft, numerous as it might have been. The Crown was clear about what it wanted: an all-weather fighter aircraft, powered by jet engines, and equipped with onboard radar, to fill a role with the Royal Navy as its piston aircraft were phased out, and to take over for part of the Royal Air Force's fleet as well. In order to fill the role that the British government was looking for, de Havilland knew from the outset that a few other requirements would also have to be implicitly understood in order for the plane to function. It would require a second seat onboard, adding a navigator and radar operator to assist the pilot. It would need onboard redundancies, particularly a second engine, because of how risky it was to have a fighter like that suffer an engine failure in the middle of the ocean. It was envisioned to include a swept-wing design, and in keeping with the twin-boom tail design that had distinguished de Havilland's prior jet aircraft, their new plane would incorporate a twin-boom tail as well. Their new plane was designated the DH.110, although it wouldn't receive its proper name for almost a decade after its conception. De Havilland would design their fighter with dual intentions in mind: to populate the RAF's fleet of night fighters, and to perform both night-fighter and strike roles with the British Royal Navy. Despite early setbacks from the Royal Navy changing its mind about what sort of aircraft it wanted, opting instead to refit an existing aircraft that was drifting toward obsolescence, de Havilland persevered nonetheless, anticipating correctly that the jet aircraft of the late 1940s wouldn't be good for much—at least not for very long. By 1951, de Havilland had tightened the screws on its initial prototype, which took its maiden flight in September of that year. In the early days, the aircraft overperformed well past expectations, and it earned another distinction, as the first British two-seater jet fighter to ever pass the sound barrier. While its engines weren't quite powerful enough to push it past Mach 1 in level flight, it could push cleanly past the sound barrier in a short dive, which it did with regularity by early 1952 during test flights. De Havilland was proud of its new aircraft, and rightfully so; although it wasn't time for a victory lap just yet, the company had produced a plane that seemed quite clearly as if it had put London into the second generation of the jet age, and identified an aircraft with the potential to become as iconic for Britain as the Spitfire and the Swordfish had done during World War II. But on the sixth of September, 1952, just under a year after the Sea Vixen's first flight, tragedy struck, for the whole world to see. De Havilland and the British government had decided to debut the DH.110 to the public at the Farnborough Air Show, an international and very, very famous biennial airshow where some of the world's most innovative aircraft have been unveiled. Behind the stick was one John Derry, age 33, who'd been a squadron commander flying Hawker Typhoons against the Nazis over the Netherlands, and probably become the first Brit to break the sound barrier, in an uncontrolled dive while testing the experimental de Havilland Swallow aircraft a few years earlier. Alongside him was 25-year-old Anthony Richards, a new member to the test flight program who had only barely become a man by the time the war ended. During the airshow, the two took their DH.110 into a supersonic dive from 40,000 feet, pulled up near the ground, and banked left to fly over the crowd. When they did, tragedy struck. Both engines and the cockpit were jolted out of the airframe, in a disintegration of the entire aircraft. The cockpit impacted the runway, killing both Derry and Richards, and one of the engines was catapulted directly into the crowd. Twenty-nine spectators would be killed in the incident, the worst of Farnborough Air Show history. Although de Havilland wouldn't be found liable for the accident, it still required an urgent redesign of the aircraft, without which the program itself might not have survived. Later investigation identified the leading edge of the DH.110's wing as the culprit, buckling under the high stress of rolling maneuvers in a way that caused the cockpit and tail to break away from the wings. It was after this catastrophe that de Havilland realized that a rethink of the Sea Vixen was in order, and when they undertook that challenge, the plane ended up better for it. The modifications, including reinforced wings, would prevent the DH.110 from hitting the speed of sound again, but it was a worthy trade-off in the end. After the accident, the Royal Air Force decided to go a different route for its new jet, pursuing the Gloster Javelin instead. The Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm, though, stayed true to its desire to pick up at least a few of the planes; they'd eventually place an order for 110 navalised versions, naming them the Sea Vixen in early 1955. In all, it would be nearly eight full years from the Sea Vixen's first flight to its introduction to service. During that time, the plane would undergo a wide range of tweaks and changes, most of which were net positives to the aircraft design. It would feature integrated weapons systems, more advanced radar, a fire-control system, and the requisite equipment to be launched from the catapults of aircraft carriers and land with an arresting tailhook. By early 1957, it was ready to enter production, and in 1959, the first squadron of Sea Vixens went operational for the first time. ## Specs and Capabilities Two versions of the Sea Vixen would ultimately be delivered to the Royal Navy: the FAW.1, and the FAW.2. Because the FAW.2 was the objectively better plane, and most Sea Vixens would be either built or converted to the FAW.2 model by the time all was said and done, it's those specs that we're going to rely on, to get a clear picture of exactly what this fighter aircraft was capable of. Measuring a total of 55 and a half feet, 17 meters, from tip to tail, with a wingspan of exactly fifty-one feet or fifteen and a half meters, the Sea Vixen weighed in at just a hair under 28,000 pounds empty; that's about 12,700 kilograms, or fourteen tons. When fully loaded with fuel, weapons, and pilots, it was close to 47,000 pounds, 23-and-a-half tons or a bit over 21,000 kilograms. The plane was powered by two Rolls-Royce Avon 208 turbojet engines, and flown by a crew of two, including a pilot and a radar operator. Unlike… just about every other fighter jet, before and since, the Sea Vixen's cockpit wasn't sat in the center of the fuselage, and it actually wasn't even one cockpit at all. The pilot's cockpit was offset to the left-hand side of the aircraft, poking out of the body of the aircraft enough to see, while the radar operator was to sit completely inside the fuselage, with a top-hatch over his head that was referred to as the "coal hole." Inside, the radar operator's hatch was kept dark and insulated from the world around it, which, on the one hand, must feel rather safe and secure if your plane's in the middle of a dogfight, but, on the other, seems like a near-guarantee of some pretty gnarly motion sickness. The reason for the coal hole? The Sea Vixen's rudimentary radar screens, which could only really be read in the dark. Each crew member flew with a flight suit, and was granted ejector seats that were designed to be able to function even when the aircraft was fully underwater. The Sea Vixen flew at a maximum speed of 690 miles per hour, 1,110 kilometers per hour, or at Mach 0.91. Again, it was not able to achieve supersonic flight even in dives, something that was no longer possible after the refits that had followed the Farnborough disaster. The aircraft had a range of 790 miles, 1,270 kilometers, without the use of external fuel tanks, giving it a total flight time of just above an hour if it flew fully loaded. The plane hit a service ceiling of 48,000 feet, or fifteen kilometers, which it could hit in just over five minutes—or, in 320 seconds, if we're being precise about it. In terms of its armament, the Sea Vixen was equipped with a total of six hardpoints, which were able to accommodate rocket pods with a total of up to 128 rockets on board, depending on the configuration, or up to four air-to-air and two air-to-ground missiles, or bombs in a configuration of two by 1,000 pounds, four by 500 pounds, or a single, 1,750-pound, Red Beard freefall nuclear bomb. It was the first British naval fighter aircraft ever to fly without onboard guns, and among the first to be equipped to receive in-flight refueling from tanker aircraft. It could also carry a tanker of its own to refill other aircraft, if need be. However, it was also one of a long list of airplanes that fell victim to an overconfidence in the power of the air-to-air missile, which, in the Sea Vixen's day, had to be guided by the aircraft's onboard radar to get close to an enemy aircraft before its infrared homing system could take over and finish the job. Overall, the plane offered a marked improvement on the capabilities and potential of the aircraft that had come before. It was unique in both good and bad ways, cumbersome to fly at times, but packed a whole lot of power under the hood. The FAW.2 redesign would give it sophisticated weaponry befitting an aircraft of the 1960s, and its flying controls, while demanding, were a convenient opportunity for airmen to greatly advance the flying capability of the British Royal Navy generally. The plane's onboard redundancies, its autopilot, and its safe controls, designed to remain useful even if both engines failed and electrical power cut out to the rest of the aircraft, made it a plane that, at least on paper, pilots had every reason to trust. ## A Bumpy Ride But when we take a look at the Sea Vixen's service life, it's not the plane's involvement in any particular war that we've got to think about, it's not the plane's record-breaking performance, and it's not the plane's reputation among its pilots. It's the crashes… so, so many crashes. 145 Sea Vixens would be constructed over the course of the plane's time on the production line. By the time that it left service for good in 1972, just past a decade after its initial introduction, *only ninety* of those aircraft survived, with a staggering 38% loss rate across the entire Sea Vixen fleet's lifespan. Of fifty-five lost airframes, thirty would take their operators with them, including twenty-one in which both the pilot and the radar man were lost. And these weren't wartime losses, either. The plane was difficult to land on the decks of the relatively small aircraft carriers it operated on, especially because of its low-drag design, which gave pilots only a tiny critical window to slow their plane down enough to land without stalling out and dipping too low. Sea Vixens also suffered a particularly high loss rate while performing ground attack missions, using self-illuminating targeting flares. The radar-man in the coal hole was in particular danger; the hole's hatch didn't jettison nearly as quickly as the radar operators would have liked, and in several incidents, they were unable to escape crashes that the plane's pilots survived. The FAW.2 version of the plane would feature a much wider hatch, built with material that could shatter as the radar operator and his ejector seat were launched through. Per seavixen.org, a commemorative website run by the plane's former operators and their families, these radar-men would be, quote, "hurled and thrown around the skies under high g forces" while serving inside the Sea Vixen, even when the plane was flying as intended. Says the site, quote: "These Naval Observers had the utmost courage and were exceptionally brave. They had to completely trust their pilot at all times." All true, but the caveat, of course, is that for an operator with so little awareness of what was happening outside the cockpit, their survival was completely at the whim of a hard-to-control airplane, and pilot error. Unfortunately for the Sea Vixen's legacy, it saw no major wars during its service life, and thus none of the battlefield success that might have otherwise redeemed it for its dismal safety record. But it did take part in a handful of minor conflicts across the 1960s, during which time it distinguished itself as a competent, if perhaps not extraordinary addition to the British arsenal. Over Iraq in 1961, it served as a powerful deterrent and intimidation tactic to convince President Abdul Karim Kassem that an invasion of Kuwait was a bad idea. In 1964, it served over modern-day Tanzania, then Tanganyika to deal with a large-scale mutiny of the national army against its British officers and commanders. In response, the Sea Vixen would provide overwatch to British Royal Marines in their successful attempt to restore order. They'd conduct airstrikes in the territory known today as Yemen, they'd help to deter and defuse a confrontation between Indonesia and Malaysia, they'd help to blockade oil from the unrecognized Republic of Rhodesia, and they'd provide cover for the Royal Navy as it got the hell out of modern-day Yemen's port city of Aden. The Sea Vixen's air service was mostly about deterrence and occasional enforcement of British will, as it became one of many emblems of Britain's slow, stuttering decline as a major power. With Britain's attempts at global power projection growing weaker and weaker, it made some sense that the Sea Vixen itself began to look more and more ineffectual. But it still got a workout in some other roles, nonetheless. Sea Vixens would be part of two Royal Navy display teams during their service life, and a few would be converted to drones, for a program that ultimately didn't go anywhere. They'd engage in mock dogfights and have good success against supersonic interceptors like the Dassault Mirage III from France, and the English Electric Lightning from Britain, using its tight turn radius and its evasiveness to starve the faster planes of their fuel and then hit them with a missile as they tried to get away. But by 1972, the Sea Vixen had reached the end of its service life, and most of the UK wasn't too torn up to see it go. It would ultimately be replaced by the American-made Phantom interceptor, designated the F-4 in the US and the FG.1 in Britain. These days, if you're going to see a Sea Vixen, you can do it all across the UK, as well as in Australia, and perhaps best of all, you'll be able to rest assured that the Sea Vixen won't be flying. It's a plane with a complicated legacy, one with fond memories left over by those who flew behind the stick, but on the whole, it might just be for the best that the Sea Vixen will likely never fly again. ## Key Takeaways - The de Havilland Sea Vixen is often considered one of the worst and weirdest jet fighters in British history. - The Sea Vixen's development was marked by a tragic accident at the Farnborough Air Show in 1952. - The aircraft had a high crash rate, with 38% of the fleet lost during its service life. - Despite its flaws, the Sea Vixen saw action in several minor conflicts during the 1960s. - The plane's unique design, including an offset cockpit and a 'coal hole' for the radar operator, contributed to its challenges. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is the Sea Vixen? The Sea Vixen is a twin-engine, twin-tailed air defense fighter that is often considered one of the weirdest-looking and worst jet fighters in British history. ### What was the Sea Vixen's role in the Royal Navy? The Sea Vixen was intended to perform both night-fighter and strike roles with the British Royal Navy. ### What happened at the Farnborough Air Show in 1952 involving the Sea Vixen? During the Farnborough Air Show in 1952, a Sea Vixen prototype disintegrated in mid-air, killing both pilots and 29 spectators on the ground. This led to an urgent redesign of the aircraft. ### What were the two versions of the Sea Vixen delivered to the Royal Navy? The two versions of the Sea Vixen delivered to the Royal Navy were the FAW.1 and the FAW.2, with the FAW.2 being the objectively better plane. ### What was the loss rate of the Sea Vixen fleet? Out of 145 Sea Vixens constructed, only 90 survived by the time it left service in 1972, resulting in a 38% loss rate across its lifespan. ### What were some of the minor conflicts the Sea Vixen participated in? The Sea Vixen participated in conflicts over Iraq in 1961, Tanganyika in 1964, Yemen, Indonesia-Malaysia confrontation, Rhodesia, and Aden. ### What was the cockpit arrangement in the Sea Vixen? The Sea Vixen had an unusual cockpit arrangement with the pilot's seat offset to the left and the radar operator seated inside the fuselage with a top hatch called the 'coal hole'. ### What was the maximum speed of the Sea Vixen? The Sea Vixen had a maximum speed of 690 miles per hour, or Mach 0.91. ### What was the service life of the Sea Vixen? The Sea Vixen was in service from 1959 until 1972, when it was replaced by the American-made Phantom interceptor. ### What was the armament of the Sea Vixen? The Sea Vixen was equipped with six hardpoints that could accommodate rocket pods, air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles, or bombs, including a 1,750-pound Red Beard freefall nuclear bomb. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: The Sea Vixen: The Strangest Fighter Jet in British History](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWt-1BvmU64) - [https://simpleflying.com/farnborough-crash-1952-story/](https://simpleflying.com/farnborough-crash-1952-story/) - [https://www.seavixen.org/sea-vixen-accidents-public-page](https://www.seavixen.org/sea-vixen-accidents-public-page) - [https://www.baesystems.com/en/heritage/de-havilland-dh110-sea-vixen](https://www.baesystems.com/en/heritage/de-havilland-dh110-sea-vixen) - [https://the-past.com/shorts/ideas/back-to-the-drawing-board-the-de-havilland-sea-vixen/](https://the-past.com/shorts/ideas/back-to-the-drawing-board-the-de-havilland-sea-vixen/) - [https://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/seavixen/](https://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/seavixen/) - [https://navywings.org.uk/portfolio/sea-vixen/](https://navywings.org.uk/portfolio/sea-vixen/) - [https://nationalinterest.org/blog/worst-fighter-ever-meet-de-havilland-sea-vixen-207410](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/worst-fighter-ever-meet-de-havilland-sea-vixen-207410) - [https://www.seavixen.org/aircrew/maintenance-testimonies](https://www.seavixen.org/aircrew/maintenance-testimonies) - [https://www.seavixen.org/aircrew/aircrew-testimonies](https://www.seavixen.org/aircrew/aircrew-testimonies) - [https://www.seavixen.org/](https://www.seavixen.org/) - [https://www.seavixen.org/sea-vixen-history](https://www.seavixen.org/sea-vixen-history) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/At_the_British_Museum_2024_146.jpg) by Photograph by Mike Peel (www.mikepeel.net). / openverse, by-sa. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/shinano-forgotten-terrible-first-supercarrier https://megaprojects.pub/article/shinano-forgotten-terrible-first-supercarrier Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT What is a supercarrier? It's a simple enough question, right? And so, you would be right to assume it had an equally simple answer, but in fact, no, that couldn't be further from the truth. Because rather than the answer to this question being a simple tonnage figure, i.e., "a carrier must displace over 'x' tons to be considered 'super,'" there is in fact **no** commonly accepted figure, with the exact hurdle to jump changing with basically every person you ask. It gets more complicated too, because it turns out that **no** navy on earth even uses the moniker, at least in official classification, and so, it remains the preserve of the commentariat, and the occasional testosterone pumping recruitment piece. Despite this, at least everyone agrees that whatever a supercarrier is, **this**, the 60,000-ton USS *Forrestal* from 1955 was the first one… right? But alas, no, even that is not the case, or at least, it might not be — because may we present you with **this**, the Japanese carrier *Shinano*. She rolled out onto the waves in 1944, and give or take, displaced 65,000 tons… which, of course, was **more** than the *Forrestal*. So, what gives? Why have we all forgotten about the *Shinano*? Why does *Forrestal* get all of the glory, when another, even bigger carrier existed that was 11 years her junior? Well, worry not folks, because in the next few minutes those questions, and more, shall be answered, as we pull apart the fully nitty of *Shinano* and her ill-fated service life. ## Design and History As was quite common at the time, *Shinano* was not a carrier 'from the keel up,' but instead was converted from a hull intended for another purpose. And what would make a better donor hull for the biggest carrier ever built up until that point, than that of the biggest class of battleship ever built, not up until that point do note, oh no no, we mean the biggest battleship class **ever** — the mighty *Yamato* class. The *Yamato*s were simply monstrous things — the absolute pinnacle of contemporary maritime technology. They clocked in at give or take 70,000 tons in displacement, and to give that number some context, the famed USS *Texas* of WWI, WWII and now museum ship fame, weighs in at a 'mere' displacement of roughly 30,000 tons. The reason for the *Yamato*'s absurd size was simple, they were to overcome the numerical superiority of the US Navy by being absolute monsters, ones able to deliver a firm shoeing to **multiple** battleships at the same time and come out the other side alive and kicking. Naturally, to see this done, the *Yamato*s packed quite the formidable array of arms and armour. Their teeth came from a dizzying array of **nine** 460mm guns, the broadest bore guns ever fitted to a warship, which were split into three turrets of three guns. They were also the heaviest ever, with each turret weighing in at 2,730 tons — which, for comparison, was more than an **entire** *Kagerō*-class destroyer. As for the rounds these guns fired, they weighed up to 1,460kg, about the weight of a modern hatchback car, and could reach out to a range of 25 **miles**. As for armour, the *Yamato*s had what historian Mark Stille described as "an unparalleled degree of protection in surface combat." Their belt armour, the bit that sits immediately above and below the waterline, was up to 40.6 cm thick, and their turret thickness peaked at 66cm at its thickest point. To put this into perspective, let us look at the *Texas* once again, whose belt armour peaks at 30.5cm, and turret armour peaks at 35.6cm — there simply was nothing else afloat that could hold a candle to a *Yamato*. The decision to not complete *Shinano* as the third ship of this indomitable class, after *Musashi* and the lead ship *Yamato*, and instead finish her as an aircraft carrier came in July 1942, a month after the disastrous battle of Midway — in which the Imperial Japanese Navy, IJN, had lost four carriers: *Akagi*, *Hiryū*, *Kaga*, and *Sōryū*. These losses were **absolutely catastrophic**; carriers were the lynchpin of the IJN's naval strategy, and without them they found their capabilities severely neutered. Further to this, elements of the IJN were waning on the idea of battleships anyway and starting to favour aircraft as the preeminent offensive element of a fleet instead — which they evidenced by pointing to the sinking of the British battleship HMS *Prince of Wales* and battlecruiser HMS *Repulse*, both of which were sent to the seabed by aircraft in 1941. These two motivations together made *Shinano*'s completion as an aircraft carrier a no-brainer. Naturally, this involved a **lot** of modifications to her design. The three turrets were omitted altogether, and a 256 metre long and 40 metre wide flight deck that ran the full length of the hull was installed in their place. The superstructure was also radically altered, the large domineering design of a 'normal' *Yamato* class instead being replaced with a much shrunken down 'island' style superstructure pushed off to the starboard side on a sponson that overhung the hull ever so. Inside of this was also fitted a command centre for flight operations, that, naturally, 'normal' *Yamato*s didn't have. The funnel was also fed up **through** this new superstructure in response to lessons learned from earlier Japanese carriers, which had side hull mounted funnels, and thus could suffer from rather inconvenient visibility issues. Below all of that, the space normally taken up by the lower sections of turrets and vast magazines for storing 900 car sized shells was given over to hangars and the aviation facilities needed to operate a large aerial complement. But note, we have no idea how big this capacity actually was, partly, this is because we actually know **very** little about the *Shinano*, period, for reasons we will get to later on, but also this is because when the decision was made to convert her into a carrier, much of her interior had already been constructed, and since the IJN needed carrier capacity **now**, the decision was made to leave much of this in place and simply build around it. Therefore, because we know so little about her generally, trying to even just 'eyeball' an estimate based on her size becomes difficult, as we simply don't know what her insides **really** looked like. Mostly historians, however, when pushed to give an answer, will usually guess in the region of 100 or so aircraft. While we don't know much about the exact layout of her hangars, we do know the kind of stuff that was fitted to them. For example, we know that they were fitted with **enormous armoured** doors to protect the valuable aircraft inside, as well as the whole roof of the hangar being made up of 7.6cm of armoured steel and 2cm of regular steel, enough to fend off the force of a 1,100 lb bomb. Crammed inside of it, somewhere, was also maintenance shops, in addition to ammunition elevators and fuelling stations. And since we have brought up the matter of *Shinano* being a bit of a botch job, let's now discuss her intended role. Despite her imposing size, she was not intended to be a true 'fleet carrier,' i.e. one that gets stuck into the chunky action and takes a kicking with the rest of the fleet, instead, she was intended to be a support carrier — one that would hang back and resupply the losses of other carriers from her (potentially) vast hangars. That was not what the IJN wanted, they wanted her to be the single greatest fleet carrier ever put to sea; a simply terrifying prospect that would turn every Allied sailor's underpants a healthy shade of brown at the mere prospect of having to face her mighty air arm, but alas, with Japan's war situation going from bad to worse by the day, naval planners were forced to compromise and plan her for whatever role would quickly get her to sea and doing **something** for the Japanese war effort — and thus she became a support carrier. It should also come as no surprise to learn that *Shinano*'s rushed nature also led to her having quite a few design flaws and defects when she was eventually put to sea, the most dire of which was the incomplete state of her watertight compartments — these being subdivided sections of the hull that can be completely sealed in the event of a hull breach to limit the ingress of water, maintain buoyancy, and thus, ultimately, stop a ship from sinking. They had been pretty much standard on any big ship since the late 19th century, and *Shinano*, naturally, had them too, just as her half-sisters *Yamato* and *Musashi* had before her. But the rush to get *Shinano* out to sea was so frantic, that many of them had either been found to be inadequately sealed during testing, or simply just not been tested at all — remember that detail, it'll be important in the next chapter. Oh, and just to make matters even worse, her bulkheads were also full of holes from unsealed wiring, unfinished ventilation tubes, and yet to be installed water pipes. And that was just the bulkhead issues, because she also had basically **none** of her water bailing pumps operable. In addition to just having bulkheads as watertight as a sponge and basically no way of bailing water, however, *Shinano*'s rushed construction also led to her having a highly compromised centre of gravity and stability. Her hull had been designed specifically with those monstrous turrets and that gigantic superstructure in mind, and without them, her centre of gravity radically changed, which drastically affected her buoyancy and stability. A ship isn't just like a car, in which you strip out weight and invariably make them better through gains in acceleration, they are **very** carefully and specifically designed things — and stripping out weight doesn't necessarily make things automatically better. Given our specific foreshadowing, and the general discussion of *Shinano*'s flaws, it will probably come as no surprise for you to learn that she didn't exactly have a great time of it when she was eventually put to sea, so now, let's bring this chapter to a close and move on to look at just how badly things went. ## Ten Days in Commission, Twenty-Four Hours at Sea After a little over two years of conversion work *Shinano* was formally commissioned at Yokosuka Naval Port on the 19th of November 1944, having been given a mere two weeks for fitting out and sea trials beforehand. The problems began before she had even been commissioned however, as a little over a month earlier, likely on the 8th of October, although we can't be sure, the unmistakable silhouette of a single American B-29 bomber was spotted overhead — the lonely formation implying **very** strongly that it was conducting a reconnaissance mission. This meant that the Allies now almost certainly knew not only of *Shinano*'s existence, but also **exactly** where she was… and such a big carrier would no doubt be a hell of a tempting prize. Naturally then, her first order upon her commissioning was to get the hell out of there ASAP, with the IJN General Staff ordering that she depart for Kure by the 28th of November at the latest, where she would hopefully be able to finish being fitted out free from the risk of being randomly reduced to scrap at but a moment's notice. Her Captain, one Toshio Abe was furious at this call and asked for that date to be pushed back. To him the risk posed to his unfinished ship by the **many** Allied submarines which by that point of the war infested the seas of Japan like a pack of ravenous piranhas, was **far** greater than the threat that the Allies might organise an entire mass air raid just to knock out a single dry docked ship — no matter how tantalising a prize she might be… and Abe was nothing if not prophetic. His request however, though wise, was denied, and after meeting up with his three escorting destroyers, the *Isokaze*, *Yukikaze*, and *Hamakaze*, he got underway at 6pm on the 28th of November, the very last day that he could get away with, and made for Kure. Onboard were 2,515 souls, made up of 2,175 officers and sailors, 300 shipyard workers tasked with continuing finishing work as she steamed along, and 40 civilians. Also onboard was her air wing: 50 Yokosuka MXY-7 *Ohka* kamikaze planes; terrifying contraptions which consisted of a rocket motor, a 1,180kg bomb, a cockpit, some wings, and not much else — she had been tasked with delivering these to the Philippines and Okinawa after her fitting out had been completed. As she was still undergoing fitting work while at sea, most of her watertight doors and hatches were left open in order to afford the workers easier access and speed up their work, and even more worryingly still, many of the manholes in her several layered hulls were left open for the same reason. It should have only taken 16 hours for *Shinano* to cover the 300 miles to Kure, but as we have hinted at **rather** strongly, she would never make it. The submarine USS *Archerfish* first detected *Shinano* at exactly 8:48pm, but for now, all remained well, and Abe remained confident as *Shinano* had detected the submarine over an hour and a half prior, and so was on high alert for her making an appearance. Things continued to get better too, at least for now, because when detecting *Shinano*, *Archerfish* had had to reveal herself, and so *Shinano*'s destroyer escort broke away and scared off the would-be attacker. Abe then found himself at a tactical crossroads, did he A), keep his ship dead straight, dump the engine order telegraph, and gun it, knowing full well that he could outrun a submerged submarine, or did he B), move in a defensive zig-zag pattern, lest his eagerness to get away inadvertently make him easy pickings for any other Allied submarines in the area? He chose option B). As a result of this choice, it was only a matter of time until *Archerfish* caught up, which she did no later than quarter to ten pm — when *Shinano*'s lookouts spotted the submarine returning to the surface in order to recharge the batteries it used for underwater running. History could have been changed right then and there, the *Archerfish* had been caught with its pants down and was a sitting duck, but alas, no. Despite the most tempting opportunity before him, Abe ordered his escort to not engage and maintain their formation; fearing that the almost too good opportunity before him was a trap intended to lure away one of his escorts, and leave a nice big opening into which another, yet to be detected Allied submarine could duly send some torpedoes. The *Isokaze* was having none of it however and broke off to destroy the *Archerfish* — which would have been but a trifle of a task while it sat vulnerable on the surface. But no, it wasn't meant to be — because after some… 'heated' discussions over the radio, in which Abe told the destroyer of the importance of respecting rank and obeying orders, it returned to formation. He did change his approach however, as he ordered his motley flotilla to put the submarine behind them, aim dead ahead, and punch it — finally having twigged that the submarine he could **actually see** was a far more pressing concern than any potential other danger. This worked great, for a while anyway, as at 11:22pm *Shinano*'s rushed construction came back to bite Abe on the rear — a bearing had overheated, and he was forced to reduce his speed to 18 knots, give or take **exactly the same** speed of *Archerfish*, lest he lose use of a propeller outright. He also couldn't keep going straight forever, sooner or later he would have to turn to make course to Kure, and when he did, it would only be a matter of time until *Archerfish* was back on top of him, at the perfect side-on angle for an attack. That time came at 02:56am when Abe turned *Shinano* southwest. A mere eight minutes after that, at 03:04am, *Archerfish* had more or less closed the gap and submerged to begin making its attack run. Her captain, Commander Joseph Enright ordered a full volley of torpedoes prepared, and then, he slowly closed the gap ever more, and waited for the perfect moment to strike, which happened a few minutes later, when *Shinano* turned due south, and pointed her entire exposed side straight at *Archerfish*. Enright gave the order to fire at 03:15am and sent six torpedoes right at the perfect target before him. He then immediately dived to 400 feet — because between the reload time of his torpedoes, and the inevitable depth charge reprisal from *Shinano*'s escort, he knew he wasn't getting another chance to take that shot. Four of those torpedoes found their target. The first struck towards *Shinano*'s stern, destroying and subsequently flooding an empty aircraft fuel storage tank and killing many of the engineers who were sleeping in their quarters above it. The second also struck the stern, right at the very back in fact, on an engine room — immediately costing *Shinano* the use of a propeller and half of her engines as water poured in. The third torpedo hit further up the ship, striking dead on a boiler room, immediately putting it out of action, flooding it, and killing every man on duty there. The final one hit an anti-aircraft gun magazine, causing an enormous explosion that took out an adjacent compressor room, damage control station, and oil tank. Had *Shinano* been built properly, this wouldn't have been her end. Make no mistake, it certainly wouldn't have been ideal, and getting home no doubt would have been quite the arduous task, but things, touch wood, would have been fine in the end. But *Shinano* **wasn't** built properly, and so the freezing water of the Pacific Ocean just kept pouring in, and in, and in, through **all of** the many holes in her internal bulkheads. And of the precious few efforts that could be made to save *Shinano*, or at least delay her sinking, all but none of them were actuated. Her officers, Abe included, were convinced that the four torpedo impacts represented no ultimate danger to them, they were in a carrier-ised *Yamato* after all. This led to *Shinano* maintaining full speed ahead, which only served to ram yet more water into her ever filling up hull. It took only minutes for her to begin listing at 10 degrees to starboard, and this soon increased to 15 degrees come 03:30am. At this point Abe began to grasp the true reality of the situation and began ordering for frantic efforts to save the ship, but nothing tried worked — from having *Hamakaze* and *Isokaze* tow her, to counterflooding compartments, it all came to nought. *Shinano* ultimately slipped beneath the waves at 10:57am, taking 1,435 souls with her, Abe included. In that moment, she also became the largest ship **ever** sunk by submarine, even to this very day. The goliath of a ship, very possibly history's first ever supercarrier, had barely survived 10 days in commission, and not even 24 hours at sea. ## Historiography and Conclusion So ends the tale of *Shinano*. As for the matter of whether or not she was a supercarrier… we'll leave you to make up your own mind on that — it's such a subjective question that there's little point us trying to authoritatively answer it today. What we **will** do however is take the time to clear up a few things about her that didn't really fit into the main body of the piece; remember when we said that we know surprisingly little about her? That wasn't us overhyping the situation to be dramatic, it really is shocking how little we know. This gap in our knowledge is the result of the fact that *Shinano* was constructed in near total secrecy, was barely in commission for 10 days, and the fact that as the war was looming towards its end, the IJN burnt basically **every** bit of paper about her. So scant is information on *Shinano* in fact, that there are three known photos of her. Literally, just **three**. There is one from the aerial reconnaissance flight we mentioned earlier, one of her on the bottom of the sea today, and one that was taken by pure fluke as she sailed to Kure by a random Japanese civilian who just so happened to have his camera on him. It's a weird thing to say when discussing something so modern, but we really do know bugger all about her in the grand scheme of things. With that in mind, let us also explain where we got the bulk of our information from today, because the lack of information out there about *Shinano* can lead to secondary sources… 'varying,' shall we say, and so it is worth being transparent just in case what we have said today doesn't line up with your own reading. The primary source used was *The Imperial Japanese Navy* by Anthony Watts and Brian Gordon — of all the books considered, this one was the most open about what we **didn't** know, and thus we deemed it likely the most reliable. ## Key Takeaways - The term 'supercarrier' lacks a universally accepted definition, with no agreed-upon tonnage figure. - The USS Forrestal is often cited as the first supercarrier, but the Japanese Shinano, launched in 1944, was larger. - Shinano was converted from an unfinished Yamato-class battleship hull, originally designed to be the largest and most powerful battleship ever built. - Shinano's rushed conversion and subsequent sea trials led to significant design flaws, including incomplete watertight compartments and compromised stability. - Despite its size and potential, Shinano sank after being torpedoed by the USS Archerfish, taking 1,435 souls with it, just 24 hours into its maiden voyage. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is a supercarrier? There is no commonly accepted figure for what constitutes a supercarrier. The term is not officially used by any navy and is instead used by commentators and recruitment pieces. The USS Forrestal is often considered the first supercarrier, but the Japanese carrier Shinano, which displaced 65,000 tons, was actually larger and launched earlier. ### What was the original purpose of the hull that was converted into the Shinano? The hull that was converted into the Shinano was originally intended for the Yamato class, the largest class of battleships ever built. The decision to convert it into an aircraft carrier was made in July 1942 after the Battle of Midway. ### What were the dimensions and key features of the Shinano's flight deck? The Shinano had a flight deck that was 256 meters long and 40 meters wide, running the full length of the hull. The superstructure was redesigned to include an 'island' style structure on the starboard side, and the funnel was fed through this new superstructure. ### What was the intended role of the Shinano? The Shinano was intended to be a support carrier, hanging back to resupply other carriers. However, the IJN wanted it to be the greatest fleet carrier ever, but due to the worsening war situation, it was rushed into service as a support carrier. ### What were some of the design flaws and defects in the Shinano? The Shinano had incomplete watertight compartments, bulkheads full of holes from unsealed wiring and unfinished ventilation tubes, and non-operational water bailing pumps. Its rushed construction also led to a compromised center of gravity and stability. ### How long was the Shinano in commission before it was sunk? The Shinano was in commission for just over 10 days and spent less than 24 hours at sea before it was sunk by the USS Archerfish on November 29, 1944. ### What was the fate of the Shinano after it was torpedoed? Despite efforts to save the ship, including attempts to tow it and counterflood compartments, the Shinano sank at 10:57 AM, taking 1,435 souls with it, including Captain Toshio Abe. It became the largest ship ever sunk by a submarine. ### How many photos of the Shinano are known to exist? There are only three known photos of the Shinano: one from an aerial reconnaissance flight, one of it on the bottom of the sea, and one taken by a Japanese civilian as it sailed to Kure. ### What was the air wing of the Shinano? The Shinano carried 50 Yokosuka MXY-7 Ohka kamikaze planes, which were intended to be delivered to the Philippines and Okinawa after its fitting out was completed. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: Shinano: The Forgotten (And Terrible) First Supercarrier](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al7WVjRn8GM) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Wide-angle_of_Rice_Stadium_in_Houston%2C_Texas_2024.jpg) by Quintin Soloviev / openverse, by. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/space-tourism-will-this-ever-be-practical https://megaprojects.pub/article/space-tourism-will-this-ever-be-practical Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Much of human society is collectively fascinated with interstellar exploration, but the reality is that we have very few practical reasons left to actually send humans beyond our own atmosphere. The massive improvements in observation technology, including telescopes, robotics, and unmanned drones, have made sending astronauts into space more or less obsolete. At least until such time as we're ready to seed life on other planets, and the practicality of that in itself is a little debatable, but put a pin in that debate for a different article. What we're here to talk about today is one of the few reasons left to facilitate astronauts: because interstellar travel is fun. Space tourism is a notion that's been around for centuries, and interest in the idea has, to some extent, remained consistent since it was first conceivable that exploring space may be possible. The problem is, and always has been, the justification of the obscene cost and countless skilled work hours required to blast people beyond the stars. Now, if you pose the question to NASA as to why human spaceflight is important you'll get answers such as "making our lives better," "exploring the secrets of the universe," "figuring out how it all began," and "answering whether we're alone." All rather noble pursuits, if a bit esoteric, but you'll probably agree that the existence of NASA is justified. The International Space Station (ISS) is buzzing with activity, and important research is being carried out there even as we speak. Expedition 71 began April 5th, 2024 and is set to last until September, with researchers looking into neuro-degenerative diseases, space botany, algae-based life support and more. So, beyond this sort of orbital scientific research, itself probably not requiring humans for much longer, for space tourism to ever be widely available major innovations have to occur in affordability, and the required infrastructure must already exist. This means that we're probably a long way off from affordable options, right? Perhaps not. Recent predictions say that space tourism is one of the hot new industries, with it being suggested that the market will grow 19.8 percent annually between 2024 and 2028, ultimately generating around $5 billion annually by 2034. If that's the case, are the breakthroughs at SpaceX and other major aeronautics and astronautics companies on the verge of finally transforming space tourism into something widely accessible? ## A Brief History of the Chaotic Space Tourism Industry The concept of achievable space tourism goes back much further than most assume, with the idea being seriously considered as early as the 70s and the 80s. After the excitement of the Space Race interstellar exploration was all the rage, and a number of companies were keen on capitalising, including American mega-corporation Rockwell International. In the 70s the company put forward the concept of a removable cabin that could fit into a shuttle's cargo bay, effectively providing room for around 74 passengers. The passengers were to experience an orbital passage around Earth for up to 3 days. The design didn't make it beyond the concept stage, but was followed up by a similar idea in 1985 presented by the National Space Society. The organisation's presentation suggested that the cost of putting passengers into orbit would initially come in at around $1 to $1.5 million per passenger, but speculation was that spaceflight would get drastically cheaper, and that within 15 years 30,000 people would be making the trip annually and paying the equivalent of $70,000 per person. The National Space Society was so optimistic as to declare lunar orbital trips would be available in 30 years, and lunar surface visits within 50. It all seemed rather feasible at the time, and the world was giddy with anticipation. But take a look around, notice the suspicious absence of interstellar airports, and ask yourself what happened. Well, if you know anything about spaceflight you'll already know the tragic story of Christa McAuliffe. It was during the 80s that NASA was gearing up to open the Space Flight Participation program to citizens, coinciding with the ambitious plans to start sending tourists to the moon. McAuliffe was part of the 1985 Teacher in Space project, an initiative that received 11,400 applications. The similar Journalist in Space project, receiving 1,700 applications, was set to launch soon after the first. NASA intended that following these initial proof of concept flights, around 2 to 3 civilians would be included on spaceflights annually, acting as a spearhead into an interstellar exploration focused future. The Space Shuttle Challenger on mission STS-51-L exploded immediately after take-off, killing everyone on board including McAuliffe. Not surprisingly, this very horrific, extremely public disaster somewhat dampened interest in space tourism, all but bringing ambitious future plans to a grinding halt. It is worth mentioning that Barbara Morgan, McAuliffe's backup, did eventually make the trip in 1998. Now, at this point NASA was giving rather mixed signals about its position on space tourism, with an article dated 1st November, 2000, sharing the words of NASA spokesperson Bryan Welch. Welch declared: "While we're building the ISS (International Space Station,) this is not the time to do something like that. In the early part of the program there is lot of work to be done and equipment to be installed. It's not a pleasure cruise." This attitude did a rather abrupt 180 in 2001. The Space and Aeronautics Committee on Science at the House of Representatives announced that they were "reviewing the issues and opportunities related to flying nonprofessional astronauts, and considering the role that government would play in using the Shuttle and International Space Station for tourism." Whatever NASA's intentions were and whatever the organisation was hoping for, the plans were once again hastily reconsidered as another very public disaster rocked the aeronautics world. On February 1st, 2003 the Space Shuttle Columbia disintegrated over Texas and Louisiana, killing all 7 astronauts on board. Hopes of accommodating tourists were, very understandably, firmly put on a backburner as the organisation once again set about repairing its shattered reputation. But for all the trouble NASA was having, Russia, meanwhile, did not waste any time in opening up new revenue streams for its cash-starved spaceflight industry. As far back as 1990 an offer was accepted from the Tokyo Broadcasting System to fly a reporter to the Mir Space Station. Toyohiro Akiyama made the trip to Mir, did daily broadcasts, and participated in scientific experiments. The cost of his journey is estimated at between $10 and $37 million, all covered by Tokyo Broadcasting. Project Juno followed in 1991 with the intention being that chemist Helen Sharman would be the first Briton in space. After some initial trouble with raising funds the project did eventually go ahead, with Mikhail Gorbachev stepping in to cover costs as a means to promote international relations. A reality TV show titled *Destination: Mir*, championed by *Survivor* producer Mark Burnett, was scheduled to premiere at some point between 2001 and 2004. Burnett would have leased part of the Mir space station via MirCorp, then would have followed contestants as they competed for a place on a 10 day mission aboard the space station. *Destination: Mir* never happened, and various attempts to reignite it over the years likewise failed. That Russia was willing to lease part of the Mir space station should make a few things very clear, namely that human spaceflight, and interstellar exploration in general, was struggling with funding and relevance. At least, it was struggling with funding and relevance until fairly recently. ## Modern Space Tourism Is Born Now, technically speaking Toyohiro Akiyama and Helen Sharman weren't space tourists by definition. Although non-government astronauts entering the space program, they performed science experiments and other journalistic duties, meaning they were "payload specialists" according to rules and regulations. So space tourism essentially only really started in April 2001 with American businessman Dennis Tito. He flew aboard a Russian Soyuz-TM32 spacecraft and visited a segment of the ISS, staying aboard for nearly 8 days. Following his successful journey, an additional 6 space tourists followed between 2001 and 2009, facilitated by American company Space Adventures. The price for each tourist was between $20 and $25 million, but even still by 2007 the buzz surrounding space tourism was again palpable. As it was in the 80s, expectations were that space tourism would quickly become a viable new industry, and the world braced in anticipation. However, Russia halted all space tourism in 2009 due to an increase in the size of the active scientific crew aboard the ISS. Russian officials did declare that orbital tourist flights would resume in 2015, but that plan was abruptly cancelled. Russian orbital tourism eventually reopened in 2021, and NASA announced it would start accepting tourists in 2020. But neither have been doing anything close to brisk business, and the grand total of all space tourists, not including those that have simply travelled a certain distance above sea level technically making them astronauts, is 21. That's the original 7 in the early 2000s, plus 14 since, making it pretty clear that the words "hot new industry" and "space tourism" don't exactly belong in the same sentence. On the other hand each of those 14 space tourists paid around $50 million plus an additional $35,000 per day, and some went on more than one trip. So even if space tourism isn't particularly inclusive, it's certainly helping NASA cover those costs. This, more or less, brings us to the present day, and to call the current state of space tourism confusing is an understatement. There are 3 major players, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic and SpaceX, all incredibly well-funded and each backed by a big corporate name; that's Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson and Elon Musk respectively. Let's go through each, figure out what's going on, and decide if you should be preparing for your trip around the moon. ## SpaceX Kicking off with perhaps the most recognisable of the 3: SpaceX. You're probably aware that SpaceX loves the media spotlight, and it goes without saying that something related to the company has probably slapped you in the face, whether you were looking for it or not. Even at the time of this article being researched and written an impressive new video was published depicting the Super Heavy Booster being caught mid-air after an initial launch. It is, as far as space tourism is concerned, exactly this sort of reusable spaceflight technology that could make interstellar travel more affordable, and therefore more broadly accessible. But do the current technological advancements indicate that we're finally entering into a viable space tourism era? No, probably not. As far as SpaceX is concerned, you're still not getting a trip into space unless you fork over tens of millions, or even an estimated $500+ million, if the trip to the moon sold to Japanese billionaire Yusaku Maezawa is to be believed. There have been a few remarks and vague promises by SpaceX regarding space tourism, and some of the successful tourists have even travelled on the company's Crew Dragon. But the reality is that space tourism is not a priority for SpaceX other than as a publicity stunt, and probably won't be for some time. To put it bluntly, SpaceX isn't strapped for cash having landed multiple hundred million dollar NASA contracts, and the company technicians are presently very focused on developing reusable spaceflight technology for NASA, not for tourism. Now, this isn't to say that the company won't ever expand into the broader tourism market, it probably will at some point. But that expansion is still likely decades away, and will only go ahead on the basis of a few major advancements in spacecraft reusability. Plus, even then, the prices likely still won't be affordable to the average person. ## Blue Origin While SpaceX spends more time in the spotlight than Blue Origin, if you thought a company owned by Jeff Bezos was anything less than a behemoth you'd have been mistaken. The company was awarded a $3.4 billion contract for NASA's Artemis Program, otherwise known as the project to establish a human presence on the moon, and has received the Robert J. Collier Trophy. The Collier Trophy is an accolade administered by the US National Aeronautics Association for "the greatest achievement in aeronautics or astronautics in America, with respect to improving the performance, efficiency, and safety of air or space vehicles, the value of which has been thoroughly demonstrated by actual use during the preceding year." To put it in a nutshell, Blue Origin is an enormously successful company that has its fingers in more pies than we care to list here. In fact, strap yourself in for some exciting news: one of the projects Blue Origin is currently involved in is called Orbital Reef, and it happens to be a commercial low Earth orbit space station. More exciting still is that Orbital Reef is set to officially launch in 2027, meaning that it's just a few years until the first entirely tourism-based space station is available. Blue Origin is partnered with Sierra Space, which will provide Large Integrated Flexible Environment (LIFE) modules, as well as Boeing which will provide a science module and the Starliner crew spacecraft, plus Redwire Space which will provide deployable structures. Genesis Engineering and Arizona State University are also involved, with Genesis providing a Single Person Spacecraft aimed specifically at tourist excursions. Now, if all of this has you giddy with excitement, we hate to be the bearers of bad news. First, the good news: NASA reportedly paid out $24 million of a $130 million contract in October 2023, indicating that the company achieved some milestones. However, CNBC was quick to point out that the Orbital Reef website hasn't been updated in over a year, and that no specialised hiring is occurring on the parts of either Sierra Space or Blue Origin. CNBC speculated that the lack of buzz was likely due to both companies being far more concerned with much bigger, far more lucrative projects, and that Orbital Reef was being treated as something of an afterthought. We can't say whether this is true, but we can suggest that if a commercial space station was due to be launched in 3 years that there might be a bit more of a buzz. Chances are pretty good that Orbital Reef will be delayed. There is also no indication of what it might cost to visit Orbital Reef, assuming it does eventually become available. ## Virgin Galactic At last we come to Virgin Galactic, the only company with a primary focus on space tourism, and, if we're being realistic, the only company keeping hopes that space tourism will one day be affordable alive. Or at least, on a level that millionaires can afford it rather than just billionaires. Now, we say keeping hopes alive, but Virgin Galactic isn't taking any tourists into space at the moment, and probably won't be again until at least 2026. You might find this timeline rather surprising, especially since the company boasted that 640 customers signed up in 2013 at cost of $250,000 per person. Sadly, none of those 640 passengers have yet enjoyed a trip, and, well, if your hopes for near future, affordable space tourism were pegged on Virgin Galactic, unfortunately we once again have to tell you to reign in that excitement. Virgin Galactic has been surrounded by, shall we politely say, shenanigans, with violations of Federal Aviation Administration protocols, the death of one test pilot and serious injury of another, as well as a decade-long history of broken promises by billionaire owner Richard Branson. We won't go into all of this right now, but let's just say that if you were one of those to sign up in 2013, you probably got pretty sick of hearing the phrase "in a year or two." On the other hand, while the list of the company's failures is rather long, we must also acknowledge that Virgin Galactic is the first corporation in the world to successfully launch an independent commercial spaceflight. The initial test flight occurred on July 11th, 2021 with Richard Branson himself on-board the Unity 22. Unity 22 managed to breach the 80 km (50 mile) barrier which indicates space according to the US definition, officially putting Virgin Galactic in the history books. Branson, the 2 pilots and 3 employee passengers experienced weightlessness for a full 3 minutes, with the entire journey lasting about an hour. At that time in 2021 Virgin Galactic reported that it had 600 commercial passengers signed up, though with the price per passenger ramped up significantly to $450,000. Following the test flight the first commercial flight to include tourists took place on the 29th of June 2023, with 3 members of the Italian military riding along in a passenger capacity. The successful flight lasted 70 minutes and once again put Virgin Galactic in the history books. Following that flight, Virgin Galactic updated its backlog to specify that it now had 800 confirmed customers. Additional successful commercial flights occurred over the remaining months of 2023, plus 2 more in 2024, for a total of 7. It was then announced that the Unity aircraft would be retired, and that work would begin on a replacement, with predictions saying that a newer model would be ready for commercial operations in 2026. Boy, those 800 signed up customers sure must be doing a lot of work in the patience department. ## The Bottom Line Okay, let's stop beating around the bush and get to the obvious conclusion: we're sorry to have to say that space tourism really just isn't panning out like the science fiction films of old promised. While the technology is gradually getting better and reusable rockets are creating interesting potential, it's unlikely that traveling into space will ever become as accessible as air travel, at least not for the foreseeable future and barring some revolutionary innovations. The bottom line is that launching rockets into space is always going to be pretty bloody expensive, and since there's no reason to even go into space right now, other than because "it's fun," space tourism is not going to be anything other than "millionaire's bungee jumping" for decades, or shall we just say for "50 years at least" to honour the trend of extremely vague predictions. In the meantime, let's at least enjoy the fact that the spaceflight industry is moving along at a rather astonishing rate, and that the technological advancements happening now, even if they don't include space tourism, do seem to suggest the possibility of a moon base relatively soon. In comparison to how space exploration was looking just a few decades ago, we really are in a golden era, and you'll probably agree that this in itself is reason to be excited. Sadly, you'll probably have to leave it to your grandchildren to actually visit the moon base, assuming Project Artemis pans out. ## Key Takeaways - Space tourism remains expensive and exclusive, with only 21 tourists since 2001. - Major companies like SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Virgin Galactic are developing space tourism. - Technological advancements are making space travel more affordable, but not yet widely accessible. - The International Space Station conducts vital research, justifying human spaceflight for now. - Space tourism is predicted to grow, but significant innovations are needed for affordability. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is the current status of space tourism? Space tourism is not yet widely available or affordable. As of now, only a few wealthy individuals have been able to participate, with costs ranging from tens of millions to over $500 million for trips facilitated by companies like SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Virgin Galactic. ### What are the major companies involved in space tourism? The major companies involved in space tourism are SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Virgin Galactic. Each of these companies has different focuses and timelines for their space tourism ventures. ### What is the International Space Station (ISS) currently used for? The ISS is currently buzzing with activity, conducting important research such as studying neuro-degenerative diseases, space botany, and algae-based life support. Expedition 71 began on April 5th, 2024, and is set to last until September. ### What is the predicted growth rate for the space tourism market? Recent predictions suggest that the space tourism market will grow at an annual rate of 19.8% between 2024 and 2028, potentially generating around $5 billion annually by 2034. ### What is the history of space tourism? The concept of space tourism dates back to the 1970s and 1980s, with early proposals from companies like Rockwell International and the National Space Society. However, significant setbacks, including the Challenger and Columbia disasters, slowed progress. Modern space tourism began in 2001 with Dennis Tito's trip to the ISS. ### What is Orbital Reef and when is it expected to launch? Orbital Reef is a commercial low Earth orbit space station being developed by Blue Origin in partnership with several other companies. It is set to officially launch in 2027, although there are speculations about potential delays. ### What is the current status of Virgin Galactic's space tourism plans? Virgin Galactic has successfully conducted several test and commercial flights, including the Unity 22 mission in 2021 and subsequent flights in 2023 and 2024. However, they are not currently taking tourists into space and plan to resume commercial operations in 2026 with a new aircraft model. ### What is the role of NASA in space tourism? NASA has been involved in space tourism by facilitating trips to the ISS and considering the role of government in using the Shuttle and ISS for tourism. However, their primary focus remains on scientific research and exploration. ### How many space tourists have there been so far? As of the information provided, there have been 21 space tourists, including the original 7 in the early 2000s and 14 since then. These tourists have paid significant amounts, often around $50 million plus additional daily costs. ### What are the challenges facing the space tourism industry? The main challenges facing the space tourism industry include the high cost of launching rockets, the lack of practical reasons for human spaceflight beyond scientific research, and the need for major innovations in affordability and infrastructure. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: Space Tourism: Will this Ever Be Practical?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i8iFL5oWzM) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/M_Bloc_Space_%282024-07-12%29.jpg) by VulcanSphere / openverse, by. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/stryker-us-army-supercharged-infantry-carriers https://megaprojects.pub/article/stryker-us-army-supercharged-infantry-carriers Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT In the early 2000s, the US Army realized it had a problem: its tanks were too heavy to move quickly, and its Humvees were too light to survive a real fight. What it needed was something in between. Enter the Stryker. But the Stryker wasn't just a new ride — it was a full-blown revolution in how the Army thought about mobility, protection, and digital warfare. Built in a hurry, rolled out amid controversy, and sent into combat almost immediately, it was a bold gamble on off-the-shelf tech in an era of insurgency and IEDs. And yet… that gamble paid off. Mostly. What followed was a 20-year journey of battlefield evolution: slat armour, V-shaped hulls, 30mm cannons, and even laser beams. Today, the Stryker isn't just surviving — it's evolving into something even stranger and more lethal. So, just how did this humble 'interim solution' become a cornerstone of modern mechanised warfare? And what's next for America's armoured middleweight? Let's find out! ## Origins and Development In the late 1990's, the US Army had a Goldilocks problem. Heavy armour like the Abrams and Bradley hit hard but deployed at a glacial pace, but light forces – i.e. Humvees - could arrive quickly but folded under fire. The 1999 Kosovo Campaign in particular made this VERY clear. There, US forces, as a part of KFOR, NATO's mission to aid the Kosovars, just avoided having to commit to a proper conventional offensive against what was left of Yugoslavia's central government, instead going in in a purely peacekeeping capacity following a successful bombing campaign. And what they saw when they peeked over the fence while waiting for the greenlight, however, was a serious conflict heavy with tanks and modern artillery, that would have to have been fought on basically one giant mountain, courtesy of Kosovo's topography. In other words, the exact kind of conflict in which their heavy assets would have been at their most slow and sluggish, and their light ones at their most vulnerable. Enter General Eric Shinseki, Army Chief of Staff, who saw this problem most clearly, and wasn't having it. And so it was that he unveiled a new vision: a medium-weight, air-deployable unit built around a new platform - the Interim Armored Vehicle, or IAV. The goal? To be able to equip a brigade so that it could deploy ANYWHERE in 96 hours, max, and actually be capable of dealing out some hurt when it arrived. To do this, the new vehicle needed the mobility of light infantry, with enough firepower and armour to hold its own. And because this was such a pressing need, and the inability to do so such a hole in US strategic capabilities, SPEED was the name of the game – and so an off the shelf solution was sought. Luckily, there was no shortage of exactly that at the time, and so, by the year 2000, two frontrunners had emerged: General Dynamics' Canadian-built LAV III, and United Defense's upgraded tracked M113… and as the pictures you've seen of the Stryker so far make rather obvious… General Dynamic's offering ended up winning. Controversy followed, however. United Defense cried foul, arguing their tracked option was cheaper. The US Government Accountability Office investigated, in response, but sided with the Army. The LAV III was faster, had more modern tech, and a better upgrade path. With that handled, General Dynamics was formally given their contract in November 2000, one worth 8 BILLION dollars, and that demanded over 2,100 vehicles out of them. It was at this point too, that to give their new vehicle an all-American identity, the Army rebranded it as the Stryker – in honour of two Medal of Honour recipients who had the same surname. As for what they got for their 8 billion dollarydoos, each Stryker Brigade Combat Team, or SBCT – the formal name eventually given to Shinseki's vision - would get about 300 vehicles in ten mission-specific flavours: infantry carrier, recon, mortar, medical, anti-tank, command, and even a 105mm mobile gun. These were designed to roll off a C-130 and into combat, complete with onboard digital networks and satellite comms. Sceptics soon lined up too. Tank enjoyers mocked the idea of an eight-wheeled 'battle taxi' surviving real combat, and others pointed out that C-130 deployability was theoretical - strip the armour, lighten the load, and maybe it'd fit, they'd mockingly concede. But the Army pressed on nonetheless, and by 2002, Strykers were already rolling off the production line and being pushed into service, with the first SBCT – 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division – being declared combat ready in 2003. And the timing of that could NOT have been better, because 2003 was also the exact same year that the US – along with several allies – invaded Iraq, and there, the so called "interim" vehicle would face real enemies, real IEDs, and real doubt… ## Design and Specifications Before we get into discussing the Stryker's combat performance, however, it is worth us taking the time to get to grips with what a Stryker properly is… so that is exactly what we will do now! At first glance, it just looks like a big, armoured shoebox on wheels - not as intimidating as a tank for sure, but certainly more serious than a Humvee. Combat-loaded, it weighs around 18–19 tons, fitting JUST within the Air Force's 19-ton threshold for C-130 transport. It also stretches 6.95 meters long, and is 2.72 meters wide. Power comes from a 350hp Caterpillar diesel engine that can push it to about 100kph on roads, and around 80kph or so off road. This, as far as armoured vehicles go, is pretty nippy to be sure, and that speed is key – as mobility can be protection. It's also something of a cross-country runner when it does leave the road too, thanks to its 8x8 drivetrain, selectable all-wheel drive, central tire inflation, and run flat tyres. Inside, it's a tight squeeze. The standard layout holds a 2-man crew – a driver and commander - and up to nine infantry. Troops enter via a powered rear ramp and sit on benches with seatbelts. It's dark, cramped, and rattling - but worlds safer than a soft-skinned truck. When it comes to armour, its hull is made from high-hardness steel, rated against 7.62mm ball rounds and shell fragments. On top of that, bolted ceramic composite armour, co-developed with IBD Deisenroth of Germany, makes it further able to fend off rounds up to the Soviet designed .57 calibre. Naturally then, although it's still worth saying to be absolutely clear, this is NOT a vehicle which is design to shake off heavy hits – tank rounds and anti-armour RPGs for example, would pass right through the thing. In fact, by 2004, this very vulnerability saw the Army start to retrofit its Strykers with slat armour – a metal grid designed to prematurely detonate RPG's. They were ugly, but they were effective, and no doubt saved many lives. Later, the notorious IED threat in Afghanistan would similarly drive the adoption of the Double-V Hull, DVH. Introduced in 2011, the DVH shaped the underbelly like that of a Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle, and deflected blast force away from the crew. Army data showed this significantly cut casualties from roadside bombs, often letting crews walk away from hits that would have been lethal in the flat-bottom versions. For their firepower, most Strykers mount a Protector M151 Remote Weapon Station, RWS, with either an M2 .50-cal machine gun or a 40mm Mk19 automatic grenade launcher. Operated from inside via screen and joystick, the RWS keeps gunners under armour – and thus safe from snipers. Each weapon offers suppression out to around 2 km, and further the RWS can also field a 7.62mm MG as a little Brucie bonus. This is a modest compliment to be sure, and certainly, it's not exactly the Bradley's 25mm autocannon – and many were quick to point this out when the Stryker first rolled out. To begin with, the Army's response to these complaints was "Yeah, and? Ain't a tank-hunter, is it bro? Chill." But, given time, they have given ground on this point, as in recent years, many RWS systems have been given upgraded 'Stryker Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station – Javelin' systems instead, or CROWS-J for short. This, as the name gives away, integrates Javelin Missile Launchers into the Strykers load out, and gives it the ability to knock out tanks from 2.5km away - a game-changing addition for a vehicle that previously lacked any teeth at all against armour. Where the Stryker REALLY shines, however, is with its electronic systems. From day one, it was designed as a digital node. Early models included GPS navigation, Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below tracking systems, and advanced radios – all of which, when working together, provides crews with real time maps, extreme battlefield awareness, and instant communication links both with HQ, and nearby vehicles. Over time, these systems only got better too, with more modern Strykers being touting something called an 'In-Vehicle Network.' To simply it quite a bit, this turns a Stryker into a battlefield Wi-Fi hub and data node, sharing feeds between platforms in real-time. This allows rapid reaction to threats and helps avoid friendly-fire incidents - especially useful in close, chaotic fights. From ceramic armour and RPG cages to digital networks and Javelin launchers then, the Stryker has evolved into far more than the 'interim solution' it was meant to be then. It's not invincible, sure, as heavy anti-tank missiles or large IEDs can still ruin its day, but for a wheeled platform, it brings a remarkable mix of mobility, survivability, and smarts. Fast enough to dodge trouble, tough enough to take a punch, and wired enough to keep its crew ahead of the fight - the Stryker gets the job done… or so it would appear anyway… ## Combat Performance – Iraq and Afghanistan And this brings us back to where we left off only a few short minutes ago, because no piece of military hardware can be considered fully evaluated until it's been blown up, shot at, and generally abused in the field, and if you recall, the Stryker was swiftly whisked off to Iraq following its introduction… so let's see how it got on. The first Stryker's arrived in Iraq in October 2003, mere months after their initial fielding, and indeed, only seven months after the invasion. Initial impressions, however, were positive: the Strykers were fast and quiet, allowing units to strike hard and reposition before insurgents could react. In urban patrols, the vehicle's relatively compact size - compared to a lumbering Bradley - and agility, let units navigate narrow streets and alleys that full meat and two veg infantry fighting vehicles struggled with. The remote weapon station proved its worth for urban combat too – gunners could engage rooftops and windows while staying nice and protected inside. However, back then, Iraq was also the land of the IED, and it's thanks to them, that the Styker's report card becomes less glowing. On the one hand, its speed and mobility sometimes allowed Stryker convoys to literally outrun the blast zone – as insurgents could trigger their IEDs too late, missing the vehicles entirely. But on the other hand, when a bomb did go off under a Stryker, the flat hull could only do so much, and in one early incident, a massive IED flipped a Stryker over, tragically killing soldiers inside. That said however, overall survivability was impressive for this new vehicle. Between December 2003 and October 2004, for example, Stryker units in Iraq survived at least 56 separate IED attacks with no loss of life to the crews. The vehicles were often damaged or even completely destroyed beyond repair, sure, but the crew compartments typically stayed intact enough to save those inside. Still though, it's notable that the Army responded by rushing out interim fixes: bolt-on belly armour plates, foam seating to cushion blasts, and as earlier mentioned, eventually a full hull redesign to give it that 'Double V' hull. There were further issues still, too, because at first, troops had issues with range and weight. Early Strykers, with all their add-ons, had become heavier than expected, straining the engine and suspension. In the heat of Iraq too, tyres wore out fast, and crews keeping on top of eight of the things was certainly not trivial. There were also times when Strykers got stuck in the mud or sand. Sure, it had all that fancy off-road gubbins' going for it, but wheels it still had touching the ground, not tracks, and so invariably it met its match from time to time. Combat in Afghanistan presented a different challenge set too. The first Strykers arrived there in 2009, with the 1st Battalion, 17th Infantry Regiment, and for them, the performance of their vehicles was mixed and often brutal. They provided superior mobility and protection compared to Humvees, for sure, but they were not invulnerable - and the Taliban quickly exploited their vulnerabilities. In the early phases of Operation Buffalo Stampede, and later during Opportunity Hold, for example, Stryker units encountered frequent and devastating IED attacks. While the vehicles had proven resilient in Iraq, the IED sophistication in Afghanistan was far more challenging. The heavily vegetated Arghandab 'Green Zone' allowed insurgents to conceal command-wired IEDs effectively along narrow paths and culverts. Strykers were repeatedly disabled or destroyed - often losing all eight tires in a single blast. One catastrophic example occurred when an IED flipped and incinerated a Stryker carrying a Captain Hallett and three others, killing all four instantly. This incident shattered an assumption then held by some that Strykers offered near-total protection against mines, despite their then semi-upgraded state, and forced commanders to reassess tactics. The battalion, for its part, eventually adapted, improving its IED clearance procedures and acquiring Canadian recovery vehicles to deal with total Stryker losses. But they remained vulnerable, and an asset that had to be VERY carefully deployed. Clearly, the flat-bottom Stryker needed an upgrade to deal with Afghan-scale IEDs, and indeed, that's exactly what they got, as it is experiences such as those of 1st Battalion which motivated the roll out of the 'Double-V Hull' in 2011. And once those DVH Strykers arrived, the difference was night and day. Soldiers reported that when a DVH Stryker hit a bomb, the vehicle might be blasted into the air or have axle damage, but the troop compartment usually stayed intact – often no one was killed or they had only minor injuries, where before it could have been catastrophic. Army statements later confirmed this: "Combat experience in Afghanistan showed that double-V hull Strykers significantly reduced casualties and injury severity… Soldiers often walked away from IED attacks on double-V hull vehicles". That's about as ringing an endorsement of a design tweak as you'll get. The Army quickly started converting whole brigades to DVH configuration as a result of this success, and by the mid-2010s, most active Stryker units had the newer hulls, and the National Guard brigades were getting them as of the 2020s. Aside from IEDs however, Strykers also dealt with RPG and small arms ambushes in both theatres. The slat armour we previously discussed often saved the day against RPG-7s, with there being multiple after-action reports of an RPG hitting the cage, detonating, and the Stryker rolling on with only superficial damage (except the bent cage). Despite this, however, troops grew to both love and hate those cages: love because they kept them alive, hate because they made the vehicle almost 3 feet wider, making squeezing through narrow streets or between obstacles - an often hair-raising exercise in geometry. Some crews improvised by removing sections or coming up with foldable portions. Eventually, the Army even procured Explosive Reactive Armor, ERA, kits for Strykers – purchasing 289 of them in 2005. These kits put small explosive tiles on the Stryker's sides to defeat RPGs without the bulky cage. However, ERA on a thin-skinned vehicle has its own issues, chief among which is weight, and so slat armour remained more common in Iraq. By Afghanistan, the threat had shifted far more to IEDs and long-range gunfire, so the focus there was on underbelly protection – as we've already discussed. In firefights, however, it was happy days, and Strykers performed EXACTLY as intended – as battle taxis that could bring infantry to the fight and support them with heavy machine gun fire. They are not infantry fighting vehicles to charge ahead alone however, and so Stryker doctrine emphasized dismounting the infantry to engage and using the vehicles as a base of fire and manoeuvre. In practice, some clever uses emerged: Strykers provided outer cordon security with their weapons and thermal viewers while troops cleared buildings; their mobility allowed quick repositioning to cut off enemy escape routes; and the loudspeaker systems on some Strykers were even used for psychological operations - blaring warnings, or in one case, blasting Metallica at insurgents. The relatively smaller profile and quieter engine of the Stryker, compared to a Bradley or tank, also made it a bit stealthier in night operations. On one occasion in Mosul, insurgents didn't realize a column of Strykers had moved into position down the street until illumination flares popped – and by then, it was too late. Maintenance-wise, combat taught some lessons. The Stryker's eight-wheel suspension took a beating on IED and heavily pot marked dirt roads; and many wheels and axles had to be replaced in field conditions – and so the Army soon learned to stock a lot of spare tires and parts forward. The vehicle's systems – hydraulics, electronics, etc – proved fairly reliable (96% operational readiness in the first Iraqi deployment, which is high), but any new system has teething troubles, and the Stryker was no exception to that rule. Early on, for example, there were software glitches in the comms and occasional malfunctions in the remote weapon station. Crews adapted quickly, however, and showed genuine affection for their Strykers. Many credited the vehicle with saving their lives multiple times. By the end of the 2010s, Strykers had seen thousands of combat engagements, and had come out of them with a… nuanced report card. Sure, it had generally excellent mobility on road, and off road too in all but the most dire of terrain, which it stacked up with decent enough protection for its class – especially after upgrades – and sufficient firepower for low to mid intensity fights, but still, vulnerability to heavier threats always remained. Even given that, however, there is no doubting that the Styker had transformed from the 'interim experiment' that many had written it off as, into a proven and perfectly competent workhorse – indeed, as much as its time in Iraq and Afghanistan is now a thing of the past, its notable that criticisms of it from authoritative sources nowadays – military personnel, analysts, and the like – is MUCH fewer and further between than it was 20 years ago. ## The Stryker Family One of the smartest aspects of the Stryker program, however, was designing not just one vehicle, but a whole family of vehicles on a common chassis. The result was a modular fleet sharing engines, suspension, and drivability - simplifying logistics, maintenance, and training across the board. Originally, ten core variants were fielded, with the 'default' one, i.e. the most numerous type, being the **M1126 Infantry Carrier Vehicle**. A battle taxi for a nine-man infantry squad and two crew, it mounts a remote weapon station with either an M2 .50 cal machine gun, an Mk19 grenade launcher, or a secondary M240 machine gun. It offers better protection and digital integration than the Humvee it replaced, and now also includes the option to fire a Javelin missile using the CROWS-J upgrade we mentioned earlier, giving it an unexpected anti-tank capability. Then there is the **M1127 Reconnaissance Vehicle**, which trades troop space for sensors and extra communications gear. Its key feature is the mast-mounted LRAS3 surveillance system, with thermal imaging, zoom optics, and a laser rangefinder. This setup allows scouts to observe and designate targets from up to 10 kilometres away. Though it retains the M1126's weapon station, the RV's true role is information gathering - playing forward observer and intelligence hub for the brigade. For delivering direct fire support, the **M1128 Mobile Gun System** mounted a 105mm tank cannon. While it could theoretically destroy bunkers and punch through defences, it suffered from recoil problems, a problematic autoloader, and poor survivability due to never getting the Double-V Hull upgrade. As a result, this one was a bit of a damp squib, and only 142 units were produced before the Army officially retired the type in 2022. The **M1129 Mortar Carrier Vehicle**, however, was far more successful, and it provides indirect fire support, carrying a 120mm mortar in a turntable mount inside the hull, as well as an 81mm or 60mm dismountable mortar. Its computerized fire control system enables crews to rapidly conduct fire missions, supporting infantry units with high-angle fire. These vehicles proved particularly valuable in mountainous environments like Afghanistan, where conventional artillery was less accessible. Serving as the mobile headquarters, the **M1130 Command Vehicle** is equipped with extensive communications and control systems, including satellite communication and secure data links. Inside, officers coordinate brigade and battalion operations from the field. Externally, it is easily recognisable thanks to its multiple antennas. Though it too mounts a weapon station, to which only a .50 cal or an M240 is mounted, this is for self-defence only, and its real job is ensuring battlefield coordination and networked command. Along a similar vein, the **M1131 Fire Support Vehicle** carries laser rangefinders, target designators, and battlefield observation equipment for directing artillery and air support. Often crewed by forward observers, it works in tandem with mortars and howitzers to deliver precision strikes. While it does carry either a .50 cal or a Mk.19 grenade launcher, like in the M1130, these too are for self-defence only. If it has to use these, something has gone wrong – its power lies in enabling others to shoot more accurately. The **M1132 Engineer Squad Vehicle**, is all the more hands on, and leads the charge through minefields and obstacle-laden routes. Outfitted with mine ploughs, rollers, and the capability to tow trailers or a M58 Mine-clearing Line Charge, it clears paths and marks safe lanes for the rest of the formation. It carries a full combat engineer squad along with breaching tools, demolition charges, and marking gear. Because of its high-risk role, it was one of the first variants to get upgraded armour and the 'Double V' hull. Then there's the **M1133 Medical Evacuation Vehicle**, which turns the Stryker into an armoured ambulance. It can transport six wounded personnel on stretchers, along with a team of medics and life-support gear. Used when helicopters can't fly, it drives directly into hot zones to retrieve casualties. Its only armament is a big red cross slapped on the side – Geneva convention and all that. The **M1134 Anti-Tank Guided Missile Vehicle**, however, as the name rather gives away, does have some teeth, and a bloody big set of them too in the form of a TOW-2 launcher mounted on a pedestal, with reloading and round storage being handled internally. This one delivers long-range anti-armour firepower and is capable of taking out tanks and fortified positions from four kilometres away. Ideally, it operates from ambush or standoff positions, providing essential overwatch against armoured threats. Finally, the **M1135 NBC Recon Vehicle** fills the role of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear detection. It carries radiation sensors, chemical samplers, air collectors, and an overpressure filtration system to protect the crew. It replaced the older M93 Fox in this role, and builds upon its capabilities thanks to the addition of real-time digital reporting to identify and mark contaminated areas. Ultimately, the Stryker's real strength lies not in what each vehicle does alone, but in what they do together. M1127's spot targets. M1131's guide precision strikes. M1129's deliver fire support. M1132's breach obstacles. M1126's spew out infantry to get stuck in. And the M1130 keeps them all talking while doing it. This is combined arms warfare, streamlined and compressed into a single family of platforms that look nearly identical but perform dramatically different roles. It's also worth noting that the US wasn't alone in adopting this modular approach too. Nations like Germany and France developed their own equivalents, like the Boxer and VBCI respectively, based on similar concepts. ## The Future Despite its origins as an "interim" vehicle, the Stryker has become one of the most adaptable platforms in the US Army inventory, and isn't going anywhere anytime soon – far from it in fact. What began as a quick fix has quietly matured into a core part of the Army's force structure, with new variants and upgrades continuing to roll out well beyond what anyone initially expected. The story didn't end with the original fleet—it just kept going. For example, the **Stryker A1 upgrade**, rolled out from 2017 onwards, gave the platform a new lease on life. It replaced the 350hp engine with a Caterpillar C9 pushing 450hp, reinforced the suspension to handle over 60,000 lbs, and added a 910-amp alternator to support growing electrical needs. Soldiers noticed the difference immediately: better hill climbing, smoother rides, and fewer power-related system failures. Then there is the **M1296 'Dragoon' variant**, created in 2018 in response to threats posed by Russian IFVs. It swapped out the .50 cal for a 30mm XM813 autocannon that sits in a remote turret, beside a co-axially mounted M240 for good measure, giving the Stryker the ability to both pierce armour and suppress targets well beyond 2,000 meters. This went down a storm too, and after its initial role out, the MCWS, Medium Caliber Weapon System, program began delivering even more Strykers with different 30mm turrets. These upgrades effectively pushed the Stryker from APC territory into IFV territory – albeit a rather light one. And speaking of the prospect of tangling with the Russians, another area of weakness highlighted was tactical level air defences. Enter the snappily named **M-SHORAD**, an air defence system jointly produced by General Dynamics, Leonardo DRS and Raytheon, that can handle cruise missiles, UAVs, low-flying, high-speed fixed-winged aircraft, and helicopters. The US Army began procuring this system from April 2021 and plonks them on top of boggo M-1126 variants. Why stop at missiles too? The **DE M-SHORAD** takes things a step further with a 50kW laser. Designed to fry drones, mortars, and incoming munitions, this laser system represents a SERIOUS leap in capabilities. Tested in 2021 and deployed experimentally in 2022, the laser Strykers are still maturing but show enormous promise. A key advantage too: cost-per-shot is nearly zero. A gallon of diesel can power dozens of zaps, as compared to the… much more than that that it'd cost to do the same with bullets and missiles, making this a cost-effective answer to cheap drone swarms. Then there's the **'Terrestrial Layer System-Brigade Combat Team'** variant produced by Lockheed Martin, which turns the Stryker into a rolling electronic warfare node. Outfitted with sensors, jammers, and signal intercept gear, these Strykers can locate, disrupt, and even spoof enemy communications and drone feeds. There's actually not that much information out there on this variant at all, but Lockheed Martin insist it absolutely is a thing… so there you go! The Army has also experimented with Active Protection System like Iron Curtain and StrikeShield for Strykers. So far, integration has proven difficult due to size, weight, and safety concerns, however, but the goal remains: protect against anti-tank guided missiles and RPGs with automated interception. While tanks like the Abrams now field APS like Trophy, Stryker's APS future likely lies in lightweight, possibly laser-based options currently in development. For now, crews rely on situational awareness, manoeuvre, and layers of armour and smoke. Then there's the Army's exploration of hybrid-electric Strykers for silent drive, lower heat signatures, and greater onboard power - ideal for energy-hungry systems like lasers, jammers, and command suites. Some Strykers may become drone command vehicles, or even unmanned platforms themselves. A robotic Stryker wingman that scouts ahead, draws fire, or deploys loitering munitions isn't as far-fetched as it sounds. Again, however, we don't know much about this one, the 'Stryker MCOTM' variant, as it has become known - MCOTM in this instance standing for Mission Command on the Move - was only unveiled publicly in October 2024, and General Dynamics reallllllllly haven't told us that much about it… ## Conclusion And so, that's about it for the Stryker. It was meant to be a stopgap. A temporary fix. A placeholder until something better came along. But more than two decades later, the Stryker is still here — upgraded, upgunned, and more essential than ever. It's fought in deserts and mountains, survived ambushes and IEDs, and hauled tens of thousands of troops into and out of combat zones across the world. Not bad for a wheeled box originally cobbled together from Canadian parts and political necessity. Sure, it's not perfect. It'll never be a tank, and it doesn't pretend to be. But as the battlefield keeps changing — with drones, lasers, electronic warfare, and high-speed, low-cost threats — the Stryker keeps adapting. It's not just surviving the 21st century. It's evolving with it. And that's why, from battlefield taxi to digital death wagon, the Stryker might not be the flashiest vehicle in the Army's garage… but it might just be the most versatile, and as long as the world keeps throwing new wars at America's doorstep, the Stryker will keep rolling. ## Key Takeaways - The Stryker was developed to fill a gap between heavy tanks and light Humvees. - The Stryker's design emphasizes mobility, protection, and digital warfare capabilities. - The Stryker has evolved significantly since its introduction, with upgrades like slat armor and V-shaped hulls. - The Stryker family includes various specialized vehicles, each built on a common chassis. - The Stryker's future includes advanced upgrades like 30mm cannons and laser systems. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What was the original purpose of the Stryker vehicle? The Stryker was developed to address the US Army's need for a medium-weight, air-deployable vehicle that could provide mobility, firepower, and protection, bridging the gap between heavy tanks and light Humvees. ### How did the Stryker get its name? The Stryker was named in honor of two Medal of Honor recipients who shared the same surname. ### What are the key features of the Stryker's design? The Stryker is an 8x8 wheeled vehicle weighing around 18–19 tons, powered by a 350hp Caterpillar diesel engine. It has a high-hardness steel hull, ceramic composite armor, and a remote weapon station. It is designed to be a digital node with GPS, advanced radios, and real-time battlefield awareness systems. ### What upgrades were made to the Stryker in response to IED threats? The Stryker was retrofitted with slat armor to detonate RPG warheads prematurely and a Double-V Hull to deflect blast force away from the crew, significantly reducing casualties from roadside bombs. ### How did the Stryker perform in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan? The Stryker performed well in urban patrols and provided mobility and protection, but faced challenges with IEDs and heavy threats. Upgrades like the Double-V Hull and slat armor improved its survivability, and it became a proven workhorse in various combat scenarios. ### What are the different variants of the Stryker? The Stryker family includes variants such as the Infantry Carrier Vehicle, Reconnaissance Vehicle, Mobile Gun System, Mortar Carrier Vehicle, Command Vehicle, Fire Support Vehicle, Engineer Squad Vehicle, Medical Evacuation Vehicle, Anti-Tank Guided Missile Vehicle, and NBC Recon Vehicle. ### What future upgrades are planned for the Stryker? Future upgrades include the Stryker A1 with a more powerful engine, the M1296 'Dragoon' with a 30mm autocannon, M-SHORAD for air defense, laser systems, electronic warfare capabilities, and hybrid-electric drive for silent operation and lower heat signatures. ### How has the Stryker evolved from its original design? The Stryker has evolved from an interim solution to a versatile platform with enhanced armor, firepower, and digital capabilities. It has adapted to modern threats with upgrades like the Double-V Hull, 30mm cannons, and laser systems, making it a core part of the US Army's force structure. ### What role does the Stryker play in combined arms warfare? The Stryker family of vehicles works together to provide a comprehensive suite of capabilities, including reconnaissance, fire support, command and control, engineering, medical evacuation, and anti-tank operations, enabling effective combined arms warfare. ### What is the significance of the Stryker's modular design? The Stryker's modular design allows for a family of vehicles sharing common components, simplifying logistics, maintenance, and training. This design enables the Stryker to adapt to various roles and threats, making it a versatile and essential platform for the US Army. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: Stryker: the US Army's Supercharged Infantry Carriers](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3SrDA5Boi8) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Oregon_Army_National_Guard%27s_41st_Infantry_Brigade_Combat_Team_%28IBCT%29_returned_home_to_Camp_Withycombe_on_July_19%2C_2025%2C_following_a_deployment_to_Kosovo_as_part_of_the_NATO-led_Kosovo_Force_%28KFOR%29_mission_-_21.jpg) by Oregon National Guard / openverse, by. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/su-47-berkut-russia-craziest-experimental-fighter-plane https://megaprojects.pub/article/su-47-berkut-russia-craziest-experimental-fighter-plane Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT It's the waning years of the 20th century, over the skies of the Russian Federation, and a wicked and beautiful machine has just taken flight. It's a strange machine, a chimera of aircraft design, intended not to simply fill in for an outdated predecessor on some far-flung military base, but to push the limits of modern engineering. Relying on unproven theories of highly sophisticated flight, taking a long-imagined concept into the pinnacle years of the jet age, the aircraft is more than just a natural next step in military aviation. Flying high over the city of Moscow, it's recognizable as a lethal weapon of war—but just barely recognizable, alongside the fighter aircraft that Russia, and the world, had previously thought possible. Its name is the Su-47 Berkut, and it is an experiment in more ways than one. As the world crossed a generational gap between the thundering fighter jets of the late Cold War, and the hyper-advanced machines that rule today, the Berkut wasn't destined to become the new king of the skies—but it was among the boldest, and most fascinating aircraft in the history of human flight. ## Designing a Chimera The seed of the Su-47 was first planted all the way back in the 1980s, when Russia was not yet Russia, and was instead the largest and most powerful member of the Soviet Union. In those waning years of great-power competition, the Soviets were still intent on maintaining direct parity with the United States of America—and the Americans had a real beast on the way, with the potential to beat the Soviets in the air for good. Back then, not much was known about the designs that would later evolve into the highly advanced F-22 Raptor, an aircraft that's now going on twenty years as the best fighter jet in human history. All that the Soviets knew, back in the early eighties, was that the so-called Advanced Tactical Fighter program was supposed to build something that would replace the iconic F-15 and F-16. Those fighters had been challenge enough for the Soviets, whose Su-27s and MiG-29s were just barely getting into front-line service in order to face them down. But now, there was something even more formidable on the way, and though the Soviets had little way of knowing the fine details on America's vision, they could at least work out the basics. The term itself, "fifth-generation fighter", was not yet a meaningful phrase by the 1980s; in fact, the 'generation' system wouldn't be proposed as a concept until 1990, and even then, the concept took some time to catch on. But America and Russia's most advanced fighter aircraft were at least roughly comparable, and it wasn't difficult to look at them, as they were, and figure out what sort of improvements would take precedence for a later aircraft. Any new-model planes would probably need to be highly maneuverable, while also capable of either keeping pace with those older aircraft or outrunning them. They would need to have advanced onboard technology and avionics, including significantly improved radar, and if at all possible, it would be fantastic if they could be stealthy. Some of the technology elements that would eventually feature in fifth-generation fighters like the F-22 and the later F-35, were still theoretical back in the eighties, but the general idea was straightforward: Build something that could compete with an American fighter that was going to be really good, but was going to be good in unpredictable ways. The Soviets began work on two answers to that challenge, rather than one, with each possible answer spearheaded by one of the country's two premier fighter aircraft design bureaus: Mikoyan, and Sukhoi. The Mikoyan bureau would produce a design of their own, the MiG 1.44, which we've already done a prior episode on, if you'd like to check it out after we're done here. That design would, broadly speaking, look to compete directly with what the Soviets had imagined to be a better version of the F-15 and F-16, complete with a delta wing, a reduced radar cross-section for limited stealthy flight, and some advanced engines and onboard technology. For the purposes of today's episode, we can understand it as a safer option: something that, if put into main-line production, would have very predictably been a step above Russia's existing fighter aircraft, even if it didn't beat out the Americans' Advanced Tactical Fighter in the long run. But the Sukhoi design bureau—well, they came at the challenge from a decidedly different angle, pun very much intended. Their design would be a testbed, packed with new and emerging technologies and design principles that, if they worked, could produce an aircraft unlike any other. It was a gamble, a high-risk, high-reward proposition—but for a Soviet Union that knew it was flagging in the grand marathon of the Cold War, it was a gamble Sukhoi was willing to take. It was named the Berkut, translating in English to 'golden eagle', and initially designated the Su-37. For the sake of clarity, we'll refer to the Berkut by the designation it would ultimately adopt: the Su-47. The most distinctive element of the 1980s-era design, and, indeed, of the eventual Su-47, were its forward-swept wings, a feature that had never been successfully integrated to a production-line jet aircraft. The idea wasn't a new one; forward-swept wing designs were developed into prototypes by nearly every major power during World War II, both Ally and Axis, with products including the Junkers Ju 287 and a forward-swept version of the P-51 Mustang. In the Cold War years, America proposed the XB-53 bomber, also with its wings forward-swept, plus a different forward-swept fighter aircraft prototype, the unsuccessful X-29. But despite the fact that the forward sweep had never been done successfully with a fighter aircraft of this sheer power, Sukhoi still had reason to believe it could work. Forward-swept-wing aircraft are highly maneuverable, especially at subsonic speeds, and Sukhoi quickly worked out that by adding not just static canards on the forward section of the aircraft, but moveable ones, it would become capable of even more exceptional aerobatic feats. Such a design would also allow for takeoff and landing on far shorter runways, with the plane generating lift so quickly that it could get off the ground in the blink of an eye. It would grant the plane an inherently longer range, and the forward sweep of the wing made the aircraft significantly more difficult to accurately identify as a threat via radar, when looking at it head-on. And finally, Sukhoi understood that the aircraft could integrate technology that was only just reaching readiness for use in advanced fighter aircraft: Thrust vectoring. That's a process by which aircraft engines, rockets, and other high-powered vehicles can change the angle of the thrust they generate. In an aircraft already so maneuverable as the Su-47 was going to be, the addition of thrust vectoring meant that the Berkut would be able to blast itself into impossibly tight turns once that technology could be fully integrated to the aircraft. Design on the Su-47 continued through the 1980s, but like so many other Soviet programs during that time, it was caught up in the collapse of the Soviet Union as a whole. By the late eighties, advanced weapons programs were no longer a priority in Moscow, and by 1991, Moscow had become the capital of the Russian Federation. Modern Russia didn't have the means to build two advanced fighter jets, and in fact, it couldn't even build one. The best it could do was to pick one of its two incubating designs and hold them for a later date, and in the early 1990s, the choice was clear. The MiG 1.44 had passed its critical design review at the very end of the Soviet era, and a technology demonstrator would almost certainly, at the very least, be able to fly. Again, this was an aircraft that represented the safe route, and with Russia trying to figure out how it would stumble through the next decade, opting for additional risk was simply not a good idea. Sukhoi got the news in the early days of the Russian Federation: all funds for the Su-47 would be frozen indefinitely, and Russia would no longer provide any support in developing a flyable aircraft. But although the Sukhoi bureau had seen its funding pulled, that wouldn't be the end of the Su-47. Initially, the Soviets had planned for a maiden flight of a prototype in 1991, with the hope of producing a first production series by 1996; that is to say, it *was* intended, at one point, as a potential addition to the Soviet Air Force. Now, with the Soviet Union in the rearview, Sukhoi was behind that schedule—but not too far behind. The technology involved in the Su-47 was too promising to abandon, the Sukhoi bureau had all the aircraft components it needed, and although Russia was in dire financial straits at that time—it wouldn't always be. Seeing the potential for the Kremlin to eventually reconsider under different circumstances, Sukhoi decided to go ahead with their experimental prototype, in hopes that when the Berkut was finally ready, Moscow would be presented with an offer that it couldn't refuse. ## Specs and Capabilities The aircraft known as the Berkut would never be pushed to its true limits in testing, and so some of the specifications we'll present in this episode are purely hypothetical. These are what the Su-47 *should* have been able to do, not what it *could* do. But the aircraft did fly, more than once, and given what it showed with the opportunities it was provided, it stands to reason that this full range of projected capabilities would have ultimately been realized. The Su-47 was a single-seat aircraft, measuring 22.6 meters from tip to tail, and 16.7 meters from wingtip to wingtip. That's about 74 feet long by about 55 feet wide. Sitting empty at a weight of a bit under 26 metric tons, the Su-47 could take off at weights up to 34 metric tons, powered by a pair of Soloviev D-30 turbofan engines, with afterburn capability. Those engines were built for future fitting with thrust-vectoring nozzles, capable of changing the angle of thrust in three dimensions, according to the demands of the pilot. Although it was rated only for flight at a speed limit of Mach 1.6—that's just shy of 2,000 kilometers per hour or 1,225 miles per hour—the Berkut was theoretically capable of flying far faster than that. Based on the capability of its engines and its overall mass, it would have been capable of hitting top speeds of 2,200 kilometers per hour or 1,400 miles per hour at altitude; that's Mach 2.21. At sea level, it was capable of supersonic flight at 1,400 kilometers per hour; that's Mach 1.12 or 870 miles per hour. Boasting a surface ceiling of 18,000 meters or just below sixty thousand feet, the Berkut could fly at a range of 3,300 kilometers or 2,100 miles, although its functional combat range was not established. It could reach its service ceiling in less than ninety seconds after takeoff at sea level, and it could pull nine g in a pinch, meaning that it could withstand nine times the usual forces of gravity without breaking apart under the strain. Although the aircraft never saw combat, it was capable of carrying weapons into the fight on a total of fourteen hardpoints, including up to six in an internal weapons bay. Those hardpoints were capable of mounting all manner of Russian and Soviet-era air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles. Although it was never fitted with an onboard gun, it likely would have received a 30mm autocannon—specifically the Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-30-1—if it had been built into a production-line model. After all, that's the same weapon featured onboard the Su-27, the Su-30, the Su-33, the Su-35, and the more recent Su-57, as well as the one planned for the MiG 1.44. The aircraft was fitted with a specialized seat, to help the pilot endure high g-load maneuvers that would usually be impossible to tolerate. That seat was inclined to a sixty-degree angle, used a specialized life-support system, and was eject-capable. Along with a planned mission radar and additional onboard radomes, the Su-47 integrated fly-by-wire technology, a process by which an electronic interface assists the pilot in making real-time micro-corrections during flight. Then, there were the wings. Built of light composite-fiber, the wings and the additional, moveable forward canards on the plane granted the Berkut extreme agility when operating at subsonic speeds. They enabled maneuver at high angle of attack, which basically means the angle formed by the direction of an aircraft's wing, on one side of the angle, and the direction of airflow against the aircraft, on the other side of the angle. That meant that the plane could perform impossibly tight turns, dodges, weaves, and other sophisticated maneuvers, while relying on the considerable thrust of its engines to practically blast out of trouble if it ever suffered too dramatic a loss in energy. These weren't the sort of changes that would simply let the Su-47 out-turn a competitor aircraft; they were the sort that would require both the Berkut's pilots, and adversary pilots, to re-learn the entire geometry of air-to-air engagements. Yet despite the intense focus on subsonic maneuverability, the wings didn't lose out on maneuverability at supersonic speeds either. The unique lift properties of the aircraft meant that it flew entirely differently than other planes, but the unique advantages of such an aircraft had incredible potential for its pilots, if they were able to master the physics involved. Finally, there's the question of stealth, for a prototype that took its first flight several months after the F-22 had been unveiled, at a Lockheed Martin facility in Marietta, Georgia. By then, any uncertainty on Russia's part about whether stealth would be part of the fifth generation of fighter aircraft, should have been entirely dashed—so was the Su-47 capable of keeping up in such an environment? Expert opinions on the matter are split, but it did have at least some things going for it. Because of the strange front-facing profile of the aircraft, radar trying to get a look at the thing from straight-on would have struggled to get a clear picture of what it was. It also featured an internal weapons bay, a critical element in reducing radar cross-section. But, on the other hand, the design itself didn't have many attributes that suggested that it would have been stealthy, while the protrusions and rough angles of its airframe, including its distinctive forward canards, would have made it far less likely to have a truly stealthy profile. Sources disagree on whether the Berkut might have been coated with radar-absorbent paint, and it's not clear whether the prototype would have been, even if such an element was slated for inclusion on a production-line aircraft. But as Russia has since found out with its Su-57, radar-absorbent paint by itself isn't quite enough to make something stealthy. Regardless, Russia's adversaries got a chance to find out; the Su-47 would eventually become a fixture of the air show circuit, at least for a short time, and while it's not known whether any other nations chose to point their radar at it while it was in midair, they certainly had the option to do so. ## Death on the Drawing Board The Berkut took its first flight on September the twenty-fifth, 1997, just twenty-two days after America's F-22 Raptor blasted into the air for the very first time. Despite the fall of an empire, despite having been cut off from funding and de-prioritized by the nation that built it, the Su-47 was, in that moment, still neck-and-neck with the end result of that same Advanced Tactical Fighter program that had seen the Berkut designed in the first place. The F-22 still wouldn't enter service for nearly another decade, although neither America nor Russia knew it at the time, and in an alternate history where Russia saw the Berkut, watched what it could do, and then slammed down on the gas pedal for main-line production, the Berkut could very well have beaten the Raptor to service. But any plans that Russia's most aspirational aerospace designers might have had, for a version of the Berkut that would one day rule the skies, ultimately died on the drawing board—and the process to kill that vision off, didn't take long. The Su-47 was a genuinely impressive technology demonstrator, and it did prove, perhaps better than any other aircraft in history, that a forward-swept-wing jet fighter could deliver on the high hopes of those who had designed it. Yet alongside its potential, came its problems—and a whole lot of them. On the one hand, there were all the straightforward logistical bits: just by example, the prototype had used grafted-on bits of the Su-27, including the vertical tails, the canopy, the landing gear, and part of the fuselage. That meant that there would have been substantially more design and testing needed in order to build a fully unique aircraft, and deal with some of the issues inherent with just slapping on parts of another plane. The aircraft also would have likely had to undergo at least some level of redesign after the F-22 was unveiled, considering that it was intended as a direct counter to the Raptor, but lacked the clear stealth features that made the F-22 so formidable. But there were also the fundamental issues stemming from the same feature that made the Berkut unique: its forward-swept wings. Although they gave the Berkut a significant maneuverability edge at subsonic speeds, including transonic speeds just at the edge of the sound barrier, they presented significant issues once the aircraft began to fly any faster. The design inherently placed the aircraft's wingtips under high strain, a problem that got far worse when dealing with the sort of air resistance a plane deals with at supersonic speeds. The wings were built to bend and twist, and that was all well and good at subsonic speeds, but with such force at supersonic speeds, the wings risked snapping off. Add to that the increased stress to the wings that would inevitably come, when they were loaded with weapons—and it was just too much. A traditional aft-swept wing has no such problems, and while the Berkut could beat an aft-swept adversary fighter in a subsonic dogfight, there's not much practical sense in bothering to claim that victory. In order to leverage a subsonic advantage, you've got to make an adversary aircraft agree to slow down to subsonic speeds—something that, on the one hand, they wouldn't voluntarily do for a dogfight in the first place, and that on the other hand, they *definitely* wouldn't do, as soon as they saw that the aircraft that they were facing was a Berkut. And even the basic presumption that high maneuverability would be such an asset in the 21st century, had also turned out to be false. The Berkut would be facing down aircraft that could target it with missiles from beyond visual range, and that might not even show up on the Berkut's radar, depending on the aircraft an enemy pilot was flying. Could the Berkut slow down to subsonic speeds, just in time to start doing complicated aerobatic dodges to avoid extremely tight-turning missiles? Probably not, and even if they could, what was the point? An adversary aircraft would just send more missiles, and when they ran out, they'd be so far away, and in some cases so hard to detect, that the Berkut would never catch them in time to dish out payback. And when it came to the idea of a true, head-to-head faceoff against the aircraft the Berkut was meant to counter—it would be no contest. The F-22 could pull nine gs too, it could fly higher and for just as long, it could outrun the Berkut at both altitude and sea level, and its supercruise was significantly faster than the Berkut was even allowed to fly. More important, the amount of redesign needed to make the Berkut stealthy meant that any large-scale production run of the aircraft, at least the version of it that Russia unveiled to the world, would just be producing a series of sitting ducks. On radar, the F-22 shows up no bigger than a bumblebee; it can engage targets from well beyond visual range; and if it ever did have to get close enough for a Berkut pilot to spot it with the naked eye, it could nullify all the Berkut's maneuverability advantages by simply continuing to fly at normal speeds, knowing that even though the pilot could see it, the Berkut's internal systems still couldn't get a lock. The race to develop a fifth-generation fighter was over, and Russia hadn't just come up short; with the Berkut, they'd tried to run the race by going entirely in the wrong direction. Of course, that's not to say the Berkut never did anything at all. It showed up several times at Russian and international airshows, generating well-deserved fascination and elevating the profile of Russian aeronautical design, especially amongst onlookers who weren't troubled by all the fine details. It became a much-needed symbol of national pride for the Russian Federation during the late 1990s and the early 2000s, a difficult time when heightened morale, from any source, was much needed. It would spawn a spiritual successor, also featuring forward-swept wings, in the form of the KB SAT SR-10, a single-copy jet trainer aircraft that another Russian design bureau is trying to get picked up by the Russian Air Force. No luck yet, on that front. It proved that forward-swept-wing designs were a reasonable way to design a jet aircraft, demonstrating characteristics that may not be ideal for an air superiority fighter, but line up well with other combat roles like, by example, a fast ground-attack aircraft; defense contractors, take notes. And finally, technical elements of the Su-47 would live on in its successor, the beleaguered, but verifiably flight-capable Su-57, as well as the purported next plane after that, the Su-75. But the bold experiment that was the Su-47 Berkut, was an experiment that failed in the end. It entered a contest its home nation couldn't quite finish in one piece, it attempted to propose radical solutions to emerging problems but ultimately fell flat. The Su-47 was one-of-a-kind, truly unprecedented, perhaps never to be matched again—but sometimes, that's simply not enough. ## Key Takeaways - The Su-47 Berkut was an experimental Soviet/Russian fighter jet designed in the 1980s to compete with the U.S. Advanced Tactical Fighter program. - The Su-47 featured forward-swept wings, which provided high maneuverability at subsonic speeds but faced structural issues at supersonic speeds. - Development was halted due to the collapse of the Soviet Union, but Sukhoi continued work, hoping for future support. - The Su-47 demonstrated impressive capabilities in testing but ultimately failed to meet the requirements of modern air combat, particularly in stealth and supersonic performance. - Despite its flaws, the Su-47 influenced future Russian aircraft designs and served as a symbol of national pride during a challenging period. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is the Su-47 Berkut? The Su-47 Berkut is an experimental fighter plane developed by Russia, known for its distinctive forward-swept wings and advanced flight technologies. ### When was the Su-47 Berkut first flown? The Su-47 Berkut took its first flight on September 25, 1997. ### What were the unique design features of the Su-47 Berkut? The Su-47 Berkut featured forward-swept wings, moveable canards, and thrust-vectoring nozzles, which were intended to enhance its maneuverability and performance. ### What were the intended capabilities of the Su-47 Berkut? The Su-47 Berkut was designed to be highly maneuverable, capable of supersonic flight, and equipped with advanced avionics and weapons systems. It could theoretically reach speeds of Mach 2.21 at altitude and Mach 1.12 at sea level. ### Why was the Su-47 Berkut not put into production? The Su-47 Berkut faced numerous challenges, including structural issues with its forward-swept wings, lack of stealth features compared to the F-22 Raptor, and the financial difficulties of post-Soviet Russia. ### What role did the Su-47 Berkut play in Russian aeronautical design? The Su-47 Berkut served as a technology demonstrator, proving the feasibility of forward-swept wings in jet aircraft and inspiring future designs like the Su-57 and KB SAT SR-10. ### How did the Su-47 Berkut compare to the F-22 Raptor? The F-22 Raptor had superior stealth capabilities, speed, and range compared to the Su-47 Berkut. The Berkut's maneuverability advantages were outweighed by the Raptor's advanced technologies. ### What was the significance of the Su-47 Berkut's forward-swept wings? The forward-swept wings of the Su-47 Berkut were intended to provide exceptional maneuverability at subsonic speeds, but they also presented structural challenges at supersonic speeds. ### What was the intended combat role of the Su-47 Berkut? The Su-47 Berkut was designed to be an air superiority fighter, capable of engaging and defeating enemy aircraft in dogfights. However, its limitations in stealth and supersonic performance made it less effective in this role. ### What was the impact of the Su-47 Berkut on Russian national pride? The Su-47 Berkut became a symbol of national pride for Russia during the late 1990s and early 2000s, showcasing the country's aeronautical capabilities despite its financial struggles. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: The Su-47 Berkut: Russia’s Craziest Experimental Fighter Plane](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH-M0qaP1YU) - [https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/s37/?cf-view](https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/s37/?cf-view) - [https://premium.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/su-47.htm](https://premium.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/su-47.htm) - [https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/ASPJ/journals/Chronicles/rosario.pdf](https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/ASPJ/journals/Chronicles/rosario.pdf) - [https://www.ausairpower.net/TE-ATF-91.html](https://www.ausairpower.net/TE-ATF-91.html) - [https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA166724](https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA166724) - [https://web.archive.org/web/20161211062747/http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj90/win90/1win90.htm](https://web.archive.org/web/20161211062747/http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj90/win90/1win90.htm) - [https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russias-mig-144-stealth-fighter-nightmare-ended-badly-211681](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russias-mig-144-stealth-fighter-nightmare-ended-badly-211681) - [https://www.airandspaceforces.com/PDF/MagazineArchive/Documents/1997/July%201997/0797raptor.pdf](https://www.airandspaceforces.com/PDF/MagazineArchive/Documents/1997/July%201997/0797raptor.pdf) - [https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/sukhoi-su-47-golden-eagle-russias-first-stealth-fighter-failure-207601#:~:text=The%20Su%2D47%20is%20thus,correction%20or%20a%20timely%20cancellation](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/sukhoi-su-47-golden-eagle-russias-first-stealth-fighter-failure-207601#:~:text=The%20Su%2D47%20is%20thus,correction%20or%20a%20timely%20cancellation) - [https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/su-47-russias-forward-swept-wing-wonder-fighter-never-was-207996](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/su-47-russias-forward-swept-wing-wonder-fighter-never-was-207996) - [https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russias-su-47-berkut-fighter-had-backwards-wings-reason-210742](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russias-su-47-berkut-fighter-had-backwards-wings-reason-210742) - [https://warriormaven.com/history/su-47-fighter-jet](https://warriormaven.com/history/su-47-fighter-jet) - [https://www.19fortyfive.com/2023/05/su-47-the-stealth-fighter-russias-air-force-said-no-to/](https://www.19fortyfive.com/2023/05/su-47-the-stealth-fighter-russias-air-force-said-no-to/) - [https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a28834443/su-47-berkut/](https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a28834443/su-47-berkut/) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Berkute_%28cropped%29.jpg) by westanmese / openverse, by-sa. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/taeyangho-train-kim-jong-un-fortress-on-rails https://megaprojects.pub/article/taeyangho-train-kim-jong-un-fortress-on-rails Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT On the 27th of February, 2019, a summit took place in the Vietnamese capital of Hanoi between North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un and then-U.S President Donald Trump. There was much about the summit which was unusual. For one thing, a bilateral meeting between leaders of both countries was rare and had only occurred once before — the previous year, in fact, when the same two figures had met in Singapore. The fact that the meeting was taking place in Vietnam was strange too, some analysts concluding that this was due to its relatively friendly relations with North Korea, and an attempt by Trump to massage relations with a country with which the US had relatively recently been at war. But perhaps strangest of all was the fact that Kim Jong-Un had made the journey from North Korea to Vietnam — along with his entourage — entirely by train. Yes, the sprawling journey across the vast Chinese hinterland from Pyongyang to Hanoi — a route of some 4,000 kilometres — had taken Kim Jong-Un sixty-five hours: significantly more time than the summit ended up lasting. But before anyone would be tempted to believe that this mammoth route was conducted by train out of respect for the environment, or to demonstrate the superior rail connectivity linking the three countries, neither one of these was the case. Because in actual fact, both leaders had travelled to Vietnam in their preferred — and most secure — mode of transport, one reserved for the exclusive use of the head of state and held as the best protection for them against would-be attacks. For the U.S, this was the Boeing VC-25 — a one-of-a-kind aeroplane built to transport US Presidents since 1990, often better known by its call sign Air Force One. But for North Korea, this is the Taeyangho, a massive armoured train complete with weapons and defence systems, munitions departments and dormitories, and which often goes by its own nickname, the 'Moving Fortress'. ## Origins of the Taeyangho The Taeyangho trains have a long and storied history in the transport of North Korea's governing Kim dynasty. With its name coming from the Korean word for the sun, the first Taeyangho came into use soon after the establishment of the state in the early 1950s, for the personal transit of the first Supreme Leader of North Korea, Kim Il-Sung. It is thought that the reason for its development was due to the elder Kim's dislike of flying, but may have also been a nod to the first international gift he received on route to power: a train carriage donated by Joseph Stalin in 1945. One way or another, the first Supreme Leader of North Korea continued to use the trains extensively throughout his life, both inside North Korea and outside. He even used the Taeyangho to travel all the way from North Korea to Eastern Europe in 1984, where he visited every single socialist country in the Eastern Bloc on a marathon train tour. Still, the first Supreme Leader was not averse to using air transport and began to do so more extensively later in life, such as by travelling to Moscow to meet with Mikhail Gorbachev in 1986. But the trend of using armoured trains continued with his son and successor, Kim Jong-Il, who was known to have a keen fear of flying, and who is thought to have died on board one of these trains in 2011. And it would appear that, despite advances in aerial, maritime, and overland transport, the use of the Taeyangho has not abated with Kim Jong-Un, who uses the trains every bit as often as his father and grandfather did. With that said, the current leader — like his grandfather — is known to use air travel on select occasions, having done so on visits to both China and Singapore, and even being shown piloting an Antonov An-148 aeroplane in state media footage from 2014. In fact, Kim Jong-Un does dispose of his own private plane, which he could use on overseas visits if he chose to. Known as Chammae-1 (the word for the national bird of North Korea, the goshawk), his personal craft is a Russian-made Ilyushin-62 from the Cold War era. But given the age of the model, analysts question its reliability as well as its possible vulnerability to attack. And for a leader as security-conscious as Kim Jong-Un, vulnerability in transit is not a matter likely to be taken very lightly. So naturally, one would say, the answer to this would be to find a new model of plane — one with upgraded defensive capabilities and cutting radar and threat-detection equipment. Wrong. One strategy used by the Supreme Leader is to simply set off a decoy Chammae-1 to fool a would-be attacker into tracking that plane instead of his own. On at least one occasion, the Chammae flew out from Pyongyang while Kim Jong-Un was safely aboard an Air China 747, a courtesy from North Korea's ally, the People's Republic of China. But the more common strategy used by Kim Jong-Un to ensure his protection on his rare trips abroad is to travel instead by train, specifically the Taeyangho, due to its defensive capacities. And defensive capabilities it certainly has — in droves. ## Breakdown and Analysis The train length varies according to the number of carriages it carries, but is generally between 10 and 20 carriages, amounting to a length of between 310 metres and 560 metres. By any metric, an absolutely gargantuan train. The train's nickname, 'The Moving Fortress', is certainly appropriate. In short, it is an army barracks and munitions depot on wheels. The train is equipped with short and medium range weaponry, as well as with extensive small arms. Its carriages are complete with bulletproof windows and its walls and floors are reinforced with steel plates to protect against explosive attacks. Its main armament consists of defensive weapons such as anti-air and anti-tank guided missiles, and its secondary armament includes mounted machine guns, as well as up to a hundred military personnel. Furthermore, its carriages include a space for at least one Mercedes-Benz S-Class (the preferred vehicle of Kim Jong-Un), as well as a US-made MD 500C helicopter — reportedly illegally obtained — to facilitate escape in the case of attack. Perhaps given how laden it is with weapons and with guards, the train is extremely slow, reportedly crawling along at a paltry 55 kilometres per hour. This explains the length of Kim Jong-Un's travel across China to meet Donald Trump, a journey which — normally — would be accomplishable by train in much shorter time, given China's saturation with high-speed rail services. The Moving Fortress also monopolises transport in locations it travels through. It is thought that there are a total of 19 railway stations across North Korea which are accessible only by the Taeyangho, and it is also known that the electricity of railway stations being used by the train is turned off when the train is nearby, in order to inhibit the movement of any other trains from its surrounding area. This is something which has been done even abroad, and the passage of the Taeyangho is also accompanied by a complete media blackout in order to keep the journey obscured. Kim Jong Il's trip to China in 2003, for example, wasn't announced until days after it occurred. And when he travelled to Russia in 2009, local photographers were reportedly banned from documenting the journey, and entire towns in Siberia were instructed to remain indoors until the train safely passed. It is also thought that the train does not travel singularly, and that two other trains travel together with the Taeyangho in a three-train set: one to check the tracks and which travels ahead by around seven minutes, and another to follow up the Supreme Leader's carriages with logistical support, including Soviet-made Il-76 transport planes and Mi-17 helicopters. According to the South Korean outlet Chosun Ilbo, this can result that the total train convoy comprises as many as 90 rail cars. In addition, when departing abroad, an advance group of North Korean operatives will travel ahead of the set in order to inspect outlying train stations, sweep them for potential threats, and make all necessary disruptions to its regular service in order to facilitate the bypass of the Supreme Leader. There are two crossing points with neighbouring countries which the Taeyangho uses, one of these being the Sino-Korean Friendship bridge located at the border with China, and the other being a bridge on the border with Russia close to the eastern Russian city of Vladivostock, which is — creatively — also known as the Friendship bridge. Meanwhile, the train is thought to have a decidedly opulent interior, and a lavish travelling experience for its passengers. According to former Russian military commander Konstantin Pulikovsky, who rode with Kim Jong-Il on the train in 2001, it was possible to "order any dish of Russian, Chinese, Korean, Japanese and French cuisine" onboard. The train features a restaurant serving fine French wines and dishes such as fresh lobster, which Pulikovsky claimed were transported to the train during its transit to ensure the availability of fresh delicacies, while cases of red wine from Bordeaux and Burgundy were also flown in from Paris. The train also has a karaoke room and several lavish halls allowing for entertainment and relaxation on board. Kim Jong-Un has also been known to welcome dignitaries and heads of state on board the train when travelling abroad, with a Chinese delegation being photographed conversing with the Supreme Leader in one of the train's salons in 2018. Admittedly, travelling abroad is not something the Supreme Leader does very often, with his next known visit abroad after the Vietnam trip coming a full four years later, when he travelled to meet with Vladimir Putin in Russia. And once again, he did so on board the Taeyangho. Now, it must be said that there is a certain logic to the rather obsessive use of train transport by North Korea. Owing to the development of flight trackers, trains have been judged by military analysts to be a safer and stealthier way of travelling for world leaders, especially in hostile countries or in warzones. As an example, travel to Ukraine by aeroplane has been largely curtailed since the beginning of Russia's ground invasion, with figures such as President Joe Biden and Ukraine's own President Volodymyr Zelensky generally having travelled in Ukraine by rail. Some reports have suggested that even Vladimir Putin has travelled more regularly by rail since 2021 due to concerns about his own security. In short, irrespective of any technological advancements taking place in the field of transport or indeed of military defence, it seems that the use of the Moving Fortress as the preferred means of travel for the leader of the People's Democratic Republic of North Korea is unlikely to change anytime soon. ## Key Takeaways - Kim Jong-Un traveled by train from North Korea to Vietnam for a summit with Donald Trump in 2019. - The Taeyangho, known as the 'Moving Fortress,' is an armored train used by North Korean leaders for secure travel. - The train is equipped with extensive weaponry, defensive systems, and luxurious amenities for the leader's comfort. - Kim Jong-Un's train journey to Vietnam took 65 hours, highlighting the train's slow speed due to its heavy defenses. - The Taeyangho's use is preferred for its stealth and security, especially in potentially hostile environments. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is the Taeyangho? The Taeyangho is a massive armored train used by North Korean leaders, complete with weapons, defense systems, munitions departments, and dormitories. It is often referred to as the 'Moving Fortress'. ### Who first used the Taeyangho train? The first Taeyangho came into use soon after the establishment of the state in the early 1950s for the personal transit of the first Supreme Leader of North Korea, Kim Il-Sung. ### Why does Kim Jong-Un prefer the Taeyangho over other modes of transport? Kim Jong-Un prefers the Taeyangho due to its defensive capabilities and the security it provides against potential attacks. The train is equipped with extensive weaponry and defensive systems. ### How long did Kim Jong-Un's journey from Pyongyang to Hanoi take by train? Kim Jong-Un's journey from Pyongyang to Hanoi by train took 65 hours, covering a distance of approximately 4,000 kilometers. ### What are some of the defensive features of the Taeyangho? The Taeyangho is equipped with short and medium-range weaponry, anti-air and anti-tank guided missiles, mounted machine guns, and up to a hundred military personnel. Its carriages have bulletproof windows and reinforced steel plates. ### How does the Taeyangho ensure the safety of its route? The Taeyangho's passage is accompanied by a complete media blackout and the electricity of railway stations is turned off to inhibit the movement of other trains. Additionally, advance groups inspect stations for threats and disrupt regular service. ### What is the interior of the Taeyangho like? The Taeyangho has a lavish interior with a restaurant serving fine French wines and dishes, a karaoke room, and several halls for entertainment and relaxation. It also features a space for a Mercedes-Benz S-Class and a US-made MD 500C helicopter. ### How many carriages does the Taeyangho typically have? The Taeyangho typically has between 10 and 20 carriages, making it between 310 meters and 560 meters long. ### What is the speed of the Taeyangho? The Taeyangho travels at a speed of approximately 55 kilometers per hour. ### What other trains accompany the Taeyangho during its journeys? The Taeyangho is often accompanied by two other trains: one that travels ahead to check the tracks and another that follows with logistical support, including transport planes and helicopters. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: The Taeyangho Train: Kim Jong-Un’s Fortress on Rails](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2pF9k1UATI) - [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/9/12/kim-jong-uns-moving-fortress-armoured-train-what-to-know](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/9/12/kim-jong-uns-moving-fortress-armoured-train-what-to-know) - [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44054024](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44054024) - [https://www.npr.org/2023/09/11/1198781448/kim-jong-un-vladimir-putin-meeting-north-korea-russia](https://www.npr.org/2023/09/11/1198781448/kim-jong-un-vladimir-putin-meeting-north-korea-russia) - [https://www.nknews.org/2019/02/like-father-like-son-a-train-journey-across-siberia-with-kim-jong-il/](https://www.nknews.org/2019/02/like-father-like-son-a-train-journey-across-siberia-with-kim-jong-il/) - [https://youtu.be/JHi6vuikhZ0?si=k3xe1GJSx-UaqPWZ](https://youtu.be/JHi6vuikhZ0?si=k3xe1GJSx-UaqPWZ) - [https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/donald-trumps-north-korea-gambit-what-worked-what-didnt-and-whats-next](https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/donald-trumps-north-korea-gambit-what-worked-what-didnt-and-whats-next) - [https://www.distance.to/Pyongyang,PRK/Hanoi,VNM](https://www.distance.to/Pyongyang,PRK/Hanoi,VNM) - [https://simpleflying.com/kim-jong-un-private-jet/](https://simpleflying.com/kim-jong-un-private-jet/) - [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47366398.amp](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47366398.amp) - [https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-nov-25-fg-gifts25-story.html](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-nov-25-fg-gifts25-story.html) - [https://www.npr.org/2023/09/11/1198781448/kim-jong-un-vladimir-putin-meeting-north-korea-russia](https://www.npr.org/2023/09/11/1198781448/kim-jong-un-vladimir-putin-meeting-north-korea-russia) - [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/09/11/kim-jong-un-armored-train-north-korea-putin/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/09/11/kim-jong-un-armored-train-north-korea-putin/) - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nO49DYEm07g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nO49DYEm07g) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Impeached_Arrested_Convicted_Shot_-_Still_Standing_-_Trump_2024_%2854031599156%29.jpg) by Tony Webster / openverse, by. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler https://megaprojects.pub/article/the-big-problem-with-a-bering-strait-crossing https://megaprojects.pub/article/the-big-problem-with-a-bering-strait-crossing Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT As different as the U.S. and Russia may seem, there's not much that divides the two countries. Just fifty-three miles, or eighty-three kilometers, to be exact. The Bering Strait, the smallest divide between the U.S. and Russia, is a narrow strip of water that separates Alaska from Siberia. During the last ice age, about eleven thousand years ago, water levels dropped low enough to form a land bridge between the two continents. Known as Beringea, this geographical phenomenon allowed humans and animals to migrate across, then it promptly disappeared with rising sea levels. Proposals for a railway tunnel and highway bridge to span its width have brought focus back on the strait since the industrial age. This proposed megaproject has spurred much interest since it was first proposed in the late 19th century. Now, nearly 200 years later, the plan's supporters are just as enthusiastic about seeing it completed as ever, even if the plan itself is nowhere closer to being reality. But enough teasing, let's get strait to the point: today we will take a look at the Bering Strait Crossing, the attempt to connect America and Russia. ## History In 1846, the governor of the Colorado territories proposed a "Cosmopolitan Railway" that would start in Colorado, go up to the Western shores of Alaska, and link all the continents together via the Bering Strait. In 1890, the designer of the Golden Gate bridge used his college thesis to draw up blueprints for a Siberian-Alaskan railway bridge. In 1906, Tsar Nicholas II even proposed a Bering Strait Bridge Project, but it was abandoned at the onset of World War I. After the Bolshevik Revolution brought the communist party to power, relations between the U.S. and Russia took a turn for the worse for much of the twentieth century. Calls for a bridge or tunnel to be built continued on during this time from both Russian and American scientists, engineers, and businessmen. For example, in the 1960s, Chinese-American engineer Tung Yen Lin drew up plans for an International Peace Bridge to span the gap between the divided countries. As the diplomatic ice age of the Cold War thawed and relations between America and Russia improved, more serious calls brought together like minds in support of the connection. Their wants were not outlandish. After all, projects of similar scale had been completed before. The Suez Canal was completed in 1869. The Panama Canal was built in 1914. The English Channel tunnel was completed in 1994. Megaprojects had built the world of the 20th century. Massive skyscrapers filled cities. Newer modes of transportation were taking humans around the world. And infrastructure projects connected parts of the world long viewed as far apart. As the 21st century rolled around, people began asking why we couldn't do the same in the Bering Strait. Participants of an international conference in Moscow in 2007 lobbied member-nations of the G8 to make it a priority. In 2009, the administration of then-Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, conducted studies for the feasibility of rail transit to a Bering Strait tunnel. In 2015, Vladimir Yakunin, head of Russian Railways, unveiled detailed plans he had drawn up of a high-speed railway system through Siberia, ending at the mouth of a tunnel that would, ideally, connect to Alaska. ## Design The idea of a Bering Strait connection has cropped up many times over the years. The two forms it often takes is of a railway tunnel or of a highway bridge. Various companies have put forth plans or offered funding for the project many times. But the ideas seldom make it out of the planning stage. Given how the ideas for a bridge or tunnel frequently switch, the discussion around this megaproject often lumps the two together. However, to make it practical, the project would only be able to include one of the two. No matter what the final project ends up including, the implications of it are exciting to consider. It could mean a truly worldwide rail network, or car travel from New York to London or even Miami to Johannesburg being possible. What makes this ambitious project possible are two small islands that sit in the middle of the Bering Strait. These two neighboring islands would serve as anchor points for the bridge or as exhaust outlets and stations for the railway tunnel along the 50-plus mile-long expanse. The proposed plans for the railway tunnel, as they stand today, often use the English Channel tunnel as a comparison. Although the Bering Strait is more than twice the length, its deepest point is around 200 feet (58 meters), which is comparable to that of its European counterpart. ## Funding Challenges Building the tunnel or the bridge alone would cost around $25 to $100 billion. But the two options are only part of a bigger picture. For example, if the plan moved forward with the railway tunnel, the ideal endpoint would be a worldwide railroad network: an international system that would connect all the major rail lines of the world from Europe to Asia to North America. The idea for a "Cosmopolitan Railway" proposed by the Colorado Territories governor all those years ago has stuck around. This Bering Strait connection would serve as just a link in the bigger chain. Estimates of the cost of this worldwide railroad network exceed $1 trillion. According to proponents of the project, oil pipelines would accompany the connection. This, and increased transport along the route, would allow Russia, the U.S. and Canada to exchange millions more barrels of oil. Supporters cite the revenue brought in from the increased energy and oil trade as a source of funding that could help the project pay for itself. ## Logistical Challenges The land on either side of the Bering Strait is known for its frozen, barren, untouched wilderness. This means it has a conspicuous lack of roads and railways leading to the points where the tunnel or the bridge would start. Over 12,500 miles of new roads or railroads would need to be built. For the highway bridge to work, the first step would be to extend the current northernmost point of the Alaskan Highway in Fairbanks to the western shores of Nome, 250 miles away. Building a road between the two cities would mean spanning more than half the state of Alaska with a road through icy, desolate terrain. The railway system in western Alaska is not much better. And that's not to mention the extensive railway or highway systems that would need to span Siberia as well. The Chukotka region of Russia is slightly larger than Texas, but only contains around 50,000 people. This means that existing infrastructure is almost nonexistent. The closest Russian railway to the Bering Strait is over two thousand miles away. The closest road is better, at only fifteen hundred miles, but it is unpaved. This is when the proponents of the project step in again. According to some sources, the Russian government is planning to expand railway networks into the Siberian provinces. A prime example: Moscow and Beijing started the construction of a high-speed railway line that will connect the two cities. This railway would measure about 4,340 miles (7,000 km) and would traverse the tundra of Siberia. Dr. Hal Cooper is an infrastructure expert and one of the project's most outspoken proponents. He claims that though the entire worldwide railroad network project will total over $1 trillion, "that's as much as the U.S. will spend on the Iraq War, for which there will be no measurable benefit for anyone." Or, as *The Atlantic* magazine puts it, connecting the two continents brings together cultures with different civic values. These opposing values have proven to be another barrier to the project. Though relations have thawed in the time since the end of the Cold War, they have recently regained an icy edge. ## Environmental Challenges But what often gets overlooked in the face of infrastructure, funding, and diplomacy is a megaproject's effect on the environment. As the Beringea land bridge played an important role in the migration of humans and land animals all those thousands of years ago, the Bering Strait does the same for marine life today. Sea mammals ranging from whales to seals depend on the Bering Strait for their migration patterns. Extensive construction and new obstacles, like bridge pillars or tunnel ventilation shafts, could disturb these patterns. This risks causing an unpredictable effect on the ocean food chain. Fish populations in the Bering Strait area serve as a source of sustenance for the indigenous communities. These communities have lived in the area for thousands of years. Disturbing fish populations could upset the indigenous food source and disrupt their rituals. Marine life wouldn't be the only wildlife affected. Land animals and their habitats would also face disruption. New roads or railways, years of construction work, and increased transport through the region would all bring changes. With that increased transport would come increased emissions. Changes like this would release significant pollution to an area largely untouched by modern infrastructure. However, preemptive studies to examine the effects of the project on the surrounding wildlife and habitats could mitigate much of the feared damage. Altering the design of the bridge and tunnel to have as little impact on the land and marine ecosystems as possible would also lessen any negative effects. And for the construction process itself, using methods to help noise reduction and strategies to avoid soil erosion could help mitigate much of its impact. Though this project faces many considerable obstacles and is decades away from being a reality, the idea has stuck around for over a century now. The Bering Strait connection has the potential to bring the economies, infrastructure, and cultures of not just two countries, but two continents closer together. ## Key Takeaways - The Bering Strait, just 53 miles wide, has been proposed for a railway tunnel or highway bridge. - Historical proposals for a Bering Strait crossing date back to the late 19th century. - The project faces significant funding challenges, with estimated costs ranging from $25 to $100 billion. - Logistical hurdles include building over 12,500 miles of new roads or railways in remote, icy terrains. - Environmental concerns involve potential disruptions to marine life migration patterns and indigenous communities. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is the Bering Strait? The Bering Strait is a narrow strip of water that separates Alaska from Siberia, spanning just fifty-three miles or eighty-three kilometers. ### What is the history of proposals for a Bering Strait Crossing? Proposals for a railway tunnel and highway bridge to span the Bering Strait have been discussed since the late 19th century. Notable proposals include a 'Cosmopolitan Railway' in 1846, a Siberian-Alaskan railway bridge in 1890, and a Bering Strait Bridge Project proposed by Tsar Nicholas II in 1906. ### What are the two main forms the Bering Strait Crossing has been proposed in? The Bering Strait Crossing has been proposed as either a railway tunnel or a highway bridge. ### What are the funding challenges associated with the Bering Strait Crossing? Building the tunnel or the bridge alone would cost around $25 to $100 billion. The total cost for a worldwide railroad network, including the Bering Strait connection, is estimated to exceed $1 trillion. ### What are the logistical challenges for the Bering Strait Crossing? The land on either side of the Bering Strait is largely untouched wilderness with a lack of roads and railways. Over 12,500 miles of new roads or railroads would need to be built, and existing infrastructure in the region is almost nonexistent. ### What environmental challenges does the Bering Strait Crossing face? The project could disturb migration patterns of marine life, affect indigenous communities' food sources, disrupt land animal habitats, and increase emissions and pollution in the area. ### What is the significance of the two small islands in the Bering Strait? The two small islands in the middle of the Bering Strait would serve as anchor points for the bridge or as exhaust outlets and stations for the railway tunnel. ### What is the potential economic impact of the Bering Strait Crossing? The project could facilitate increased energy and oil trade between Russia, the U.S., and Canada, potentially generating significant revenue to help fund the project. ### What is the historical significance of the Bering Strait? During the last ice age, about eleven thousand years ago, water levels dropped low enough to form a land bridge between the two continents, known as Beringea, which allowed humans and animals to migrate across. ### What are the cultural and diplomatic challenges for the Bering Strait Crossing? The project faces challenges due to differing civic values between the U.S. and Russia, as well as fluctuating diplomatic relations, which have recently regained an icy edge. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: The Big Problem with a Bering Strait Crossing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeZpueUwVLs) - [https://21sci-tech.com/Subscriptions/Spring%202007%20ONLINE/20_1-2_Bering_Strait.pdf](https://21sci-tech.com/Subscriptions/Spring%202007%20ONLINE/20_1-2_Bering_Strait.pdf) - [https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/07/superhighway-bering-strait-new-york-paris/397370/](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/07/superhighway-bering-strait-new-york-paris/397370/) - [http://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/trans-siberian-road/index.html](http://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/trans-siberian-road/index.html) - [https://www.readex.com/blog/russia-connection-historical-proposals-reestablish-land-link-across-bering-strait](https://www.readex.com/blog/russia-connection-historical-proposals-reestablish-land-link-across-bering-strait) - [https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/economics/article/3103997/bering-strait-tunnel-pipe-dream-or-game-changer-us-russia-china](https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/economics/article/3103997/bering-strait-tunnel-pipe-dream-or-game-changer-us-russia-china) - [https://digismak.com/the-peace-bridge-the-unfinished-megaproject-that-wants-to-unite-the-united-states-and-russia-since-the-19th-century/](https://digismak.com/the-peace-bridge-the-unfinished-megaproject-that-wants-to-unite-the-united-states-and-russia-since-the-19th-century/) - [https://boingboing.net/2019/05/07/why-no-one-is-going-to-build-a.html#:~:text=It%20would%20be%20very%20expensive,of%20the%20English%20Channel%20tunnel](https://boingboing.net/2019/05/07/why-no-one-is-going-to-build-a.html#:~:text=It%20would%20be%20very%20expensive,of%20the%20English%20Channel%20tunnel) - [https://www.scandinavian-architects.com/en/projects/view/architectural-design-concept-for-the-bering-strait-project-diomede-islands](https://www.scandinavian-architects.com/en/projects/view/architectural-design-concept-for-the-bering-strait-project-diomede-islands) - [https://www.nps.gov/bela/learn/nature/climate-change.htm](https://www.nps.gov/bela/learn/nature/climate-change.htm) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Pearl_of_Siberia_Shopping_Mall_in_Tobolsk_%28February_2023%29_-_1.jpg) by Vyacheslav Bukharov / openverse, by-sa. ## Related Coverage Simon Whistler