Diplomacy & Crisis News

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. military's reliance on traditional aircraft carriers is becoming increasingly problematic in the age of anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) systems. Submarines, such as the Virginia-class, offer a more viable alternative for power projection.

-However, the Navy lacks a sufficient number of these submarines, hampered by budget constraints and a weak defense industrial base. Additionally, emerging technologies like unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs), AI-driven detection systems, and advanced satellite tracking could soon make manned submarines obsolete.

-Despite these threats, submarines remain crucial for U.S. naval strategy, especially in potential conflicts with near-peer rivals like China over Taiwan.

Aircraft Carriers and Submarines Both Obsolete? 

The face of warfare may be changing but its basic principles remain timeless. Yet, failure to adapt to the changing nature of conflict could lead to defeat. The United States military has become complacent since the end of the Cold War. It has clung onto the tactics and equipment of the previous era of warfare for too long. The aircraft carrier is quickly becoming an obsolete system in the age of anti-access/area denial (A2/AD). Until A2/AD can be overcome, the flat tops will be increasingly useless. 

An alternative form of power projection is the submarine. The United States Navy lacks a sufficient number of submarines to sustain itself in a protracted conflict with a near-peer rival, such as China. Its defense industrial base, meanwhile, is sclerotic at best. Still, investments have been made to build new submarines. The Virginia-class submarine is one of the best, new classes of submarines in the US Navy fleet. Sadly, because of budgetary constraints and the limitations of America’s weak defense industrial base, there are not enough Virginia-class submarines available for when a great power conflict erupts. 

A Possible End of the Submarine

For all the concerns from submarine advocates like me about the Navy not prioritizing this essential power projection platform enough, there is a chance that, like its aircraft carrier cousins, the submarine may become obsolete soon. That’s because of the rise of unmanned underwater vehicles (UUV). While unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) get all the spotlight from the press, UUVs are increasingly prevalent in the maritime domain. What’s more, they are an evolving threat against which there is little defense. 

As time progresses, the major countries of the world will expand the capabilities of their respective UUV arsenals. UUVs are maneuverable, hard to track, and can be deployed in ways that make it nearly impossible for larger manned vessels to evade their destructive capabilities. 

It gets scarier for submarines when that UUV threat is married to rising artificial intelligence capabilities as well as to a growing coterie of advanced detection satellites, such as China’s Project Guanlan (which means “watching the big waves”), which uses sophisticated, multi-colored lasers to track the movement of submarines when they are underwater by monitoring movement of waves.

Many fear that the eerie green laser show over Hawaii that a Japanese research team recorded on January 28, 2023, was one of these laser submarine tracking satellites on display. As for artificial intelligence, a US, AI-driven satellite made history as it was able to identify and track hundreds of “dark vessels” just based on information that various satellites collected on the Earth’s oceans. The same techniques can be applied by an advanced military, such as America’s or China’s, to hunt and kill US submarines. 

One study found that the entire concept of manned submarines would be obsolete by 2050, given the technological advances mentioned above. Of course, one can never know what the future will hold. 

The Great Power Rivalry 

What is certain is that, in the remainder of the 2020s, there is a great power war brewing. The United States is not in the most advantageous strategic position. Submarines today are highly important and may prove to be decisive in any great power conflict—especially with China over Taiwan.

Still, submarine enthusiasts like me must be aware of the dangers of letting drone technology developments, or the enhancements of artificial intelligence and spy satellites dissuade US war planners away from using submarines as they should be used in combat. Whatever machine apocalypse may be on the horizon, it is not yet here. Until UUVs, AIs, and laser satellite tracking of subs is a reliable feature, American submariners should not expect to be kept out of fighting. 

Until that day, however, US submarines should stay in the fight.

About the Author 

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: Vice President Kamala Harris faces significant criticism, often more intense than her predecessors. While some of it is based on her verbal gaffes, prosecutorial record, and electoral history, a portion is unearned, such as the right-wing claim that she is a socialist.

-Critics like Justin Haskins argue that Harris’s policies align with democratic socialism, citing her support for the Green New Deal and Medicare for All.

-However, her prosecutorial actions and moderate stances suggest otherwise. Labeling Harris a socialist is hyperbolic and obscures her true political views, which are more nuanced and do not aim to dismantle capitalism.

Kamala Harris: Socialist? 

Vice President Kamala Harris has always been a magnet for criticism. Criticism comes with the territory, after all, of being the Vice President. But Harris does seem to warrant a touch more criticism than her predecessors, like Mike Pence or Joe Biden or Al Gore. Harris’s defenders will tell you the extra criticism is a result of Harris’s race and gender, an idea that I dismiss. Rather, Harris’s criticism seems to stem more from earned sources, like her verbal gaffes, prosecutorial record, and history of running bad elections. Much of the criticism is indeed earned.

Still, like any politician of Harris’s prominence, Harris attracts some unearned criticism. Consider the ongoing right wing claim that Harris is essentially a socialist. The right likes to call political opponents socialists. It’s a quick dismissal, without nuance, or usually, basis in reality. Actually, the right calls people a socialist so often you’d think the charge would lose all meaning, and perhaps, to an extent, it has. But let’s take a look at the socialism charges being leveled against Harris, if for no other reason than dismissing them out of hand.

Dabbling in Socialism

If Harris succeeds in becoming president, Justin Haskins mused in a Fox News opinion piece, “her administration would likely be the most socialist and destructive in our country’s history.” Haskins proceeds, stating that Biden was one of America’s most progressive presidents.

(Fact check: Biden is most certainly not a progressive, despite paying occasional lip service to progressive cultural values. Biden is a Catholic with personal reservations about abortion, who helped craft Delaware into the most pro-business state in the country and has supported Israel’s ongoing campaign against Hamas.)

But, per Haskins, Harris would be even further to the left of Biden. It’s standard conservative fare. 

“In fact,” Haskins wrote, “if Harris were to become president, it’s fair to say that she would be the first democratic socialist candidate to fill the position in the 248-year history of the United States.”

I’m not sure Harris, who once prosecuted truants and minor drug offenders heavily while letting monopolists slip past unprosecuted, qualifies as a democratic socialist. I suspect if we were to ask Bernie Sanders, who worked alongside Harris in the Senate, and who describes himself, unapologetically,  as a democratic socialist, if Harris were also a democratic socialist, Sanders would tell you no.

Harris has supported items that democratic socialists also support, as Haskins points out, namely the Green New Deal and Medicare for All, but Harris hardly seems willing to dismantle capitalism, as any true socialist inherently aspires.

“Americans simply cannot afford Harris’s radical vision for the country,” Haskins wrote. “And even if it could, putting the dysfunctional, inefficient, corrupt federal government in charge of virtually every part of our lives, from health care to the kinds of cars we can drive, should be avoided at all costs.”

Harris has her flaws, which I’m happy to explore. But labeling Harris a socialist is rote hyperbole, which obscures Harris’s true world view – a world view we would do well to understand should she become the next president of the United States.  

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.

Summary and Key Points: Russia’s sole aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, has not participated in the Russo-Ukraine War, as it has been undergoing extensive and costly repairs for several years.

-The vessel's prolonged maintenance issues have raised questions about its value and purpose. Built partly for prestige, the Kuznetsov symbolizes Russia’s desire to project power and maintain its status as a significant military force. However, its frequent need for repairs and reliance on support crews have undermined its effectiveness.

-As Russia continues to face setbacks in Ukraine, the operational absence of the Kuznetsov highlights the broader struggles within its military infrastructure.

Russia's Last and Only Aircraft Carrier Is On Borrowed Time 

Russia’s lone aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, has not participated in the Russo-Ukraine War, despite being one of Putin’s flagship vessels.

Rather, the Kuznetsov has been undergoing costly repairs, for several years, forcing questions over why the Russians wanted the boat in the first place.

Modern troubles for Admiral Kuznetsov

The Russian military has failed to impress during the two-plus-year invasion of Ukraine. Failing to secure meaningful territory, failing to secure the airspace, the operation has underwhelmed – in large part because of underwhelming equipment that the Ukrainian resistance has consistently thwarted.

Several facets of the Russian military have suffered heavy losses and proven ineffective. The Air Force. The Army. And indeed, the Navy. Most notably, the Russians lost the Moskva, the Black Sea Fleet’s premier battleship, in 2022, in what was one of the first indications that the Russian effort would not go as smoothly as hoped.

At least the Moskva was able to participate, however briefly, in the conflict. The Admiral Kuznetsov has not sailed since the conflict began and appears likely to sail near the tail end of 2024. The Kuznetsov’s failure to contribute to the war effort tracks with the problems the boat has had throughout its tenure; the Kuznetsov has often required heavy maintenance and was often reduced to heavy reliance on support crews, including tugboats, making the investment suspect.

Why build the Kuznetsov? 

Why did the Russians want the Kuznetsov in the first place? In part because the aircraft carrier confers prestige upon its owner. The aircraft carrier states implicitly that the boat’s owner is powerful and monied.

Only a few of the world’s nations have demonstrated the ability to fund, build, and operate an aircraft carrier – making for something of an exclusive club. A nation like Russia, which is the remnant of the Soviet superpower, and will go to great lengths to posture as though still a superpower, would be especially attracted to fielding an aircraft carrier; for without an aircraft carrier, the Russians would appear as they are: past their prime, over the hill, hollowed out and overly dependent on Cold War tech and equipment.

So, like the neighbor trying to match his neighbor, who recently bought a new sportscar, Russia likely felt something like social pressure to build an aircraft carrier. Then, of course, there are strategic reasons to build an aircraft carrier.

Nothing allows a nation to move around pieces on the geopolitical chessboard quite like an aircraft carrier; an aircraft carrier allows a nation to project airpower around the globe, in an ever-moving way. For any nation with designs on projecting power beyond its borders, the aircraft carrier is a vital tool.

Russia is a regional power, and the Kuznetsov seems built with regional aspirations; the Mazut fuel source is far more limited relative to the nuclear power that can keep modern aircraft carriers at sea for decades at a time. But the Kuznetsov, when working properly, does allow the Russians to move power around the European region. So, naturally, fielding the Kuznetsov did have a strategic upside. Of course, that upside is dependent upon the Kuznetsov being operational.  

About the Author: Harrison Kass 

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

Summary and Key Points: Northrop Grumman anticipates significant losses on the initial production of the B-21 Raider bomber, with up to $1.56 billion in potential losses for the first five units. Despite this, the program remains on schedule and within budget, ensuring taxpayer costs are controlled.

-Future lots of the Raider will see price increases, benefiting the company's financial outlook. Northrop Grumman's stock received an upgrade following the announcement.

-The program, progressing as planned, is expected to include over 100 bombers, although concerns remain about the bomber's relevance given rapid technological advancements and potential long-term costs.

High-flying Margins: Northrop Grumman Looks to See Profit With Future B-21 Lots

Aviation contractor Northrop Grumman is taking a significant loss on its first batch of the B-21 Raider, the future backbone of the United States Air Force's bomber fleet. This has allowed the aircraft to remain on time, and more importantly, for taxpayers to stay on budget. In its early call with investors last week, the company announced it could lose up to $1.56 billion producing the first five Raiders.

Last October, Northrop Grumman chief executive Kathy Warden warned that the B-21 program would not initially see profit. She had previously warned it could see a loss of up to $1.2 billion – while the figures were revised last week.

The Raider Will Cost More

However, the price tag of the Raider is certainly expected to rise, which is good news for investors as it will bolster the company's bottom line. There had been concerns regarding the "profitability" of the long-range strategic bomber, and it has been reported that the Department of Defense (DoD) will have to pay more for subsequent lots of the bombers.

Following the announcement Northrop Grumman received a stock rating upgrade from Deutsche Bank.

"The firm elevated the stock from Hold to Buy, simultaneously increasing the price target to $575 from the previous $474. This adjustment reflects a positive shift in the bank's valuation approach following recent company disclosures," Investing.com reported.

Progress Continues on the B-21 Raider Bomber

During last week's earning call, Warden told investors that the Raider program is progressing as planned, and that includes flight tests. The B-21 remains well within its cost and schedule estimates since it entered low-rate initial production (LRIP) in January.

"As we recently shared, B-21 test pilots report that the aircraft is flying like the simulator, which is another indication that our digital environment has effectively predicted the performance of the aircraft, thus reducing new discovery and risk. For these reasons and more, we continue to believe in the significant value this program will create for customers and shareholders over time," Warden explained.

As previously reported, the U.S. Air Force's B-21 raider program was mapped out to avoid a Nunn-McCurdy Act breach that could come from out-of-control development costs. That legislation, made permanent in 1983, allows lawmakers to better manage the cost of Major Defense Acquisition Programs, as it requires the Pentagon to inform lawmakers if a program will incur a cost or schedule overrun of more than fifteen percent.

That may have forced Northrop Grumman to better manage costs, and stick to the schedule.

Yet, the Raider program – which is expected to include more than 100 bombers –  has most of its production covered under a cost-plus contract, which means the Air Force (and in turn the American taxpayer) will reimburse the company for the extra expenses it incurs due to inflation.

The biggest concern now is that it could take more than fifteen years for the Air Force to receive its full order of even just 100 B-21s. If the program is scaled back, costs will rise. Yet, the question remains whether the Raider can retain its cutting edge into the late 2030s as technological advancements have been increasing at a rapid rate. Artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, quantum computers, autonomous systems, etc. – are evolving constantly, and many of the current platforms could likely be obsolete by the time the platforms reach full-rate production (FRP).

Air Force officials and lawmakers are likely to consider whether the bomber is truly worth the cost.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: Earlier this month, two U.S. Air Force B-52 Stratofortress bombers from Barksdale AFB undertook a notable mission as part of Bomber Task Force (BTF) 24-4, flying over Europe and the Middle East.

-One B-52 flew from Romania to the Middle East in a 32-hour mission amid rising tensions in Iraq and Syria, integrating with NATO allies and enhancing agile combat employment tactics.

-The mission included support from KC-135 Stratotankers and A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft. Despite a mechanical issue grounding one bomber, the mission underscored the B-52's enduring role, with plans to keep it operational through the 2040s with future upgrades.

U.S. Air Force B-52s Made Flight Over Middle East

Earlier this month, a pair of Boeing B-52 Stratofortress long-range strategic bombers from the 2nd Bomb Wing, Barksdale Air Force Base (AFB), Louisiana, made an epic flight to Mihail Kogalniceanu Airbase, Romania, as part of the Bomber Task Force (BTF) 24-4 mission. The aircraft's time in the air was extended as the bombers took a route via the North Sea and the Barents Sea before passing over  NATO member nation Finland.

As previously reported, BTF 24-4 was already notable as it marked the first time a B-52 crossed over Finland, and also the first deployment of the Cold War-era bombers to Romania. As the aircraft flew over the Barents Sea, Russian Mikoyan MiG-29 and Mikoyan MiG-31 fighters were sortied to "intercept" the American bombers.

This Bomber Is Continuing to Log the Miles

While deployed to Europe B-52s operated as the 20th Expeditionary Bomb Squadron, according to the U.S. Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) – Air Forces Africa (AFAFRICA). During the BTF 24-4 mission, the pair of Stratofortress bombers successfully integrated with NATO allies and other international partners.

"In today's global environment, it is vital that we be postured to deliver a range of sustainable capability from great distances. This iteration of Bomber Task Force offers an excellent opportunity to refine our agile combat employment tactics, techniques, and procedures," said Gen. James Hecker, USAFE-AFAFRICA commander. "Through collaborative efforts with our Allies, the U.S. enables our forces to combat current and future threats."

The bomber crews didn't have time to take in the sights, at least not from the ground.

Just days after landing in Romania, one of the bombers was back in the air, flying from Europe to the Middle East late last week. The thirty-two-hour flight on July 25 and July 26 occurred as U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria came under attack, Air & Space Forces magazine reported.

Flight tracking data revealed that the bomber took off from Romania, then flew south across Bulgaria and Greece before crossing the Mediterranean Sea, where the Stratofortress entered the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) area of operations. The nearly day-and-a-half-long deployment saw the aircraft travel across Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and then to the Persian Gulf before the aircraft made a return flight back home to Barksdale AFB.

"The exercise also included KC-135 Stratotankers deployed from Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington, McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas, and A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft from Selfridge Air National Guard Base, Michigan," the U.S. Air Force Central Command further announced. The KC-135s and A-10s are also reported to have been deployed to the Middle East for ongoing U.S. operations in the region.

Is the B-52 Showing Its Age?

It was also reported that only one of the pair of B-52 made the Middle Eastern flight as the second reportedly suffered "mechanical problems" and didn't take off, according to reports from social media. Though the second B-52 is also back home now, this is a reminder of why it is so important that the Air Force deploys the aircraft in pairs or more – which ensures that the mission can be completed.

The B-52s have been flying since the mid-1950s, and while continually upgraded and enhanced, the aircraft is far older than their current crews. The United States Air Force intends on keeping the B-52s in operation through the 2040s or later, with future upgrades including new Rolls-Royce engines and cockpit layout.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

As Kais Saied’s government tries to capitalize on demand for a critical mineral, the country’s environment and Gafsa Valley residents are suffering.

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy’s Seawolf-class attack submarines, conceived during the Reagan era's military revolution, are among the most technologically advanced in the world. Initially planned for a fleet of 29, only three were built due to the post-Cold War peace dividend and high costs.

-These submarines excel in covert missions, special forces transport, and Arctic operations. Despite their superiority, their limited numbers pose a strategic risk, as seen when USS Connecticut was damaged and will be out of service until 2025.

-The decision to curtail the Seawolf fleet may have significant repercussions as the U.S. faces near-peer challengers like China and Russia.

The U.S. Navy Should’ve Built a Fleet of Seawolf-class Subs

The 1980s saw an explosion of capabilities in the U.S. military. A little less than a decade earlier, there were radical changes in America’s technological capabilities. These changes were not only felt in the civilian economy of the West, such as with the rise of personal computing, but with the advent of advanced microchips that were folded into military systems. 

Reagan’s Revolution in Military Affairs

On top of that, the Reagan revolution in U.S. politics occurred. One of the hallmarks of President Ronald Reagan’s revolution was massive spending on defense projects. As a result of these expenditures came a revolution in military affairs, one that was felt for decades to come. Indeed, many of the military technologies that the Department of Defense takes for granted today are expressly born out of the Reagan revolution in military affairs.

The world’s most advanced warplane, for example, is the F-22 Raptor. This bird was originally created at the height of this revolution. It took years to finish designing and to properly test. But its origins are during the glory days of Reagan’s revolution. 

Multiple other capabilities, some of which remain classified today, originated in the Reagan era. One such platform, the Seawolf-class attack submarine, emanates from this halcyon era of innovation and development in the defense sector. 

The Context of the Seawolf-Class Submarine’s Time

Although she was not ready for deployment when Reagan was in office, the Seawolf class was meant to replace the Los Angeles-class attack sub. Seawolf was launched in 1995, the second term of President Bill Clinton, and was commissioned by the U.S. Navy in 1997. 

USS Seawolf was supposed to be the first of some 29 Seawolf-class submarines. But the time she was commissioned in was far different from the Reagan days when she was first conceived.

The Cold War was over. It was a blessedly bloodless victory. Clinton had bested the more competent President George H.W. Bush in the 1992 election, partly because Clinton sang the populist song of retrenchment, lauding the so-called peace dividend.

The peace dividend meant drastic cuts to key systems that were designed during the Reagan years. The Soviets were gone. There were no significant near-peer challengers on the horizon. Counterterrorism and humanitarian military operations were the primary concerns of the post-Cold War-era military. The Seawolf class, which was explicitly designed to fight the Soviet Red Navy, was considered a wasteful investment.

Of course, hindsight is 20/20. 

Had Washington followed through on its initial plans for the Seawolf class, the U.S. Navy would be in a much better strategic position as it now faces real near-peer challengers in China and Russia. 

What Might Have Been

The Seawolf class remains America’s most technologically sophisticated submarine. It’s also wildly expensive. At $3.5 billion per submarine in this class, Congress understandably balked at the thought of spending for a fleet of more than 20 Seawolf-class submarines. Still, they were significantly cheaper than the increasingly obsolete U.S. aircraft carrier force. 

The four Seawolf-class subs that the U.S. Navy does use are all legendary boats. 

What the Seawolf-Class Can Do

These subs are used for daring covert missions. They can transport special forces operators to remote locations or carry out risky surveillance missions. They’re equipped with next-level weapons capabilities. The Seawolf class is designed to operate in the most forbidding environments in the world. 

A Seawolf-class sub could easily go from secretly tapping undersea communications cables to popping through the Arctic ice to keep an eye on the pesky Russians, who have been angling to dominate the High North since at least 2008.

Can other submarines do these tasks? 

Yes. 

However, the technology found within the Seawolf-class submarines remains among some of the most advanced systems in the world, even more than 20 years after they were first commissioned. There are so few Seawolf-class submarines available, though, that the loss of one would be catastrophic for the Navy’s fleet disposition. 

In 2022, USS Connecticut, another Seawolf-class submarine, crashed into an undersea mountain while it was covertly surveying the secretive Chinese naval base on Hainan Island in the South China Sea.

While the submarine was not destroyed, it won’t be returning to service until the fall of 2025. With how backlogged America’s ailing shipyards are, it’s probable that it won’t be hitting the high seas for some time. 

The short-sighted decision not to build the requisite number of Seawolf-class attack submarines will cost America when the next great power starts.

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. 

From the Vault

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

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

Summary and Key Points: The Russian military is intensifying its offensive in the Donbas, making steady advances despite heavy casualties.

-Over recent weeks, Russian forces have captured several villages and moved closer to the logistics hub of Pokrovsk, which supports a significant portion of the Ukrainian defensive line.

-Additionally, the town of Niu York remains contested. Despite these tactical gains, Russia's operational capability is hampered by high attrition, limited training, and a shortage of officers. Ukrainian defense forces report significant Russian losses, including 1,060 personnel, 53 vehicles, and 47 artillery systems in the past 24 hours.

-The conflict remains intense, with no sign of de-escalation.

The Ukraine War: Russia Steps Up Attacks in Donbas 

Over the past few weeks, the Russian forces have made some progress. 

“In July 2024, Russian Ground Forces (RGF) maintained continuous attacks in central Donetsk Oblast,” British Military Intelligence assessed in its latest estimate on the war. “The RGF made steady advances westwards, taking control of several villages and moving closer to the logistics hub of Pokrovsk.”

The logistical functions at Pokrovsk support a good part of the contact line in the Donbas. Losing it would complicate Ukraine’s defense. 

“The RGF also made advances northwards into the town of Niu York, which has been on the frontline since 2014. The town is almost certainly contested between the RFG and Ukrainian Armed Forces,” British Military Intelligence stated.

It is worth remembering that the fighting in some parts of the Donbas has been going on for a decade now. It began soon after the illegal Russian invasion and annexation of the Crimean Peninsula. Pro-Russian separatists in the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts then launched a full-scale insurgency in the Donbas with Russia's direct and indirect support. 

When the Russian military launched its full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022, fighting in the area reignited. However, despite fluctuations on the contact line, there are some places where the positions have remained fairly similar to 10 years ago. 

“It is likely that Russia will continue to make tactical advances in the coming weeks. However, its overall operational capability remains limited by several factors including a high attrition rate, limited training, and a shortage of officers,” British Military Intelligence concluded. 

As we have discussed previously here at The National Interest, Russian forces are taking extremely heavy losses on a daily basis. 

Russian Casualties are Mounting in Ukraine War  

According to the latest data released by the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense – data generally corroborated by Western military intelligence estimates – Russian forces over the last 24 hours lost approximately 1,060 men killed, wounded, or captured, as well as 53 tactical vehicles and fuel trucks, 47 artillery guns and multiple launch rocket systems, 38 infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, 27 unmanned aerial systems, 25 main battle tanks, and 6 pieces of special equipment. 

Despite the heavy losses, the Russian forces continue to be on the offensive. However, the scope of the Russian offensives is very limited. Indeed, instead of trying to achieve an operational breakthrough and move the conflict forward, the Russian forces are vying for tactical successes. This is almost certainly because they lack the necessary combat capability and resources to conduct maneuver warfare of the sort necessary to achieve larger results on the battlefield. As such, Moscow’s casualties both dictate and restrict the way the Russian military fights in Ukraine. 

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. 

Summary and Key Points: The Pentagon has announced a substantial $2 billion security aid package for Ukraine, aimed at bolstering its defenses against Russian missile attacks and achieving battlefield superiority. The package includes air defense systems like NASAMS missiles and RIM-7 Sea Sparrow missiles, long-range fires like HIMARS and M270 rocket systems, and 155 mm artillery shells.

-It also provides Javelin anti-tank missiles, small arms, and electronic warfare equipment. This aid is split between the Presidential Drawdown Authority, which quickly supplies existing U.S. military resources, and the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, which funds the purchase of new weapon systems.

-This support is crucial for Ukraine's continued resistance and counter-offensives against Russian forces.

Pentagon Announces $2 Billion Security Aid Package for Ukraine

The Pentagon announced another big package of security aid to Ukraine. The aid is worth almost $2 billion. 

This latest package of weapon systems and munitions is designed to help the Ukrainians fend off Russian missile attacks and to obtain fires superiority on the battlefield. 

Air Defenses and Artillery for the Ukraine War

The latest package includes missiles for the National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS); short- and medium-range air defense munitions; RIM-7 Sea Sparrow air defense missiles modified to go with Kyiv’s SA-11 Buk mobile air defense systems; and precision aerial munitions. 

For long-range fires, the latest package of security aid includes ammunition for the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems and M270 Multiple Launch Rocket Systems; 155 mm and 105 mm artillery shells; and 120 mm heavy mortar rounds. The 155 mm shells are in the highest demand. On days with high operational activity, the Ukrainian military will go through as many as 7,000 of these artillery rounds.

In addition, the latest package of military aid contains other weapon systems and munitions for ground combat, including Tube-Launched, Optically-Tracked, Wire-Guided missiles; FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missiles; small arms, AT-4 anti-tank missiles; explosives and demolition equipment; secure radios; commercial satellite imagery services; electronic warfare equipment; spare parts, maintenance, and sustainment support; and other ancillary equipment.

“Today, the Department of Defense (DoD) announced additional security assistance to meet Ukraine's critical security and defense needs. This includes the authorization of a Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA) package valued at up to $200 million to provide Ukraine with key capabilities, including: air defense interceptors; munitions for rocket systems and artillery; and anti-tank weapons,” the Pentagon stated in a press statement. 

In addition to the PDA package, the Pentagon announced a $1.5 billion security aid package under the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. 

“This package includes capabilities to augment Ukraine's air defenses, fires, and anti-tank weapons, as well as funding to sustain equipment previously committed by the United States,” the Pentagon added. 

The difference between PDA and USAI military packages is simple. PDA draws from the existing supplies of the U.S. military. For example, the M1 Abrams main battle tanks sent to Ukraine are refurbished U.S. Marine Corps tanks. PDA is fast and efficient. On the other hand, USAI gives money to buy new weapons systems and munitions off the market. Although the Ukrainians are getting new materials, there is more delay than with PDA security assistance. 

The Ukrainian military depends on Western military aid for its survival. Certainly the Ukrainians are stout fighters with unmatched creativity and resilience. However, it is Western military aid that has allowed the Ukrainian forces to first stop and then push back the invading Russian forces. It is Western military aid that will help the Ukrainians win this war and liberate their country. 

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. 

Historically, lame-duck presidents have experienced mixed success.

Summary and Key Points: China is rapidly advancing its naval capabilities, particularly with its Shang-class attack submarines, designed to replace the outdated Han-class.

-The Shang-class, featuring advanced sonar systems, anechoic tiles, and YJ-82 anti-ship missiles, is as quiet as the U.S. Navy's Los Angeles-class submarines. With virtually unlimited endurance from its nuclear reactor, the Shang-class is a formidable adversary.

-The U.S. Department of Defense expects more Shang-class submarines, including the Type 093B variant with enhanced missile capabilities, to be built soon. China's industrial efficiency and proximity to potential conflict zones give it a strategic advantage, challenging U.S. naval dominance.

China’s Growing Naval Power: The Shang-Class Submarine Threat

China is the only great power thinking seriously about naval power today. Beijing sits atop the second-largest economy in the world (in GDP terms) and the largest economy in PPP terms. China’s rulers are effectively deploying that vast wealth and technological advancements in Beijing’s bid to become the world’s dominant superpower by the hundredth-year anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China (the year 2049). 

As part of the effort, China is building a fleet of advanced submarines that can counter the U.S. Navy’s submarine force.

Paired with China’s industrial efficiency, Beijing has an edge that, if not in terms of quality, certainly surpasses the Americans in terms of quantity. That, as well as the fact that any future engagement between the US Navy and the Chinese Navy would be much closer to Chinese shores, means that China’s growing submarine fleet will have considerable leverage over their American enemies.

The Shang-class attack submarine is China’s second-generation nuclear-powered attack sub. It was designed to replace the aging Han-class attack submarine, which had considerable drawbacks. 

The Han-class Sub Informs the Shang-class Submarine

China’s first-generation nuclear-powered attack submarine, the Han-class, was China’s first nuclear-powered submarine ever. Its development was a significant leap in China’s naval abilities. 

But the Han-class was a mess compared to its Soviet or American rivals. This boat had a length of approximately 98 meters and a displacement of around 5,100 tons when submerged. The Han class was powered by a single nuclear reactor. She was equipped with six 533 mm bow torpedo tubes capable of launching a variety of anti-submarine and anti-surface vessel torpedoes. 

She carried around 75 crewmembers.

The common complaint among China’s submariners was that the Han class was far too noisy. In undersea warfare, stealth and silence are the greatest advantages. 

What’s more, the Han-class was about 20 years behind similar U.S. vessels, and its performance was limited by the development level and manufacturing capacity of China’s defense industrial base at the time of its construction. 

Some Capabilities…

As for the Shang-class submarine, there are roughly six in service to China. In terms of her capabilities, the Shang-class comes equipped with six 533 mm bow torpedo tubes of similar capability to its Han-class predecessor. Further, the Shang-class can launch YJ-82 anti-ship and land-attack missiles. Meanwhile, the Shang II-class submarine (Type 093B) is equipped with a Vertical Launch System for YJ-18 supersonic and anti-ship missiles as well as variants of the anti-ship CJ-10 cruise missile.

Shang-class attack submarines carry around 100 crewmembers, and their defensive capabilities include advanced sonar systems and anechoic tiles to reduce the submarine’s acoustic signature. The Shang class is considered to be as quiet as the U.S. Navy’s Los Angeles-class attack submarines, with a noise level of around 110 decibels. 

Shang-class subs are powered by a nuclear reactor, giving them virtually unlimited endurance and range. The top cruising speed of this boat is estimated to be around 30 knots (or just shy of 35 miles per hour). She displaces around 6,675 tons when submerged for the Type 093/A variant, and 6,700 tons when submerged for the Type 093B variant.

China is planning to build more Shang-class submarines, with the U.S. Department of Defense estimating that China will build the Type 093B guided-missile nuclear attack submarine in the next year or so. 

A Fool’s Errand: Underestimating China's Submarines

China continues to catch up to the Americans in key areas. The Shang-class submarine represents one key area where China’s military is moving toward parity with the Americans. 

The Shang-class submarine is a real improvement from what came before it. The West is foolish both for underestimating China’s threat and capabilities as well as for assuming that the United States can counter and/or deter China indefinitely. 

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. 

From the Vault

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

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

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy's new Transferrable Rearming Mechanism (TRAM) allows surface warships to reload missile canisters at sea, potentially extending combat operations without returning to port. This innovation aims to address logistical challenges in conflicts, particularly against China.

-However, China's anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities pose significant threats that the Navy has yet to effectively counter. While TRAM enhances operational endurance, its effectiveness is limited if U.S. ships can't penetrate China's A2/AD defenses.

-Overcoming these advanced defensive systems remains crucial for TRAM's utility in future naval engagements. Until then, the Navy's new capability may be premature against a well-prepared adversary like China.

The U.S. Navy Misses the Boat with Its TRAM Capability

It takes many things to win modern wars. But the baseline requirement is a proper logistical supply chain linking your forces with their base of support. In the U.S. case, that means linking a forward-deployed military, in particular the Navy, with its homeland. America is blessed to be free of threats in its near-abroad. Instead, the U.S. moves its all-volunteer force to Eurasia and the rimland surrounding it. 

The Navy is therefore essential to America’s military dominance.

For the first time since the Second World War, though, American rivals are rising to challenge the Navy’s freedom of movement. 

The Navy’s primary role is what’s known as “sea control.” Essentially, it is the Navy’s job to ensure the Americans can access any waterway in the world quickly in order to win whatever conflict the U.S. is fighting. But the Navy’s ability to do this has shrunk as the capabilities of rival nation-states like China increase relative to America’s.

China’s threat is far away from the United States. The Pacific is a vast ocean separating the power base of the U.S. military from the possible battlefields of any conflict with the People’s Republic of China. Given the geography and disposition of the U.S. military, the Navy will play a leading role in any fight with China. That is why China has worked assiduously to undermine the ability of the U.S. Navy to reliably project power into contested regions in the Indo-Pacific. 

TRAM: Understanding the Role of Logistics 

One likely area of attack from China would be against American logistics supporting any naval activity in the Indo-Pacific during a possible war with Beijing. Finally, the Navy appears to be on the brink of overcoming a deficit in this regard. A recent successful demonstration from the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Port Hueneme in California showed how the U.S. Navy’s surface fleet intends to keep besieged units in combat for longer. 

The folks at Port Hueneme proved they can reliably reload missile canisters into the Mk41 Vertical Launching Systems of U.S. Navy surface warships that are forward-deployed. 

Known as the Transferrable Rearming Mechanism (TRAM), it is believed that this new capability of reloading at sea will be decisive for the Navy’s surface fleet in any engagement with a hostile navy. 

Or, as the Navy’s official site exudes, “No longer will our combatants need to withdraw from combat for extended periods to return for vulnerable in-port reloading of weapon systems.” 

It’s an unqualified good that the Navy can now do this. But it might come too late. 

China has developed substantial countermeasures designed to overcome America’s perceived military advantages at sea. Its anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities are now the foundation of China’s military presence in the South and East China Seas. These defensive systems are built to deny U.S. access to a contested battle area. Advanced sensors, anti-ship ballistic missile systems, and hypersonic weapons define China’s A2/AD threat. 

Contrary to whatever the Navy’s official position on these A2/AD capabilities from China may be, the U.S. Navy does not have viable defenses against these systems. 

The Navy is Not Keeping Up

More than that, the Navy has not yet effectively demonstrated that it has the ability to produce directed-energy weapons or hypersonic weapons of its own that can reliably challenge China. This creates a severe strategic deficit and lends China significant tactical advantages that it otherwise would lack.  

America’s problem is the A2/AD threat. Being able to “fire two broadsides to the enemy’s one,” as Hunter Stires, a maritime analyst for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, described this new TRAM capability, misses the point. There’s no reason to reload at sea with TRAM if the surface fleet cannot get close enough to fire on Chinese targets that are protected by A2/AD defensive bubbles, nor is there any reason to reload at sea if China can simply sink U.S. warships with their A2/AD systems.

A Parade of Horribles 

Will this capability be useful for the Navy? 

Undoubtedly, yes. 

Will it be useful before rival A2/AD systems can be overcome? Absolutely not. 

Are rival A2/AD systems being overcome by Navy innovations? Not yet. 

Once the A2/AD threat is mitigated, then the Navy surface fleet can be more fully used, and that reload-at-sea capability becomes more important. Until then, however, the Navy is basically putting the cart before the horse. This will have profoundly negative consequences for the U.S. military if a war with China erupts. 

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. 

From the Vault

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

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

Summary and Key Points: During recent U.S.-led naval exercises near Hawaii, the Harpoon missile demonstrated its enduring capabilities by sinking two large warships. Used by over thirty nations, this American-made anti-ship missile has been a mainstay since the Cold War.

-Developed by McDonnell Douglas in response to the 1967 sinking of the Israeli destroyer Eilat, the Harpoon features a low-level, sea-skimming cruise trajectory with active radar guidance. Various versions, including the air-launched Standoff Land Attack Missile (SLAM), have been utilized in multiple combat operations, showcasing its versatility and effectiveness.

-Despite its age, the Harpoon missile remains a formidable force in modern naval warfare.

Harpoon: A History of the Best Anti-Ship Missile Ever (According to Some Experts)

This month, two large warships were sunk by the U.S. Navy and its allies on a U.S.-led international military exercise on the Rim of the Pacific, near the Hawaiian Islands. These live-fire sinking drills included a consortium of twenty-nine nations, forty surface ships, three submarines, and roughly 25,000 personnel. 

Footage of these wargames showcases the capabilities of the naval capabilities of America’s allies, namely the Royal Netherlands Navy’s De Zeven Provincien-class frigate: the proud HNLMS Tromp with its advanced, and expensive, Harpoon missiles, valued at more than $1.4 million.

These resilient, American-made, anti-ship missiles have been used by America’s allies since the days of the Cold War. These systems, while aged, did so like fine wine, as they continue to play a leading role in America’s power on the high seas. Today, the Harpoon missiles remain in service, utilized by more than thirty nations as the world’s most successful anti-ship missile available.

An Overview of the Harpoon

Conceptualization for the Harpoon peaked in the 1960s, following the shocking sinking of the Israeli destroyer Eilat during the Israeli-Egyptian war of 1967. The warship was on patrol off the coast of the Egyptian town of Port Said when a Soviet-designed P-15 Termit/SS-N-2 Styx anti-ship missile thoroughly destroyed the Israeli vessel. This attack began a new stage in naval warfare, as the first surface-to-surface missiles had sunk a warship at sea.

Militaries around the globe, including the United States, were shocked by the success of the Soviet weapon. Thick was the kick that American officials were looking for to prioritize constructing a more advanced anti-ship missile inventory. Manufacturer McDonnell Douglas was then tasked with developing the Harpoon to rectify the gap in capability.

Harpoon Missile Variants Over the Years

The first Harpoon was delivered by the end of the 1970’s. Utilizing a low-level, sea-skimming cruise trajectory with active radar guidance, capable of using both anti-ship and land-strike missiles. Following its second anniversary in the service, air-launched Harpoons were developed on the Navy’s P-3C Orion aircraft and later for use on the Air Force’s B-52H bombers. Over time, multiple Harpoon variants have been created for the platform, retaining an edge over any competitors. 

The missiles could be launched from a range of systems, from surface ships and submarines to fixed-wing aircraft and coastal defense batteries. The Block 1E version of the missile, better known as the Standoff Land Attack Missile (SLAM) was first introduced in the 1990s, and the Harpoon Block II debuted in 2009.

While many Harpoon variants may differ slightly in terms of capabilities, the Block 1E (AGM-84E/SLAM) largely departs from its predecessors.

As outlined by the Center for International and Strategic Studies (CSIS), “An air-launched land attack missile, the addition of a Global Positioning System receiver, a Walleye infrared (IIR) optical guidance system, and a Maverick data-link system resulted in a significantly more precise weapon. The missile is 4.5 meters in length and 0.34 meters in diameter, with a launch weight of 628 kg. SLAM entered service in 1990 and was successfully employed in Operation Desert Storm and UN relief efforts in Bosnia.”

Since the Harpoon’s introduction to service, the anti-ship missile has been deployed in numerous combat operations. In its first decade of service, Harpoon missiles were used to sink the Iranian frigate Sahand during Operation Praying Mantis and against Libyan forces in the Gulf of Sidra.

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. 

F-16 “Iron Eagle”, similar to the F-16s now making their way to Ukraine.

The 1980s was an era that was characterized by high levels of patriotism in he United States, supported by a generation of action films and accompanying stars. A few months before the release of Top Gun, there was a movie about a kid and his plane called Iron Eagle, a film built around the F-16A/B Viper (as opposed to the F-15 Eagle) being used to dominate a fictional country that played the role of fake Libya at the time. With new developments in Ukraine, the first F-16s are making their way to the war zone, a conflict that has had reduced air power due to the prevalence of so many anti-aircraft systems in the region.

While the renewal of patriotic movements remains to be seen, the promotion of the F-16 in Ukraine is seen as a game changer in the conflict despite the aircraft being a 1980’s classic, with non-stealth vulnerabilities and a limited fuel capacity. The F-14 from Top Gun, F-15 and F-16 were all designed in the late 1970s as a response to the prevalence of the nimble Soviet MiG-21, keeping their place in the front line of US Air Power ever since. While the F-14s have already been retired for sometime, the F-15 and F-16 are still considered some of the best aircraft in operation to date, even if being of an increasingly older design. Upgrades often are to the internal systems, software, radars and modernization of computer systems to keep the F-15 and F-16 potent on the battlefield. Much of these improvements have also been challenged by modern anti-aircraft systems, designed to kill an F-15 and F-16 through many layers of air defence. The narrative on the F-16s being a singularly awesome tool to turn the tide in the conflict comes with a softening of Russian Air Defence and good PR on the 1980s system. Perhaps they would do well with a promotional film after the success of Top Gun: Maverick, as wonder systems like the Leopard 2s and M1 Abrams have not matched the hype in performance, while still operating within successful realistic measures on the battlefield.

Air power in the War in Ukraine was met with some horrific tragedies, with Russian S-300 missile systems tracking Ukrainian aircraft from Belarus and shooting them down. Ukraine’s air arm, while flying in Ukraine, was in danger soon after takeoff in their own territory earlier in the conflict. Recent techniques to destroy Russian Air Defence radars and missiles have taken shape using drones and tactical ballistic missiles like Hi-Mars, focusing on larger and more complex S-400 missile batteries that are designed to challenge advanced ballistic missile systems, but fail against simple drones and is questionable in defending against Hi-Mars. While drone attacks have been able to avoid being shot down by advanced systems on both sides of the conflict, often the S-400 would carry a smaller missile capability and be covered by other shorter range missile systems and radar guided cannons. Why the recent S-400 system in Crimea was unable to be protected is likely due to the lack of the smaller missiles in its own battery. We also do not know if the battery was lacking cover from TOR and Pantsir systems in the area, designed for battery defence. Even with layered defences, swarming a radar with drones and using advanced missiles at the same time are difficult to defend against, especially since the last truly operational radar/gun system was the 1980s era West German Gepard, now dusted off to shoot down terror drones in Ukraine.

It is difficult to know the success rate of drones and Hi-Mars attacks as there is the possibility that many missiles were launched and intercepted until a Hi-Mars was able to complete its mission. These targeted assaults on S-400 systems looks to be preparing for an increased air campaign in Ukraine, likely using donated NATO F-16s. While F-16s have a better chance of surviving anti-air shields, there are so many different systems in Ukraine that the success of the F-16 will be probably come from launching longer range weapons from a distance as opposed to close in attacks. All Russian and Soviet systems were designed to kill F-16s, coming out in the late 1980s, possibly as a response to Maverick and Goose with the ability to detect a volleyball from many miles away. They did not prevent Maverick attacking another fictional country however, and the real risks to the F-16s going to battle in Ukraine comes at high risk as well. The pilots for those missions need to hope for the best, but expect the worst in order to keep themselves safe during missions.

Summary and Key Points: As tensions rise in the Pacific, Japan's Maritime Self-Defense Force has commissioned its latest Taigei-class submarines to counter Chinese and North Korean aggression.

-The diesel-electric Taigei-class, including the lead ship Taigei and Hakugei, features advanced stealth, high-strength steel, and sophisticated lithium-ion batteries for enhanced underwater endurance.

-Armed with Type 18 and Type 89 torpedoes, and UGM-48 Harpoon missiles, these subs significantly bolster Japan's naval capabilities.

-With a displacement of 3,000 tons and cutting-edge technology, the Taigei-class is crucial for Japan's defense strategy. Analysts predict at least ten of these submarines will be built by 2027.

Japan’s Taigei-class Submarines: A Profile

As the People’s Republic of China (PRC) continues to engage in hostile activity in the Pacific, East Asian nations are gearing up for a potential full-blown war in the imminent future. Earlier this year, the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) commissioned its newest Taigei-class submarine. This diesel-electric boat dubbed “Swift Whale” is expected to officially commence its operational service with Japan over the next year. Since the South China Sea would serve as the hotbed for kinetic conflict, Japan’s growing naval capabilities are of the utmost importance to its security.

Introducing the Taigei-class

Japan’s Taigei-class submarines represent the country’s latest efforts to counter increased Chinese and North Korean aggression. The preceding Soryu boats were initially developed with this goal in mind and some of the class’s capabilities were transferred to the Taigei vessels. Before the final Soryu sub was commissioned, Japanese officials envisioned a “next-generation” submarine class that would prioritize stealth, dive speed, and other emerging technologies.

Evaluations for this future class’s sonar and air-independent propulsion system (AIP) were initiated in the early 2000s. This new AIP system was conceptualized to allow future submarine classes to expand their operational areas, a capability required by the JMSDF.

Specs & Capabilities

The lead ship of the Taigei class—Taigei—was commissioned in 2022 at the Yokosuka home port. It was followed by Hakugei one year later at the Kure home port. The Taigei submarines have a standard displacement of roughly 3,000 tons, which is larger than their Soryu predecessors. Each of these boas can carry a crew of about seven sailors and measures around 84 meters in length. These submarines notably feature sophisticated absorbent materials and high-strength steel to ensure a quieter operation and high water pressure resistance. When the fourth Taigei boat is introduced to service down the line, Raigei will notably feature the latest Kawasaki 12V 25/31 diesel engine unlike its sister ships.

Unlike other non-nuclear submarines that have been constructed, the Taigei boats feature lithium-ion batteries which provide faster recharge times, enhanced battery-discharge rates and higher energy density. The U.S. Naval Institute has previously outlined just how capable these batteries are: “The results are enhanced silent operations, better speeds and sprints, longer underwater endurance, and significantly greater overall performance when compared with more conventional undersea submarines. The use of lithium-ion batteries also saves weight and complexity by making an air-independent propulsion (AIP) system unnecessary to extend the submarine’s underwater endurance.”

Weapons

In terms of armament power, the Taigei class is quite lethal. The submarines are able to launch Japan’s newest Type 18 heavyweight torpedoes or Mitsuishi-built Type 89 heavyweight homing torpedoes via its six 21-inch bow torpedo tubes. Additionally, the Taigei boats can launch UGM-48 Harpoon anti-ship missiles. The missile range of the Harpoon is 248 km—enough to provide Japan with a “counterattack” capability.

Although Japan has not confirmed the total class size of its Taigei boats, analysts predict that at least ten of these submarines will be introduced down the line. Tokyo’s Defense Building Program budget was approved in 2022 and indicates that the last ship in this class will be built in 2027.

About the Author: Maya Carlin 

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: Corruption in Russia's defense and aerospace industry is a growing concern as the war in Ukraine intensifies. Western intelligence estimates that Russia loses over 20,000 artillery shells and at least 100 pieces of heavy weaponry daily.

-The recent arrests of high-ranking officials for embezzlement highlight the pervasive corruption within the industry. Established to streamline military procurement, the Military Construction Company has allegedly been exploited for personal gain.

-Despite Putin's crackdowns, corruption hampers Russia's military effectiveness. Meanwhile, Russian forces continue to suffer heavy casualties, with estimates suggesting losses will reach 700,000 by year's end.

The War in Ukraine: Russian Losses are Staggering...But Putin Keeps Fighting 

A country’s industrial military complex is a key factor in its ability to protect itself and wage war. After all, a military needs heavy weapon systems and ammunition to fight. As the fighting in Ukraine continues to show, the demands of modern conventional warfare are very high indeed.

For example, Western intelligence estimates put the number of artillery shells used by the Russian military during heavy fighting at over 20,000 per day. In terms of attrition, moreover, the Russian forces are losing at least 100 pieces of heavy weaponry every day.

A military can’t sustain such losses and demand for resources without a robust industrial military complex. So, the fact that corruption runs rampant in the Russian defense and aerospace industry is concerning the Kremlin.

Corruption in the Russian Industrial Military Complex

According to Russian media, Andrei Belkov, the head of the Russian Defense Ministry’s Military Construction Company has been arrested on charges of corruption for his activities during the procurement of military goods. Established in 2019, the Military Construction Company was created to streamline Russian military procurement and make it more efficient.

“In reality it is likely the company has been used to extract rents by corrupt officials,” the British Military Intelligence assessed in its latest estimate of the war.

In addition, last week, the former director of a tactical missile plant was sentenced to prison for embezzling military funds and inflating prices.

“Corruption is endemic in the Russian defense industry. In 2007, an audit commissioned by the then Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov revealed that 70% of Ministry of Defense budgetary resources were used for purposes other than those officially designated,” the British Military Intelligence added.

The Russian economy is heavily centered around corruption, with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the center and several oligarchs around the table. The transactional nature of Russian politics further encourages corruption.

“Some of this corruption is tolerated by the Kremlin, but there have been increasing crackdowns on those not sufficiently politically protected since the start of the war in Ukraine,” the British Military Intelligence concluded.

Regardless of how much Putin and his Kremlin advisers would like it, the Russian defense and aerospace industry is inferior to that of the United States and the West. Corruption—which certainly exists in the U.S. and the West—is one of the main reasons behind the fact that Russia’s weapons and platforms are not as good as those of its adversaries.

Russian Casualties in the Ukraine War are Historic 

Meanwhile, the Russian forces continue to take heavy casualties on the ground. According to the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense, over the last 24 hours, the Russian forces lost approximately 1,310 men killed, wounded, or captured, as well as 76 artillery pieces and multiple launch rocket systems, 62 tactical vehicles and fuel trucks, 39 unmanned aerial systems, 19 pieces of special equipment, 12 main battle tanks, 8 armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, and 1 anti-aircraft weapon system.

As with previous assessments here at The National Interest, the Russian forces are likely to close the year with 700,000 losses.

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 Johns Hopkins University and an MA from Johns Hopkins’ School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). His work has been featured in Business Insider, Sandboxx, and SOFREP.

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: Lockheed Martin is launching a competition to upgrade the cooling system of the F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter jet. The contenders are Honeywell Aerospace, which supplies the current system, and Collins Aerospace.

-This upgrade aims to reduce the aircraft's heat signature, enhancing its stealth capabilities. The F-35 Joint Program Office expects to award the contract in Fall 2024, ensuring maximum capability and cost-effectiveness.

-The F-35 is already the most advanced fighter jet, with ongoing updates like the TR-3 software and Block 4 upgrade to maintain its cutting-edge status. Honeywell has expressed concerns about the timing of this change.

F-35 Lightning II to Receive Major Cooling System Upgrade

The F-35 Lightning II stealth aircraft might be the most advanced fighter jet in the skies today. Still, it continues to receive updates to make it more effective and competitive on the battlefield today and tomorrow.

As part of this update process, Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer, is expected to launch a competition for a new cooling system that will improve the stealth fighter jet's capabilities.

A New Cooling System For the F-35 Fighter 

In the upcoming days, Lockheed Martin will launch a competition to replace the F-35 Lightning II’s cooling system. Honeywell Aerospace, which provides the existing cooling system, and Collins Aerospace are the two aerospace companies vying for the contract.

“Contract award for the upcoming phase of the PTMU [Power and Thermal Management Unit] program is expected in Fall 2024,” the F-35 Joint Program Office told Breaking Defense.

“We will work with Lockheed Martin throughout the entire process to ensure all known PTMU solution options are evaluated for performance and economical retrofitability to existing aircraft; bringing maximum capability to the warfighters while accounting for cost,” the F-35 JPO added.

The cooling system, among other things, reduces the heat signature of the fighter jet. The lower the heat signature of an aircraft, the harder it is for enemy sensors to detect it. As such, a reduced heat signature will improve the stealth capabilities of the F-35 Lightning II. (As an aside, stealth doesn’t mean invisible. Rather, it means harder to detect, and it is achieved through a combination of design, countermeasures, special paint coats, and tactics.)

“[We will] evaluate all solution options and determine the best path forward in terms of capability and cost to meet the F-35’s future mission requirements. We expect contract authorization from the Joint Program Office this fall, allowing down-select, development and deployment to new and fielded aircraft,” Lockheed Martin stated.

This Stealth Fighter Is Truly Special...Thanks to Updates

The F-35 Lightning II is the most advanced fighter jet in the world, but it has several updates and upgrades lined up. To begin with, Lockheed Martin is currently rolling out the TR-3 software update that is necessary for the aircraft to remain at the tip of the spear of combat aviation. Next, there is the Block 4 upgrade, which will allow the F-35 Lightning II to carry newer weapon systems and also improve its sensors. The modular design of the F-35 Lightning II allows these updates and upgrades to happen relatively easily.

Honeywell seems opposed to the need for a new cooling system, given the particular operational circumstances.

“When I think about what puts the F-35 program at risk the most is change,” Honeywell Defense and Space President Matt Milas said to Breaking Defense.  

“It is so integrated that it just begs the question of, why would we try to change out something that is so integral into the system, when we’re already having all these problems with TR-3, getting to Block 4, [and when] we have potential conflicts all across the globe? Now is not the time where you want to mess with the centerpiece of your defense strategy.” 

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 Johns Hopkins University and an MA from Johns Hopkins’ School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). His work has been featured in Business Insider, Sandboxx, and SOFREP.

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: Ukraine is set to receive its first batch of F-16 Fighting Falcon fighter jets in the upcoming weeks, potentially altering the air war and the broader conflict with Russia.

-While multiple countries have pledged up to 85 F-16s, not all are operational. Fearing Russian retaliation, Ukraine plans to keep the jets away from frontlines.

-The West's delayed provision of key weapon systems like the F-16s has hindered Ukraine's defense capabilities.

-Despite logistical and political challenges, the West's fear of escalation must cease to effectively support Ukraine. With Russian President Putin determined to continue the war, Western commitment is crucial.

The F-16 Is Coming to Ukraine and Russia Won't Like It 

The Ukrainian Air Force is one step closer to receiving F-16 Fighting Falcon fighter jets.

According to U.S. defense officials, the Ukrainian military will receive the first batch of F-16 fighter jets in the upcoming weeks—and most likely before the end of the summer.

If used right, the U.S.-made fighter jet has the potential to change the air war in the skies of Ukraine and even the course of the entire conflict.

F-16 Fighting Falcons for Ukraine: A Game Changer or Not? 

According to the Washington Post, Ukraine will be receiving the first F-16 Fighting Falcon fighter jets in the upcoming weeks.

Several countries have committed a varying number of F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine that can reach up to 85. However, not all aircraft are in operational condition, and some will serve as a ready reserve for spare parts.

Ukrainian defense officials suggest that they won’t be using the aircraft close to the frontlines out of fear of losing them to Russian action.

Anticipating the arrival of the F-16 fighter jets, the Russian military has been targeting suitable runways. A conventional take-off and landing aircraft, the F-16 requires a proper runway to operate. In extremis, long roads, such as highways, could still be used.

It is still not clear whether NATO will allow the Ukrainian Air Force to operate its F-16 fighter jets from neighboring countries, such as Poland, Romania, and the Czech Republic.

Delays and the Fear of Escalation in Ukraine War

However, as with many other weapon systems, the West has been late in transferring them to Ukraine. The fear of escalation has long gripped Western leaders, making them reluctant to provide Kyiv with the necessary tools to fight the Russian invading armies effectively. Indeed, despite the undeniable contribution of Western military aid to Ukraine, most of the weapon systems have arrived too late to have the most effect on the course of the conflict.

For example, it took the West about a year to commit main battle tanks, such as the M1 Abrams, Leopard 2, and Challenger 2, to Ukraine. And when they arrived, they didn’t arrive in the right numbers to make a difference in the large-scale counteroffensive of last summer.

Similarly, it took over a year to send Ukraine precision long range munitions, such as the Storm Shadow and SCALP-EG cruise missiles, and almost two years to commit MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS). These munitions have allowed the Ukrainian military to strike deep behind the front lines and seriously harass the Russian command and control and logistical functions.

To be sure, coordinating an international, multi-billion security assistance lifeline to Kyiv isn’t a piece of cake. There are a lot of moving parts and serious politics involved in the process. However, the common thread of delayed transfers of key weapon systems and platforms out of fear of escalation must end yesterday.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is committed to winning this war, apparently regardless of the cost. It is estimated that more than 700,000 of his countrymen will have died or been injured by the end of the year. Putin and his Kremlin advisers are committed. The West must be, too.

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 Johns Hopkins University and an MA from Johns Hopkins’ School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). His work has been featured in Business Insider, Sandboxx, and SOFREP.

All images are Creative Commons. 

China and Russia would finally be able to catch up.

The perilous path to the day after.