Diplomacy & Crisis News

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. 

Summary and Key Points: In the 1980s, the U.S. Air Force experimented with modifying F-16s to provide Close Air Support (CAS) similar to the A-10 Warthog. Dubbed the A-16, these F-16s were equipped with a 30mm cannon and strengthened wings.

-However, the concept failed due to overheating issues and concerns over the A-16's vulnerability in contested airspace.

-Despite initial enthusiasm, the A-16 was abandoned. During Desert Storm, a brief attempt was made to equip F-16s with a similar cannon in a Pave Claw pod, redesignating them as F/A-16s. However, the system proved inaccurate and was quickly discontinued.

How to Merge the F-16 and A-10 Warthog 

I learned something new about the F-16 today. In the 1980s, the U.S. Air Force began setting aside F-16s that they would modify to provide Close Air Support (CAS) to troops on the ground. The most capable CAS aircraft ever built is the A-10, of course – and that’s exactly what the designers had in mind when crafting this modification. These F-16s would be outfitted with a 30 mm cannon and strengthened wing structures. Designers saw a conceptual hybrid between the F-16 and the A-10 that would be known as the A-16.  

The Air Force even got as far as designating a block – Block 60 – for the A-10-esque modifications, and two Block 15 F-16s were converted to test the technology. Ultimately, the concept failed when the cannons overheated and singed components of the fuselage.

A-16: What Could Have Been

For a moment, some Air Force officials argued that the A-16 was the answer to concerns that the A-10 would not be able to survive over a high-tech battlefield. The venerable close support aircraft is notoriously slow, with straight wings and engines placed above the fuselage, and without stealth capabilities. So, the concerns were valid: The A-10 would not be able to survive in contested air space against a sophisticated adversary. 

Still, the A-10 has some remarkable features. The cannon in particular, which spits out soda-can-sized depleted uranium shells at a rate of 70 rounds per second, can rip through armored vehicles and enemy fortifications. The A-10 was also built tough. With redundancies built into every system, reinforced flight control systems, and a titanium “bathtub” encasing the cockpit, the A-10 is hard to kill. Obviously, it made sense for a CAS platform like the A-10 to fly low and slow over the battle space. 

The F-16, a single-engine multipurpose fighter, has been called upon at times to provide CAS – it was built for a wide variety of mission profiles. But as the thinking went, if the fast and maneuverable F-16 could be outfitted with the enviable Close Air Support bits of the A-10, then perhaps the hybrid aircraft could offer the best of both airframes.

Not everyone was convinced. Some officials were skeptical that the A-16 would have the range and load-carrying capability to serve as an effective attack aircraft. Additionally, they thought it would be vulnerable to enemy anti-aircraft fire – a major deficiency for any aircraft aspiring to serve in a Close Air Support role. 

The A-16 was eventually abandoned. But during Desert Storm, F-16s from the 174th were outfitted with the General Electric GPU-5/A Pave Claw pod on the centerline station. The pod happened to house a 30 mm GAU-13/A four-barrel derivative of the A-10’s seven-barrel cannon. These aircraft were redesignated as F/A-16s, but the venture was short-lived, proving to be an abject failure.

“The pylon mount isn’t as steady as the A-10s rigid mounting” and “the F-16 flies much faster than an A-10, giving the pilots too little time approaching the target,” F-16.net explains. The result was an inaccurate weapon system that was quickly removed from the F/A-16s.

About the Author: Harrison Kass 

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

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The Sukhoi Su-33, a single-seat, multi-role fighter jet, was designed as a naval interceptor for the Russian Navy's aircraft carriers. Agile and fast, the Su-33 is powered by two Saturn AL-31K engines, enabling it to reach speeds around Mach 2 and operate at altitudes over 55,000 feet.

With 12 external hardpoints, it can carry a range of air-to-air and anti-ship missiles, bombs, and a 30mm cannon.

However, the Su-33 faces a significant issue: Russia's only carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, has been out of action for repairs, leaving the Su-33 without a proper platform to operate from.

The Russian Aerospace Forces fields a credible fleet of combat aircraft. While the war in Ukraine has exposed the weaknesses of Russian air power and the flawed training of Russian pilots, those pilots and the airframes that carry them are certainly capable. 

Of the several types of fighter jet the Russian Aerospace Forces fly, the Sukhoi Su-33 stands out.

The Sukhoi Su-33: Agile and Fast

A single-seat, multi-role fighter jet, the Su-33, NATO reporting name Flanker D, was designed as a naval interceptor for carrier operations. 

The Su-33 is agile and fast. Its two Saturn AL-31K engines can produce a combined 60,000 lbs of thrust that yield a maximum speed around Mach 2 (1,500 miles per hour). The aircraft can operate at altitudes over 55,000 feet and has an outstanding operational range of close 2,000 miles. (The combat radius, or its actual fighting range, would be smaller.) As a naval interceptor, the fighter jet can also refuel midair, boosting its operational range. 

The Su-33 Flanker D was based on the Su-27 Flanker, with structural changes that make it suited for carrier operations. As such, the Su-33 Flanker D has a stronger airframe and undercarriage, folding wings, stabilators, canards, and larger wings for increased lift.

But where the Su-33 Flanker D shines is in its weapon capabilities. 

With 12 external hardpoints, the fighter jet can carry up to 14,000 lbs of munitions, including R-73 heat-seeking air-to-air missiles and R-27 radar-homing air-to-air missiles, as well as cruise missiles, glide bombs, rockets, and conventional bombs. 

As a naval interceptor, the fighter can carry a wide variety of anti-ship missiles, such as AS-17 Krypton and Moskit ASM-MSS munitions. 

When the action gets up-close and personal, the Su-33 Flanker can prevail with 150 rounds fired from its powerful 30mm Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-30-1 cannon.

The Su-33 inspired the Chinese military to build its Shenyang J-15 fighter jet, which shares capabilities with the Russian-made Flanker D. 

The Su-33 Has One Problem that Can't Be Solved  The Su-33 was initially conceived as a naval fighter jet for the Soviet Union’s fleet of aircraft carriers. But Moscow never built a powerful carrier fleet, and planning for the Su-33 pivoted toward an aircraft that could also conduct operations from air bases on land. 

Right now, the Russian Navy sports only one carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov. Even that vessel is actually a mix of an aircraft carrier and guided-missile cruiser. It can carry up to twenty-four Su-33 and MiG-29K fighter jets, but the Admiral Kuznetsov is a troubled warship. It has been undergoing repairs for the past seven years, and it is not certain whether the ship will sail again operationally. The Su-33 Flanker D is thus a carrier-based fighter without an aircraft carrier. 

About the Author 

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

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The Kirov-class battlecruiser, designed by the Soviet Union to target U.S. Navy aircraft carriers and submarines, has proven to be an expensive and underwhelming asset.

-Despite their massive size and intended capabilities, only four were built, with two still in service—one of which has been stuck in drydock since 1999. Amidst the challenges posed by modern anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) systems, the class remains vulnerable and costly to maintain.

-Even with potential upgrades, like arming them with hypersonic missiles, the Kirov-class is seen as a misallocation of Russia's limited resources, offering little strategic advantage.

Russia's Kirov-Class Battlecrusier Belongs in the History Books, Not on the Water 

The Kirov-class Battlecruiser was designed by the Soviet Union to do two things: sink the aircraft carriers of the United States Navy and hunt American submarines. First designed in 1977 as part of a modernization wave by the Soviet Navy across their fleet, these giant—and expensive—warships never quite lived up to their reputations. 

Still, the Russians have remained committed to these massive warships. In fact, rumors persist that the Putinist regime desires to build more of these overrated monstrosities. 

Four Kirov-class ships were built. Two remain in service. One of the two has been stuck in drydock since 1999 (and you thought the Pentagon’s acquisition process was slow). 

Ukraine War and A2/AD

The Ukraine War has forced a reappraisal of the Russian defensive posture as well as its overall defense industry. While the Russians are winning the conflict against Ukraine and their defense industrial base is doing far better than anyone in the West had assumed it would, given the imposition of severe sanctions by Russia’s Western trading partners, there are still limits to what Russia can do. Unlike the 1990s and 2000s, Russia is now truly isolated from the West. 

Moscow, therefore, must be innovative in its use of limited resources. This likely explains why there are some in the Russian military who are contemplating building more of the Kirov-class battlecruisers. 

Of course, as I have written extensively in these pages, the advent of anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) systems makes it quite difficult for any surface warship to be as capable as they otherwise would be against targets defended by the A2/AD systems. Nevertheless, as with the Americans who insist on building aircraft carriers, Russia cannot seem to quit its love affair with the Kirov-class battlecruiser.

Even though the Ukrainians in particular have shown how relatively cheap drones can be used to sink Russian warships—such as the Black Sea Fleet flagship, the Moskva—there are still some modifications to the Kirov-class that Russia could make that would ensure the Kirovs pose a challenge to their Western rivals.

The Kirov-class as a Major Hypersonics Weapon Platform 

As per the original intent of the designers of the Kirov-class Battlecruiser, they could be used to conduct devastating attacks on US aircraft carriers or other US warships. 

For example, the Kirov-class could be outfitted with a Russian hypersonic missile known as the Tsirkon, which many believe to have a speed of Mach 9 and a range of around 621 miles. This capability would be devastating because most defense systems, either in a carrier battle group or on land, cannot defend against the unpredictable maneuverability of hypersonic weapons.

Again, though, the problem facing the Kirov-class remains the A2/AD threat that most modern surface warships are today facing. The Kirov is a massive target that can easily be tracked by satellites in space. US submarines as well as surveillance aircraft can also stalk this particularly large prey. 

Kirov-class Vulnerabilities 

Then there’s the added problem that the Kirov-class relies extensively on satellite information to guide it and its weapons when they are launched. But in a potential war with the United States, the likelihood that Russian (as well as American) space assets would be destroyed is high. 

Basically, US counterspace capabilities directed against Russian satellite constellations would render the Kirov-class useless. 

Interestingly, despite its aggressive posture, the Kirov-class lacks a comprehensive air defense capability. So, the great ship would be exposed to all manner of attack by Western forces. 

As the Kirov-class that has been languishing in drydock since 1999 has shown: these warships are costly to maintain, highly complex, and take time to repair. 

If the Russians threw more of their limited resources behind the construction of Kirov-class battlecruisers, they would have to figure out how to streamline these aspects of the Kirov-class. 

A Waste of Russian Resources 

To close, the Kirov-class has been a waste of Russian resources since its inception. The Russian navy does not have enough of them and the systems it does of this class are underutilized. 

That Moscow is even contemplating building more is ridiculous. But even if Russia were to make the modifications to the Kirov-class as was discussed above, these changes would likely be insufficient toward meeting Russian foreign policy goals in the long run. 

The Kirov-class was a mistake for Russia to build. They should just give it up already.

About the Author 

Brandon J. Weichert is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, as well as at American Greatness and the Asia Times. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower (Republic Book Publishers), Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

All images are from Creative Commons. 

Publique, culturelle, exigeante : dans un univers audiovisuel écrasé par l'argent, le temps réel et l'audimat, la chaîne franco-allemande Arte tient du miracle. Séries et documentaires de qualité ont dilué son élitisme. Mais sa vision de l'histoire réduite au nazisme et au communisme, son atlantisme, et (...) / Médias, Audiovisuel, Histoire, France, Allemagne - 2024/08

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. and its allies are preparing for potential escalation in the Red Sea following the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh. To bolster defenses, U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin announced the deployment of additional military assets, including the USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier, F/A-18 Super Hornets, EA-18 Growlers, and F-22 Raptors.

-The Raptors, known for their stealth, maneuverability, and firepower, will reinforce existing forces in the region.

-As tensions rise, the F-22s could see combat in what might be one of their last operational deployments before being replaced by the Next Generation Air Dominance fighters.

The F-22 Raptor Is Standing By for Trouble

Israel, the U.S. and its allies are currently gearing up for a broader war in the Red Sea. Iran is expected to launch a multi-axis retaliation for the assassination of the former political leader of Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh. 

In order to guard against any potential rocket or missile barrage, U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin announced that defenses in the region would be strengthened. The Navy’s Nimitz-class USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier is already en route to the Red Sea with its fleet of F/A-18 Super Hornets and EA-18 Growlers. These aircraft will reportedly be joined by Air Force F-22 Raptors. Often considered the best fifth-generation fighter platform on the planet, the F-22s will reinforce defensive air support in the region and join existing forces to deter Iran-affiliated groups from further escalation.

“If Israel is attacked, we certainly will help,” Austin told reporters following the killing of Haniyeh. “You saw us do that in April. You can expect to see us do that again. But we don’t want to see any of that happen. We’re going to work hard to make sure that we’re doing things to help take the temperature down and address issues through diplomatic means.” 

The Secretary is certainly backing words with action by deploying Raptors to the Middle East. A squadron of F-22s will join three combat aircraft squadrons already positioned in the region, including squadrons of A-10 Thunderbolt Close Air Support aircraft, F-15E Strike Eagle fighters, and F-16 Fighting Falcons.

The Raptor

While the F-35 Lightning II platform is newer, the Raptor remains unmatched in several key areas. Perhaps most significant is the jet’s smaller radar cross section, which makes the platform extremely difficult for enemy aircraft to detect. The F-22 is also far more maneuverable than its fifth-gen successor, with greater firepower and a superior thrust-to-weight ratio. Raptors are powered by two Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 turbofan engines, compared to the Lightning II’s single power source.

Each Raptor features three internal weapons bays. In a stealth configuration, the F-22 can carry two AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles and six AIM-12 AMRAAM radar-guided air-to-air missiles. At the same time, the jet is capable of packing two AIM-120 AMRAAM and two GBU-32 JDAM bombs in its center weapons bay. Equipped as such, the Raptors are well suited for the current Middle East crisis.

Could F-22s See Combat in the Middle East?

The Air Force is expected to eventually replace its remaining Raptors with the service’s upcoming Next Generation Air Dominance fighters, so this could be one of the Raptors’ last chances to see combat. Last year, the platform achieved an air-to-air kill when a jet from the 1st Fighter Wing downed a suspected Chinese spy balloon off the coast of South Carolina.

Depending on how Tehran and its regional proxy groups retaliate for the Haniyeh killing, the F-22 could add to its stats.

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. 

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The USS Theodore Roosevelt, part of Carrier Strike Group 9, is now stationed in the Gulf of Oman as part of Operation Prosperity Guardian amid rising tensions in the region.

-The carrier and its air wing, including F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, are prepared for potential expanded operations due to escalating conflicts, particularly involving Yemen-based Houthis.

-As regional tensions with Israel and Iran increase, the carrier group may face heightened challenges, continuing its mission to maintain stability and freedom of navigation in the Red Sea and surrounding waters.

USS Theodore Roosevelt Headed to the Red Sea

The Nimitz-class carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt is on station in the Gulf of Oman as part of Operation Prosperity Guardian. Its strike group and embarked air wing are with it. Rising tensions in the region mean the formation might engage in operations beyond their normal remit. The sailors and airmen of the carrier strike group will likely have their hands full in the weeks to come.

Other U.S. Assets Deployed to the Mideast

U.S. Navy aircraft carriers are massive vessels crewed by thousands of personnel. Their true power, however, comes from the forces with which they travel. Theodore Roosevelt is escorted by the other ships in Carrier Strike Group 9 (CSG 9). These include the guided missile cruiser USS Lake Erie and the guided missile destroyers USS John McCain, Halsey, and Daniel Inouye. Together, these ships represent a formidable force armed with 5 inch guns, torpedoes, and a variety of missiles. 

In addition to the ships of the strike group, Roosevelt is home to the aircrew of Carrier Air Wing 11 (CVW 11). The wing’s tactical air component includes four squadrons of F/A-18E/F Super Hornets as well as a squadron of E/A-18G. These aircraft, specifically the Super Hornets, represent the true striking power of the formation, capable of carrying a variety of air-to-air and air-to-surface ordnance such as AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles and GBU-12 Paveway laser-guided bombs. 

A CVW consists of more than just jets. Also on the Roosevelt are a squadron of E-2D Hawkeye Airborne Early Warning aircraft and two squadrons of MH-60 helicopters. Support and logistics are provided by a C-2 Greyhound squadron. 

An Overview of Recent Escalations in the Region

The Red Sea and the Gulf of Oman have been dangerous waters since Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel. The U.S. initially deployed the carrier USS Eisenhower to the region to help ensure stability. Its strike group was swiftly drawn into operations against a somewhat unexpected enemy: the Yemen-based Houthis. 

Since Israel began combat operations against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, the Houthis have carried out their own campaign in support of the Gaza-based terror group. This has primarily consisted of missile, rocket, and drone attacks against ships transiting the Bab el-Mandeb Strait in the Red Sea. While the group has said it only targets vessels affiliated with Israel and the U.S. or supporting those two against Hamas, they have been indiscriminate in the ships they strike. The Teddy Roosevelt strike group will take up where Ike left off, defending shipping in the region and carrying out strikes in Yemen against Houthi targets. 

As tensions between Israel and Iran ratchet up, there is increased risk of a wider regional war. Should such a conflict break out, the crews of CSG 9 might be called on to fight in some capacity. Meanwhile, they carry out the Navy’s mission to maintain freedom of the seas. 

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. 

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Les adeptes de cette doctrine millénariste se posent en victimes du Parti communiste chinois. Très actif aux États-Unis mais aussi en France où il n'hésite pas à relayer les meetings de certaines personnalités politiques d'extrême droite, leur mouvement a le soutien d'élus du Congrès américain et (...) / Chine, Industrie culturelle, Bouddhisme, Politique - 2024/08

Summary and Key Points: The Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is an upgraded, larger, and more capable variant of the original F/A-18 Hornet, featuring advanced thrust-vectoring engines, improved maneuverability, and increased fuel capacity.

-Although slightly slower than its predecessors, the Super Hornet excels in carrier operations and incorporates technology initially developed for fifth-generation aircraft like the F-35 and F-22.

-Despite the arrival of the F-35, the U.S. Navy will continue to operate the Super Hornet until at least the 2030s.

F/A-18 Super Hornet: The U.S. Navy’s Reliable Powerhouse

A redesigned variant of the F/A-18C and D Hornet, Boeing F/A-18E, and F/A-18F are larger and more capable than its predecessor. It is a carrier-capable fighter that is powered by a General Electric (GE) F414-GE-400 twin-engine and can travel at supersonic speeds. This engine produces 13,000 pounds of force (lbf) of dry thrust and 22,000 lbf of thrust when its afterburners are engaged.

And this bird has greater thrust than its predecessors.

The United States Navy is the main user of this variant. It was introduced to the fleet in 2000. America’s Navy says the Super Hornet will continue to operate at least until the 2030s when the F-35 Lightning II will replace it. 

F/A-18 Variants: Differences with Its Predecessors

Designers of the Super Hornet stretched out its airframe to make the warplane longer than the original variants. The Super Hornet’s wing area was increased by a whopping twenty-five percent, too.

Thus, this warbird is twenty percent larger than the original Hornet (hence, the term “Super” Hornet). 

With larger wings and larger capacity, this bad bird can carry more weapons and pods. More weapons mean greater staying power whilst in combat. Overall, this means increased lethality. 

That’s a win for the Navy.

To improve airlift and enhance the bird’s stealthiness, Boeing replaced the original Hornet’s oval air intakes with rectangular air intakes. Boeing made further tweaks to the original design to make the Super Hornet more maneuverable than its predecessors. 

In terms of fuel, this warbird carries thirty-three percent more internal fuel which, according to Simple Flying, increases “its range by forty-one percent and endurance by fifty percent. As a result, it is also significantly heavier.” For instance, the Basic Empty Weight (BEW) and Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW) are 7,000 pounds and 15,000 pounds higher than the legacy model. 

Mentioned earlier was the fact that the F/A-18 Super Hornet has greater thrust than its Hornet predecessors. Yet, it should be noted here that greater thrust does not equal faster speeds. Indeed, the Super Hornet has a maximum speed of Mach 1.60, or about 1,227 miles per hour whereas the original Hornet can reach Mach 1.80, or 1,381 miles per hour. That might seem like a distinction without a difference, but the facts don’t lie. 

The Super Hornet is slower than its predecessors.

Interestingly, many pilots who have flown both the original Hornets and the Super Hornet swear by the Super Hornet, even though it is around twenty knots slower than the original bird. The reason that the bird is slightly slower than the original has to do with the expansion of the size of the wings and the fact that the Super Hornet carries more into battle.

Still, Mach 1.60 is nothing to shrug about. 

To clarify any possible confusion, the reason that the Super Hornet has greater thrust is because of the need to take off from carriers. Carriers have a very limited flight deck, so being able to go from zero to takeoff speeds in short order is a key element for any bird operating on an aircraft carrier. The slower speed also helps with landing a plane on a moving flight deck. Carrier landings are notoriously difficult, even for the best-trained pilots. 

In other words, the Super Hornet is a comprehensively great upgrade to the original Hornets, despite the relatively slower speed.

Other Tidbits on Super Hornet 

Interestingly, the Super Hornets had impressive technologies incorporated into them that had originally been designed for the F-35 and the F-22A Raptor. So, while these birds are still nowhere near as sophisticated as the fifth-generation warplanes mentioned above, including capabilities originally only found on those fifth-generation warplanes, has made the Super Hornet, a fourth-generation bird, a highly capable platform—especially when compared to the enemy aircraft that Super Hornets might encounter in combat.

Here again is proof that the Super Hornets are probably the best naval air superiority fighter to date. While the Navy has taken delivery of multiple F-35 carrier variants, the fleet has not yet transitioned to these birds being their primary warplane. Their efficacy in combat compared to their older Super Hornet cousins remains to be seen. 

With the fleet opting to operate the Super Hornet throughout the 2030s, one can foresee that the Super Hornet will continue impressing all the way until the Navy finally decides to retire these beasts.

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. All photos are of various submarine styles. 

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 Nimitz-class aircraft carriers are powerful, fast at flank speed, and maneuverable, but their effectiveness is increasingly challenged by China's sophisticated anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) systems.

-These systems can track and threaten U.S. carriers far beyond the range of their air wings, forcing the U.S. Navy to keep these valuable assets out of combat zones.

-Despite the carriers' capabilities, the growing threat of Chinese A2/AD technology means that the Nimitz-class carriers may be rendered less effective in a potential conflict in the Indo-Pacific region.

The Nimitz-class Carriers Are Fast. But Not Fast Enough to Defeat Chinese A2/AD

The Nimitz-class aircraft carrier is a great, lumbering beast with little in the way of real protection other than its airwing. And while this author has been highly critical of America’s infatuation with the flat top, American carriers are quite fast and maneuverable. 

Flank Speed

The Nimitz-class carrier can sustain speeds as fast as 35 miles per hour, otherwise known as its flank speed. 

Okay, so that sounds slow. You’re thinking about driving near that school zone, or around a tricky bend on an old country road. But we’re talking about a warship carrying a variety of warplanes, helicopters, and machines, and with a crew of nearly 6,000, that displaces an impressive 97,000 tons. 

So, yeah, going 35 miles an hour at sea is highly impressive. 

According to my colleague, Peter Suciu, “the Nimitz-class carriers populating the current fleet can move anywhere within a 700-square mile area within 30 minutes. After 90 minutes, that area grows to over 6,000 square miles” when traveling at flank speed. 

Two powerful Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors, producing 260,000 shp/194 MW, churn four steam turbines. These, in turn, propel four shafts and four propellers. As Suciu outlines, it takes approximately 10 minutes for a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier to reach its flank speed. Once it does, it might as well be an oversized rocket. The entire boat shakes with power. It becomes an unstoppable beast on the sea. 

It's all very impressive.

But does it matter? 

China’s A2/AD

The Chinese have developed one of the world’s most sophisticated anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities. China’s A2/AD systems can reach hundreds of miles away from the shores of China and its manmade islands in the South China Sea. These capabilities include long-range ballistic missiles and even deadlier hypersonic weapons. They are linked to highly sophisticated and accurate tracking systems. 

Sure, the Nimitz class is fast and can cover a lot of ground. But it is not invincible. The Chinese have proven they can track an American aircraft carrier from its point of origin all the way to its arrival in the Indo-Pacific theater. 

Beyond that, the Chinese have shown, with relatively ancient systems like their Song-class diesel-electric submarine, that getting within torpedo range of an American nuclear-powered submarine is relatively easy. This is precisely what a Song-class sub did to USS Kitty Hawk in 2006. 

Of course, USS Kitty Hawk did not belong to the Nimitz class. Nevertheless, China can hold America’s carrier force under threat. Especially considering any fight between the two sides would likely be waged close to China’s shores, giving Beijing’s forces serious strategic and tactical advantages over the Americans and their allies. 

The Nimitz-class 

America’s Nimitz-class aircraft carriers are modern technological marvels. But they are not invincible. The very fact that they are so advanced and impressive has forced America’s enemies to develop realistic countermeasures against these carriers. 

Thus the advent of A2/AD – it was built to neutralize America’s carrier force. 

Even if the U.S. doesn’t lose any carriers in a potential war with China, these carriers are far too valuable for Washington to risk in conflict. Given that China’s A2/AD systems can threaten an American flattop far beyond the range of that carrier’s airwing, U.S. carriers will have to be kept beyond the horizon.

This means that the Chinese military will have decisive advantages over the Americans in any fight for control of the western Indo-Pacific. Such a fight will favor China. It doesn’t matter how fast or maneuverable America’s impressive Nimitz-class carriers are. Until the Pentagon develops meaningful countermeasures against Chinese A2/AD systems, the carrier force will be rendered combat-ineffective. 

Right now, it doesn’t look as though the Americans have figured out how to make the Nimitz class useful in any war with China. 

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. All photos are of various submarine styles. 

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 Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider, a successor to the B-2 Spirit, is set to be the most advanced stealth bomber in the U.S. Air Force.

-Building on decades of stealth technology, the B-21 features enhanced low observability, advanced networking, and open systems architecture, allowing for future upgrades.

-Unlike its predecessor, the B-21 is designed for cost-effectiveness, with plans for at least 100 units. It is expected to be a cornerstone of U.S. air power for decades, offering superior capabilities in modern warfare.

The Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider is the Best Stealth Aircraft

Aerospace and defense giant Northrop Grumman continues to develop its B-21 Raider long-range strategic bomber. The B-21 is the planned replacement for the aging B-1B Lancer and B-2 Spirit bombers.

Information is still sparse on the Raider, which is named for the men who took part in the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo in the spring of 1942. But there are several facts about the B-21 that we do know.

The B-21 is Building on the B-2's Success

The stealthy B-21 will not be the first Air Force bomber to feature a flying wing design to reduce its radar signature. Efforts to build an aircraft without a fuselage date back almost 100 years. Northrop Grumman’s B-2 Spirit was the first such design mass-produced, even if just 20 aircraft were manufactured.

Seen as the first successful flying wing aircraft, the B-2’s low-observable characteristics help it penetrate an enemy's most sophisticated defenses and threaten its most heavily defended targets. With these capabilities, the B-2 has ensured a strong, effective deterrent and combat force well into the 21st century.

The B-2's low observability was derived from a combination of reduced infrared, acoustic, electromagnetic, visual, and radar signatures. These signatures make it difficult for sophisticated defensive systems to detect, track, and engage the B-2. Many aspects of the low-observability process remain classified, but the B-2's composite materials, special coatings, and flying wing design all contribute to its stealthiness.

The Raider Bomber is Better

Everything the B-2 Spirit did right, the B-21 Raider promises to do better. There were reports its advanced stealth technology – much of which remains classified – could give the aircraft a radar signature as small as an insect. That's likely hyperbole, as no one expects to track a butterfly on radar.

The B-2's development began when disco was all the rage and Jimmy Carter was in the White House, while the B-21 Raider's development is truly a product of the 21st century. It takes into account numerous lessons learned from the F-117 Nighthawk, B-2 Spirit, F-22 Raptor, and F-35 Lightning II – and likely from programs yet to be disclosed.

As The Heritage Foundation reported, the B-21 Raider "is built around the most sophisticated and easily maintained stealth technology ever developed."

Even the aircraft's maker was only slightly more forthcoming, describing the B-21 as benefiting "from more than three decades of strike and stealth technology. It is the next evolution of the Air Force strategic bomber fleet. Developed with the next generation of stealth technology, advanced networking capabilities and an open systems architecture, the B-21 is optimized for the high-end threat environment. It will play a critical role in helping the Air Force meet its most complex missions."

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.

Cost-Effective as Well as Stealthy

Even the best aircraft is only good if it can be employed in significant numbers. The simple lack of B-2s has been the Spirit’s greatest weakness. The Air Force is seeking to guarantee the production of at least 100 Raiders.

To that end, the air service has emphasized cost containment while simultaneously allowing for maximum flexibility. The future backbone of the Air Force's bomber fleet has been noted for an open systems architecture that would allow future capabilities to be integrated into the aircraft, and fast.

With the B-21, the Air Force plans not only to have the best stealth bomber in service for years to come. By the end of the 2030s, it also plans to operate a strong number of these aircraft.

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.