Diplomacy & Crisis News

Réunis autour d'un feu, dans la Grotte aux Ours du Vallon obscur, six Haïdoucs, six hors-la-loi, dont Florea Codrilor, la femme à la tête de leur petite troupe, racontent leur entrée en « Haïdoucie » : comment, révoltés contre un pouvoir arbitraire, ils ont rompu avec la société et rejoint la forêt « (...) / Littérature, Violence, Idées, Roumanie, Cuba, Fiction - 2024/08

En France, quand il s'agit de représenter les différents milieux sociaux, les photographes s'intéressent rarement à la « haute société », en dehors de la presse people qui affiche les mondanités pailletées que les riches acceptent de montrer. Gwenn Dubourthoumieu prend le chemin inverse et les côtoie (...) / Photographie, Art - 2024/08

Des romans sont portés par leur histoire, d'autres par leurs personnages ou par leur thème, d'autres enfin par leur langue. Mais il en est, plus rares, qui sont appuyés par tous ces piliers-là. C'est le cas des Irrésolus, le sixième roman de Mario Desiati, mais le premier traduit en français, (...) / Littérature, Fiction, Italie - 2024/08

C'est un polar. Un roman social. Un récit d'anticipation. C'est une fable, une farce, une fantaisie. Un cauchemar burlesque. Ce qu'écrit Marcus Malte n'entre pas dans des cases. Il a le lexique en liberté, le rythme précis, l'imagination branchée sur la réalité, et vice-versa. En témoigne cet extrait (...) / Littérature, Fiction, Politique - 2024/08

Tensions in American society today have analysts hurriedly investigating the origins of America’s Civil War. Can they glean lessons from that tragic history? Numerous volumes have been written on the subject, but two new complementary contributions shed some additional light.

The American Civil War Museum’s acclaimed new exhibit, “The Impending Crisis: How Slavery Caused the Civil War,” focuses on slavery as the key underlying cause of the conflict. The exhibit begins with the declaration that slavery in the United States was unique because it was based entirely on race and not conquest or debt bondage, as in other slave societies. It was meant to be permanent, with bondage passed down through the generations. The exhibit notes that this notion was the foundation of the antebellum South’s economy and society. It was also the fault line upon which the Union collapsed. 

The second new source, Erik Larson’s brilliant book, The Demon of Unrest, complements the Museum’s exhibit by examining in detail both antebellum Southern culture and an almost daily account of the critical five months between Abraham Lincoln’s November 6, 1860 election and the April 12 firing on Fort Sumter. His reporting from the diary of South Carolina lady Mary Chestnut of the excitement and romance in Charleston leading up to the attack paints an insightful picture.

Combining the two contributions, we have identified ten factors that together created the conditions for war. These factors reveal the tensions resulting from two disparate sets of economies, interests, cultures, values, beliefs, and calculations. These factors overlapped with cascading effects, and events took their course. By April 1861, neither side could back away from war without fundamentally altering their basic beliefs and institutions.

Competing Methods of Wealth Creation

Slavery was not mentioned directly in the Constitution, though the three-fifths clause recognized its existence. Most Founding Fathers assumed that slavery would wither away as the practice became unprofitable and inefficient. This changed in 1793 when the cotton gin and new textile manufacturing techniques revitalized the plantation economy. In the North, the Industrial Revolution created wealth for manufacturers based on free labor. These divergent methods of wealth creation prompted differing lifestyles, economic realities, and cultures throughout the first half of the nineteenth century. The states that shared similar views were contiguous, creating potential for regional geographic division. 

The Museum’s exhibit explores the tensions that arose between the free labor movement and slavery. Free labor advocates identified with the democratic struggles against the thrones and altars of Europe. Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, praised the 1848 revolutions to amplify the opposition of free labor to the slave power in the United States. The exhibit presents a fascinating graph of how free labor, compared to enslavement, affected the development of society. In the North, public schools, libraries, newspapers and periodicals, population, cities, highways, canals, and railroads far outpaced the South. Northerners thought of the South as backward and undeveloped, even though its large enslaved population made a sliver of Southern society fabulously wealthy.

The exhibit features a photograph of the scandalous Congressman James Henry Hammond, who pronounced, “Cotton is king,” reinforcing the belief among Southern plantation owners that enslavement was essential to the financial well-being of the entire nation. This small group of wealthy planters became known as the “slave power” because of their extensive control of Southern society and their outsized influence over the Federal government.

Contradictory Values

Differing methods of wealth creation led to dramatic contradictions in values and codes of honor between the South and North. Larson quotes one of Hammond’s speeches on the floor of the House of Representatives, in which he declared of enslaved peoples that “As a class, I say it boldly, there is not a happier, more contented race upon the face of the earth.” This justification for keeping millions of people in bondage spread widely in the South during the next twenty-five years. “The Impending Crisis” also provides a helpful exposition of religious, scientific, and political defense of the “peculiar institution.” To white Southerners like Sarah B. Valentine, enslavement was ordained by God and endorsed in the Bible. White Southerners accepted pseudo-scientific theories that Africans were prone to violent and degenerate tendencies. 

These distorted values were amplified by the so-called Code Duello, which Larson quotes at length. This code was a guide for Southern “chivalry,” outlining how Southerners should protect their honor and righteousness. Larson implicitly compares the road to civil war with the path to a duel. The brutal 1856 “caning” by South Carolina representative Preston Brooks against Massachusetts senator Charles Sumner on the floor of the Senate was seen in the South as consistent with Southern chivalry.

The “Impending Crisis” also delves into the growth of the Abolitionist movement in the North, showing how opposition to enslavement grew as more slaves escaped and told their stories. The example of Frederick Douglas is highlighted. An astonishing map of the Underground Railroad shows how 40,000 escaped slaves made it to Canada, and another 5000 made it to Mexico. Freeborn blacks are shown to have had a significant influence on the Abolitionists. 

The passage of the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act, intended to placate Southern slaveowners, had the effect of further stimulating the Abolitionist movement. The North grew ever more militant, sparked by Harriet Beecher Stowe’s 1852 classic novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Stowe’s main character, the “God-fearing Tom,” is acquired by the wicked plantation owner Simon Legree, who separates families, abuses female slaves, and finally has kind old Tom whipped to death. 

As these two diametrically opposed images of enslavement took hold, room for moral compromise diminished. These contradictions led to what Larson called “extreme rhetorical combat” in Congress. Actions taken in the North to counter what many saw as a “fundamental evil” became an affront to Southern honor.

Contending Appraisals of Secession

The Constitution did not explicitly provide the states with recourse to secession from the Union. Nonetheless, the question was frequently raised throughout the early republic—and not always in the South. The issue came to the fore in the 1790s with the Whiskey Rebellion and the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. Aaron Burr’s conspiracy to form a confederation of western states, the 1814 Hartford Convention, and the 1832–33 Nullification Crisis kept the question alive in the early nineteenth century. However, secessionists were kept in check by a combination of strong federal leadership and Congress’ willingness to compromise. During the Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington led federal forces against Pennsylvania’s tax revolt. During the Nullification Crisis, Andrew Jackson threatened to lead an army against South Carolina. Every early consideration of secession failed to gain traction and threaten the federal government. 

By 1860, things had changed. Larson notes that South Carolina’s declaration of secession inaccurately quoted Thomas Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence that “whenever any form of government becomes destructive…it is the right of the people to abolish it.” Jefferson Davis, to his dying day, argued that the South had a constitutional right to secede. In the North, the Declaration’s promise that “all men are created equal” dominated. Lincoln held that the Union was sacrosanct and that it was his constitutional duty to assure that “government of the people, by the people and for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” This contradiction gave rise to the Lost Cause argument that the origin of the Civil War lay in the debate over the right of state governments to secede, ignoring the fact that the sole reason for seceding was to preserve slavery.

The High Stakes of Westward Expansion

American expansion westward created additional tensions for the divided nation. At stake was both how far slavery would spill over into the new territories and how the balance of power in Washington would be impacted once the territories became states. Politicians like Henry Clay and Daniel Webster sought to diffuse tensions through compromise legislation. The 1820 Missouri Compromise admitted Maine as a free state and Missouri as a slave state. The Compromise of 1850 admitted California as a free state and adjusted the borders of the newly admitted slave state, Texas, consistent with the Missouri Compromise. 

Efforts to maintain this geographic balance withered as Kansas and Nebraska sought statehood. As “The Impending Crisis” demonstrates, the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act, which allowed enslavement to expand to new territories if approved by the local population (thereby nullifying the 1820 Missouri Compromise), appeased the slave power somewhat, enraged the Northern opposition, promoted open warfare in these two territories, and led to the Lincoln Douglas debates, which made Lincoln famous. In the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, the Supreme Court further ruled that Congress did not have the power to ban slavery in any territory. 

The shift from compromise to confrontation over slavery in the territories further divided the nation. Lincoln opposed the expansion of slavery to new territories, and Southerners felt that a reversal of the Dred Scott decision would eventually shift the balance of power against them in Congress. 

Southern Fears of Extinction

Southerners calculated the threats to their well-being, weighing the risk of a slave uprising triggered by abolition with the apparently less risky prospect of a war for secession. Ultimately, they got it wrong. 

“The Impending Crisis” exhibit portrays the South fearing a massive insurrection if the enslaved population were freed. Nat Turner’s bloody 1831 rebellion in Virginia and the earlier successful slave revolt in Haiti are highlighted. John Brown’s 1859 raid on Harpers Ferry touched a raw nerve as Southerners envisioned militias like Brown’s rampaging the South. Larson also stresses the daily concern among plantation owners that their families were constantly vulnerable to slave uprisings. 

Against that fear, Southerners had to weigh the risk of invasion from the North should they secede. While some Southerners like Jefferson Davis saw the conflict as inevitable, most in the South convinced themselves it was not. In 1858, Hammond claimed before the Senate that the North could not afford to attack the South because of its dependence on cotton for industrial production. If the North did seek to prevent secession by force, Britain’s dependency on cotton would surely bring that country into the war on the South’s side. Larson notes that many calculated that if only the Deep South seceded, the North might use force. But if all fifteen slave-holding states left the Union, Washington would not dare interfere. 

The Consequences of Lincoln’s Election

During the 1850s, the South was able to dominate American decision-making, with four presidents, the Senate, and the Supreme Court all sympathetic to the Southern cause. This period of Southern control came to an abrupt end in 1860 when the Democratic Party divided into sectional entities, and Lincoln managed to win enough electoral votes, with less than 40 percent of the popular vote. As Larson points out, Lincoln was a relative moderate who would probably not have used force to abolish slavery where it existed. However, Lincoln’s “House Divided” speech, highlighted in “The Impending Crisis,” alarmed the South about his true intentions. Lincoln’s diplomatic inaugural speech did nothing to assuage the South. Texas Senator Louis Wigfall telegraphed that the “inaugural means war.” 

Southerners felt their 1860 electoral loss was irreversible and existential. They were in despair. Larson describes how Southern crowds in Washington tried to disrupt the electoral college count in the Congress. General Winfield Scott and outgoing Vice President John Breckenridge saved the day. South Carolina seceded on December 20, 1860, well before Lincoln had a chance to set national policy. In Baltimore, an attempt to assassinate Lincoln on his way to Washington was avoided based on intelligence provided by Allan Pinkerton and others.

Delayed Presidential Leadership 

President James Buchanan, a Southern sympathizer from Pennsylvania, might have nipped secession in the bud had he behaved boldly as Andrew Jackson did during the Nullification Crisis. Instead, Buchanan attempted to appease the South and stalled, encouraging them to proceed. 

Once inaugurated, Lincoln was determined to take decisive action to protect federal facilities, reasoning that letting them go was tantamount to accepting secession. Despite a cabinet that initially favored abandoning Fort Sumter, Lincoln followed the advice of Captain Gustavus Fox, who assured him he could resupply Sumter’s garrison by sea. Storms and botched orders to the warship USS Powhatan undermined Fox’s effort. Secretary of State William Seward’s false assurances to Southern commissioners that Sumter would be abandoned further alienated Confederate leaders.

The Failure of Compromise

After Lincoln’s election and the secession of several states, further compromise became nearly impossible. Events took over. The December 1860 Crittenden Compromise and the February 1861 Peace Conference held at Washington’s Willard Hotel both failed to find a formula acceptable to both sides. A proposed Thirteenth Constitutional Amendment (guaranteeing that slavery would not be interfered with where it existed) fared better, but the ratification process was too slow. The Hall-Hayne mission from South Carolina to Washington ran aground as a result of what Larson called the “reef of mutual naïveté.” In the end, the compromisers were outflanked, and the fire eaters had their way.

The Fort Sumter Catalyst 

Larson details the actions of Major Robert Anderson, who was in command of the American fortifications in Charleston harbor. His decisions, made for local tactical reasons, had profound national consequences. After seceding from the Union, South Carolina demanded that those forts be turned over to them. Buchanan wanted Anderson to do nothing and gave him conflicting instructions. Lincoln, before he was inaugurated, had declared that he would fight to maintain control of all Federal installations. 

Left to his own devices, on Christmas Day 1860, Anderson secretly moved his small detachment from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter. Moultrie was indefensible. Sumter was an offshore stronghold, and Anderson saw an attack coming. Larson notes that South Carolina’s secession and Anderson’s move to Fort Sumter “energized the advocates of disunion throughout the Deep South.” Anderson refused to abandon the fort or to fire on the town. However, subsequent Union efforts to resupply Sumter were seen as further threats to Charleston. Both sides began to mobilize. These events ultimately lead to the decision by Davis to fire upon the fort on April 12.

The Deep South smelled victory. Yet, the border states were not convinced that leaving the Union was in their best interest. Larson points out that on April 4, Virginia’s delegates voted ninety to forty-five against secession. The Virginia fire eater Edmund Ruffin was disgusted with his state. But once the conflict began, events took over. Lincoln had little choice but to call up troops to defend Washington and seek to retake Federal property. On April 15, Lincoln called upon the remaining states to muster militias totaling 75,000 troops to suppress the rebellion. Moderates in Virginia were finally swayed. The dominos fell. Faced with war, they could not abandon the other slave-holding states. Two days later, Virginia seceded. And Robert E. Lee made his choice.

Lessons for Today

The cascading impact of these factors led to war in 1861. Echoes of this past history are present in America today. There are deep cultural and political divisions, with most states identified as either Red or Blue. Some extremists tend towards violence, and plenty of weapons are available. A contentious election looms large. Yet, many of the conditions that led to war in 1861 are not present. 

Today, the federal government is prepared to deal with localized violence. Additionally, no single issue, such as slavery, is considered existential and animates all political activity. Despite the “Red-Blue divide,” there are binding ties across the nation that did not exist in 1861. There are profound differences within individual states based on rural and urban locations. The bitter experience of the Civil War should sober the very few who even contemplate a civil war today.

Hans Binnendijk is the former Director of the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University.

David Gompert is the former Acting Director of National Intelligence.

Donald King is a retired partner at McGuireWoods LLP.

All three coauthors are on the Board of Directors of the American Civil War Museum.

Image: Popular Graphic Arts, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

It’s time for Washington to Europeanize NATO and give up responsibility for the continent’s security.

How Russia’s Growing Squad of Saboteurs and Assassins Threatens the West.

Summary and Key Points: The Russian Navy's recent global deployments, including visits to Latin America and the Indo-Pacific, have raised questions about Moscow's intentions. While the U.S. Navy remains the dominant blue water force, Russia has been showcasing its naval capabilities with port visits in Venezuela, Cuba, India, and other nations.

-These actions could signal a worrisome trend for Washington, or they may reflect Moscow's desperate attempts to prove its fleet's relevance on the world stage.

-Despite deploying mostly training ships and older vessels, Russia's increased presence suggests a strategic effort to counter U.S. influence and assert its global reach.

Russian Navy is on the Move: Worrisome Trend for America, or Desperate Move by Moscow?             

The U.S. Navy maintains a presence around the world, and its fleet remains the largest true blue water force in service today. By contrast, the Russian Navy is largely seen as a green water force that can barely deploy warships to distant regions. 

This summer Moscow has sought to counter that opinion. Twice its vessels visited Latin America, and Russian warships recently arrived at India's port of Cochin in the Arabian Sea.

These efforts to "show the flag" could be seen as a worrisome trend for Washington, or as a desperate move by Moscow to show its fleet can still sail the world's seas. Perhaps it is a bit of both.

Russia's Latin American Ties

The U.S. Navy is able to deploy multiple nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and their strike groups to multiple regions, even if current operations leave the U.S. sea service spread a little thin. Carriers are being sent to the Middle East while continuing to maintain a presence in the Indo-Pacific.

By comparison, Russia's Baltic Fleet deployed the training ship Smolny to the Venezuelan port of La Guaira on Tuesday. The visit comes mere weeks after a Russian Navy flotilla comprising the guided-missile frigate Admiral Gorshkov and medium sea-going tanker Akademik Pashin arrived in the same port after a visit to Cuba.

"We are always glad to welcome fraternal Russia's naval ships," the Venezuelan Navy’s deputy commander, Vice Adm. Edward Centeno, told TASS. "Today, on August 6, we are welcoming the training ship Smolny. A program of stay in Venezuela has been prepared for its crew, including visits to historical sites of the administrative center of the state of La Guaira, and cultural and sporting events."

TASS added that a year ago, "the Russian Navy's training ship Perekop took part in a naval parade in Venezuela on the occasion of the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Lake Maracaibo." That engagement was the last battle of the Venezuelan War of Independence, and it marked the end of Spanish rule in what is now Venezuela. The Kremlin skipped noting that Imperial Russia supported Spain at the time. 

Indo-Pacific Deployments

As the Russian training vessel arrived in Venezuela, another Russian Navy detachment made a scheduled port visit to Cochin port. The Pacific Fleet’s missile cruiser Varyag and frigate Marshal Shaposhnikov visited the Omani port of Salalah after beginning a long-distance deployment in January. Over the past seven months, the flotilla has visited India, Sri Lanka, Iran, Qatar, and Eritrea. It marks one of the longest deployments of the Pacific Fleet in recent years.

Moscow also announced on Wednesday that it will hold its first drills with the Indonesian Navy this coming November. The Orruda 2024 joint exercises will begin in Surabaya, in the Indonesian province of East Java, and run from Nov. 4-8. 

Russia is increasing its global deployments, even if most of the vessels sent are training ships and antiquated vehicles.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu 

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74), a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is undergoing a prolonged Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH), now scheduled for completion in October 2026. This midlife upgrade has faced delays due to post-pandemic challenges, including staffing shortages at shipyards.

-Despite the setbacks, the Navy assures that CVN-74 will emerge as the most technologically advanced Nimitz-class carrier.

-However, the ship might not retain its name, as controversies surrounding its namesake, Senator John C. Stennis, have sparked discussions about renaming the carrier before it returns to service.

Ready: Will Aircraft Carrier USS John C. Stennis Ever Return to Service – Yes, But Likely With a New Name

The U.S. Navy's Nimitz-class nuclear-powered supercarrier USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74) will not return to service on schedule. 

The sea service announced earlier this year that the carrier's midlife overhaul and refueling will take about five and a half years, which is some 14 months longer than first expected. The warship began its Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) in 2021, and work was originally set to be finished by August 2025. The updated timeline calls for the flattop to be returned to the U.S. Navy no earlier than October 2026. 

CVN-74’s is the second RCOH in recent years to cause hardship for a ship’s crew. USS George Washington’s midlife upgrade took nearly six years. Eleven sailors took their own lives during the time the ship was stuck at the HII Newport News Shipbuilding facilities.

Stennis: Delayed Midlife Overhaul and Possible Name Change

In April, CVN-74 exited dry dock and began the second phase of its RCOH, with work reportedly more than 65% completed. The ship has since been moved to an outfitting berth as shipyard workers and the crew install and test the warship's major components and other systems.

The Navy says several post-pandemic challenges continue to impact the U.S. carrier industrial base. Capabilities and capacities are reduced as the shipyards struggle to find adequate staff to build and maintain warships. 

The Navy insists the delays won't impact the capabilities of the warship and will be worth the added time.

"When John C. Stennis redelivers, she'll be the most technologically advanced Nimitz-class aircraft carrier in the Navy," said Rear Adm. Casey J. Moton in April. "She'll bring to the Fleet the highest level of capability across all mission sets."

According to the Navy, more than 25 million total man-hours of work will go into the RCOH, nearly as much time as was spent building the carrier.

"RCOH construction enhances nearly every space and system on the carrier, beyond the most critical requirement to defuel and refuel the ship's two nuclear reactors and to repair and upgrade the propulsion plant," said Capt. Mike Johnson, manager of the PEO Aircraft Carriers In-Service Aircraft Carrier Program Office. "We work on every part of the ship, from the hull, screws, and rudders to more than 600 tanks; thousands of valves, pumps, and piping components; electrical cables and ventilation; as well as combat and aviation support systems. It's demanding, complex work that challenges every member of the planning team, shipyard crews, and ship's force."

Still the Stennis? Maybe Not

CVN-74 will not be quite the same ship. Upgrades will make the vessel practically as good as new, and perhaps even a better ship than when she entered service in 1995. 

In addition to the technological improvements, it is possible the warship could sail with a new name.

The seventh Nimitz-class supercarrier was named for Democratic Sen. John C. Stennis of Mississippi. The lawmaker, who hadn't lost an election in 60 years, was seen as an odd choice to receive the honor, but the name still gained the approval of President Ronald Reagan in 1988.

The lead ship of the class of U.S. Navy supercarriers was fittingly named for World War II Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, and subsequent carriers of the class were named for past presidents. Though USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) honored a congressman, he was known as the father of the two-ocean Navy, and the name was considered fitting.

By contrast, Stennis had little to do with naval affairs. 

Moreover, the naming of the carrier has been the subject of controversy as Stennis was an outspoken critic of civil rights and racial equality, while the ship's nickname – "Johnny Reb" – has drawn its share of criticism in recent years.

The U.S. military has gone to great (and at times expensive) lengths to retire the names of bases and other warships that seemed to honor Confederate military leaders. While Stennis was a U.S. lawmaker, his policies seem at odds with the direction the country has taken. He voted against or actively opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, and the establishment of Martin Luther King Jr. Day as a federal holiday.

It is likely that by the time CVN-74 sails again, it will be named for someone other than John C. Stennis.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu 

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The USS Dallas (SSN-700), a Los Angeles-class nuclear-powered attack submarine, served the U.S. Navy for nearly 40 years, featuring prominently in Tom Clancy's The Hunt for Red October.

-In 2013, during joint anti-submarine warfare exercises in the Middle East, the USS Dallas demonstrated its stealth by successfully evading Royal Navy surface warships and helicopters to simulate an attack on the HMS Illustrious aircraft carrier.

-A published photo revealed the submarine’s periscope as it approached undetected, implying that in a real scenario, the carrier would have been sunk. The USS Dallas was decommissioned in 2018 after an illustrious career.

USS Dallas vs. HMS Illustrious Aircraft Carrier: The 2013 Submarine War Game

Fans of Tom Clancy's debut novel The Hunt for Red October likely are familiar with the USS Dallas (SSN-700), as the Los Angeles-class nuclear-powered attack submarine features heavily in the story.

The now-retired submarine, launched in April 1979 and commissioned two years later, served for nearly 40 years with multiple deployments worldwide.

While the submarine likely never had an encounter with a Soviet vessel as noteworthy as the fictional account in The Hunt For Red October, in October 2013, SSN-700 certainly gave the crew of the Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious a fright during joint anti-submarine warfare (ASW) exercises in the Middle East. The American submarine was able to successfully evade surface warships and helicopters that sought to locate the USS Dallas.

More importantly, a photo was published (see above) that showed that had it been the real deal, the Royal Navy would have seen its carrier sunk. 

The UK's sea service didn't try to hide that fact, as it released the photo with the description, "The periscope of the American submarine USS Dallas cuts through the surface as HMS Illustrious sails past in the morning haze."

How the Wargame Occured: Aircraft Carrier vs. Navy Submarine 

According to the UK's Ministry of Defence, the 2013 exercise was broken down into three phases, and the HMS Illustrious, RFA Fort Victoria, RFA Fort Austin, USS Bulkeley along with the USS Dallas initially tested acoustic and non-acoustics sensor performance against known positions, gaining useful real-life data of the region. The second phase relied on the ships escorting HMS Illustrious as the Mission Essential Unit (MEU) along a passage whilst evading detection and simulated torpedo attacks by USS Dallas.

In the final phase, the U.S. Navy's Los Angeles-class submarine attempted to locate and destroy RFA Fort Austin as the MEU, in a holding box that simulated an anchorage, while the Royal Navy and U.S. Navy surface vessels provided protection. Additional helicopter support to the ships was ably provided by the Anti-Submarine sonar dipping Merlins embarked in HMS Illustrious along with a Seahawk ASW helicopter from USS Bulkeley providing additional surface search and weapon carrying capability.

As David Axe previously wrote for The National Interest, "Neither navy has published the results of the exercise, so it’s not clear whether Dallas got close enough in the course of the war game to simulate firing Mark-48 torpedoes at the flattop, which at 22,000 tons displacement is one of the largest ships in Royal Navy service," and he added, "But there are good reasons to assume the 7,000-ton Dallas did succeed in pretend-sinking Illustrious. In 2007 HMCS Corner Brook, a diesel-electric submarine of the Canadian navy, sneaked up on Illustrious during an exercise in the Atlantic."

Less than five years after that exercise, the USS Dallas was decommissioned in a ceremony at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS) in Bremerton, Washington.

During her nearly four decades in service, SSN-700 was deployed a total of 14 times and steamed over one million miles, visiting more than 30 nations worldwide. While many of the deployments were routine, some may have been more noteworthy than others – like the time the crew could lay claim to sinking an aircraft carrier.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The F-16X, also known as the Falcon 2000, was a proposed evolution of the F-16 Fighting Falcon that incorporated advanced features inspired by the F-22 Raptor. It featured a tailless design, thrust-vectoring engines, and composite materials for enhanced stealth, maneuverability, and fuel efficiency.

-The F-16X was envisioned as a cost-effective, next-generation warplane with advanced avionics and longer range, potentially serving as an affordable alternative to the F-35 Lightning II.

-Despite its potential, the F-16X was never produced, leaving it as one of the most intriguing "what ifs" in U.S. Air Force history.

The F-16X Should Have Become the Primary Warplane for the USAF

The U.S. Air Force’s greatest warplane until the F-22 Raptor came along was the F-16 Fighting Falcon. Believe it or not, though, the F-16 could have been even greater. Over the decades, multiple proposals have forwarded some frankly wild variants of the F-16. 

One of those was the F-16X, otherwise known as the Falcon 2000.

The F-16X would have gone into production in 2010 had the Pentagon approved the proposal. It incorporated many designs inspired by the F-22 Raptor.

Newer composite materials were planned to be used in the construction of this warplane. The bird’s weight would thus have been greatly reduced, increasing the aircraft’s overall performance. The F-16X also included a new wing design inspired by the F-22. These new wings were more aerodynamically sound. They increased the plane’s life and reduced drag. The bird could go faster than its F-16 predecessor and had much better maneuverability. 

The F-16X was meant to be stealthier than the F-16. Between its composite skin and its tailless structure, the F-16X would have been difficult for enemies to track with their radar. Thus, an F-16X in combat would have considerable advantages over any enemy aircraft. 

The proposed F-16X was ahead of its time in other ways. 

Some Key Features 

One key design feature for the F-16X was that it was meant to be a tailless bird that used thrust-vectoring engines to direct the plane in flight. These capabilities were lightyears ahead of the original F-16.They were unlike anything the Air Force was operating other than its fifth-generation warplanes. 

The tailless design would also appear in the X-44 MANTA warplane proposed as a follow-on to the successful F-22 program. When the X-44 never made it off the drawing board, the dream of a tailless, vector-thrust-powered bird shifted into the plans for the Air Force’s sixth-generation warplane, the Next Generation Air Dominance.

The F-16X’s engines were meant to increase fuel efficiency and range while reducing the amount of aerial refueling needed for long-distance missions. According to F-16.net, the proposed F-16X, “would have twice the range of the F/A-18 E/F at two-thirds the cost.” 

According to Key Aero, the increased fuel efficiency and range of the F-16X would have allowed it to carry an even more incredible suite of armaments than its F-16 brother. 

This bird had an impressive array of new systems that would ultimately be incorporated into future variants of the F-16, as well as other Air Force planes. The F-16X had an improved cockpit layout, possessing a better ergonomic design and multiple advanced display systems.

The F-16X had a very advanced avionics package and sensor suite as well. It was built with state-of-the-art radar and electronic warfare capabilities, along with advanced targeting systems that allowed the F-16X to engage targets with more precision at greater distances. 

An Affordable F-35?

America’s F-16X was a tale of what could have been. A truly next-generation design for a fraction of what supposed next-generation warplanes cost, it probably would have been a better selection than even the F-35 Lightning II, which has become the U.S. military’s primary warplane in the last decade. The F-16X included next-generation capabilities at competitive prices.

They were also easier to build and maintain, since the supply chain was already primed for supporting the mission of the F-16. 

Alas, the government, in its infinite wisdom, opted instead to leave the F-16X on the drawing board in favor of the F-35. 

It is fun to speculate about what might have been. And the F-16X is one of the biggest “what ifs” out there.

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock.

From the Vault

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

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

Presidential candidates dread sudden reversals of fortune in a campaign’s final weeks. Modern-day “October Surprises” include Richard Nixon prematurely announcing a Vietnam peace agreement (1972), Iran refusing to release U.S. hostages until after Election Day (1980), and Mitt Romney taped belittling less-wealthy voters (2012). 

Yet, the biggest “surprise” for an incumbent president nearly took place in the fall of 1864 when Abraham Lincoln was in the White House. In going against George McClellan, the Democratic Party nominee, many in the GOP and Lincoln’s cabinet weren’t certain he could win again.

Despite the Union Army advancing to Richmond, the Civil War had already lasted nearly four years, resulting in more than 600,000 deaths. Many Americans were eager for peace—even if it meant allowing the Confederacy to become its own nation. Against that backdrop, rebel spies positioned themselves along our northern border with British Canada.

Their Northwest Conspiracy was led by Jacob Thompson, a former cabinet secretary under President James Buchanan and now a Southern sympathizer. Given $1 million in gold by Confederate President Jefferson Davis, Thompson’s assignment was to direct a clandestine operation along the border. One of his first targets was the USS Michigan, which was the only Union warship left on the Great Lakes late in 1864. 

Anchored off Sandusky, Ohio, the iron-hulled steamer had a thirty-pound parrot rifle, a half-dozen howitzers, and additional firepower. In mid-September, rebel leader John Yates Beall led a raiding party from the Detroit area to seize the Michigan. A private in the “Stonewall Brigade” at the war’s onset, Beall had shifted to piracy and espionage.

By this point in the Civil War, British Canada had become a haven for rebel spies and their supporters. John Wilkes Booth, who would soon assassinate Lincoln at Ford’s Theatre in Washington, was a visitor to Montreal. Julian Sher, author of The North Star: Canada and the Civil War Plots Against Lincoln, says the Catholic Church helped one of Booth’s accomplices hide out for months. Also, a leading financier in Montreal allowed Confederates to launder money through his bank.

In fact, when Booth was killed near Port Royal, Virginia, in late April 1865, less than two weeks after shooting Lincoln, a banknote from the Ontario Bank branch in Montreal was found in his pocket. It was signed by bank manager Henry Starnes, the former and future mayor of Montreal. 

Beall and Booth knew of each other and perhaps met at John Brown’s execution in Harper’s Ferry in 1859. Ironically, Brown’s son, John Jr., who lived on an island near Sandusky, nearly derailed the rebels’ plan in 1864 to take the Michigan. 

While Booth’s plots were haphazard, spurred by hatred for Lincoln, Beall’s raids, first on the Chesapeake Bay and then on Lake Erie, were backed by Confederate officials in Richmond.

Arriving by nightfall at Sandusky Harbor on September 19, 1864, Beall moved the steamship he had stolen into position near the Michigan. Everything went smoothly until a signal from the shore wasn’t posted. This was supposed to indicate that the warship’s officers and crew were incapacitated by spiked liquor at a party. When no flare was seen, Beall’s crew got cold feet, and the rebel leader had to flee back across Lake Erie.  

That’s how close the 1864 presidential election came to an “October Surprise.” If Beall had captured the Union warship, he planned to free Confederate prisoners on Johnson’s Island, outside of Sandusky Harbor and not far from where the Michigan was anchored. Approximately 3,000 rebels were imprisoned there, including twenty officers. From there, the Confederates could have bombarded Cleveland, Buffalo, and other targets along the southern shore of Lake Erie.

In the end, the 1864 presidential election was a landslide for the Republican Party. Lincoln won the Electoral College by 212-21 and 55 percent of the popular vote. But what’s rarely mentioned in history textbooks is how the Confederates nearly opened a new front in the Civil War only weeks before voters went to the polls.

Even after Lincoln was reelected, the rebels remained active in the Great Lakes. Beall wasn’t apprehended until December after he attempted to derail a train carrying Confederate prisoners and a load of gold south of Buffalo. A historical plaque near the Whirlpool Bridge in Niagara Falls, NY, now marks where authorities finally arrested him. Despite a petition signed by ninety-two members of Congress asking for Beall to be pardoned, he was hung on Governors Island in New York Harbor. 

All we can be sure of today is if the Confederates had seized the USS Michigan, it would have been an October Surprise and certainly made Beall & Co. more than a historical footnote. 

About the Author: 

Tim Wendel is the author of Rebel Falls. The historical novel details the Confederates’ spy network along the U.S.-Canadian border in 1864. Follow him on X: @Tim_Wendel. 

Image Credit: Shutterstock. 

The Important Stuff: In February 2009, a shocking collision occurred between two nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, the UK's HMS Vanguard and France's Le Triomphant, in the Atlantic Ocean. The incident, later revealed by a Royal Navy whistleblower, highlighted significant failures in communication, equipment, and seamanship on the part of the British submarine.

-Despite the potential for a nuclear disaster, no injuries or radioactive leaks occurred. The collision underscored the need for improved coordination among allied navies to prevent future mishaps.

-The incident serves as a stark reminder of the risks involved in submarine operations, particularly in today's tense geopolitical climate.

The 2009 UK-France Submarine Incident

In February 2009, an unprecedented and nightmarish event occurred in the depths of the Atlantic Ocean: two nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines belonging to France and the United Kingdom collided with each other. The ships involved were the British Royal Navy’s HMS Vanguard and the French navy’s Le Triomphant.

The Collision

The collision happened in the early hours of 3 February 2009. The two subs were conducting routine patrols. At some point, in the mid-Atlantic, the two nuclear-powered submarines crossed paths and crashed into each other. 

This catastrophe was the result of a combination of factors, but the most damning one of all comes from a Royal Navy submariner, William McNeilly, who decided to become a whistleblower. According to this whistleblower, the accident was likely the result of the British submarine which had been subject to “massive equipment failures, crew errors, and lax standards” onboard the HMS Vanguard.

Indeed, the official account provided to the public by the British government (and backed up by the French government), according to McNeilly, was far less caustic than the event actually had been. In fact, according to the whistleblower testimony, the British nuclear submarine was mere moments away from exploding (which would have ignited the ship’s nuclear reactor, causing all kinds of problems for the world).

The whistleblower account details how the FNS Le Triomphant had bashed out a “massive chunk” from the HMS Vanguard after which the French sub “grazed down the side of” the Vanguard. From there, “compressed air bottle groups had been dislodged by the collision and ‘were hanging off and banging against the pressure hull.’ The submarine had to return to base slowly because ‘if one of the [High Pressure Air] bottle groups exploded it would’ve created a chain reaction and sent the submarine plummeting to the bottom.’”

A “massive cover-up of the incident” soon followed. 

According to McNeilly the Vanguard had become the poster child in the failing British Royal Navy (an issue about which this author has documented repeatedly in these pages) of mismanagement, lax discipline, and poor seamanship. 

Before its collision with the Le Triomphant, there was another cover-up involving the Vanguard pertaining to a “deep depth incident” in which the HMS Vanguard “dived far beyond a normal safe depth. A combination of high-water pressure and the submarine’s low speed made it difficult for the submarine’s hydroplanes [to] generate enough lift to raise the submarine, and ballast water could not be pumped out fast enough to allow the submarine to rise.” 

In essence, well before the 2009 collision, the Vanguard was almost lost due to poor seamanship. Yet, the Royal Navy, rather than address the problems, chose to cover it up and continue operating as though everything were normal.

Thankfully, the incident led to a review of submarine operations and safety protocols by both the British and French navies. It further highlighted the need for improved communication and coordination between allied nations operating in the same waters. 

Although, the presence of a “massive cover-up” being enacted immediately upon the Vanguard’s return to port is unacceptable and begs the question as to whether the Royal Navy and French Navy really learned the right lessons or if they just figured out how to downplay things better.

The Subs Involved

Britain’s HMS Vanguard was the lead boat in the Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarine. It displaced 16,000 tons when submerged. It registered a length of around 149.9 meters, or 492 feet. Its beam was 12.8 meters (42 feet).

More importantly, though, the Vanguard’s propulsion system consisted on of one nuclear reactor, two steam turbines, one shaft and 20,000 ship-based horsepower. With this engine alignment, the Vanguard could reach a top cruising speed of 25 knots (or 29 miles per hour) when submerged. She carried a crew of 135. 

As for armaments, this particular sub carried 16 Trident II D5 ballistic missiles and had four torpedo tubes for Spearfish torpedoes. 

On the other end of the collision was France’s Le Triomphant, the lead boat of the French navy’s Triomphant-class ballistic missile submarine. This boat displaced a total of 14,335 tons when submerged. She had a length of 138 meters (453 feet), a beam of 12.5 meters (41 feet), making her slightly smaller than the Vanguard.

Like her British counterpart, the Triomphant also relied upon a single nuclear reactor to power two steam turbines with one shaft, giving the boat 15,000 ship-based horsepower. So, she was slightly less powerful than the Vanguard. 

As for speed, she topped out at 25 knots—29 miles per hour—just like the British submarine did. 

The Triomphant carried 15 M45 ballistic missiles and had four torpedo tubes for F17 torpedoes.

This incident on the High Seas between two allied nations that simply were not aware that each other had submarines operating in the same Area of Responsibility (AOR) could have been far worse than it was. The two submarines, as you have read, were nuclear-powered. Thus, these boats could have become like Chernobyl under the waves. 

Thankfully, that fate was avoided. But this incident was a clear wake-up call.

Both Britain and France (and the rest of NATO) have all updated their policies for coordinating with allied foreign navies to ensure nothing like this incident occurs. 

Yet, there are plenty of other parts of the world where nuclear submarines belonging to navies that do not get along with each other operate frequently. 

Implications for Sino-American Interactions Beneath the Sea

Just recently, in fact, the USS Connecticut is believed to have crashed into an undersea mountain (seamount) in the crowded South China Sea while it was possibly conducting a covert surveillance mission of China’s secretive naval base at Hainan Island. 

It was a major source of embarrassment for the US Navy because, the incident not only revealed what the Connecticut was up to but it also put a dent in the Navy’s limited Seawolf-class fleet. 

The Connecticut will not return to service for another year. What’s more, it was quite a propaganda boon for China. Beijing rubbed salt in the wound by claiming—erroneously—that the Connecticut had created an unspecified “environmental disaster.” 

Shortly thereafter, rumors abounded that China lost a Type 093 Shang-class nuclear submarine in the Taiwan Strait. It was never confirmed but this came on the heels of the Connecticut incident. Just imagine the nightmare scenario of the Connecticut had collided with a Chinese nuclear-powered Shang-class submarine. It would have been radioactive nightmare fuel for the region.

Thus, the need for stealth is naval engagements should be well understood but it must also be stressed that, in the nuclear age, such secrecy could lead to truly devastating consequences unless some form of modus vivendi is crafted between Washington and Beijing to deescalate certain crises. 

This was done throughout the Cold War.

The Chinese, sadly, continue to rebuff American requests to create a reliable backchannel between the two superpowers. 

France and Britain are key allies and the incident involving their submarines in the Atlantic in 2009 was relatively isolated. No casualties were reported and the two crews could aid each other and then their governments could cordially assess what had happened. 

A Sino-American collision, which is likely to occur given the tension and interactions thus far between the two powers, could either lead to an environmental catastrophe. Or worse, it could lead to a world war. 

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. 

From the Vault

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

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

Summary and Top Points: In 2009, a rare and alarming incident occurred when two nuclear-armed submarines, the UK’s HMS Vanguard and France’s Le Triomphant, collided deep beneath the Atlantic Ocean.

-While no injuries or radioactive leaks were reported, both vessels were damaged, highlighting the risks submarines face even from allied forces.

-The collision, involving two of NATO’s most secretive ballistic missile submarines, underscored the challenges of "waterspace management" agreements, which exclude the exact locations of these strategic assets to maintain their secrecy.

-The incident added to a history of submarine collisions, raising debates over whether greater data sharing among allies could prevent future mishaps.

Collision of Nuclear Submarines: UK's HMS Vanguard and France's Le Triomphant Incident

While many have heard of submarines crashing to the bottom of the ocean floor or colliding with underwater mountains, it is harder to imagine that sometimes a ship’s greatest danger is simply another ship. 

In 2009, two nuclear-armed submarines from France and the United Kingdom collided deep under the Atlantic Ocean. While no radioactivity was released, both ships were damaged when the Royal Navy’s HMS Vanguard struck France’s Trident-class Le Triomphant submarine. No crew members or injuries were reported by either country.

An Overview of the Incident

When the HMS Vanguard returned to its base in Scotland days later, it had visible damage on its starboard side and near its missile compartment. A whistleblower who served in the UK’s nuclear submarine program later claimed that, “The French submarine had took a massive chunk out of the front of HMS Vanguard and grazed down the side of the boat. The High Pressured Air (HPA) bottle groups were hanging off and banging against the pressure hull. They had to return to base port slowly, because if one of HPA bottle groups exploded it would've created a chain reaction and sent the submarine plummeting to the bottom.” 

Perhaps the British government was minimizing the damage inflicted on the submarine in an effort to quell public concern over the potential dangers of nuclear leaks.

This freak accident was especially alarming since nuclear reactors power the ships, and both countries’ vessels routinely carry nuclear warheads onboard. Although “waterspace management” agreements among NATO allies direct member-states to advise one another of the general locations of submerged submarines, ballistic-missile-carrying ships are not included in the arrangement. 

France’s Le Triomphant submarine could carry sixteen M45 ballistic missiles, and the Vanguard could carry the same number of Trident II missiles. Additionally, each submarine could carry 4 and 6 nuclear warheads, respectively.

The Triomphant-Vanguard incident did not mark the first time two submarines collided. During the Cold War, Western and Soviet ships collided on several occasions, according to The New York Times. In 1992, the American-made Baton Rouge nuclear submarine was struck by a surfacing Russian sub in the Barents Sea. Only one year after this mishap, the Russian K-407 collided with the USS Grayling. Decades earlier, in the mid-1970s, the U.S. Navy’s USS James Madison collided with a Soviet Victor-class attack submarine roughly 30 miles off the coast of Glasgow, near Holy Loch. 

While some analysts argue that allies should share more data to mitigate the risks of future collisions, others argue that maintaining secrecy around nuclear-armed submarines is of the utmost importance. As Lee Willet of the Royal United Services Institute in London once put it, these vessels are the “strategic crown jewels” of any nation, and relaying such sensitive intelligence even to allies would be risky.

About the Maya Carlin

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

From The Vault

Did a Russian-Made Missile Hit an F-35?

Russia Has 1 Submarine Called the Black Hole 

Les progrès de l'intelligence artificielle éblouissent mais interrogent : la technologie ne passe-t-elle pas à côté de l'essentiel ? Dans les années 1970, des informaticiens hippies rêvaient de machines qui aident à développer notre intelligence « naturelle » et notre rapport au monde. / Informatique, (...) / Informatique, Histoire, Technologie, Bioéthique - 2024/08

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy is relocating the USS Minnesota (SSN-783), a Virginia-class fast attack submarine, from Hawaii to Guam, reinforcing its presence in the Indo-Pacific amid rising tensions with China.

-The deployment of this nuclear-powered submarine to Guam, part of the strategic second island chain, aims to counter China’s maritime activities in the region. The USS Minnesota, which recently completed extensive maintenance, will enhance the U.S. Navy's capabilities in sea control, power projection, and deterrence.

-This move underscores the U.S. commitment to maintaining stability and security in the Indo-Pacific.

U.S. Navy to Deploy Virginia-class Submarine in Guam

The Hub of the Pacific will soon be the homeport for a submarine named after the Land of 10,000 Lakes.

The U.S. Navy is adding to its submarine squadron on the U.S. territory of Guam. USS Minnesota (SSN-783), the 10th and final Block II Virginia-class fast attack submarine, is now scheduled to change homeport from Hawaii to Guam.

The nuclear-powered, conventionally armed cruise missile submarine is being deployed to counter China's naval buildup and expanded operations in the Indo-Pacific. The submarine recently completed an extended docking selected restricted availability (EDSRA) at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility. It began sea trials in June.

"During the maintenance period, the shipyard and crew performed tank blasting and coating, hull preservation, propulsion and ship system repairs, modernization upgrades and made enhancements to mechanical and electrical systems. Following certification, the crew will work together to maintain readiness and is scheduled to homeport shift to Guam later in the year," the U.S. Navy announced earlier this year. 

Heading to the Second Island Chain

Beginning on Oct. 1, SSN-783 will be homeported from Guam, part of the second island chain that stretches from Japan to Micronesia. The first island chain includes the Kuril Islands, the main Japanese archipelago, and Taiwan, while it also stretches to the northern Philippines and the Malay Peninsula.

A concern for Washington has been China's gray zone operations in the first island chain. By maintaining a strong presence in the second island chain, the U.S. seeks to ensure Beijing doesn't take control of the Indo-Pacific in a time of war. The deployment of a Virginia-class submarine is meant as a defensive measure. 

"The Navy routinely assesses its overseas force positioning, to include forward-deployed naval force submarines homeported in Guam," Lt. Cmdr. Rick Moore, a spokesperson for the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander's principal adviser on submarine affairs, told Newsweek. "We are committed to posturing our most capable platforms to preserve peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region."

Guam is the westernmost territory of the United States, located just 1,500 to 1,700 miles from the Taiwan Strait and sitting near the contested waters of the East and South China Seas, the magazine also noted. The last homeport change for USS Minnesota was in March 2022, when the boat was redeployed from Groton, Connecticut, to Pearl Harbor.

The Virginia-Class in the Crosshairs

The U.S Navy's Virginia-class submarines first entered service in 2004, replacing the aging Cold War-era Los Angeles class. The Virginia was designed to incorporate the latest advances in stealth and weapons systems. The boats can handle a variety of open-ocean and littoral missions, including anti-submarine warfare as well as intelligence gathering. There are currently 22 Virginia-class submarines in active service out of the originally planned 66 boats – with current plans for the Navy to acquire at least an additional 30.

The nuclear-powered boats support five of the U.S. Navy's six core strategic maritime capabilities, including sea control, power projection, forward presence, maritime security, and deterrence. They do this through a combination of stealth, endurance, mobility, and firepower. The Virginia class remains the primary submarine for land, surface warfare, and anti-submarine attack missions, while its armaments include cruise missiles and torpedoes.

These SSNs have a fly-by-wire ship control system that provides improved shallow-water ship handling. The subs were also designed to deploy special operator forces including Navy SEALS. A reconfigurable torpedo room can accommodate a large number of SOFs and all their equipment for prolonged deployments and future off-board payloads.

The Third Vessel Named for Minnesota

SSN-783 is just the third U.S. Navy vessel to be named for Minnesota. The first was a wooden steam frigate launched in December 1855, when Minnesota was still a territory. The name for both the state and warship comes from a Lakota (Sioux) word that means "sky-tinted water."

The old frigate served with the U.S. Navy's East India Squadron and sailed some of the same waters the current USS Minnesota could call her stomping grounds. That first USS Minnesota saw service during the American Civil War and was damaged at the Battle of Hampton Roads – the historic showdown between the ironclads USS Monitor and CSS Virginia (aka Merrimack). Repaired and returned to duty, USS Minnesota later took part in the Second Battle of Fort Fisher. She was retired from service and burned as scrap to recover her iron fittings in 1901.

 

The second USS Minnesota (BB-22) was a 16,000-ton Connecticut-class pre-dreadnought battleship that served with the U.S. Navy's Great White Fleet, circumnavigating the globe in 1908-1909. It later was employed as a training ship during the First World War until being damaged after striking a German naval mine in September 1918. After repairs, her final duty was returning American soldiers from Europe after the end of the war. She was broken up in 1924.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu 

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

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: In the early days of Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the Antonov An-225 Mriya, the world's largest aircraft, was destroyed during a failed Russian raid on the Antonov Airport near Kyiv.

-The An-225, a symbol of Ukrainian and Soviet pride, was unable to escape due to maintenance, leaving it vulnerable during the Battle of Antonov Airport. Originally built to transport the Soviet Buran space orbiter, the An-225 was renowned for its immense cargo capacity and humanitarian missions.

-Ukraine has vowed to rebuild the iconic aircraft, though the effort could cost up to $3 billion.

Antonov An-225 Mriya: The World's Largest Aircraft Was Destroyed in Failed Russian Raid

In the early stages of Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the Kremlin mounted an attack on the Antonov Airport in Hostomel, outside the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv. The plan called for Russian paratroopers supported by helicopter gunships to seize the cargo airport, and its 11,483 foot (3,500 meter) runway that was capable of supporting the largest transport aircraft.

Things didn't go as planned, and the Battle of the Antonov Airport was one of Russia's first defeats during its "special military operation" – earning it comparisons to the failed Operation Market Garden that occurred 80 years ago next month during the Second World War.

Lost in the fighting that ensued for control of the airport was the world's largest plane, the Antonov An-225. The massive aircraft, named "Mriya" or "dream" in Ukrainian, had been parked at Hostomel Airport near Kyiv when it came under attack by Russian forces as they tried to take control of the facility.

According to a statement issued by Ukrainian defense conglomerate Ukroboronprom soon after the battle, the An-225 was unable to take off that day because one of its engines had been dismantled for repairs.

"Russia may have destroyed our 'Mriya'. But they will never be able to destroy our dream of a strong, free and democratic European state. We shall prevail!," Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba posted to Twitter (now X.com).

Large Transport Indeed

With more than two-and-a-half years of hindsight, a question still remains why Russia didn't try to capture the plane, as it had been a symbol of pride for the Soviet Union as much as for Ukraine.

The An-225 Mriya was a strategic airlift cargo aircraft developed by the Antonov Design Bureau in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) during the 1980s. Boasting a wingspan of 290 feet and a weight of 285 tons, the Mriya was widely acknowledged as the heaviest aircraft ever built.

The AN-225 was originally built to carry the Soviet Union Buran space orbiter, but its extreme size meant it also had an extremely large storage capacity of 950 cubic meters. It was large enough to carry 50 cars or five main battle tanks (MBT) – but it was largely used to transport energy production systems, electric generators and fuel for nuclear power stations. 

It could carry twice as much as a Boeing 747 freighter, but its size required that it was powered by six engines that each produced 51,590 pounds of thrust. Despite its massive size, it was hardly an aircraft that boasted much in the way of creature comforts – and the crew had to access the cockpit via a ladder.

The Mriya could carry a massive payload, yet, it only made around 10 flights annually.

The AN-225 was often employed to help airlift aid during crises around the globe, CNN reported following its destruction. In the aftermath of the 2010 Haiti earthquake, Mriya delivered relief supplies to the neighboring Dominican Republic; and during the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic the massive plane was used to transport medical supplies to affected areas.

However, the massive transport aircraft garnered an equally substantial following among aviation enthusiasts, and regularly drew crowds wherever it went. Its loss was seen as a significant blow to Ukraine's defense industry as well as the nation's aerospace infrastructure, which had received significant investment in 2021 with the aim of providing Ukrainian forces with high-tech, locally sourced equipment.

Only one AN-225 was completed, although a second was planned – with the effort finally ended in 2009. Kyiv has said it will rebuild the Mriya, which aviation experts suggest could cost as much as $3 billion.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

How fast can the B-2 Stealth Bomber fly? Well, we don’t really know. That information is classified. Maybe, when the B-2 is retired over the course of the next decade, the B-2’s speed will finally be revealed, at least we think so.

What we do know is that the B-2 can travel at “high subsonic” speed. Assume somewhere in the Mach 0.7-0.9 range. So, a B-2 probably flies about as fast as you might travel commercially from LAX to JFK. Maybe a little faster.

That’s assuming the “high subsonic” descriptor is accurate. Could the Air Force be downplaying the speed of the B-2 for the sake of causing America’s adversaries to miscalculate for a slower aircraft? Sure, it’s possible.

But the B-2 doesn’t look like it’s built for speed. The airframe looks like it was built for stealth, which for a time, the B-2 was.

B-2 Speed? That's Classified. Sorry 

A lot of information about the B-2 is classified. The B-2 was the world’s first stealth bomber. The B-2 is still the world’s only stealth bomber. So the novelty of the airframe would inspire curiosity, perhaps espionage efforts.

But it’s not just the novelty of the B-2 that has US officials playing their cards close, it’s the capabilities of the platform. The B-2 can deliver either conventional or nuclear ordnance. And when the B-2 debuted it could deliver its ordnance without tripping the air space wires of our enemies. In effect, the Americans had method for sneaking into enemy air space and dropping a nuclear bomb wherever they chose, without detection.

That’s a game-changing geopolitical tool with technical data that the Americans were highly incentivized to protect – and which America’s adversaries were highly incentivized to obtain. The significance of the B-2 has waned over time, in direct ratio to the increase of sophistication of air defense systems.

So, as countries like Russia and China have developed more sensitive aircraft detection and tracking systems, the B-2’s stealth has become more and more outdated.

Today, the B-2 just doesn’t have the sneak-past-enemy-lines ability that it once had. That’s why the B-21 is under development. To give Americans that strategic edge again.

B-2 Bomber Is All Stealth

But for the B-21, like the B-2 before, speed will never be the emphasis. The designers were not building an airframe for speed. For speed, the Americans can rely on the B-1 Lancer (at least until the B-1 itself is retired) or any of their myriad fighter jets. In designing the B-2 compromises were made for the sake of stealth. For example, the engines were likely designed and situated not with a priority for maximizing thrust-to-weight ratio but for minimizing the exhaust signature.

The flight control surfaces were not designed to minimize drag (and hence increase speed) but to minimize the radar cross section (RCS).

Speed has its value, especially in a defensive context, as an interceptor,  for example. But speed means little these days with respect to penetrating air space – until you get to speeds at which an airframe can outrun a missile, that is – then speed becomes relevant again.

But for the B-2, and the forthcoming B-21, speed will not be the point.  

About the Author: Harrison Kass 

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

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The B-21 Raider, designed to replace the B-2 Spirit, represents the next generation of stealth technology. Claims suggest it could have a radar cross section (RCS) as small as that of an insect. Indeed, expectations could be the bomber's biggest enemy for the moment. 

-Developed by Northrop Grumman, the B-21 is engineered to penetrate advanced anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) defenses, a necessity given the increasing sophistication of such systems.

-While details remain largely classified, the B-21 is expected to incorporate refined stealth features, advanced avionics, and upgraded systems to ensure it can operate in contested airspaces, maintaining strategic deterrence in modern conflicts where older airframes like the B-2 may fall short.

B-21 Raider: The Next Evolution in Stealth Technology

The B-21 Raider is slated to replace the B-2 Spirit, which was itself a game-changing stealth platform. But the B-2 is a generation-old, and aerospace designers have been refining their stealth capabilities in the thirty years since the B-2 was developed.

The B-21 promises to be the culmination of those stealth refining efforts, with some claiming that the new stealth bomber will have the radar cross section (RCS) of an insect. While the claim – that a large, fuel-guzzling military aircraft could have the RCS of a honeybee – seems hyperbolic, one Washington thinktank is backing the claim, and urging the US to pursue large-scale acquisition of the B-21.

How Stealthy Is the New B-21?

“The multi-author paper from the Hudson Institute stresses the strategic deterrence potential of the Northrop Grumman B-21 based on its ability to penetrate the most sophisticated anti-access-area denial (A2/AD) defenses, its long range and flexibility,” Forbes reported.

The bit about being able to penetrate the most sophisticated A2/AD defenses is oblique, technical jargon for: the B-21 is extremely stealth aka has a miniscule RCS. So, whereas a non-stealth airframe, with a relatively large RCS, would not be able to penetrate even rudimentary A2/AD defenses, an airframe capable of penetrating sophisticated A2/AD defenses is impliedly very stealth (low RCS).

The ever-increasing sophistication of A2/AD defenses is what has necessitated the reciprocating increase in stealth sophistication. Air space is getting harder to penetrate. Airframes with smaller RCS signatures are becoming required to penetrate those air spaces.

Fourth-generation fighters like the F-15 and F-16 are relatively useless against sophisticated adversaries with A2/AD systems in place, meaning the fourth-generation fighters would be relegated to defensive roles only in a modern conflict.

Even the B-2, which debuted as the world’s first stealth bomber and forced America’s enemies to make geopolitical recalculations to account for the fact that there was now a nuclear-armed bomber that could move about unseen, has lost its stealth edge; the B-2’s exact stealth measurements are not public information, but one can presume that at least part of the Air Force’s impetus in replacing the $2-billion-per-unit B-2 bomber was because the B-2 could no longer penetrate air space as smoothly as it once could.

What Will the B-21 Raider Be Capable of?

Not a whole lot is known about the B-21. The new bomber is undergoing initial flight testing, we know that, but for the most part, the program is cloaked in secrecy. The most telling disclosure that the program has offered is a set of pictures.

The pictures show an airframe that looks almost like a carbon copy of the B-2 – a flying wing. Presumably, if one were to dig into the granular details of the airframe, the B-21 would feature subtle changes from the B-2 – changes that lower the RCS relative to the ageing B-2. And presumably, if one were to peak under the hood, they would find upgraded hardware, computer and avionic systems that were befitting a twenty-first-century weapons project.

About the Author: Harrison Kass 

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The USS Florida, one of the U.S. Navy's oldest nuclear missile submarines, returned to port after an impressive 727 days on patrol. Launched in 1981, the submarine traveled over 60,000 nautical miles, conducting five crew swaps during its deployment across the Middle East, Mediterranean, and Indo-Pacific.

-Equipped with nearly 160 Tomahawk missiles and capable of carrying special operations troops, the USS Florida showcased its enduring operational capabilities.

-Refitted in 2003 from a ballistic missile to a guided missile submarine, it remains a key component of the Navy's fleet, which boasts the world's largest and most powerful submarine force.

USS Florida: A Ohio-Class Submarine SSGN Like No Other 

On the last day of July, one of the oldest nuclear missile submarines in the U.S. Navy returned to port after close to 750 days on patrol.

Launched in 1981 and commissioned two years later, the USS Florida is one of the oldest submarines in service. However, its recent feat showed that it still has it.

Two Years On Patrol

The USS Florida departed in August 2022 and visited the Middle East, Mediterranean, and Indo-Pacific areas of operations. During its 727 days at sea, the nuclear-powered submarine conducted five crew swaps, ensuring that it had a fresh crew to meet operational challenges, while also maintaining constant vigilance.

In 727 days of routine and combat operations, the USS Florida covered more than 60,000 nautical miles and visited Greece, Guam, Diego Garcia, and the United Kingdom for official port calls.

“We have demonstrated the versatility of SSGN platform to operate anywhere at any time. We operated in several different oceans. It's very uncommon for East Coast submarines to deploy to the west coast, but we managed to do an exceptional job completing the mission,” U.S. Navy Captain Peter French, of the USS Florida’s commanding officer, said in a press statement after the sub came home.

Equipped with almost 160 Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missiles, the USS Florida is a floating gunship that can rain terror and destruction thousands of miles away. In addition, it can carry special operations troops.

“During their deployment, the crews conducted vital missions crucial to national security, enhancing operational capabilities and reinforcing deterrence effort,” the Navy stated.

Navy submarines have two crews—gold and blue—that alternate while the vessel remains at sea almost continuously.

“Our Sailors are the true strength for our boat and the Navy. They consistently impress me with their unwavering dedication to the submarine force. We train and we fight as a family, and I’m excited to get the crews back home to the actual families and enjoy some much needed time off,” Master Chief Electronics Technician Submarine, Navigation Christopher L. Martell, the gold crew chief of the boat, stated.

In 2003, the USS Florida underwent significant refitting. Its nuclear reactor was refueled—submarines powered by nuclear reactors require refueling once every 20 years or so—and it was also converted from a ballistic missile submarine to a guided missile submarine. Ballistic missile subs carry ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads and are designed for nuclear deterrence missions, while guided missile subs carry cruise missiles and are tasked with land attack missions. The Navy refitted several Ohio-class ballistic missile subs to Ohio-class guided missile subs because the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War made a large number of the former redundant.

The U.S. Navy has the largest and strongest submarine fleet in the world, with 71 vessels. Specifically, the Navy has three categories of submarines: attack(53), ballistic missile (14), and guided missile (4). All of these vessels are nuclear-powered, but only the 14 Ohio-class subs carry nuclear warheads.

About the Author: 

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

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.