Diplomacy & Crisis News

Summary and Key Points: The heavy losses of main battle tanks (MBTs) in the Russia-Ukraine conflict have sparked debate over their future viability. While tanks have proven crucial in Ukraine, their vulnerability to advanced anti-tank weapons raises questions about whether they are worth the investment.

-Despite these concerns, the U.S. is developing the AbramsX, a new hybrid-electric MBT designed to be lighter, faster, and more fuel-efficient.

-However, the reliance on large lithium battery packs introduces new vulnerabilities, leading some analysts to question whether the significant costs of developing such advanced tanks are justified, especially given the ease with which tanks can be destroyed in modern combat.

AbramsX: Is the U.S. Army’s New Hybrid-Electric Tank Worth the Risk?

The decimation of main battle tanks in the fighting between Russia and Ukraine has some analysts wondering whether these military systems are still worth the cost. 

Armored vehicles have played pivotal roles in warfare since their introduction to combat more than a century ago. Useful for breaking enemy lines in warfare, transporting troops, and providing unmatched versatility for ground forces, heavy cavalry is a vital component of an armored corps. 

Tanks play a leading role in Ukraine, proving they are not obsolete. But the mounting tank losses on both sides also suggests even the most modern MBTs struggle to survive against advanced anti-tank weaponry. Thousands of tanks have been lost since Russia invaded in February 2022. Despite this performance, the U.S. is determined, to develop a costly new hybrid-electric MBT in the near future.

Introducing the Abrams Series of MBTs

The U.S. Army is designing its new AbramsX tank series to be lighter, faster, and more fuel-efficient than its predecessors. 

The Abrams tank series has its roots in the Cold War-era MBT-70 program, which sought to develop a replacement for the legendary M60 Patton. 

A number of variants emerged over the years. When the M1A1 Abrams was introduced, perhaps its most significant attribute was its Chobham armor, which was made to perform extremely well against HEAT rounds and other shaped charges. It was equipped with a 120 mm main gun, armor-piercing capabilities, a 1,500 horsepower engine, and sophisticated tracking systems. 

The upcoming AbramsX is designed to outmatch its counterparts in future conflicts. With a reduced weight, the new variant will require half the fuel consumption. The tank will also reportedly feature an embedded artificial intelligence capability and a new lightweight XM360 gun.

Is the New AbramsX Worth the Cost?

While the AbramsX’s hybrid electric power source comes with plenty of advantages, analysts have pointed out potential drawbacks of running on battery power.

As explained by Stephen Bryen for Asia Times, the need for large lithium battery packs to power the new tank series could be consequential: “Battery packs are heavy and expensive and they also are dangerous because they can explode if hit by shrapnel or if a mine blows out the tank’s bottom. While we don’t know the size of the battery the Army will opt for, it will have to be big enough to power a heavy tank – meaning the battery could weigh a few tons. This creates a vulnerability that does not exist today and raises questions on whether it makes sense to go in the hybrid direction.” 

Regardless of the AbramsX model’s performance relative to rival MBTs, the Army may not be able to justify pouring so many funds into a military system, the tank, that can be so easily destroyed in combat.

About the Author: Maya Carlin, Defense Expert 

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

All images are Creative Commons Photos. 

On a return to Shanghai, our columnist takes note of how rising inequality is leading many Chinese to vote with their feet.

Summary and Key Points: The war in Ukraine has underscored the continued relevance of main battle tanks in modern warfare, despite previous predictions of their obsolescence.

-The Russian military's heavy losses have led it to deploy outdated tanks from the 1950s and 1960s.

-Meanwhile, Russia's supposedly advanced T-14 Armata tank has been plagued by development issues and has seen limited deployment in Ukraine, likely due to fears of exposing its vulnerabilities.

-The T-14's future is uncertain, with the possibility that ongoing problems and high costs may lead to its abandonment or a complete redesign.

Russia's T-14 Armata: A High-Tech Tank with a Troubled Future

If the war in Ukraine has taught one lesson above all other, it is that main battle tanks are still very important in modern warfare.

Before Russia invaded in 2022, plenty of observers thought tanks would be irrelevant in a conflict between two states. Indeed, former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, a stalwart supporter of Ukraine, opined as recently as November 2021 about the end of the tank era. 

But tanks keep on rolling. Battlefield demand for the steel behemoths is so high that the Russian military is pushing into service ancient vehicles from the 1950s and 1960s to replace its more than 3,000 tanks destroyed thus far. To an outsider, this decision is that much odder given that Moscow has in its arsenal one of the most advanced tanks in the world: the T-14 Armata. 

Or does it? 

The T-14 Armata and Its Ongoing Problems 

The T-14 Armata is a main battle tank weighing approximately 55 tons and equipped with a 125 mm main cannon. It requires a crew of three men (commander, driver, and gunner) and uses an automatic loading system for the main gun, much like other Soviet- and Russian-made tanks. 

In development for over a decade, the T-14 Armata has been plagued by mechanical and technological issues. To date, the Russian military has only received a handful of T-14 tanks. 

The Kremlin has claimed at specific points in the conflict that its forces deployed the T-14 Armata in Ukraine. TASS ran a story about how the new Russian main battle tank was performing in Ukraine, highlighting that it was deployed for the sake of experimentation, to ensure the T-14’s features fit modern operational realities. 

“The Armata tank was used several times in the combat zone in Ukraine. Based on the results of the use in the special operation, the vehicle is now being finalized,” Russian defense officials told TASS. 

But Ukrainian officials and Western intelligence estimates dispute Russian claims about the T-14’s combat experience. Instead of seeing combat against the Ukrainian military’s Western weapons systems, a handful of T-14 Armatas were restricted to areas close to the battlefield. This is in line with how the Kremlin is seen treating other modern weapons like the S-500 Prometheus air defense system and Su-57 Felon fighter jet. Moscow has held these systems back, most likely fearing humiliation. 

With the Russian military mired in Ukraine and no hopes of a quick victory, it is becoming increasingly likely that the T-14 Armata won’t see the end of this decade unless something radically changes. The mounting costs of the Armata and its continuing mechanical and technological issues will likely force the Russian military to ditch the project or order a complete redesign that better matches the capabilities of the Russian defense industry. 

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 and/or Shutterstock. 

A close reading of two books by authors who advise Kamala Harris reveals a vision for a humbler approach to foreign policy.

Aid to Africa and the climate conference circuit are fundamentally flawed, requiring an overhaul of the international institutions’ missions.

Knowledge is power—and the United States is losing it.

How synthetic biology could destabilize the world.

The world still needs America—and America still needs the world.

The fight against climate change can renew American leadership.

A grand strategy for a turbulent world.

Debating the endgame in Gaza.

A collective strategy for countering Beijing’s mercantilism.

Summary and Key Points: The Forrestal-class "supercarriers" were a product of the Cold War arms race, representing the U.S. Navy's push for advanced naval capabilities.

-These carriers, including the USS Saratoga, were larger and more capable than their predecessors, the Midway-class.

-Key design improvements included a stronger flight deck, a larger and deeper hull for better stability, and the introduction of an angled deck, allowing simultaneous launch and recovery operations.

-Despite some mishaps, such as collisions and fires, the USS Saratoga served in the Mediterranean and played a role in the Vietnam War before the Forrestal-class was retired in 1998.

Forrestal-Class Supercarriers: Giants of the Cold War Era

During the Cold War, the arms race to develop more advanced and lethal navies was at full force.

From submarines and carriers to airframes and main battle tanks, the U.S. and USSR went head to head to develop cutting-edge technologies like aircraft carriers.

The U.S. Navy’s Forrestal-class “supercarriers” were a product of this effort. The massive ships were named due to their then-extraordinary tonnage.

Comparably, the preceding Midway-class ships were 25% smaller in size. The Forrestal-class remained in service from 1955 to 1998.

The history of the Forrestal-class:

Following the Second World War, airframes were beginning to increase in size. Additionally, the military began conceptualizing that airframes could soon carry smaller nuclear weapons. This combination spearheaded the Navy’s prioritization of air-power capabilities.

While designing the Forrestal-class ships, engineers rectified some of the shortcomings associated with the earlier Midway vessels.

Specifically, the Midway carriers were known for their inability to function properly in rough weather due to their low freeboard and heavy flight deck. To combat this, the Forrestal vessels’ flight decks were the strength deck. Each ship in this class possessed a larger and deeper hull, which allowed for a more stable platform with increased height above the water.

Like earlier U.S. Naval vessels, the Midway ships had a gap between the flight deck and the ship's structure up forward.

Engineers incorporated the addition of a hurricane bow to the Forrestal carriers to enclose the forward part of the ships.

Perhaps the most notable design change included on the Forrestal vessels was the modern angled deck. Developed in the early 1950’s by Royal Navy Captain Dennis Campbell, this layout allowed carriers to conduct launch and recovery operations simultaneously.

As explained by the U.S. Naval Institute:

“The incorporation of an angled deck off to port into the Forrestal design obviated any envisioned need for a flush deck. The landing area was remote and directed away from the starboard side such that a structure there would present no safety issue. As built, the island’s centerline was nearly 95 feet to starboard from that of the ship and even farther from the angled deck. Additionally, the island solved the uptake issues by incorporating them into the structure and radar installations could be readily mounted without hindrance to air operations. A further benefit was that the antenna and radar placement high on the island gained greater electronic efficiency.”

Introducing USS Saratoga:

During her decades in service, USS Saratoga suffered from a few mishaps. In 1960, she collided with a German freighter off the coast of North Carolina. Shortly after, seven on board were killed when a fire broke out in the carrier’s number two machinery space. Despite these setbacks, Saratoga was deployed to the Mediterranean and subsequently participated in the Vietnam War.

About the Author: Maya Carlin 

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Summary and Top Things You Need to Know: The A-10 Warthog, known for its formidable ground-attack capabilities and durability, is a legendary aircraft in the U.S. Air Force.

-However, its future is uncertain as it heads toward retirement. While some suggest that Ukraine could benefit from the remaining A-10s, the idea of adapting the A-10 for aircraft carrier operations is unlikely.

-The Warthog was never designed for carrier landings, and significant modifications would be required to make it suitable for such operations, including adapting it to the narrow runways and adding a tailhook, making this transformation impractical.

Could the A-10 Warthog Take Off from Aircraft Carriers? A Closer Look

Months back, the Air Force dispatched a squadron of A-10 Warthogs to escort an American nuclear ballistic missile submarine near the Strait of Juan de Fuca. 

The legendary A-10 has been instrumental to the service’s aerial tactics for years, but the platform is now headed towards retirement as the Air Force turns to more modern platforms. Some U.S. lawmakers have suggested that Ukraine could be a recipient of the fleet’s remaining A-10 airframes. But the future of this famous platform remains up in the air.

Could A-10 Warthogs be useful aboard aircraft carriers?

Introducing the A-10 Warthog

The U.S. became more focused on developing tactical aircraft designed to deliver nuclear weapons after the Second World War. As the Cold War got underway, the Air Force gave low priority to new ground-attack platforms. 

While the McDonnell Douglas F-101 Voodoo and the Republic F-105 Thunderchief came about during this era, a more sophisticated ground-attack airframe was not conceptualized, leaving the aging Douglas A-1 Skyraider as the service’s primary attack airframe when the Vietnam War broke out. Although this platform was capable for its era, its key shortcomings led to the destruction of 266 Skyraiders during the conflict.

The A-10 was designed to solve the U.S. military’s ground-attack issues. Fairchild Republic designed the twin-turbofan, subsonic platform in the early 1970s. It immediately earned the nickname “titanium bathtub” from the titanium-reinforced armor all around its cockpit. Thanks to this added protection, the crew can survive direct hits from high-explosive projectiles and armor-piercing rounds at very close ranges.

A-10 Warthog: Specs and Capabilities

Perhaps the Warthog’s most critical capability is its hefty armament load. The hydraulically driven GAU-8/A Avenger Gatling gun positioned under the nose of the aircraft can fire at a rate of 3,900 rounds per minute.

As explained by Military.com, “The Avenger fires a mix of 30 mm electrically primed PGU-13/B High Explosive Incendiary (HEI) rounds and PGU-14/B Armor Piercing Incendiary (API) rounds. While the HEI rounds provide the Avenger the ability to destroy light skinned vehicles, the weapon’s real punch is delivered by the API rounds, each of which incorporates over half a pound of super-dense Depleted Uranium.” 

As detailed by Airforce Technology, the A-10 can deliver weapons including “the LDGP Mk82 226kg, 900kg Mk-84 series low/high drag bombs, 226kg general-purpose bombs, BLU-1 and BLU-27/B Rockeye II cluster bombs, cluster bomb unit CBU-52/71, combined effects munitions, and mine dispensing munitions.”

Despite the A-10’s noteworthy capabilities, the platform was never built for carrier landings. Due to the narrowness of carrier runways and the A-10’s lack of a tailhook, among other considerations, it would take a significant overhaul to create a Warthog variant capable of this feat. 

About the Author: Maya Carlin 

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The top speed or flank speed of the U.S. Navy's Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carriers remains somewhat of a mystery, with official figures stating they can exceed 30 knots.

-It is believed they can reach up to 31.5 knots, fast enough to cover a large area quickly.

-According to firsthand accounts, it takes around 10 minutes for these massive 97,000-ton warships to reach flank speed, and while no one has officially attempted to water ski behind an aircraft carrier, it would be possible given their impressive speed.

How Fast Can U.S. Navy Aircraft Carriers Really Go?

The United States Navy's largest vessels are also among the fastest surface combatants in service today – the question however is exactly how fast the nuclear-powered Nimitz-class super carriers can travel. Officially the United States Navy will only state that its carriers can exceed 30 knots, but how much remains unknown.

It is known that the Nimitz class was designed to produce 260,000 shp, while there is speculation the design speed was 31.5 knots – fast enough to get out of harm's way.

As Forbes.com reported in 2019, "Because they can sustain speeds of 35 miles per hour, the Nimitz-class carriers populating the current fleet can move to anywhere within a 700-square mile area within 30 minutes. After 90 minutes, that area grows to over 6,000 square miles."

Reaching Flank Speed

However, it should be noted that warships aren't always operating at "flank speed," the vessel's maximum, and it takes time to get a 97,000-ton warship moving. Recently a tactical officer shared some insight on the 'flank speed' of the U.S. Navy's supercarriers on the Quora social messaging platform.

Ross Hall, tactical action officer and anti-submarine officer assigned to a U.S. Navy Nimitz-class nuclear-powered supercarrier offered insight on the subject and was quoted by TheAviationGeekClub.com.

"It's hard to imagine what a carrier doing flank speed is like," Hall explained in his post. "During our transit to the North Arabian Sea, we conducted a rendezvous in the Indian Ocean with an amphibious group that was transiting back to the US. That day, the amphib guys showed off their LCACs, and we gave them an impromptu air show, with a couple of fly-bys for good measure."

Hall added, "As we parted company, our skipper announced 'Let's show them what an aircraft carrier can do'. We were barely making way at the time. He ordered us to depart at flank speed," noting, "When flank speed is ordered, power is applied to the shafts to turn the propellers. On the Nimitz class carriers, the four propellers are approximately 25 feet in diameter, and each weighs about 30 tons. When power is applied, torque on the shafts is limited to prevent damage – the shafts can 'twist' up to one and a half times (540 degrees). The longest shafts are 184 feet long.

"When the propellers start to turn, the water behind the ship begins to churn – it looks like the sea is beginning to boil. You can feel the ship vibrating as the engines ramp up and the propellers start to rotate," his comments continued.

The naval officer said it took about 10 minutes for the warship to reach flank speed, and he added, "If you have a long enough cable and a death wish, you could waterski behind the carrier."

Could you Water Ski Behind an Aircraft Carrier?

While Hall was clearly joking, he may not have known that in 1986, Royal Navy sailors attempted to water ski behind the Type 42 destroyer HMS Nottingham while deployed to the Persian Gulf. However, that vessel was only capable of reaching a top speed of 18 knots – about half that of the U.S. aircraft carrier.

Images have also circulated online that show the Royal Navy's Lieutenant Commander Nigel Williams water skiing from the Type 22 frigate HMS Brave in the 1980s. Yet, to date, there are no reports that any sailors have actually tried to water ski behind a carrier, yet it could be easily done by more experienced water skiers.

The average water skiing speed is about 26 knots, but for the record, according to Guinness World Records, "The fastest water skiing speed recorded is 230.26 km/h (143.08 mph) by Christopher Michael Massey (Australia) on the Hawkesbury River, Windsor, New South Wales, Australia on 6 Mar 1983. His drag boat driver was Stanley Charles Sainty.

Massey could certainly have water skied behind the USS Nimitz (CVN-68), even at flank speed.

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 Key Points: Aircraft carriers have long symbolized U.S. naval power, but recent advancements in anti-ship technology, such as drones and missiles, are challenging their future viability.

-These massive vessels are increasingly vulnerable to cheaper, more sophisticated attacks, particularly from adversaries like China.

-In a potential conflict, the loss of a carrier would be a significant strategic and psychological blow. If carriers become obsolete, the U.S. Navy might pivot towards stealthier and more agile vessels, like submarines and destroyers, to maintain maritime dominance.

-While heavily invested in new carrier classes, the Navy could adapt and find new ways to project power if needed.

Are Aircraft Carriers Losing Their Edge in Modern Warfare?

Aircraft carriers define the power of the U.S. Navy today. But the Navy has existed for 230 years – 248 years if you count the Continental Navy – and for the great majority of that time, the maritime service did not have aircraft carriers at all. If carriers become obsolete, the Navy will probably adapt and endure.

Why Might the Aircraft Carrier Era End?

Some pundits question the viability of the aircraft carrier in contemporary combat environments. Thanks to recent advances in anti-ship technologies, relatively cheap and low-tech equipment might be used to contain or even destroy advanced surface vessels. Drones, for example, can be deployed in swarms. They have caused problems for exponentially more expensive and more sophisticated U.S. warships off the coast of Yemen. Anti-ship missiles have become increasingly effective and have the potential to target and destroy aircraft carriers.

Carriers are, of course, massive targets – both in the literal and figurative sense. In the literal sense, aircraft carriers are one-fifth of a mile long. They carry 5,000 sailors and 100 aircraft, and they cost billions of dollars per unit. In the figurative sense, aircraft carriers are the symbol of a nation’s naval might and general fortune. Felling an aircraft carrier in the modern era would be a victory of a significance that is hard to calculate. Accordingly, they make a very attractive target. 

In a potential war against China, the U.S. would depend on carriers to deploy air power throughout the Indo-Pacific region. The Chinese undoubtedly would use their stockpile of anti-ship missiles, as well as their growing fleet of submarines, aircraft carriers, and surface vessels, to target American aircraft carriers. The loss of just one carrier would be devastating to any American war effort. Frankly, the American public is probably not conditioned for the casualties that the sinking of an aircraft carrier would entail – potentially double the lives that were lost on 9/11.

What Would Replace the Aircraft Carrier?

If, for some reason, the U.S. Navy had to move past the aircraft carrier, the process would be cumbersome and likely made with great reluctance.

Right now, the Navy has considerable resources invested in its carrier fleet – investment befitting a vessel type that is indeed the cornerstone of the service. But it could move on if necessary, and if the maritime service faces an existential threat, it will adjust accordingly. 

Adjustment could look like a pivot toward stealthier, sleeker, smaller vessels. More submarines, for example, or destroyers – vessels that would be harder for the enemy to target with drones and anti-ship missiles, and harder to locate in the first place. 

The Navy is banking on aircraft carriers being the vessel of the future. That’s why they’re comfortable investing $13 billion per boat in the brand-new Ford-class carrier. But if for some reason the Navy needed to move past the iconic aircraft carrier, it would find a way.

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. 

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the latest proposal could be the “last” opportunity to free Israeli hostages and secure a truce.

Can the technology give Washington the edge in a vital—and deeply competitive—industry?

It’s been a brutal summer for the region—and the effects are spreading to the rest of the world.