Feed aggregator

A new book examines the past and present of Russian thinking on deterrence.

Le scrutin a lieu du jeudi 6 au dimanche 9 juin. Sur cette période, chaque État membre décide du jour où se tient le vote.

This time, Israel must heed Theodor Meron’s warning.

Can't wait to find out the results of the European elections? Watch live announcements and reactions from Brussels and follow us on social media.

Source : © European Union, 2024 - EP

Dans l'ancien camp de concentration du Struthof en Alsace, sept hommes de tous milieux sociaux participent à un stage de citoyenneté dans le cadre d'une peine judiciaire ou d'une alternative aux poursuites. Ce stage est organisé par le tribunal de Saverne en lien avec le Centre européen du résistant déporté (CERD). 

Every Monday, a member of the international academic association ‘UACES’ will address a current topic linked to their research on euradio.

 

Listen to the podcast on eu!radio.

 

 

Mechthild Roos, you are Lecturer in Comparative Politics at the University of Augsburg, in Germany. As an expert on the European Parliament, what are your expectations towards the forthcoming elections?

Well, the forecasts largely point to two major trends. First, a relatively high voter turnout, in comparison to previous European elections. And, second, a shift of votes and seats to the right. For me, as someone who looks at longer trends in the European Parliament’s institutional development, the perhaps most intriguing question is: will these shifts affect the Parliament’s established working routines and, maybe even more importantly, its self-understanding?

 

Can you explain in more detail?

Until now, the European Parliament has always understood itself as the voice of the people, as the main provider of democratic legitimacy in EU politics, but also as driver of ever-closer integration.

This is the main point I wonder about: will the shifting of seats and perhaps majorities to the right change this self-understanding? Will the Parliament adopt more of a member-state centred course – which, in effect, would imply a weakening of the Parliament itself, but which corresponds to the political aims declared by the bulk of the parties in the most right-wing groups? Or will these new MEPs – or at least some of them – be socialized into the institution’s raison d’être and find themselves defending a stronger European Parliament and the need for parliamentary involvement in EU politics at the EU (rather than national) level?

 

Do you think this is likely?

It is far from impossible! It is actually a typical pattern within the Parliament. Over its history, and throughout many changes of composition, the Parliament has seen MEPs entering with a rather Eurosceptic view, and then gradually coming to appreciate the Parliament’s strengthened involvement in EU politics, not least of course because that gives the MEPs themselves more political power.

In addition, those who are generally sceptical about European integration tend not to be very active in the Parliament. Those who are active, on the other hand, those who lead debates and negotiations with other EU institutions, who draft reports and carry the bulk of parliamentary work – are largely in favour of closer integration, and of a strong mandate for the Parliament.

 

And in what shape, if you look back at the last five years, do you think the European Parliament is going into its next term? Which of the numerous crises it had to handle, from Brexit to Ukraine and beyond, had the biggest impact on the institution itself?

In my point of view, the most influential crisis of all clearly was the COVID-19 pandemic. Because regardless of all the other crises’ broader implications, COVID-19 had by far the most profound impact on the Parliament’s own work. The combination of a dramatic urgency to act, a complete inexperience with a pandemic of this scale, and the institutional consequences of the lockdown, all of this put into question the established policy-making procedures at the EU level, and also within the European Parliament itself. The situation was further aggravated by the fact that the 2019 elections had brought a significant turnover among MEPs: 58% of them were new to the job, and consequently had hardly any networks or knowledge of formal, but also informal working routines, which are particularly important in the European Parliament as an institution that has always been fighting for more power than it formally holds.

In the pandemic, Parliament managed to uphold a remarkable level of legislative activity. It has also pushed intensely for better and more democratically legitimised crisis governance mechanisms. Nevertheless, this period of extraordinary strain has left its marks on the European Parliament and its role in EU politics.

 

Do you think the pandemic has weakened the Parliament’s position?

Time will tell. We will most likely not exit this period of polycrisis anytime soon, so for me, the question is whether Parliament will manage to formalize its involvement in EU crisis governance, which we may safely expect to become something of a new normal, or whether it will have to fight continuously to keep its foot in the door.

Overall, I choose to be optimistic: if crises are indeed the new normal, then we will get normalized crisis governance routines sooner rather than later, if only for the sake of efficiency. And I hope that these new routines will include a strong dimension of parliamentary involvement and democratic oversight.

 

Thank you very much, Mechthild Roos, for sharing your expectations with us! I recall you are Lecturer in Comparative Politics at the University of Augsburg, in Germany.

The post The Post-Pandemic Parliament appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

La séance a été suspendue, mardi, à l'Assemblée nationale française, après qu'une députée du groupe La France insoumise (LFI), Rachel Kéké, a brandi un drapeau palestinien. D'autres députés de la gauche se sont présentés habillés en noir, rouge, blanc et vert pour manifester leur soutien à ce peuple.

© Sam Forson sur Pexels

Every Monday, a member of the international academic association ‘UACES’ will address a current topic linked to their research on euradio.

 

Listen to the podcast on eu!radio.

 

 

Jannik Jansen, you are Policy Fellow at the Jacques Delors Centre in Berlin, and together with your colleagues, you express serious doubts about the famous anti-green backlash among European voters. Tell us where this narrative comes from in the first place.

When Commission President Ursula von der Leyen took office in 2019, the European Parliament had just been elected amidst a wave of climate strikes, led by young people demanding more ambitious climate policies to secure their future. Five years and an ambitious European Green Deal later, climate policy debates are again central in the run-up to the European elections in June. However, the tone has shifted: instead of young people, it is farmers taking to the streets with their tractors to voice their frustration about environmental regulations.

Far-right parties have been quick in capitalizing on these protests, portraying climate policies as unfair and overly burdensome for citizens and farmers. Their narrative of a widespread backlash against green policies has gained traction. As a result, liberal and centre-right politicians have become increasingly hesitant to endorse Green Deal initiatives, calling for a pause or even a rollback of climate legislation.

 

But does this political U-turn truly reflect a general shift in public sentiment?

Good question. To explore this, we conducted a survey with 15,000 citizens in Germany, France, and Poland at the end of last year. Our findings challenge the notion of general climate fatigue.

Citizens in all three countries remain concerned about the negative effects of climate change on themselves and their families. For instance, 4 out of 5 respondents in France indicated that they were already negatively impacted by climate change or expect to be so in the next five to ten years.

These concerns translate into continued support for more ambitious climate action, with a majority of citizens in each country expressing this sentiment. Notably, this support spans beyond green and left-leaning party supporters, among liberal and conservative voters as well.

 

How much climate scepticism did you find in your survey?

There is a sizeable minority skeptical of more ambitious climate policies: roughly 30% of the population in Germany and Poland, slightly less in France. But despite the politicized debate, this group has not grown significantly compared to previous studies. Moreover, this group of “climate sceptics” is largely dominated by supporters of far-right parties, which increasingly treat climate debates as an ideological battleground.

Therefore, democratic parties should refrain from rushing into a “race to the bottom” in scaling back their climate ambitions. The tale of a broad anti-green backlash appears largely overstated; however, mainstream voters do have clear preferences for how the EU’s climate-policy mix should be shaped going forward.

 

What are these mainstream preferences?

Green industrial policies and public investments into infrastructure, such as electricity grids and railways, are amongst the most popular policies. Similarly, targeted regulatory measures such as green standards for the industry and the power sector enjoy broad support. In contrast, broad bans and CO2 pricing mechanisms are relatively unpopular, especially in areas such as transport and heating, where households would be directly affected by higher prices. This is particularly relevant, as the European Emissions Trading System is set to be extended to these areas in 2027.

Our findings underscore that to garner voter support for these necessary but unpopular policies, it will be essential to combine them with a more substantial redistribution of carbon-price revenues, providing some sort of compensation to all citizens while privileging those who are hit hardest. In general, it should be a key priority to reassure citizens that the costs and benefits of the green transition are equitably distributed.

 

What are your recommendations to the political parties?

It is clear that ideology and partisanship have a significant impact on people’s climate policy positions. If parties compete over the best recipes on how to fight climate change, explain trade-offs, and try to convince voters of necessary but unpopular steps, voters will take notice. However, if parties outbid each other over who scales back climate ambitions the most, they would not only misread where most voters stand on the issue but could inadvertently create the very climate fatigue they aim to address.

 

Thank you very much, Jannik Jansen, Policy Fellow at the Jacques Delors Centre in Berlin, for sharing your research on the perception of green policies by European voters.

The post Is there an anti-green backlash? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Summary: The U.S. Navy's procurement of the Constellation-class frigates has faced significant issues due to rushed oversight, as highlighted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

-The $22 billion program awarded Fincantieri a contract in April 2020 before the ship design was complete, leading to potential cost increases and delays.

-The GAO criticized the Navy for not demonstrating key systems and suggested land-based testing to mitigate risks.

-Delivery of the first ship, USS Constellation, has been delayed from 2026 to 2029, with costs projected to exceed initial estimates.

-Despite these setbacks, the Constellation-class frigates are expected to enhance the Navy's multidomain warfare capabilities significantly.

GAO Report: U.S. Navy's Constellation-Class Frigate Program Faces Major Delays and Cost Overruns

The U.S. Navy mishandled one of the largest procurement programs of recent years, according to the Congressional watchdog.

In a recent report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) assesses that the Navy botched the procurement of the new Constellation class frigates because it was in a rush.

A Contract Too Soon

According to the GAO report, the Navy fell short on its oversight of the Constellation-Class Guided-Missile Frigate (FFG 62) Program, which is expected to cost approximately $22 billion.

In April 2020, the Navy awarded Fincantieri the initial contract for one plus nine frigates even though the design was incomplete. As such, costs could skyrocket before there is an operational capability.

“The frigate is using many mission systems already proven on Navy ships. However, the Navy has yet to demonstrate two systems—the propulsion and machinery control systems,” the GAO report stated.

“A planned update to the frigate test plan—combined with the opportunity afforded by schedule delays—could offer the Navy the chance to conduct land-based testing of these two unproven systems. This testing would reduce the risk of discovering issues after the ship is at sea,” the GAO report added.

To make matters even worse, Fincantieri is behind schedule with the first warship of the class, USS Constellation, and instead of delivering it on 2026 will have it ready by 2029.

In terms of costs, the new class of warships is expected to average at less than $1 billion per frigate. The USS Constellation is projected to cost approximately $1.4 billion, and in May the Navy awarded a $1 billion contract for an additional two Constellation frigates. In total, the Navy has ordered six ships as of June.

GAO has made several recommendations to the Navy that could get the program back on track. These proposals include a restructuring of the design stability metric to ensure quality over quantity; the use of an improved metric to better estimate the design stability before construction begins on the second frigate of the class; the identification of opportunities to improve the acquisition strategy; additional land-based testing of technology and systems.

The Constellation Class Frigates

Despite their cost, in terms of capabilities, the Constellation class frigates are going to boost the Navy’s ability to conduct multidomain warfare across the world. For example, the new warships will be able to operate in both open water, such as the open Indo-Pacific, and littoral, such as the first island chain, environments.

“This ship class will be an agile, multi-mission warship, capable of operations in both blue-water and littoral environments, providing increased combat-credible forward presence that provides a military advantage at sea,” the Navy states about its upcoming warship.

According to the Navy, the new class of frigates will be able to conduct surface warfare, anti-submarine warfare, air warfare, and electromagnetic warfare. As multirole warships, the Constellation frigates will be able to fill many gaps and potentially free up larger warships, such as destroyers, for more demanding missions.

To be effective in its role, the new frigates will pack quite an arsenal, including torpedoes, Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR), Baseline Ten (BL10) Aegis Combat System, and a Mk 41 Vertical Launch System.

Through the Constellation class, the Navy is reviving the concept of frigates. Although in use by many navies around the world, frigates have been absent from the Navy roster since the early 2000s when the last Oliver Hazard Perry ships were retired.

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. 

Un observatoire géré par Microsoft affirme que la Russie a accru ses activités de désinformation en amont des Jeux olympiques de Paris 2024.

Summary: Congress is pushing the U.S. Air Force to purchase more F-15EX Eagle II fighter jets and keep the production line open longer amid rising tensions with China. A proposal in the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) aims to increase the Air Force's fleet to 122 F-15EXs, more than the current target of 98 but still short of the original goal of 144.

-The move reflects lawmakers' belief in the F-15EX's potential and aims to avoid issues faced with the prematurely closed F-22 Raptor production line.

-The F-15EX, capable of Mach 2.5 speeds and carrying 30,000 pounds of munitions, offers versatile capabilities for both near-peer and less advanced conflicts. While not a fifth-generation aircraft, it complements the F-35 and F-22 by handling various missions and freeing up these advanced jets for critical tasks. Congress's intervention underscores the importance of maintaining robust and adaptable air capabilities in an era of global competition.

Congress is forcing the Air Force to buy more F-15EX Eagle II fighter jets and keep the aircraft’s production line open for longer as tensions with China continue to rise.

A recent proposal to the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) – the military budget – seeks to force the Air Force to buy more F-15EX Eagle II fighter jets and prevent the production line from closing too early.

Congress’ move suggests that the lawmakers see a lot of potential in the F-15EX Eagle II and don’t want to limit options for the Air Force down the line. Congress is likely trying to prevent what happened with the F-22 Raptor stealth fighter jet, which had its production line close too soon with the result of having extreme difficulties keeping an operational F-22 fleet.

With the new proposed amendment to the NDAA, the Air Force would end up having a total of 122 F-15EX Eagle II fighter jets, which is still fewer than the initial goal of 144 aircraft but more than the current target of 98 aircraft.

Indeed, the F-15EX Eagle II looks like is here to stay and play an important role in the Air Force’s deterrence capabilities. As the overall U.S. military enters a phase of increased competition across the globe, aircraft like the F-15EX Eagle II with versatile capabilities that can prove useful in both near-peer warfare and against less advanced adversaries are invaluable.

Congress understands that and is looking to safeguard the F-15EX Eagle II capability well into the future by ensuring that the Air Force buys an adequate number of aircraft. Although it might sound strange that Congress, which is the approver of military funds, is forcing the Air Force to spend more money on a capability, this is the way the American democracy works, and it generally works well because Congress has a better view of long-term threats than the Air Force, which is focused on its own turf.

THE F-15EX EAGLE II

The F-15EX Eagle II is truly a beast in the air. It can hit speeds of up to Mach 2.5 (close to 2,800 miles per hour) while carrying around 30,000 pounds of munitions. It has an operational range of 2,000 miles without refueling and a combat radius of about 800 miles. Depending on the mission, it can carry a large number of both air-to-air (up to 12 missiles) and air-to-ground munitions (up to 24 bombs and missiles), making it a versatile platform able to undertake several mission sets, including air superiority and ground attack.

The F-15EX Eagle II iteration is very similar to the older versions of the F-15 and thus pilots and maintainers need less time to get accustomed to it. Although not a 5th-generation aircraft like the F-35 and F-22, the F-15EX Eagle II is advanced enough to be competitive in a 5th-generation battlefield. But what makes the aircraft particularly useful is its ability to excel in any mission in between, thus freeing up 5th-generation resources for the most pressing missions.

The Air Force intends the F-15EX Eagle II as a temporary solution to the delays of the F-35 program. As we have discussed previously at Sandboxx News, the F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter jet production is facing serious delays due to a software suite. The delays are becoming so serious that assembly lines are producing brand-new F-35 fighter jets that can’t be delivered and are instead stored up.

Perhaps the most interesting fact about the F-15EX Eagle II is that it wasn’t intended to be an aircraft for the U.S. Air Force. Indeed, the Air Force didn’t envision the need for another version of the venerable F-15 –which happens to be the most effective air superiority fighter jet currently in the world with a kill ratio of 103 kills to three losses across all of its versions. Instead, the F-15EX Eagle II came to be because a group of U.S. partners in the Middle East, mainly Saudi Arabia and Qatar, worked with Boeing and funded upgrades for their fleets of F-15 aircraft. As a result, the F-15SA and F-15QA were developed for the Saudi Air Force and Qatari Air Force, respectively. Eventually, when the U.S. Air Force expressed an interest in an advanced version of the F-15, Boeing had already done the research and development.

About the Author: 

Stavros Atlamazoglou is a Greek Army veteran (National service with 575th Marines Battalion and Army HQ). Johns Hopkins University. You will usually find him on the top of a mountain admiring the view and wondering how he got there.

This article was first published by Sandboxx News.

Summary: Throughout history, fire has been a devastating weapon, from the Byzantine Empire's secretive "Greek fire" to modern flamethrowers and incendiary weapons. The U.S. military has largely abandoned such weapons, but Russia has continued to develop and deploy them. The TOS-1A Solntsepek, a thermobaric rocket launcher mounted on a T-72 tank chassis, exemplifies this trend. Designed to incinerate targets with a massive, high-temperature explosion, the TOS-1A has seen use in Ukraine, where its destructive power has been highlighted.

-Despite their effectiveness, thermobaric weapons are controversial due to their indiscriminate nature and potential for civilian casualties. The latest version, the TOS-2 Tosochka, is currently undergoing trials, further advancing Russia's incendiary capabilities.

The Resurgence of Fire Weapons: Russia's TOS-1A in Modern Warfare

During the Middle Ages, the Byzantine Empire developed its infamous "Greek fire" – a weapon that was so devastating that its military kept it largely a secret. Even today it remains somewhat of a mystery of how it was made or who "invented it." Yet, it is known that it harnessed the power of fire and literally burned a trail of destruction in its path, while it was nearly impossible to extinguish.

In addition to burning the enemy alive, Greek fire was also used for psychological warfare, as the sight and sound of the weapon alone were intimidating and disheartening to enemy soldiers. It was arguably one of the first "terror weapons" to see widespread use.

Though fire as a weapon largely diminished over time, it was revived during the First World War with the advent of the man-portable flamethrower. The ability to shoot fire at an enemy proved highly effective, so much so that the United States military even developed specialized flamethrowing tanks!

However, even before the end of the Cold War, many nations including the United States ceased using such horrific weapons. Yet, Moscow had essentially gone in another direction and it has since doubled down with its efforts to utilize fire on the modern battlefield. Rather than the backpack-and-nozzle systems that were employed with infantry throughout both World Wars, Russia developed its TOS-1A Solntsepek ('Scorching Sun'), a multiple rocket launcher platform mounted on a T-72 tank chassis to launch thermobaric rockets.

In this way, it is more about launching weapons that start a fire than shooting flames!

TOS-1A: Scorching Sun Weapon Indeed

The TOS-1A was an updated version of the TOS-1 'Burantino,' a heavily armored rocket launcher that could launch incendiary and thermobaric rockets – and meant to kill or rush any "soft target" in its path.  It was essentially a 220 mm 24-barrel multiple rocket launcher that was mounted on the chassis of a T-72/T-90 main battle tank.

The system's first combat tests took place in 1988 and 1989 in the Panjshir Valley during the Soviet–Afghan War. Much like the Byzantine Empire's Greek Fire, the Solntsepek proved to be a terror weapon that caused panic. It has been employed in the ongoing war in Ukraine, where Russian airborne troops have been equipped with the TOS-1A.

"You are being given a formidable weapon, which has no equal in the arsenals of the collective West," one Russian colonel said in the statement posted by the defense ministry, Newsweek reported.

According to Russian state media and defense exporter Rosoboronexport, the TOS-1A has a maximum range of 5.6 miles and can be combat-ready within a minute and a half.

Improved Model, The TOS-2

The latest TOS-2 'Tosochka' heavy flamethrowers are currently undergoing trial tests, the Russian military announced last Friday according to Tass.

"Heavy flamethrower TOS-2 is one of the newest weapons with the RCBD [Radiological, Chemical and Biological Defense] troops," Chief of Russia's Chemical, Biological, and Radiation Protection Forces Lieutenant-General Igor Kirillov said in an interview with the Russian Defense Ministry's Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper. "The pilot batch of the weapons at the issue was delivered to the military this year and it is currently under a trial test."

Thermobaric – a Truly Barbaric Weapon

When deployed, thermobaric ordnance is a devastating weapon as it employs oxygen from the surrounding air to generate a high-temperature explosion. Also known as aerosol or vacuum bombs, these can create a  massive shockwave followed by a fire cloud where the temperature can reach 2500-3000 degrees Celsius (4500-5450 Fahrenheit). In addition to certainly killing anyone within the blast radius, the heat from the weapon can cause significant damage to structures and vehicles –igniting any fuels and lubricants, as well as setting off any ordnance. Many targets are essentially vaporized.

Anyone who survives the blast can't be described as the "lucky one," as they often have severe injuries to the lungs, eyes, ears, and colon.

The weapons are not unlawful or prohibited by the Geneva Convention, but their use on civilian targets would violate the law of armed conflict (LOAC). Thermobaric weapons are "likely to cause civilian casualties due to their indiscriminate and uncontained nature," the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation has warned.

The first reported deployment of thermobaric weapons in Ukraine occurred in the early stages of the ongoing Ukraine war when 70 Ukrainian fighters were killed in the northeastern town of Okhtyrka. Russian doctrine appeared to be that the best way to attack people in buildings in urban combat was to ensure that people inside could never make it out – or would be wounded so badly they were not capable of continuing to fight.

The Russian military is not alone in using such insidious weapons.

The United States had employed thermobaric weapons in Vietnam, but those tended to be air-dropped over enemy positions. During the War in Afghanistan, the U.S. military employed such weapons against the cave complexes in which Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters had taken refuge in the Gardez region.

Ukraine's Revenge

In late October of 2023, a video circulated online that showed a Ukrainian drone strike a Russian TOS-1A. Soon after the first-person view (FPV) drone hit the Russian vehicle, it set off a secondary explosion that produced a massive fireball. The TOS-1A appeared to have been destroyed by its own ordnance, and its crew was left burning – not in hell, but quite literally within the TOS-1A.

Author Experience and Expertise

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary: The U.S. Army's new M10 Booker light tank has ignited debate over its necessity and effectiveness in modern warfare.

-Critics argue that the M10 is an outdated concept, unnecessary in today's changing combat landscape as demonstrated in conflicts like those in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Ukraine.

-Despite its advanced sensors and communication systems, the M10 faces operational challenges due to its lighter weight and reduced armor compared to heavier tanks like the Abrams.

-Detractors claim that the M10 offers redundant capabilities and that the funds spent on its development could have been better invested in emerging technologies such as cyberwarfare, unmanned systems, and long-range precision strikes.

-This debate highlights broader concerns about the Army's ability to innovate and adapt to contemporary warfare demands.

Critics Question the Role of M10 Booker in Today’s Combat Scenarios

The US Army’s M10 Booker, a light tank recently added to the Army’s arsenal, has sparked a debate about its necessity and role in warfare. The Army’s officials insist that it not be referred to as a light tank (that’s what it is). 

Meanwhile, the detractors of the M10 argue that it is a weapon system not worth the money invested into it because the nature of ground warfare, as proven by the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, have fundamentally changed. A Twitter user derided the M10 by tweeting, “Let’s be real, the M10 ‘totally not a light tank’ Booker light tank is named after a private noone [sic] heard of before as well.”

The Army Doesn't Know What to Do with the M10 Booker

It's just yet another example of the wastefulness—and lack of innovation—that the US Army has struggled to overcome since the end of the Cold War (lest we forget the rather accurate 1998 HBO comedy film The Pentagon Wars starring Kelsey Grammer detailing the disastrous development of an armored personnel carrier?) 

Even in the Global War on Terror, the US Army struggled to adapt to what was then a novel warfighting environment. The US Marines, the other major ground force in the US military, adapted almost seamlessly to the kind of counterterrorism missions that were required in the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while the Army struggled. 

In the post-9/11 era, when great power conflict is again upon us, the other branches have sketched out new warfighting concepts whereas the Army keeps repurposing its old AirLand Battle concepts from the Cold War era.

Without a reliable doctrine to guide the force, it’s no surprise that the Army’s development of warfighting equipment is as listless as the rest of the force. 

The M10 Booker is an armored vehicle designed to support infantry brigade combat teams (BCT) by providing a mobile, protected direct fire capability. It is intended to suppress and destroy fortifications, gun systems, and trench routes. Further, the M10 is meant to protect against enemy armored vehicles. The Booker is equipped with a 105mm main gun and a suite of advanced sensors and communication systems.

But light tanks have not fared very well in modern combat, especially against near-peer adversaries. Just look at Ukraine’s experience with the admittedly older French AMX-10RC units that were so poorly matched against Russia’s armor that the Ukrainians unilaterally withdrew the French light tanks and forbade their further use in combat. Sure, the Booker is more advanced than the AMX-10RC. But the issue isn’t sophistication. It’s armor and firepower.

Here are just a few things that the critics in multiple publications have raised as downsides to the Booker. 

Some Problems with the Booker

First, the M10 Booker is believed to offer redundant capabilities. It’s meant to fill a gap in the Army’s capabilities, providing a light tank option to support infantry brigades. Yet, the M10 offers nothing new that older, cheaper vehicles in the Army’s inventory doesn’t already offer. Both the Abrams Main Battle Tank and the Stryker Mobile Gun System do the same things that the M10 is meant to do.

The M10 cost $1.14 billion in the production and fielding of up to 96 units of these vehicles. The money spent on developing and deploying these light tanks could have been spent on other areas of need for the US Army, such as improving existing systems or investing in new technologies.

The M10 Booker is not without its operational challenges. Its smaller size and lighter weight compared to the M1 Abrams make it more vulnerable to enemy fire. Additionally, the M10 Booker’s reduced armor protection and firepower could limit its effectiveness in certain combat situations (such as the kind currently being experienced in Ukraine). 

The M10 is an Unnecessary Throwback 

In the last decade alone, the face of warfare has changed so much that it is almost unrecognizable. It is, understandably, hard for some in power to keep up with those changes. But it is their duty to try to keep up. That means not designing a force that is meant to fight yesterday’s wars. The Army needs to focus much more on enhancing cyberwarfare capabilities, unmanned systems, and long-range precision strikes.

The M10 Booker offers none of these capabilities. 

The M10 Booker is yet another example of the US Army failing to learn and adapt. Failure to adapt means that a force becomes rigid and unable to improvise in combat. Being unable to fully improvise in unique combat situations means that the force will be unable to overcome the enemy.

And that spells defeat. 

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.

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary: Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Moscow has reportedly lost around 330 aircraft, including the advanced Su-34 "Fullback" fighters.

-Ukraine's use of Western-developed weapons, notably the U.S.-delivered Patriot air defense missile system, has significantly contributed to these losses.

-The Su-34, an evolution of the Cold War-era Su-27 Flanker, officially entered service in 2014 and is known for its distinctive platypus nose and side-by-side cockpit.

-Despite its advanced capabilities and robust armament, the Fullback has proven vulnerable in the conflict, with numerous videos showing its destruction.

-The ongoing war threatens to further deplete Russia's stockpile of these crucial aircraft.

Russian Su-34 Fighters: Vulnerable in Ukraine's Conflict

Since invading Ukraine in February 2022, Russia has reportedly lost some 330 aircraft. Moscow’s fighter airframes have proven vulnerable to Ukraine’s stockpile of advanced Western-developed weapons. 

Ukrainian officials claimed that nine Russian jets were destroyed in May alone. While these numbers cannot be independently verified, the U.S.-delivered Patriot air defense missile system has certainly aided Kyiv’s ability to take down Moscow’s top-tier fighters, including the Su-34. Nicknamed the “Fullback” by NATO, this all-weather supersonic fighter has been an essential asset for Russia for many years.

Introducing the Su-34 Fullback

The Soviet-era Su-34 fighter derived from the Su-27 Flanker during the Cold War. While the Su-34 took its maiden flight before the collapse of the USSR, evolving requirements imposed by the Russian Aerospace Forces pushed back the fighter’s official introduction to service until 2014. 

The Fullback’s several unique characteristics include a platypus nose and side-by-side cockpit. Aside from these external characteristics, the jet retains its predecessor’s basic layout, engine, construction, and wing structure. The jet is powered by a pair of Saturn AL-31FM1 engines, which give it a top speed of Mach 1.8 and a service ceiling of around 56,000 feet.  

The Fullback can lug more than 17,000 pounds of weapons across a dozen hardpoints positioned underwing and beneath the fuselage. The jet can also carry a wide range of precision-guided and unguided bombs and rockets, including KAB-500 laser-guided bombs. As detailed by Airforce Technology, the jet can also carry Vympel R-27, Vympel R-73, and NPO-R-77 missiles used primarily for defense against adversarial aircraft if detected by the rear-facing radar.

Two distinct variants of the Fullback have been produced, both of which Russia exports to foreign client states. The Su-34FN is the maritime strike fighter version of the Fullback, equipped with anti-submarine warfare systems, a Sea Snake radar, a radio sonobuoy system, and other unique attributes. Since this model is designed to elevate the fighter’s naval warfare capabilities, it is highly sought out across the globe.

How Has the Fullback Fared in Ukraine?

The Kremlin may claim that its Su-34 fighter is essentially invulnerable, but the platform’s performance in Ukraine suggests otherwise. As explained by Ukrainian Air Force spokesperson Yurii Ihnat, "Our experience suggests that after Russian planes are downed and destroyed, the occupiers do not dare come closer – this is the case across the northern, southern, and eastern fronts. The closer the aircraft armed with guided bombs approach, the farther those bombs can reach into our defenses." 

Countless videos have circulated in recent months purporting to show the destruction of Russian fighters, including Fullbacks. As the war rages on with no end in sight, Moscow’s Su-34 stockpile will surely dwindle further.

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: The Su-57 boasts stealth features, advanced weaponry, and high maneuverability, but its stealth capabilities are questioned compared to U.S. counterparts like the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II.

-Meanwhile, the U.S. is developing the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program, aiming to surpass fifth-generation fighters with advanced AI, unmanned systems, and cutting-edge technology.

-Despite Russia's claims, the Su-57 may fall short of true fifth-generation standards and is unlikely to evolve into a sixth-generation fighter easily.

Unveiling the Su-57: Russia's Overhyped Fifth-Generation Fighter

It would be unwise to dismiss all Russian military hardware out of hand. While jokes can still be made that a hammer is the tool typically employed to repair its tanks and that its submarines are better at diving than surfacing, the fact remains that the former Soviet Union managed to produce some truly advanced aircraft.

The Kremlin has continued that tradition, and the Sukhoi Su-57 (NATO reporting name "Felon") is currently one of only four  "fifth-generation" fighters built to date – the others being the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, and the Chengdu J-20 (NATO reporting name "Fagin").

Yet, where Moscow often loses creditability is that it all too often overhypes even its very best aircraft – and looks almost stupid in the process.

The Su-57 in the Crosshairs

The Kremlin boasted that its Su-57 employs composite materials including polymer, fiberglass, and aluminum load-bearing honeycomb fillers. It also featured an aerodynamic configuration that includes a pair of internal weapons bays, which help provide a low level of radar and infrared signature.

Each of the aforementioned bays was designed to carry up to four K-77M beyond visual range radar-guided missions. In addition, the Su-57 can carry a pair of K-74M2 short-range infrared-guided missiles in underwing fairings, but at the expense of its stealth.

According to Air Force Technology, the Russian aircraft is also equipped with 3D thrust vector jets for higher maneuverability and is capable of developing supersonic cruising speed. The twin-engine fighter is powered by Izdeliye 117 or AL-41F1 augmented turbofans, and it can fly at a speed of up to Mach two without afterburners, while it can reach a range of up to 3,500km at subsonic speeds.

The Su-57 has been further noted to employ a powerful onboard computer – which has been described as an electronic second pilot – while its radar system is spread across its body. Its onboard avionics systems include active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar and ELINT systems.

Sixth-Generation Claims

Russia has further suggested that an upgraded and even more advanced model of the Su-57 could be in the works and that it would be the world's first in-service "sixth-generation" aircraft.

This was first noted in a November 2017 report from Russian state media outlet Tass, which cited Russian Aerospace Force ex-commander and Chairman of the Federation Council Defense and Security Committee Viktor Bondarev, who explained, "This is actually a splendid plane and it can embrace both fifth-and sixth-generation features. It has huge modernization potential. Importantly, it is the best among the existing versions of its stealth characteristics. It incorporates all the best that is available in modern aviation science both in Russia and in the world."

Yet, even as Russia continues to tout the aircraft, Western aviation experts have suggested the Su-57 is mostly hype – and that Moscow lacks the manufacturing capabilities even to produce the aircraft in significant numbers. That has been noted by the fact that the Su-57 first flew in January 2010 but didn't enter service until December 2020.

How Does the Su-57 Stack Up to the NGAD

First conceptualized back in 2014 in a DARPA's Air Dominance Initiative study, the United States Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program is designed to achieve air superiority, yet, the NGAD shouldn't be seen as simply a single aircraft.

Last year, at the POLITICO Defense Summit, U.S. Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall explained that the manned NGAD aircraft will control the uncrewed fighters escorting it. A variety of multi-mission drones, which have been dubbed Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA), could act as loyal wingmen, while all of the aircraft could be networked together enhancing the situational awareness for the manned and unmanned craft alike.

Moreover, as previously reported by Maya Carlin, there are likely five different technologies that will be prioritized in the NGAD's fighter design including advanced weapons, stealth, digital design, propulsion, and thermal management. While sixth-generation technology has not been precisely defined, the features in the NGAD program are expected to exceed the capabilities of fifth-generation counterparts.

Therefore it would still seem like quite the leap that the Su-57, or any fifth-generation fighter for that matter, could be upgraded to a sixth-generation fighter so easily.

The next generation will likely include advanced digital capabilities, including highly-capable artificial intelligence (AI), data fusion, and battlefield, command, control, and communications (C3) capabilities; will be optionally manned; employ enhanced human-systems integration with virtual cockpits; advanced stealth airframes and avionics; advanced variable-cycle engines; increased-range stand-off and BVR (beyond visual range) weapons; and even be equipped with directed-energy weapons such as laser CIWS (close-in weapons systems).

Is the Su-57 Even Fifth-Generation?

Finally, some Western analysts have even suggested that Russia's Su-57 fighter has a design that is much closer to an advanced fourth-generation fighter than a true fifth-generation aircraft. 

Its stealth is nowhere near as effective as that of the F-22 Raptor or F-35 Lightning II. It may be less detectable than an F-15 Eagle or F-16 Fighting Falcon, but the Su-57 simply has a poor cross-section compared to its main fifth-generation rivals.

In conclusion, the Su-57 may be a very capable aircraft – even if Russia doesn't have all that many in service – but it simply can't be considered sixth-generation when it is barely a fifth-generation fighter.

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.

Summary: As tensions escalate between Beijing and Washington over the South China Sea and Taiwan, the battle for air superiority intensifies. The U.S., long a leader in aerial combat with the introduction of the F-22 Raptor, now faces competition from China's Chengdu J-20 and Russia's Sukhoi Su-57. The U.S.'s F-35 Lightning II is widely regarded as the most advanced fifth-generation fighter, combining stealth, speed, and advanced avionics.

-However, the U.S. Air Force is already looking ahead with its Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program, which aims to develop a sixth-generation fighter incorporating advanced weapons, AI technology, and unmanned aerial vehicles.

-Demonstrator NGAD aircraft are already airborne, with a contract expected in 2024, underscoring the need for cutting-edge air superiority in the current global threat climate.

NGAD vs. F-35: A Showdown Comparision 

Now that tensions between Beijing and Washington are ramping up over the South China Sea and Taiwan, the fight for air superiority between the two nations is at an all-time high.

For many years, the U.S. retained aerial might over its adversaries. When the F-22 Raptor was first introduced to the service, it became the world’s first-ever fifth-generation fighter platform. However, Moscow and Beijing pushed to modernize their respective aircraft capabilities around this time and ultimately developed their fifth-generation counterparts - the Chengdu J-20 and the Sukhoi Su-57. While America’s latest F-35 Lightening II fighter platform is widely considered to be the most formidable of its kind to take to the skies, the U.S. Air Force is already looking towards the future with its Next Generation Air Dominance program (NGAD). 

Although no explicit definition can be applied to fifth-generation airframes, experts and military experts alike generally agree that stealth characteristics are the foundation.

The leading fifth-generation airframes today combine precision attack capabilities, agility, speed and situational awareness with stealth.

The Lockheed Martin F-22 and F-35 Lightening II, in addition to China’s Chengdu J-20 and Russia’s Sukhoi Su-57, fall into this category.

Each of these fighters is considered lightyears ahead of preceding platforms, yet the F-35 stands out for its particular cutting-edge features. 

This article takes a look at what will separate the F-35 and NGAD, as many experts are now questioning if the U.S. Air Force needs a 6th generation fighter like NGAD. 

Introducing the F-35

When the F-35 was well within its development phases in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the fighter incorporated new systems that were truly at the bleeding edge of combat aircraft design.

As the product of the Joint Strike Fighter program, the F-35 was developed to fulfill the specific needs of both the Navy and Air Force.

International partners notably participated in the JSF program, including the U.D., Italy, Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands.

By the late 1990s, both Lockheed Martin and manufacturing competitor Boeing were selected based on their concept demonstrator aircraft. Ultimately, Lockheed was selected as the winner, and the F-35 entered its development phase. 

F-35: Key Details

The F-35 was designed to fly at speeds reaching Mach-1.6 (times the speed of sound), which is attainable with a full internal payload. With nearly double the internal fuel of its predecessor the F-16 Fighting Falcon, the Lightening II has a greater combat radius. Since the F-35 is highly armed, it is considerably heavier than the lightweight fighters that came before it. The lightest of the F-35 variants has an empty weight of just over 29,000 pounds.

Three main F-35 variants exist: the conventional takeoff and landing F-35A, the short take-off and vertical-landing F-35B and the carrier-based F-35C.

One of the most pivotal upgrades incorporated in the F-35 is advanced technology. Built on lessons learned from designing the Raptor program, the F-35 is equipped with sophisticated sensors and avionics components. The open architecture code installed in this platform enables continuous updates and improvements over time.

In addition to this top-notch avionics suite, the F-35 has an extremely low radar cross-section. 

What Makes NGAD Special 

While the F-35 will likely be dominating the skies for years to come, the Air Force is already working towards its next-generation strategy. First conceptualized back in 2014, the NGAD program is designed to achieve air superiority.

Five different technologies that will be prioritized in the fighter’s design are advanced weapons, stealth, digital design, propulsion and thermal management.

While sixth-generation technology has not been precisely defined, the features in the NGAD program are expected to exceed the capabilities of fifth-generation counterparts. 

Significantly, AI technology and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) will be incorporated into the NGAD. These collective combat aircraft are expected to fly alongside a sixth-generation fighter jet. The concept of moving away from the idea that fighters have to be a single, crewed aircraft is also being toyed with in Beijing. While the U.S. became the first country to introduce a fifth-generation airframe to the playing field, it won’t necessarily be the first to get a sixth-generation successor out front first. 

NGAD Is Coming Soon 

The Air Force has indicated that demonstrator NGAD aircraft are already airborne and that within a year a contract could be awarded to start its official development.

As posted in Breaking Defense: “The Department of the Air Force released a classified solicitation to industry for an Engineering and Manufacturing Development contract for the Next Generation Air Dominance Platform with the intent to award a contract in 2024,” adding that “This solicitation release formally begins the source selection process providing industry with the requirements the DAF expects for NGAD, as the future replacement of the F-22.”

Considering the current threat climate, the introduction of the military’s new-generation fighter program is essential to preserving America’s dominant aerial capabilities.

About the Author: Maya Carlin

Maya Carlin 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: The USS New Jersey (BB-62), a former United States Navy Iowa-class battleship from World War II, will return to its home in Camden, New Jersey, after spending the spring in drydock at the Philadelphia Naval Yard for extensive maintenance.

-The historic battleship, currently serving as a museum ship, underwent its first dry docking in over thirty years for crucial hull repairs.

-The vessel is scheduled to leave Philadelphia on June 14, with a brief stop in Paulsboro before its grand homecoming celebration on June 20. Despite delays, the USS New Jersey will be back in time for Fourth of July celebrations, ensuring the preservation of this significant piece of naval history.

USS New Jersey's Triumphant Return to Camden Set for June 20

The former United States Navy's World War II Iowa-class battleship USS New Jersey (BB-62) spent much of the spring in drydock undergoing maintenance at the Philadelphia Naval Yard, but in a few weeks time, the historic warship will be back home in the Garden State.

Officials at the Battleship New Jersey Museum & Memorial announced late last week that preparations are underway for a June 20 homecoming celebration for the battle wagon. The vessel is now scheduled to depart Philadelphia on June 14, and the "Big J" will dock in Paulsboro for six days before making a triumphant return to Camden.

Much Needed TLC

The historic warship, which opened as a museum ship on Oct. 15, 2001, had spent decades in the water and was in need of a major restoration. This marked the battleship's first dry docking in more than three decades, and efforts to preserve the ship focused on hull repairs.

In March, USS New Jersey was carefully guided down the Delaware River en route to the North Atlantic Ship Repair facility at the Philadelphia Navy Yard, back to the very berth where it was built and subsequently launched on December 7, 1942.

The original plan to preserve the 80-year-old, 887-foot-long, 45,000-ton vessel called for the repairs to be completed in time for Memorial Day. However, the museum and memorial's newly-titled CEO Marshall Spevak told the Courier-Post newspaper last month that work has taken longer than expected as unexpected issues were discovered during the restoration. That included the welding of a steel ring around the outward propeller shafts as part of an effort to prevent future leaks, while ultrasonic tests were conducted to determine the thickness of the steel hull. The biggest task was the application of around 18,000 linear feet of sealant to further stop corrosion and future leaks – and more importantly to ensure that the elements won't win and sink this battleship!

The ship will now be back in time for the Fourth of July celebrations.

"We'll be leaving the Philadelphia Navy Yard on June 14," Spevak told WHYY. "We'll be heading to Paulsboro for a quick pit stop as we did on the way down here. And then on June 20, we’ll be leaving Paulsboro and traveling the six miles upriver underneath the Walt Whitman Bridge again and back to our home court in Camden."

The stopover is needed to remove water in the ballast tanks.

"When we stopped there on the way on the way down to the dry dock, we actually put about almost 500,000 gallons of water in the forward tanks in order to even out the ship," Spevak added. "What we'll be doing when we return is taking that water off. So we'll de-water about 500,000 gallons from the forward tanks at Paulsboro. And then after that, that’s when we'll be ready to return back to Camden."

Home in Camden, N.J. for Battleship USS New Jersey 

The USS New Jersey is the only Iowa-class battleship to be maintained as a museum in her namesake state. Three locations were originally determined to be suitable for the warship, including Bayonne, Jersey City, and Camden.

Several factors came into play – notably the fact that the vessel was already undergoing the necessary preparation in Philadelphia, which was just across the Delaware River from Camden. However, after Jersey City opted not to submit a proposal, Bayonne became the frontrunner and was selected as the site for the museum.

In the end, it was decided that Bayonne was too close to New York City, which was home to the USS Intrepid (CV-11), as the U.S. Navy feared the battleship would overshadow the carrier. In the end, it was decided that Camden would be the future home for the Big J – and perhaps fittingly, BB-62's home is across the river from the Independence Seaport Museum, the home of the protected cruiser USS Olympia (C-6), the oldest remaining steel ship afloat.

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.

The main image is from Creative Commons. All others are from the National Interest via Ethan Saunders on seen at the USS New Jersey. 

Summary: The U.S. Navy relies on aircraft carriers for force projection, protecting sea lanes, and supporting ground operations. Carriers have been crucial since WWII, but their role is threatened by advancements in adversary anti-ship weapons.

-Critics argue that large, expensive supercarriers are vulnerable and suggest a shift to more numerous, smaller, conventionally-powered flattops for greater flexibility and reduced costs.

-Despite these challenges, aircraft carriers remain vital to the Navy's 21st-century operations, much like tanks for the Army or bombers for the Air Force.

The U.S. Navy's Aircraft Carriers in Trouble? 

A recent hypothetical raised on some discussion boards was whether the United States Navy could exist without aircraft carriers. There were numerous considerations – including whether the smaller Amphibious Assault Ships should be counted as carriers.

Yet, the simplest answer is that from its founding on October 13, 1775, until March 1922, when USS Langley (CV-1) was commissioned, the sea service had no aircraft carriers in service. In other words, for nearly its first 150 years of existence, the U.S. Navy got by without any flattops – but that answer is being a bit cheeky, as of course until the early 20th century there were no heavier-than-air aircraft in military service (or even in existence), so it was a moot point.

Thus, the question is really about whether the carrier has a place in the modern 21st-century U.S. Navy. The answer is a bit more complicated.

The Role of the Aircraft Carrier in the Modern Day

Aircraft carriers are about force projection around the globe, so the short answer is that the United States Navy remains committed to the floating airfields.

"The United States is a maritime nation, and the U.S. Navy protects America at sea. Alongside our allies and partners, we defend freedom, preserve economic prosperity, and keep the seas open and free. Our nation is engaged in long-term competition. To defend American interests around the globe, the U.S. Navy must remain prepared to execute our timeless role, as directed by Congress and the President," the sea service explains concisely but to the point in its mission statement.

Although it doesn't specify how the U.S. Navy should execute that role, since the Second World War, carriers have played a vital role – replacing the battleship as the core of the fleet. Yet, as the U.S. Naval Institute noted in a 2018 report, the role the carrier now plays has narrowed considerably. It stated, "The centerpiece of U.S. power projection has been the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, a hugely expensive but immensely flexible asset that can conduct almost every naval role imaginable."

U.S. Navy Aircraft Carriers Can Be Sunk

The argument against large supercarriers – one emphasized by the U.S. Naval Institute and others – is that near-peer adversaries including (but certainly not limited to) China have made great strides in developing so-called "carrier killer" weapons, including anti-ship missiles that can strike targets from hundreds of miles away. Moreover, efforts to develop nuclear-armed drones, hypersonic weapons, stealth aircraft, and even small unmanned aerial systems (UAS) all pose a serious threat to the flattop in the 21st century.

It is also true that the United States Air Force has shown that its long-range strategic bombers are more than capable of conducting CONUS-to-CONUS missions, while the U.S. military maintains bases worldwide.

However, while carriers are vulnerable to a plethora of weapons, and long-range bombers can strike targets around the world, the carrier remains vital in supporting ground operations on distant shores – while the deployment of the Nimitz-class nuclear-powered supercarrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) to protect commercial shipping in the Red Sea has proven, a U.S. Navy carrier strike group (CSG) can both defend the waterways and then launch strikes on enemy positions with near impunity.

Rethinking the Role of the Carrier

The real question isn't whether the U.S. Navy needs aircraft carriers, but whether it needs 11 nuclear-powered supercarriers that make for large tempting targets. The answer may be a return to more numerous and less costly smaller conventionally-powered flattops. In addition to costing less to produce, these would be easier to retire and scrap at the end of their services lives. Disposing of nuclear-powered carriers remains an expensive proposition!

More importantly, in large operations multiple warships could be employed together – and such deployments could allow for greater flexibility.

All things considered, it is impossible to think that the United States Navy could exist in the 21st century without a fleet of aircraft carriers. It would be like asking whether the U.S. Army can operate without tanks, or the U.S. Air Force without bombers. It is possible that someday smaller unmanned platforms will replace the bombers, the tanks, and yes, even the carriers – but that isn't today. 

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Le mouvement loyaliste modéré en Nouvelle-Calédonie a demandé, mardi, à Emmanuel Macron, de lever les "ambiguïtés" et de mettre "officiellement" fin à la procédure du projet de réforme constitutionnelle, dont le vote à Paris, début avril, a déclenché la colère des indépendantises, ainsi que des émeutes et des blocages dans l'archipel.

Après la promulgation de la nouvelle constitution qui bascule le Togo dans la 5e République, beaucoup de changements vont s'opérer dans le fonctionnement des institutions, notamment au niveau de l'exécutif et du législatif.