Diplomacy & Crisis News

While Democratic and Republican politicians have acknowledged the importance of critical minerals, both for America’s current needs and future technology, China’s decision last week to restrict the export of one metal, antimony, underscored the urgent need for policymakers to move beyond campaign-season lip service about “bringing home supply chains” and toward realistic measures that ensure the United States has continued access to resources that directly impact its national security.

A silvery-white, crystalline solid often mined alongside deposits of sulfur or heavy metals like lead, copper, and silver, antimony (chemical symbol, Sb) has been known since Biblical times. It has a wide range of uses, ranging from cosmetics to construction. Nowadays, while about half of the global usage of antimony is for its flame-retardant qualities, an estimated 20 percent is used in the manufacture of photovoltaic glass to improve the performance of solar cells and, increasingly, in next-generation grid-scale liquid-metal electricity storage batteries (LMBs) and more efficient alternatives to current technology rechargeable lithium-ion batteries. Moreover, antimony has become strategically important because of its role in sensitive military equipment ranging from night-vision goggles to missiles and as a hardening agent for everything from bullets to tanks and warships.

Like it has done with the value chains for a host of other critical minerals—including restrictions imposed last year on the export of gallium and germanium, elements widely used in the semiconductor industry, as well as its tight grip on rare earth elements—China has steadily consolidated a dominant position in the antimony supply chain. While the U.S. Geological Survey’s most recent data show that China holds less than one-third of the world’s known reserves of antimony, it produced almost half of global production last year (Tajikistan and Russia together produce another 30 percent). Furthermore, irrespective of where the mineral is sourced, Chinese firms control most of the world’s supply of antimony trioxide, the most common form of the processed material.

According to a statement by the Chinese Ministry of Commerce cited by the Chinese Communist Party’s international affairs daily Global Times, the new export restrictions, which take effect September 15, are “to further protect China's national security and interests and fulfill the nation’s international non-proliferation obligations.” Commenting on the new decree, a retired People’s Liberation Army Air Force equipment specialist quoted by the South China Morning Post acknowledged that it was clearly intended to make it harder for the United States to produce arms: “The move is definitely a decision made after careful consideration, and it has a clear purpose—by restricting exports, it will undoubtedly impact the world’s major arms manufacturers, especially the U.S.”

The United States is even more vulnerable to the latest play by Beijing because 82 percent of the 22,000 metric tons used by American industry, civilian and military, in 2023 was imported (the balance was recovered from recycling spent lead-acid batteries). Almost two-thirds of the imported antimony metal and oxides came from China. No antinomy is currently mined in the United States, and the only firm in the entire country to produce primary antimony metal and oxides is the U.S. Antimony Company, which imports feedstock for its smelter in Western Montana. Another company, Perpetua Resources, which has received support from the U.S. Defense Department under Title III of the Defense Production Act as well as recently received a letter of interest from the Export-Import (EXIM) Bank for potential financing, is developing an open-pit gold resource in northern Idaho that will produce antimony as a by-product of the mining operation. Still, commercial production is not expected until 2028—and that assumes that the company successfully runs the gauntlet of environmental activists and the permitting bureaucracy.

Even by then, Beijing will still have additional cards to play. These include the type of manipulation it has engaged in to depress prices and stymie efforts to develop alternative supply chains, as the Wall Street Journal reported last month with respect to rare earth elements (REEs) used in permanent magnets in electric vehicles, wind turbines, and robots. Even the neodymium-praseodymium (NdPr), the most highly valued segment of the REE market, is down more than 20 percent since January thanks to Chinese overproduction and what the newspaper described delicately as Beijing being “willing to be a loss leader in parts of the value chain to help downstream ambitions.”

Thus, the only way to tackle this challenge is to take it on realistically, which is to say, comprehensively. U.S. policymakers must not only encourage the development of the critical mineral resource in question where access can be secured from friends—or, at the very least, non-adversarial countries—but also support the development of processing value chains and, ultimately, give them a fighting chance of competing against the Beijing’s market domination by judicious use of offtake agreements.

If U.S. policymakers fail to get real about the stakes, both for America’s current defense needs and for the potential technological applications of antimony and other critical minerals—and do so quickly—what has been an irritant in international trade will prove to be a self-inflicted strategic wound.

Ambassador J. Peter Pham, a Distinguished Fellow at the Atlantic Council and a Senior Advisor at the Krach Institute for Tech Diplomacy, is a former U.S. Special Envoy for the Sahel and Great Lakes Regions of Africa.

Image: Kevin Cupp / Shutterstock.com.

Summary and Key Points You Need to Know on the Biggest Submarine Ever: The Dmitry Donskoy (TK-208), the world's largest nuclear-powered submarine and the last of the Russian Navy's Typhoon-class, was decommissioned in February 2023 after nearly 40 years in service.

-Originally laid down in 1976 and commissioned in 1984, the submarine was a formidable force during the Cold War, capable of carrying 20 RSM-52 SLBMs with multiple warheads.

-Despite previous plans to keep the vessel in service until 2026, it was retired and will await disposal.

-The decommissioning marks the end of the era for the Typhoon-class, the largest submarines ever built.

The world's largest nuclear-powered submarine, Dmitry Donskoy (TK-208) has been decommissioned, the Kremlin announced back in February of last year.

The Russian Navy's Project 941 Akula-class (NATO reporting name Typhoon) heavy nuclear ballistic submarine was laid down in June 1976 and commissioned in 1984. After almost 40 years in service, she has finally been retired.

"The Dmitry Donskoy submarine cruiser has been decommissioned from the Russian Navy. It will await utilization at a naval base in Severodvinsk together with two other units of this project," Vladimir Maltsev, the head of the Russian Movement for Navy Support, told the Russian state media outlet Tass.

Initially designated the TK-208, she was the lead vessel of the Soviet third-generation Akula-class (Russian for "Shark"), and after a 12-year overhaul and refit that began in 1990, she reentered service in 2002 as the Dmitry Donskoy, named after the Grand Duke of Moscow Dmitry Donskoy (1359–1389), the reputed founder of Moscow.

It is worth repeating the boat is more commonly known as the Typhoon-class or by its NATO designation. 

This is a change of course for Moscow, which had previously stated that the submarine would remain in service until at least 2026.

The Sevmash Shipyard built six of a planned seven Project 941 submarines - or what the West calls the Typhoon-class - for the Russian Navy, and all of the boats were operational with the Northern Fleet. Though the oldest of the submarines, Dmitriy Donskoy was the last of the class to remain in service.

The TK-202, TK-12 – later renamed the Simbirsk – and T-13 were withdrawn from active service between 1996 and 2009, and scrapped with the financial support of the United States. Two other boats: the TK-17/Arkhangelsk and TK-20/Severstal remained in service until they were decommissioned circa 2013.

A seventh boat, TK-210, was laid down but scrapped before completion.

With a displacement of 48,000 tons, a length of 175 meters (nearly 600 feet), a 23-meter beam, and a 12-meter draught, the Typhoon-class were the largest submarines ever built.

Developed with multiple pressure hulls, including five inner hulls situated inside a superstructure of two parallel main hulls, the Typhoon-class was also wider than any other submarine ever built.

Each contained nineteen compartments, including a strengthened module, which housed the main control room as well as an electronic equipment compartment above the main hulls and behind the missile launch tubes. It even was reported that there was a sauna on board as well as a small swimming pool for the crew. The sheer size of the submarines was likely welcomed by the approximately 160 sailors who called the submarine home on voyages lasting 120 days or longer, oftentimes without surfacing for months at a time.

The Typhoon-class subs were designed to counter the United States Navy's Ohio-class subs, which were capable of carrying up to 192 100-kiloton nuclear warheads. By contrast, the Soviet Typhoons could carry a primary cache of 20 RSM-52 SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles), each of which contained up to 10 MIRV (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle) warheads.

The submarines were powered by OK-650 pressurized-water nuclear reactors, two 50,000 horsepower steam turbines, and four 3,200 KW turbogenerators and this provides the boat with the ability to sail at a speed of up to 22.2 knots on the surface and 27 knots whilst submerged.

The boats of the Typhoon-class could reportedly operate at depths as great as 400 meters and travel at speeds in excess of 27 knots. The class was designed with an advanced stern fin with a horizontal hydroplane fitted after the boat’s screws, while the nose horizontal hydroplanes in the bow section were designed to be retractable into the hull.

The retirement of Dmitry Donskoy ends the saga of the largest submarines ever built. RIP, Typhoon-class. 

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

All Images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points You Need to Know: The Zumwalt-class destroyer, intended to revolutionize naval warfare with stealth capabilities and advanced technology, has become emblematic of strategic misjudgment and wasted resources.

-Initially planned as a fleet of 32 ships, only three were built, each plagued by exorbitant costs and operational failures, including a non-functional main gun.

-Despite its shortcomings, the U.S. Navy continues to invest in the Zumwalt, replacing the failed gun system with costly hypersonic weapons that are not yet fully operational.

-Critics argue that funds should have been allocated to more practical military advancements, such as expanding the Seawolf-class submarine fleet.

The Zumwalt-class destroyer, designed to revolutionize naval warfare with stealth capabilities and advanced armaments, has instead become a symbol of strategic misjudgment and wasteful spending. Initially envisioned as a fleet of 32, only three Zumwalts were built, each plagued by exorbitant costs and functionality issues. The main gun remains broken, and attempts to retrofit the destroyers with hypersonic weapons have proved equally problematic. Critics argue that funds spent on Zumwalt should have been directed toward more practical and reliable systems, such as expanding the Seawolf-class submarine fleet or advancing hypersonic weaponry earlier.

The US Navy’s refusal to innovate and rethink its long-time assumptions about what constitutes its power has been evident for decades since the Cold War ended. It was evident in the decision by Navy planners to not only continue building expensive aircraft carriers, but to build newer models of aircraft carriers that were far more expensive than the previous set. The Navy’s shortsightedness was apparent when it opted to build only three (out of a planned 30) of its Seawolf-class attack submarines. But nothing screams strategic ignorance and cultural decadence like Navy’s commitment to building the Zumwalt-class destroyer.

America’s first Zumwalt-class destroyer, the U.S.S. Zumwalt, was the costliest destroyer it had ever built—far surpassing the cost of the magnificent Arleigh Burke-class destroyer which still protects US Navy aircraft carrier battle groups. Three units of the Zumwalt were built, a small class of warships for sure. 

They are also the largest destroyers in the world. Their distinctive hull design that makes them look like something from Babylon 5 and less like a US Navy warship is because they are the world’s first true stealth warships. These destroyers were so next-generation technologically that General Dynamics, the company that built the Zumwalt-class, had to spend $40 million just to build a special facility for these next-generation warships.

The Zumwalts were meant to be a complete break from the way things had been done by the US Navy. The warship produces the same amount of power as an aircraft carrier. It possesses 80 vertical launchers for various types of missiles. A key part of the Zumwalt’s mission was to be able to conduct deep-ranging sea-to-shore strikes. Remember, the Zumwalts were designed back when the United States was the undisputed unipolar power. 

At that time, America was more concerned with rogue states, transnational terrorist groups, and the scourge of ethno-religious sectarian conflicts abroad. The Navy was constantly trying to keep itself relevant at that time and having a “multi-mission” stealth warship seemed like a worthwhile investment.

There was just one problem: the Zumwalt-class destroyer didn’t work as advertised. It took years longer to build and was around 50 percent more expensive than what the defense contractors had sold to Congress. Initially planned to have a fleet of 32 Zumwalts, today, the Navy has just three. 

And they’re constantly needing repairs. 

The armaments alone are egregiously expensive, partly because the supply chain was designed to provide cheaper armaments once the Zumwalt fleet reached its 32-unit goal. Since that goal will now never be met, the costs for the unique armaments for these warships will remain exorbitant. In the age of constrained budgets, this is not a worthwhile investment. 

Besides, as it turns out, the main gun on the Zumwalt is broken and cannot be repaired. Rather than cut its losses, though, the Navy is insistent on trying to make the Zumwalt work. It’s getting rid of the 155-milimeter non-working Advanced Gun Systems (with its $800,000 per round ammunition). Instead, the Zumwalts will be fitted with the equally expensive, non-functional hypersonic weapons platform that the US Navy has been desperately trying to build. To be clear, investing in hypersonic weapons is a good move. 

Unfortunately, these systems are clearly not ready for showtime (whereas Russia’s, sadly, are ready and China’s hypersonic weapons are right behind Russia’s). And deploying these boondoggles—which, according to some assessments, are not as stealthy as they were designed to be—is absurdly wasteful.

But the Zumwalt-class is another example of the kind of decadence at the Department of Defense and from Congress that I’ve been railing about. These warships were designed and deployed at a time when America could afford to indulge its wildest strategic fantasies. It was still basking in its Cold War victory, there were no serious challengers to American global primacy, and things at home were going well. 

Those days are gone.

With China on the rise, Russia pushing hard against US-backed NATO, Iran agitating for a great regional war against American allies in Israel and the Sunni Arab states, and North Korea poised to go nuclear at any moment, the last thing the Navy should be doing is continuing to support the wasteful Zumwalt.

Just imagine if, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, the Navy planners simply stuck to the basics. Instead of blowing the $22.4 billion on researching and developing the Zumwalts, just imagine what would have been if the Navy invested in building up its unbelievably tiny fleet of Seawolf-class attack submarines. 

Or if the Navy had invested in getting its hypersonic weapons ready for deployment years before they started taking the concept seriously. This isn’t hindsight, many were skeptical, for example, that the Navy’s investment into the Zumwalt-class was going to pay off.

Now the Navy is stuck with a sunk cost. It should cut its losses now. Instead, it seems to be doubling-down on failure. 

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock.

From the Vault

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

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

Summary and Key Points: The USS Enterprise (CVN-65) was the world’s first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and remains one of the most significant carriers in U.S. Navy history.

-Its nuclear propulsion allowed for indefinite deployment, fundamentally altering naval strategy and enabling the U.S. to project power globally without the need for frequent refueling.

-Commissioned in 1961, the Enterprise played crucial roles in the Cuban Missile Crisis and the War on Terror, among other conflicts.

-As the longest naval vessel ever built, it was a technical marvel with extensive capabilities. The carrier was decommissioned in 2012 after over 50 years of service.

While CVN-65 was the eighth U.S. Navy vessel to bear the Enterprise name, she was the first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in the world, marking a watershed moment in the way that U.S. forces are deployed around the world.

Some even say this aircraft carrier just might be the Navy's most important and even best aircraft carrier ever. 

An aircraft carrier is a unique piece of military technology, for an aircraft carrier is essentially a mobile airfield that can be stationed (theoretically) anywhere atop the 75 percent of the Earth’s surface that is covered with water. The aircraft carrier is like an airbase on foreign soil – only more valuable – because an airbase is of course a fixed location. The aircraft carrier is a flexible location, allowing the United States to project airpower on any continent.

In the past, before the Enterprise, carriers relied on non-nuclear power such as diesel, which meant that the carriers relied upon refueling as a crutch.

Without refueling, the carriers could not continue to operate, limiting their range and endurance and presenting logistical challenges for refueling an aircraft carrier that could be parked on some far-flung continent. That changed with the Enterprise, however, which relied upon nuclear power – and was able to stay at sea indefinitely, for decades if needed.

The U.S. employs the most hyperactive, adventurous foreign policy of any nation on Earth. One could argue that the endurance, range, and flexibility of the Enterprise – and the succeeding fleet of nuclear-powered vessels – seems to have manifested itself in the U.S.’s hyperactive foreign policy.

Today, the U.S. has eleven nuclear-powered submarines, each capable of patrolling the world’s oceans indefinitely – a capability that U.S. leaders employ liberally.

Or was it the other way around? Was the Enterprise created, in the late 1950s, to meet the needs of a foreign policy that was embroiled in global conflict with the Soviets and increasingly looking to assert itself globally?

The U.S. had been successful in Europe and the Pacific and had grown to appreciate the need for projecting its power on multiple fronts, simultaneously. The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier offered a practical solution.

Chicken or egg? It’s probably a little bit of both. The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier was a practical solution – and U.S. war planners have adjusted their war planning to accommodate the remarkable capabilities that nuclear-powered aircraft carriers provide.

The USS Enterprise is the longest naval vessel ever built. At 1,123 feet, the Enterprise is only about 300 feet shorter than the Empire State Building. The Enterprise is only ten feet shorter than the RMS Queen Mary 2, the massive ocean liner.

The Enterprise is over three hundred feet longer than the famed RMS Titanic.

Yes, the Enterprise is long – with a 132-foot beam at the waterline and a 39-foot draft. To propel such a massive ship eight Westinghouse A2W nuclear reactors powered four Westinghouse geared steam turbines, which turned four propeller shafts producing 280,000 horsepower.

With the propulsion system operating at capacity, the Enterprise was able to achieve speeds of 33.6 knots per hour.

And while the Enterprise’s main offensive feature was the 60+ aircraft she carried; the ship was also outfitted with some armament. Notably, the Enterprise was outfitted with a prototype Basic Point Defense Missile System (BPDMS). The BPDMS carried two eight-round box launchers filled with Sea Sparrow missiles. The Enterprise was also outfitted with two NATO Sea Sparrow (NSSM) and three Mk-15 Phalanx CIWS gun mounts.

Later in Enterprise’s service career, one of the Phalanx CIWS mounts would be removed to make room for two 21-cel RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile launchers.

The Enterprise was commissioned in 1961, just in time for the Cuban Missile Crisis.

When President Kennedy learned that the Soviet Union was on the verge of deploying nuclear missiles to Cuba, he ordered a blockade of the island nation to physically prevent Soviet ships from delivering the missiles. Five U.S. aircraft carriers participated in the blockade – Independence, Essex, Lake Champlain, Randolph, and the newly commissioned Enterprise. The blockade helped prevent the missile shipment and ultimately contributed to the crisis’s diffusion.

The incident is generally considered the closest that the U.S. and Soviet powers ever came to a nuclear exchange.   

Forty years later, the still-serving Enterprise would again respond to crisis. In September 2001, the Enterprise was beginning to sail home from a deployment in the Persian Gulf.

When news of the September 11th terrorist attacks reached the Enterprise, the ship turned around without orders and returned to the Persian Gulf. One month later, aircraft from the Enterprise would run hundreds of sorties against al-Qaeda and Taliban targets in Afghanistan.

The Enterprise was finally decommissioned in December 2012, after a half-century in service.

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

All images are Creative Commons and or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Jey Points: In response to the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, the U.S. Navy will deploy two additional Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers to Europe.

-USS Oscar Austin (DDG-79) will change its homeport from Norfolk, Virginia, to Rota Naval Base, Spain, this fall, increasing the number of forward-deployed destroyers in Europe to five.

-This move reinforces U.S. and NATO maritime presence in Europe and Africa. The Oscar Austin, named after Medal of Honor recipient PFC Oscar P. Austin, is a Flight IIA Arleigh Burke-class destroyer with advanced capabilities, including ballistic missile defense and anti-submarine warfare.

As the political situation continues to be fluid in Europe and the Middle East – with the ongoing war in Ukraine and the continued fighting in Gaza, the United States Navy announced this month that it would deploy two additional Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers to the region.

USS Oscar Austin (DDG-79) will be one of the two vessels that will change its homeport from Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia, to Rota Naval Base, Spain. The change will be made this fall, and DDG-79 will "join the current Forward Deployed Naval Force-Europe (FDNF-E) force – adding additional capabilities to the U.S. European Command (EUCOM) and U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) areas of responsibility."

This will be a "phased" change of homeports, and a second still-to-be-named Arleigh Burke-class destroyer will be sent to Spain in 2026. The deployment of USS Oscar Austin will increase the number of U.S. Navy forward-deployed destroyers in EUCOM to five, which will reinforce the service's commitment to NATO but also enhance operation security in Europe and Africa.

"Shifting Oscar Austin's homeport to Rota is the next step in bolstering U.S. and NATO maritime presence and combat power in Europe as well as increasing the capacity to execute the One Atlantic concept," explained Adm. Daryl Caudle, commander, of U.S. Fleet Forces Command. "The One Atlantic concept improves the ability to share, leverage, and fully utilize naval forces in response to threats and strategic competitors while conducting multi-mission operations across the Atlantic by multiple Combatant Commanders."

Former President Obama first announced the U.S.-European Phased Adaptive Approach in 2009.

USS Oscar Austin has been readying for the homeport change to Spain since last December. The destroyer was named to honor Private First Class Oscar P. Austin, United States Marine Corps, who was killed during the Vietnam War in 1969 when he sacrificed his own life to save an injured fellow Marine. PFC Austin was "recognized with numerous medals and decorations, including the Purple Heart, the National Defense Medal, and the Vietnam Service Medal with two bronze stars, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, and the Medal of Honor," according to UScarriers.net.

DDG-79 is also the first Flight IIA Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer to be produced, while she is the 29th warship of the destroyer class. She was commissioned in 2000, and according to the U.S. Navy is, "ballistic missile defense, anti-submarine, and anti-surface warfare capable. The ship can embark two MH-60R Seahawk helicopters to assist in anti-submarine and other warfare areas. Destroyers can work with Carrier Strike Groups, Surface Action Groups, Expeditionary Strike Groups or independently."

The U.S. Navy's Arleigh Burke-class (DDG 51) destroyers are also noted for having the longest production run for any of the service’s surface combatants, and with nine more on the way that record will only be further extended.

"Arleigh Burke-class destroyers are the backbone of the surface fleet and one of the most successful shipbuilding programs in the history of the Navy," U.S. Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro said in a statement last year.

Those sentiments were shared by Rear Adm. Brendan McLane, commander, of Naval Surface Force Atlantic, when it was announced in March 2023 that the first warships of the class would receive a service life extension.

"DDG 51s are the best warshipsin history. They demonstrate that there are no limits to what we can accomplish with a strong American Navy-industrial partnership," McLane said. "Arleigh Burke-class destroyers are the backbone of the Navy’s surface fleet and critical to the Nation and the Navy today and long into the future."

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: The F-14 Tomcat and F/A-18 Super Hornet are iconic U.S. Navy aircraft, with the former prominently featured in the original Top Gun and the latter in the sequel Top Gun: Maverick.

-The F-14, known for its sweep wings and two-seat cockpit, was larger and faster, reaching speeds up to Mach 2.34. However, it had reliability issues and a tendency to enter flat spins.

-The F/A-18, with fixed wings and more reliable systems, is easier to land on carriers and excels in close-quarters dogfighting. While the F-14 remains a fan favorite, the F/A-18 is the Navy's current workhorse.

When the general public considers either the F-14 Tomcat or the F/A-18 Super Hornet, the Top Gun film series is likely top of mind. In the first Top Gun, the F-14 features prominently. In Top Gun: Maverick, Cruise reprises his Maverick role, 36 years later. One of the most recognizable differences in the sequel is that the F-14 has been replaced with the F/A-18 Super Hornet. 

Of course, the Top Gun sequel concludes with an F-14 cameo, giving viewers the opportunity to consider the active duty F/A-18 against the retired F-14. Let’s take a moment to do the same here. 

The two airframes are different in subtle and obvious ways. Let’s first consider the obvious distinctions. 

The F-14, unlike the F/A-18, had sweep-wings. These are visually identifiable even to many laymen, because the wing can pivot along a joint at the fuselage, allowing the wing to sweep forward, or back, flush against the fuselage. When the wings are swept forward, drag increases, slowing the plane down but increasing maneuverability. When the wings are pulled back, drag is reduced, speed is increased, but maneuverability is decreased. So an F-14 would have the wings pushed forward when performing a carrier landing, but would have the wings pulled back when intercepting a foreign aircraft. 

The F/A-18 has a fixed wing position, like the vast majority of aircraft. 

The F-14 also had a cockpit for two, whereas the F/A-18 seats one or two depending on the variant. This is why sometimes, throughout the Top Gun sequel, the F/A-18 was piloted with a back-seater, and other times, it was not – different variants were used throughout the film. 

The F-14 was larger and significantly faster than the F/A-18. While the F/A-18 had a top speed of Mach 1.6-1.8, the powerful F-14 could hit Mach 2.34. The F-14 was “amazingly fast” said Tom “Trots” Trotter, boasting that he once went from 150 knots to 610 knots in less than ten seconds. While generally outdated relative to the F/A-18, the F-14’s speed was enviable.

Trotter is an ex-flyer who was qualified in both the F-14 and the F/A-18. He told the Fighter Pilot Podcast that the F-14’s speed was a top draw of the airframe. 

“You know what, most of my combat time…I’ll honestly tell you, you’re gonna be in combat and they’re shooting at you, boy it’s good to be in combat in an F-14 to go fast and the other dude is head down, running the laser and it’s like so most of my bomb dropping I’d go, ah, put me in a Tomcat please.”

Trotter also pointed out that the F-14 had reliability issues. The F/A-18 is much more reliable – to the point where the Navy didn’t bother keeping a spare on standby.

The F-14 also had a tendency to enter flat spins, as depicted in the original Top Gun, during the scene where “Goose” ejects into the canopy and dies. The scene was an accurate depiction, according to Trots. F-14 crew were instructed to blow the canopy, look up to confirm that the canopy had cleared, and then eject – a procedure that requires immense awareness during the hectic moments of whatever is prompting the ejection.

The F/A-18 was also much easier to land on an aircraft carrier than the F-14. Indeed, the Top Gun series opens with a pilot struggling to land his F-14 on a carrier at night.

With respect to dogfighting, according to Trots, the F-14 would give an F/A-18 a run for its money. However, the F/A-18 was superior in-tight, in the “phone booth,” during slower and more intimate engagements.

“I think any Tomcat can give a Hornet a run, but you know, the Hornet’s way better in the phone booth,” Trotter said. “The slow fight, gunning a guy, going a high angle of attack.”

In all, both aircraft are legendary and well regarded. The F-14 retains something of a cult following that the F/A-18 has never quite replicated. 

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

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The B-21 Raider, the U.S. Air Force’s next-generation stealth bomber, is undergoing flight testing and is set to replace the B-2.

The Question: What Weapons Will it Carry? Designed for offensive missions, the B-21 will carry a wide array of weapons, including penetrating bombs like the 30,000-pound GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), precision-guided munitions like the AGM-158B, and nuclear bombs such as the B-61.

-What sets the B-21 apart is its advanced stealth capabilities, allowing it to evade sophisticated air defense systems and deliver its deadly payloads undetected, making it a crucial component of the U.S. nuclear triad.

The U.S. Air Force’s next bomber is undergoing flight testing. 

The B-21 Raider is scheduled to replace the B-2 and is being developed as the future of Air Force power projection. Built purely for offensive reasons, the bomber is essentially a vessel of death and destruction, limited in purpose to the delivery of ordnance on target. 

Let’s take a look at the weapons the B-21 is expected to carry.

The B-21’s wide variety of weapons will outfit the new bomber to fulfill a number of mission profiles. Everything from penetrating weapons to precision-guided munitions and nuclear bombs will be compatible with the B-21.

Penetrating weapons are used for attacking hardened targets like a bunker or a cave dwelling. One example we can expect to find on the B-21 is the GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP). The 30,000-pound bomb is referred to as a “bunker buster” and, as the name suggests, is absolutely massive. By comparison, the next-largest available bunker busters in the Air Force inventory are the 5,000-pound GBU-28 and GBU-37. 

Designed by Boeing, the MOP measures 20.5 feet in length with a 31.5-inch diameter. With a 5,300-pound warhead, the MOP can penetrate to depths of 200 feet.

When a little bit more finesse is needed, the B-21 can deploy a precision-guided munition like the AGM-158B or the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile Extended Range – or something equipped with a Joint Direct Attack Munition kit. Precision-guided munitions, or “smart bombs,” are built to minimize collateral damage and to maximize effectiveness against very specific targets. One example is the AGM-158, a stealth weapon with long-range capabilities and a 1,000-pound armor-piercing warhead. With inertial navigation and GPS, the AGM-158 homes in on a target using a data link throughout its flight trajectory. 

And of course, the Raider will be capable of carrying nuclear weapons. The B-21 will be a primary component of the U.S. nuclear deterrent triad. It will lead the airborne leg of the triad, which includes nuclear options over air, land, and sea. The B-21 will carry the B-61, a thermonuclear gravity bomb with a unit cost of $28 million. At 715 pounds, the B-61 has a blast yield believed to be between 0.3 and 340 kilotons.

The varied arsenal of the B-21 will be especially concerning to America’s adversaries given the B-21’s stealth capabilities. With a radar cross section lower than the B-2’s, the B-21 is expected to be able to penetrate sophisticated air defense systems. The B-21 will thus be able to deliver its arsenal without being detected first – and that’s what should make the B-21 special. 

Many bomber airframes are capable of dropping the weapons that the B-21 will be able to drop. There’s no unique capability there. But no other bomber has the B-21’s expected stealth capabilities. 

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/Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The Yak-41 (Yak-141) was a Soviet attempt at creating a supersonic VTOL (vertical takeoff and landing) aircraft, developed in the 1980s but ultimately shelved after the Soviet Union collapsed. Despite rumors, there is little evidence to suggest that the Yak-41 directly influenced the development of the F-35B, the VTOL variant of the U.S. military's Joint Strike Fighter.

-While Lockheed Martin did partner with Yakovlev in the early 1990s, the connection is more likely coincidental than foundational.

-The Yak-41 remains a footnote in aviation history, while the F-35B is a significant leap in modern military aviation.

Some rumors/conspiracy theories die hard – Walt Disney isn't preserved at his theme park, and NASA didn't fake the moon landing (nor is the earth flat), but try convincing those who believe such wild stories. This is also true in the world of military hardware.

It is a KNOWN FACT that Chinese hackers stole U.S. military technology, including details about Lockheed Martin's F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II stealth fighters, and Beijing likely used the knowledge in the development of its Chengdu J-20 "Mighty Dragon" multirole fighter.

However, there remains just a rumor – and not a believable one at that – of how a largely forgotten Soviet aircraft contributed to the development of the F-35B – the vertical/short takeoff and landing (VSTOL) variant of the Joint Strike Fighter.

This would be the Yak-41 (aka Yak-141), an aircraft that is really little more than a footnote today, and for good reason. It never really moved past the early prototype stage.

To understand anything about the Yak-41/Yak-141 requires a bit of explanation about the YAK-38, the Soviet's attempt to develop a fixed-wing aircraft that could take off and land vertically.

Since the Second World War, military planners have considered the advantages of VSTOL aircraft, which could take off and land vertically or on short runways, and the British military led the effort with the development of the AV-8B Harrier from lessons learned in the Korean War. By the late 1960s, it emerged as the only truly successful VSTOL design of the Cold War era.

The Soviets weren't deterred and moved forward with its own aircraft.

The A.S. Yakovlev Design Bureau JSC was charged with developing a Soviet VSTOL, yet whereas the Harrier had begun essentially as a clean slate, the Yak-38 was developed from the land-based experimental demonstrator Yakovlev Yak-36. In the end, the two shared little in common – yet, it is evident that the Soviets were forced to make numerous compromises.

The redesigned Yak-38 was outfitted with a pair of R-27 turbojets with intakes squashed together in an open nose, with the rear nozzles capable of rotating to provide vectored thrust. Compressed air thrusters on the tail, on the tips of its undersized wings, and at the end of its unicorn-like nose boom provided directional maneuvering.

In total, it took five years of testing to get the Yak-38 to the point where it could transition between vertical liftoff and horizontal flight. The two dedicated lift jets behind the cockpit in addition to a single RD-27 vector thrust engine resulted in higher fuel consumption, limiting range to around two hundred miles at best, and less if it performed a vertical takeoff.

Though some 230 were produced, its service history was underwhelming – and it was considered a difficult aircraft to control.

Despite the lack of success with the Yak-38, the Soviets pressed on with the Yak-41 (NATO reporting name "Freestyle"), which was developed in the 1980s. According to Army Recognition, the Yak-41 was "the pinnacle of the Yakovlev Design Bureau's VTOL aircraft development" becoming "the world's first supersonic VTOL aircraft, achieving speeds up to Mach 1.7," and was developed for use on the "Soviet Navy's Kiev-class carriers."

It was designed around a tri-engine configuration that included its main RD-41 after-burning turbofan engine, with a pair of RD-38 lift engines that provided the transition between vertical and horizontal flight. In addition to its advanced engine, the Yak-41 was outfitted with multi-tracking radar that could engage multiple targets, while its armament was to have consisted of a variety of ordnance including air-to-air missiles, guided bombs, and an internal cannon.

The aircraft took its maiden flight on March 9, 1987, and it soon set around a dozen world records. It was arguably leaps and bounds more advanced than the Yak-38, and may have even been comparable in capabilities to the Harrier. It might have been just the aircraft the Soviet Navy needed for its aircraft cruisers.

That is until one of the two prototypes was lost in an accident while landing on the aircraft cruiser Admiral Groshev in September 1991. That put the program on hold.

Then the Soviet Union broke up just months later, and in the years that followed Russia was in no position to move forward with the aircraft.

So was the F-35B actually based on Soviet technology? That probably depends on who you ask and what you want to believe. With the end of the Cold War, and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Yakovlev entered into a partnership with that little American firm known as Lockheed Martin.

As a Task & Purpose report from April 2018 outlined, "The two companies allegedly signed an agreement in 1991 (but not revealed until 1995) that outlined funding for additional Yak-141 prototypes, including a plan to fly the remaining operational prototype the Farnborough Airshow in September 1992."

Perhaps Lockheed Martin garnered some insight from the Yak-41, but the Soviet-designed aircraft was hardly a success at that point. Yet, the rumors continue to circulate to the contrary. Some of it may be Russian propaganda efforts – not that Russians would ever engage in such activities. But some of it may just be from aviation buffs who can't see that similar aircraft can be developed independently.

Finally, interest was renewed in the largely forgotten Yak-41/Yak-141 until last year, when it was announced the Soviet aircraft would be introduced in the popular online multiplayer game War Thunder – the same title that has earned notoriety for its fans constantly leaking classified secrets on gaming forums. That has only further served to reignite the rumor that the F-35 was based on Soviet tech.

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.

Summary and Key Points: The Su-34 Fullback is a versatile fighter-bomber used by the Russian Aerospace Forces. It combines bombing and air-to-air combat capabilities in one platform.

-Equipped with advanced electronic warfare countermeasures and a wide array of munitions, the Su-34 is designed to perform multiple mission sets, including tactical bombing and air superiority roles. However, the Su-34 has suffered significant losses in the Ukraine conflict, highlighting its vulnerabilities despite its robust design.

-The aircraft's effectiveness is maximized with adequate air and ground support, but it remains exposed to threats without such protection.

The Russian Aerospace Forces operate a large fleet with several different types of aircraft. One of the most interesting jets in that fleet is the Su-34 Fullback. 

A bomber and fighter jet in one, the Su-34 is the go-to choice for Russian commanders for taking out hard targets on the ground. But the aircraft has been taking heavy attrition in the war in Ukraine, showing its weak points. 

Designated as “Fullback” by NATO, the Su-34 is a twin-engine fighter-bomber jet with a crew of two – a pilot and a weapons officer. The aircraft can operate in all weather conditions and conduct attack, bombing, and fighter missions.

 The Russian Aerospace Forces have been using the Su-34 Fullback mainly in a tactical bombing role. With this requirement in mind, Sukhoi designers gave the Fullback an enhanced cockpit with additional armor to withstand anti-aircraft ground fire. Moreover, the fighter-bomber sports advanced electronic warfare countermeasures to jam or defeat enemy anti-aircraft missiles. 

The Su-34 Fullback can hit speeds of around Mach 2 (about 1,500 miles per hour) and has an operational range of 2,500 miles without any refueling. It is designed to sustain heavy pressure (up to 9 Gs) and has a pressurized cabin. 

But where the Su-34 Fullback really shines is in the weapons department. The aircraft can carry up to 18,000 lbs of munitions in 12 hardpoints, including R-77 active radar-homing beyond-visual-range air-to-air missiles; R-73 heat-seeking air-to-air missiles; R-27 radar-homing air-to-air missiles; Kh-59, Kh-58, Kh-38, Kh-29, and Kh-25 air-to-surface missiles; and Kh-65 and Kh-36 cruise missiles. The fighter-bomber can also carry Kh-35 and Kh-31 anti-ship missiles and an extensive selection of conventional bombs. In addition, the Su-34 carries a 30 mm Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-30-1 cannon with 120 rounds for ground attack and dogfighting. 

With these munitions, the Su-34 Fullback can strike targets up to 160 miles away, and the Russian Aerospace Forces have used it extensively in operations in Ukraine. However, Su-34 squadrons have taken serious losses in the conflict, losing at least 26 fighter-bombers so far. Overall, the Russian Aerospace Forces operate around 150 of these aircraft, each of which costs about $85 million. 

The concept of incorporating multiple mission sets into one aircraft isn’t new. The U.S. F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter jet, for example, is capable of conducting six mission sets at the same time with the right munitions. The idea behind such aircraft is to streamline mission sets and encourage a more efficient aircraft fleet. The U.S. military envisioned the F-35 Lightning II doing the job of several older aircraft that would eventually be retired.

Overall, the Su-34 is a capable aircraft that can accomplish several mission sets. It is most valuable when it has sufficient air and ground support to pursue its tactical bombing missions without worrying about enemy fighter jets or anti-aircraft systems. In the absence of such support, it is vulnerable. 

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. 

In my previous article, I described how the growth of artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency means that data centers require access to evermore quantities of reliable energy to power them. A quick glance at the electrical generation capacity of North America, much of Europe, and Asia leads you to a simple conclusion: more generation capacity—and cleaner generation capacity at that—is needed.

Currently, 3.5 percent of the world’s carbon emissions are the result of power consumption by data centers. Data centers need a consistent power that solar and wind simply cannot guarantee. A stable 24/7 capacity can only be provided by relying on fossil fuels, hydroelectric and geothermal power, or nuclear energy. Burning more fossil fuels for power generation is not an option. Of the remaining “green” options, geothermal and hydroelectric power are only feasible in a few select geographic regions, leaving us with nuclear power as the only real choice to power the lion’s share of the massive growth expected in data centers around the world, not to mention the general surge in the world’s energy needs.

Politically, nuclear power is a sensitive issue in the West, with many voters’ perceptions of nuclear power shaped by the frightening scenes of the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters. Yet, Western countries continue to push new climate initiatives that require increased electrical generation capacity, whether electric vehicle mandates or fossil fuel heating phaseouts. 

Noticeably missing from these initiatives are realistic plans to address the electricity generation needs of the country. Most experts agree that nuclear power has to be part of a green solution. More troubling is that adversaries of the West are building nuclear power stations at a blinding pace in order to secure their energy future. Yet, in the West, our grid is being overtaxed, and even traditionally secure sources of generation capacity are faltering. For instance, due to climate shifts, Canada’s prized hydroelectric power industry is failing to produce enough electricity, leaving Canada to import electricity from the United States for the first time in a decade. This is a less-than-ideal position for a country with a long history of selling its cheap surplus electricity, and it also raises questions about the ability of non-nuclear green sources to produce the energy needed.

The West is slowly waking up to this reality, with leaders at the COP 28 summit calling nuclear power the only viable option to attain their carbon reduction goals, culminating in an agreement by twenty-five countries, including the United States, to triple nuclear generation capacity by 2050. Development efforts between GE and Hitachi are leading to safer and cheaper reactors, and plans to build them in the West are beginning to gain steam, though few boots and shovels have struck dirt. Perhaps a symptom of general bureaucracy that has come to plague large infrastructure projects, but more likely a sign nuclear power still lacks the general social acceptance for wide-scale expansion.

Uranium price and supply challenges threaten to ground these efforts, further spooking investors away from nuclear reactor construction projects and their prohibitively long payback periods. Yet these challenges have had the upside of aiding fledgling domestic producers in the United States to gain market share. Congress has moved further to secure domestic production with the passage of HR. 1042, uranium imports from Russia, a significant producer of power station-grade enriched uranium, were banned. These steps help secure future energy security for the United States in the same way that our oil and gas production currently does. 

With public acceptance being the largest roadblock to the implementation of nuclear power on the scale needed to meet energy needs, education, and communication need to be paramount for our leaders. For a large majority of the public, there is no understanding of nuclear fission or radiation, seeing it as some type of invisible, dangerous alchemy. As such, the disposal of nuclear waste is highly unnerving to a public that is terrified of nuclear waste due to misconceptions born out of the media’s depictions of radiation and nuclear disasters. With a more informed understanding of the risks and benefits of nuclear power, I believe that public opinion would largely be in favor of nuclear power.

Clean, safe, and reliable nuclear power is not only needed but very attainable if we focus on education and public investment in the technology.    

Adrian Kranz is president of Paratrade Corporation and a contributing writer for the Newport Global Summit.

Image:  Wlad74 / Shutterstock.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brent M. Eastwood, PhD, is the author of Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare. He is an Emerging Threats expert and former U.S. Army Infantry officer. You can follow him on Twitter @BMEastwood.

All images are Creative Commons. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image Credit: Shutterstock. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock.

From the Vault

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.