Diplomacy & Crisis News

Summary and Key Points: The Lockheed Martin F-21 is a highly upgraded version of the F-16, tailored specifically for India's defense needs. Although not a fifth-generation fighter like the F-22 Raptor, the F-21 is a fourth-generation ++ aircraft that incorporates advanced technologies, making it a formidable hybrid.

-The F-21 features enhancements like new cockpit displays, conformal fuel tanks, and compatibility with India's Russian-made aerial tankers.

-If India proceeds with the proposed $18 billion deal for over 100 F-21s, it would significantly boost India's air force capabilities, enhance interoperability with Western defense systems, and reduce reliance on Russian military equipment.

The F-21: India’s Answer to the F-22?

At what point does an upgrade simply create a new plane altogether? That’s the question that comes to mind when thinking about the Lockheed Martin F-21 that India wants to purchase. The F-21 is not as well-known as the F-22 Raptor. But it should be. 

While not a fifth-generation fighter as the F-22 is, the F-21 is a fourth-generation ++ warplane that serves as a hybrid between the two generations. The F-21 is based on the ubiquitous F-16, but it might be more F-22 and less F-16, which, for India, would be a very helpful thing.

Understanding the F-21

For the F-21, Lockheed “has upgraded [the plane] with new cockpit displays, conformal fuel tanks, a larger air frame spine that can accommodate additional electronics, fittings for towed radar decoys, a new infrared sensor and a refueling probe that’s compatible with India’s Russian-made aerial tankers,” according to a 2019 article by David Axe. 

Some analysts hold that Lockheed’s F-21 is really “only a step behind” the F-22. That’s an incredible thought, especially considering how much cheaper the F-21 is. 

The purchase of the F-21 is part of the Make in India policy enacted by the government of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The goal is to ensure key systems are built in India, both to enhance the security of supply chains and to modernize India’s defense sector. 

The Geopolitics 

The F-21 program ensures that in very practical ways, the Indian military no longer relies on Russia for its major strategic systems. Since India achieved its independence, Indian elites have remained firmly aligned with Russia. 

During the Cold War, as a “non-aligned” nation, India enjoyed special access and privileges in the Soviet Union. This ensured India would receive top-of-the-line military equipment and training from Moscow.

Despite the USSR being the special relationship between India and Russia persisted for decades.

Indeed, old habits die hard. 

Even as the Indian government looks to pivot away from Russia and to diversify its defense relations, India has backstopped the Russian war machine in Ukraine by purchasing excess Russian energy products that were sanctioned by the West. That’s less to do with supporting Russia and more to do with simple self-interest on the part of Indian leaders. Their country benefits mightily from purchasing affordable, abundant, and reliable sources of energy from nearby Russia. 

But incorporating India into the F-16 family would ensure that, in the long-run, India became a distant partner to Russia and a much closer one to the West. Plus, India would gain significant advantages in terms of interoperability with Western defense systems. 

The F-21 program, if it is fully realized, would give India decisive competitive advantages over their chaotic Pakistani rivals and their rising Chinese foes. The F-21 would give India’s air force a big boost in deterring China as tensions along their shared border continue. 

Between the new technologies and the boon to India’s defense and its industrial sector, the sooner that New Delhi executes a proposed deal with Lockheed and gets more than 100 planes at $18 billion, the better off everyone will be. 

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.

Longtemps le mot a servi d'adjectif. À la faveur de l'affaire Dreyfus, « intellectuel » devient le nom de ceux dont les actes engagent la réflexion, gardiens de l'idéal républicain contre la presse d'argent, le sabre, le goupillon. La droite alors les moque, leur reproche de trahir les traditions. (...) / Intellectuels, Idées, Société - 2024/08

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Air Force's B-21 Raider, which had its maiden flight in November 2022, is set to become the backbone of the Air Force's long-range strike capabilities. However, the total number of bombers to be produced remains uncertain.

-The initial plan is for a minimum of 100 units, with decisions about increasing that number expected in the mid-to-late 2030s. While designed to counter near-peer threats like China, the B-21's high cost—around $700 million per unit—may limit production.

-The bomber is being developed with advanced digital engineering and an open systems architecture for future adaptability.

The B-21 Raider Numbers Game Is Not Set 

The U.S. Air Force's B-21 Raider represents the next leap forward in strategic bomber technology, having taken its maiden flight in November of 2022.

As it moves through development towards becoming the backbone of the Air Force's long-range strike capabilities, questions about the total number of units to be produced remain open. The initial plan for a minimum of 100 bombers aims to modernize and replace aging fleets, with a focus on countering emerging threats from near-peer adversaries like China.

The B-21 Raider's Uncertain Future: Balancing Cost and Capability

The U.S. Air Force's B-21 Raider took its maiden flight last November. While progress is being made on developing the future backbone of the Air Force's bomber fleet, there is still no solid consensus on how many of the long-range strategic bombers will be produced. A formal decision is unlikely to be made anytime soon.

"The decision point, with lead time accounted for, to go past 100 is not until the mid to late '30s," Lt. Gen. Richard G. Moore Jr. told lawmakers on the House Armed Services Committee on March 12.

"So the commitment right now is to 100 aircraft. That takes us for procurement into the late '30s," Moore added. "The decision whether or not to go past that may very well not be based on China, because it will be made at a time when we don't foresee the security environment and we don't need to."

As reported by Air & Space Forces magazine, the Air Force planned to acquire a minimum of 100 B-21 Raiders to replace its aging B-1B Lancers and B-2 Spirits. The Raider is set to operate alongside the even older B-52 Stratofortress until the late 2040s, and perhaps even beyond. However, officials at Air Force Global Strike Command have argued that the service needs more of the future stealth bombers to effectively counter near-peer adversaries, notably China.

In addition to the single B-21 currently being used for flight testing, at least five other prototype Raiders are in various stages of production. Those six will be dedicated to test activities, but after the developmental and operational testing has been completed, they will be modified into operational bombers.

B-21 Raider: From Six to 100 (or More)

It is unclear whether the Air Force will reach the minimum of 100 bombers requested by 2039. That will require annual production of six or seven bombers. The service hasn't disclosed how many aircraft are being produced throughout the Low-Rate Initial Production phase, which the bombers entered in January. 

Aerospace firm Northrop Grumman was awarded the contract to produce the next-generation bomber in 2015, and the company quickly assembled a nationwide team to design, test, and build the B-21. The Raider – named for the 80 men who took part in the World War II Doolittle Raid on Tokyo in the spring of 1942 – was developed using the aerospace firm's digital engineering practices and advanced manufacturing techniques in tandem.

The testing aircraft are being built on the same lines, using the same tools and processes, that will build the eventual full-production aircraft. That approach was adopted to enable production engineers and technicians to capture lessons learned and apply them directly to follow-on aircraft, driving home a focus on repeatability, producibility, and quality.

Some 8,000 employees of Northrop Grumman and various other defense contractors of all sizes, spread across 40 states, have been secretly building the Air Force's new stealth bomber. Great efforts have been taken to prevent China and other potential adversaries from gaining access to its technology.

In addition to building a bomber with state-of-the-art technology and capabilities, Air Force officials have further emphasized the focus on containing costs while simultaneously allowing for maximum flexibility. The B-21 has been noted for being designed with an open systems architecture that would enable rapid integration of future capabilities to keep pace with the highly contested threat environment.

Yet, in addition to the Raider being the most advanced aircraft built to date, it could also be among the most expensive planes to ever fly, with each costing around $700 million. That could affect how many are built.

The Raider may also not be alone in the skies, as China could officially unveil its Xi'an H-20 to the public in the coming months.

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.

More from National Interest

PAK DA - Russia Is Building a New Stealth Bomber 

Houthis Might Have Attacked a Navy Aircraft Carrier - Report 

Did Moscow Really Ask Washington to Stop Ukrainian Attack on Putin's Parade?: Russia's "special military operation" in Ukraine has dragged on for more than two and a half years. During that time, the Russian Navy's Black Sea Fleet has lost its flagship and numerous other vessels. 

There are now reports that Moscow worried about the possibility of Ukrainian attacks on annual Navy Day celebrations in St. Petersburg, and that the Kremlin even reached out to the United States to deter Ukraine.

According to the Ukrainian news outlet Pravda, "The Russian Ministry of Defence asked U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin to persuade Ukraine not to conduct military operations in Russia on the country's Navy Day on 28 July."

According to reports, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov claimed on TV channel Russia-1 that Defense Minister Andrei Belousov "personally called" Austin to discuss the matter, warning that such an attack could cause an escalation.

Was Ukraine Looking to Carry Out an Attack?

Kyiv has not confirmed it was preparing for an attack, but as previously reported, the Kremlin significantly scaled back the event, which has been a national holiday in Russia since 2017. Russian President Vladimir Putin regularly attends Navy Day celebrations, which typically include a parade of Russian and foreign military vessels.

The main parade, normally held at the Russian naval base in Kronstadt, was canceled. A smaller event in St. Petersburg on the Neva River was scaled back, reportedly due to security concerns. This year, the event included warships from India and China, but Russia's presence was much smaller than usual.

Multiple Russian media outlets are reporting that the Ukrainian intelligence service had very much planned an attack, including an assassination attempt on Putin and Belousov at the Navy Day parade. According to a report from The New York Times last week that cited two U.S. officials, "Pentagon officials were surprised by the allegation and unaware of such a plot."

The paper of record further stated, "Despite Ukraine's deep dependence on the United States for military, intelligence and diplomatic support, Ukrainian officials are not always transparent with their American counterparts about their military operations."

The New York Times suggested the call offered a "rare glimpse behind the scenes of a sensitive call between defense ministers," which "illustrates how much more there often is to private conversations between American and Russian officials than what is revealed to the public."

It would seem that Washington and Moscow are maintaining a dialog to manage escalation risks, even as the United States and the West continue to provide aid to Kyiv. However, Belousov reportedly "pointed to the danger" of such escalation due precisely to that aid. The two Pentagon sources also confirmed that Austin responded to his Russian counterpart by urging him not to threaten American forces in Europe or elsewhere.

The question is whether Russia actually knew there was an ongoing plot or simply wanted to ensure there would be no attack. It also remains unclear whether Washington instructed Kyiv not to carry out such a strike.

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: In a historic first, the U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) successfully landed an AC-130J Ghostrider Gunship on a highway in Arkansas during the Emerald Warrior Field Training Exercise II.

-This operation, which also included the landing of a C-145A Wolfhound and an MC-130J Commando II, demonstrated AFSOC's Agile Combat Employment (ACE) capabilities, highlighting the ability to operate in austere environments without traditional runways.

-The exercise involved setting up a Forward Arming and Refueling Point (FARP) on the highway, showcasing the Ghostrider’s flexibility in providing close air support, air interdiction, and armed reconnaissance in any location.

AC-130 Just Landed on a Highway – On Purpose

There is a longstanding myth that the United States interstate system was designed to serve as de facto airstrips in a time of war. While that isn't true, the United States military still regularly conducts training operations on remote roads and highways that include employing the stretches as runways.

Normally, however, it is fighters and smaller aircraft that are used in such operations.

On Sunday, the Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) went a little bigger after it landed an AC-130J Ghostrider Gunship on Highway 63 outside of Bono, Arkansas. According to the AFSOC, the historic first operation was part of the Emerald Warrior Field Training Exercise II – designed to highlight the unit's Agile Combat Employment (ACE) capabilities.

"This exercise serves as a significant milestone for AFSOC, demonstrating our ability to operate in diverse and austere environments," said Tech. Sgt. Robert Gallagher, lead planner for the highway landings, assigned to the AFSOC Air Commando Development Center. "By leveraging ACE concepts, we enhance our operational flexibility and resilience."

Airmen or "Highway Men"

There is much more than just wheels down and hoping for the best to make use of Highway 63, of course, and the Special Tactics airmen from the 1st Special Operations Wing became highway men and women. They worked in the early morning to secure the landing zone in time for a U.S. Air Force C-145A Wolfhound and MC-130J Command II – both from the 492nd Special Operations Wing – to land on the five-lane highway.

The crew from the latter aircraft then quickly deployed a Forward Arming and Refueling Point (FARP) – essentially setting up a mobile service station for the AC-130J that was assigned to the 1st Special Operations Wing at Hurlburt Field, Florida.

Life is a Highway for AC-130

With everything ready, the Lockheed-made Ghostrider made its approach, landed, quickly refueled and rearmed, and was back in the sky. Speed on the ground was a crucial part of the mission.

"The primary objective of this exercise was to validate AFSOC's capability to operate in austere environments with minimal infrastructure. Key tasks included securing the landing zone and performing FARP operations, both critical elements of the ACE framework," AFSOC acknowledged.

The training exercise served to highlight how even large aircraft like the AC-130J Ghostrider doesn't need a full-blown facility to accomplish its primary missions, which is to provide close air support, air interdiction, and armed reconnaissance.

"Emerald Warrior FTX II demonstrates to our adversaries that we can meet them anytime, anyplace, anywhere, without the need for traditional runways to project air power," said Col. Patrick Dierig, 1 SOW commander. "By landing an AC-130J on a highway and conducting FARP, we're proving our ability to operate in austere and unique environments. It shows our commitment to maintain operational flexibility and readiness, ensuring we can deliver decisive airpower whenever and wherever it’s needed."

Truly a Flying Gunship

In its current configuration, the AC-130J is operated by two pilots, one combat systems officer, one weapons system operator, one sensor operator, and four special mission aviators. It is armed with a 30mm GAU-23/A Bushmaster autocannon and a 105mm cannon.

The aircraft has a range of 3,000 miles.

"The AC-130J provides ground forces an expeditionary, direct-fire platform that is persistent, ideally suited for urban operations and delivers precision low-yield munitions against ground targets," the U.S. Air Force noted on the aircraft's fact sheet website.

Last year, there was speculation that the Ghostrider could lose its main gun.

Though removing the weapon would seem to limit the capabilities of the aircraft, the Air Force is now rethinking how it will employ its heavily armed gunships as greater focus shifts to near-peer adversaries such as China. Instead of the 105mm cannon, the Air Force may opt to arm the Ghostriders with small cruise missiles for standoff strikes. In addition, the modern flying fortress could be equipped with an advanced active electronically scanned array radar for improved tracking of ground targets.

Video: AC-130 Gunship Turns Highway into Runway: Historic First Landing and Takeoff 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: The Soviet Union and its successor, Russia, have long grappled with developing a robust naval aviation capability, culminating in the troubled Admiral Kuznetsov, Russia's only aircraft carrier. Built at the end of the Cold War, Kuznetsov has faced numerous technical issues and remains in refit, with doubts about its future operational status.

-Despite its challenges, Russia values aircraft carriers for their strategic and prestige roles. However, the country's shipbuilding industry has struggled to modernize its fleet, and plans for new carriers remain uncertain.

-Russia may need to consider alternative approaches, including potentially ordering a carrier from Chinese shipyards.

Russia's Aircraft Carrier Nightmare Is Far From Ever Being Over 

Considered a land power, the Soviet Union grappled with the idea of a large naval aviation arm for most of its history, eventually settling on a series of hybrid aircraft carriers. Big plans for additional ships died with the Soviet collapse, but Russia inherited one large aircraft carrier at the end of the Cold War—that remains in service today. Although many of the problems that wracked the naval aviation projects of the Soviet Union remain today, the Russian Navy nevertheless sported one of the more active aircraft carriers in the world--until problems hit.

History of Russian Naval Aviation

The Soviet Union made several efforts at developing aircraft carriers early in its history, but a lack of resources, combined with a geography that emphasized the importance of land power, made serious investment impossible. During the Cold War, the first naval aviation success were Moskva and Leningrad, a pair of helicopter carriers designed primarily for antisubmarine warfare. These ships, ungainly in appearance, displaced 17,000 tons, could make about thirty knots, and each carried eighteen helicopters. Moskva entered service in 1967, Leningrad in 1969. The Moskvas were succeeded by the Kiev class, much closer to true aircraft carriers. Displacing 45,000 tons, the four Kievs (each built to a slightly different design) could make thirty-two knots and carry a combination of about thirty helicopters and Yak-38 VSTOL fighters.

All of these ships left service at the end of the Cold War; the Moskvas and one of the Kievs were scrapped, two Kievs ended up as museums in China, and one was eventually reconstructed and sold to India as INS Vikramaditya. In the 1980s, the Soviet Union laid down its first two true carriers, although only one was completed before the collapse of the country.

Current State of Russia’s Carrier Force

At the moment, Russia’s only aircraft carrier is the troubled Admiral Kuznetsov.

A ski jump carrier, the Kuznetsov displaces some 60,000 tons, can theoretically make thirty knots, and carry a combination of forty-or-so helicopters and jet fighters.

 Kuzentsov was commissioned in 1990; a sister remained an incomplete hulk for many years until it was purchased by China and eventually finished as Liaoning. In addition to helicopters, Kuznetsov operates MiG-29K and Su-33 fighter bombers. Like previous Russian carriers, Kuznetsov sports a heavier missile armament than most Western ships.

Unfortunately, hiccups with Kuznetsov have also made it difficult for Russia’s naval aviators to remain practiced and effective. The ship has suffered multiple breakdowns over its career, including significant issues with its engines and recovering aircraft.

Many of these difficulties came as consequence of the dramatic decline of maintenance funding at the end of the Cold War, but some was the inevitable result of inexperience with the platform type. Admiral Kuznetsov has engaged in several prestige cruises, but its most notable service came in 2016 off of Syria. After a much publicized journey to the Mediterranean, Kuznetsov conducted combat operations for two months. The operations had more of a publicity impact than a real military effect, and Kuznetsov lost two aircraft (one MiG-29K and one Su-33) to accidents. The carrier is currently in refit, with many experts concluding it may never sail again.

To support Kuznetsov, Russia attempted to purchase a pair of French assault carriers, but the conquest and annexation of Crimea forced France to cancel the sale. These ships would have served as amphibious platforms with antisubmarine (ASW) capabilities, but also would have given the Russian navy experience with relatively large, technologically advanced vessels. Indeed, part of the deal would have allowed Russia to construct two Mistrals to French specifications in its own yards, which would have provided a major boon to Russian shipbuilding.

Strategic Rationale

Russia has a unique maritime geography, with four fleets operating from four coasts practically incapable of offering mutual support. During the Soviet period, carriers supported the fleet of nuclear ballistic missile submarines, offering air and ASW protection for the bastions in which these subs patrolled. This mission allowed the carriers to de-emphasize strike capabilities in favor of more defensive weaponry. More recently, the Russian navy has used Admiral Kuznetsov primarily as a vehicle for influence and prestige. Along with the nuclear battlecruiser Pyotr Velikiy and a few other ships, Kuznetsov is a visible manifestation of Russian naval power, forcing other nations to take note of Russian interests. As the Syria mission suggests, in the future Russia may focus more on developing strike capabilities in order to project power further.

The Future

Russia has cancelled more carriers than most countries have contemplated. In the 1970s the Soviet Union considered the 72,000-ton Orel-class nuclear aircraft carrier, but opted instead for the Kievs and the ships that would eventually become Kuznetsov and Liaoning. The Soviets laid down an 80,000-ton carrier named Ulyanovsk in 1988, but scrapped the incomplete ship when the Cold War ended.

Russian defense planners often announce projects as a means of gaining resources and prestige, rather than as part of a plan to build anything in particular. At one point, President Dmitri Medvedev suggested that Russia would build and operate six aircraft carriers by 2025; obviously, that’s not going to happen. 

No Aircraft Carriers for Russia?

The aviation capability of the Russian navy is dangling by a thread. Kuznetsov is old and in poor condition, and no carrier is even close to be laid down. The Russian surface fleet has not received a great deal of attention in the latest military modernization plans, and the Russian shipbuilding industry has not constructed a warship the size and sophistication of Kuzentsov since… well, Kuznetsov.

That said, the Kremlin seems to view aircraft carriers as an important contributor to national prestige. The Russian navy took great pains to get Kuznetsov into position to support operations in Syria, and despite the embarrassment associated with that, has now pushed the carrier into a major refit. If the Kremlin determines that it needs a carrier to keep pace with France, Britain, China and India, it will need to begin seriously considering how to build or acquire such a ship.

It is not inconceivable that Moscow may consider ordering a carrier from Chinese yards in the future, however profound a reversal that might seem. Otherwise, Russia needs to start solidifying its construction timelines soon.

About the Author: Dr. Robert Farley 

Robert Farley, a frequent contributor to the National Interest, is author of The Battleship Book. He serves as a Senior Lecturer at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce at the University of Kentucky. His work includes military doctrine, national security, and maritime affairs. He blogs at Lawyers, Guns and Money and Information Dissemination and The Diplomat.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: Navies initially explored hybrid battleship-aircraft carriers to integrate air power with traditional naval firepower. The Royal Navy's HMS Furious in 1918 marked the first attempt, leading to conversions like the Lexington and Amagi classes.

-Japan's WWII-era Hyuga and Ise carried aircraft but faced operational issues. The U.S. Navy also converted cruisers into Independence-class light carriers during WWII. However, these hybrid conversions often suffered from design flaws and limited success.

-Despite their shortcomings, these ships provided crucial lessons that shaped future purpose-built aircraft carriers.

The Unlikely Union: When Battleships Became Aircraft Carriers

Both aviators and sailors grasped early on that aircraft could revolutionize some aspects of naval warfare. At the very least, manned aircraft could supply the battlefleet with information about the enemy's size and disposition; at the most, these aircraft could deliver ordnance themselves. As the relationship between ships and aircraft developed, it became apparent that having some means of launching planes directly from ships offered the best chance of successfully integrating aircraft into fleet operations.

And almost as soon as navies began to contemplate the idea of aircraft-carrying warships, they started thinking about how to combine the virtues of the battleship and the aircraft carrier into a single large hull. For decades, usually with minimal success, navies would pursue the dream of a hybrid battleship-aircraft carrier.

Early Models

The first effort at a hybrid carrier hit the water in 1918. The Royal Navy, at a loss with what to do with the large, fast, but nearly useless HMS Furious, decided to convert her into a combination aviation warship. Initially intended to carry two 18” guns in single turrets, fore and aft, Furious was modified during construction to carry seaplanes, necessitating the removal of the forward turret.  Early trials indicated some prospect for the launching and landing of conventional aircraft, although such tests often proved fatal to aviators. Eventually, the aft turret was also removed, offering a more suitable arrangement and allowing Furious, along with several conventional aircraft, to engage in precursors to the great carrier raids of World War II.

At the end of the war, the Royal Navy ditched the idea of a hybrid, but still saw considerable value in big battleship hulls. Consequently, it fully converted Furious into an aircraft carrier, followed by her two half-sisters Courageous and Glorious. The incomplete battleship Eagle received the same treatment. The Washington Naval Treaty actively encouraged similar behavior in Japan and the United States, leading to the conversion into aircraft carriers of two Lexington-class battlecruisers, one Amagi-class battlecruiser, and one Tosa-class battleship. 

Even at this point, the allure of combining heavy guns with aircraft carrying capacity remained.  Many of the conversions continued to carry heavy (although not battleship caliber) guns, weapons that were often removed as the vulnerabilities of carriers to gunfire became apparent. For their part, most of the battleships that survived World War I and the interwar naval treaties acquired floatplanes of their own. Of new construction, the giant Yamatos could carry seven aircraft, and most other battleships two or three. The relationship between carrier and battleship would remain unsettled, but general agreement emerged that large warships should either be (mostly) aircraft carrier or (mostly) battleship. 

Success?

In the late 1930s, the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) built a pair of heavy cruisers, Tone and Chikuma, with the main armament forward and the aft deck dedicated to flight operations. This provided IJN task forces with a few extra scouting aircraft. In June 1942, the IJN Navy came to the conclusion that it required more flight decks. At first, it gave strong consideration to converting Hyuga and Ise, two of its older battleships into aircraft carriers. Expensive and time-consuming, this would have resulted in slow, substandard ships. Instead, IJN opted for half measures, removing the aft two turrets and replacing them with a flight deck, catapults, and other aviation equipment. Theoretically, Hyuga and Ise could now each carry thirteen aircraft of various types, while also retaining a main armament of 8 14” guns in four twin turrets. 

Japanese desperation continued to grow, however. Around the same time Hyuga and Ise entered reconstruction, the IJN determined to redesign one of its new Yamato-class battleships, then under construction, into an aircraft carrier. The resultant Shinano displaced around 60,000 tons and was, for a carrier, stoutly built and well-armored. Intended as an aviation support ship, she did not carry many aircraft, but had extensive machine shops, stores, and other facilities to provide services to a carrier battle group. 

Fortunately or not, the IJN never operated Hyuga and Ise in their carrier configuration. The lack of pilots and crew became more severe than the lack of flight decks, and the aviation areas of the ships were mostly used for anti-aircraft guns. Both ships almost encountered the U.S. battlefleet at Leyte Gulf, however, where they would have suffered from the lack of their rear turrets.  For her part, Shinano was lost to submarine attack during her shakedown cruise, and never launched aircraft in anger.

The United States Navy (USN) also returned to the well of carrier conversions, halting construction of nine Cleveland-class light cruisers and redesigning them as the Independence-class light aircraft carriers.  Although small, these ships were fast enough to support fleet carrier operations from 1943 on, and provided a key bridge between the early war carriers and the excellent Essex class ships.  The USN later built the two Saipan-class light carriers on Baltimore-class heavy cruiser hulls, and used design work for the massive Montana-class battleships on the huge Midway-class carriers. 

Final Shots: 

Few of the conversions were entirely successful. Every Japanese carrier converted from a battleship was lost during the war. Three out of the four British conversions met the same fate, as did USS Lexington and Independence-class carrier USS Princeton.  Converting battleships offered a shortcut to carrier aviation, but ensured that the resultant carriers would have significant design flaws.  Nevertheless, these early ships helped all of the navies develop lessons for their later, purpose-built aircraft carriers.

About the Author: Dr. Robert Farley 

Dr. Robert Farley, a frequent contributor to TNI, teaches at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce at the University of Kentucky. He is the author of the Battleship Book and can be found at @drfarls. 

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy's Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines, key components of America's nuclear deterrent, typically operate under secrecy. However, in June, the unusual location disclosure of USS Tennessee (SSBN-734) surfaced in the Norwegian Sea, alongside USS Normandy (CG-60) and strategic aircraft, signaled a calculated message.

-Such disclosures are rare, given the submarines' stealth and destructive capabilities.

-This public reveal likely responded to recent Russian naval activities, including the deployment of their guided-missile frigate Admiral Gorshkov and a nuclear submarine to the Caribbean. The U.S. Navy's move underscores its deterrence strategy and readiness to counter potential threats.

Why Did the U.S. Navy Reveal the Location of a Stealthy Ohio-Class Submarine?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. 

From the Vault

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

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

Summary and Top Line Points: The U.S. Navy's Seawolf-class submarines, developed at the end of the Cold War to outmatch Soviet capabilities, remain among the most advanced undersea warfare vessels. With only three constructed, these subs are equipped with cutting-edge technology, including Mark 48 torpedoes, Harpoon anti-ship missiles, and Tomahawk cruise missiles. The class includes the USS Seawolf, USS Connecticut, and USS Jimmy Carter, with the latter modified for special operations.

-In recent years, the Navy has publicly surfaced these stealthy subs, particularly in the Arctic, to deter Russian aggression.

As tensions continue in Ukraine, the U.S. may use similar displays to reinforce NATO's deterrence strategy.

Why the Seawolf-Class Has to Surface Sometimes 

Designed at the tail end of the Cold War, the U.S. Navy’s Seawolf-class submarines were built to surpass the capabilities of their Soviet counterparts. 

While budgetary constraints and the collapse of the USSR led to the cancellation of the full planned fleet of vessels, the three Seawolf ships constructed continue to wow naval experts and scare U.S. adversaries. In fact, the Navy’s Seawolf ships carry some of the most sophisticated undersea warfare technology ever developed.

Although submarines usually remain silent and stealthy, in order to demonstrate their ability to strike from any corner of the world, the Navy has intentionally surfaced them as a show of force to adversaries. 

In 2020, the service made public displays of its nuclear submarines in Norway in an effort to deter Russian hostility in the region. On Aug. 21, 2020, USS Seawolf parked off the coast of Tromso to take on new crew members. The U.S. and Norway use this strategic port off the coast of Tromso to keep an eye on Moscow’s Northern Fleet. According to senior naval officials, “the U.S. and Norway have a great relationship, and our ability to use facilities in and around Tromso would provide a strategic location for our visits,” adding that “It would give us flexibility for not only the U.S. but allied countries to exercise in the High North.” 

Introducing the Seawolf-Class

USS Seawolf, like its two sister ships, was developed in the late Cold War. The Navy required a new sub class capable of countering the USSR’s Typhoon class of ballistic missile submarines. Engineers designed the Seawolf ships to be quieter and faster than their predecessors. The lead ship of the class, USS Seawolf, was ordered in 1989 from the Electric Boat Division of General Dynamics. USS Connecticut was commissioned a decade later, followed by USS Jimmy Carter in 2004.

In 2021, Connecticut was severely damaged after colliding with a seamount while sailing in the South China Sea. Fortunately, no sailors were killed in the incident, but the submarine has remained out of commission since this mishap. The Navy expects to return Connecticut to service in 2025. 

USS Jimmy Carter was developed with distinct modifications, making the submarine essentially a new class when compared to its two sister ships. The Navy uniquely designed Jimmy Carter for covert surveillance and special operations missions. 

According to Business Insider, Jimmy Carter included “special thrusters fore and aft that allow the sub to remain stationary underwater, as well as a 100-ft hull extension known as the Multi-Mission Platform, which increased its length to 435 feet and its fully submerged displacement 12,158 tons.” Jimmy Carter can float above undersea communications cables and physically cut into them, which enables the submarine to intercept the data streams running through them.

Basic Specs and Capabilities for the Seawolf-Class

The Navy’s Seawolf-class ships are typically armed with 533mm Mark 48 torpedoes, in addition to Harpoon anti-ship missiles and Tomahawk cruise missiles. A Tercom-Aided Inertial Navigation System guides each missile toward its intended target. While the Tomahawk can be fitted with a nuclear warhead, these submarines rarely carry these types of munitions. 

As detailed by Naval Technology, “Block III improvements include an improved propulsion system and Navstar global positioning system (GPS) guidance capability. The anti-ship Tomahawk missile is equipped with inertial guidance and an active radar and anti-radiation homing head. The range is up to 450km.”

Could the Navy Surface Its Seawolf-Class Submarines in the Future?

As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine rages on, the U.S. and its NATO allies are constantly working to deter additional hostilities in the region. Showcasing the strength and capability of the U.S. submarine fleet via surprise surfacing missions could remind the Kremlin of the consequences of extending the war further. 

About the Author: Maya Carlin, Defense Expert 

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

With the record of newly minted Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris being freshly scrutinized, one recently recalled item is her reaction to revelations several years ago of the torture of suspected terrorists who the CIA detained. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Harris was a leading interrogator of Gina Haspel, then-nominee for CIA director, regarding the torture issue. She eventually voted against Haspel’s confirmation. Another recent reminder of this black chapter in American history is the first public release of a photograph of the gaunt, naked body of one of the prisoners involved.

Harris’s firm stand regarding torture is admirable, as is a wider sentiment—by no means universal, but now held by many Americans—that torture is an unacceptable national security tool. The unacceptability involves the ineffectiveness as well as the immorality of the practice.

What was largely missing, however, from the focus on the Haspel nomination and what was going on inside CIA detention centers was how the torture reflected a broader condoning of “gloves-off” methods amid the wave of anger that swept across the nation after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Although the Senate committee’s report on the subject asserted that the CIA had misled Congress and the administration about the extent and success of the interrogation techniques, the use of torture was not kept secret from members of Congress and specifically members of the intelligence oversight committees, who could have objected at the time. However, in the prevailing post-9/11 mood, members quietly looked the other way (this did not involve Harris, who did not enter the Senate until 2017). It was only with the passage of time and the quelling of some of the rage that was the immediate reaction to the terrorist attacks that second thoughts about torture arose and became politically significant.

A similar pattern arose with some intrusive investigative powers that were hastily granted to law enforcement agencies in the aftermath of 9/11, but later—again, with the passage of time and a changing of national mood—many came to perceive as unjustified invasions of personal privacy. Harris’s California colleague in the Senate, the late Dianne Feinstein, who, as chair of the intelligence committee, spoke prominently about the torture issue, later acknowledged—to her credit—that Congress may have gone too far with some of its post-9/11 measures taken in the name of fighting terrorism.

Recollection of these issues from a few years ago happens to coincide with a couple of other recent items in the news that are relevant to how nations respond to arguably immoral or abusive conduct by national security officials—and what this says about a larger national ethos. One is belated reporting of the death of William Calley, who, as an Army lieutenant, led the platoon that in 1968 perpetrated the My Lai massacre, in which hundreds of South Vietnamese villagers were slaughtered. Although several other persons were charged with offenses related to either the massacre or a cover-up, Calley was the only one convicted.

As the officer leading the unit that did the killing, Calley probably was more responsible for the massacre than any other individual. But to pretend that responsibility stopped with him was a misinterpretation not only of what happened at My Lai but also of the larger tragedy that was the Vietnam War. Calley was in a chain of command that set objectives, defined standards of conduct and influenced how American soldiers viewed Vietnamese. That chain, in turn, was tasked with fighting a war based on a gross misperception—the notion that what was really an armed struggle by an Asian nationalist movement was instead a theater in a noble American effort to save the world from communism.

Today, almost no one would excuse what U.S. troops did at My Lai. And most Americans—though again not all—regard fighting the Vietnam War in the first place as a mistake. But the national response to an especially ugly facet of the war such as My Lai falls into an all-too-familiar pattern of equating accountability with finding a head or two to roll while not facing up to relevant failings—moral as well as political—of the nation as a whole.

Another batch of recently reported inhumane conduct toward foreign nationals under physical control involves not the United States but instead Israel. Mistreatment by Israeli forces of captured or detained Palestinians is not new. Israel has a long history of exercising no accountability for such conduct or of administering only token punishment or the occasional rolled head if someone happened to record an incident with a video that became public. 

One thing that is new is the issuance by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights of a report on Israeli treatment of detained Palestinians since the beginning of the Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip last October. The mistreatment of detained Palestinians has been compared to the U.S. torture of suspected terrorists and mistreatment of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison during the Iraq war, and there are indeed similarities. But both the scale and the nature of what Israel is doing to Palestinians far exceed the U.S. abuses of prisoners.

For one thing, the sheer number of detainees involved is of a different order of magnitude. The longstanding Israeli practice of arresting and detaining without charge many Palestinian residents of the occupied territories has been magnified since last October. The UN report states that the detentions have numbered in the thousands and probably have reached five figures. The detained include “men, women, children, doctors, journalists, human rights defenders”— “most of them without charges or trial and in conditions that raise concerns of the abuse of administrative detention.” The huge numbers involved imply that many, and probably most of the detainees involved, are as innocent as were most of the villagers at My Lai.

Moreover, what we know of the nature of the abuse is more severe than what came out of Abu Ghraib or the “enhanced interrogation” at CIA detention facilities. That knowledge is partial, based on evidence such as the statements and physical injuries of released detainees. Much of what has gone on, especially at the notorious Sde Teiman detention facility in the Negev, has taken place beyond the view of foreign eyes. But one measure of the severity of treatment is that, according to the UN report, at least fifty-three detainees from Gaza and the West Bank have died in Israeli custody just since last October.

One severe case that recently became public involved a prisoner at Sde Teiman who was sodomized with a serious injury to his rectum, requiring hospitalization. An Israeli military police investigation focused on nine military reservists who appeared to be directly involved in this abuse. The stage was set for another instance of making a show of accountability by punishing—probably lightly, if conforming with past patterns—a few individuals without addressing larger underlying policies and attitudes. 

But here, this case took a more extreme twist. A riot took place outside the military base where the accused reservists were detained. Far from calling for complete accountability, the rioters, who attempted to storm the base, said there should be no accountability at all and demanded that the accused reservists be released. The rioters included an assortment of right-wing activists but also parts of the official face of Israel, including uniformed soldiers carrying their weapons, an undefined number of members of the Knesset, and at least one government minister. Defense minister Yoav Gallant has called for an investigation into whether another member of the government—national security minister and right-wing extremist Itamar Ben-Gvir, who has responsibility for the police—effectively facilitated the riot with a weak and tardy police response. Ben-Gvir has directly expressed his view on the case by declaring on social media, “Take your hands off the reservists.”

A gap is apparent between American and Israeli responses to the abuse of prisoners who are of a different nationality or ethnicity from those who imprison them. In the United States, there has been widespread recognition that such abuses are wrong. The shortcomings mainly have involved the recognition sometimes coming too late and accountability often being too narrow. In Israel, many of those in power do not consider the abuses to be wrong at all. Typifying the attitude is how a member of the Knesset of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party replied when asked whether it was legitimate to insert a stick into someone’s rectum: “Yes! If he is a Nukhba [Hamas militant], everything is legitimate to do! Everything!”

Some observers have interpreted what happened in this case as one manifestation of a battle for the soul of Israel, and there certainly are Israelis who are appropriately appalled by the abuses. But decades of living by the sword and forcibly subjugating people of different ethnicities have nurtured a malign attitude toward not just Hamas militants but Palestinian Arabs in general that is more widespread than current differences within the political elite might suggest. It is an attitude reflected in finance minister Bezalel Smotrich (who also has responsibilities in administering the West Bank) calling for “total annihilation” of several Gazan cities and saying that starving two million Gazans “to death” may be “right and moral” as long as Israeli hostages are held. Defense minister Gallant announced the “complete siege” of the entire Gaza Strip that has led to the enormous suffering there over the past ten months and said that Israel was going against “human animals.” 

Such characterizations echo how some Americans in uniform during the Vietnam War—no doubt including some who participated in the My Lai massacre—disdained Vietnamese as “gooks.” The American nation, which now enjoys cordial relations with Vietnam, has overcome that foul attitude.

Anyone arguing that the U.S.-Israeli relationship is based on “common values” needs to take such differences into account.

Upon a closer look, there are some similarities between relevant attitudes in Israel and those in significant political segments in the United States, including xenophobia on the American Right. The spectacle of someone in power encouraging a riot and attack on a government installation in defiance of the rule of law took place in Washington just four years ago. The president who instigated the riot promised to pardon the rioters if he returned to power.

Perhaps it is most accurate to say that there are similarities in ethos and character between one segment of the American polity and the dominant political strain in Israel. Still, these similarities do not involve any values about which either nation ought to be proud.

Paul R. Pillar retired in 2005 from a twenty-eight-year career in the U.S. intelligence community, in which his last position was as the National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia. Earlier, he served in a variety of analytical and managerial positions, including as chief of analytic units at the CIA, covering portions of the Near East, the Persian Gulf, and South Asia. His most recent book is Beyond the Water’s Edge: How Partisanship Corrupts U.S. Foreign Policy. He is also a contributing editor for this publication.

Image: Shutterstock.com. 

Editor’s Note: The following article contains excerpts from Lost Decade: The U.S. Pivot to Asia and the Rise of Chinese Power (Oxford University Press, 2024) with the permission of the publishers.

From Washington’s Farewell Address to Biden’s national security strategy, the core U.S. national interest, unsurprisingly, has not changed: to ensure the fundamental security of the homeland and its people in freedom. As Alexander Hamilton put it, “Self-preservation is the first duty of a nation.” Vital U.S. interests are all increasingly threatened by China and can be defined as the following:

1) To prevent the use and reduce the threat of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and catastrophic conventional terrorist attacks or cyber attacks against the United States, its military forces abroad, or its allies.

China’s burgeoning intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and nuclear capabilities present a threat to the American homeland and its forces abroad. China plans to increase its stockpile of strategic nuclear warheads from an estimated 500 in 2022 to 1,500 by 2035. This rise is accompanied by increased infrastructure-building to produce and separate plutonium. Beijing is reportedly constructing 300 new missile silos in the country’s western desert—a tenfold increase over the number operational in 2022—in addition to its arsenal of an estimated one hundred road-mobile ICBM launchers. 

2) To stop the spread of nuclear weapons, secure nuclear weapons and materials, and reduce further proliferation of intermediate and long-range delivery systems for nuclear weapons. 

Beijing continues to permit state-owned enterprises and individuals to violate the Missile Technology Control Regime (MCTR) and “proliferate technology that Iran has used to improve the accuracy, range, and lethality of its ballistic missiles.” At the same time, Beijing has undermined sanctions against Tehran by dramatically boosting its economic support for the Islamic Republic. China has steadily remained the Islamic Republic’s top trading partner, and commerce between the two countries exceeds $15 billion annually. If Iran eventually acquires a nuclear weapon, Beijing, through its economic and technical assistance, will bear substantial responsibility.

Beijing has also looked away as its citizens and corporations violate the MTCR vis-à-vis North Korea, despite China’s stated aim of finding a peaceful solution to Pyongyang’s nuclear program. A January 2023 Congressional Research Service report indicates that “Chinese financial companies set up paper companies to act as agents for North Korean financial institutions, evading sanctions to finance the North’s proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ballistic missile programs.” 

3) To maintain a global and regional balance of power that promotes peace, stability, and freedom through domestic robustness, international power projection and influence, and the strength of alliance systems.

Beijing has mounted an all-out assault on the military, economic, and diplomatic balance of power in Asia and on America’s alliance system in the region. China’s military modernization, made possible by unprecedented increases in defense spending, laid the foundation for this rapid change. The People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) modernization includes a new command-and-control structure, upgraded equipment across the navy, air force, and army, expanded and improved training for cadets, and the establishment of the Strategic Support Force to centralize its new combat capabilities. In addition to the buildup of its nuclear arsenal, Beijing now boasts the world’s most oversized navy, as well as the largest ballistic and cruise missile inventory. 

On the economic front, China has pursued two strategies to undermine American power in the Indo-Pacific. First, Beijing threatens and coerces America’s partners in Asia to adopt policies conducive to Chinese regional dominance. Second, the People’s Republic (PRC) created and now promotes international economic organizations and initiatives that exclude the United States, privilege China’s position, and undermine global rules and standards. 

China also sought to expand its leadership in international governing institutions and weaken U.S. influence. At the United Nations (UN), in particular, Beijing has become more assertive and activist, mounting an assault on democratic norms, including the rule of law, human rights, transparency, and accountability. 

4) To prevent the emergence of hostile powers or failed states in the Western Hemisphere. 

Beijing has successfully attempted to deepen its strategic involvement with Latin American nations, increasingly at the expense of the United States.

China is now South America’s top trading partner and the second largest for Latin America as a whole, after the United States. That is a significant leap for a country that, in 2000, accounted for less than 2 percent of Latin America’s exports. China has built ports, railroads, and dams, installed 5G networks throughout Latin America, and loaned the region’s nations $138 billion. 

Notably, China has made a concerted attempt to engage Latin America and the Caribbean in the security domain. Beijing’s 2008 and 2016 policy papers for the region outline Chinese commitments to increase “military exchanges and cooperation,” assist the “development of the army in Latin American and Caribbean countries,” and “enhance cooperation in military trade and military technology.” Between 2002 and 2019, senior PLA leaders conducted 215 visits to the region, with Chile, Cuba, Brazil, and Argentina accounting for over half of these interactions. 

5) To ensure the viability and stability of major international systems (trade, financial markets, public health, energy supplies, cyberspace, the environment, freedom of the seas, and outer space).

Over the past fifteen years, China has sought to weaken virtually all these major global systems.

Through its repeated violations of international commercial practices, Beijing has disrupted the stability of world markets. It uses hundreds of billions of dollars in government subsidies and intentional overproduction to flood global markets with artificially low-priced Chinese goods and services. Beijing also restricts market access to foreign companies and imposes arbitrary non-tariff barriers.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, China delayed the transmission of crucial data for weeks and continues to resist any serious inquiry into the origins of the virus.In addition, China’s role in the fentanyl epidemic poses a direct threat to American citizens. China has created a sprawling and immensely powerful cyber operations command, which it employs to interfere with other nations and repress its own citizens. It uses cyberattacks and cyber espionage as elements of influence campaigns in the United States, through which it tries to shape public perceptions of China, suppress criticism, and mislead American voters. It has penetrated U.S. infrastructure and critical facilities and continues to steal data from hundreds of millions of Americans. 

China consistently hampers global efforts to slow climate change and mitigate its impact. It emits more greenhouse gases than any other country and constructs new fossil fuel infrastructure across the world as part of its Belt and Road Initiative. It also exposes its own air, soil, and waterways to immense pollution. 

China claims sovereignty over the South China Sea (SCS) and declares the area its “inherent territory,” inconsistent with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Beijing’s assertive behavior in the South China Sea challenges established norms in the maritime domain, such as geographical boundaries, the rights of countries to control natural resources within their delineated zones, and international dispute resolution mechanisms. 

In pursuit of Xi’s “eternal dream” for China to become a “space power,” Beijing has also made a concerted effort to expand its private and state industries rapidly. The PLA draws an explicit link between space and conflict; its 2020 Science of Military Strategy document describes “the dominance of space [as] inseparable from the outcome of war.” 

This enumeration vividly demonstrates China’s comprehensive policies to undermine each of America’s five vital national interests that safeguard and enhance Americans’ survival and well-being in a free and secure nation and bolster international order. As U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin explained in late 2022, “The PRC is the only country with both the will and, increasingly, the power to reshape its region and the international order to suit its authoritarian preferences.” 

In weakening these five vital U.S. interests by threatening nuclear annihilation, Beijing could deter the United States from acting in a crisis. In attempting to dominate Asia, China could prompt nuclear proliferation across the region, beginning with South Korea or even Japan, as countries seek a last-ditch nuclear deterrent capability. A China-dominated Asia could fatally fragment the United States’ Asian alliance system, as one U.S. ally after another kowtows to Beijing. The PRC could undermine U.S. ties with Mexico and other countries in Latin America to distract the United States from pursuing its national interests in Asia and elsewhere. A China that dominated Asia would alter global values, rules, and practices to the United States’ disadvantage. 

Steve Tsang, director of the China Institute at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies, summed up the Chinese president’s ambitions. “Xi Jinping,” he said, “is not trying to out-compete America in the existing liberal international order dominated by the [United States]. His long-term goal is to change the world order into a Sino-centric one.”

Robert D. Blackwill is the Henry A. Kissinger senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Richard Fontaine is the chief executive officer of the Center for a New American Security. Follow him on LinkedIn and X @RHFontaine. 

Mr. Blackwill and Mr. Fontaine are the co-authors of Lost Decade: The US Pivot to Asia and the Rise of Chinese Power, published by Oxford University Press in June 2024.

Image: Humphery / Shutterstock.com. 

How Kyiv Can Capitalize on Russia’s Waning Momentum

The Trump shooting and the risk of more bloodshed.

Summary and Key Points: The F-35 stealth fighter jet program saw significant developments in July after months of delays. The Pentagon, Lockheed Martin, and the F-35 Joint Program Office resumed deliveries of the aircraft following a temporary fix for TR-3 software issues.

-Greece also joined the F-35 program, ordering 20 F-35A jets, making it the 19th participant and strengthening Europe’s F-35 presence.

-U.S. Air Force F-35As intercepted Russian and Chinese aircraft near Alaska, demonstrating their operational readiness. Additionally, Italian F-35s participated in joint training with Australia, underscoring their role in the Indo-Pacific. Over 1,000 F-35s have been delivered, with more than 3,500 ordered.

The F-35 Comeback Has Started 

After months of delays, the F-35 stealth fighter jet program is returning to strength. 

July was the most active month for the F-35 program in a long while, with several different developments across the globe. 

Deliveries, A New Member, Action Against Chinese and Russian Aircraft 

To begin with, the Pentagon, Lockheed Martin, and the F-35 Joint Program Office in July reached an agreement to resume deliveries of the stealth aircraft. Lingering issues with the TR-3 software update have been fixed, at least temporarily, and Lockheed Martin is once more delivering aircraft to program participants. 

Moreover, in July the State Department formally approved Greece’s bid to join the F-35 community as the 19th participant. Greece ordered 20 F-35A Lightning II stealth fighter jets and has the option to purchase another 20 at a later date. Europe is now an F-35 bastion, with 12 out of the 19 participants of the program, and 575 fighter jets located on the continent. 

Further, U.S. Air Force F-35A fighter jets faced down Chinese and Russian aircraft. Specifically, on July 24, two F-35A Lightning II fighters identified and intercepted two Russian Tu-95 Bear and two Chinese Xian H-6 strategic bombers over the Alaska Air Defense Identification Zone. The F-35As operated alongside Canadian F/A-18 Hornets and American F-16 Fighting Falcons, showcasing their ability to seamlessly operate alongside other aircraft.

In addition, Italian F-35As and F-35Bs transited all the way to Australia to participate in joint training with the Royal Australian Air Force. It was an important show of unity in the Indo-Pacific. As a NATO member, Italy could be asked to contribute forces in the region in the event of a conflict between the United States and China.

The F-35 Lightning II is a multi-role stealth fighter jet. The fifth-generation aircraft comes in three versions: the F-35A, F-35B, and F-35C. They are the same aircraft with slight differences. 

The F-35A is the conventional version that takes off and lands from regular runways. The F-35B is the Short Take-Off, Vertical Landing iteration that can take off and land like a helicopter, making it an excellent choice for expeditionary warfare. Finally, the F-35C is the carrier version of the aircraft and is designed to operate from aircraft carriers. 

Lockheed Martin has delivered more than 1,000 aircraft of all versions. Put together, the F-35 program has a total of 3,542 orders for aircraft. The F-35A version is by far the most popular, with over 2,660 aircraft. The U.S. Air Force remains the biggest customer with an order for 1,763 F-35As, and the U.S. military as a whole has ordered almost 2,500 aircraft of all three versions for the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. 

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. 

Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi’s visit to Tehran marks the first time in nearly ten years that one of Amman’s top officials has visited Iran. The region is on the brink of war, and Jordan may soon have to choose between upholding its commitments to its allies and antagonizing its Palestinian-majority population.

Iran and its proxies have vowed to retaliate against Israel following the recent assassinations of Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh and Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr. Iranian media claim Safadi aimed to persuade Iran not to retaliate. At the same time, the Jordanian government framed the trip as an effort “to address disagreements between Amman and Tehran transparently for mutual benefit.”

Jordan today is facing the same dilemma it did in April, following Israeli airstrikes in Damascus that killed top officers from Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guard Corps. Iran struck back by launching more than 300 missiles and drones in Israel’s direction, several of them penetrating Jordanian air space on the way to their targets. The Iranian salvo confronted Amman with a difficult decision: Would it join the United States, Britain, and Israel in a joint effort to defeat the attack, or would it hold back to avoid riling up its population, many of whom would rather see Iran and Hamas prevail?

On the night of April 13, Jordan chose to assist Israel by intercepting Iranian drones over its airspace, leading Tehran to threaten, “The Iranian armed forces are closely monitoring Jordan's movements during the process of disciplining the Zionist entity. If Jordan participates in any potential actions, it will then become the next target.”

Jordan framed its decision as a defensive action to protect its sovereignty and airspace, not as a gesture of support for the Jewish state. This approach aimed to calm the public and mitigate any potential backlash.

Since October 7, Iranian proxies have incited protests in Jordan, especially after the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh. Demonstrations over the past week have shown increased support for Hamas, with marchers waving Hamas flags, wearing Qassam headbands, and chanting, “Our army is the army of the free...Protectors of the homeland...We are your soldiers, O Sinwar.”

The repercussions of an Iranian attack on Jordan are not only domestic. Safadi stated a few days ago in a clear signal to Iran that Jordan would rather not be a battlefield for any conflict and “will firmly confront anyone attempting to violate Jordanian airspace.”

In addition to inciting protests, Iranian proxies have increased their efforts to turn Jordan into a base for attacks against Israel. In March, Iraq-based Kataib Hezbollah threatened to “arm 12,000 Jordanians to defend their brethren in Palestine.” In April, Hamas spokesperson Abu Ubayda said, “the most important Arab front—especially popular and most concerning to the enemy—are the cherished Jordanian masses to whom we send our greetings and call upon to escalate their actions.” In June, reports in Arab media claimed that authorities found explosives in an apartment in Amman and linked them to new Iranian attempts to smuggle weapons and explosives into Jordan for domestic use.

Jordan’s leadership faces a critical challenge: maintaining domestic stability while balancing its sovereignty and commitments to Western allies. Safadi’s visit represents a crucial effort to dissuade Iran from involving Jordan in its regional conflict with Israel. However, Amman must remain cautious. The Islamic Republic has long harbored ambitions to destabilize Jordan, and its malign networks in the region have been the primary source of Amman’s security challenges.

In the event of an Iranian or proxy attack targeting Israel, Jordan should replicate its defensive posture from the night of April 13. This approach will help maintain its reliability and important security relationship with Israel and the United States. Additionally, Jordan should employ the same narrative it used on that night, framing the action as purely defensive to dampen any potential uproar.

Ahmad Sharawi is a research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Image: Alexandros Michailidis / Shutterstock.com. 

Summary and Key Points: NASA operated a unique F-15 fighter jet, known as the F-15 Flight Research Facility, which was highly modified from its U.S. Air Force counterparts. This one-of-a-kind aircraft was used to test and demonstrate advanced integrated flight and propulsion control technologies.

-It was the first to showcase a fully integrated inlet-engine-flight control system and a Self-Repairing Flight Control System (SRFCS), among other innovations.

-The F-15 was involved in over 25 research projects, including testing the Space Shuttle’s thermal protection tiles, contributing significantly to NASA's aerodynamics, propulsion control, and safety advancements.

NASA Had A Special F-15 Fighter

Did you know that NASA operated a single F-15 fighter jet? NASA’s lone F-15 was a highly modified version of its U.S. Air Force counterparts. NASA used this aircraft to demonstrate and evaluate advanced integrated flight and propulsion control technologies. 

The jet was known as the F-15 Flight Research Facility. 

One of a kind

The F-15 Flight Research Facility is the only aircraft of its kind ever made. The jet hit plenty of other firsts, too, as “the first aircraft to demonstrate a fully integrated inlet-engine-flight control system, a self-repairing flight control system, and a propulsion-only flight control system,” NASA explains.

Whereas a standard F-15 features mechanical electronic flight controls, the NASA F-15 carried a dual-channel, fail-safe digital flight control system. The result was an airframe used across an expansive flight envelope to conduct “complex and sophisticated research projects.”

Here are a few of the systems that the F-15 Flight Research Facility testing helped to develop: ADECS (Adaptive Engine Control System); SRFCS (Self-repairing Flight Control System); PSC (Performance Seeing Control); and PCA (Propulsion Controlled Aircraft). Not bad for a single testing platform. 

In all, the F-15 was used for “more than 25 advanced research projects involving aerodynamics, performance, propulsion control, control integration, instrumentation development, human factors, and flight test techniques.”

Perhaps the most publicly prominent test the F-15 Flight Research Facility ever conducted was for the Space Shuttle’s thermal protection tiles. The tiles coat the surface of the Space Shuttle to act as a collective heat shield during re-entry to the Earth’s atmosphere. They were notoriously difficult to design, manufacture, and install on the Space Shuttle. The F-15 had a significant role getting the tiles dialed in and ready for installation, which allowed the Space Shuttle to finally take flight – one of NASA’s biggest wins ever.

Learning to Fly

NASA’s F-15 was the first aircraft to demonstrate a Self-Repairing Flight Control System. The SRFCS “demonstrated the ability of a flight control system to identify the failure of a control surface and reconfigure commands to the other control devices such as ailerons, rudders, elevators, and flaps to continue the aircraft’s mission or allow it to be landed safely,” according to NASA.

Here’s an example of how the SRFCS might work: A rudder is damaged, or fails entirely mid-flight. The SRFCS identifies the dead rudder and calculates how the still-functioning flight surfaces can be adjusted to compensate for the dead rudder. Meanwhile, the SRFCS displays information in the cockpit telling the pilot how the remaining flight surfaces are being reconfigured, The pilot also learns the new operational limits resulting from the reconfigurations, i.e. reductions in “G’ loading, airspeed, angle-of-attack, and altitude.

In addition to identifying failures in flight surfaces, the SRFCS could diagnose failures in the jet’s electrical, hydraulic, and mechanical systems.   

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.

Summary and Key Points: The USS America (CV-66), a conventionally-powered Kitty Hawk-class aircraft carrier, served the U.S. Navy from 1965 to 1996. Known as "Big A," the ship played significant roles in the Vietnam War, the Six-Day War, Operation Eagle Claw, and Operation Desert Storm, among others.

-Despite her stellar service record, she met an unfortunate end when she was deliberately sunk during a U.S. Navy exercise in 2005.

-The data gained from her sinking provided valuable insights into carrier survivability, but many believe the legendary vessel deserved a better fate, possibly as a museum to honor her contributions.

USS America (CV-66) was a Legend

The USS America (CV-66) was a conventionally-powered Kitty Hawk-class aircraft carrier that served the United States Navy from 1965-1996. She was built by Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company and was initially based in Norfolk, Virginia. This warship would go on to provide stellar service to her country.

She was known as “Big A” by her crew and the ship’s official motto was “Don’t Tread On Me.” 

“Big A” Service Record

In terms of CV-66, she served in the Vietnam War. This carrier was used to launch airstrikes against targets deep inside North Vietnam. Indeed, according to MilitaryFactory.com, the USS America, living up to her great name, “performed to mythical standards,” as the America never lost any of her pilots in air combat over the unfriendly skies of Indochina. Indeed, a whopping 11,000 tons of ordnance over 10,500 sorties, were dropped on Vietcong targets.

After the Vietnam War, the USS America (CV-66) was not done serving. During the Six-Day War between Israel and its Arab neighbors, the America was deployed to the Mediterranean Sea as part of a larger US Navy flotilla. That flotilla included the infamous USS Liberty. Still a controversy today, the USS Liberty was conducting surveillance of the ongoing Israel-Arab war in 1967 near the warzone when, according to the official account, Israeli warplanes misidentified the American warship for an enemy one and ordered the destruction of the boat. Israeli torpedo boats attacked the American ship, killing thirty-four US sailors and injuring another seventy-five.

Once word got out to the US fleet that Liberty was under attack, America’s airwing went into action, providing support for the stricken warship. 

She also participated in the failed Operation Eagle Claw, which was President Jimmy Carter’s shambolic attempt to free the captured American hostages in Iran. It failed, to the chagrin and shame of everyone involved.

Multiple operations thereafter demanded the carrier’s time and attention, such as the Reagan administration’s mini-war with Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya. America supported multiple engagements against the Libyan military during the 1980s. 

Notably, CV-66 was involved with Operation Desert Storm in 1991. This boat provided important aerial support for the US forces fighting against the Iraqi Army in the mission to liberate Kuwait from Iraq’s illegal invasion. America would launch 3,000 sorties throughout the war. In the 1990s, her last decade of service, she supported the enforcement of the No-Fly Zones over Iraq and participated in the Clinton administration’s air war over Bosnia.

Her Design

CV-66 was a fairly common-looking US aircraft carrier with a familiar design. It had a starboard island and an angled deck with three catapults for launching warplanes. Four hangar elevators serviced the flight deck. She carried a whopping seventy-nine aircraft, both fixed-wing and rotorcraft, making her a potent asset on the battlefield. The aircraft that comprised her airwing included the likes of the legendary F-4 Phantoms, A-6 Intruders, A-7 Corsair IIs, and SP-2 Neptunes. 

This boat was not without defenses. America had an electronic countermeasures suite that included the Raytheon-built AN/SLQ-32. At first, the old Terrier missiles were included in the warship’s armaments package. Eventually, these were swapped out for the Sea Sparrow surface-to-air missiles. Three, 20mm Phalanx Close-In Weapon Systems (CWIS) were installed to further assist with anti-aircraft and anti-missile defense. 

USS America: She Deserved Better

This legendary boat, unfortunately, met an ignominious end. 

Rather than be preserved as a museum, she was ultimately sent to the bottom of the drink. No, the USS America was not sunk in combat with one of America’s enemies. The great ship was sunk during an exercise in which she was the target practice by US forces back in 2005.

It was a tragic end to a legendary ship. 

At the same time, though, it should be noted that the American sinking of the USS America (CV-66) allowed the US military to learn crucial information about how aircraft carriers can survive a serious fight—and how long it takes for these behemoths to go under the waves. 

That information, while still classified, remains an important set of data points for the US Navy to incorporate in the designs and operations of their current fleet of Nimitz-class and Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers. 

After all, America’s enemies are deeply wedded to the notion of sinking US carriers in combat. Especially China. By sinking the America during a test, the Navy was able to learn about some of the weaknesses of its carrier fleet and could have conceivably mitigated the threat those weaknesses posed. 

The Navy brass insisted that the USS America died as she lived: serving the US Navy. However, one cannot help but think that this glorious warship was wasted. 

By sinking her in a test the Navy did learn some interesting tidbits. But she deserved better. This was most obvious considering her stellar service record across thirty years. 

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. Main image is of a Ford-Class carrier under shock test. 

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.

Summary and Key Points: The Ukrainian military has likely destroyed the Russian Kilo-class submarine Rostov-on-Don in Sevastopol, Crimea, using a combination of unmanned aerial systems and MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS).

-This marks the final chapter for the submarine, which had been heavily damaged in a previous Ukrainian strike in September 2023. The submarine had been involved in Russia’s long-range missile strikes against Ukraine.

-While the attack is a significant morale boost for Ukraine, British Military Intelligence suggests it will not greatly impact Russia's maritime strike capabilities but may force Russia to reconsider its naval deployments in Crimea.

-The Ukrainian military continues to strike targets deep behind the frontlines. In one of their latest attacks, the Ukrainians destroyed a Russian submarine. 

Submarine Destroyed 

“On 3 August 2024, a Ukrainian attack on Crimea highly likely resulted in the sinking of the Russian Black Sea Fleet KILO-Class submarine ROSTOV ON DON,” British Military Intelligence assessed in its latest estimate of the war. 

To achieve such a result, the Ukrainian military used a combination of unmanned aerial systems and MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS). 

The Russian submarine was harbored in Sevastopol, the capital of Crimea and the headquarters of the Russian Navy’s Black Sea Fleet. The Ukrainian military has struck high-value targets in and around Sevastopol with increased frequency. Some of the targets include the headquarters of the Russian Navy, shipyards, fuel depots, and S-300/S-400 air defense batteries. 

The Russian military invaded and illegally annexed Ukraine in 2014. Since then, the Kremlin has turned the Ukrainian peninsula into a fortress, moving hundreds of thousands of troops into the area and constructing extensive fortifications. 

“Contrary to some reporting, the submarine had highly likely not been fully repaired from a previous attack on Crimea in September 2023,” British Military Intelligence stated. 

On Sept. 13, 2023, the Ukrainian military launched a salvo of cruise missiles – most likely Storm Shadow and SCALP-EG air-launched munitions – against the Russian Navy in Sevastopol. The Rostov-on-Don submarine was hit while it lay in the shipyard for maintenance. A subsequent large fire heavily damaged the vessel. 

“This latest attack is almost certainly the final chapter for the submarine with it highly likely being more economically viable to build a replacement submarine than recover and repair it,” British Military Intelligence added.

One of the main reasons the Ukrainians targeted the Russian submarine was its part in the Russian military’s long-range strikes against Ukrainian urban centers and critical infrastructure. Since February 24, 2022, Russian forces have launched thousands of ballistic and cruise missiles and suicide drones against Ukraine, killing and wounding thousands of innocent civilians and destroying or damaging significant parts of Ukraine’s critical infrastructure. 

“Although this is a significant morale boost to the Ukrainian forces, this is highly unlikely to have any major impact on Russian long range maritime strikes into Ukraine from the Black Sea Fleet,” British Military Intelligence assessed.

“The strike does highlight the increasing risks to Russian forces in Crimea and will highly likely force Russia to reconsider any plans to relocate any significant maritime force back to the peninsula,” British Military Intelligence concluded. 

Although the Ukrainian Navy is almost non-existent, Kyiv has sunk or destroyed dozens of Russian warships and support vessels since the war began. Using a combination of anti-ship missiles and suicide drones, the Ukrainians have wreaked havoc on Russian shipping and have forced the Kremlin to relocate much of its naval forces from the Crimean Peninsula back to Russia. 

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. 

In a change of pace, the Ukrainian military this week struck inside Russia in a cross-border raid. 

On Tuesday, Ukrainian forces ventured into Kursk Oblast, wreaking havoc on any Russian unit they encountered. 

Cross Border Raid by Ukraine into Russia 

Starting in the morning, Ukrainian forces entered Russia from Kharkiv Oblast and moved toward  Russian positions near Sumy. The Ukrainians used a battalion-sized mechanized unit with main battle tanks, armored personnel carriers, and infantry fighting vehicles. 

In a short while, the Ukrainian forces advanced several miles into Russian territory. They also shot down a Russian Ka-52 Alligator attack helicopter, destroyed several main battle tanks, armored vehicles, and trucks, and took dozens of Russian prisoners. 

The raid was most likely an attempt to distract the Russian military leadership and force it to relocate forces from the contact line back to Russia to address the threat and prevent further incursions. 

However, with defenses in the Donbas under heavy strain, the Ukrainian military took a serious gamble when it diverted significant forces to a cross-border raid without any strategic significance. 

Russian President Vladimir Putin bases much of his domestic credibility on the fact that he ensures peace and security within Russia. Ukraine’s cross-border raid directly challenges that assumption. 

For most of the war, Kyiv has been generally careful not to escalate the conflict. That means no action within Russia. But continuous Russian attacks against civilian targets have pushed the Ukrainians to be more aggressive. Slowly but surely, the Ukrainians have been targeting and attacking high-value targets such as air bases, military production facilities, and fuel depots inside Russia.

“The Russian MoD claimed that Russian reserve forces also responded to the supposed Ukrainian raids, and a Russian insider source claimed that elements of the Chechen ‘Akhmat’ Spetsnaz also responded to the raids, but ISW cannot verify these claims,” the Institute for the Study of War assessed in its latest operational estimate of the conflict. 

The Russian military claimed to have destroyed dozens of Ukrainian armored vehicles, but that claim also cannot be verified. Indeed, anything official that comes out of Russia is often intentionally false or misrepresented.

Russian Casualties: 700,000 Dead or Wounded by End of Year

Meanwhile, the Russian military and pro-Russian separatist forces continue to take heavy casualties on the ground. According to the latest data released by the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense, over the past 24 hours, the Russian forces reportedly lost approximately 1,230 men killed, wounded, or captured. They also lost a reported 78 tactical vehicles and fuel trucks; 67 artillery pieces and multiple launch rocket systems; 54 unmanned aerial systems; 29 armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles; 21 pieces of special equipment; 8 main battle tanks; 1 helicopter; and 1 cruise missile. 

The Russian military continues to absorb these heavy losses and maintain an offensive posture. But soon, this heavy attrition, estimated to reach 700,000 personnel losses by the end of this year, might become too heavy a burden to carry. 

About the Author 

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.