The National Interest

What You Need to Know: At the end of the Cold War, the U.S. secretly acquired 21 MiG-29 warplanes from Moldova to prevent their potential sale to Iran, fearing that the nuclear-capable MiG-29C variant might end up destabilizing the region.

-The U.S. transported these aircraft to Ohio in 1997, where they became invaluable for intelligence and training.

-Both American and Israeli pilots tested the MiG-29, gaining critical insights into Russian aerial tactics.

-The MiG-29’s thrust and helmet-mounted cueing system impressed pilots, providing Western forces with an understanding of Russian capabilities and refining U.S. and Israeli combat tactics for today’s air battles.

The Soviet-made MiG-29 warplane was equal to and, in some cases, surpassed the capabilities of the American F-15 and F-16 fighters. That was the conclusion of one of the American test pilots who flew the MiG-29 at the end of the Cold War. That pilot was one of many Americans. 

No, that test pilot was not brought over to consult with the post-Soviet Russian government like so many Westerners were back in the 1990s. That test pilot flew the MiG-29 at an American military base. Because, unbeknownst to the public, the US military had purchased 21 MiG-29 warplanes at the end of the Cold War. 

Moldova is a tiny country that sits dangerously near to Russia. 

After the fall of the USSR, the tiny country found itself in possession of a fleet of 34 MiG-29s and eight Mi-8 Hip Soviet helicopters. Moldova could not afford to maintain this arsenal. Washington feared that the Moldovan government, desperate for funds, and with little else of value to sell, would sell these planes to Iran. 

Specifically, America’s leaders were concerned that Moldova would sell the MiG-29C variant to the Iranians. This is the MiG-29 that is equipped to carry nuclear weapons. Since Iran has been dedicated to acquiring nuclear weapons since the 1980s - at least, according to many experts -  and the Americans believe such a move would be highly destabilizing for the Middle East region, Washington has striven to prevent such developments. 

So, America bought a large tranche of these warplanes and shipped them covertly back to the United States aboard C-17 transports. They arrived in Dayton, Ohio, in 1997.

At that point, these birds became a favorite new, exotic toy for the US Air Force to play with (in secret, of course).

More than that, though, the Americans were able to glean significant intelligence on a warplane that it had otherwise had only limited working knowledge of. What was learned was helpful, especially now that, unfortunately, Russo-American relations are at their lowest point since the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. 

Russian warplanes are a continual threat to US and NATO forces operating in Europe. 

For American pilots to have an understanding of what their possible rivals in the Russian Air Force are trained to do, it could help them understand how to survive—and win—against them in a dogfight.

It wasn’t only the Americans who gained access to MiG-29s. The Israelis did, too. Likely out of concern that the Iranians might someday gain access to the MiG-29, the Israelis wanted to know what they were possibly up against. So, they also trained on these birds. The Israelis fell in love with the warplane. Like the Americans, they determined that the MiG-29 is a very difficult plane to dogfight with—unless it is in the hands of an experienced pilot.

That’s because the thrust on those birds is phenomenal. 

What’s more, it lacks many of the accoutrements that pilots in American warplanes rely on. Although, the MiG-29 is not entirely lacking in high-technology. In fact, many reports suggest that the MiG-29’s helmet-mounted cueing system was more advanced than anything in either the American or Israeli arsenals when the MiG-29s were first tested by the West. This system the MiG-29 pilots to have more accurate targeting at greater angles than their American rivals. 

Ultimately, that advantage would go away by 2003. But for more than a decade, the Russian MiG-29 had a better targeting capability than any American warplane did. The American acquisition of the MiG-29 might have even helped enhance the American warplane targeting systems. After all, exploitation units for the Air Force were given the MiG-29 to experiment with. The entire purpose of those units is to identify foreign technologies that might be useful and reverse-engineer them.

The acquisition of MiG-29s at the end of the Cold War was a bold and brilliant bit of intelligence work. It likely had immeasurable assistance in getting the Air Force to understand what they might be up against. Further, the Air Force probably perfected technologies that are now essential for US pilots in combat today. 

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 out now from Encounter Books. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

What You Need to Know: The USS The Sullivans, an Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer named in honor of five heroic brothers lost in World War II, has been deployed to the Middle East.

-The ship has recently been active in the Mediterranean, providing ballistic missile defense amid the Israel-Hamas conflict and supporting other U.S. Navy vessels, including the USS Gerald R. Ford and USS Bataan. As a tribute to the Sullivan brothers’ bravery and commitment, the vessel operates with a motto symbolizing unity and dedication.

-A previous USS The Sullivans ship, now a museum, is scheduled for restoration in 2025.

The United States Navy deployed the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS The Sullivans (DDG-68) to the Middle East, where it will join with other U.S. military assets. It is the warship's fifth deployment in just three years, including the most recent to the Mediterranean Sea.

While deployed in the region, the vessel "provided Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) for Commander, U.S. European Command amidst the Israel-Hamas conflict," the U.S. Navy announced. "The Sullivans, alongside USS Delbert D. Black (DDG 119), additionally provided on-station relief for USS Thomas Hudner (DDG 116) and USS McFaul (DDG 74)," which allowed those two warships to return home following multiple deployment extensions. 

During the deployment to the Eastern Mediterranean, DDG-68 also provided escort to two U.S. flattops – including the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) and her carrier strike group (CSG) and the USS Bataan Amphibious Readiness Group. When CVN-78 conducted a port of call visit to Souda Bay, Crete, last December, USS The Sullivans acted as "Surface Action Group Commander" with the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.

"The Sullivans' crew is trained and ready to engage in a variety of activities, from escorting ships to participating in joint exercises with allied and partner navies in the Middle East," the sea service added.

America's adversaries should take note of the motto of USS The Sullivans – "Courage Honor Commitment We Stick Together." The Arleigh Bukre-class (Flight I) guided-missile destroyer is named to honor the five Sullivan brothers – George, Francis, Joseph, Madison, and Albert – who served together on the Atlanta-class light cruiser USS Juneau (CL-52).

All five were killed when USS Juneau was sunk in November 1942 during the naval Battle of Guadalcanal.

DDG-68 is actually the second vessel named to honor the Sullivan brothers, who had volunteered to serve in the U.S. Navy just days after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The Fletcher-class destroyer (DD-537) was the first warship commissioned by the U.S. Navy to honor more than one person, and she has also been preserved as a museum ship – along with the World War II cruiser USS Little Rock (CL-92) – at the Buffalo and Erie County Naval & Military Park in Buffalo, New York.

Time and the elements have been cruel to the first USS The Sullivans, and in 2022 damage to the hull was so significant the ship began to list. It was announced in August that both USS The Sullivans and the Gato-class submarine USS Croaker (SS-246) will head to dry dock in Lake Erie in September 2025, with a scheduled return in the spring of 2026. New York Governor Kathy Hochul has pledged to provide $10 million to the destroyer's and submarine's restoration, while local, state, and federal funding will also help ensure the historic warship that honored the brothers will be saved for future generations.

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.

What You Need to Know: The Ford-class aircraft carrier, designed to be the future of U.S. naval airpower, is facing scrutiny over its durability and readiness for high-stakes combat.

-While equipped with advanced technology and immense firepower, the $13 billion vessel has encountered reliability issues, including problems with its catapults, arresting gear, and radar.

-As anti-ship defenses advance, questions arise about the wisdom of risking such an invaluable asset.

-The Ford class is built to withstand severe damage, yet whether the U.S. Navy and the American public are prepared for the potential losses in a large-scale conflict, such as with China, remains uncertain.

The new Ford-class carrier is billed as the future of U.S. naval airpower. As it gradually replaces the 50-year-old Nimitz class, the Ford class will soon become the primary supercarrier of the U.S. Navy. But the first-in-class USS Gerald R. Ford has suffered from a slew of reliability problems. And as anti-ship defense systems improve, the question is being raised: How durable will the Ford class be under wartime conditions?

Ford-class Aircraft Carrier: Built for Battle?

It is difficult to picture a scenario in which the U.S. exposes its $13 billion supercarrier to enemy fire. Of course, the Ford class is built explicitly for combat. But the Navy hasn’t placed an aircraft carrier in an existential situation in decades – not since World War II, really, when lightweight aircraft carriers like the Essex class were made quickly and efficiently.

Today, American supercarriers are almost immeasurable vessels of resources. The Ford class is loaded with thousands of sailors, a hundred or so aircraft (each costing $60 million or so), the very latest technology, and a nuclear reactor. 

The investment alone is a significant deterrent for American war planners. And there’s another thing causing hesitancy: American expectations. Americans don’t have a tolerance for wide-scale loss of American lives or property. That is a good thing. But that low tolerance threshold is often in conflict with the self-imposed global police mandate – a mandate for which the supercarrier is a vital instrument. Americans would be shell-shocked if one of their supercarriers, carrying a few thousand sailors, went down. The political blowback would be immense. The will to continue fighting might collapse.

America has waged war with half-measures for decades in places like Grenada, Panama, Somalia, and Kosovo. America was able to get by with minimal investment and zero disruption to the daily lives of everyday Americans. Similarly, the expectations for casualties in these conflicts fell to almost zero. Iraq and Afghanistan represented more significant investments in American warmaking, but not nearly enough to put an aircraft carrier on the line. 

A war with an adversary like China could be very different. Such a conflict might require putting an aircraft carrier and her sailors in direct danger. Is America ready for such a commitment? Is the Ford class?

American supercarriers are hard to kill. The Navy could not sink USS America with torpedoes and missiles and instead had to rig the ship with explosives at critical structural points. The Ford is likely no different – built to last and built to take a beating.

But the Ford has had some problems. Testing of USS Ford’s catapults, arresting gear, and jet blast deflectors resulted in delays. The radar system also had problems. And testing suggested the ship had significant EMI and radiation hazards.

Does any of this tell us whether the Ford can or cannot withstand enemy fire? No, but anytime one system doesn’t work as planned, it becomes natural to wonder whether another system might have the same problem.

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.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Give It to the Army: The A-10 Warthog has proven indispensable for close air support, saving countless lives with its ability to loiter over battlefields and deliver devastating firepower.

-Despite the advanced capabilities of newer platforms like the F-35, the A-10’s unique attributes—such as its heavy armor, long endurance, and potent weapons—make it irreplaceable for supporting ground troops.

-The Air Force's consideration to retire the A-10 could create a critical gap in capabilities. Transferring the A-10 program to the U.S. Army, which aligns more closely with its mission, could preserve this vital asset for future conflicts.

While working on Capitol Hill, I was asked to participate in discussions over funding for the F-35 Lightning II and the A-10 Warthog. During those days of defense budget sequestration, funds were limited by an agreement made between Congress and then-President Barack Obama. Because of the limits, the Pentagon was being forced to choose between funding pre-existing systems, such as the A-10, or newer systems that would define the future, such as the F-35. 

Walking into the first meeting, my bias was toward the F-35. The meetings changed my mind.

As part of our meetings, proponents for both platforms were asked to make their cases for why one of these systems should be prioritized over the other. The most impressive arguments came from the A-10 supporters. A group of former Special Forces operators came armed with gun camera footage from an A-10 to describe in detail how the Warthog saved their lives during an ambush conducted by the Taliban against their unit in the dusty foothills of Afghanistan. 

For hours, the A-10 hovered over the battlespace, getting within virtual spitting distance of the entrenched Taliban positions, and rained down a hellfire of molten lead and explosives. 

According to the Special Forces operators who were recounting their tale to us, the A-10’s persistent presence over their heads saved their lives. What’s more, that platform allowed the commandos to achieve their objectives. 

Similar stories can be found in just about every ground campaign this country has been involved in since the A-10 Warthog first flew. As one of the Special Forces operators quipped to us, “No other bird – not even an F-35 – can do for ground forces what the A-10 can.”

The A-10 Warthog II is an interesting warplane. It first hit the unfriendly skies in May 1972. A total of 713 units were produced by Fairchild Republic, which is now part of Northrop-Grumman, and the A-10 production line ended in 1984. Boeing was given contracts by the Air Force in 2013 to modernize the planes. For example, new wings were added, extending the lifespans of these aging birds by many years. 

The A-10 was designed to conduct “close-in air support” missions. As such, it is not exclusively an Air Force plane. Tactical Air Control Party airmen work on the ground to coordinate A-10 airstrikes directly with American ground forces who need the air support. This creates a symbiotic relationship between ground personnel fighting, and the Air Force operating the A-10. 

To ensure these planes survive such dangerous missions, they are heavily armored ground-pounders. The cockpit, for example, is surrounded by what’s known as a titanium bathtub that is up to 3.8 cm thick, to better protect the pilot from enemy ground fire. Similar protections are afforded to the plane’s flight systems, to ensure that an enemy doesn’t score a lucky shot, given how low and vulnerable to enemy ground fire the A-10 is. 

The A-10 is known for its endurance as a fighting aircraft. As the Special Forces operators explained to me, these planes can dish out an unbelievable amount of firepower while loitering over a battlefield for protracted periods of time – far longer than any other plane. The firepower, the armor, and the duration in combat are decisive factors justifying the continued operation of this bird. 

No other warplane can operate as close to the enemy for as long as the A-10 can. Most other birds, such as the F-35, would need to leave the battlespace to refuel. And for all the talk about the F-35’s capabilities at a distance, when you’ve got U.S. ground troops at risk, there’s nothing quite like having a warplane that can get right into the enemy’s face and give it to him good and hard.

A-10s are mean warthogs indeed. They are armed with their iconic 30 mm GAU-8/A cannon, as well as a mixed ordnance package. The bird is a bomb carrier of epic proportions. It has three under-fuselage pylon stations along with eight under-wing stations. These carry weapons such as the 500-pound Mk-82 and the 2,000-pound Mk-84. They can also fly with the AGM-65 Maverick and the AIM-9 sidewinder missile.

The A-10 trades speed for endurance. It can barely reach Mach 0.75. The F-35 is considerably faster. But the A-10 has an astounding range of 2,580 miles. What’s more, the A-10 can fly in degraded environments. These birds can take off and land from short runways at forward operating bases. Given the kind of wars the U.S. military found itself fighting, such as in Afghanistan, it’s astonishing that the Pentagon even thought to retire this bird. And if a great power war erupts between the United States and a near-peer rival like China or Russia, the A-10 will be instrumental in punching holes through enemy air defense bubbles.

While the F-35 is a modern marvel and can conduct similar mission sets to the A-10, the fifth-generation warplane lacks the kind of endurance and durability that the A-10 has proven time and again it possesses. 

Back when I was in government, some A-10 enthusiasts suggested the Air Force should simply transfer the A-10 program over to the U.S. Army. The Army possesses a limited aircraft fleet. Although culturally the Army eschews an air role – especially a fixed-wing air role – the A-10’s mission and capability is less of an Air Force mission set and more of a ground support role. Thus, to save the storied warbird, the Army should take over the program. It should do this before the A-10 is retired and a critical capabilities gap is created – just when a great power war is around the corner.

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.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

What You Need to Know: The UK's Ministry of Defence (MoD) is reportedly leaning towards purchasing additional F-35B Lightning II aircraft instead of expanding its fleet of Eurofighter Typhoons.

-The F-35B’s advanced capabilities, including its short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) feature, make it ideal for both the Royal Navy’s Queen Elizabeth-class carriers and airbase operations. While the Eurofighter will continue to receive upgrades, the F-35 is considered more viable long-term.

-London has also earmarked funds for the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) to develop a sixth-generation fighter in partnership with Italy and Japan.

A week after it was reported that aerospace giant Lockheed Martin has been pressing the UK to increase its commitment to the full 138-unit procurement of the fifth-generation F-35B Lightning II, it seems that London may opt for more of the stealth fighters. According to international military analyst firm Janes, the UK's Ministry of Defence "is inclined to increase its combat aviation forces through an" F-35 follow-on buy "rather than acquiring more Eurofighter Typhoons."

The MoD is reported to be considering its long-term requirements, and that is where the F-35B could offer an advantage. The UK's Royal Air Force (RAF) operates the short takeoff vertical landing (STOVL) variant, which allows it to be employed as the airwing on the Royal Navy's Queen Elizabeth-class carriers as well as from air bases.

Moreover, the F-35B could remain in operation until the 2070s, far longer than the Eurofighter could be expected to see service.

"We have a foot in both [the F-35 and Eurofighter] camps, and for the RAF I very much see that the F-35 is where we are looking at to add combat mass. We are committed to an onward buy [of the F-35], so that is where we are looking," a British official told Janes from the sidelines of the IQPC International Fighter Conference (IFC) 2024 in Berlin on 6 November.

The official told the analyst firm under "the Chatham House Rule" (meaning with anonymity) the Eurofighter Typhoon will still remain a "core component" of the RAF, and that will include receiving upgrades and other enhancements to maintain its "operational capabilities." Yet, the MoD now appears to be "leaning" towards the Lightning II as part of the air service's longer-term requirements.

The UK has been negotiating terms for the acquisition of the second tranche of F-35s, which would see the fleet size grow to 74 aircraft – but that was later scaled back after London cited the program's rising costs during the previous Conservative government. The MoD had also expressed using money saved from the F-35 acquisition to fund the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) to develop a sixth-generation optionally-manned fighter and unmanned aerial systems (UAS). The UK is part of an international consortium that also includes Italy and Japan, with the partners working to field the GCAP fighter by the mid-2030s.

At issue is the size of the current RAF fighter force. A September 2023 parliamentary report published by the House of Commons Defence Committee warned that the UK has fewer than 160 combat jets. Complicating issues for the Labour government is how the RAF's and RN's fighters can be employed. Each of the UK's Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers can operate with up to 36 F-35Bs, so in theory, the entire fleet of the Lightning IIs could be dedicated to just that mission. While that would allow the Royal Navy to maintain a powerful airwing on its flattops, it would deprive the RAF of aircraft to carry out its own missions.

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.

What You Need to Know: Ukrainian forces have encountered North Korean troops in Russia's Kursk Oblast, marking a significant development as Pyongyang sends thousands of soldiers to support Moscow. While initial clashes are reportedly mild, Ukrainian officials expect more intense engagements as North Korean forces integrate with Russian troops.

-Currently, around 11,000 North Korean soldiers are believed to be in Russian service, primarily intended to help repel Ukrainian advances without entering occupied Ukraine to avoid further international backlash.

-Meanwhile, Russian forces are experiencing heavy losses in equipment and personnel as the conflict intensifies.

The Ukrainian defense minister revealed that Ukrainian forces have already gone up against small numbers of North Korean troops in the Kursk Oblast.  

Pyongyang has sent thousands of troops to Moscow’s aid as the intense fighting continues to deplete the Russian forces.  

“The first North Korean forces have likely officially engaged in combat against Ukrainian troops in Kursk Oblast,” the Institute for the Study of War assessed in its latest estimate of the war.  

On Tuesday, Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov said that the Ukrainian military has been engaged in small-scale combat with North Korean troops in the Kursk Oblast. Speaking to a South Korean news outlet, Umerov said that the fighting with the North Korean troops is relatively mild for the time being but that he expects that to change once the full contingents of North Korean forces arrive. Ukrainian, South Korean, and Western intelligence estimates put the number of North Korean forces in Russian service to around 11,000.  

As we have assessed here at The National Interest, it is likely that the Kremlin will initially limit the presence of North Korean troops to within Russia. The Ukrainian salient in the Kursk Oblast is an ideal testing bed for the North Koreans because it wouldn’t require them to deploy into occupied Ukraine and risk further wrath from the West and South Korea.  

To be sure, if Moscow perceives a need, it will most certainly deploy the North Koreans into occupied Ukraine as well. There is already reporting that some North Korean support troops are inside Ukraine. But the fact that they are not involved in direct fighting and their small numbers are enough for their presence to pass without much attention for the time being.  

“ISW continues to assess that Russia will likely leverage North Korean manpower to first and foremost repel the Ukrainian incursion into Kursk Oblast, and that in return, North Korean troops hope to gain combat and military-technical experience in the conditions for a contemporary and technologically driven war,” the Institute for the Study of War added.  

Interestingly, it seems that the Russian military is integrating the North Korean troops into its own structure as opposed to having them fight as separate units. The Ukrainian defense minister said in his interview with the South Korean outlet that it has been difficult to ascertain North Korean casualty numbers because the Russian military has mixed Russian and North Korean troops together in the same outfits.  

Meanwhile, the Russian forces continue to take heavy casualties in the fighting. Over the past twenty-four hours, the Russian military, paramilitary outfits, and pro-Russian separatist forces lost approximately 1,250 troops killed or wounded, as well as fifty-seven unmanned aerial systems, fifty-five tactical vehicles and fuel trucks, twenty artillery pieces and multiple launch rocket systems, eleven infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, six main battle tanks, and one piece of special equipment damaged or destroyed.  

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.

Hours before polls closed in the United States on November 5, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu informed Israeli Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant that he was fired from the cabinet. Gallant had become a well-known face throughout the war on Hamas. Gaunt and black-clad in the wake of the Hamas 10/7 massacre, he often visited soldiers in the field and kept his hand firmly on the helm of military operations.

Netanyahu said that he dismissed Gallant because trust had eroded between them. They had different priorities for the war effort and different visions for Israeli strategy. Gallant preferred a hostage deal and pushed for a day-after plan for Gaza. He also wanted to draft ultra-Orthodox Jews, who historically have an exemption from the army in Israel. This put him at odds with other members of Netanyahu’s coalition government. “...During the past several months, this trust between myself and the Defense Minister has begun to crack,” Netanyahu said.

With Gallant gone, there will be a shakeup in Israel’s political landscape. This is because Gallant brought with him many decades of experience as a soldier and officer to the position. He will likely be replaced by a politician rather than a former general, putting the war effort more firmly in Netanyahu’s hands. During the first months of the war in Gaza, Israel had a war cabinet that included two former generals (Benny Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot). They left the war cabinet in June.

Netanyahu’s decision comes as former U.S. President Donald Trump celebrates his election victory. That means that the period from November to January will be a window of opportunity for Israel in its operations. Similarly, there may be a spotlight from the Biden administration as it moves into its lame-duck era.

There are many balls in the air in the Middle East. Iran is threatening more direct attacks on Israel. Hezbollah has a new leader named Naim Qassem, who has spoken out about the U.S. elections, claiming it won’t change Hezbollah’s war on Israel. Israel began a ground operation against Hezbollah in October. Hezbollah launched missiles at central Israel on November 6, as if to show that the U.S. election would not deter its attacks.

Nevertheless, the region will be watching Trump’s statements closely, and they will likely affect the next phase of the war. This is clear because leaders in the region have been quick to call the president-elect. Netanyahu has spoken with Trump, as has the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. Riyadh expects that the incoming administration will strengthen ties. The Saudis have been critical of Israel’s war in Gaza and publicly expressed their wish for a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. However, they also likely know that Iran supported the October 7 Hamas attack in order to harm the Abraham Accords, the normalization deal Trump helped cement between the UAE and Israel. 

Iran wanted to weaken regional integration and stability through a proxy war with Israel. Iran pushed its proxies, such as Hezbollah and the Houthis, to attack Israel in order to create a regional war. Saudi Arabia has been affected because the Houthis in Yemen have previously fought Riyadh. Qatar hosts Hamas. During the first Trump administration, Saudi Arabia led Bahrain, the UAE, and Egypt to break relations with Qatar soon after a major meeting with Trump at the Riyadh Summit in May 2017. Saudi Arabia is thus keenly aware of the changes in the region that a new U.S. administration could help invigorate.

Meanwhile, in Israel, the war effort on two fronts will be in the initial spotlight. The IDF recently helped facilitate a polio vaccination campaign in Gaza. In addition, the IDF is winding down a month-long operation in Jabalia in northern Gaza. Jabalia is a large neighborhood north and northeast of Gaza City where Hamas maintains a presence. The IDF had fought Hamas in this area twice during a year of conflict but never cleared it of terrorists. In October, the IDF struck again. After a month of fighting, it has defeated Hamas. Yet, the slow operation illustrated how difficult it is to uproot the terrorists. Israeli soldiers use drones and unmanned M113 vehicles in operations to try to flush out the enemy and eliminate threats. However, it takes time, and the neighborhood is a jumble of ruined multi-story buildings.

The slow tactical war is grinding on in Gaza and Lebanon. In Lebanon, the IDF has four divisions deployed, and they have spent more than a month fighting Hezbollah in a series of border villages less than a mile or two from the Israeli border. This is a slow process because Hezbollah festooned the area with munitions and hide-outs. The IDF’s 8th brigade, for instance, has killed “dozens” of terrorists in recent operations in Lebanon. “Additionally, the troops located and confiscated numerous weapons, including Kornet missiles, grenades, and explosive devices hidden inside civilian homes and underground infrastructure,” the IDF said on November 6. Hezbollah is also not relenting in its attacks. It fired more than 120 rockets on November 6 at Israel.

Israel will need to decide how to conduct a multi-front war over the next months as a new U.S. administration prepares to enter office. This means looking at the next phase of operations in Gaza and Lebanon. Can Hamas or Hezbollah be decisively defeated now that they have been ground down through ground operations? Both terror groups lost their leaders, but they kept fighting. In addition, the Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen and Iranian-backed militias in Iraq continue to threaten Israel. Iran also threatens more direct attacks but may be deterred by Trump’s return to the White House. The Iraqi militias remember that Trump ordered the airstrike that killed IRGC Quds Force leader Qasem Soleimani and Iraqi militia leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis in 2020.

On the other hand, the Iranians could judge that they have a short window now to strike harder at Israel before Trump takes the oath of office. They will likely suspect that Israel intends to take the gloves off after the U.S. election. The question will be whether they do. A year of war has left Israeli reservists exhausted and left many questions about the long-term strategy in Gaza and Lebanon.

Seth Frantzman is the author of The October 7 War: Israel’s Battle for Security in Gaza (2024) and an adjunct fellow at The Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Image: Creative Commons. 

Taiwan is known for its low crime rates, partly due to the high standards of our law enforcement. Taiwan’s National Police Agency has much expertise to contribute to the fight against transnational crime, having effectively tackled issues ranging from fraudulent phone scams to terrorism. According to the Taiwanese police commissioner, the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) issued a report under its anti-piracy initiative citing Taiwan’s efforts against illegal Olympic broadcasts. Interpol later requested Taiwan officials to share insights on how to combat digital piracy.

The irony is that Interpol has consistently barred Taiwan from participating in its organization’s activities. Taiwan’s police agencies are excluded from fully contributing to or benefiting from Interpol, which also creates a considerable gap in Interpol’s own objective of fighting transnational crime.

Taiwan’s inability to access Interpol’s I-24/7 database keeps Interpol’s member countries from having timely access to Taiwan’s own criminal intelligence. It also keeps Taiwan’s police with one hand tied behind their back, as was made evident in 2022 when Taiwanese law enforcement discovered a human trafficking scheme unfolding in Cambodia and Myanmar. Victims from all over the world, including an estimated 5,000 from Taiwan alone, had traveled to Cambodia and Myanmar, lured by false promises of lucrative employment. But upon arrival, they were instead held against their will and subjected not only to harsh, forced labor but also extensive abuse and violence.

Unfortunately, Taiwan was not allowed to collaborate with Interpol or make use of Interpol’s extensive resources. Taiwan’s law enforcement instead had to cooperate indirectly with separate countries, which needlessly and frustratingly slowed down the process of justice.

Taiwan has made the most of this unfortunate reality. We have proven ourselves to be reliable partners to the world in tackling organized crime syndicates. In 2020, Taiwanese and Montenegrin law enforcement worked together to take down fraudulent phone scam operations. Earlier this year, our police worked with U.S., South Korean, and other international police forces to bust a Taiwanese drug syndicate, from which thirteen arrests were made.

Taiwan clearly has much to offer Interpol. The only reason we continue to be excluded is politics.

Ever since Taiwan lost its decades-long status as an Interpol member in 1984, when the organization switched its recognition from Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China, our law enforcement agency has been barred from participation. In 2022, a high-level Interpol official claimed that China’s status as an Interpol member impedes Taiwan from being granted observer status in the organization’s General Assembly.

This is, again, an unfortunate but familiar story for Taiwan. As with other international organizations, Beijing’s undue influence regrettably keeps Taiwan on the outside looking in. Often, Taiwan’s exclusion results from the PRC’s bogus claim that UN General Resolution 2758—a document that doesn’t mention Taiwan or its official name, the Republic of China, even once—endorses its false assertions of sovereignty over Taiwan. Through this intentional misrepresentation of the resolution, China has prevented Taiwan’s participation in international organizations like the World Health Organization and the International Civil Aviation Organization. They have similarly moved to deny Taiwan access to Interpol.

Only a democratically elected government has the right to represent the 23 million people of Taiwan on the world stage. When those voices are silenced, everyone suffers—not just Taiwan.

We cannot afford to let politics get in the way of countering global crime any longer. Taiwan’s police have proven to be reliable law enforcement partners with much expertise to offer the world. Yet Taiwan’s exclusion from Interpol and its database continues to create real-time gaps in global criminal intelligence, allowing cracks for international outlaws to slip through. This is an unconscionable risk to take. It is time for Interpol to incorporate Taiwan into its intelligence-sharing network so that international criminal activity can be kept at bay more efficiently.

Alexander Tah-Ray Yui is the Taiwan government’s representative to the United States.

Image: Shutterstock.com. 

Total Beast: The F-16I Sufa, Israel’s customized F-16 variant, forms a critical part of the Israel Defense Forces’ air capabilities, with over 300 airframes. This two-seat model, equipped with conformal fuel tanks, extended range, and double the weapon capacity, was tailored for the unique requirements of Israel’s military operations.

-The Sufa includes advanced Israeli avionics and an electronic warfare suite, with systems like the Elbit Dash IV for helmet-mounted targeting.

-It has played key roles in operations, notably during the 2021 conflict with Hamas, where it was essential in targeting enemy tunnel networks, and is expected to serve for years.

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. 

 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. 

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.

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. 

Total Failure: The Russian MiG-35 “Fulcrum-F” was initially touted as a "4+++ generation" fighter, boasting advanced radar and optical systems for high-intensity conflict. However, the platform's underwhelming performance, high cost, and limited combat history have hindered its export success, with only Russia operating the model today.

Despite possessing improved RD-33MKB engines and AESA radar, the MiG-35 failed to secure buyers, falling short against global competitors like the F-16 and Rafale.

As Russia focuses on its prolonged conflict in Ukraine, limited resources and dwindling military assets further constrain MiG-35 production, making extensive deployment and export of the fighter unlikely.

Back in 2017, shortly after the MiG-35 debuted, the President of Russia’s Aircraft-Building Corporation, Yuri Slyusar, boasted that the new fighter platform would lead the way in the aerial arena.

The executive added, "The fighter aircraft has been specially designed for warfare amid increased intensity conflicts and highly dense air defense. The available high indicators have been achieved thanks to a set of onboard equipment mounted on the plane along with a new optical location system and radar signature reduced by several times.”

No matter what the Kremlin would like to purport, the true capabilities of the Mikoyan MiG-35 have proved to be underwhelming.

Designated by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as the Fulcrum-F, the MiG-35 is marketed by Russia as a “4+++ generation fighter” platform. Back in 2007, Moscow marketed the jet prototype at the Aero India air show in an attempt to acquire client states for the platform.

The Fulcrum-F was displayed alongside the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon and the Saab JAS 38 Gripen. However, by 2011 the MiG-35 was nixed from the contest due to failures concerning its radar and engines.

The MiG-35 is powered by a pair of RD-33MKB engines that generate 7% more power compared to the baseline model, providing a thrust of 9,000kgf. The Fulcrum-F was primarily derived from the MiG-29, however, its incorporation of an AESA radar manufactured by Mikoyan gives it an edge over its predecessor. In fact, the MiG-35 is the first Russian fighter to be equipped with active electronically scanned array radar.

As detailed by Air Force Technology, “The Zhuk-MA’s antenna consists of 160 modules, each with four receive-and-transmit modules. It is believed to offer a 160km (85nm) air target detection radius and 300km for surface ships. Like radar, OLS allows the MiG-35 to detect targets and aim weapon systems. But, unlike radar, OLS has no emissions, meaning it cannot be detected.”

In terms of armaments, the MiG-35 can carry a range of missiles, bombs and rockets with its nine hardpoints, including the Kh-31A anti-ship missiles, the Kh-31P anti-radar missiles, the Kh-29TE missiles and the KAB-500Kr TV-guided bombs. Additionally, the Fulcrum’s 30mm cannon can lug roughly 150 rounds of ammunition.

Perhaps the MiG-35’s hefty price tag and lack of combat experience has led to its shoddy export history. From India and Egypt to Argentina and Bangladesh, the Fulcrum-F has been difficult to export.

Today, only Moscow flies the MiG-35. Even if this platform was as formidable as the Kremlin would like to tout, Russia is in no financial position to produce enough of them to export. Since February 2022, Moscow has poured the majority of its resources into its ongoing invasion of Ukraine.

Russian forces have struggled to gain advances in the conflict considering it is running out of essential military equipment like main battle tanks, fifth-generation airframes and munitions. Considering this pace, Moscow won’t possess additional Fulcrum-F fighters for a while.

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. 

The main image is from Shutterstock. All others are Creative Commons. 

What You Need to Know: The U.S. Navy faces significant challenges as it seeks to extend the service lives of Nimitz-class carriers to maintain its eleven-carrier fleet amid Ford-class production delays. Originally designed with a 50-year lifespan, many Nimitz carriers are reaching their limit, with retrofitting complicated by unforeseen repairs, including major steam turbine damage.

-The USS George Washington and USS John C. Stennis, both undergoing lengthy overhauls, have experienced extensive delays, straining Navy deployment schedules.

-Additionally, poor living conditions for sailors aboard retrofitting vessels, such as the George Washington, have led to serious morale issues, including several sailor suicides, raising urgent concerns.

The U.S. Navy has been forced to rely on their Nimitz-class aircraft carriers for longer than expected. The Nimnitz-class, which first debuted in 1975, has a fifty-year service life. For the namesake vessel, the first-off-the-line USS Nimitz, that fifty-year threshold is fast approaching. The remaining Nimitz carriers were rolled out over thirty-five years, and now many more are also approaching their fifty-year thresholds.

Yet, the Navy has been slow to produce the Nimitz’s replacement, the Ford-class. To date, only one Ford-class, the USS Gerald R. Ford, has been commissioned, while a second is on the way. To maintain current fleet levels, eleven active aircraft carriers, the U.S. Navy is working to extend the lifespans of their Nimitz-class carriers. 

The process has not gone smoothly.

The Pentagon is committed to maintaining current levels for their carrier fleet. One could argue that the U.S. Navy does not need eleven supercarriers. Restraint advocate Barry Posen argues that seven to nine supercarriers would probably be sufficient to address all of America’s national security concerns. But the Pentagon feels otherwise, obviously, flare-ups in the Middle East, and rising tension throughout the Indo-Pacific, no doubt partially inspiring the commitment to maintaining current fleet levels. Delays to the Ford-class are no doubt another reason. 

The forthcoming USS Enterprise, the third Ford-class carrier, will be delayed eighteen months. 

“Extending Nimitz, extending Ike, it’s going to happen for every Nimitz-class carrier. At least one extension,” Vice Admiral Kenneth Whitesell said last year. 

Yet the Nimitz extensions have not gone smoothly. Delays in the retrofitting process have been common.

“Extensive delays to the mid-life refueling and complex overhauls of two nuclear-powered aircraft carriers were due to damage to the steam turbines that power the ship,” the U.S. Naval Institute (USNI) reported. The two carriers in question were the USS George Washington and the USS John C. Stennis. Each carrier was supposed to undergo a four-year overhaul. But the Washington needed nearly six years; the Stennis will need five and a half.

“The change in redelivery schedule for [Stennis] is primarily a reflection of growth work discovered after the ship arrived at Newport News Shipbuilding (NNS) and subsequent challenges within the supply base,” Huntington Ingall’s Industries (HII) NNS said in a statement. “We are applying lessons learned from both George Washington and John C. Stennis to what we are doing to prepare USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) for refeuling and complex overhaul”

The delays have complicated the Navy’s ability to deploy carriers, and have also degraded the quality of life for the sailors aboard the vessels being retrofitted; a 2023 Navy investigation found that sailors aboard the George Washington, “endured some of the toughest living conditions of any members in the military.” Several of Washington’s sailors committed suicide.

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.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

What You Need to Know: China’s newest stealth fighter, the J-35 (also known as the FC-31 Gyrfalcon), has officially arrived, marking another step in the nation’s fifth-generation aviation capabilities.

-Distinct from the U.S. F-35 in several ways, including a twin-engine design, the J-35 incorporates features that may have drawn inspiration from the F-35’s configuration and aesthetics.

-Expected to carry 18,000 pounds of munitions, including both internal and external loads, the J-35 is offered in two variants: the land-based J-35A and a carrier-based J-35. The People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) has celebrated its debut as a significant addition to China’s strategic aviation assets.

Generally, when one thinks of the number thirty-five in the context of 5th Generation stealth fighters, chances are that person thinks of the U.S.-made F-35 Lightning II, one of a long line of innovative warbirds from Lockheed Martin’s legendary “Skunk Works” division. 

Yes, Russia has the Sukhoi Su-35 “Flanker-E,” but that isn’t a stealth fighter, and neither is the Swedish Air Force’s Cold War-era Saab 35 “Draken.” Meanwhile, when one thinks of “China” and “stealth fighter” in the same sentence, chances are that person thinks of the Chengdu J-20 Weilong.

Well, it turns out that they also have an up-and-coming stealth fighter known as the J-35, more specifically the Shenyang J-35, AKA the FC-31 Gu ying. 

As recently as November 4, 2024, my colleague Harrison Kass reported for The National Interest that the J-35A was expected to debut at the Zhuhai Airshow: China’s premier aerospace trade expo, on or about November 12, 2024. But now an even more recent report indicates that the Gyrfalcon won’t even have to wait that long for her unveiling.

At least, the greatest if you’re part of the pro-China lobby; otherwise, not so great.

The most up-to-date source that this writer is aware of is a November 5 2024 article penned by Thomas Newdick and Tyler Rogoway for The Warzone, “The front three-quarter view of the jet, seen taxiing, reveals several new details and sheds more light on features that were previously more hidden…Critical outright differences exist, including its twin-engine powerplant compared to the F-35’s large single turbofan engine. While the F-35 was designed from the start to accommodate a short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) version, this requirement is absent from the Chinese design. Many elements were at least heavily inspired if not cribbed from the F-35, including its DSI inlets, canopy, and basic configuration.”

Messrs. Newdick and Rogoway wish to emphasize that, contrary to prior allegations and assertions, the J-35A is not a complete carbon copy/knockoff of the F-35, the multiple similarities notwithstanding.

The earliest indications of the J-35 program date back to circa September 2011, in the guise of a photograph of a model labeled “F-60.” In September of the following year, unofficial and poor-quality photos of a possible fully assembled aircraft made an appearance on the Internet. On October 31, 2012, the prototype made its maiden flight, and the following month the J-31 airframe was publicly revealed at the 2012 edition of the Zhuhai Airshow.

Presumably, the J-35 will pack a payload of 18,000 pounds (8,164 kilograms). Including four internal munitions weighing a total of 4,400 pounds. (1,995 kilograms). The external arsenal consists of six hardpoints with a capacity of 13,000 pounds. (5,896 kilograms). Primary armament includes the PL-10 “Thunderbolt-10;” NATO reporting name CH-AA-9, short-range missile and the PL-12 Thunderbolt-12” AKA Pen Lung; NATO reporting name CH-AA-7 Adze, medium-range beyond visual range (BVR) air-to-air missile.

The PLA released some additional useful information, clarifying that the J-35A designation is being bestowed upon the land-based version of the fighter, with the carrier-based version being dubbed simply the J-35; the two versions have different rudder sizes & configurations. 

The land-based iteration logically omits the catapult launch bar and uses a single nose wheel, as opposed to the twin wheels found on the naval variant, as well as larger tailfins.

As a P.R. gesture, the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) announced that, “The J-35 officially announced that the hanging tail seventy-five is painted to celebrate the birthday of the Air Force!”

There remain some unanswered questions, such as how far advanced the PLAAF’s plans for the J-35A might be. It will also be interesting to see if the final operational versions of the J-35 and J-35A omit a cannon like the J-20 already does.

Christian D. Orr is a Senior Defense Editor for National Security Journal (NSJ). He is a former Air Force Security Forces officer, Federal law enforcement officer, and private military contractor (with assignments worked in Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kosovo, Japan, Germany, and the Pentagon). Chris holds a B.A. in International Relations from the University of Southern California (USC) and an M.A. in Intelligence Studies (concentration in Terrorism Studies) from American Military University (AMU). He has also been published in The Daily Torch, The Journal of Intelligence and Cyber Security, and Simple Flying. Last but not least, he is a Companion of the Order of the Naval Order of the United States (NOUS).

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

H. L. Mencken, the late American journalist, famously wrote that “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” Following Donald Trump’s victory in yesterday’s election, the average person will soon learn what Mencken meant. If Mr. Trump implements the economic program that he outlined on the campaign trail, our economy will be in for some very rough sledding over the next four years.

Let’s start with Mr. Trump’s budget policy, which will put our public debt on a truly unsustainable path. If there is one thing Mr. Trump promised on the campaign trail, it was a slew of tax cuts. Among other things, he promised to extend the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act, reduce the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 15 percent, and eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits. With possible Republican control of both houses of Congress, Mr. Trump will have little difficulty in securing passage of his aggressive tax cut program.

Even before Mr. Trump’s electoral victory, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) was warning that the country was on a dangerously unsustainable public debt path. On present policies, the budget deficit was expected to remain at around 6 percent of GDP for many years to come. At the same time, by 2034, the public debt to GDP ratio was projected to exceed 120 percent of GDP. That would put our government’s debt at a higher level in relation to income than was the case immediately after the Second World War.

Mr. Trump’s budget proposals would make an already dangerous public debt situation considerably worse. According to the Committee for a Responsible Budget, over the decade ahead, Mr. Trump’s tax cut proposals would add $ 7.75 trillion to the national debt. That would take the public debt-to-GDP ratio to an unprecedented 143 percent by 2035.

One of our economic vulnerabilities is that foreign governments, including the Chinese central bank, own a large part of our debt and help finance our large budget deficits. This raises the real possibility that we could see the return of the bond vigilantes and experience a dollar crisis. Unless we soon correct our profligate ways, at some point, we must expect bondholders to demand higher interest rates on their bond holdings to compensate them for the risk of a renewed inflation surge. Higher interest rates, in turn, would add further pressure to the government’s budget and make our public finances all the more unsustainable.

Another central plank of Mr. Trump’s economic plan would be to resort to import tariffs on a massive scale. He would levy a 60 percent tariff on all imports from China and a 10–20 percent tariff on all imports from the rest of our trade partners. The purported purpose of these tariffs was to bring manufacturing jobs home and to reduce the trade deficit. Never mind that the expected ballooning of the budget deficit would almost certainly result in a widening of our trade deficit. It would do so as a result of our saving level falling even more short of our investment level than it did before.

One of the major drawbacks of massive resort to tariffs is that they will substantially raise import prices. That will hit the common man hard in the pocket and will add to inflation. According to the Peterson Institute of International Economics, Mr. Trump’s tariff proposal will cost a typical US household in the middle-income distribution around $2,600 a year.

Another major drawback of an “America First” program is that it could tip an already weak Chinese and European economy into recession. It could also invite trade policy retaliation by China and Europe in the form of higher tariffs on American imports. That, in turn, could take us down the economically destructive beggar-thy-neighbor policies of the 1930s.

As if all of this were not enough reason for concern about our economic outlook, Mr. Trump has promised to deport up to 11 million undocumented immigrants. If such a program were implemented, it would almost certainly put upward pressure on food prices and cause production disruptions in those industries employing large numbers of immigrant workers.

The best we can hope for economically in a second Trump administration is that Mr. Trump walks back many of the economic proposals he made on the campaign trail. If not, we should brace ourselves for the eventual return of the bond vigilantes, a flight from the US dollar, and some very rough economic sledding ahead.

Desmond Lachman is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and was a deputy director in the International Monetary Fund’s Policy Development and Review Department and the chief emerging-market economic strategist at Salomon Smith Barney.

Image: Creative Commons. 

In a stunning political comeback, former president Donald Trump routed Vice President Kamala Harris in Tuesday's presidential election to reclaim the White House.

What does his victory signal for the future of U.S. democracy? And how will a second Trump administration reshape U.S. foreign policy on Ukraine and Taiwan?

In this episode, Jacob Heilbrunn speaks with Harry J. Kazianis, executive editor of The National Interest and Senior Director for National Security Affairs at the Center for the National Interest.

Kazianis previously served as part of the foreign policy team for Senator Ted Cruz's 2016 presidential campaign and worked for the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Won't Happen: The A-10 Warthog, renowned for its resilience and heavy ground-attack capabilities, is now being phased out by the U.S. Air Force, with discussions of sending remaining airframes to Ukraine. Armed with a powerful GAU-8/A Avenger Gatling gun, the A-10 was built for close air support, featuring titanium armor that shields pilots against armor-piercing rounds.

-While the Warthog’s robust firepower makes it an effective ground support asset, it wasn't designed for aircraft carrier operations.

-Significant structural modifications, including the addition of a tailhook and adaptations for carrier landings, would be required to make it suitable for carrier-based missions.

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?

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.

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. 

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. 

Totally Obsolete? As fifth-generation fighters become more prominent, fourth-generation jets like the Eurofighter Typhoon are gradually phased out in advanced air forces. Despite its lack of stealth, the Eurofighter remains relevant for roles like quick reaction alerts and air policing due to its superior range, low operational costs, and high performance at low altitudes.

-The UK plans to keep the Typhoon operational until 2040, considering its cost-effectiveness compared to newer jets like the F-35.

-Though continuously upgraded, the Eurofighter lacks stealth capabilities, limiting its future in contested airspace but ensuring its utility in non-stealth-dependent missions for years to come.

The fourth generation of fighter aircraft is becoming less relevant. Third-world countries will likely keep flying fourth-generation aircraft for the next few decades. But air forces in Europe, North America, Northeast Asia, and the Middle East are actively procuring fifth-generation aircraft and even working to develop sixth-generation technology. 

The result will be the gradual phase out of fourth-generation, Cold War-era fighters. Could the Eurofighter Typhoon be on the chopping block?

The Eurofighter has been a celebrated staple of the Royal Air Force for 20 years. A multirole fighter capable of performing a variety of different mission profiles, the Eurofighter has earned the respect of the aviation community. Despite the onset of fifth-generation fighters, the non-stealth Eurofighter seems to have carved out a role performing quick reaction alerts and air policing missions. Some pundits even insist the Typhoon is better at these missions than more advanced, modern fighters.

According to their argument, the Eurofighter has superior range, lower costs, and better performance at low altitudes. As the Eurofighter becomes outdated and the technology becomes less sensitive, there are fewer concerns over losing an aircraft. The RAF is comfortable sending a Eurofighter into contested spaces at low altitudes without fear that their most advanced technology will be shot down and sold to the Chinese or Russians. 

The Eurofighter has been continuously updated throughout the years. The airframe has up-to-date avionics, electronics, and defense systems. Of course, the upgrades have been costly, begging the question, would it just be cheaper to get a brand-new aircraft?

The RAF plans to keep the Eurofighter in its rotation at least for the near future – cost being a factor, naturally.

“The F-35, especially, the F-35B, is much more expensive to operate than the Typhoon,” Air Force Technology reported. “The Eurofighter doesn’t have a low-observable coating to maintain, but also because its supply chain is very much UK managed, and the UK has more ownership and leverage.”

Expect the Eurofighter to stick around until 2040 or later.

The most distinct feature of the Eurofighter is the delta-wing paired with canards. You don’t seethis configuration all that often. Constructed from lightweight materials, the Eurofighter’s airframe consists of over 80 percent composite materials and has an estimated lifespan of 6,000 flight hours.

Powering the Eurofighter are two Eurojet EJ200 engines capable of generating 20,230 pounds of thrust with the afterburners kicked in. The EJ200 is an impressive engine, offering the Eurojet a high thrust-to-weight ratio, supercruise, fuel efficiency, and low costs.

The Eurofighter’s lack of stealth technology makes the airframe increasingly anachronistic. The non-stealth set-up still works for the quick reaction missions, as discussed, but the jet would have a hard time surviving in contested airspace. 

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.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

What You Need to Know: The USS Bismarck Sea was the last U.S. aircraft carrier lost in battle, sunk by a dual Japanese kamikaze attack during the Battle of Iwo Jima on February 21, 1945. The attacks caused extensive fires, fueled by damaged torpedoes and explosive ordnance, that spread uncontrollably across the ship.

-Ordered to abandon ship, surviving crew members leapt into the cold, rough waters, where they endured further loss due to Japanese strafing.

-Of the 923 sailors onboard, 318 perished. Survivors witnessed the historic raising of the American flag on Mount Suribachi, a symbolic event amidst the tragic loss.

The USS Bismarck Sea was the last American carrier ever sunk in battle. The year was 1945. Today, eighty years later, losing a carrier would be difficult for most Americans to fathom. Such a drastic military loss would exceed anything that has happened in the lifetimes of the vast majority of the population. Granted, carriers are bigger and more populated today than during World War II; the loss would be more significant. 

But the notion sticks: the life of a carrier today is incomprehensible and unacceptable, whereas, during World War II, the loss was not especially remarkable.

The American public’s tolerance for military loss has lowered significantly in the years since the USS Bismarck Sea sank during the Battle of Iwo Jima. That’s a good thing, I would argue. Americans are less willing to put their citizen's lives on the line. The results of that tolerance reduction on U.S. foreign policy have been detrimental, however; America seems to have developed a tendency of employing half-measures in foreign conflicts, as a method of preserving life, a noble intention, yet, arguably, a nation should either commit, or not commit, to foreign conflict. 

In America’s case, the half-measures tact has not produced desirable results. To be clear, in most instances, not committing likely would have been the prudent choice.

Today, an American supercarrier carries upwards of five thousand sailors. So, the sinking of a single carrier would possibly result in a pinpoint casualty event comparable to the entire Iraq War (4,431 KIA). The American public does not have the political will for such a loss.

The Bismarck Sea sank during a different time when the American public’s tolerance for loss was near peak. The Bismarck Sea sailed with 923 sailors. When she sank, after suffering a dual Japanese kamikaze attack, 318 sailors were lost. Here’s what happened.

On the night of February 21, 1945, while the Bismarck Sea was participating in the Battle of Iwo Jima, a Japanese aircraft, “crashed into the ship abeam of the after elevator.” The impact was significant. “The crash knocked four torpedoes on to the hangar deck, parted the elevator cables, and damaged the after-fire main.

The initial fire would likely have been manageable. But the glow of the fire, in the dark of night, attracted more Japanese kamikaze fighters. A second plane crashed into the Bismarck Sea “just forward of the elevator well, killing or mortally wounding the entire fire-fighting party.” The second kamikaze aircraft ignited another explosion, which “buckled bulkheads and collapsed the decks in the ammunition clipping rooms, adding fuel to the fire.” 

The fire spread. Aircraft and their fuel and their ordnance were consumed, only adding to the blaze. Ordnance began exploding. The captain ordered the sailors to abandon the ship. The entire surviving crew jumped into the water and watched as the Bismarck Sea exploded and burned for two hours before finally sinking.

“Rough seas, cold water, and Japanese strafing cost the lives of many members of the [Bismarck Sea’s] crew.” Three hundred and eighteen sailors were lost. The survivors were plucked from the water and transported just off the coast of Iwo Jima, where they were able to see the American flag raised on Mount Suribachi. 

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 U.S. 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.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

What You Need to Know: As Russia’s military gains ground, Ukraine is requesting Tomahawk cruise missiles to counter the Russian advance. The Tomahawk, with a range of 250-1,550 miles, could provide Ukraine with critical long-range strike capabilities.

-However, the weapon's full potential would depend on Western approval for strikes within Russian territory—a move that the U.S. and NATO are hesitant to endorse due to fears of nuclear escalation.

-Ukrainian President Zelensky also expressed frustration over media leaks regarding the Tomahawk request, highlighting Kyiv’s reliance on confidentiality to maintain strategic advantage in the conflict.

The conflict in Ukraine isn’t going very well for the Ukrainian military.

The Russian military has been achieving slow but gradual gains in certain parts of the contact line. Kyiv can’t match the level of attrition Moscow promotes with its human-wave attacks that average more than 1,000 casualties per day.

To counter the Russian momentum, Ukraine seeks further military assistance from the West. Specifically, it wants the powerful Tomahawk cruise missile.

The Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) is a long range, all-weather cruise missile. As its full name suggests, the Tomahawk is used to take out ground targets. With a range of 250 to 1,550 miles (depending on the version), the Tomahawk is a powerful munition that could literally change the course of the war to Ukraine’s favor. The three most advanced versions of the Tomahawk (Block III, IV, and V) can penetrate Russia air defenses. Each of these versions of the Tomahawk brings different capabilities, including direct hit and cluster munitions.

The U.S. Navy and Royal Navy are the two main operators of the Tomahawk, launching the cruise missile from surface combatants and submarines.

However, the level of effectiveness of Ukrainian Tomahawks would hinge on whether the United States and NATO give Kyiv the green light to use Western weaponry against military targets within Russia. The Ukrainian military has plenty of weapon systems to attack targets inside occupied Ukrainian territory. So, the Tomahawk would only provide marginal gains to the Ukrainian forces. However, there are hundreds of military targets inside Russia and close to the border with Ukraine that are pivotal to the Russia invasion force and their destruction would seriously frustrate Russian offensive operations.

Currently, the U.S. and NATO decline to give such permission because of the fear of a nuclear escalation from Moscow—Russian President Vladimir Putin recently amended his country’s nuclear doctrine to perceive assistance by nuclear powers to third country to attack Russia as a nuclear threat.

For the Tomahawk to be as effective as possible, the White House would have to overcome its current reservations and give Ukraine the weapons to fight the war and win. As the conflict nears its three-year anniversary, it is paramount to end the bloodshed.

But there is another element of the discussions to give Ukraine Tomahawk cruise missiles or, indeed, other advanced weapon systems: confidentiality. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was rather displeased when he was asked by journalists about the possibility of Ukraine receiving Tomahawks in future tranches of Western security assistance.

"You see what is happening in the media now. They said that Ukraine wants or wanted to get a lot of Tomahawk missiles and so on. But this was confidential information between Ukraine and the White House. How to understand these messages? It means that there is nothing confidential between the partners,” the Ukrainian President said.

One of Ukraine’s strongest weapons is secrecy. Kyiv has managed great tactical, operational, and even strategic results when it has maintained a veil of secrecy.

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. 

What You Need to Know: In response to escalating tensions with Russia, the U.S. Air Force has deployed several B-52 Stratofortress bombers to Europe as part of a routine bomber task force rotation.

-The move underscores America’s commitment to NATO and sends a strategic message to Moscow. Recently, the B-52s also deployed to the Middle East amid Israeli-Iranian hostilities. Designed in the 1950s, the B-52 remains vital due to its 9,000-mile range and capacity to carry 70,000 lbs of munitions.

-The Air Force plans to keep the B-52 in service alongside the stealthier B-21 Raider, extending its role well into the 2050s.

-The U.S. Air Force is sending more strategic bombers to Europe as tensions with Russia continue to rise.

Several B-52 Stratofortress strategic bombers are heading to Europe as part of a bomber task force rotation.

The Air Force deployed several B-52 strategic bombers to Europe, thus sending a message to Russia that America was standing by its allies and partners.

To be sure, the Air Force only said that the strategic bombers were going to Europe to “train and operate alongside NATO Allies and partners for several weeks demonstrating the U.S. commitment to global security and stability.” But the message to the Kremlin is clear: the Air Force has a long arm and can reach out and touch Russia if necessary.

The deployment of the B-52s follows in the wake of another rotation of strategic bombers. A few days ago, the Air Force also deployed six B-52 bombers to the Middle East as Israel and Iran continue to exchange insults and missiles.

To be sure, deploying B-52 strategic bombers to Europe isn’t something new or uncommon. In May, the Air Force sent B-52s to the United Kingdom and Romania for several days as part of rotational deployments. And more recently, in September, the Air Force sent B-52s to Poland for a short show of force (Poland is one of NATO’s bulwarks against Russia).

One of the most important aircraft in the Air Force’s fleet, the B-52 is a long-range strategic bomber. The bomber can carry both conventional and nuclear munitions and specializes in strategic attack, close air support, air interdiction, offensive counter-air, and maritime operations. 

The latest version of the aircraft, the B-52H, can pack 70,000 lbs of munitions and can fly without air refueling for 9,000 miles. This combination of munition capacity and range/loiter time makes the B-52 a great option for commander. In terms of munitions, the B-52 bomber can pack a wide range of weapon systems, including laser-guided bombs, conventional bombs, air-launched cruise missiles, GPS-guide bombs, and even mines.

Despite its age (it was designed in the 1950s), the Air Force plans on keeping the B-52 on the active roster for many more years. Indeed, the Air Force envisions a future bomber fleets with two types of aircraft: the B-21 Raider stealth bomber and the B-52 Stratofortress. The B-21 Raider will be tasked with deep-penetration missions against the most difficult targets in non-permissive environments. And the B-52 Stratofortress will be responsible for all the other missions, as well as near-peer targets after the B-21 Raider and other stealth assets have neutralized their air defenses.

Currently, the Air Force has 55 B-52s in active service and another 15 in reserve. Through a series of structural and technological modernizations, the Air Force plans on operating the strategic bomber well into the 2050s, thus making it probably the only aircraft in history that will have flown for a century.

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. 

Totally Obsolete?: The F-15 Eagle, a fourth-generation fighter first introduced in the 1970s, has been America’s premier air superiority jet, securing 34 of the USAF's 37 kills over the past four decades. With a speed of Mach 2.5, a range of up to 3,450 miles with external tanks, and versatile weaponry, the F-15 has shown resilience despite age.

-Originally meant for retirement, Congress now mandates its continued use through the F-15EX Eagle II, designed as a "fourth-generation plus" model to address cost concerns and capability gaps.

-Yet, critics argue it's time to transition fully to fifth-generation platforms like the F-22 and F-35.

For 40 years, the world’s premier fourth-generation supersonic air superiority fighter has been the F-15 Eagle. First having flown in 1972, the F-15 has seen multiple iterations of its model and serves in countless militaries around the world. The F-15 was designed to overcome what had become advanced Soviet air defenses. These birds had far greater maneuverability, speed, range, avionics, and weapons systems than what had preceded it in the third-generation warplane (think the F-4 Phantom). 

Over the last 40 years, of the United States Air Force’s 37 kills, the F-15 has been responsible for 34 of them. These planes, thanks to their electronic countermeasures, speed, and maneuverability, are extremely hard to kill—despite the fact that there are today far more advanced, fifth-generation warplanes flying the unfriendly skies. 

Originally produced by McDonnell-Douglas, the legendary warplane is today built by Boeing. Depending on the variant, two Pratt & Whitney F-100-PW-220 turbofan engines, producing a thrust of 23,450 pounds, or two Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229 turbofan engines with afterburners, producing 29,000 pounds of thrust power these fighter jets. 

The F-15 can reach a speed of Mach 2.5 and has a range of 2,878 miles. This range can, of course, be drastically extended with the assistance of mid-air refueling tankers. An F-15 can be outfitted with three external tanks, meaning that its range can be boosted to 3,450 miles. These birds have a ceiling of 60,000 feet. 

In terms of armaments, the F-15 is truly lethal (there’s a reason these birds account for 34 out of 37 of the Air Force’s kills over the last 40 years). There is an internally mounted M61A1 20 mm six-barrel cannon. Four AIM-9 sidewinder missiles with an additional four AIM-120 AMRAAM’s can be placed on this fighter. The F-15 can even fire an anti-satellite weapon that will destroy targets in low-Earth orbit. 

These planes were supposed to be retired and replaced by the fifth-generation warplanes that have been flying for the last 30 years. Due to budgetary concerns and, in the case of the F-22A Raptor, manufacturing issues, the military has had to rely on the F-15 far longer than it had planned. Things have gotten so bad with replacing the F-15 with the costly and complex fifth-generation warplanes that Congress won’t let the Air Force retire its F-15 fleet as the USAF had originally planned.

What’s more, an entirely new variant of the F-15 has been ordered and built—the F-15EX Eagle II. This plane is considered a “fourth-generation plus” bird. Although less capable than the F-35 Lighting II or the F-22A Raptor, the US government has opted to build these systems. The F-15EX Eagle II is essentially a fast missiletruck. As for whether these birds can truly dance with a fifth-generation warplane, that is a matter up for intense debate among aviation circles. Oddly, the reason for Congress pushing for the creation of a new variant of the F-15 was to keep costs down while preventing critical strategic gaps from forming in tour Air Force. 

Yet, the F-15EX Eagle II is onerously expensive. And it is not as advanced as either the F-35 or F-22. 

Therefore, the F-15 is past its expiration date. 

The US should not be wasting anymore time or money on these birds. Instead, the military should be working hard to restore the F-22 production line while ensuring that the F-35 can fly safely and reliably. The F-15 has had a great run. But time is passing these birds down. They might be helpful in certain situations, but generally speaking, America must move on from them now. 

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?)