Diplomacy & Crisis News

Summary and Key Points: The MiG-35 Fulcrum, Russia's 4.5-generation multirole fighter jet developed by Mikoyan, has failed to live up to its anticipated legacy. Despite being an upgrade to the MiG-29 series and boasting advanced radar capabilities, the MiG-35 has seen limited production and no combat testing, even amidst Russia's ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

The aircraft has struggled to attract foreign buyers, likely due to a lack of operational use and the impact of international sanctions. The MiG-35's challenges highlight the difficulties Russia faces in maintaining its position in the global defense market.

Russian aerospace giant Mikoyan has produced some of the world’s most capable aircraft. 

The Kremlin and Mikoyan would claim that the MiG-35 Fulcrum is a worthy continuation of a Russian air combat legacy stretching back to World War Two. But facts beg to differ. 

A 4.5-generation multirole fighter jet, the MiG-35 is an upgrade to the MiG-29M/M2 and MiG-29K/KUB fighter jets. Its NATO designation is “Fulcrum-F.”

The MiG-29M is the advanced multirole version of the aircraft with a new airframe, a fly-by-wire system, and new, more powerful engines. The M2 is the two-seat version of the MiG-29M, with almost identical capabilities to the one-seater. 

The MiG-29K is the naval version of the aircraft and sports folding wings, arrestor gear, and a reinforced landing gear so the fighter jet can operate from aircraft carriers. The aircraft also has some low observability features – not amounting to full stealth – mainly radar-absorbing paint coatings. The KUB is the two-seat version of the MiG-29K with identical performance to the one-seater. 

The MiG-35 was first presented in 2017 during an international air show in Moscow. Since then, there has been little to show for all the marketing behind the aircraft. Although the MiG-35 entered operational service in 2019, Mikoyan has produced only a few of these fighter jets.  

According to Russian defense officials, the MiG-35 fighter jet sports advanced radar capabilities and an overall superior performance compared to its predecessors. They claim its capabilities can even match the U.S. F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter. As is often the case with Russian assertions, these claims are very likely inaccurate, or gross exaggerations. 

To begin with, the MiG-35 is completely untested. The likely limited operational fleet of MiG-35 fighter jets hasn’t seen any combat to test its capabilities, unlike the F-35. Despite more than 900 days of fighting in Ukraine, the Russian Aerospace Forces have yet to deploy the new fighter jet in the conflict. And it is not like the Russian military can’t use the help. 

Although air combat is relatively rare in the war due to the prevalence of strong air defense weapon systems on both sides, the Ukrainian Air Force has been using fighter jets equipped with long-range munitions to take out key Russian logistical functions. Right now, for example, Ukrainian fighter jets are destroying bridges in the Kursk Oblast to trap Russian units and prevent an influx of reinforcements. Russian fighter jets, however, are largely absent. 

The MiG-35 was developed with an eye toward foreign exports, but it hasn’t attracted as much interest from foreign buyers as the Kremlin would like. This is likely the result of a lack of operational testimonials combined with international sanctions on Russia. Russian foreign military exports have dropped significantly since the war began, and the poor performance of Russian weapon systems and munitions in the fighting has reduced the overall marketability of Moscow’s military wares. 

Stavros Atlamazoglou is a seasoned defense journalist specializing in special operations and a Hellenic Army veteran (national service with the 575th Marine Battalion and Army HQ). He holds a BA from the Johns Hopkins University and an MA from the Johns Hopkins’ School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). His work has been featured in Business Insider, Sandboxx, and SOFREP.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: China's People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has reportedly launched its most advanced diesel-electric submarine, sparking interest and concern among naval analysts. Though details are scarce, satellite images suggest the new submarine could be a variant of the Type 039A-C, featuring advanced technologies like a Vertical Launch System (VLS).

-If confirmed, the VLS would significantly enhance the submarine's capabilities, allowing it to carry a variety of missiles, including land attack and anti-ship ballistic missiles.

-This development reflects China's continued expansion and modernization of its submarine fleet, raising questions about the strategic implications for regional and global security.

Earlier this year, China's People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) reportedly launched its most advanced diesel-electric submarine to date. The boat was floated out in April, but few details about the submarine are actually known. China, unlike most nations, launches its submarines with little to no fanfare. Beijing has made no official announcement about the submarine, and details are sparse.

The submarine was first spotted in satellite photos taken soon after it was launched. It could be a new variant of the Type 039A-C.

Tom Shugart, a former U.S. Navy submariner and naval analyst, noted the presence of the boat in July, and posted on X: "I recently acquired this interesting image of the shipyard from 26 April 2024. On the left, you can see what appears to be a freshly-launched Hangor II-class submarine, the 1st of 8 being built for Pakistan. You can also see the other, possibly new class of boat."

The PLAN continues to expand its fleet of non-nuclear-powered submarines. Newsweek cited U.S. Department of Defense estimates that 25 or more Yuan-class submarines could be produced by the end of 2025, while Beijing could operate as many as 80 submarines by the mid-2030s.

Naval analyst H I Sutton, writing for Naval News on Wednesday, further reported that, "The new boat is larger than existing ones and is the first in the country to feature X-form rudders. There are indications that it may have a vertical launch system (VLS)."

Sutton indicated the newly launched boat "has similar proportions to its forward section as the Yuan." That could suggest that the submarine's forward hull, where the sonar and torpedo room are located, would also be similar. But the hull section behind the sub's sail was "significantly longer," which could suggest the presence of a VLS, something that certainly wasn't present on existing variants of the PLAN's Yuan class.

A VLS is common on surface ships – such as the U.S. Navy's Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and Ticonderoga-class cruisers – and on nuclear-powered submarines. Many of America’s and Russia's nuclear-powered submarines are equipped with VLS.

The presence of a VLS is far less common on diesel-electric boats, which are smaller. Introducing a VLS onto a conventionally powered boat would add to the types of armament the attack submarines carry. These could include land attack missiles too large to launch through a boat's torpedo tubes, as well as anti-ship ballistic missiles.

"The trend in non-nuclear submarines has been set by the South Korean KSS-III and Israeli Drakon Class. If this new submarine does have a VLS behind the sail it can likely accommodate between four and eight missiles, depending on their diameter," wrote Sutton. "China has been experimenting with VLS on submarines since the introduction of the Type-032 Qing class test boat. This has four small diameter VLS tubes forward of the sail. These were recently modified with a raised deck over them, suggesting a new missile is being tested."

No doubt the U.S. Navy – and likely other powers – will be watching closely, trying to glean any additional insight on this new PLAN submarine.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

Image Credit: DoD Image of older Chinese Kilo-Class Submarine. 

Summary and Key Points: The United States and the United Kingdom continue to invest heavily in advanced military technologies, such as the sixth-generation warplane programs NGAD and FCAS.

However, the staggering costs and practical challenges of these "wonder weapons" have led to growing concerns about their viability.

U.S. Air Force leaders are now considering a more adaptable and affordable approach, possibly introducing a "Light Fighter" concept.

As Western defense industries face budget constraints and inefficiencies, there is a pressing need to focus on more practical, cost-effective systems that address immediate threats rather than long-term, high-cost projects.

The United States and its Western allies, notably the United Kingdom, remain deeply ensconced in the cult of the wonder weapon. Western militaries will splurge on highly complex systems that promise to do it all but are so expensive they rarely deliver what they advertise. 

As the West enters what can only be described as a protracted debt crisis, even the insulated defense chiefs of Washington and London are starting to realize they may have run up against the law of diminishing returns. 

A recent meeting of British and American defense chiefs at the UK Air and Space Power Association in late July shows Western leaders running up against the limits of what their governments can do in terms of funding the two countries’ sixth-generation warplane programs.

In the United States, the Pentagon refers to their program as the lofty sounding Next Generation Air Dominance, or NGAD. It is billed as a family of systems, and the Brits have something similar known as the Future Combat Air System.

The costs are obscene. The American sixth-generation bird is going to cost an astonishing $300 million per plane, and the Pentagon wants hundreds of them. Each of the manned sixth-generation warplanes will be augmented by a fleet of next-generation drones, as well as the most advanced artificial intelligence capabilities, cloud computing, and other next-generation technologies. 

Again, the problem is cost and practicality. One can put anything down on paper. Bringing it to life is quite a different matter. 

To overcome practicality and cost concerns, U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin, along with other defense leaders involved in the NGAD program, admitted that they were kicking around the concept of a sixth-generation “Light Fighter.”

According to The Aviationist, U.S. officials at the UK’s Global Air and Space Chiefs’ Conference in July were “hoping for more ‘adaptable’ platforms that can be easily modified and upgraded.” Describing their new idea as a “notional” concept, Air Force leadership spoke about the need to move away from the “built to last philosophy to [the] built to adapt” model.

Affordability and other constraints on the defense-industrial base are forcing the Air Force to reassess its procurement model for new warplanes – however slowly that reassessment is happening. 

Just a few weeks ago, the Air Force did place their sixth-generation warplane acquisition plans on hold as they sought out a contractor who could meet the frankly insane requirements of these obscenely expensive experimental warplanes. 

In today’s age, what’s needed is less a warplane that can do it all – and remain in service for decades – and more a system relevant to the threat environment of the next 10-15 years.  

Given the crisis in Western defense-industrial capabilities, the preference for more complex, expensive systems is misplaced. America needs cheaper, more adaptable, and disposable systems. Ditto for the British, whose defense industry is an even messier swamp of inefficiency, corruption, and decadence.

Brandon J. Weichert, a National Interest national security analyst, is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, the Asia Times, and The-Pipeline. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His next book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine, is due October 22 from Encounter Books. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock.

From the Vault

Russia Freaked Out: Why the U.S. Navy 'Unretired' the Iowa-Class Battleships

Battleship vs. Battlecruiser: Iowa-Class vs. Russia's Kirov-Class (Who Wins?)

For over seventy-five years, American leadership has brought an unprecedented era of peace, prosperity, and stability across the globe. When looking back on these decades, many point to our military strength, our great economic dynamism, and our technological innovations as the sources of America’s national power. These observations are true, but they miss what underpins these pillars.

Military, economic, and technological prowess are not generated out of nothing. They come from something deeper, something that we are at risk of losing: our industrial capacity. U.S. industrialization in the twentieth century is what enabled such a colossal rise in the military, economic, and technological spheres. Just after World War II, the United States made up half of the global GDP, and over a quarter of the U.S. GDP was from the manufacturing sector at the time.

Much has changed since our post-war industrial boom. China has surpassed the United States as the world’s manufacturing superpower, accounting for almost 29 percent of global manufacturing output, while the United States lags at just under 17 percent. America’s manufacturing decline is a consequence of decades of outsourcing our capacity. We naively believed that if we ceded our industrial capabilities to China, that nation would democratize and become more like us. American politicians from both parties were wrong to assume this outcome.

China’s manufacturing rise is not just about cheap toys and clothing and clothing to fill our big-box stores. It includes critical technologies that impact our economic, national, and personal security, like electric vehicles (EVs), robotics, artificial intelligence, solar technology, pharmaceuticals, drones, batteries, and ships.

In some of these industries, such as EVs and shipbuilding, China has not only surpassed America’s industrial capacity but has also left us behind.

China is the largest producer of EVs, making up 57 percent of the world’s production. China is the world’s largest shipbuilder, with a capacity that exceeds that of the United States by over 230 times. Allowing these situations to occur was a strategic blunder that will degrade America’s national power over time.

A robust manufacturing industry fit for the twenty-first century requires more than forging and engineering. Our industries need critical components, like engines, computers, microchips, complex alloys, and countless other critical technologies with fragile supply chains. China has, in fact, managed to insert itself into dominant positions in many of these supply chains. For example, in the steel sector, China now produces about half the world’s output, with a commanding position in the global market. China’s supply chain dominance renders our economic security more vulnerable in the event of a conflict between our nations.

A U.S. manufacturing revival requires an environment that supports thousands of small and medium enterprises as the backbone of the industry. This is critical to prevent over-consolidation of smaller businesses—which are important drivers of innovation and employment. We need a strategy that integrates all of our capacity from big factories to small machine shops into a rebuilt industrial base.

Overregulation is stifling our manufacturing companies. Government mandates must be utilized surgically to foster economic growth, not hamstring the economy unnecessarily. High corporate taxes are closely connected to overregulation and will, with certainty, drive our best entrepreneurs to seek less burdensome taxation abroad.

Public-private partnerships that combine the resources and capital of the government and private sector can also, in targeted settings, help facilitate our industrial transition and let us catch up in industries essential to our future. The CHIPS Act needs some retooling but may prove to be a useful precedent in this area.

New factories will need skilled blue-collar workers to weld, install HVAC systems, fit pipes, and fulfill scores of high-paying jobs in the trades. The federal government has been far too silent on the importance of strengthening the industrial manufacturing workforce as well as expanding vocational schools and apprentice programs. We need young people who want to work on factory floors. Young foreign scientists and engineers who graduate from our universities and who share our values should be allowed to stay rather than be pushed out to apply their U.S. education to the benefit of our competitors.

We must also harden America’s industrial infrastructure and our power grids to make them more resilient in the face of increased cyberattacks. The thousands of daily cyber intrusions, hacks, and probes we see now are but a mere foreshadowing of what we can expect from thousands of Chinese hackers if war ever comes.

Private sector R&D investment ensures that America remains at the cutting edge of technological advancements. It is our companies that will keep us ahead in the tech race with China in the key areas of AI and Quantum computing. The government must stop beating up our tech companies with outdated anti-trust lawsuits and consumer investigations and allowing our allies, especially the EU, to do the same. 

The United States holds a key position in the manufacturing sector, which no other industrial country, especially China, has—abundant North American energy. Factories require energy, and the high-tech plants of the future will require lots of it. The United States already produces over 12 million barrels of oil a day. That number could go millions of barrels a day higher with more energy-friendly policies. Finishing the last few miles of the Keystone XL pipeline would bring an additional 900,000 barrels of Canadian crude to our refineries in Texas. Oil and gas are just the start.

An “all of the above” energy policy that would entice manufacturers to make long-term bets on America will also focus on alternative sources. Wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, and hydropower all have their places in diverse regions of this country. America should regain its leadership in these green energy fields from China. The energy sources of the future—nuclear (ready today) and fusion—will also play significant roles in powering industry.

America’s strength has always come from our ability to outproduce the world. Our industrial might is what sustains our military superiority, economic might, and technological prowess. This country has all the ingredients, from its people to its bountiful natural resources, to get back on top of manufacturing. To do so, the United States must reindustrialize decisively and with dispatch. Maintaining our peace and prosperity depends on such action.

Robert C. O’Brien (ret.) is Chairman of American Global Strategies. He served as the twenty-seventh United States National Security Advisor from 2019–2021. 

Henrietta Fore is Chairman of Holsman International. She served as the fifteenth Administrator of USAID from 2007–2009. O’Brien and Fore are Carnegie Distinguished Fellows at Columbia University’s Institute of Global Politics.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Over the past two weeks, Ukraine has taken its fight with the Kremlin onto Russian soil. Kyiv’s offensive consisted of a daring raid into Russia’s Kursk region designed to bring the fight to Russian forces and draw the Kremlin’s combat troops away from its own territory. 

Aside from a few headlines, though, Ukraine’s bold strategic gamble has gone largely unnoticed. That’s a shame because Kyiv’s initiative—and Moscow’s response to it—has made clear that persistent Western fears of Russian brinkmanship are overblown. 

Up until now, both U.S. and European policies have been defined by caution and fear of Russian risk-taking. While President Biden has pledged to back Kyiv’s fight for “as long as it takes,” in practice, his administration has been slow to provide Ukraine with the weaponry it needs to win the fight decisively. And even when it has, that aid has been accompanied by onerous restrictions that have had the effect of limiting Ukraine’s fighting potential. European nations, meanwhile, have taken their cues from Washington and settled in for a long campaign of incremental assistance to Ukraine. The result has been a situation that—at least until recently—had settled into a strategic stalemate and positional warfare. 

That’s the equation Ukraine’s push into Russia is attempting to alter. In the process, however, it has also laid bare the hollowness of Moscow’s threats of strategic escalation in response to battlefield setbacks.

Ever since the current conflict broke out in February 2022, the West has been concerned that “poking the bear” could prompt Russia to use nuclear weapons and escalate the war into a full-blown showdown with NATO. But Ukraine’s push north, through which it has managed to seize over 480 square miles of Russia’s Kursk Oblast, hasn’t elicited much of a response from Russia. To be sure, the Kremlin has mobilized in response, declaring a federal emergency in the region and redeploying troops, tanks, and artillery from the Ukraine front to (so far unsuccessfully) beat back the invaders. However, what Russia has not done is retaliate against Ukraine or its partners with any significant escalatory measures.

President Vladimir Putin has not ramped up the conflict in conventional terms. Nor has he used nuclear weapons against Russia’s western neighbor, as Russian officials have threatened in the past. Indeed, even with Ukrainian troops now entrenched in Russian territory, the Kremlin hasn’t made any maneuvers that could threaten to escalate the conflict further.

Part of the reason for Russia’s restraint is no doubt practical. Simply put, Moscow is already using pretty much all the military resources at its disposal in its attempts to subjugate Ukraine. As such, Russia is unlikely to make moves so provocative that they might prompt the direct involvement of NATO. Indeed, there does not seem to be much that Russia might be able to do to turn the tables on Kyiv without risking the alliance entering the conflict.

The lesson is worth heeding. As dominant as Russia’s strongman wants to appear, his government is in a far more precarious position than the West originally believed. Putin’s bluff has always been that he would be more willing to turn up the heat if the war doesn’t go his way. But the reality is that he cannot. All of Russia’s tanks, artillery, aircraft, missiles, and ships are as committed as they can be without exposing Russia to other attacks. And because they are, there are real-world limits to what Russia can realistically do to punish the West. 

Ukraine’s daring offensive, in other words, has laid bare a couple of critical truths. The first is that Russia is weak and constrained by the same sort of real-world limitations that afflict other powers. The second is that Ukraine, though embattled, can still find ways to break the stalemate and win this war. 

Elliot Petroff is a researcher at the American Foreign Policy Council in Washington, DC.

Image: Shutterstock.com.

Summary and Key Points: The USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72), a Nimitz-class nuclear-powered supercarrier, has arrived in the Middle East earlier than expected to support U.S. interests and deter potential threats from Iran, following the killing of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh.

-The carrier joins USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) and brings advanced fighter capabilities with it, including F-35C and F/A-18 Block III jets.

-Additionally, the Ohio-class guided-missile submarine USS Georgia (SSGN-729) has been deployed to the region, signaling to Tehran the U.S.'s readiness to respond to any aggressive actions.

A second United States Navy Nimitz-class nuclear-powered supercarrier arrived in the Middle East on Wednesday, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) announced. The arrival was a bit earlier than expected.

It came after Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin ordered USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) and her strike group to "accelerate" its transit to the region, to deter Iran and its proxies from launching an attack on Israel and U.S. interests in the region.

Tehran has vowed to retaliate for Israel's killing of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in the Iranian capital last month.

CVN-72 is set to relieve USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71), which was deployed to the Middle East to support the ongoing Prosperity Guardian mission to protect commercial shipping in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden since June.

"USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72), equipped with F-35C and F/A-18 Block III fighters, entered the U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) area of responsibility," CENTCOM announced on Wednesday via X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter. "The USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72), the flagship of Carrier Strike Group 3, is accompanied by Destroyer Squadron (DESRON) 21 and Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 9."

It remains unclear how long the two carriers may operate together, and the deployment of CVN-71 left a "gap" in the Indo-Pacific. Another Nimitz-class carrier, USS George Washington (CVN-73) has been completing a "hull swap" with USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) and will soon head to her new homeport in Yokosuka, Japan. On August 1, CVN-73 became the U.S. Navy's forward-deployed carrier taking over from CVN-76.

The U.S. Navy also announced that it had deployed the Ohio-class guided-missile submarine USS Georgia (SSGN-729) to the region – a rare public admission of the whereabouts of submarines that are designed to silently and secretly patrol the world's oceans.

The very point of the United States Navy's submarine fleet is that an adversary isn't supposed to know where the boats are at any given time. The nuclear-power vessels have unlimited range and can stay submerged for weeks, even months at a time if necessary. Yet, in this case, the Pentagon absolutely wanted Tehran to know that such a capable vessel was in the region and that it may want to think twice before carrying out any kind of strike that would result in retaliation from Washington.

SSGN-729 was reportedly operating in the Mediterranean when the order came for her deployment to the Red Sea or Persian Gulf, According to USNI News the nuclear-powered boat was still in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. From there it could certainly target Hamas or Hezbollah positions if the need were to arise.

"The department's recent adjustment to the U.S. military posture in the region have enabled us to bolster U.S. force protection, increase support for the defense of Israel and to ensure the United States is prepared to respond to various contingencies," Pentagon spokesperson Mag. Gen. Pat Ryder told reporters.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The Virginia-class submarine was designed as a more cost-effective alternative to the expensive Seawolf-class, with the Block V variant addressing a critical issue: the missile gap between the U.S. and China.

-With China rapidly expanding its naval and missile capabilities, including a vast stockpile of cruise and ballistic missiles, the U.S. found itself falling behind.

-To counter this, the Virginia-class Block V submarines are being developed with the Virginia Payload Module (VPM), which significantly increases their missile-carrying capacity.

-This enhancement aims to close the missile gap and bolster U.S. military presence in the Indo-Pacific region.

The Virginia-class submarine was designed as a fast-attack submarine that was cheaper than the $2.8 billion-dollars-per-unit Seawolf-class submarine (of which only three were ever made). The Seawolf was an impressive vessel, to be sure. But in the post-Cold War era of sequestration, the Seawolf’s massive price tag became unpalatable, clearing the way for the cheaper Virginia-class to gain favor with US war planners. The Virginia isn’t exactly cheap – but at $1.8 billion-dollars-per-unit, the vessel costs about one billion dollars less than a Seawolf.

Already, Block I-III Virginia-class submarines are in service. Even a few Block IV Virginias are in service. Actually, a few more Block IV Virginias are on the way, meaning that the Block IV is a contemporarily acceptable submarine – which suggests that the Block V will be especially cutting edge.

The Block V was designed to address a very specific, and forward looking, problem – the missile gap between the US and China.

China is currently engaged in one of the greatest shipbuilding sprees in world history. Additionally, China is augmenting its air force, and its nuclear and conventional arsenals. Simultaneously, China is making aggressive territorial claims throughout the Indo-Pacific. All this while the United States was focused elsewhere – in Iraq and Afghanistan, which drained US resources without lending much strategic advantage.

However, enjoying the US distraction, China began converting its latent power into actual power – in some respects surpassing the United States. For example,  China now possesses the largest navy in the world. But more concerning to the US, perhaps, is that China invested heavily in a stockpile of cruise and ballistic missiles. The US failed to keep pace with Chinese missile proliferation,  and now, a missile gap exists.

China has not only developed more missiles than the US but also missiles with a greater range than those of the US. Unfortunately, China is approaching a monopoly status on intermediate-range missiles in the Indo-Pacific region. Of course, the US can build intermediate-range missiles but chose not to after signing the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. The treaty was a Cold War agreement between the US and USSR that banned the deployment of missiles with an effective range between 500 and 5,000 kilometers. China never signed the treaty, and can deploy their intermediate-range missiles wherever, whenever.

Trump, recognizing the missile gap, withdrew from the treaty. As a method to remedy the missile gap, the Virginia-class Block V is being developed with a cutting-edge new concept: the Virginia Payload Module (VPM). 

The VPM is a hull plug that will allow the submarine to haul three times as many Tomahawk missiles as the Block IV. Obviously, if the Block V can carry three times more Tomahawks, this will help mitigate the missile gap once the Block V’s are deployed to the region.

Harrison Kass is a defense and national security writer with over 1,000 total pieces on issues involving global affairs. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, Harrison joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison holds a BA from Lake Forest College, a JD from the University of Oregon, and an MA from New York University. Harrison listens to Dokken.

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The British Ministry of Defence has announced a £20 million ($26.1 million) investment to build a "silent hangar" at Boscombe Down in Wiltshire for testing advanced military aircraft like the F-35 Lightning II and Chinook helicopters.

-The facility, one of the largest of its kind in Europe, will simulate hostile electromagnetic environments to counter threats such as GPS jamming, which has become increasingly common in modern warfare.

-Expected to open in 2026, the hangar will ensure military equipment can perform effectively in challenging conditions, enhancing the UK's national security and military resilience.

A new UK test facility, one of the largest of its kind in Europe, could enable future testing of advanced aircraft including the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. It will be used to help with the development of technology to counter GPS jamming devices.

On Wednesday, the British Ministry of Defense announced it was investing £20 million ($26.1 million) to build a facility large enough to hold F-35 fighters and Chinook transport helicopters at the Boscombe Down site in Wiltshire. The facility in England’s southwest won't just store the aircraft. Rather, this "silent hangar" will serve as an isolation chamber for testing equipment that "can perform in the harshest electromagnetic environments on operations," the Ministry explained. 

The Ministry of Defense describes the facility as an "anechoic hangar (that) creates the perfect environment to test the integrity of the UK's military equipment." It is now on track to open in 2026. In addition to ensuring that tests can be conducted in a controlled environment, the hangar will also prevent tests from impacting emergency services or air traffic control in the region.

"Hostile threats jamming GPS to disorientate military equipment has become increasingly common," said Minister for Defense Procurement and Industry Maria Eagle, who added, "This cutting-edge test facility will help us eliminate vulnerabilities from our platforms, protect our national security and keep our Armed Forces better protected on global deployments."

When completed, the silent hangar will be one of the largest facilities of its kind in Europe – roughly the size of a normal aircraft hangar, but with many features that might be found in a modern recording studio and classified research center. According to the Ministry, it will simulate "hostile environments (while) putting the UK's most advanced military equipment through its paces."

Security and defense contractor QinetiQ, which provides testing and evaluation capabilities for the military, was awarded the £20 million contract to build the facility.

"On an increasingly digital battlefield, the debilitating effects of electronic warfare are a persistent threat," suggested Will Blamey, chief executive for UK defense at QinetiQ. "The testing we will conduct using this new facility will be integral to strengthening the resilience of military equipment, which in turn enhances the safety and security of our Armed Forces and the United Kingdom."

The design calls for the silent hangar to "reduce reflections, echoes or the escape of radio-frequency waves," while "GPS simulators and threat emulators inside the chamber will provide the ability for the UK to create a number of hostile environments to test how well equipment can withstand jamming, and other threats, that attempt to confuse or disrupt military assets."

The Ministry of Defense has been influenced by the role electronic warfare has played in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, as well as China's military build-up, to put a renewed focus on its own EW efforts.

"The subject of GPS jamming has been well documented in the press, making this new facility all the more vital to help us keep our armed forces safe while protecting the nation and our allies," added Richard Bloomfield, head of Electronic Warfare (CBRN) Space at Defence Equipment & Support. "Not only will this be one of the largest such chambers in Europe, but it will also be one of the most up to date and high-tech in the world, where hostile environments can be safely recreated to put military equipment, such as fighter jets and drones, through testing to understand their performance in challenging environments representing the many external threats that may be faced."

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The Russian 9K720 Iskander missile system, known as the SS-26 Stone by NATO, has been a significant concern for U.S. and NATO war planners since its development during the Cold War.

-Designed to counter Western air defense systems, the Iskander can deliver both conventional and nuclear strikes with high accuracy, thanks to advanced guidance systems including Russia's GLONASS GPS.

-The Iskander-M, with a range of up to 310 miles, has been effectively used in conflicts like the Syrian Civil War and the ongoing Ukraine War. Russia continues to upgrade this formidable system, enhancing its precision, range, and speed, making it a critical element of Russia's military strategy.

-Russian missile capabilities gave U.S. and NATO war planners headaches even before the Soviet Union collapsed. Whether using anti-aircraft systems or offensive strike platforms, the Russians have always been proficient at keeping Western militaries on their tactical toes. 

One system in particular has terrorized the minds of Western analysts and strategists for years. That’s the 9K720 Iskander (NATO designation SS-26 Stone). This is one of Russia’s most advanced mobile short-range ballistic missile programs. 

The Russians have shamelessly proliferated this capability throughout the world. Now that the Ukraine War has entered its third year, the Putin regime insists they will continue proliferating such weapons to countries that the United States views as threatening, such as the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The Iskander’s story begins in the final decade of the Cold War, the 1980s. Back then, the Reds were doing everything in their power to keep up with America’s defense spending spree and innovation surge under President Ronald Reagan. The Iskander was designed in response to rapid developments in Western air defense systems. 

An Iskander missile can conduct both conventional strikes as well as nuclear attacks. Thus, the missile is used for deterrence at the strategic level and for operational use at the non-strategic level. 

Consisting of two versions, the Iskander-M has a range of up to 310 miles. As mentioned earlier, the Russians have been proliferating this system like crazy over the years. The export model is the Iskander-E. While still a potent system, it has a reduced range. The Iskander-M and Iskander-E are highly accurate systems.

The Iskander has a single-stage solid rocket propellant, and the missile is capable of achieving hypersonic speeds once it hits the atmosphere, too, during its terminal phase. When systems go hypersonic, it can be hard to defend against them. 

In February, it was reported that Russia was implementing a rapid upgrade of both their Iskander and Kinzhal systems to improve their precision, range, and speed.

In other words, Moscow was investing in making one of their most lethal strike weapons even more lethal. 

Iskander missiles employ advanced guidance systems to make its targeting highly accurate. These guidance systems include inertial navigation capability. The Iskander has optical systems and can use satellite-assisted guidance. 

As an interesting aside, the Iskander uses the Russian GLONASS global positioning system, the rival to the U.S.-maintained GPS satellite constellation, to aid in guidance. Until the 2008 invasion of Georgia, the Russians actually used the American GPS for their offensive systems. The Americans then cut off Russian access to GPS, prompting Moscow to redouble its own efforts to use its own network.

In 2013, when the Russian armed forces were intervening to support the government of Bashar al-Assad against Islamist militants in the Syrian Civil War, they used the Iskander missile to great effect. It was the ultimate real-world test of the whole Iskander platform, and the Iskander rarely disappointed.

The Iskander would be put to the ultimate test in Ukraine. 

According to Thomas Newdick of The War Zone, the Iskander-M systems deployed in Ukraine “have been using an apparently previously unseen decoy, in an effort to spoof Ukrainian air defenses.” By employing “penetration aids,” or PENAIDs, which are normally associated with longer-range weapons, the Russians are ensuring “that its short-range battlefield ballistic missiles, too, are better able to defeat increasingly sophisticated anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems” that Ukraine is deploying against Russia. 

Moreover, the Russians have moved these systems into their Baltic Sea enclave of Kaliningrad, which rests between Germany and Poland. Their deployment there not only shores up what is otherwise a vulnerable bit of strategic territory in Europe for Russia, but it also sends a clear signal to the European powers about the kind of damage that Russia can do to them if the Ukraine War spirals out of control.

The Iskander missile is one of Russia’s most powerful weapons. First created to respond to the West during the Cold War, it continues to serve the Russian military with a high success rate – so much so that Moscow has authorized a massive upgrade. Western leaders should not underestimate this system.

Brandon J. Weichert, a National Interest national security analyst, is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, the Asia Times, and The-Pipeline. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His next book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine, is due October 22 from Encounter Books. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock.

From the Vault

Russia Freaked Out: Why the U.S. Navy 'Unretired' the Iowa-Class Battleships

Battleship vs. Battlecruiser: Iowa-Class vs. Russia's Kirov-Class (Who Wins?)

Problems: The Russian Su-57 "Felon," touted as a fifth-generation stealth fighter, has faced significant challenges in its development and production, leading many to question its effectiveness.

Secret Problem: Despite being promoted for its advanced stealth and capabilities, Western experts argue that the Su-57's radar cross-section and overall design fall short of true fifth-generation standards, making it less stealthy than the U.S. F-35. Additionally, Russia's inability to produce the aircraft in large numbers has limited its impact.

Bottomline: The Su-57's limited deployment in Ukraine suggests that even Moscow lacks confidence in the fighter's supposed stealth capabilities.

A short video from Russian aviation manufacturer Sukhoi has been shared on social media back in March of last year.

Essentially a "sizzle reel" for its Su-57 (NATO reporting name "Felon"), the video highlights how the aircraft is pushing the limits of aviation design. 

The fifth-generation fighter has long been touted by Russian officials for its "advanced" stealth technology that makes broad use of composite materials.

As previously reported, the Kremlin has further claimed the Su-57 can reach a supersonic cruising speed while destroying all types of air, ground, and naval targets.

Even as Russia continues to tout the aircraft, Western aviation experts have suggested the Su-57 is all hype – and that Moscow lacks the manufacturing capabilities even to produce the aircraft in significant numbers.

That is noted by the fact that the Su-57 first flew in January 2010 but didn't enter service until December 2020. 

A decade can be an eternity for "advanced" military platforms – a fact that explains why the United States Air Force is already seeking to phase out its first fifth-generation air superiority fighter, the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor.

Time won't be kind to the Su-57, even if it was as advanced as Russian experts may have claimed. In fact, the Su-57 shouldn't be noted for its capabilities but rather for its troubled development program.

Problems were reportedly revealed with its initial airframe, which required a redesign of the prototypes.

Aviation expert Chris Bolton even noted on social media last year, "Russia's Su-57 'stealth' fighter has a radar cross-section comparable to clean F/A-18 Super Hornet, and around a thousand times bigger than F-35.

Russia's fleet of Felons consists of 12 hand-made prototypes with varying degrees of finish and just two production jets…"

Other experts have also questioned whether the Felon should truly be described as a stealth aircraft and suggested in a head-to-head fight, the Su-57 would be hopelessly outclassed when going up against the Lockheed Martin F-35. The Russian fighter has a design that is much closer to an advanced fourth-generation fighter than a true fifth-generation aircraft. 

It may be less detectable than an F-15 Eagle or F-16 Fighting Falcon, but the Su-57 simply has a poor cross-section compared to its main fifth-generation rivals.

Those facts explain why the Kremlin hasn't deployed it over the skies of Ukraine.

Instead, at least according to most reports, its combat role has been primarily to fire weapons from within the safety of Russian airspace.

Clearly, Russian officials don't believe its stealth is good enough to send over enemy territory.

Moving past those issues, the other factor remains the numbers. Russia simply can't reach serial production and has built fewer than two dozen.

Even if it were to live up to the hype, there aren't enough Felons to make it the game-changer Moscow has claimed to be.

Simply put, the United States likely would have canceled the project several times over, but the Kremlin has seemingly dug such a deep hole its only choice now is to keep going and hope to come out on the other end.

 Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The AbramsX is the latest iteration of the U.S. Army's iconic M1 Abrams main battle tank, a symbol of American military strength since its debut in the 1980s.

-While the Abrams was originally designed for Cold War scenarios in Europe, the AbramsX incorporates advanced Chobham armor, a powerful 120mm smoothbore gun, and a 1,500-horsepower gas turbine engine, making it highly mobile and well-protected.

-It also features modern digital systems and countermeasures. Despite its impressive capabilities, some critics argue that the AbramsX, like U.S. aircraft carriers, may be more suited to past conflicts than future warfare.

In recent years, the main battle tank has come in for a lot of criticism – especially the more advanced versions of the weapons system. 

In the Iraq War, MBTs were next to useless as the insurgency got underway. In Ukraine now, the Russians are so afraid of risking their advanced T-14 Armata tanks that they are relying on the old Soviet-era T-72 MBT to do the heavy lifting. (These systems are easy to produce and relatively cheap.) 

Nevertheless, the Americans are moving ahead with another iteration of the Abrams, the tank that did so much to help the U.S. win during Operation Desert Storm and which remains the pinnacle of active MBTs – at least until the T-14 shows what it can do. 

The coming version is known as the AbramsX.

Named after U.S. Army General Creighton Abrams, the Abrams is a third-generation MBT originally designed by Chrysler Defense, which is now known as General Dynamics Land Systems. 

The original M1 Abrams first entered service in the 1980s and was designed to do one thing: stop the Red Army from breaching Western Europe via the Fulda Gap in Germany. That conflict never materialized, so the Abrams was put to work in other areas, most notably during Operation Desert Storm. 

Sadly, the conflict in Europe that the Abrams was designed to fight appears to be upon us yet again in the killing fields of Ukraine. As a result, the Americans have promised 31 older M1 Abrams tanks to Kyiv. But Ukraine has resisted deploying these assets, because they are older and are too heavy for the soft ground of Ukraine. 

Geography is important in war, who knew?

Still, the new AbramsX is on its way. One of its notable features is its advanced Chobham armor. This composite armor, developed in the United Kingdom in the 1960s, provides superior protection against a wide range of threats, including kinetic energy penetrators and high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) rounds. 

The new Abrams is also armed to the teeth. It’s equipped with a 120mm smoothbore gun, the mainstay gun of Western main battle tanks for decades. This gun can fire a variety of ammunition types, including Armor-Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot rounds and high-explosive HEAT rounds.

But the AbramsX isn’t just about firepower and protection. It’s also about mobility. The tank is powered by a gas turbine engine that provides a whopping 1,500 horsepower. This allows the AbramsX to reach speeds of up to 45 miles per hour on roads, making it one of the fastest tanks in the world.

The AbramsX features other advanced technologies. Its digital command and control system allows the crew to share information and coordinate their actions more effectively. It also has a laser warning receiver system, which can detect when the tank is being targeted by laser-guided weapons and automatically deploy countermeasures. 

America’s newest AbramsX MBT is a modern marvel of engineering – like, for example, America’s vaunted fleet of aircraft carriers. The new Abrams combines advanced armor, firepower, mobility, and technology to create a tank that’s a force to be reckoned with on the battlefield. Much like the U.S. Navy’s flattops, though, the AbramsX, while advanced, might be designed to fight yesteryear’s wars.

Brandon J. Weichert, a National Interest national security analyst, is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, the Asia Times, and The-Pipeline. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His next book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine, is due October 22 from Encounter Books. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

Main image is from General Dynamics. 

Summary and Everything You Need to Know in 30 Seconds: The SR-71 Blackbird, the fastest plane ever built, flew at speeds exceeding Mach 3.0 during the Cold War. Despite its unmatched speed, it was locked onto by a Swedish Saab JA-37 Viggen, a fighter jet with a top speed of Mach 2.1.

-The successful lock-on was possible due to the predictable routes of the Blackbird and the skill of the Swedish pilots.

-In 1987, Viggens also helped escort a Blackbird to safety after it suffered an engine explosion, highlighting the cooperation between the U.S. and Sweden during the Cold War.

The fastest plane to ever fly retired from service decades ago. When the American-made SR-71 Blackbird was introduced during the Cold War, its innovative technologies, electronics, and avionics pushed it to feats never before seen. 

Even considering the development of modern fighter jets like the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II, the Mach 3.0-capable Blackbird’s legacy remains unmatched. Only one aircraft ever scored a missile lock on a Blackbird, and that aircraft merits a mention of its own: the Swedish Saab JA-37 jet. 

SR-71s during the Cold War were tasked with flying the same repeated pattern over the Baltic Sea, a route referred to as the “Baltic Express.” 

The Swedish Air Force at the time was equipped with the Saab J-35F Draken platform. This older airframe was in no way able to keep up with a Blackbird. But its successor, the Saab J-37 Viggen, had more advanced avionics that enabled it to get close to a Blackbird in flight. 

Compared to the SR-71’s Mach-3.0 top speed, the Viggen was still relatively slow, topping out at Mach 2.1. Despite this gap in capability, the routine nature of Blackbird flights coupled with superb mission planning and pilot skills resulted in one of the Swedish fighters “locking on” to a Blackbird. 

As detailed by former Swedish Air Force JA-37 pilot Per-Olof Eldh, “In total I have five hot intercepts against the SR-71 to my credit. All can be described as successful. I was visual three times; on a couple of occasions the SR-71 was contrailing, which was very useful because you could do a visual check to ensure you ended up in the right spot!” 

Once Eldh was able to lock on, he of course did not fire. The two planes merely crossed paths and gained visual contact with one another.

While this incident proved to be the first ever successful interception and “lock” on a Blackbird, it is important to note that the American pilots were not trying to avoid the Viggens, which were friendly airframes. Regardless, the Swedish pilot’s skill and acumen were impressive. 

The Viggen-Blackbird combination made headlines again in 1987, when an SR-71 suffered an engine explosion and had to be escorted safely to the ground. The Swedish Air Force immediately directed two of its Viggens to aid the SR-71, which would have been more vulnerable to a Soviet attack while flying at such a low altitude. Ultimately, the Blackbird landed safely in West Germany with help from the Swedish airframes.

Maya Carlin, National Security Writer with The National Interest, is an analyst with the Center for Security Policy and a former Anna Sobol Levy Fellow at IDC Herzliya in Israel. She has by-lines in many publications, including The National Interest, Jerusalem Post, and Times of Israel. You can follow her on Twitter: @MayaCarlin. 

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: In November 2012, two Iranian Su-25s attempted to shoot down a U.S. MQ-1 Predator drone in international airspace, but failed due to their aircraft's limitations.

-A year later, unaware of new U.S. escort policies, Iran deployed F-4 Phantoms to engage another MQ-1.

-However, the F-4s were surprised by an F-22 Raptor stealth fighter, which had been silently escorting the drone. The Raptor pilot, undetected by the Iranians, calmly revealed his presence, advising the F-4s to retreat, which they did.

-The incident highlights ongoing tensions between the U.S. and Iran, particularly amid nuclear negotiations.

In November 2012, two Iranian Air Force Sukhoi Su-25s tried to down a U.S. Air Force MQ-1 Predator drone. At the time, the MQ-1 was flying in international air space, 16 miles from the Iranian border; the drone flight was legal, but understandably instigatory. Iran scrambled the two Su-25s, which quickly closed on the drone. But the Su-25 was designed for close air support, not air superiority, and it struggled impotently with its cannons to shoot down the MQ-1.

The American drone escaped the interaction unscathed, having filmed the entire sequence with on-board cameras. In response to the incident, the U.S. modified its procedures to better protect its vulnerable drone fleet. It began providing drones with a fighter escort.

One year later, in 2013, the Iranians – apparently unaware of this new U.S. drone-escort policy – engaged another MQ-1. This time, the Iranians sent a jet with some air-to-air game, the F-4 Phantom – an aircraft the U.S. exported to Iran in the 1970s, back when the two countries were allies. Unlike the Su-25, the F-4 was entirely capable of bringing down the MQ-1. But when the Iranian F-4s moved to engage the MQ-1, they discovered they were not alone.

Escorting the MQ-1, lurking silently, was a Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor – a fifth-generation stealth fighter. As the Iranian pilots learned that day, the F-22 “is equipped with stealth technology that enables it to operate virtually undetected by radar.”

Indeed, the Iranians were oblivious to its presence as the F-22 stalked them from below.

This aircraft is packed with enviable, cutting-edge technology. “The F-22 Raptor is a technological marvel,” I noted previously.

“The world’s first operational fifth-generation fighter, the F-22 was designed with a bevy of novel features – stealth technology, supercruise, supermaneuverability, and sensor fusion – all combined to create the preeminent air superiority fighter.”

The Iranians flying in Vietnam War-era F-4 Phantoms were ill-equipped to match an F-22. Granted, the F-4 was a capable airframe – the most produced American supersonic military aircraft ever – but it first flew in 1958. The F-22, on the other hand, was an up-to-date, 21st century marvel.

“The F-22’s software is advanced and impressive. Using sensor fusion, data from multiple onboard sensor systems are synthesized to create a more comprehensive tactical picture,” I explained a few years back.

Besides, the F-4 was not built for dogfighting. “The Phantom was not particularly maneuverable,” I explained in a previous article on the F-4. “Enemy MiGs could typically outturn the F-4, which wasn’t designed for dogfighting and suffered from adverse yaw in tight turns. Instead, the F-4 was intended to fire radar-guided missiles from beyond visual range, not engage in air combat maneuvering.”

Well, the F-22 was comfortably within visual range: It was directly below the Iranians.

The F-22’s pilot, operating undetected, had sidled right in. “He flew under their aircraft to check out their weapons load without them knowing that he was there,” then-Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said. Having determined the F-4’s payloads, the Raptor pilot finally alerted the Iranians to his presence.

He “pulled up on their left-wing and then called them and said ‘you really ought to go home,’” Welsh said. The F-4s complied and bugged out.

The incident is indicative of the friction that has underscored the U.S.-Iranian relationship since the late 1970s. Currently, the two sides are working toward a deal on Iran’s nuclear program, which is reportedly nearing break-out capacity and has made Iran an international pariah. The world is watching closely as the negotiations unfold. In the meantime, hopefully the two rival nations can avoid any further dogfighting incidents.

Harrison Kass is a senior defense editor with over 1,000 published articles. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, he joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison has degrees from Lake Forest College, the University of Oregon School of Law, and New York University’s Graduate School of Arts & Sciences. He lives in Oregon and regularly listens to Dokken. Email the Author: Editor@nationalinterest.org. 

Image Credit: Shutterstock and Creative Commons. 

Summary and Top 4 Points You Need to Know: The USS United States (CVA-58), envisioned as a revolutionary supercarrier after World War II, was a radical design that ultimately proved impractical.

-Approved by President Truman in 1948, it featured a flush deck for launching heavy bombers, but its design lacked key elements like an island for command and control, creating significant operational challenges.

-The project was canceled just five days after the keel was laid due to concerns about its redundancy with the Air Force's capabilities and high costs.

-The program's cancellation paved the way for more practical supercarrier designs like the Forrestal-class.

Since the founding of the United States Navy on October 13, 1775, there has been only a single vessel named USS United States – it was one of the original six frigates that served as the core of the U.S. Navy in the first half of the 19th century. Three other vessels were to bear the name, and that included a Lexington-class battlecruiser that was canceled due to the Washington Treaty when just slightly over 10 percent complete.

Much more recently, the U.S. Navy's ninth nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and the eighth in the Nimitz-class was to be named USS United States – but her name was changed to honor President Harry S. Truman in February 1995 at the direction of then-Secretary of the Navy John H. Dalton.

President Truman it should be noted had approved the construction of five new "supercarriers" in July 1948 and the proposed class was to be for the United States. It was never to be, and that's likely for the best.

The USS United States (CVA-58) was meant to be the lead ship of a new class of supercarriers developed after the Second World War. It remains unclear why it had the CVA designation, but it was either for attack or atomic.

Its design was seen as ambitious and even cutting edge but was likely entirely impractical and as a result just five days after her keel was laid down, the program was canceled.

Truman approved the construction of the new class of carriers after funds had been provided in the Naval Appropriations Act of 1949. The design was quite the radical departure from the World War II-era flattops and in some ways evoked the "streamline modern" of the Art Deco architecture and design movement that became common with post-war automobiles and aircraft.

It truly was a flattop in the literal sense, as the proposed 65,000-ton carrier (83,000 tons fully loaded) would feature a flush deck that was designed to launch and recover large aircraft of 100,000 pounds, which in turn could carry the nuclear weapons of the era that weighed as much as five tons.

The chief proponent for the proposed supercarrier was Admiral Marc Mitscher, who saw the need for the warship to be able to handle the latest and most effective aircraft of the day.

The vessel was to be 1,000 feet long, without an island, and equipped with four aircraft elevators and four catapults, while the flight deck was axial, not angled.

That flush deck was meant to provide more space for large bombers – such as the B-29 Superfortress or its successor – although those aircraft would have to be secured to the flight deck as it would have been impossible to move them up or down in an elevator to the hangar. In addition, a small hanger was to have been provided for the fighter escort. As the design evolved, additional space was given for those escorts.

It was planned that the vessel's air wing would be made up of about a dozen bombers as well as nearly fifty fighters.

Whereas the primary mission was to carry long-range bomber aircraft, the United States-class was also intended to provide tactical air support for the air and amphibious forces, as well as to conduct sea control operations.

The lack of an island on the flight deck presented a number of issues that the designers had to deal with. 

First, it meant the ship lacked a position for radar, but also other command and control capabilities. A small tower-like platform could help direct movement on the flight deck, but radar, navigation, war planning, and other operations would have been relegated to a specially outfitted command ship cruiser.

As a result, instead of being the flagship of a strike group, the USS United States and the other carriers of the class would have been floating airfields or arsenal ships.

The U.S. Navy's bombers would have had to remain on the flight deck during an entire voyage. That would have been a serious concern for the carrier during high winds – a fact noted in July 2022 when a F/A-18 Super Hornet flew off the deck of the USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) while the carrier was deployed to the Mediterranean.

Then there was the issue of how the smoke from the power plants and how it would be diverted away from the flight deck had to be resolved.

The Imperial Japanese Navy's light carrier Ryūjō had proved that a flush flight deck presented such problems and it addressed the smoke by moving the funnels higher up the side of the hull and curved them downward. The Japanese warship was noted for not being particularly stable in rough seas, however.

Designed as a conventional carrier, as nuclear technology was still in its infancy, the USS United States would have required eight Foster-Wheeler boilers and four Westinghouse turbines, which could produce 280,000 hp while four screws could allow the massive vessel to reach speeds in excess of 33 knots.

Construction costs were estimated to be around $190 million ($2.4 billion in 2023 dollars), while the cost of the task force to accompany the massive warship would have driven the total price tag to more than $1.265 billion in 1948 dollar – more than $16 billion in 2023 dollars.

As noted, the USS United States was canceled just five days after the keel was laid down – in no small part due to pressure from the United States Air Force, which had viewed the carrier as an embodiment of the U.S. Navy's nuclear aspirations. The Joint Chief of Staff and then Secretary of Defense Louis A. Johnson seemed to agree that such an aircraft carrier's main function would only serve to duplicate the role of the Air Force.

After the program was scuttled, then Secretary of the Navy John Sullivan immediately resigned, while the subsequent "Revolt of the Admirals" resulted in Admiral Louis Denfeld being relieved of his position as Chief of Naval Operations.

The cancelation of the USS United States didn't mark the end for the supercarrier. Instead, just five years later the U.S. Navy moved forward with the more conventionally figured USS Forrestal-class.

As nuclear weapons shrank in size it was also determined that a massive warship designed to accommodate bombers wasn't actually required. In fact, during the 1950s, nuclear weapons were sent to sea on the USS Franklin D. Roosevelt – a carrier far smaller than the planned USS United States.

Though some look back on the USS United States as a missed opportunity, it should be seen that the U.S. Navy really dodged a torpedo-sized bullet. The flush flight deck carrier wasn't a step forward.

 Art Deco was fine for cars and architecture – it was simply wrong for a carrier.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu.

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points You Need to Know: The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) operates six Collins-class diesel-electric submarines, originally set to retire by 2026 but now receiving upgrades to extend their service into the 2040s.

-These submarines, the first domestically produced by Australia, were developed in the 1980s under the SEA 1114 project to replace aging Oberon-class subs.

-The Collins-class, designed for the Australasian region with advanced combat systems, faced issues like engine breakdowns and excessive noise, impacting their reputation. Debate on these subs has now raged for decades. 

-Despite these flaws, modifications will allow them to continue serving, though they may not be frontline assets in conflicts with advanced adversaries.

The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) currently operates six Collins-class diesel-electric submarines based at HMAS Stirling. These ships were expected to retire by 2026, but new modifications will extend their service lives well into the 2040s. 

The Collins class introduced the first domestically produced submarines to the RAN fleet. When they began service, the submarines exemplified Australia’s growing industrial capabilities.

The RAN first outlined the need to replace its aging Oberon-class ships in the late 1970s. Around this time, the navy’s director of submarine policy proposed that the country’s next SSN should be homegrown, and more than six should be produced. Since Australia’s shipbuilding capacity was sorely lacking in the early 1980s, officials doubted such a big project was possible. However, the proposal was ultimately accepted, and the project commenced under the designation of SEA 1114.

As part of the proposal, the RAN listed four requirements for the new submarine class. 

First, each ship had to feature a combat system sophisticated enough to last over a long service life. Second, Australia’s industrial capacity needed to grow to adequately provide such advanced ships. Third, the new submarines would be specifically modified to operate in the Australasian region. Finally, the submarines needed to be designed for a hunter-killer role. 

The RAN originally desired a fleet of ten new submarines but later settled on procuring just six.

While the Collins-class ships were largely built in Australia, a variety of international subcontractors were also used. In fact, construction work was delegated to more than 400 companies from 12 different countries. 

Each submarine measured just over 77 meters in length, with a 7.8-meter beam. Three Garden Island-Hedemora HV V18b/15UB (VB210) 18-cylinder diesel motors power the boats, in addition to three Jeumont-Schneider generators capable of producing 7,200 horsepower. With this system in place, the Collins submarines can sail at speeds in excess of twenty knots when submerged.

Each Collins-class ship can carry up to twenty-two missiles and torpedoes and up to forty-four mines without torpedoes. The submarine can launch the Boeing Sub Harpoon anti-ship missile, which carries a warhead of 227 kilograms. The Collins submarines carry the Gould MK48 Mod 4 torpedo.

The Collins-class submarines certainly featured remarkable capabilities from the outset, but the new class had its shortcomings. Not only did the engine tend to break down, but the submarines also produced excessive noise, which is a big faux pas for any SSN. To make matters worse, disagreements on how to fix these problems stymied progress. While some issues were fixed down the line, the Collins ships still don’t have the best reputation. The Collins submarines probably would not serve on the frontlines of any future conflict with an advanced rival such as Beijing.

Maya Carlin, National Security Writer with The National Interest, is an analyst with the Center for Security Policy and a former Anna Sobol Levy Fellow at IDC Herzliya in Israel. She has by-lines in many publications, including The National Interest, Jerusalem Post, and Times of Israel. You can follow her on Twitter: @MayaCarlin. 

Image: Creative Commons. 

Summary and What You Need to Know: The 1980s, a tense period in the Cold War, saw numerous close calls, including a near-nuclear incident involving the USS Kitty Hawk and a Soviet Victor-class submarine, Petropavlovsk.

-In 1984, during joint naval exercises near South Korea, the Kitty Hawk collided with the Soviet sub, raising concerns about potential nuclear fallout.

-The incident, declassified in 2017, highlights the dangers of unintended escalation in a highly charged international environment.

-The era’s strained U.S.-Soviet relations mirror today’s multipolar competition between the U.S., China, and Russia, where similar incidents could lead to more severe consequences.

The 1980s was one of the most decisive decades in recent history. The Cold War was in its fourth decade and, according to some historians, that struggle was at its most tense. The world existed on a nuclear hair-trigger, and the two superpowers tested each other as they never had before.

From nuclear near-misses to tense standoffs at sea and in the air, the Cold War was very hot. The pop culture of the era was chock full of end of world-type scenarios. Great power conflict was on the mind.

Close calls and near-misses with advanced military platforms defined the decade.

One such incident occurred in 1984. It involved the USS Kitty Hawk, one of America’s supercarriers, and a Soviet Victor-class attack submarine known as Petropavlovsk. The incident took place about 150 miles east of South Korea, during joint naval exercises with South Korean forces. Kitty Hawk was accompanied by eight escorts when, suddenly, the great carrier “ran over the stern of the submarine as it was surfacing,” according to a UPI report from the time.  

Given the kind of naval exercises occurring between the U.S. and South Korean navies, it is likely Petropavlovsk was shadowing the warships in order to gather intelligence on U.S. naval capabilities. 

Reports from the time indicate Kitty Hawk’s crew was aware of the threat of a Soviet submarine shadowing their flotilla. The crew claimed they were traveling in the Sea of Japan at 15 knots “with navigation lights on.” In other words, they were following the agreed-upon international rules governing safe seamanship on the high seas.

The Soviet sub crew, meanwhile, was intent on playing a game of “cat and mouse” with the American flotilla. Specifically, with Kitty Hawk. The U.S. Navy concluded that the Soviets were trying to test U.S. antisubmarine devices. When Petropavlovsk surfaced, it gouged the side of Kitty Hawk. Yet, Kitty Hawk’s crew was apparently more concerned about the safety of the Soviet submarine that crashed into them.

That’s because Petropavlovsk was a nuclear-powered submarine and there were some real concerns among the American side that the sub’s nuclear reactor had been compromised by the collision. The official U.S. Navy report details how Kitty Hawk attempted to contact the Soviet sub but their hails were ignored. The Americans assumed that the Soviet sub was seaworthy, though, because it continued along on its way. 

This incident, which happened way back in 1984, was only declassified in 2017. 

At the time, there were systems in place meant to mitigate the threat of unintended nuclear escalation. Today, the United States faces a tripolar competition between itself, the People’s Republic of China, and the Russian Federation. 

Today’s international environment is replete with opportunities for unwarranted escalation and unintended consequences. The systems that helped curb the risk of nuclear conflict in the Cold War have eroded or simply don’t exist anymore, making the prospect of war as a result of an incident such as the one that occurred between Petropavlovsk and Kitty Hawk in 1984 more likely. 

Kitty Hawk was no stranger to near-misses during its service. In fact, in 2007, the Kitty Hawk was humiliated by a Chinese Song-class diesel-electric submarine that had gotten within firing range of the carrier while Kitty Hawk was on maneuvers. Once it was in firing range, the sub surfaced, and its crew appeared to mock the Americans.

One can anticipate more experiences like this on the increasingly crowded and contested high seas as America sails into this dynamic, multipolar threat environment. 

Brandon J. Weichert, a National Interest national security analyst, is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, the Asia Times, and The-Pipeline. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His next book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine, is due October 22 from Encounter Books. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. 

From the Vault

Russia Freaked Out: Why the U.S. Navy 'Unretired' the Iowa-Class Battleships

Battleship vs. Battlecruiser: Iowa-Class vs. Russia's Kirov-Class (Who Wins?)

Summary and Key Points You Need to Know: Russia's only aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, was originally designed as a hybrid "heavy missile and aviation cruiser," equipped with powerful anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles that could challenge enemy fleets without relying heavily on its aircraft.

The ship featured a "missile farm" with P-700 Granit missiles capable of carrying nuclear, conventional, or thermobaric warheads, and a variety of surface-to-air missiles and close-in weapon systems for defense.

However, the Kuznetsov has faced numerous mechanical failures and accidents, leaving it in drydock for years and limiting Russia's naval power projection.

Russia’s only aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, was originally designed to deploy a “missile farm” that was more powerful than the airplanes it launched from its deck.

The downsides of the Kuznetsov have been chronicled substantially .

It will be under repair until 2024 (but likely longer) and has endured numerous mechanical and construction problems.

The Kuznetsov, however, had it seen battle, could likely have held its own with its array of carrier-killing missiles.

It had numerous bays and tubes for launching weapons that could support a carrier battle group with several ships that also had deadly missiles. Let’s take a look at how the Russian navy armed this carrier.

The Kuznetsov could be seen as a “heavy missile and aviation cruiser” that could also carry airplanes rather than just a normal aircraft carrier. Tyler Rogoway, chief editor for The Warzone, described the following armaments that the Kuznetsov featured. There were 24 rotating launch tubes onboard for the Gauntlet surface-to-air missile. The Kuznetsov had 192 of these missiles.

For last-ditch air defenses, Rogoway wrote that the carrier boasted close-in weapon systems for the enemy airplanes and incoming missiles that made it past the SAMs. In this department, the carrier used six AK-630 cannons and eight Kashtan close-in weapons systems.

Enemy submarines would have noticed that the Russian carrier was equipped with UDAV-1 sub-killing rockets that could also be utilized against torpedoes.

Kuznetsov served as a missile truck for more munitions that could destroy enemy targets on sea. P-700 Granit “Shipwreck” missiles adorned the carrier. The Granit can be configured for triple use for nuclear, conventional, and thermobaric warheads. The Granit has a high explosive conventional payload of 1,600 pounds.

The idea for the Kuznetsov missile farm approach was that it could challenge an American carrier battle group by staying out of range of enemy ships and airplanes and launch the sea skimming anti-ship missiles from 350 miles away. It could then fight without even using its own airplanes launched from the carrier.

These missiles could swarm and overwhelm a ship’s defenses by sheer numbers.

Remember, the Kuznetsov would be sailing in its own battle group which means other Soviet destroyers, frigates, cruisers, and submarines would also be sending offensive anti-ship missiles that could overwhelm American ships.

The ship’s aircraft group was made up of 12 Su-33 or MiG-29K. There was room for a large number of helicopters including two Ka-27S, 18 Ka-27PLO, and four Ka-31 rotary wing aircraft. The fighters launched from a 12-degree ski jump at the bow instead of catapults.

Because of this limitation, the fighters could not carry heavy loads of ordnance. No electronic warfare airplanes were on board. Airborne early warning was done by helicopter which reduced the range of aerial attacks that could jam enemy radar.

Thankfully for the United States and NATO, the Kuznetsov was cursed. It had a floating dock accident when a 70-foot crane fell on the deck in 2018. One worker died and four were injured. This left a 20-foot hole above the water line. And then the ship suffered a fire in 2019 from a welding accident. The blaze was not contained until a day later—after it killed two and wounded 14. And it recently just suffered another fire as 2022 came to a close. 

So, was the Kuznetsov a carrier or a large missile cruiser that happened to have aircraft?

It should be seen as a hybrid ship for supporting a contingent of other surface vessels and submarines. The Soviet and later the Russian navy envisioned a stand-off role for the missile farm, knowing that its airborne combat role from fighters was going to be limited in offensive capability. Now with it in drydock for an extended period, the Russians are without a carrier and not able to project power by sea. This makes the Russian navy limited in scope. But at one time, the Kuznetsov could have done much damage with its ship-killing missiles.

The U.S. Navy and surface fleets from various NATO allies breathed a sigh of relief that it never had to go up against a carrier battle group from the Russian or Soviet navy in its heyday.

Dr. Brent M. Eastwood is the author of Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare. He is an Emerging Threats expert and former U.S. Army Infantry officer. You can follow him on Twitter @BMEastwood. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science and Foreign Policy/ International Relations.

From the Vault

Russia Freaked Out: Why the U.S. Navy 'Unretired' the Iowa-Class Battleships

Battleship vs. Battlecruiser: Iowa-Class vs. Russia's Kirov-Class (Who Wins?)

In 2014, the “Little Green Men”—Russian soldiers wearing unmarked uniforms—played a significant role in the Kremlin’s annexation of Crimea. The soldiers were armed with the same weapons as the Russian military, employed much of the same equipment, and were noted for speaking with Russian accents. Many wore masks to conceal their identities.

The Kremlin initially dismissed the allegations that the soldiers were even Russian, and claimed instead that they were “local self-defense groups.” It was only in the late spring of 2014 that Russian president Vladimir Putin acknowledged that the troops in Crimea had been Russia all along—but the world already knew as much.

The Little Green Men, a term coined by the residents in Crimea, were also spotted in the eastern Donbas region, operating alongside separatist forces before Moscow launched its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Since that time the illusion has been dropped, yet NATO officials have expressed concerns that such units could be employed in the Baltic States to attempt to undermine the pro-Western governments.

However, this week, it wasn’t the Little Green Men that were suddenly in the spotlight—it was Russia’s so-called “Space Troops,” which were rushed to help defend the border region of Kursk, which Ukrainian forces invaded earlier this month and as of this week control 1,150 square kilometers (444 square miles) of territory.

The independent investigative Russian news outlet Important Stories reported on the deployment of the Space Troops.

The Russian news outlet confirmed that a Motorized Rifle Regiment of the Aerospace Force was among the troops sent to the front, and according to the report, it isn’t exactly elite Special Forces. Rather, it is made up of engineers, mechanics, and other servicemen from a Russian spaceport.

In other words, less Star Wars-style “stormtroopers” with blasters or the Sardaukar, the elite military force from Frank Herbert’s Dune series, and more ground personnel that aren’t trained for frontline combat.

The deployment of the Space Troops to Kursk has caught some Russian propagandists off guard—much like the Kremlin was caught off guard when Kyiv invaded the region, marking the first invasion into Russia since World War II.

“I have no idea why they call themselves motorized riflemen, if there is no sign of any motorized rifles there,” the Fighterbomber Telegram channel posted this week, according to Newsweek. The regiment has been known to “beg other units for anything more serious than a Kalashnikov.”

Though described as Space Troops, and certainly not a frontline combat unit, the regiment could be seen as comparable to the United States Space Force, the sixth and newest branch of the U.S. military—in that the personnel oversees space operations.

Yet, it was just last week that the Department of the Air Force announced that U.S. airmen and Guardians (the term for Space Force uniformed personnel) would resume weapons practice with M4 carbines. It remains unlikely that the Space Force Guardians would be deployed into combat like the Russian Space Troops, but that may just highlight how serious the situation is for the Kremlin in Kursk at the moment.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Aerospace giant Boeing has long touted the advanced capabilities of two aircraft – the F-15EX Eagle II and the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Each is a significantly enhanced version of the multirole fighter aircraft developed during the Cold War, but Boeing is now seeking to take the capabilities even further.

It was announced on Tuesday that British Aerospace (BAE) Systems was selected to upgrade the fly-by-wire (FBW) flight control computer (FCC) for both the Eagle II and Super Hornet. This technology refresh is meant to increase the processing power, which will in turn enhance each of the respective aircraft's performance and capabilities.

BAE Systems was the original manufacturer of the FCCs for both aircraft. It also produced the electronic warfare (EW) suite for the F-15EX.

"The FCCs feature common core electronics that support the quad-redundant FBW flight control systems (FCS), providing the safety, reliability, robustness, and performance needed for the missions of these advanced platforms," BAE Systems explained.

"These computers efficiently manage aircraft flight by processing pilot inputs, monitoring real-time aircraft movement conditions via onboard sensors, and transmitting commands to actuators moving control surfaces. The redundant FCS, along with the flight control laws, enables the pilot to maintain controlled operation across the demanding flight regime and multiple loadout configurations," the defense contractor added.

In addition to managing aircraft flight, the FCS can be employed to "reconfigure" an aircraft's controls should there be a failure of a system, or if damage is taken in combat. This is accomplished by "mixing the remaining control surfaces" accordingly. Moreover, the FBW FCS will serve as a de facto co-pilot or autopilot that will allow the pilot in the cockpit to put more focus on mission objectives, while the computer can handle the flight controls.

In addition to the upgraded FCC, the Super Hornet will receive an additional processor, which will future-proof the aircraft in service.

"BAE Systems is a leader in high-integrity controls and this upgrade reflects our commitment to providing our customers with next-generation solutions," said Corin Beck, senior director of Military Aircraft Systems for Controls and Avionics Solutions at BAE Systems. "Our advanced flight-critical solution ensures that these platforms will maintain fleet readiness now, and in the future, as well as provisions the aircraft to support the integration of new functions."

Neither Boeing nor BAE Systems announced a timeframe for when the work would be conducted, or if it will only apply to F-15EX Eagle IIs and F/A-18E/F Super Hornets in the U.S. military's fleet. However, given that the F-15EX is only now being produced, it will likely be easier for those aircraft to receive this update.

The United States Air Force "took delivery of its first operationally configured F-15EX in June," Flight Global reported, while the fighter achieved Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in July. The air service is on track to receive around 90 of the F-15EX, to replace its aging fleet of F-15C/D models. The new fighters are being produced in the same facilities that built the original F-15 Eagle. Israel, Indonesia, and Poland have expressed interest in the Eagle II.

The United States Navy first began to acquire the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in 1999 and the program of record has seen 625 delivered as of the end of 2023. It was earlier this year that the sea service and Boeing finally agreed to the terms for the final batch of seventeen Block III Super Hornets, which will be delivered by 2027.

As previously reported, the aircraft maker will begin to slow down its build rate of two jets per month to just one and a half, while it pivots its St. Louis Super Hornet workforce towards other Boeing programs – including the F-15EX, T-7A trainer, and MQ-25 refueling.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.