Diplomacy & Crisis News

Summary and Key Points: The Ukrainian military's advance into Russia's Kursk Oblast is forcing the Russian military to redirect forces from Ukraine to defend its territory. Ukrainian ground forces and fighter jets are making significant gains, with airstrikes targeting Russian infrastructure and command centers.

-The Russian military, short on well-trained units, is deploying inadequately prepared formations, such as those from the Russian Aerospace Forces, to counter the Ukrainian offensive.

-This reallocation of personnel highlights Russia's ongoing struggle with high casualty rates and limited capability to effectively respond to the Ukrainian incursion.

Ukraine's Kursk Invasion Has Russia on Edge 

The Ukrainian foray into Russia continues to net significant gains, reshaping the conflict with every passing day.

The Ukrainian military is fighting in Russia’s Kursk Oblast with ground forces and fighter jets. Kyiv’s progress is forcing the Russian military to relocate forces from Ukraine back to Russia to deal with the threat.

Fighting Inside Russia 

Ukrainian units have operated with great impunity within Russia, and Russian military leadership is becoming increasingly anxious about Ukrainian advances in Kursk Oblast. Images circulating online show Russian troops digging trenches around the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant near Kurchatov. The facility is located approximately 50 miles from the border with Ukraine. 

“After initial disarray and disorganization, Russian forces have deployed in greater force to the region, including likely from elsewhere along the contact line. They have also begun to construct additional defensive positions in an effort to prevent Ukrainian advances,” British Military Intelligence assessed last week. 

Meanwhile in the skies, the Ukrainian Air Force flies sorties over Russian territory, striking targets with unusual ease. In an example of this air campaign, a video surfaced showing a Ukrainian MiG-29 Fulcrum dropping a French guided munition with a bunker-busting warhead through the roof of a Russian command and control bunker somewhere close to the frontlines in Kursk. In another instance, a Ukrainian fighter jet uses a pair of U.S. glide munitions to destroy a granary facility held by the Russians. Ukrainian missiles have destroyed several bridges in Kursk in an attempt to trap Russian units and prevent reinforcements from coming in. 

The Russian military is short on capable, well-trained units to deploy. As a result, it is sending newly organized formations that are ill-suited to fight the battle-hardened Ukrainian mechanized brigades spearheading the foray into Kursk. 

The Specialized Motor Rifle Regiment is one example of a unit deployed by the Russian military that is not fit for the task. Formed in May, the unit is comprised of Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) personnel. 

“Reportedly personnel forming the VKS-manned Motor Rifle Regiment include those previously in specialist roles such as early-warning radar operators at Long Range Aviation Heavy Bomber regiments,” British Military Intelligence stated in its latest assessment of the war.

“Diverting personnel from these previously high priority areas likely demonstrates continuing personnel shortages. By employing them in an infantry role, hey are also being misused, which could reduce Russian capability to re-take territory in Kursk Oblast,” British Military Intelligence added. 

This is like the U.S. Air Force sending a battalion of F-22 Raptor maintainers and drone pilots to do the job of a U.S. Marine Corps infantry battalion. 

“Russia continues to develop new units and recruit more personnel to sustain its mass attritional warfare approach against Ukraine,” British Military Intelligence added.

According to the latest estimates released by the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense, the Russian military has lost over 600,000 men, averaging more than 1,000 casualties a day. 

“The high casualty rates that result mean that Russia needs to continuously replenish front line infantry personnel, which will almost certainly continue to limit Russia’s ability to generate higher capability units,” British Military Intelligence concluded. 

About the Author: 

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. 

Summary and Key Points: The Imperial Japanese Navy's carrier Shinano was an ill-fated warship, originally intended as a battleship but converted into an aircraft carrier during World War II.

-Despite being the largest aircraft carrier of its time, Shinano was plagued by design compromises and was sunk by a U.S. submarine just seven hours into its maiden voyage.

Bottomline: The ship's flawed concept of serving as a resupply vessel for other carriers, combined with Japan's inadequate anti-submarine warfare strategy, highlighted the weaknesses that contributed to its swift demise. Shinano's failure serves as a cautionary tale in naval warfare design.

Shinano: The Largest Aircraft Carrier That Never Saw Battle

Over the last hundred years, the navies of the world have constructed, operated, and taken to war hundreds of aircraft carriers. Some carriers have been truly outstanding designs, while many more were simply adequate and lost to history. One ship that achieved fame not out of greatness but sheer incompetence was the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) carrier Shinano. Originally constructed as a battleship, she was redesigned to support the air war in the Pacific before being sunk, with considerable irony, by a submarine before she could even see battle.

In May 1940 the Yokosuka Naval Yard laid down the third hull of the Yamato-class battleships. The largest battleships ever built, the Yamato-class featured nine eighteen-inch guns and were considerably larger and more powerful—on paper anyway—than even the U.S. Navy’s Iowa-class battleships. The Yamato and her sister ship Musashi were completed as designed, but work on the third ship, Shinano, halted shortly after the outbreak of hostilities with the Allied powers—principally the United Kingdom and Holland.

By June 1942 Shinano was complete up to her main deck but Japan no longer had use for battleships. A series of reversals at sea, particularly the Battle of Midway, had dealt a serious blow to Japanese carrier aviation. (The Battle of Midway alone saw the loss of four Japanese fleet carriers.) At the same time, it was becoming increasingly clear that aircraft carriers had eclipsed the battleship as the dominant weapon at sea. Japan needed more aircraft carriers, and fast.

The IJN decided to redesign Shinano to help make up Japan’s carrier losses. At 840 feet long at the waterline, Shinano was set to become the world’s largest aircraft carrier, with a huge flight deck to support air operations and a cavernous hangar to store and repair fighters, dive bombers, and torpedo planes. Such a ship could carry well over a hundred fighters, the equal in aircraft to nearly two American carriers.

Unfortunately, an opposing plan emerged that envisioned Shinano not as a true aircraft carrier but new type of vessel, a carrier support ship. Under the new plan Shinano would act as a floating resupply ship for other aircraft carriers, carrying fuel, munitions, fuel, and other supplies. Aircraft from other carriers would land on Shinano, load up on fuel and weapons, and then take off on combat missions. Incredibly, under this scheme Shinano would not have any planes of its own, nor would she have the ability to store any.

After considerable infighting, the Imperial Navy decided on a compromise design. Shinano would be fitted out as a 68,000-ton aircraft carrier similar in construction to the smaller Taiho. The carrier would have a hangar and carry four dozen fighters for self-defense. Her primary mission, however, was to supply new planes to carriers that had sustained combat losses, repair damaged aircraft, and resupply fleet carriers at sea.

The conversion effort began in the summer of 1942 but proceeded very slowly. Inexplicably, work only sped up after the Battle of the Philippine Sea in June 1944, when two more fleet carriers and a light carrier were lost to enemy action. The ship was finally launched in October 1944. As completed, Shinano displaced 62,000 tons, had an overall length of 872 feet, and was up to 119 feet long. She had a crew of 2,400 and carried up to forty-seven fighters for self-defense.

A large target for enemy aircraft, Shinano was well equipped to fend off aircraft and shrug off hits above the waterline. Her anti-air defenses included sixteen 5-inch guns, 145 25-millimeter anti-aircraft guns, and 336 5-inch anti-aircraft rocket launchers. Armor ranged from 15.75 inches at the main belt to just 3.94 inches amidships. Unlike American carriers, she had an armored flight deck, with 2.95 inches of armor protecting the innards of the ship from dive bombs penetrating from above.

Ironically, although well equipped to fend off aerial and surface attacks Shinano was ultimately done in by a subsurface attack. On November 28th, 1944, just seven hours into a voyage from Yokosuka to Matsuyama for fitting out, Shinano was attacked by four torpedoes launched from the submarine USS Archerfish. The ship, undermanned and incomplete, could not affect damage control procedures properly. Watertight doors had been left open and poorly welded segments of the ship gave way to flooding, and the huge ship went down exactly seven hours after coming under torpedo attack.

Much of the criticism of Shinano’s design is predicated not on the ship’s battle history—the carrier participated in only one, lopsided “battle”—but in how the carrier support ship design would have fared given what we know about the Pacific War. As a ship designed to prolong the ability of Japan’s carriers to fight without returning to port, it was designed to support Japan’s tradition of keeping men, ships, and planes on the frontline until they were killed and destroyed. As we know now, this was a major contributor to Japan’s eventual defeat and the U.S. Navy’s opposite policy, of regularly rotating forces off the front line, was a major contributor to America’ victory. Shinano was designed to support a losing strategy.

Shinano’s loss to submarine action highlighted another shortcoming in the design and the larger Imperial Japanese Navy: the lack of a strong anti-submarine warfare doctrine and adequate anti-submarine ships and resources. Despite a highly successful undersea warfare campaign waged by the submarines of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, Japan never built up a strong anti-submarine warfare response comparable to that fielded by the Allies fending off Germany’s U-boat fleet. Although Shinano was well prepared to fight the air and surface battle, she was lost to the one battle she was utterly unprepared for—the subsurface battle.

Built as a compromise ship by an indecisive navy, Shinano was perhaps the worst designed carrier ever built—a mistake made exponentially worse by the dire wartime situation Japan found itself in. It is worth noting that Shinano was the first and last carrier support ship ever designed, as other naval powers have avoided the class. Shinano was a somber lesson to future naval powers: there is no middle ground in carrier construction, and weakness in one of the realms of naval warfare will haunt major powers in wartime, claiming even the largest warships.

About the Author: Kyle Mizokami, Defense Expert 

Kyle Mizokami is a writer based in San Francisco who has appeared in The Diplomat, Foreign Policy, War is Boring and The Daily Beast. In 2009 he cofounded the defense and security blog Japan Security Watch. 

Summary and Key Points You Need To Know: The A-10 Thunderbolt II, known as the Warthog, is equipped with the GAU-8 Avenger, a 30mm rotary cannon capable of firing 4,200 rounds per minute, making it a devastating force against enemy tanks and armored vehicles.

-Developed in the 1970s to counter Soviet tanks, the Avenger underwent extensive testing and improvements before proving its effectiveness in Operation Desert Storm, where it destroyed hundreds of Iraqi tanks and vehicles.

-Despite its battlefield success, the A-10's future is uncertain, with debates on whether newer technologies might replace it. However, the power and fear induced by the Avenger gun remain undeniable.

The A-10 Warthog's GAU-8 Avenger: A Tank's Worst Nightmare

If you are operating an enemy tank, the deep, buzzing belch of cannon fire from an A-10 Thunderbolt II may be the last thing you ever hear.

The A-10, better known as the Warthog, has a rotary cannon called the GAU-8 Avenger that can sustain 600 revolutions and fire 4,200 rounds per minute. The gun can make short work of armored vehicles.

Let’s take a look at the awesome power of this gun.

Looking for the Perfect Weapon

In the early 1970s, the U.S. Air Force analyzed various wars between Israel and Arab countries that featured tank-on-tank warfare. The service branch came away from that research looking for an airplane and a gun that could buzz enemy tanks and plink them into oblivion. They reckoned such a platform could help defeat the Soviet army’s thousands of tanks. 

General Electric won the bid for a 30mm ultra-fast cannon. The gun would fire armor-piercing and high-explosive rounds that were a match for any tank, armored vehicle, and artillery piece. Enemy bunkers were also on the list of installations the gun could destroy. Each bullet had the length of a pint bottle. 

Working Through the Avenger’s Issues

By 1974, the GAU-8 Avenger was ready for testing. The seven-barrel, gatling-style gun fired from as high as 25,000 feet and as low as 100 feet. It underwent 60 test flights and shot 39,000 rounds in various maneuvers and stunts at up to 5-Gs. Hydraulic motors spun the rifled barrels. 

However, the gun had some issues. Flashes from the firing kept the pilot from seeing where he was flying. The gas dirtied the windshield, too. Gas could also reach the airplane’s engines, causing the power plants to suffocate. Engineers spent 10 years addressing and fixing those problems.

The huge gun weighs 620 pounds, but once you add the feed system and drum, it weighs 4,029 pounds. The Avenger has a full load of 1,150 rounds of ammunition in the drum. The entire apparatus is nearly 21 feet long, and its range is 4,101 feet.

Desert Storm Dandy

It was during Operation Desert Storm that the A-10 and its gun shone brighest. The gun fired 783,514 rounds during 8,077 combat sorties. It eliminated 900 Iraqi tanks, at least 2,000 other armored vehicles, and around 1,200 artillery pieces.

A-10 pilot John Marks was interviewed by Smithsonian Magazine about shooting the Avenger during the First Gulf War. “The thing shook the airplane when you pulled the trigger. You could smell the spent casings even with the oxygen mask on. The sound is muffled with all the gear we wear, but you still hear it. The high rate of fire and typical range mean the rounds hit just before or about the time you release the trigger,” Marks recalled.

The GAU-8 is mounted laterally off-center because the recoil could move it off target during a strafing run. But the barrel is “underneath the airplane’s center of gravity,” according to Matt Snape of Hotcars.com. “This centers the recoil forces, preventing changes in aircraft pitch or yaw when fired,” Snape wrote.

Despite the power of the gun and the A-10’s combat-proven effectiveness, the Air Force tried to retire the airplane in 2015, 2016, and 2017 budget cycles, and it wanted to trim the numbers ASAP. 

The A-10 and the Future

The Air Force and the Congressional Research Service will be investigating lessons learned from the war in Ukraine. Russia has lost hundreds of tanks and armored personnel carriers to anti-tank guided missiles, artillery, and drones.

Could the Air Force do away with the A-10 and focus instead on these systems and tactics during an armored fight?

Or is it better to depend on that amazing gun to eliminate even more enemy tanks and infantry fighting vehicles? These are difficult questions to answer, but one thing we know for sure is that the Avenger gun is a force on the battlefield. It puts fear into the enemy.

About the Author: Dr. Brent M. Eastwood 

Brent M. Eastwood, PhD, 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.

All images are Creative Commons. 

It was back to the future on Tuesday night as Michelle and Barack Obama spoke at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. The former was the clear winner over the latter in the speech sweepstakes, but she made no move to wrest the nomination from her longtime friend, Vice President Kamala Harris. Instead, she focused on pillorying Donald Trump as the scion of “the affirmative action of generational wealth.” Her husband evocatively likened Trump to the “neighbor who keeps running his leaf blower outside your window every minute of every day.”

Absent some of the more fevered conspiracy theories on the right actually occurring—Joe Biden seizing back the nomination, Michelle Obama tossing her hat in the ring—the convention in Chicago has been drained of much of its suspense. Even the much-ballyhooed protests against the Gaza war seem to have fizzled out, if not turned into sheer farce, now that Vice President Kamala Harris has captured the hearts and minds of the Democratic party.

As the convention focused on denouncing Trump as a threat to American freedoms—democracy is apparently now passe—a fresh reminder of the foreign policy stakes arrived with the disclosure that the Biden administration has approved a secret strategy called “Nuclear Employment Guidance” that aims to deter a simultaneous attack from China, North Korea, and Russia.

How much either Tim Walz or Harris will focus on foreign affairs in their speeches is an open question. But the geopolitical context that any new president will confront is rapidly shifting, and not always in good ways. Perhaps the coordination between Russia, China, and North Korea that foreign policy realists were wont to warn about was likely to occur, but American foreign policy does not seem to have done much to forestall the prospect. Instead, the state of belligerence towards China may, in some measure, have become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Absent a crisis abroad—an attack on Taiwan or war with Iran—it is economics that remains at the forefront of the Harris campaign. If her own campaign is anything to go by, she has a firm mastery of the importance of finances. She reported a whopping $220 million at the close of July in cash on hand in contrast to the $151 million that the Trump campaign disclosed. This reversal of fortune is allowing Harris to hammer home her anti-corporate, pro-labor message in a variety of swing states. Meanwhile, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s finances appear to be in dire straits as he commands a mere $3.9 million with $3.5 million in debts. Small wonder that his campaign is openly flirting with endorsing Trump as long as the former president is willing to promise, for whatever that promise is worth, a post (Secretary of Health and Human Services?) in a new administration to Kennedy. The most likely prospect is that Kennedy, who has not rated a mention at the convention, will drift into insignificance. It’s an amazing testament to the fall of the once-proud Kennedy family.

If there is a star of the convention, it appears to be the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025. Trump has sought to disown it, but Democrats are highlighting its proposals as a foundation for a new Trump administration. An oversized copy of the “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise”  is being held up by several speakers, including Pennsylvania state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta who deemed the document a “radical plan to drag us backwards, bankrupt the middle class and raise prices on working families like yours and mine.” The term “radical,” once the province of the Left, seems to be vying with “weird” as the favorite Democratic term of obloquy for Trump.

As Harris and her running mate Tim Walz prepare to make their respective big speeches tonight and tomorrow, it would not be surprising to see them flag Project 2025 as a danger to the republic. On July 23, Harris stated in Milwaukee that Trump and “his extreme Project 2025 agenda will weaken the middle class. Like, we know we got to take this seriously, and can you believe they put that thing in writing?” Most book authors could only dream of such publicity, but Trump and Co. appear to be running away from Project 2025 as quickly as they can.

About the Author: Editor of the National Interest, Jacob Heilbrunn

Jacob Heilbrunn is editor of The National Interest and is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center. He has written on both foreign and domestic issues for numerous publications, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Foreign Affairs, Reuters, Washington Monthly, and The Weekly Standard. He has also written for German publications such as Cicero, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, and Der Tagesspiegel. In 2008, his book They Knew They Were Right: the Rise of the Neocons was published by Doubleday. It was named one of the one hundred notable books of the year by The New York Times. He is the author of America Last: The Right’s Century-Long Romance with Foreign Dictators.

Image Credit: Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The D-21 was America’s first foray into drone technology, developed by Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works in the 1960s in response to growing Soviet anti-aircraft defenses.

-This supersonic surveillance drone, capable of flying at Mach 3.2, was initially launched from the SR-71 Blackbird before transitioning to the B-52H bomber.

-The D-21's primary mission was to gather intelligence on China’s nuclear program, but the project ultimately failed, with all four missions (1969-71) unsuccessful.

-Despite this, the D-21 significantly influenced future U.S. drone technology, and China's later WZ-8 drone bore a strong resemblance to the D-21.

The D-21 was America’s First Attempt at Drones

When one thinks of unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, the MQ-1 Predator or the MQ-9 Reaper probably come to mind. 

But America’s drones have a much longer operational history.

Way back in the 1960s, Lockheed Martin designed the D-21 supersonic surveillance drone at their Skunk Works facility. Created in response to the downing of Gary Powers and his U-2 spy plane, the D-21 was the U.S. military and intelligence community’s solution to the rapidly advancing Soviet anti-aircraft defenses ringing the Communist bloc states.  

The D-21 Specs

Designed to fly at an astonishing Mach 3.2, or 2,455 miles per hour, the D-21 employed a ramjet engine. This insanely fast early drone would be launched from an SR-71 Blackbird and continue to its target at supersonic speeds. 

If it were shot down, no one would be lost, and the Americans would have a degree of deniability. 

Because of the D-21’s unique design, though, launching from an equally radical airframe such as the SR-71 Blackbird proved to be a problem. So the Pentagon switched to a B-52H bomber. A rocket booster would launch the drone from the wing of the Stratofortress. 

China’s Nuclear Weapons Program

When the D-21 went active, the People’s Republic of China was rapidly developing an illicit nuclear weapons program. At this time, China was very similar to how we might today view North Korea: It was a backward and isolated land ruled by a vicious cult of personality. 

But China wanted nukes, and the Americans were rightly concerned about this prospect, especially given China’s close alliance at that time with the Soviet Union. 

China’s main nuclear test site was at a place called Lop Nur. To get a better read on what was occurring there, the Americans deployed their D-21 surveillance drone. Four major intelligence collection missions were launched against this target over the course of two years (1969-71). 

A Failure?

The program failed. According to Maya Carlin, two of the four drones were lost somewhere over China, while the other two malfunctioned and delivered no usable intelligence.

The Pentagon canceled the program in 1971. Unsurprisingly, the Chinese down the line unveiled their own supersonic drone, the WZ-8, which looked suspiciously like the D-21. 

The Chinese had captured one or both of the D-21s that were lost over the Middle Kingdom and reverse-engineered them. This, of course, was a portent of things to come.

Lockheed Martin’s design for the D-21 would go on to significantly influence future drone technology for the U.S. military. Even modern drones have been inspired by the lessons learned from the D-21. While the missions technically ended in failure, the program was not a complete waste of time. 

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

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: Submarines are among the most potent assets in a nation's arsenal, capable of lurking in the ocean's depths to strike enemy targets with precision. The U.S. Navy, boasting the world's most formidable submarine fleet, is set to enhance its capabilities with the new SSN New Jersey, a Virginia-class fast-attack submarine.

-Designed to find and sink enemy warships, the SSN New Jersey, officially SSN 796, will join the Navy's fleet as the 23rd Virginia-class sub. With a $3.5 billion price tag and powered by nuclear energy, these submarines can operate for years without refueling, and the Navy plans to keep them in service well into the 2070s.

-Virginia-class subs, introduced in 2004, are equipped with an impressive arsenal, including Tomahawk cruise missiles and Mk48 torpedoes, making them a crucial component of U.S. naval power.

What Makes the Virginia-Class Submarine So Special? 

Submarines are some of the most powerful weapon systems in a country’s arsenal. They lurk in the depths of the ocean, ready to pounce on enemy shipping and deliver high-precision missiles, including nuclear weapons, to enemy targets thousands of miles away. 

The U.S. Navy has the most powerful submarine fleet in the world, with scores of vessels. And in a few weeks, the Navy will accept its newest submarine.

The SSN New Jersey 

On April 6, the Navy delivered the SSN New Jersey at the U.S. Naval Weapons Station. 

As a fast-attack submarine of the Virginia class, the SSN New Jersey will have a simple mission in the event of a conflict: find and sink enemy warships. 

Officially named SSN 796 New Jersey, the nuclear-powered submarine will join the most populous class of submarines in the U.S. Navy. The Navy currently operates three classes of fast-attack submarines (Los Angeles, Seawolf, and Virginia) for a total fleet of approximately 50 submarines. 

The Navy is planning to purchase a total of 66 Virginia-class submarines. As of February, 22 subs are in service, with the USS New Jersey soon to be the 23rd. In addition, 11 other submarines of the class are under construction, and four more are authorized by Congress.

The submarine has been years in the making. Its keel was laid in March 2019, and it comes with a price tag of approximately $3.5 billion. The new submarine will be the third warship to be named after the state of New Jersey. 

Powered by nuclear energy, the Virginia-class submarines can stay afloat for years without the need for refueling and are mainly limited by their victuals.

The Navy plans to operate the class well into the 2070s.

The Virginia-class Submarines 

Introduced with the SSN 774 Virginia in 2004, the Virginia class is the latest class of fast-attack submarines in the U.S. Navy. Built by General Dynamics Electric Boat Division and Huntington Ingalls Industries, the Virginia class is a powerful weapon system. 

At almost 380 feet long, the class has a beam of 34 feet and a displacement of approximately 7,800 tons submerged. The submarine can operate at depths of over 800 ft (about 250 meters). It can reach speeds of more than 25 nautical knots (over 28 miles per hour), and it relies on one nuclear reactor with one shaft for its propulsion. In terms of manpower, Virginia-class submarines have a crew of 132, with 15 officers and 117 enlisted personnel. 

But where the Virginia class shines is in its armament. There are five blocks, or modifications, with different combinations of weapons. Submarines carrying the Block I through IV weapons modifications have 12 Vertical Launching Tubes for Tomahawk cruise missiles and four 21-inch torpedo tubes that can fire Mk48 torpedoes or UGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles.

Considering the restrictions imposed by the limited space, the Virginia-class can pack a healthy 25 torpedoes/anti-ship missiles and over a dozen cruise missiles. Block V will add more missiles through the Virginia Payload Module.

About the Author  

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 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. Email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: Submarines have evolved into fast, stealthy, and highly maneuverable platforms, with the Seawolf-class submarine from the U.S. Navy leading the pack as the fastest and most advanced, capable of exceeding 35 miles per hour and diving up to 2,000 feet.

-Following closely is the Virginia-class, a versatile submarine designed for modern warfare, with a top speed of 28 miles per hour. Russia’s Yasen-M class, known for its ability to carry hypersonic missiles, cruises at 40 miles per hour and dives to nearly 2,000 feet.

-China’s Shang-class submarine showcases the country’s growing naval prowess, reaching speeds of 34 miles per hour and diving to over 2,200 feet.

-Finally, the UK's Vanguard-class, central to the Royal Navy’s nuclear deterrent, offers reliable performance with a speed of 28 miles per hour and a diving capability of over 1,300 feet. These submarines represent the pinnacle of underwater warfare technology.

Top 5 Fastest Submarines in the World: Speed, Stealth, and Power

Submarines may be an older technological platform, but each iteration gets better than the last. 

Submarines are meant to be stealthy. More than that, though, subs must possess a high degree of speed and the ability to dive fast. They also must be highly maneuverable. 

The list below, while far from comprehensive, uses those qualities to determine the five best fast submarines in the world.

5. Vanguard-Class Submarine

Once the greatest naval power in the world, the British Royal Navy today is a shadow of its former glory. Nevertheless, the British still possess some capabilities that make them competitive at sea. The Vanguard-class nuclear-powered submarine is an excellent heir to the legacy of the great imperial navy that came before it. 

Designed to fight the Cold War, these boats for now are still the primary submarine of the Royal Navy. 

A Vanguard-class submarine displaces just shy of 16,000 tons when submerged. She’s powered by one Rolls Royce pressurized water-cooled nuclear reactor that supplies steam to two sets of General Electric geared turbines delivering 27,500 horsepower to one shaft. 

Her speed is a respectable 28 miles per hour. She can also dive in excess of 1,300 feet. The numbers don’t lie. The Vanguard class is a solid sub. 

4. Shang-Class Submarine

China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy is steadily advancing its submarine capabilities to rival those of the Americans, Russians, and other advanced navies. The nuclear-powered Shang-class leads the way. 

The Shang class has a 7,000-ton displacement and can carry around 100 crewmembers. Its top cruising speed is about 30 knots, or 34 miles per hour, and these boats can dive down to 2,296 feet.

As for this submarine’s maneuverability, one analyst has written that, “China can ensure that [the Shang-class] submarine has a breakthrough in underwater navigation performance, and the nuclear power propulsion system has sufficient power to match the hull tonnage. Under better circumstances, [the Shang-class] is entirely possible to achieve relatively excellent underwater speed and underwater maneuverability.” 

3. Yasen-M-class Submarine

Russia may be more of a continental power rather than a maritime power, but the Russian Navy can build some remarkable underwater systems. 

The Yasen-M class is especially impressive. Recently, the Russians converted this class of “tough” Russian subs (as Business Insider labeled them in 2023) into hypersonic missile carriers, making the Yasen-M the only active submarine in the world capable of deploying these next-level weapons. In June, the Russians deployed one of these boats in a flotilla to Cuba, skirting the U.S. Eastern seaboard in the process. 

The Yasen-M can cruise up to 35 knots (40 miles per hour) and can safely dive to about 1,968 feet. She displaces around 13,800 tons. 

In all, the Russians have one of the speediest, most lethal undersea platforms in existence today. Americans underestimate the Yasen-M at their own peril.

2. Virginia-class Submarine

When America went looking for a replacement for the iconic Los Angeles-class attack submarine, it first landed on the highly complex but expensive Seawolf class. 

Sadly, that submarine’s cost and the lack of a Soviet enemy made Congress rethink its decision to make the Seawolf class the new primary attack submarine for America’s Navy. Sent back to the drawing board, the Navy produced the Virginia class. 

A Virginia-class submarine goes about 28 miles per hour. Because the boats are relatively new, the Navy is not as forthcoming with certain design details. For example, the Navy is coy about this sub’s maximum operating depth, listing it as “more than 800 feet.” It carries 15 officers and 117 enlisted personnel as well. 

A highly maneuverable and fast submarine, the Virginia-class is one of the finest attack submarines ever built. 

1. Seawolf-class Submarine

Now for the blue label of modern submarines, the U.S. Navy’s Seawolf class. As noted above, this boat was meant to replace the Los Angeles-class attack subs beginning in the early 1990s, until Congress got cold feet. 

At roughly $4.3 billion per unit, one can hardly blame them. But given the kind of threat environment the U.S. faces today, a fleet of these submarines might have been the best long-term investment the Navy could have made.

Alas, there’s no going back. The Navy currently possesses only three of these submarines, and there are no plans to reconstitute the production line. Besides, the Navy prefers the Virginia-class submarine, which, while a versatile and fast boat as you just read, has limits to its speed and maneuverability that the Seawolf class does not share.

This boat can go in excess of 35 miles per hour. The Seawolf class is highly maneuverable and can dive up to 2,000 feet, with a maximum crush depth ranging from 2,400 to 3,000 feet beneath the waves. 

The Seawolf-class submarine threat is widely believed to keep the Chinese and Russians up at night. It is not only the fastest submarine in the world today, it is also the best submarine ever built. 

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

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: The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) operates the largest fleet of F-16s outside the U.S., with over 300 airframes, including the specialized F-16I Sufa variant.

-Designed to meet the specific needs of Israel's Air Force, the F-16I includes significant upgrades such as conformal fuel tanks for extended range, an advanced helmet-mounted cueing system, and an enhanced electronic warfare suite. These modifications make the Sufa a critical component of Israel's military, allowing it to carry out complex air-to-ground missions effectively.

-The F-16I has been a key asset in operations such as the 2021 conflict with Hamas in Gaza and is expected to remain in service for years to come.

F-16I Sufa: The Thunderstorm in Israel’s Air Defense Arsenal

The Israel Defense Forces fly the largest contingent of the F-16 outside of the U.S. Air Force, with more than 300 airframes in their arsenal.

Nicknamed Sufa, or thunderstorm in Hebrew, the two-seat variant of the F-16 – the F-16I Sufa – was specifically designed to meet the requirements of Israel's Air Force.

While the platform has some shortcomings, Israel’s Sufa variant boasts unique modifications that make it a critical part of the Jewish state’s military program. 

F-16I upgrades the original

 Originally developed by General Dynamics (now Lockheed Martin), the F-16 Fighting Falcon took its first flight in 1976. The fighter jet was designed to rectify some of the shortcomings in the aircraft that flew in the Korean and Vietnam Wars. The Falcon’s increased thrust-to-weight ratio and smaller frame made it an air-superiority platform, with improved air-to-air training for fighter pilots. Similar to the F-15, the Fighting Falcon was also a premier airframe for withstanding higher g-forces. 

An initial contract between Lockheed-Martin and Israel allocated up to 110 new F-16Is by 2003. According to former Lockheed Martin Vice President John Bean, “[The Sufa program] illustrates the strong bond between Lockheed Martin and Israel; we hope to strengthen that relationship through our continuing commitment to this program." 

The first fleet arrived in Israel in 2004 and featured a range of specialized modifications, including changes to the Falcon’s avionics, instrumentation, and weapons support systems. The F-16I is fitted with Israeli-designed conformal fuel tanks that extend the jet’s flight range by increasing the fuel it can hold by 50%. The placement of the tanks also allows the wings’ inner store stations, which are typically utilized for external tanks, to be available for weapons storage. This variation alone doubles the Sufa’s air-to-ground weapons capacity.

The F-16I’s Elbit Dash IV display shortens the lock-on process time for engagements, and the aircraft uses a helmet-mounted cueing system. This Israeli development can link aircraft information such as height and speed to the system, enabling weapons to target enemy aircraft using sight only. Dash IV allows the pilot to locate targets at high angles off the nose of the fighter, providing 360-degree information to the pilot everywhere they look. 

A key aerial asset

Arguably the most significant modification made to the F-16I Sufa is in its electronic warfare suite and avionics. Approximately half of the Falcon’s avionics were replaced with Israeli innovations including the aerial towed decoy. The Sufa’s electronic warfare suite incorporates radar warning systems and jamming capabilities, including the Elisra SPS 3000 self-protection jammer.

The F-16I Sufa has been active in Israel’s air force missions for nearly two decades, and the platform remains a critical asset. It continues to carry out important tasks. During a 2021 Israel-Hamas flare-up in Gaza, Sufas comprised the majority of the aircraft responsible for striking the terror group’s underground tunnel network and other weapons depots. With the help of the F-15I Ra’am and F-35I Adir stealth fighters, Operation Guardian of the Walls was successful.

The F-16I Sufa will likely remain in Israel’s aerial arsenal for years to come.

About the Author: Defense Expert, Maya Carlin

Maya Carlin 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.

Image Credit: All Images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Top 5 Points on the F-35 You Need to Know: The F-35 Lightning II program, the most advanced jet in the skies today, has faced numerous challenges and is now the most expensive defense program in history, with an estimated lifetime cost of over $2 trillion.

-The program's complexity arises from its three variants (A, B, and C), each tailored to meet the specific needs of the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, replacing multiple older aircraft.

-Despite efforts to reduce costs, sustainment and operational expenses have risen significantly, partly due to the extended operational life of the F-35 and inflation.

-The program's high costs are justified by its ability to streamline multiple mission sets into a single, versatile aircraft, making it a logistical asset for the U.S. military.

-The F-35 program’s complexity stems from its three variants (A, B, and C), each designed to meet the specific needs of the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, replacing multiple older aircraft.

F-35 Lightning II: The $2 Trillion Fighter That’s Reshaping U.S. Air Power

The F-35 Lightning II is the most advanced jet in the skies today. However, its journey to the skies hasn’t been easy. Indeed, the F-35 program had to overcome several challenges and setbacks to be where it is today. To a certain extent, these challenges continue to this day.

According to the latest assessment by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the F-35 Program will cost more than $2 trillion during its lifetime. This astounding cost makes it the most expensive defense program in recent history and one of the most expensive in military history in general.

Specifically, the GAO report estimates $1.6 trillion in sustainment costs, which include operational demands and maintenance – this is about 45 percent higher than the previous estimate in 2018 ($1.1 trillion). It also estimates approximately $445 billion in acquisition costs, which include the development and procurement of the stealth fighter jet.

One of the main reasons for the hefty half a trillion dollars increase in sustainment costs is the fact that the U.S. military plans to operate the F-35 fighter for an additional decade, or until 2088. Another reason is the higher inflation.

The fact that the GAO had to revise its estimate within six years coupled with the ongoing production and delivery of the aircraft, could indicate that the F-35 Program’s cost might further increase in the near future.

Lockheed Martin and the F-35 Joint Program Office have tried to bring costs down but without significant success. Nevertheless, for many, the high cost and challenges surrounding the F-35 Program have a reasonable explanation.

F-35 Stealth Fighter: It Can Do It All? 

Much like the Russian Babushka wooden dolls that fit several similar toys of different sizes in each other, the F-35 Lightning II isn’t just one aircraft and isn’t intended to replace just one aircraft.

The F-35 comes in three versions: A, B, and C. Although they are essentially the same aircraft in terms of capabilities, each is designed differently to meet the different demands of the U.S. military’s services. Essentially, Lockheed Martin designed three different aircraft in one, and that is reflected in some of the costs.

The F-35A is the conventional take-off and landing aircraft that operates from runways; this is the version used by the Air Force and most of the 19 countries that comprise the F-35 Program.

The F-35B is the Short Take-Off, Vertical Landing (STOVL) version of the aircraft and can take off and land like a helicopter but still fly like a fighter jet; this version is used by the U.S. Marine Corps, as well as several foreign partners.

Finally, the F-35C is the aircraft carrier version of the aircraft and is designed to withstand the extreme pressures of carrier operations; this iteration is used only by the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps.

In addition, the three versions of the F-35 Lightning II are going to replace several older aircraft, including the A-10 Warthog close air support aircraft, AV-88 Harrier STOVL fighter jet, and also probably the F-16.

As such, they include capabilities that would normally be spread over several aircraft. This streamlining of mission sets in a single aircraft is a logistical miracle for the U.S. military and will benefit it in a time of war.

About the Author

Stavros Atlamazoglou is a Greek Army veteran (National service with 575th Marines Battalion and Army HQ). Johns Hopkins University. You will usually find him on the top of a mountain admiring the view and wondering how he got there.

This article was first published by Sandboxx News.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The United States Navy’s Ohio-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, crucial to the nation's nuclear deterrent, are rarely seen or discussed publicly due to their stealth missions.

-However, in June, the U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa revealed the location of the USS Tennessee (SSBN-734) in the Norwegian Sea, accompanied by the USS Normandy (CG-60) and P-8A Poseidon aircraft, along with an E-6B Mercury “doomsday plane.”

-This unusual disclosure is believed to be a strategic response to recent Russian naval activities, including the deployment of Russian naval vessels to the Caribbean and exercises in the Mediterranean. The reveal serves as a reminder of the Ohio-class submarines' destructive capabilities.

Why the U.S. Navy Unveiled the Location of a Nuclear-Armed Submarine

The United States Navy's Ohio-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines remain a key component of the nation's nuclear triad and serve as a nuclear deterrent. The warships are often spoken/written about – yet rarely seen. As part of the "Silent Service," the submarines spent much of their patrols under the sea, with their locations rarely disclosed.

However, on back in June, the U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa/U.S. 6th Fleet posted on X – the social media platform formerly known as Twitter – to announce that USS Tennessee (SSBN-734) was operating in the Norwegian Sea, while the nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed sub was joined by the Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Normandy (CG-60) and P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft. In addition, an E-6B Mercury strategic communications plane was also reported to be flying over ahead.

The unusual disclosure--the submarine was surfaced and not under the waves operating in stealth--of the movements of any of the U.S. Navy's 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines is already highly unusual. However, the fact that an E-6B jet – one of the Navy's 16 modified Boeing 707s that serves as an airborne strategic command post and like the U.S. Air Force's E-4B is often known as a "doomsday plane" – makes it especially noteworthy.

The "boomers" as the submarines are known can disappear for months at a time. That is exactly what they were designed to do, as the boats remain the most destructive weapon system employed by the U.S. military. Given that there are just 14 in service – along with four more modified Ohio-class subs that serve as cruise missile submarines (SSGNs) – revealing the location of any isn't something taken lightly.

Yet, since 2020, the U.S. has disclosed the locations as a reminder of the Ohio class's destructive capability.

"Any decision to highlight the presence of one of these submarines, which are key components of America's nuclear deterrent arsenal and typically keep well out of sight while deployed, inherently sends a message to potential adversaries, such as Russia," TheWarZone reported.

So why did NAVEUR-NAVAF offer up the location of the SSBN-734?

The most likely answer is that it was a direct response to the Russian Navy's deployment of the guided-missile frigate Admiral Gorshkov and the Yasen-M-class nuclear-powered guided-missile submarine Kazan to the Caribbean earlier in June. The Russia flotilla – which also included the replenishment tank Academic Pashi and a tug boat Nikolay Chiker – made a rare port-of-call visit to Havana, Cuba, at the time

In addition, the Russian Navy had been conducting drills in the Mediterranean, involving its missile cruiser Varyag following another port visit to the Libyan city of Tobruk. The cruiser, which also took part in joint exercises with the Egyptian Navy, is quite far from her home port, as she is the flagship of the Russian Navy's Pacific Fleet.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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 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 Top Points You Need to Know: Russia’s sole aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, is widely regarded as a national embarrassment, plagued by technical issues, accidents, and frequent breakdowns. Originally commissioned in 1991, the carrier was meant to project Soviet naval power, but it has since become a symbol of Russia's declining military capabilities.

-Despite its numerous problems, Russia continues to invest in the carrier, likely due to national pride and a desire to maintain carrier operational capabilities.

-However, many analysts believe that the ship is beyond saving and that Russia would be better off investing in a new generation of carriers.

Why Russia Clings to Its Problematic Aircraft Carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov

Russia’s only aircraft carrier, the smoke-spewing, broken down Admiral Kuznetsov, is described by the Russian Navy as a “heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser.” While that might sound impressive, it is not. Admiral Kuznetsov is a continuing embarrassment for the proud Russian military.

The only reason one can assume that the Russians want to keep this national embarrassment around is to train crews for the future, supposedly better, aircraft carrier fleet that Moscow has been planning to build since 2017. 

Still, the carrier is a smoldering embarrassment that any other nation would have scrapped years ago. Indeed, Admiral Kuznetsov was more of an experiment than anything else – one undertaken at a time when the Soviet government was on its way to history’s dustbin. 

A Brief History of the Admiral Kuznetsov

Originally laid down in 1982 and commissioned in 1991, the same year that the USSR collapsed, Admiral Kuznetsov was a product of the Soviet Union’s ambitions for a greater navy. The carrier was intended to project Soviet air power and provide a strategic advantage in any potential conflict.

Even at the start of this project, though, Moscow had to make compromises – if not for budgetary constraints or technological limitations, then for strategic disinformation purposes. For instance, its qualification of being a, “heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser” was done expressly to skirt international rules. Russia is a mostly landlocked nation. It has just four warm-water ports, with possibly its most important one, the naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea, existing along the Black Sea. Since Turkey controls the entry point to the Black Sea for Russia, Moscow must adhere to Turkish rules.

One of Turkey’s rules has been to deny access to aircraft carriers in the Black Sea under the Montreux Convention. With a displacement of nearly 62,000 tons, Admiral Kuznetsov is the largest warship ever built by Russia. But it can also transit the Turkish Strait, because it comes just under the requirements of the Montreux Convention. 

Admiral Kuznetsov has a sloped ski-jump flight deck, which enables conventional takeoffs and landings of its naval aircraft, including Su-33 and MiG-29K fighters. Of course, the ski-jump is highly limiting, which is why the United States prefers to use catapults to fling its aircraft into the air. The Soviets and later the Russians simply did not have the technical skills or funding to install such capabilities on this model of carrier. 

The carrier itself has been plagued by technical issues, accidents, and maintenance problems throughout its more than 30 years in service to Russia. These problems have severely limited the carrier’s usefulness to Russia and has ensured Admiral Kuznetsov is little more than a sunk cost for Russia’s navy.

Russia’s Love Affair with a Failed Aircraft Carrier

Russia’s decision to maintain the aging Kuznetsov can be attributed to national pride as well as a fear of a capabilities gap. Russia already is behind the Americans, and now the Chinese, when it comes to carrier operations. Should Moscow let the decrepit Admiral Kuznetsov be retired, it could mean a lost generation of carrier capabilities for their navy. 

Then again, the wayward carrier spends most of its time in the shipyard, begging the question of whether those capabilities are already lost to Russia. Money might be better spent actually building a new generation of decent carriers.

As if unable to let go, Moscow is apparently investing to extend the service life of this failed carrier by another 25 years. The modernization efforts will include upgrades to the carrier’s air defense systems, propulsion, and flight deck, among other investments.

Despite their insistence that the carrier will be modernized, though, there is much evidence to suggest that the carrier is dead and cannot be modernized anymore. Regardless of what speculation exists on the internet and among analysts, Admiral Kuznetsov is an objectively awful flattop that should have been scrapped 30 years ago.

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

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. All photos are of various submarine styles. 

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: The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long viewed Taiwan as a breakaway province, despite never having governed the self-ruling island. Recent reports suggest that China's People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) may employ a strategy involving three aircraft carriers in an anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) approach to deter foreign intervention during a potential invasion of Taiwan.

-These carriers, supported by long-range missiles, would be positioned east of Taiwan in the Philippine Sea, out of range of Taiwan's anti-ship missiles.

-However, analysts argue that despite PLAN's growing capabilities, a successful invasion of Taiwan remains highly challenging.

-Taiwan's defenses, combined with potential U.S. and allied intervention, could severely complicate China's plans, making a quick victory unlikely and sustainable resupply for China's forces difficult.

Three Aircraft Carriers to Conquer Taiwan? 

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has never actually controlled Taiwan, which is a self-ruling island that was under Japanese occupation until the end of the Second World War when it was then returned to Nationalist Chinese control. Yet, Beijing maintains that it is a breakaway province that will be returned to mainland rule and by force if necessary.

Taking the island, which has a mountainous jungle interior that not even the occupying Japanese never fully subjugated during World War II. Needless to say, it would be difficult, as the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) would have to mount numerous amphibious landings – crossing the Taiwan Straits.

It is now speculated that Beijing's efforts to build aircraft carriers while countering the U.S. Navy's fleet of flattops would be key to such a plan.

According to a new report from the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC), cited by the Taipei Times on Tuesday, China's "Taiwan Strategy" may call for the use of three carriers, which would engage in a strategy of anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) around the island.

"In the quarterly report, the council cited declassified documents from the Ministry of National Defense that categorized China's carriers as a threat if used for A2/AD, and said that China might coordinate its naval, air force, and rocket force capabilities to operate beyond the first island chain and deter foreign forces from getting involved in a conflict involving Taiwan," the Taipei Times news piece laid out.

Three Carrier Strategy

The PLAN is currently conducting sea tests on its third – and second domestically-built – aircraft carrier, the Type 003 Fujian, while efforts have been made to further improve the Type 001 Liaoning and Type 002 Shandong. According to the MAC report, the carriers wouldn't be employed in the invasion and instead could be positioned in the Philippine Sea, well outside of Taiwan's Xiangfeng missiles, which have a range of 200km to 250km.

The carriers would support PLAN forces east of the self-ruling island to serve as a deterrent to foreign aid. The carriers and other warships would be supported by China's so-called "carrier killer" DF-21D and DF-26B anti-ship missiles that could be positioned to strike any approaching U.S. fleet.

"The Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force would deploy medium and long-range conventional ground-attack and anti-ship ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles to foreign forces in the area between the first and second island chains," the report added.

A War of Attrition

While the report warned what Taiwan might face, Institute for National Defense and Security Research fellow Su Tzu-yun highlighted that even as the PLAN is being transformed into a "blue water navy," it may not be enough for it to successfully invade Taiwan and establish a beachhead that could lead to control of the island.

Taipei has anti-ship missiles that could be employed against an approaching armada, while the Taiwanese Navy would need to rely on submarines to counter the PLAN's carriers – further emphasizing the need for the self-ruling island nation to continue the development and production of its domestically-built submarines.

Su further noted that any attempt to employ an A2/AD strategy would require that the carriers would be "sandwiched" between Taiwan and a U.S. fleet from Hawaii and Guam.

"Thoughts to the contrary are simply wishful thinking on the part of the Chinese," the Taiwanese analyst added.

The PLAN would need to see quick success, as its carriers and other warships would need supplies within just a week or two.

"Since the passage of supply ships through the Bashi Channel or Miyako Strait would be too dangerous, and China has no overseas bases, supplying the carriers would be impossible," explained Su. "Any advantage brought by the carriers would be quickly lost."

It is also unclear if the MAC report lays out what role South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and Australia – not to mention India – might react if Beijing were to mount an attack on Taiwan. It is unlikely that some of Taipei's allies and regional partners would simply sit by, while other regional rivals of Beijing might see it as an opportunity to gain an upper hand in the South China Sea and far beyond.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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. 

Here Comes the Light Fighter? The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, a fifth-generation air superiority fighter, remains unmatched in its capabilities, yet it was developed during an era when the U.S. military's focus shifted away from near-peer conflicts.

-As global threats evolve, particularly with the rise of China and the resurgence of Russia, the U.S. Air Force is looking towards the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program to replace the F-22. However, the NGAD faces significant challenges, including its high cost, which could limit fleet size and affect long-term viability.

-There is a growing emphasis on adaptability and modularity in future aircraft designs, potentially leading to a "light fighter" concept that could be more cost-effective and flexible in addressing future threats.

NGAD Becomes Light Fighter? 

The United States Air Force remains the sole operator of the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, which despite no air-to-air kills against a manned aircraft has been described as the world's top air superiority fighter. The aircraft, developed at the tail end of the Cold War and entered production following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, could be described as the right fighter just at the wrong time. It wasn't what the U.S. military needed as it became engaged in the Global War on Terror (GWoT) and it seemed that the days of conflict with a near-peer adversary were a thing of the past.

How the times have changed.

The GWoT wasn't ever won and arguably continues as elements like ISIS-K continue to operate – including an alleged planned attack earlier this month on a Taylor Swift concert in Vienna. Yet, even before Russia mounted its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine more than two-and-a-half years ago, it seemed that the "Evil Empire" – the term the late great Ronald Reagan (got it right this time) used to describe the Soviet Union – was returning, or at least in the mind of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

At the same time, China increasingly rattles sabers as it seeks to take its (self-perceived) rightful place on the world stage. To the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership in Beijing, this was to be China's century.

Perhaps the F-22 is what is needed now, except we must remember that it was developed back when Reagan was still eating jellybeans in the Oval Office. This brings us to today, when the Air Force has been exploring a replacement for the Raptor.

Enter the NGAD

The Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program has sought to develop a systems of systems, including a manned sixth-generation fighter supported by unmanned "loyal wingmen." It would seem exactly what is needed for a potential – yet unthinkable – conflict with a near-peer adversary such as China or Russia, and more importantly serve as a deterrent to ensure that such a conflict doesn't start.

The issue is the cost.

Each NGAD manned fighter could cost upwards of as much as three times that of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, bringing the total price tag to around $300 million per aircraft. That has led to concerns that the air service would have to reduce the number of aircraft in its fleet, which in turn means that losing any in accidents would be devastating, while critics have warned that combat losses would impact the Air Force's ability to effectively fight future wars.

Damned if You Do, Damned if You Don't

Another concern is that the aircraft developed today may not be the aircraft needed tomorrow. The F-22 Raptor was born out of the Air Force's Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program, which began in 1981! In other words, many of the pilots flying the Raptor today weren't even born when fighters were being designed.

To push that point home, cable TV was still a new thing and VHS was "cutting edge" technology to watch movies in the home. Given the leap forward in technology in recent years, Pentagon officials are right to express concerns that an expensive fighter will be viable in decades to come.

Department of the Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall warned earlier this year that efforts are underway to streamline the NGAD fighter's design, and that could include a "less complex" aircraft equipped with a potentially "smaller engine" that could lower future costs.

"The family of systems concept of Next Generation Air Dominance is alive and well," Kendall told Defense News in an interview. "I can tell you that we are looking at the NGAD platform design concept to see if it's the right concept or not. … We're looking at whether we can do something that's less expensive and do some trade-offs there."

NGAD as a Light Fighter

The NGAD likely will continue, but as noted by Harrison Kass for The National Interest, the evolution of the aircraft could be to a "light fighter." Kass based his analysis on comments made by U.S. Air Force General David Allvin at the Global Air and Space Chiefs' Conference hosted by the UK's Air and Space Power Association in London late in July – where Allvin suggested there needs to be a shift away from a "built to last" philosophy that was commonplace in the Cold War to a "built to adapt" philosophy of today.

"On paper such a shift makes sense. Technology is improving at exponential rates. Modularity is becoming an expectation, allowing airframes to upgrade incrementally with new software and new avionics as technology becomes available. Making rigid technological commitments to a multi-billion-dollar platform that could become outdated in years rather than decades seems foolhardy. An emphasis on adaptability would ensure any new airframe could stick around for a little while," wrote Kass.

The details of such a light fighter are vague, to say the least, and certainly not written in stone. Yet, it should be stressed that Allvin holds an Astronautical Engineering degree from the U.S. Air Force Academy as well as a Master of Science, and Master of Airpower Art and Science degrees.

Given his insight, it may be possible to glean some insight into what the future light fighter could resemble.

"The Light Fighter would be built on adaptability, not ruggedness," wrote Kass. "Allvin envisioned a jet that would rely on open systems architecture, modular design, digital engineering, and 3d-printing/additive manufacturing – techniques and concepts to improve an airframe repeatedly over time."

So could we see a sixth-generation light fighter in the future? Time will tell, of course, but it is also as likely that the NGAD could go another direction – focused more on an entirely unmanned system controlled remotely. Perhaps the days of pilots in the cockpits of fighter planes will be a relic of the past… much like those old VHS players that were the rage when the F-22 was still on the drawing board.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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 Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules is one of the most iconic and versatile aircraft in the U.S. Air Force's fleet. Developed in response to the Air Force's need for a heavy-lift transport plane capable of operating in the challenging environments of Asia, the C-130 has proven its value in a variety of roles.

-From transporting cargo and troops to medical evacuations, reconnaissance, and even serving as the AC-130 gunship, the C-130 has been indispensable. Its ability to take off and land on short, unprepared runways and its long-range capabilities make it a critical asset.

-The latest variant, the C-130J Super Hercules, features advanced systems and continues to serve not only the U.S. but also the militaries of many allied nations.

The Legendary C-130

The Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules is probably the most iconic long-serving transportation plane in the U.S. Air Force’s fleet. 

The quadruple-propeller-driven C-130 was a direct response to a critical Air Force need in the mid-20th century. Namely, the Air Force needed a heavy-lift capacity that could reliably operate in the austere environments of Asia. 

The Rise of the C-130

Two major wars in Asia defined the Cold War era – the Korean War and the Vietnam War. 

The geography of Asia is very taxing on technology and military equipment. A key feature of the C-130 Hercules is its reliable capability to land and take off from short, unprepared runways in the thick jungle environments of Asia. 

Indeed, the C-130 was a direct result of lessons the Air Force learned from fighting in Korea. These lessons would be applied to the Vietnam War, where the C-130 acquitted itself with honor.

The Air Force needed a tactical airlifter that could operate near the frontline, too. The C-130 “Herc” performed this vital task. C-130 has a high wing for cargo loading, a rear-loading ramp, and turboprop engines for efficiency and power. Using the turboprop rather than a jet engine made better sense, given the environments where the C-130 would operate. 

Throughout its long service to the Air Force, the C-130 has performed countless mission sets. These birds have been used to transport cargo for the Air Force into combat zones. They have been used for medical evacuations. Paratroopers jump out of these birds, search and rescue operations are undertaken, and reconnaissance missions are part of its repertoire. 

There’s even a similarly iconic gunship variant of the C-130, the AC-130 Specter Gunship. (It’s basically a flying battleship.) Oh, and the C-130 is often used for aerial firefighting missions.

Talk about an impressive list of missions. 

U.S. Special Operations Forces relies on another variant of this bird known as the MC-130. It’s specially built to provide covert insertion/extraction and resupply missions. 

Going the Distance 

C-130s are not just powerful. They can also fly immense distances. With midair refueling as an option, a C-130 Herc can travel 2,361 miles. 

The C-130 is the backbone of U.S. military operations because of the logistical advantages it provides. The Air Force has judiciously upgraded these important planes to keep up with the changing global threat environment. Currently, the Air Force is on the C-130J Super Hercules variant of its fleet. These planes have advanced navigational systems, greater fuel efficiency, and digitized cockpits, to name just a few advances. 

Even more important for the Air Force is the fact that their C-130 is used by the militaries of multiple allied states. Its simpler design and turboprop engines mean it will remain in use for many years to come. The C-130 is one of the most important planes the Air Force has ever used.

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

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?)

« Cette voix, ma voix, vous racontera les faits vécus par celle qui est sortie du même ventre que vous. Donnez-moi du thé pour me réchauffer la langue, fermez la porte pour que mes paroles ne sortent pas d'ici. » Fatima parle à ses sœurs. Elle raconte comment, quand on décide de partir au loin, qu'on (...) / Immigrés, Maroc - 2023/07

Summary and Top Points You Need to Know: Fighter jets are iconic symbols of military aviation, representing cutting-edge technology and air superiority. While many fighters have become legendary, aviation history also includes several poorly designed and underperforming jets. This roundup highlights five of the worst fighter jets: the Yakovlev Yak-38, Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23, Convair F-102 Delta Dagger, Heinkel He 162, and Vought F7U Cutlass.

-These aircraft suffered from issues ranging from poor handling and stability to inadequate power and reliability. Despite their flaws, these jets are a reminder that innovation in aviation is often accompanied by trial and error.

Five of the Worst Fighter Jets in Aviation History: From the Yak-38 to the Gutless Cutlass

The fighter jet might be the most iconic aircraft type in the annals of aviation. When your average civilian thinks of an aircraft, the fighter jet is often the image that appears, with its sleek silhouette, roaring engines, and relative instability.

Fighters have progressed since their introduction over 100 years ago. From the simple biplanes of World War One to supersonic, super-cruising, ultra-maneuverable, stealth-capable fifth-generation fighters, the fighter jet is a constantly evolving concept. It is far more than an aviation icon. It is a foundational weapon, integral to war planning and military force structure. Militaries around the world spend vast percentages of their overall budget on fighter design and development. Indeed, the most expensive weapons system in world history is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Fighter platforms are worth the praise and the military investment, especially top airframes like the F-15 Eagle or the F/A-18 Hornet. But aviation history is littered with botched fighter projects. Let’s consider five of the worst fighters of all time. 

Yakovlev Yak-38

The Soviet Union spent the Cold War competing with the West to develop the most capable military technology. When the British unveiled the Harrier GR.1 in 1967 – a “jump jet” capable of vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) – the Soviets scrambled to counter. Their answer was the Yakovlev Yak-38, a VTOL aircraft that performed relatively well. But the integration of the Yak-38’s rear thrust engine and two lift turbofans made the jet deathly difficult to handle. If either of the lift fans failed, the Yak-38 would spin out of control. And because the lift fans were sensitive to dirt and dust (like the kind found in Afghanistan), the lift fans were prone to failure. 

The Yak-38 was also a tactical failure, with just four hardpoints and an operational range limited to just 320 kilometers. When the Soviet Union fell, the Yak-38 was abandoned, whereas the Harrier is still in service today.

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23

Soviet/Russian aerospace manufacturer Mikoyan-Gurevich has a long history of design accomplishments. The company abbreviation, “MiG,” is synonymous in the West with “enemy aircraft,” and for good reason. But MiG has also produced its fair share of duds.

The MiG-23 was supposed to be another feather in MiG’s cap, like the MiG-15 or the MiG-21 before it. But the sweep-wing MiG-23 proved to be a nightmare, with poor handling, poor stability, and an engine that overheated often and died early.

The MiG-23’s maintenance costs were much higher than expected, and the jet’s combat record much poorer. Deployed in Syria and Iraq, the MiG-23 suffered in encounters against F-4s, F-14s, and F-15s. Even the MiG-21, which the MiG-23 had been designed to replace, bested the MiG-23 in combat. The MiG-23 was unceremoniously retired (except in Syria and North Korea) in favor of the MiG-27.

Convair F-102 Delta Dagger

The Convair F-102 Delta Dagger, part of the “Century Series,” was America’s first all-weather supersonic jet fighter, and the first American fighter to feature a delta wing. Entering service in 1956, problems arose immediately.

The F-102, designed to be a high-speed aircraft, failed to reach Mach 1 – the fuselage had to be redesigned to cope with transonic wave drag. After the redesign, the jet was capable of reaching Mach 1.22, but other issues cropped up, requiring a variety of fixes. The Air Force did not apply uniform fixes to the F-102 fleet, so different F-102s had different capabilities.

The F-102’s biggest problem, however, was its safety rating. Out of the 1,000 F-102s produced, 259 were lost to accidents, resulting in the death of 70 pilots. 

Heinkel He 162

Nazi Germany deserves credit for debuting jet technology with the Messerschmitt Me 262. Late in the war (and late in the regime), the Nazis experimented with a death-gasp effort to produce more fighter jets. The result was the Heinkel He 162, aka the “Volksjager,” or People’s Fighter.

The He 162, like the Volkswagen car, was designed to be built as cheaply as possible, and with semi-skilled labor. Why? Because by the end of the war, the Nazis were struggling to keep their war economy humming; they were essentially depleted. Accordingly, the He 162 was built largely from wood, as metal alloys were unavailable. The design was completed in about two months, and as you might assume, the jet flew poorly. Three-hundred He 162s were rushed into action, but it was far too late. Nazi Germany collapsed and the He 162 faded into obscurity without having made an impact on the war. 

Vought F7U Cutlass

The Vought F7U Cutlass was visually distinct. This was a design from the dawn of the jet age, when designs were not standardized and there was room for experimentation. The F7U was a result of said experimentation: It was tailless, with swept wings.

In my opinion, the F7U is very cool looking, and it marked the first time the Americans had built an aircraft with swept wings and an afterburner. The unusual design offered extraordinary ability and agility, but it suffered from a variety of problems. The engine was underpowered, earning the F7U the nickname “Gutless Cutlass.” Similarly, many of the systems were novel and proved unreliable. A poor safety record inspired pilots to stay away, and the jet was retired in 1959.

About the Author: Harrison Kass, Defense Expert 

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 and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points You Need to Know: The Mark 48 torpedo, developed by the Naval Sea Systems Command, is one of the most advanced and lethal undersea weapons in the U.S. Navy's arsenal. Introduced during the Cold War, it was designed to counter Soviet submarines and surface ships, featuring wire guidance, advanced sonar homing, and a high-speed electric motor that allows it to travel at over 55 knots with a range of up to 40 miles.

-The Mark 48 has undergone several upgrades, including the Advanced Capability (ADCAP) variant in the 1980s and the latest Mod 7, which addresses modern submarine defenses.

-Despite its effectiveness, the Mark 48 faces challenges from advancements in anti-torpedo systems and the rise of unmanned undersea vehicles (UUVs). Nevertheless, it remains a critical deterrent in the U.S. Navy’s submarine fleet.

The Navy’s Incredible Mark 48 Torpedo

The Undersea Warfare Center Division in Newport, Rhode Island, now the Naval Sea Systems Command, has a remarkable assignment: to develop effective weapons to further US national security interests undersea and protect existing US Navy assets from attack. This is the vibrant brain of the US submarine force on land. It is where some of the niftiest weapons and concepts for underwater combat are developed. 

One such weapon this unit developed during the Cold War was the Mark 48 torpedo. Indeed, it is likely the most ubiquitous and formidable weapon ever developed for warfare in the Deep Blue by the United States Navy. Designed for a time of the Cold War when the threat of submarine warfare was at its apogee, the Navy needed a weapon that could attack Soviet subs while simultaneously devastating surface ships if the Cold War ever turned hot.

The Navy developed the Mark 48 with greater range, speed, and enhanced guidance systems when compared to some of its predecessors, such as the Mark 37 or the Mark 45 torpedoes. 

Some Unique Advances 

Some of its excellent capabilities, such as the inclusion of wire guidance, are of note. Wire guidance allows for the launching submersible to have direct, real-time command over the torpedo after it is launched. The incorporation of advanced sonar homing furthered this weapon’s lethality by allowing for the Mark 48 to autonomously track and engage targets. 

Its propulsion system employs a reliable, high-speed electric motor. The motor allows for the torpedo to travel at speeds surpassing fifty-five knots (sixty-three miles per hour) when launched. A Mark 48 enjoys a range of up to forty miles. Some analysts suggest that the Mk 48 is one of the longest-range torpedoes that has ever served. 

The Mark 48’s electric motor provides both speed and protection, as it reduces the torpedo’s electric signature. Thus, one could claim that the Mark 48 is America’s first attempt at a “stealth torpedo.” 

Although, it is not entirely undetectable. Indeed, one submarine sonar operator reports that, when launched, the Mk 48 “starts at 160 [decibels underwater] and jumps to 230 db when enabled.” So, experienced sonar operators can hear these things underwater, when they’re launched.

There have been multiple variants of this successful weapon. One of the more recent ones came from the 1980s when the Reagan administration was intent on outpacing the Soviet Union militarily in the Cold War. Indeed, the Reagan administration was successful in this aim. One of the technologies to come out of this freewheeling era for the US defense community was the Mk 48 ADCAP (Advanced Capability). This variant of the Mk 48 included an even better range than its earlier models, greater guidance, and more sophisticated warhead capabilities.

The most recent adaptation of the Mk 48 torpedo, the Mod 7, includes systems meant to counteract advances in modern submarine defenses. 

Credible Undersea Deterrence

Enemies of the United States rightly fear the Mk 48. Therefore, its presence in the US submarine fleet has a deterrent effect on enemy navies. Sure, it might not stop a war with China from erupting. 

But China must always fear this system, it is one reason why Beijing is so committed to developing surveillance systems that can detect submarines; even when they are running deep beneath the waves and targeting them with advanced anti-submarine weapons. 

However, the Mk 48 is getting old, regardless of what advancements the Navy makes to the platform. Anti-torpedo systems have advanced remarkably in the last decade alone. So, the Mk 48 risks being made obsolete, no matter what counter-countermeasures the Navy develops to help keep the lethality of the Mk 48 where it needs to be. 

How UUVs Will Impact the Mk 48

Further, the Mk 48 is a complex system requiring tons of maintenance and updating. Then there’s the additional development in the rise of unmanned undersea vehicles (UUV).

These platforms, while still in their infancy, will evolve significantly over the coming decade. They will fundamentally transform the face of undersea warfare as much as their unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) cousins have transformed air warfare in the preceding twenty years. The Mk 48 will have significant challenges to overcome that these UUV systems will inevitably present.

Nevertheless, the Mk 48 is a testament to the brilliance of the Navy’s war planners. They were conceived in an age where nuclear world war was always one hair-trigger alert away. And they continue to define the arsenal of the US Navy’s submarine force today. Whatever the future may hold for these systems, they should not be underestimated. Nor should they be dismissed. 

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

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. 

Summary and Key Points: Seventeen B-1B Lancer bombers from Ellsworth Air Force Base (AFB) in South Dakota may temporarily relocate to Grand Forks AFB in North Dakota next year as Ellsworth prepares to host the first B-21 Raider bombers.

-This move is expected to last about ten months, during which time Ellsworth will undergo significant construction projects, including a complete runway rebuild.

-The relocation would mark the return of bombers to Grand Forks for the first time since 1994. Approximately 800 airmen would accompany the B-1Bs, and the mission of the bombers would remain unchanged during the move.

B-1B Lancer Could Head to New Temporary Home Base Next Year Thanks to B-21 Raider Program

Seventeen of the United States Air Forces Rockwell B-1B Lancer bombers could be heading to a new, albeit temporary home next year. The bombers are likely to be relocated a bit further north – as in moving from Ellsworth Air Force Base (AFB), South Dakota, to Grand Forks AFB, North Dakota.

The bombers could be at their new home for ten months, during which time Ellsworth AFB will prepare for the arrival of the first Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider long-range strategic bombers.

Ellsworth is home to the twenty-eighth Bomb Wing (BW), which is assigned to the Global Strike Command's Eight Air Force, and is one of the two B-1B Lander wings. It has hosted the B-1B Lancers since 1986, which replaced the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress fleet. It currently operates twenty-seven Lancers.

Big Changes for Ellsworth

Ellsworth will be the first Main Operating Base and formal training unit for the B-21 Raider, while Whiteman AFB, Missouri, and Dyess AFB, Texas, are the preferred locations for the remaining home bases – and could receive aircraft as soon as they become available. Whiteman is home to the air service's fleet of Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit bombers, while Dyess is home to another B-1B bomb wing, the seventh BW. 

Construction projects for the bomber hangers and other facilities are well underway at Ellsworth. Construction on the base's 95,000-square-foot Low Observable Restoration Facility began in 2022, and it and other facilities are on track to be completed by the end of this year. The current plan also calls for a complete rebuild of the runway to accommodate the B-21 Raiders, with that work to be completed by October 2025.

The base, which is located near Rapid City, is already one of the largest employers in the state and according to a 2017 estimate it had an annual economic impact of over $350 million. Ellsworth AFB faced the possibility of closure in 2005, and it was even briefly on the Pentagon’s list of military bases that should be closed or relocated.

Bombers Back at Grand Forks

The deployment of the B-1Bs to Grand Forks would be the first since 1994, "when the last of the B-1Bs assigned to the former 319th Bomb Wing (since redesignated the 319th Reconnaissance Wing) left the base," The Jamestown Sun reported. "The Ellsworth B-1Bs do not carry nuclear weapons, and Grand Forks Air Force Base no longer has nuclear weapons storage capacity."

According to Air & Space Forces magazine, any final decision on the relocation will be based on the ongoing environmental review, which includes the impact of moving not only the aircraft but the personnel from Ellsworth to Grand Forks. In total, around 800 airmen from the twenty-eighth Operations Group would accompany the B-1B bombers. The bomber's mission would be unchanged during the relocation.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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. 

Summary and 4 Points You Need to Know: The B-21 Raider, currently in low-rate initial production and undergoing flight testing, is exempt from a law that typically requires a waiver for purchasing untested weapons systems in large quantities.

-This exemption, meant to avoid conflicts of interest due to Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall's past ties with Northrop Grumman, raises concerns about the Air Force potentially rushing to procure the B-21 without adequate testing.

-Critics argue this approach violates best acquisition practices and could lead to costly design flaws, citing historical examples like the Navy's T-45 trainer program.

-The Air Force, heavily reliant on the B-21 as it phases out older bombers, faces significant risks if the Raider fails to meet expectations.

B-21 Raider's Exemption from Testing Laws Sparks Concerns of Rushed Procurement

The B-21 Raider, a stealth bomber in low-rate initial production and currently undergoing flight testing, is exempt from a law that requires a waiver for the purchase of certain quantities of untested weapons systems. That exemption raises worries that the U.S. Air Force might be rushing to purchase an unvetted aircraft. 

Specifically, the B-21 “is exempt from a Title 10 requirement that a defense secretary seek a waiver for a low-rate initial production (LRIP) buy of more than 10 percent of total production for a Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP),” according to Defense Daily. 

The exemption stems from the need to avoid a conflict of interests. The Air Force’s Rapid Capabilities Office manages the B-21 project, and the Office reports to the Air Force Secretary. Because Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall used to consult for B-21 designer Northrop Grumman, he is recused from all decisions relating to the B-21.

“The B-21 is managed as a highly sensitive classified program per 10 USC 2430, and is not a traditional Major Defense Acquisition Program,” the Department of Defense told Defense Daily. 

Fly Before You Buy

Title 10 is meant to limit the purchase of weapons like the B-21 that are yet to be properly vetted. As Sen. David Pryor explained on the Senate floor in 1994, “Fly Before You Buy is not a new concept. It was first promoted in the wake of the Vietnam War after thousands of American soldiers lost their lives because of weapons that failed to perform as expected.” The senator continued, “operational testing is of little or no use if it is conducted after the weapon system has been purchased. We simply cannot afford to buy now and fix later. Time and time again, DoD has purchased weapons before operational testing has shown that they work.”

The Navy’s T-45 trainer is one example of a system that was purchased before being tested. The Navy purchased over one-third of their T-45 needs before Boeing performed operational testing on the jet. Of course, the original T-45 was no good. The thing needed new wings and a new engine, and the already purchased T-45s needed to be refitted. Obviously, the military, like any customer, prefers that product design flaws are discovered before an item is shipped and accepted.

Some observers worry the Air Force is making a similar procurement mistake with the B-21.

“The Air Force is violating best acquisition practice in the case of the B-21 program,” said a senior fellow at the Stimson Center in an email to Defense Daily. “The first test flights of the program have only just begun, so it is too early to be talking about production in any quantity.” 

The fellow advocated for Northrop Grumman to build a few test aircraft, perform operational tests, and ship the B-21 to the Air Force only once the bomber performs as promised. “Buying aircraft in any significant quantity before testing is complete creates a huge amount of risk because the early aircraft will almost certainly include a large number of design flaws that will only be revealed through testing.”

Obviously, the Air Force has a lot riding on the B-21. Two of the service’s existing three bomber classes, the B-1 and the B-2, are being phased out to make room for the upcoming Raider. The B-21 needs to perform, otherwise the Air Force could find itself with a gap in bomber capabilities. 

About the Author: Harrison Kass 

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 and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: Ukraine's surprise offensive into Russia's Kursk region, involving up to 10,000 troops, has dramatically shifted the dynamics of the ongoing conflict. The operation, which captured over 1,000 square kilometers and 82 settlements, aims to force Russia to realign its forces, drawing them away from Ukrainian frontlines.

-The psychological impact on both Ukrainian and Russian populations is significant, with Russia's inability to defend its territory undermining President Putin's standing.

-While the offensive doesn't alter Russia's numerical advantage, it signals a momentum shift in the war, potentially affecting the longevity of Western support for Ukraine.

Ukraine's Bold Offensive: How a Surprise Incursion into Russia is Changing the War

After more than two years on the defensive, Ukrainian forces have flipped the script, pouring over the Russian border and seizing control of more than 1,000 square kilometers of territory in a week. And unlike Ukraine’s previous and usually short-lived raids across the border, this time, Ukrainian forces are settling in for a fight, fortifying defensive positions throughout the occupied Kursk region in what Ukrainian officials are calling a “buffer zone” to protect against continued airstrikes launched into Ukraine from the area. 

This surprise offensive went on for days before Ukrainian officials shed any light on its objectives. We now know that the theory posited by many analysts throughout the week – that this incursion is meant to force a realignment of Russian forces after months of steady but grinding advances deeper into Ukrainian territory – is true. 

Behind the rifles of thousands of battle-hardened troops, Ukraine has taken hundreds of Russian soldiers prisoner and captured dozens of towns and villages, but the biggest blow of this ongoing offensive may be to the reputation and standing of Russian President Vladimir Putin. 

How Ukraine’s invasion of Russia began

In the early morning of August 6, Ukrainian forces numbering as many as 10,000 according to some reports, launched a surprise offensive in western Russia that had been planned and staged behind a veil of complete secrecy. The attack was such a surprise that it not only took Russia’s border troops completely off guard, but Ukraine’s Western allies as well – at least if statements made by various government officials are to be believed. 

Ukrainian troops and armored vehicles moved quickly, crossing the border on multiple vectors and rapidly capturing town after town. As news of the offensive reached the media, it was accompanied by social media posts uploaded by Ukrainian troops, showing them pulling Russian flags down.

In one video, vetted by the New York Times, a Ukrainian soldier can be seen standing on the shoulders of another, breaking a Russian flag off of its wooden post and tossing it aside. That video was confirmed to be taken in Sverdlikovo, just a few miles inside Russia. Another video, filmed about five miles further west in the town of Daryino, shows a similar scene, with one Ukrainian soldier tossing a Russian flag in the mud as another one flexes his muscles. 

“The first days of the Ukrainian operation in the Kursk region should be assessed as very successful, although its ultimate goals remain unclear,” Ruslan Pukhov, the director of the security research group CAST out of Moscow, told the New York Times. “In moral terms, the Russian Federation has taken a powerful blow.”

This effort was arguably only successful thanks to the immense degree of secrecy surrounding it, but in hindsight, it’s beginning to get easier to see how it came together. A drone battalion from Ukraine’s 22nd Mechanized Brigade was spotted near the Russian border in July after more than a year of fighting on the front lines some 80 miles to the West. Troops from the 82nd Air Assault Brigade, last known to be fighting elsewhere in the Kharkiv region, were spotted near the border soon thereafter. Before long, troops from the 80th Air Assault Brigade seemed to join them. 

This amassing of forces, despite its secrecy, didn’t go unnoticed by Russian intelligence. According to Andrei Gurulyov, a prominent member of Russia’s parliament and a former senior ranking officer in the Russian Army, a report on the buildup was submitted to Russian leadership nearly a month before the assault. 

“But from the top came the order not to panic, and that those above know better,” Gurulyov acknowledged on Russian State Television. 

Progress comes with a cost

While the attack has since become something of a morale lightning rod for the embattled Ukrainian population, for many of the troops taking their fight for survival to Russian soil, the combat was just like any other day in this conflict. 

“Grenades and mortars look the same wherever you are,” explained a 43-year-old Ukrainian soldier named Ivan, who’s fighting in Russia. 

Ivan’s experiences over the past few weeks serve as a grim reminder that even this successful operation has come at a significant cost. He and his unit were advancing into Russian territory at an average of an astonishing 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) a day, fighting their way across open fields and railway lines, and rotating in fresh troops under cover of darkness as each night fell. But after three days of fighting off their back foot, Russian forces finally started to get their bearings and unleashed an onslaught of air-dropped glide bombs onto the Ukrainian forces on the third night, despite the obvious collateral damage done to Russian territory. 

These glide bombs have proven highly effective for Russian forces in recent months. They’re similar in function to America’s own JDAM-ERs, made up of satellite guidance kits and expandable glide-wings mounted on inexpensive gravity bombs. They’re exceedingly difficult to intercept, offer a high degree of precision, and can be dropped from 40 miles out. 

Ivan’s unit instantly lost a dozen men when the first wave of bombs hit, with several others injured.

“Everything was burning. Arms here, legs there,” Ivan recounted. 

Ivan himself took shrapnel to the groin and chest, forcing him to be evacuated back to Ukraine for medical treatment and allowing him to share a few scant details about the ongoing operation with journalists from The Economist. But after nearly 30 months of fighting for its survival, Ukraine is no stranger to loss. Even as Russian glide bombs rained down, the offensive progressed – and the following day, on August 10 – some Ukrainian units had pressed a full 40 kilometers (about 25 miles) into Russia, rapidly approaching the city of Kursk, which serves as the capital of the Kursk Oblast. 

More Ukrainian soldiers have shined some light on how Ukraine has managed to capture more territory in a week than Russia has in months: A 28-year-old paratrooper from Ukraine’s 33rd Brigade named Angol made it 30 kilometers (a bit more than 18 miles) into Russia before being injured – he isn’t sure if he was hit by artillery, a glide bomb, or even friendly fire, such is the haze of battle on the front lines. 

According to Angol, even amid the heavy fighting, Russian troops were on the run, enabled by covering airstrikes and artillery fire as they fled their defensive positions, abandoning equipment, weapons, and ammunition as they ran. 

It seems the Russian troops defending the border believed the red line drawn by Putin, which has seen Western governments disallow the use of their weapon systems to attack Russian territory, would be enough to insulate them from the fighting. As thousands of battle-hardened Ukrainian troops tore through the region, they seemed to continue taking Russians by surprise even days into the offensive. 

“We sent our most combat-ready units to the weakest point on their border,” an unnamed member of Ukraine’s general staff deployed to the region told the press. “Conscript soldiers faced paratroopers and simply surrendered.” 

And surrender they did. By August 13, seven days into Ukraine’s surprise invasion, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced that 74 Russian settlements were now under Ukrainian occupation and that “hundreds” of Russian troops had surrendered. By the following day, the number of Russian towns and villages inside of Ukrainian control had expanded once again, to 82. 

In one engagement, Ukrainian forces captured 102 soldiers out of Russia’s 488th Guards Motorized Rifle Regiment at once. 

“They captured and cleared a sprawling, concrete and well-fortified company stronghold from all sides – with underground communications and personnel accommodation, a canteen, an armoury and even a bathhouse,” an unnamed source told Reuters.

According to Russia’s state media, more than 132,000 Russian civilians have now fled their homes in the Kursk region to avoid the fighting.

“Russia brought war to others, and now it is coming home,” Zelensky said in his speech. 

It’s worth noting that despite the hesitation of Western leaders to allow Ukraine to take the fight onto Russian soil, it’s evident that this offensive has involved the widespread use of American-supplied vehicles, arms, and munitions – in what some argue could be seen as a violation of yet another of Putin’s “red lines.” However, U.S. officials don’t see it that way. With countless long-range strikes launched into Ukrainian territory from the Kursk region, both Ukrainian and American officials have deftly taken to calling the offensive a “self-defense” action. 

“They are taking actions to protect themselves from attacks,” Sabrina Singh, the Pentagon’s deputy press secretary, said on Thursday.

And while Ukraine’s progress into Russia has slowed in recent days, those protective actions have not. On the night of August 14, Ukraine launched its largest long-range drone attack into Russian territory to date, engaging weapons storage facilities and warehouses across four different Russian Air Force installations. Some sources suggest these attacks were aimed at reducing Russia’s available inventory of glide bombs. 

Russia claimed to have shot down 117 drones and at least four missiles during the attack; the true outcome of these airstrikes remains somewhat murky. 

Why did Ukraine invade Russia?

It now seems evident that the offensive has multiple overlapping objectives. As the Atlantic Council contends, the attack’s most obvious goal is to force Russia to realign after months of grueling but steady progress.

“By attacking across the lightly defended border and seizing Russian territory, Ukrainian commanders believe they can force the Kremlin to withdraw troops from the front lines of the war in Ukraine in order to redeploy them for the defense of Russia itself,” the Atlantic Council’s Peter Dickinson postulates. 

This has seemingly been confirmed by former Ukrainian defense minister Andriy Zagorodnyuk, and to some extent, it seems to be working. 

“Russia has relocated some of its units from both Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions of Ukraine’s south,” Dmytro Lykhoviy, a Ukrainian army spokesman, told POLITICO on Tuesday.

The U.S.-based think-tank Institute for the Study of War (ISW) has been tracking and reporting on claims posted by pro-Russian military bloggers, who may regularly trade in Kremlin-sourced disinformation, but also often provide more detail into ongoing operations than official Russian channels. According to the ISW’s analysis, at least some Russian irregular warfare units have been pulled from the Donetsk front in eastern Ukraine to be redeployed in a defensive posture inside Russia.

“Russian military command has determined that possible disruptions to the offensive operations in northern Kharkiv Oblast and other less-critical frontline areas are an acceptable risk to adequately respond to the Ukrainian incursion in Kursk Oblast,” the ISW assessed. 

But despite these changes, thus far, there’s been little shift in Russia’s overall defensive posture, even as Ukraine appointed Major General Eduard Moskalyov as the new military commandant of captured Russian territory. 

“Their commanders aren’t idiots,” said The Econimist’s unnamed Ukrainian general-staff source. “They are moving forces, but not as quickly as we would like. They know we can’t extend logistics 80 or 100 km.”

What are the other implications of this offensive?

Ultimately, whether this offensive can force a redistribution of Russian forces across the conflict’s front lines depends on several factors, some of which are easier to quantify than others. 

The psychological impact of Ukraine’s rapid advance into Russia, on both the Ukrainian and Russian populations, can’t be overstated. For Ukraine, the rapid progress serves as a desperately needed morale boost after years of Russia gobbling up Ukrainian territory. On the other side of the border, however, this attack has brought the war home for the Russian people, and perhaps even more importantly, shined a spotlight on Putin’s inability to defend Russian soil and sovereignty amid a conflict his government still refuses to call a war. 

Even now, Moscow is referring to the new defensive effort inside Russia as a “counter-terrorism operation,” and Putin himself described the attack as nothing more than a “large-scale provocation” – both seemingly intentional ways of framing the offensive as less severe than a foreign military capturing Russian land. 

To some extent, the value of this operation may ultimately be dictated by how Russia chooses to respond. If Ukraine succeeds in fortifying captured positions and digging in, Russian forces will have no choice but to respond, reducing the depth of seasoned warfighters on other frontlines throughout Ukraine. If Russia doesn’t mass enough forces to push Ukraine back, however, the seized territory could quickly become a bargaining chip in future peace negotiations. 

From a geopolitical perspective, Ukraine’s attack – and Russia’s apparent inability to respond – has further reduced Russia’s military standing among global and even regional powers. Once seen as the world’s second strongest military force, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has demonstrated conclusively that its Cold War-era warfare doctrine struggles to function on the modern battlefield; that its centralized command structure adapts on the battlefield very slowly; and Russia’s emphasis on fielding small batches of high-profile platforms aimed at securing global prestige or lucrative foreign sales, has come at the cost of significant atrophy across the breadth of its conventional forces. 

While cynical to say as Ukraine continues to fight for its very survival, this entire conflict has already proven to be a massive strategic loss for Russia and certainly for Putin’s legacy. Once seen as a strategic mastermind and the only man who could return Russia to a romanticized vision of its former Soviet glory, there seems to be little hope of Putin emerging from this war as anything more than the man who sacrificed a sizeable portion of Russia’s military power and hundreds of thousands of lives, to capture about 20 percent of a nation the size of Texas that lies on Russia’s border. 

What does the invasion of Russia mean for the future of the Ukraine war?

Ukraine’s rapid success in taking Russian territory doesn’t change Russia’s massive numerical advantage in troops and military hardware; undo its territorial gains; or mean Western governments are giving Ukraine free reign on how to use its Western weapon systems. Nevertheless, it does mark a significant shift in the war’s momentum. And now, with Western-sourced F-16s starting to take to the sky – something many consider to be a momentum-shifting victory in itself – the timing couldn’t be better for Ukraine to once again shock the world, and the Russian military, with what it’s capable of. 

Since the conflict’s onset, Russia has been watching the clock wind down on Western support for Ukraine, knowing full well that it was only a matter of time before partisan bickering and concerns about dollars spent would sour public perceptions of the effort. All it needed to do was outlast the Western public’s attention span and financial tolerance, and once the flow of weapons and munitions dried up, Ukraine was as good as conquered. 

But now, with more than 132,000 Russians displaced from their homes, and drone and missile strikes raining down deeper into Russia and in greater numbers than ever before, that waiting game may have just been turned on its head. Now, the question becomes: which population will fold first, those providing support, or those being forced to flee their homes?

While the idea of Russian civilians on the run isn’t something anyone should celebrate, it reminds me of an old story I used to tell my Marines when we’d find ourselves in a bad situation of our own creation:

A group of construction workers would meet in the parking lot of their job site every afternoon to break for lunch, and every day, one of the guys would open his lunch box and sigh with disgust. 

“Egg salad sandwich again,” he’d lament, shaking his head and slamming the lunch box shut. 

Finally, one of his coworkers asked him, “If you hate egg salad sandwiches so much, why not ask your old lady to make you something different?” 

And he replied, “What are you talking about? I’m not married… I make my own sandwiches.” 

About the Author: Alex Hollings 

Alex Hollings is a writer, dad, and Marine veteran.

This article was first published by Sandboxx News.