Diplomacy & Crisis News

As passions continue to rise in this country, it is interesting to compare our situation with that of the English Civil War (1639–1650), in which the number of dead and wounded, as a percentage of the population of the country, exceeded that of the First World War. This is astonishing when one thinks that this was “brother against brother” and “hand-to-hand” combat. Optically, it is not unlike the “Battle of the Capitol” on January 6, but much, much deadlier. Such fratricidal hatred could only arise when rival parties felt that their core identities were deeply challenged: how did this happen?

The simplistic view of the English Civil War was that it was a confrontation between a would-be autocrat, Charles I, and his Parliament over who should govern the country. The “Whig Interpretation of History” is that Parliament’s final victory represents “Progress” with a capital “P,” in that an elected body (Parliament) triumphed over a politically inept King who believed that his personal rule was ordained by God. Defeated in a succession of conflicts stretching over almost a decade, Charles paid the “ultimate price” on January 30, 1649, when he was decapitated outside the banquet hall of his Whitehall palace.

Unfortunately for poor Charles, who was not actually a bad man, especially when one considers that the men of Parliament also believed themselves to be “on a mission from God,” so on what basis did their certainty trump his certainty? Furthermore, the MPs had previously sworn allegiance to the King, who they were now executing—clearly, they were not oath-keepers—and doesn’t God rather prefer that you stick to your vows, or does even He now think that that is hopelessly old-fashioned? And it gets still worse: Charles’s truly tyrannical successor as head of state, Oliver Cromwell, once he decided to kill the King, cut Parliament down to a sliver—known to history as the “Rump Parliament”—a “killer caucus” which could not pretend that they were the majority, moral or otherwise.

In the denouement of the confrontation between the King (“Chief Executive”) and Parliament (the legislature), Charles had his finest hour, calmly and courageously questioning by what authority the soon-to-be regicides were acting, claiming that as God’s representative sent to rule England in His stead, he could not legitimately be placed on trial, and stating that the purge had removed any plausible claim that the “Rumpers” represented either God or the people.

On the day of his execution, Charles asked for two shirts to avoid trembling from the cold and being suspected of fear. At the very end, whatever his flaws, he exited bravely: one lifts one’s hat, as they lifted his head: Bravo Charles.

If all parties were claiming that God was on their side, perhaps the English Civil War is better understood not as the first modern “Revolution” (as the Whigs would have it) but as one of Europe’s “Wars of Religion”—in which different religious factions, ranging from pale Anglicans to Catholics, to Calvinist Puritans, to apocalyptic millenarians, jockeyed for power at the Palace, at Parliament, and in the various churches. Mirroring our own situation today, each of these fractions and splinters was isolated and self-amplifying within their own “bubbles,” and some of them sought aggressively to “weaponize” whatever levers of power they could grasp. 

Now, religious fractions in this country, and in particular the offspring of the Evangelical churches known as “Christian Nationalists,” are working to seize control of both the legislature and the judiciary, in the belief that white, native-born, and mostly Protestant people should maintain the dominant role in our social, cultural, and political institutions. In a period of chaos, these people seek to assert their core identities and traditions, steer the country towards something that is in keeping with their own beliefs and values, and ensure that privileges go to the “rightful” recipients themselves. This requires defining and preserving distinctions between “us” and “them,” the setting of strong boundaries to disenfranchise the “other” and deny them equal rights. Whatever economic, geographic, or ethnic issues may also be involved, “core identities” are in origin closely tied to religion, to the belief that “our God” is the “true God” and that He authorizes us to treat others as badly as we choose.

To make the case that the English Civil War was a War of Religion and to begin sketching some parallels between seventeenth-century England and contemporary America, it is first necessary to give the briefest of histories of the run-up to their Civil War. Roughly one hundred years earlier, Henry VIII, who was as spendthrift as his father had been miserly, decided that by breaking with Rome and seizing the wealth of the Catholic Church, essentially privatizing it, he could launch a vast and hitherto unimaginable asset strip.

Despite careening the Crown into multiple bankruptcies, Henry would undoubtedly have described himself as “highly successful” in business. Henry had scant respect, or at best, idiosyncratic and intermittent respect, for the human, cultural and intellectual capital that the Church had built up over its millennium in England—he was “the only one that mattered”—so he ignored the fact that the Church wasn’t just the religious backbone of the country, but also provided a vast array of services, from education, to “scrivening” (writing contracts and accounts), to keeping records and documenting history, to caring for the poor, the sick, and the elderly. In modern terms, this would be similar to having the majority of banks, law firms, accountancies, colleges, schools, hospitals, and “social services” all rolled into one giant institution, which was then seized and demolished by a self-appointed “administrator” with no clear concept of alternative structures.

There is a parallel to our situation: for decades already, large groups of modern Americans—not just in the Rust Belt—have had a similar sense of being neglected or even abandoned by the state, which seemed mostly to serve the interests of an ever-smaller elite, allowing a chasm to widen between a tiny layer of the extremely rich and the rest of the population. Ironically, the right-wing and “oligarchic” media have successfully portrayed the normal, necessary institutions of the state—the Department of Justice and FBI, the IRS, and the CIA—as organs of a “deep state” that maintains the power and position of an anti-Christian, “Liberal” middle class, and works against the interests of the “common man.” According to this trope, the deep state is intent on “weaponizing” investigative and policing capabilities against the working class. It should, therefore, either be demolished or delivered into the hands of a “ruler” who will know how to rein it in. Somehow, a significant segment of America does not see the possibility of “mere anarchy” being “loosed upon the world.”

With the Reformation now underway on the European continent, Henry entered into shifting alliances with other “Protestant” countries in an effort to forestall intervention into England’s affairs by other Catholic powers. These relationships provided a cross-fertilization regarding the theological concepts and religious practices being debated in these allied churches: “free will” versus “predestination,” of “grace” versus “acts,” and God “choosing His people” versus “loving all mankind,” to name only a few salient themes.

Most of these debates dog us to this day: do we have “free will” so that our personal decisions define the arc of our lives, or are our actions somehow predetermined, and our responsibility diminished or even eliminated? Do we have to earn illumination and redemption by our acts? Will a select few be “raptured” and the majority consigned to Hell? Do we earn our place in heaven by a lifetime of careful accumulation of moral, intellectual, and even financial capital, or is God prepared to be indulgent towards the gentle slacker and even towards the angry misfit, who never really gets much done? What was at stake in the disputes was not just the intellectual substance of belief but how these beliefs should be collectively expressed in day-to-day practice, and these differences coalesced into rival churches and then into increasingly violent antagonisms between them.

The material, visual, and musical practices of the Catholic Church, with its elaborate ceremonies and vestments, its architecture and decoration, the invocation of Saints and use of their relics, as well as its hierarchical organization and structure of authority, were now reviled by the more radical Protestant churches as “Popery,” “idolatry” and “superstition.” In England, bishops, priests, monks, and nuns were either pensioned off, co-opted into the new Anglican structure, or eliminated (often with great cruelty), and churches in the more vigorously Protestant areas were stripped of all ornament—paintings, statues, altarpieces—with extraordinary thoroughness.

Henry, his daughter Elizabeth I, and her successor James I nonetheless had a keen appreciation for the role of “image” and majestic grandeur in securing the acquiescence and support of their subjects. James I, the father of our unhappy Charles I, was from Scotland, which had been at war with England numerous times. Much of its population had migrated into the Protestant denomination known as Presbyterianism—the important organizational aspect of which was that churches (the “kirks”) elected officials (the “Presbyters”) rather than having a Bishop imposed on them by an external higher authority, whether in Rome or London. Although James was an intelligent and politically tactful man and had been educated by Presbyterians, he nonetheless believed, like Elizabeth, in episcopacy (a church hierarchy appointed by the Crown)—and famously remarked, “No bishops, no king.”

James has two conspicuous claims to fame: he assembled a group of scholars to produce the King James Version of the Bible (the favorite of many, to this day, even those who have clearly not read it), and he was the principal target of the “Gunpowder Plot,” when Guy Fawkes & Friends attempted to blow up the entire Parliament at its 1605 state opening. 

This brings us to Charles. Influenced by the Catholicism of his French queen and by William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, Charles believed that his own preferred denomination, a bishop-heavy High Church Anglicanism, mediated a sacramental grace that reconciled man to God and that the Church’s rituals and ceremonies brought a sustaining, saving faith. Armed with this belief, at once well-intentioned and self-serving, he set out in 1638 to create greater uniformity in both theology and the practice of religion across his three separate realms—England, Scotland, and Ireland. 

Lacking his father’s tact and acute political sense, he was surprised when this initiative was met with angry resistance. The first attempt to have Laud’s new (Anglican) Book of Common Prayer read in the (Presbyterian) St. Giles’s Cathedral in Edinburgh caused a riot when a woman named Jenny Geddes threw a stool at Archbishop Spottiswoode. When neither side backed down, this escalated into a succession of wars collectively known as the “English Civil War.” The King needed money from Parliament, which demanded political concessions in turn, leading to another irreconcilable standoff and civil war. But to get to full-fledged war, each of the sides—each of the factions—had to decide that their rivals were, in fact, enemies, challenging or denying the “foundations of their being” and that their opponents, therefore, deserved death.

Puritans maintained that the Catholic Church (and its pale copy, the Anglican Church) was the “Whore of Babylon,” working her wiles to achieve dominance at whatever price. Citing the Book of Revelation, Puritans branded the Pope and his bishops collectively as “the Antichrist,” who must be destroyed with fire and sword. Anything that resembled “Popery” must be annihilated—and this eventually included Archbishop Laud himself, who the Puritan-dominated Parliament succeeded in executing in January 1645. So much for Common Prayer.

Like our own Congress, which has become more and more dysfunctional with the growth of an initially small but intransigent, extremist minority opposed to all compromise, the rise of the Puritan faction in Parliament to a dominant position took place in stages, beginning with appeals to “constitutionalism” and the need to define the appropriate purviews of monarch and Parliament. The Puritans denied that they were conducting a “holy war” against “Popery,” reluctantly accepting that fighting to assert one’s religious beliefs had never been legitimate, going back to the origins of the faith. Christ Himself acknowledged and accepted Pontius Pilate’s right, even duty, to enforce the laws of the state he governed, that is, to arrest and execute Him. 

In the Gospels, Christ was subjected to temptation twice: once in the desert by the Devil, who offered Him all earthly power if He would bow down to him, but also by St. Peter, who was aghast when Christ told him of His imminent crucifixion, and remonstrated with Him to fight fire with divine fire, in order to save Himself. Christ’s response was the same in both instances—“Get thee behind me, Satan!” in order to make plain to both that “My Kingdom is not of this world.” His example was followed for centuries by Christian martyrs, who practiced non-resistance to persecution and even execution by their states. Fighting for one’s religion was, therefore, not only a repudiation of the ancient martyrs but also exactly what Puritans were accusing the Catholic Church of doing: corrupting Christ’s message by forcing its faith on others through violence. 

Tim Alberta’s book, The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory, chronicles the transition that many members of the Evangelical churches in this country have made towards a gross, blasphemous distortion of Christ’s message: “my Kingdom” has become “USA! USA!”, very much “of this world.” Evidently, Trump’s careful reading of his “favorite book” did not embrace the Old Testament since he would then have had to consider whether the golden image of himself at the CPAC conference, like the Golden Calf erected while Moses climbed Mt. Sinai, might leave his people wandering in the desert for forty years, unable to enter the Promised Land.

The same failure to distinguish between temporal power and the spiritual, the urge to combine or conflate the two, emerged as the Puritan MPs wrestled with seemingly incompatible imperatives: Parliament should act only upon and for the law. Yet, the Whore of Babylon must be brought low. The answer: first, bring the law into conformity with their religious beliefs, and then enforce the (new) law so that the state would indeed promote or prosecute (the mot juste) their beliefs, but do so “legally.” The concept that Parliament should mirror the balance of power between different factions and that it should provide a forum in which each faction could represent its interests—in other words, the rough prototype of our own American system—began to slip. Within a decade, the Puritan faction achieved control by working with and for a genuine tyrant, Oliver Cromwell, and together, they made a travesty of the whole idea of Parliament.

This parallels once again our own experience: as cited by Heather Cox Richardson, an article in Slate by Mark J. Stern noted that when Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was Senate majority leader, he “realized you don’t need to win elections to enact Republican policy. You don’t need to change hearts and minds. You don’t need to push ballot initiatives or win over the views of the people. All you have to do is stack the courts. You only need 51 votes in the Senate to stack the courts with far-right partisan activists…[a]nd they will enact Republican policies under the guise of judicial review, policies that could never pass through the democratic process. And those policies will be bulletproof, because they will be called ‘law.’”

As Americans, we have enjoyed our liberty, however imperfect and unevenly offered, for the “pursuit of happiness.” In principle, we have a neutral state, separated from any particular church, which is meant to protect the rights of its citizens to conduct their lives as they see fit, in accordance with their own beliefs, tastes, and choices. In practice, however, a significant portion of the electorate is bitterly opposed to giving fully equal rights to ethnic, gender, or religious minorities.

Like the British Isles in the seventeenth century, many conservative Christians in America today are primarily concerned with living out their faith as individuals. Still, we are also paralleling early modern England with the emergence of semi-religious fragments with a powerful urge for self-assertion. The Christian Nationalist movement insists that our Constitution is founded on biblical principles (selectively chosen and painted red, white, and blue) and that America’s future success depends on a return to these beliefs. Christian Nationalism makes few calls for piety, kindness, tolerance, or high moral standards but rather exhorts its members to fight the secularists, “deviants,” and infidels who are “perverting” America. With an irrational fear or antipathy towards immigrants, it claims divine sanction for ethnocentrism and nativism, promoting white supremacy, racial subordination, and narrow “traditional” gender roles. It is symptomatic of their radical evolution away from truly Christian principles that Mike Pence, once considered pious and God-fearing amongst Evangelicals, came close to suffering Archbishop Laud’s fate.

Like the Puritans in their pre-purge Parliament, Christian Nationalists and their less rabid allies have achieved enough electoral success to produce a dysfunctional Congress. However, this assertion of their own interests at the cost of acknowledging the interests of all others runs much deeper.

The packing of the judiciary means that if our would-be “autocrat for a day” returns to power, he will have much-improved chances, compared to his first term in office, of achieving “success” when his Executive Orders are challenged in the courts. Slanted policies that are at odds with the majority opinion will have a far greater chance of standing. More immediately, and a grave threat, is that the Supreme Court has worked to delay cogent, serious indictments of the former President, deliberately facilitating his return to power.

Incontrovertible evidence of egregious wrongdoing, crimes that threaten the foundations of our existing Constitutional order, are grotesquely misrepresented as “weaponization of the justice system.” Truth, always elusive in its pure form, is nonetheless allied in its practical day-to-day approximations with “fact.” How is this country to deal with a growing acceptance that “alternative facts” are somehow “real,” and not simply falsehoods, lies, and nonsense? The ridiculous conspiracy theories of groups like “Q-Anon” in the political sphere are mirrored in the scientific realm by groups of “Anti-Vaxxers,” the “Flat Earth Society,” etc. One sometimes wonders, do these groups have reciprocal memberships?

It is a truism of the intelligence community that you can’t have a good policy—or strategy—or tactics—that are based on false information. Yet, so much of the current discourse is built on the deliberate and knowing acceptance of falsehood.

The parallels between our situation and that of seventeenth-century England abound—and so do the contrasts and ironies. Charles was devoutly religious and believed that he was God’s representative on earth. Still, he came to be reviled by some as an Antichrist and was judicially murdered by an “empowered” Puritan splinter of Parliament.

Trump, on the other hand, has no discernable religious belief or even curiosity. Despite his reliance on the support of Evangelical Christians, he does not appear to have felt it necessary to “learn a bit of their language,” his attempts to appear religious are always comically inept and betray a profound, even bottomless, ignorance. This has not stopped some of his followers from now insisting that he was sent by God to lead them in battle. As vain as he is ignorant, the apotheosis of a Dunning-Kruger “over-reacher,” Trump seems to believe them, even referring to himself as “the Chosen One.”

In the English Civil War, it was Parliament that objected, at first on a constitutionalist basis, to a King who was exceeding his powers and prerogatives. Still, as the conflict evolved, a fanatical faction within Parliament, claiming their own religious superiority, succeeded in seizing control, executing the King, and steering the country into a dictatorship. We are now confronted with the fact that half of our Congress refuses to address unambiguous evidence of wrongdoing, is unable to find any excess as “beyond the pale,” and is unwilling to check the rise to power of a desperate criminal/autocrat—his acolytes and adherents, who in 2016 were perhaps shuffling about half-heartedly, have now become so terrorized that they are actively working to subvert the Constitution, permitting any tactic of prevarication, obstruction, resistance, or denial of simple, obvious facts. 

In so doing, they are helping him to achieve dominance over their own institution: in contrast to seventeenth-century England, this time, the autocrat “wins” against the legislature. Worse still, Project 2025 is a blueprint for rejecting a state apparatus built on neutral, objective expertise—a triumph of our educational, scientific, and technological achievements over the last three centuries—in favor of subservience and loyalty to an individual who believes injections of cleaning fluid could cure COVID-19. One wonders, is there any other head of state in the entire world capable of such buffoonery?

The majority of Americans see Christian Nationalists and “ultra-conservatives” who do not endorse a pluralistic democratic system that welcomes people of all religions as a threat. Although we support an elected legislature in principle, how many of us are ready and willing in practice to take action on behalf of beleaguered, divided, gridlocked Congress? In particular, to work to convince our opponents that we are not, in fact, enemies and that the protection of the civil rights of all of us through a functional Congress that is as technocratic, meritocratic, and bipartisan as possible is not only our common salvation but also the precise intention of our Founders?

With or without Mitch McConnell, the willingness of half of our legislature to accept absurdities and non-truths, whether from politicians, extremist media, Q-Anon, random conspiracists, or even the Flat Earth Society, means that increasingly, our epistemic foundations are just “turtles all the way down.” We are right to be worried that, with such hands grasping at the tiller, the ship could eventually fall off the edge of the world.

Adam Dixon has extensive experience in Central Europe and the Former Soviet Union as a consultant, businessman, and entrepreneur, working mostly in aviation and telecommunications. He is currently working on a range of innovative military technologies, including a platform for the removal of landmines. Mr. Dixon studied at Harvard (BA 1983), Oxford (M.Phil 1988), and Leningrad State University (1986).

Image: Wikimedia Commons / Public Domain.

What You Need to Know: During WWII, five bombers stood out for their strategic impact: the American B-29 Superfortress, famed for firebombing Tokyo and delivering atomic bombs that ended the war; Britain’s Avro Lancaster, known for its heavy payload and effectiveness in decimating Nazi Germany’s infrastructure; Japan’s Mitsubishi G4M "Betty," a versatile medium and torpedo bomber with notable strikes on the British Navy; Nazi Germany’s prolific Junkers Ju 88, which saw heavy action in the Battle of Britain; and Italy’s Savoia-Marchetti SM.79, an effective Mediterranean torpedo bomber that proved formidable against Allied ships. Each left an indelible mark on WWII aerial warfare.

These admittedly highly subjective five Best Lists are virtually guaranteed to generate controversy, as no matter how much you justify your opinions with solid objective facts, some military history buff out is still going to feel miffed because their favorite warplane/warship/firearm/tank/helicopter/whatever was omitted from the list. 

That said, “Once more unto the breach, dear comrades,” as I opine on the five Best Bombers of World War II. To be more specific and help narrow things down further, I’m going to focus specifically on multi-engine bombers, as single-engine bombers such as dive bombers merit their own separate, standalone article shortly.  

Might as well start at the end, i.e. the bomber that brought WWII to an end! The b-29 did so, of course, via the atomic bombs "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by B-29s "Enola Gay" and "Bockscar" on August 6 and August 9, 1945, respectively, thereby goading Imperial Japan into surrendering and thus finally ending the Second World War. 

But even before the A-bombs, the “Superfort” was already making history by inflicting sheer destruction upon the heart of industrial Japan by more conventional bombing raids (masterminded by the late great U.S. Air Force (USAF) and U.S. Army Air Force (USAAF) Gen. Curtis E. LeMay). For example, during Operation Meetinghouse on March ninth through the tenth 1945, 324 B-29s firebombed Tokyo in what would become the most destructive air raid in history, yes, that’s right, an even higher death toll than either of the A-bomb raids. 

It ended with at least 90,000 persons killed, one million left homeless, and 267,171 buildings destroyed. 

Arguably the most revered bomber in the prestigious history of Great Britain’s Royal Air Force (RAF), the BAE Systems info page goes so far as to call the warbird “The most iconic heavy bomber of World War II.” She made her maiden flight on January 9, 1941 and was officially introduced into operational service with the RAF in February 1942. 

The Lancaster carried out the lion’s share of the British portion of the Combined Bomber Offensive (CBO) that ended up laying waste to the cities of Nazi Germany. She carried a much heavier bomb load than the B-17 Flying Fortress or the B-24 Liberator while operating at similar speeds and a slightly longer range.  

Bearing in mind former U.S. Secretary of Defense, and former U.S. Marine Corps Commandant, Jim Mattis’s sobering reminder that, “The enemy gets a vote,” it must be remembered that although the Axis eventually lost WWII, they still produced their fair share of top-notch bombers. 

Accordingly, one can make a reasonable case for the twin-engine “Betty” as Japan’s best of the bunch. Used as both a higher-altitude medium bomber and as a torpedo bomber, it was in the latter role that the so-called Hamaki performed best, sinking the pride of Britain’s Royal Navy, i.e. the battleship HMS Prince of Wales and the battlecruiser HMS Repulse with four torpedo hits apiece, in exchange for the loss of only two Hamakis and one Mitsubishi G3M Type 96. 

Sir Winston Churchill said of this event, “In all the war, I never received a more direct shock.” 

Tough choice between the Ju 88 and the Heinkel He 111 as to which was the Third Reich’s best bomber; however, going by the saying that, “Quantity has a quality all its own,” the nod would have to go to the Junkers warbird. 

The twin-engine Ju 88 ended up as the second-most produced bomber of all time, with 15,183 airframes built; these numbers were only exceeded by America’s Consolidated B-24 Liberator four-engine heavy bomber, with 18, 482 specimens made. 

This Luftwaffe bomber made her maiden flight on December 21, 1936 and officially entered into operational service with the Vaterland in 1939, which was perfect timing for the commencement of WWII. The Ju 88 did indeed manage to participate in the first official battle of the Second World War, that being the September 1939 blitzkrieg invasion of Poland, though they made a negligible impact on that particular mission. 

The ‘88s made a much bigger contribution during the Battle of France (May-June 1940). 

Of course, it was during the Battle of Britain that the Ju 88 garnered its biggest claim to fame. That fame, however, came at a terrible price: between July and October 1940, 303 of the ‘88s went down in flames, thus constituting a 15.3 percent chunk of the 1,977 total Luftwaffe aircraft losses for the ill-fated campaign. 

The quality of Italian fighting machines tends to get overlooked, as Benito Mussolini’s Fascist Italy was the first Axis power to capitulate, which in turn led to the prevailing popular misconception that Italian troops were cowards. 

So then, it’s not surprising that the three-engine Sparviero, though arguably the most famous Italian airplane in WWII on the one hand, is the least well-known warbird on this list comparatively speaking, which is a damn shame, as it was an excellent medium bomber and torpedo bomber. Making her maiden flight on September 28, 1934, she was well-liked by its crews, who nicknamed her il gobbo maledetto due to the distinctive dorsal "hump" of the fuselage. 

As noted by Aaron Spray of Simple Flying, “Commando Supremo claims it is considered one of the most lethal Italian aircraft of the war and successfully damaged and sunk dozens of Allied ships in the Mediterranean Sea and was one of the finest land-based torpedo bombers of the war…While U-boats inflicted the greater damage to the Royal Navy, SM.79s are credited with sinking the destroyers HMS Fearless, HMS Bedouin, and HMAS Nestor, an Australian destroyer. They also damaged Royal Navy cruisers and the aircraft carrier HMS Indomitable in July 1943, just before Italy exited the war.”  

Christian D. Orr is a Senior Defense Editor for National Security Journal (NSJ). He is a former Air Force Security Forces officer, Federal law enforcement officer, and private military contractor (with assignments worked in Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kosovo, Japan, Germany, and the Pentagon). Chris holds a B.A. in International Relations from the University of Southern California (USC) and an M.A. in Intelligence Studies (concentration in Terrorism Studies) from American Military University (AMU). He has also been published in The Daily Torch , The Journal of Intelligence and Cyber Security, and Simple Flying. Last but not least, he is a Companion of the Order of the Naval Order of the United States (NOUS). 

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

What You Need to Know: The top five WWII aircraft carriers—chosen for their strategic impact and bravery—include the iconic USS Enterprise (CV-6) for its extensive combat achievements and resilience, and the British HMS Ark Royal (91), instrumental in key victories like the sinking of the Bismarck.

-Japan’s Hiryu represented the fierce capability of the Imperial Japanese Navy, notably at Midway. “Taffy 3,” an entire task unit of six escort carriers, triumphed against all odds at Leyte Gulf. Lastly, HMS Illustrious stood out for its versatility and long service across both Mediterranean and Pacific theaters.

-Each demonstrated exceptional resolve in one of history’s most intense conflicts.

Five Best Lists are virtually guaranteed to generate controversy, as 

(1) they’re admittedly highly subjective, though I always do my damnedest to back my expressed opinions with solid objective facts.

(2) someone’s always guaranteed to get butthurt because their favorite plane/gun/ship/tank/whatever was omitted from the list. 

That said, “Once more unto the breach, dear comrades,” as I open on what Yours Truly considers to be the Aircraft Carriers of World War II.  

Might as well start with the most successful warship of the bunch; the “Big E,” AKA “The Grey Ghost,” not to be confused with either the British ocean liner Queen Mary’s WWII troopship alter ego or American Civil War raider John S. Mosby, not to mention the warship that inspired the nickname of a certain starship from a rather popular sci-fi franchise.  

Allow me to quote my colleague, Harrison Kass, “When the Japanese finally capitulated, after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Enterprise’s guns/planes had shot down 911 enemy aircraft, sunk seventy-one ships, and damaged and destroyed 192 more...The Enterprise was even the first American ship to sink a full-sized Japanese warship in the Pacific Theater, the submarine I-70. In total, The Enterprise finished the war with twenty battle stars, more than any other warship during the war.” 

As for that “Grey Ghost” nickname, that was inspired by the fact that she was erroneously declared sunk by Hideki Tojo’s propaganda machine on three separate occasions. 

Pretty hard to argue with that body of work, eh?  

Arguably the most revered aircraft carrier in the prestigious history of Great Britain’s Royal Navy, because the RN still commemorates her loss every year. As with the USS Enterprise, Ark Royal had a fictitious pop culture icon nexus, as she was the vessel that James Bond served on, long before he embarked on his, rather paradoxical-sounding, career as “The World’s Most Famous Secret Agent.” 

Making history right off the bat as Britain’s first purpose-built fleet carrier, she had a short lifespan of just under three years from her December 1938 commissioning to her November 1941 sinking by the Kriegsmarine’s U-81. 

Yet in that short time, she accomplished a lot, especially her participation in the sinking of the feared German battleship Bismarck. Ark Royal also played an indirect role in the destruction of the pocket battleship Graf Spee, joined in the first U-boat kill of the war, and proved essential in protecting supply convoys to Malta. 

Lest anyone accuse me of being either too America-centric, or too Western-centric, rest assured that I never forget former U.S. Secretary of Defense (and former U.S. Marine Corps Commandant) Jim Mattis’s sobering reminder that, “The enemy gets a vote.” 

Although the Axis eventually lost WWII, they still produced their fair share of successful carriers. At least the IJN did, anyway, the Nazi German Kriegsmarine’s lone flattop, the Graf Zeppelin, had a pretty inauspicious career.

Accordingly, one can make a reasonable case for the “Flying Dragon.” Even before Imperial Japan officially entered WWII, Hiryu’s crew was “bloodied” in combat, as her aircraft participated in the September 1940 invasion of French Indochina. Then of course came the vessel’s role in WWII proper as a key participant in the Pearl Harbor raid, followed shortly thereafter by Wake Island, and the conquest of the Dutch East Indies. 

Last but not least, there’s the Battle of Midway. Surviving the initial onslaught that annihilated her fellow IJN carriers Akagi, Kaga, and Soryu, coincidentally herself a “Dragon” ship, as in “Blue Dragon”, the Hiryu got in a few final licks before herself being finally sunk by USN Douglas Dauntless dive bombers; her dive bombers and torpedo bombers severely damaged the USS Yorktown, setting the stage for the “Fighting Lady” to be finished off by the IJN submarine I-168. 

I’m going employ some outside-the-box thinking here by giving one of my Top five awards to an entire group of “flattops” instead of an individual carrier; this group merits its place on this list by punching far above its weight and winning against impossible odds: the six itty-bitty escort carriers (CVEs, AKA “baby flattops” or “jeep carriers”) of Task Unit 77.4.3, better known as "Taffy III": USS Fanshaw Bay, St. Lo, White Plains, Kalinin Bay, Kitkun Bay, and Gambier Bay. It was during the Battle of Samar phase of the Battle of Leyte Gulf on October 25, 1944 that Taffy III, under the command of Rear Admiral Clifton “Ziggy” Sprague, cemented its place in history.  

These six “jeep carriers,” along with three destroyers (DDs), four tiny destroyers escorts (DEs), and 322 aircraft, miraculously prevailed over seemingly hopeless odds facing Force A of IJN Vice Admiral Takeo Kurita’s 2nd Fleet consisting of four battleships – including the Yamato, THE most powerful battleship ever built: six heavy cruisers, two light cruisers, and eleven destroyers.

In exchange for the loss of St. Lo and Gambier Bay along with two DDs, one DE, and twenty-three planes, the outmanned and outgunned American force sank three heavy cruisers, damaged two battleships, three more heavy cruisers, and one destroyer, and inflicted 2,700 Japanese casualties.  

Many thanks to my colleague Peter Suciu for the inspiration here. 

For the sheer breadth of her career, Illustrious is the most impressive of the bunch, as she served in the Mediterranean and the Pacific Theatres of WWII. In the former, she participated in the Battle of Taranto in late 1940, wherein her aircraft sank an Italian battleship and badly damaged two others. In the latter, she launched strikes against the Japanese-occupied Dutch East Indies in 1944 and later participated in the Battle of Okinawa. 

Christian D. Orr is a Senior Defense Editor for National Security Journal (NSJ). He is a former Air Force Security Forces officer, Federal law enforcement officer, and private military contractor (with assignments worked in Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kosovo, Japan, Germany, and the Pentagon). Chris holds a B.A. in International Relations from the University of Southern California (USC) and an M.A. in Intelligence Studies (concentration in Terrorism Studies) from American Military University (AMU). He has also been published in The Daily Torch , The Journal of Intelligence and Cyber Security, and Simple Flying. Last but not least, he is a Companion of the Order of the Naval Order of the United States (NOUS). 

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock

The decision to have the seventh Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier for the late Senator John C. Stennis of Mississippi continues to be controversial. The same certainly can't be said of the U.S. Navy's Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer named to honor Medal of Honor winner John Basilone.

The sea service accepted delivery of the warship on July 8, and this coming Saturday USS John Basilone (DDG-122) will be officially commissioned at a ceremony in New York City.

"The ship honors United States Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeant John Basilone, who received the Medal of Honor for his heroism during the Battle of Guadalcanal in 1942. He was killed in action during the February 1945 invasion of Iwo Jima and was posthumously awarded the Navy Cross. Basilone is the only enlisted Marine to be honored with both the Navy Cross and the Medal of Honor," the U.S. Navy explained.

The Flight IIA Arleigh Burke-class destroyer will serve in a multi-mission surface combatant capacity – able to conduct Anti-Air Warfare (AAW), Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW), and Anti-Surface Warfare (ASuW). In March, the future USS John Basilone transited the Kennebec River from the Bath Iron Works facility to the Atlantic Ocean and completed four days of at-sea trails.

DDG-122 will be the second warship named to honor Basilone, following the Gearing-class destroyer USS Basilone (DD-824), which was commissioned in 1949 and served with the U.S. Navy until it was decommissioned in 1977­earning three battle stars for service during the Vietnam War.

Although the future USS John Basilone hasn't officially been commissioned, photos shared by General Dynamics Bath Iron Works and posted on X last week showed the warship flying a battle flag as the warship departed Maine.

The flag features the official unit crest, which is noted for including crossed Browning M1917 water-cooled machine guns over a blue diamond – to denote that Basilone served as a machine gunner with the 1st Marine Division. During the Battle of Guadalcanal, he led two machine gun sections of the 1st Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division, and employed the M1917 against a charge of Japanese forces.

His actions, which were depicted in the hit HBO series The Pacific, earned him the Medal of Honor. As noted in the mini-series, Basilone had returned home to a hero's welcome. Instead of receiving the award from President Franklin D. Roosevelt at the White House – he opted instead to receive it at a small ceremony with his men, stating that only part of this media belongs to me… pieces of it belong to the boys who are still on Guadalcanal."

As Military.com reported, Basilone was offered a commission, but declined, and then requested to return to combat. He was killed in action on February 19, 1945, leading an assault on Iwo Jima. In addition to the Medal of Honor, Gunnery Sergeant John Basilone was posthumously awarded the Navy Cross­becoming the only enlisted Marine to earn both medals.

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

What You Need to Know: The Rockwell B-1B Lancer, nearing retirement by 2036 as the B-21 Raider enters service, has now made its virtual debut in Microsoft Flight Simulator. Indie developer KwikFlight’s new B-1B add-on offers a high-fidelity simulation, bringing detailed liveries and functional systems to virtual pilots.

-Unlike the 1980 game B-1 Nuclear Bomber, which centered around bomb-dropping missions, this add-on emphasizes the flying experience alone.

-Following their recent B-2 Spirit add-ons, developers continue to interpret classified details with impressive realism, and early user feedback indicates KwikFlight’s B-1B may be one of the most authentic experiences for aviation enthusiasts.

There are currently just 45 Rockwell B-1B Lancers now in service, and while the Cold War-era strategic bomber is scheduled to be retired as the Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider enters service, with the U.S. Air Force starting to begin replacing the aging Lancers beginning in 2026. However, the last of the old BONEs won't be retired until at least 2036, meaning there will still be quite a few pilots trained to fly the aircraft.

In addition, even those who haven't gone through actual flight training will get a chance to take the controls of the B-1 – at least virtually. Indie game development studio KwikFlight, which creates add-on content for the popular Microsoft Flight Simulator, announced this week that its B-1B download is now available.

According to MSFS Addons, "KwikFlight has paid close attention to detail with the Bone, equipping it with high-resolution real and fictional liveries and a design that prioritizes realism. The aircraft comes with an interesting selection of functional systems, which aim to give simmers the closest experience to piloting this supersonic bomber."

It should also be noted that the very first video game to depict the Rockwell B-1 was released even before the aircraft officially entered service. B-1 Nuclear Bomber, which was developed by board game maker Avalon Hill and Microcomputer Games, was released in 1980 originally for the Apple II before later appearing on the Atari 8-bit, PET, Vic-20, Commodore 64, MS-DOS, TRS-80 and even the T-99.

The single-player game wasn't a particularly graphic-heavy experience, and instead just saw players attempt to "fly" to a Soviet city and drop a nuclear bomb. Even in an era of text-heavy simulations, the fun wore off fast, as this writer can attest to as having played it back in the day.

By contrast, the new B-1B add-on is all about the flying experience, and there is no option to drop a bomb on a Russia city or any other urban center. Nuclear war isn't part of Microsoft Flight Simulator, instead, this franchise has always been about the joy of flying.

The game publisher had previously released a Northrop B-2 Spirit add-on in August 2023. Interestingly, another game developer, Top Mach Studio, also released a virtual B-2 expansion for Microsoft Flight Simulator this past summer. Based on comments from the MSFS community, both versions have their merits – and each has managed to use a fair amount of guesswork on details that remain classified.

The B-1B add-on from KwikFlight is the first and reported only virtual Lancer now available for the popular video game – which has been flying high for decades.

"The aircraft comes with an interesting selection of functional systems, which aim to give simmers the closest experience to piloting this supersonic bomber," added MSFS Addons. The developers also attempted to mimic the performance of the B-1, including its swept-wing design.

Whether they nailed every detail is something only a real BONE pilot can confirm, but based on the early response from the gaming community KwikFlight went above and beyond – so much so that we shouldn't be surprised if this add-on for the flight simulator has already been downloaded in Moscow and Beijing.

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

What You Need to Know: The USS Texas (BB-35), a storied battleship that served in both World Wars, faces an uncertain future. Despite a recent $60 million overhaul, it has no permanent home.

-The battleship’s former berth at the San Jacinto battleground is no longer viable, while options like Seawolf Park and Corpus Christi have been ruled out due to logistical and financial constraints.

-Galveston, where Texas was repaired, also wants the ship gone, citing concerns over obstructed waterfront views. As a unique piece of naval history, the USS Texas deserves a permanent location that respects its role in American heritage.

An Orphan In Its Land: The Sad Fate of the USS Texas - The Second World War may be long over, but one of its most iconic battleships, the USS Texas (BB-35) is fighting its most important campaign in its long, storied life. That is the fight for this legendary steel beast to find a permanent home. 

After $60 million, 300,000 man-hour, stem-to-stern refurbishment of the great ship, the USS Texas is ready to return to duty, the service of showcasing itself for throngs of curious onlookers seeking a greater understanding of the role this warship played in our national history, and it is being prevented from returning to the San Jacinto battleground where she was once housed.

Peter Suciu explained in these pages that, “bureaucratic and financial challenges prevent its return,” to San Jacinto. Suciu further states that, “Proposals to move the ship to Seawolf Park or Corpus Christi have been scuttled over logistical and funding issues.” 

Its present temporary home in Galveston, where the extensive repairs took place, wants the storied warship gone. 

So, one of the greatest embodiments of twentieth-century U.S. naval power is made to float aimlessly in the friendly, albeit uncertain, waters of an increasingly ambivalent Texas, the state not the ship.

The USS Texas is a unique boat. Sure, there are a few other battleships still around, such as the USS North Carolina. But Texas is a rarity. 

You see, the USS Texas has the virtue of being the only battleship in existence to have seen action in both world wars that defined the twentieth century and shaped the tumultuous century we live in today. 

Texas was launched in 1912, the same year that the Titanic sank and just two years before the outbreak of the Great War. 

The yuppies who live in the seaside parts of Galveston, Tex., want the battleship gone. Should the original plans to house the Texas in the port at Galveston be realized, then, multiple local businesses will have their waterfront views obstructed. Restaurants do not want to have their water views impeded by the masts and gray barrels of the Texas.

It’s quite embarrassing. 

This battleship played a role in securing the very freedoms that these business owners wanted to use to deprive Texas of a home.

Having a battleship museum in Galveston, by the way, might take away from some of the waterfront views but it’d more than make up for it in terms of revenue generated for the locality. The fact that Texas was able to receive the lifesaving repairs it did at the cost of $60 million is proof that there’s a demand for this great ship to live on and be available to the world. But that’s not how the business owners of Galveston see things. 

Similarly, Seawolf Park and Corpus Christi are out, even though both cities are home to impressive naval museums. For the former, it’s too cost-prohibitive to move Texas there because the association in charge of the Texas museum would have to pay gobs of money that it doesn’t have to dredge the channel for the Texas to even be moved into place. 

In the case of the latter city, Corpus Christi, state officials oppose moving the battleship there even though it’d be moored next to another WWII icon, the Essex-class aircraft carrier, USS Lexington (CV-16).

It is a mortal sin that a great piece of American history, like the USS Texas, would struggle to find a home. But this is the case. The Corpus Christi option, frankly, makes the most sense. Let’s just hope that they see this as an opportunity and move the warship there forever.

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 available for purchase wherever books are sold. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

 Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

What You Need to Know: The USS Parche earned the title of the most decorated vessel in U.S. history for its critical Cold War espionage missions. Originally a Sturgeon-class attack submarine, the Parche was repurposed in 1974 to conduct clandestine reconnaissance on Soviet undersea communication cables, primarily in the Sea of Okhotsk.

-Extensively modified with advanced surveillance equipment, the Parche excelled in wiretapping Soviet cables and retrieving missile fragments from the seabed.

-In 2004, it was decommissioned with an unprecedented array of honors, including ten Presidential Unit Citations. The Seawolf-class USS Jimmy Carter now carries on the espionage role that Parche pioneered.

The USS Parche is said to be “the most highly decorated vessel in U.S. history.” Considering all the vessels that have served throughout U.S. history, from wooden schooners to stealthy littoral combat ships, in all the conflicts, from the War of 1812 to the War on Terror — to be the most highly decorated vessel in U.S. history is a pretty remarkable designation.

First commissioned in 1974, the Parche initially served as a Sturgeon-class nuclear-powered fast attack submarine. But after several years in the fast attack role, the Parche was chosen for an alternative function: clandestine reconnaissance. The target of course would be the Soviet Union – specifically, the Soviet’s underwater communications cables. 

To accommodate the USS Parche’s new role, the boat was modified extensively. The modifications allowed for superior maneuverability. Further modifications made space onboard for new gear including cameras, communications equipment, thrusters, new sonar arrays, and landing skids. To make room for all of the new gear the majority of the Parche’s torpedo tubes were removed, leaving the sub with just four torpedoes – which made the Parche extremely under-gunned.

Serving on the USS Parche was especially dangerous. Protocol dictated that rather than submit to Soviet capture, the Parche would scuttle itself, killing the entire 112-man crew, using the 150 pounds of HBX explosives on board. Fortunately, the Soviets were never able to force the Parche's hand.

The full breadth of the Parche’s mission profile is unknown. What we do know is that the Parche worked to tap Soviet undersea communications cables in the Sea of Okhotsk. The cable was important; situated along the ocean floor, the cable connected the Soviet Pacific Fleet’s Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky base on the Kamchatka Peninsula to the Fleet’s headquarters in Vladivostok.

The U.S. Navy did succeed in tapping the Okhotsk cable. In 1971, the USS Halibut, another espionage submarine, placed a large wiretap recording device on the cable. And when the Halibut was decommissioned, the Parche inherited the wiretapping role. In addition to operations in the Sea of Okhotsk, the Parche conducted wiretapping up near the North Pole and also in the Barents Sea. 

In addition to wiretapping, the Parche was also tasked with recovering Soviet missile fragments from the seabed after test launches. 

The USS Parche was decommissioned in 2004, after three decades of service. The submarine was scrapped in 2006 – but its flag was preserved and is now on display at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Washington.

In all, “Parche would win a staggering amount of honors, including ten Presidential Unit Citations, nine Navy Unit Citations, and thirteen Expeditionary Awards,” Caleb Larson of the National Interest explained a few years ago. Indeed, the Parche was “the most highly decorated vessel in US history.”

The USS Jimmy Carter would fill the espionage role that the Parche left vacant. The Jimmy Carter is the third and final Seawolf-class submarine, which has been modified to become America’s “premier spy submarine.” The Jimmy Carter has been so heavily modified to fit the espionage role that the Parche left vacant, that the Jimmy Carter is sometimes considered its own subclass of submarine. 

Harrison Kass is a seasoned defense writer with over 1,000 articles published. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, he 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. He lives in Oregon and listens to Dokken. Follow him on Twitter @harrison_kass. Email the Author: Editor@nationalinterest.org 

All images are Creative Commons. 

Same Peninsula but Worlds Apart: North Korean Soldiers in Ukraine is the Nail in the Coffin for Peaceful Korean Reunification - Are the battle-hardened Ukrainian soldiers shivering in their boots, anxiously anticipating the arrival of the North Koreans side-by-side with their Russian compatriots? Is the next Admiral Yi Sun-sin among the ranks of the Hermit Kingdom’s horde? Is this the latchkey moment the Kim Dynasty was long anticipating, accumulating power to push their armies into a foreign land to show up their adversary: the conniving American Empire?

Likely not. The North Korean presence on the battlefields of Ukraine will serve to bolster numbers on the front and otherwise to keep the Russian war machine running as efficiently as possible, or at least, as it possibly can.

No, the North Koreans on the ground will probably not drastically change much, however, geopolitically, this changes everything.

While nearly every country has taken a side in the Russo-Ukrainian war, either through government commitment or silently conforming towards their preferred hegemon's bloc, both of the countries comprising the Korean peninsula have entered the fray and destroyed the idea that this war is strictly “European.” As the average Russian soldier struggles with Korean vocab awaiting their new allies to arrive, South Korea threatens to up the ante and send weapons directly to Ukraine.

This tit-for-tat behavior with North Korea is typical of the current South Korean President Yoon’s administration, one that is currently in hot water with record levels of low approval ratings of his domestic and foreign policy being at under forty percent. Yoon’s party clings to a tried-and-true Conservative method of responding to North Korean aggression with an equal or greater amount of escalation, as detailed by Voice of America Seoul Bureau Chief William Gallo, “During periods of military tensions, South Korea has often embraced a policy of retaliating with at least three times as much force as North Korea. The “three-to-one” policy stretches back at least to 2010, when South Korea responded to North Korea’s deadly shelling of the frontline island of Yeonpyeong.”

The Trash Balloon incident, Kim Jong-un declaring South Korea to be an enemy nation and abandoning the goal of peaceful reunification, sending North Korean troops to aid Russia in Ukraine, and most recently conducting an ICBM test days before the U.S. election have led to both states to pull apart from one another. 

North and South Korea now act as aides towards opposing sides of a proxy war between the Russian Federation very, very loosely backed by the BRICS bloc, and the sovereign Ukraine backed by NATO and their allies, the same forces that fought against each other on the Korean Peninsula in what was also a proxy war over seventy years ago.

Korean Reunification looked to be just on the horizon after German reunification and the fall of the USSR, but ultimately, the window of opportunity slammed shut on the fingers of the hopeful. 

The Sunshine Policy of the Kim Dae-jung and Rho Moo-hyun presidencies, seeking cooperation with North Korea without the direct goal of absorption, looked to be just the forward-thinking route to take to lead inter-Korean relations to a more agreeable position, but North Korea only dangled a carrot-on-a-stick in front of South Korea, in turn, making an ass of themselves.

The 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyongyang was shaped up to be just as influential as the 1988 Seoul Olympics, which showed the nations of the world that South Korea was not some forgettable backwater country, but a serious, burgeoning Asian power. In the end, the Olympic fire was extinguished, and the ambition for substantial change died along with it.

Indeed, as the generation that remembers one unified Korea after liberation from Japanese colonialism fades away with age, so too does the interest and/or incentive to pursue that goal. 

Lake Dodson is an Assistant Editor for the National Interest. His interests are Korean-American relations, cybersecurity policy, and nuclear energy/weapons policy. He currently studies the Korean language and has completed courses on North-South Korean Relations and conducted various experiments on an AGN-201K Nuclear Reactor at the prestigious Kyung-hee University in Suwon, South Korea. His specific interests are effective nuclear energy policy, cyber-security, and the economy and politics of East Asia. He holds a BA from the University of Mississippi. 

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

What You Need to Know: HMS Vanguard, Britain’s last battleship, was laid down in 1941 amid shifting naval tactics favoring aircraft carriers over traditional battleships. Despite being completed in 1946, post-WWII, Vanguard combined classic design with modern anti-aircraft features and boasted eight 15-inch guns and a top speed of 30 knots.

-Primarily serving as a flagship and royal yacht, Vanguard missed its intended conflict and never saw combat.

-Decommissioned in 1960, this “ship out of time” symbolizes the twilight of battleships—a powerful vessel rendered obsolete by the swift evolution of naval warfare.

When the British Royal Navy battleship HMS Vanguard was laid down in 1941, battleships were already on the wane. Aircraft carriers had proven their worth in repeated engagements. Battleships, of course, still had their uses but nothing like what carriers could do. Despite the belief among all combatants’ navies that carriers, not battleships, were the future of naval surface warfare, London opted to continue investing in the Vanguard’s construction because the Royal Navy desperately needed reinforcements on the High Seas.

So, the Vanguard combined traditional battleship design with some truly unique, modern features. Yet, the Vanguard was nevertheless a scaled-down version of what the British naval planners had originally envisaged when they first drew up plans for the steel beast. Because of the rapid changes that the realities of naval warfare had foisted upon the Royal Navy’s ship designers, many had taken to calling the Vanguard “the dinosaur,” because she was an outmoded concept meant to fight a bygone conflict. 

Possessing eight, fifteen-inch guns in four twin turrets, the Vanguard sported improved fire control systems. Her secondary armaments were sixteen 5.25-inch dual-purpose guns, capable of anti-aircraft fire as well as firing at surface targets, in other words, naval planners incorporated the new threat of aircraft to battleships that before the war began few had considered. 

This battleship was capable of achieving a speed of up to thirty knots, making it one of the fastest battleships of her era.

Ultimately, HMS Vanguard was commissioned in 1946, a year after WWII had ended. What makes the Vanguard so memorable for the British is the fact that she was the last official battleship the Royal Navy ever produced. Indeed, she is considered one of the last battleships ever built by any navy in history. 

Because she missed her intended conflict, having already been pared down as a result of the rise of aircraft carriers, Vanguard’s operational career was relatively brief and peaceful, not how her designers planned for her to be used.

Her primary roles were as a flagship, a training ship, and even a royal yacht. The HMS Vanguard served as King George VI’s yacht during his 1947 tour to South Africa. Relatedly, a year thereafter, Vanguard represented Great Britain in the Spithead Review for the Royal Family’s coronation ceremony. 

At the Spithead Review, HMS Vanguard was presented as one of the ninety-nine ships present that was the last of her kind. 

Just fourteen years after she was commissioned, in 1960, Vanguard was decommissioned, ending her time as one of the last battleships ever. Some observers have described this boat as a “ship out of time.” Built after the age of battleships had come and gone, to fight a war that was no longer being fought, unable to fully live up to her expectations in the post-WWII era, the Vanguard’s existence was sad. 

Finally put out of her misery, it’s hard not to ruminate about what might have been.

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 available for purchase wherever books are sold. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

 Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

Growing Disaster: The U.S. Navy’s Columbia-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, set to replace the Ohio-class as a key nuclear deterrent, face significant delays. The future USS District of Columbia (SSBN-826) is 16 months behind schedule, due to contractor issues in delivering critical components like the bow and turbine generators.

-These delays risk extending the aging Ohio-class submarines' service life to maintain fleet numbers.

-At an estimated $130 billion for construction and nearly $348 billion for lifecycle costs, the Columbia-class remains one of the Pentagon's priciest programs. Lawmakers are concerned about the impact on U.S. nuclear deterrence and naval readiness.

The United States Navy's future Columbia-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines – which are set to replace the aging Ohio-class boats – will eventually become a major component of the nation's nuclear triad.

Each of the planned dozen boats will be equipped with sixteen SLBM tubes, as opposed to twenty-four SLBM tubes on the Ohio-class SSBNs. That was meant to reduce construction, operations, and maintenance costs. In addition, the new ballistic missile submarines will utilize the joint American-British developed Common Missile Compartment (CMC), which will also be installed on the Royal Navy's new Dreadnought-class submarines. It was designed to launch the Trident II D5 intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). The joint effort has been reported to save each nation hundreds of millions of dollars.

On paper, the Columbia-class is just what the U.S. Navy needs to accomplish its nuclear deterrence mission. Back in reality, the situation is quite dire.

At issue is the fact that there is now a delay of as much as 16 months in delivering the lead boat, the future USS District of Columbia (SSBN-826). It was previously reported that the submarine could be delivered in Fiscal year 2028 (FY28) instead of the previously planned FY27 delivery.

A few months back, according to Bloomberg, the future SSBN-826's delay could be as much as 16 months, and it stems from contractor delays in delivering the vessel’s bow section and power generators, according to an internal assessment by the service.

The delays impacting the Columbia­-class has been a seen as very serious, as it could force the U.S. Navy to keep the Ohio-class in service longer than expected. The original plan called for the first of the SSBNs to be retired beginning in 2027, with an additional boat leaving the service every year until 2040. Navy officials have said it could be possible to extend the service life of at least five of its Ohio-class subs by two to three years each so that the force would remain at 12 vessels or more for all but three years between 2024 and 2053.

That might not be good enough for lawmakers on Capitol Hill, as the House Armed Service's seapower subcommittee held a hearing Wednesday to review the sea service's fiscal 2025 shipbuilding request as well as this month’s review by the service of its ship programs.

According to the report from Bloomberg, General Dynamics Corp. and Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) were charged with designing and constructing the 12-boat class, a roughly $130 billion program, with each sub assembled from six large hull segments.

During construction, the so-called "super modules" are each outfitted with systems and connections before final assembly by General Dynamics. Ideally, this would speed the production.

However, HII was to ship the bow in May 2025 from its Newport News, Virginia, yard to the General Dynamics facility in Groton, Connecticut. It is now estimated for June 2026, or 13 months late, according to internal service figures. The reason for the delays hasn't been made public.

HII said in a statement that it "experienced first-in-class challenges on a complex welding sequence," which required revising the plan for "the largest submarines ever built in the US." It further stated that the revised plan "was successfully executed and is now incorporated on follow-on ships."

In addition, Northrop Grumman Corp., which the U.S. Navy contracted to deliver the first ship's turbine generators by November 2021, had planned to provide months of margin before those components would be needed. Instead, the turbine generators are projected to be delivered in early 2025, further impacting the schedule. Each of the submarines has two generators that provide the vessel's propulsion and electrical power requirements.

While the submarines may be running late, they'll be worth it in the end – that is if they actually deliver. Maya Carlin, writing for The National Interest, also warned that the Columbia-class is on track to become one of the costliest Pentagon programs to ever be developed.

Though the total lifecycle price for the entire class is estimated at nearly $348 billion, including the projected costs to develop and purchase the 12 submarines and maintain them through the early 2040s, if they don't live up to the task, the U.S. Navy will be out more than just time and money.

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. 

Navy Drone Ship Orca is a Mac Truck for Mine Warfare: The Navy’s new Orca undersea drone is the size of a Mac truck and could be a rapid capability for deterring China. 

The Extra Large Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (XLUUV,) fittingly known as Orca, is a fifty-one-foot autonomous submarine that can carry out clandestine missions like minelaying.  The first Orca began testing in 2023 and late last month, the second Orca hit the water for sea acceptance testing off the coast of Southern California.

Seen side by side, the first two Orcas radiate mystery and menace. The Navy is evaluating several unmanned underwater vehicles for various missions, including large vehicles such as the sleek Manta. 

But none match Orca for size and military capability. 

And just in time, as the Navy is rushing to be at high readiness by 2027 when China’s Xi Jinping has ordered his forces to be ready to attack Taiwan. 

The focus on 2027 has taken hold across the military budgets since it was first described as the Davidson window. “President Xi has instructed the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), the Chinese military leadership to be ready by 2027 to invade Taiwan,” CIA Director William Burns stated in 2023. 

“They are on a wartime footing,” Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Lisa Franchetti said of China during a talk at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in September.  

If the CNO is serious about adding capability, Orca is an option. Accelerating the production of large ships is almost impossible in a tight timeframe. Only a few Navy programs can speed up to deliver in quantity by 2027. One of these is Orca. 

The program, which is the Navy’s largest unmanned vehicle, started as a joint emergent urgent need requested by U.S. Indo-Pacific Command for an underwater mine-laying vessel.  Boeing went on contract in 2019 and launched the first Orca prototype in 2023. Four more Orcas are under construction in Huntington Beach, California. The Orca hot production line would enable the Navy to add Orcas quickly before 2027. 

The diesel-powered Orca is almost the size of an eighteen-wheeler, with thirty-four feet of space dedicated to payload. Think of Orca as a giant, undersea truck with limitless missions and a reported range of 6500 nautical miles. It’s by far the biggest undersea drone ship in the U.S. Navy. Recent tests demonstrated forty-eight hours of autonomous operations covering over 120 nautical miles. 

Orca has numerous uses in deterring China. Each Orca will be equipped for clandestine placing of sea mines if a crisis escalates. Taiwan’s shallow waters and treacherous coastline are prime territory for mine warfare and, “a low-cost way to interfere with China’s military plans, increasing the risk of operational failure,” noted a trio of analysts.

Just as important, the U.S. Navy says Orca can perform complicated undersea mining operations that would otherwise be tasked to a manned submarine. Orca has a long-endurance capability, allowing it to operate autonomously for extended periods in challenging undersea environments.  Its cost is much less than a manned platform and the risk to sailors is lower. 

As CNO Franchetti said at CSIS, “We know we need to adopt robotic, cheaper autonomous technologies to help us complement and extend the reach and lethality of our manned fleet.”

Orca also has other potential uses, such as hunting Chinese submarines. The American strategy is counting on an undersea advantage to neutralize both Chinese conventional and nuclear submarine capabilities. China’s nuclear ballistic missile submarines are a growing problem.  China deployed its new JL-3 (CH-SS-N-20) submarine-launched ballistic missile aboard the Type-094 submarines in 2022.

The extended range of that missile could allow Chinese submarines to lurk in forward locations and put targets in the continental United States within reach. An autonomous system like Orca lying in wait could make that much harder for China to accomplish. 

All these capabilities enable Orca to assist the submarine force, freeing up manned submarines for other tasks. Orcas could be in use from the High North of the Arctic to the South China Seas, in which case the U.S. Navy is going to need more than five or six of them. 

“China wants its navy to be capable of acting as part of an anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) force, a force that can deter U.S. intervention in a conflict in China’s near-seas region over Taiwan or some other issue or failing that, delay the arrival or reduce the effectiveness of intervening U.S. forces,” concluded Ron O’Rourke of the Congressional Research Service.  The U.S. needs to prioritize its undersea advantage to nix Xi Jinping’s timeline.

For Franchetti, it’s personal.  “I’m going to be CNO in 2027,” Franchetti said. “So, I am compelled to do more, and do more faster,” she concluded. 

Adding more Orcas to the fleet would accomplish both tasks. “What we are doing now in support of unmanned vehicles is key to the future success of our great Navy,” Commander Timothy Rochholz, the commanding officer, of Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (UUV) Flotilla Three at Naval Base Ventura County Port Hueneme, pointed out. “We must accomplish the mission our commanders ask of us, deliver Orca to the fleet, ready to fight, as soon as possible – that is our charge.”

Dr. Rebecca Grant is a national security analyst and vice president, of defense programs for the Lexington Institute, a nonprofit public-policy research organization in Arlington, Virginia. She has held positions at the Pentagon, in the private sector and has led an aerospace and defense consultancy. Follow her on Twitter at @rebeccagrantdc.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

Whom Shall I Vote For? That is the question American Arabs are asking and answering today.

No American candidate for the presidency should ever take the vote of any demographic group for granted, especially when the families and friends of that group overseas are under the threat of being killed by U.S.-supplied weapons. However, it’s not easy to determine who the majority of Arab Americans will support on November 5. 

The Republican nominee, former President Donald Trump (78), is rolling the dice in hopes of reclaiming the White House. On the Democratic side, Vice President Kamala Harris (60) is making her case that she can connect with the aspirations of most Americans, Arab Americans in particular. Both sides have a fight on their hands.

Trump’s recent rally in Michigan was an attempt to win over the majority of Arab American voters. Billboards lining Michigan highways and campaign visits highlight Trump’s promise to “stand for peace” in the Middle East while casting Harris as one-sided and unsympathetic to Arab American interests.

However, Trump has not publicly announced a strategy for ending the war through a ceasefire if elected. In fact, he reportedly told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, “Do what you have to do,” signaling support for Israel’s military actions in Gaza and Lebanon. On the other hand, many Arab Americans are frustrated by what they see as insincerity from Vice President Kamala Harris on issues that matter to them.

A young Lebanese American voter from Tampa, Florida, Pierre Mokhtar, 26, shared his views on the election and who he’s voting for.

Mokhtar said, “The first time I ever voted was in 2016. I voted for Donald Trump. My intention is to vote for him again this time. He appeals to me the most, but I’m coming from a nuanced point of view. Many Arab Americans see Trump’s faults. One of them is his communication style.”

Mokhtar continued to explain his admiration for Trump: “He comes from outside the political class. There are pros and cons. The downside is that he doesn’t know how to work the political process properly. But the positive is he hasn’t been corrupted by the influence and time it takes to climb the political ladder.”

Many younger voters are pulling back from traditional politics and media, seeing them as relics that don’t serve their interests today. Trump’s recent appearance on “The Joe Rogan Experience” podcast earned him the host’s endorsement, resonating with some younger voters.

Data reveals that some of Trump’s highest approval ratings come from young men, who, in part, perceive him as stronger on protecting businesses and entrepreneurship. Mokhtar, from a family business background, touched on this issue: “As an Arab American, business appeals to most of us. Becoming a billionaire, regardless of where you started, is a significant accomplishment. No fool could do it. He’s clearly not a fool.”

Another Lebanese American, Robert Khoury, 52, shared his reasons for supporting Trump: “You have to vote for the lesser of two evils. I like Trump. He’s against wars. Yes, he says a lot of garbage, but at the end of the day, he means well. The man cares for everyone. The poor, the weak, and we want to avoid war. Watching his recent Michigan rally changed my mind about him. I wouldn’t vote for Harris for any reason. Michigan has the largest number of Arabs and Muslims in the United States. Trump is counting on their votes to win the state.”

Khoury went on to criticize the Biden administration’s handling of the Gaza-Israel-Lebanon conflict: “The Biden administration is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians—men, women, and children. And now, Lebanese. Why do they keep providing weapons to Israel?”

Many Arab Americans are eager to see a friend or ally in the White House who understands their aspirations, both economically and in foreign policy. Trump recently addressed a letter to the Lebanese American community, which said, “During my administration, we had peace in the Middle East, and we will have peace again very soon! I will fix the problems caused by Kamala Harris and Joe Biden and stop the suffering and destruction in Lebanon.”

Foreign policy is especially critical to Arab Americans in this violent time. Many have family members in Lebanon and Palestine who risk being killed every day. Yet, some Arab Americans who support Trump may want to pause and think twice.

Other Arab Americans support Vice President Kamala Harris. Mona Ali, a Miami resident, explained her endorsement: “I grew up in Dearborn, Michigan, and the values I was raised with have guided me to vote for Kamala Harris. I don’t believe that Donald Trump represents U.S. principles. As a woman, I’m concerned that women’s rights could be jeopardized if he is elected. If it starts with women’s health rights, where will it end?”

Former U.S. Ambassador to Morocco Edward Gabriel (1997–2001) spoke highly of Harris and is rallying support for her. Gabriel shared his thoughts on the election and detailed his reasons for backing Harris: “As a retired U.S. Ambassador, I’ve spent decades helping Lebanese Americans prosper here and advocating for peace in Lebanon. I met Harris in Flint, Michigan, and she assured me she was working toward a diplomatic solution for Lebanon.”

Gabriel said Harris and he discussed the need for Lebanon to elect a respected president, strengthen the Lebanese Armed Forces, and work toward sustainable peace along Lebanon’s borders. He believes this understanding will help Harris win over Lebanese Americans.

When asked whether foreign policy or domestic issues drive Arab American voters, Gabriel commented: “It’s a combination of factors. Foreign policy is one, but Muslim and Arab Americans also believe Kamala will protect the rights of Muslims to practice their religion freely.”

During his first presidential run, Trump proposed a “Muslim ban” affecting several Muslim-majority countries, though it didn’t take effect. Nonetheless, he has promised to reinstate it and ban refugees from Gaza from entering the United States.

This election will be close. Arab American voters, like all Americans, are weighing their options carefully, caught between two candidates who each claim to champion their interests in different ways. As U.S. policies in the Middle East directly impact families and communities, they seek more than rhetoric; they demand genuine, consistent support for peace abroad and fair representation at home. This election is a pivotal moment for Arab Americans to assert their voices. With both parties courting their votes, neither should take this growing demographic for granted. Today, November 5, Arab Americans will make their voices heard, reminding candidates that their trust, like their vote, must be earned, not assumed.

Adnan Nasser is an independent foreign policy analyst and journalist with a focus on Middle East affairs. Follow him on Twitter @Adnansoutlook29.

Image: Shutterstock.com. 

Uncovered Hatches: In a construction mishap reminiscent of past U.S. incidents, the lead vessel of China’s new nuclear-powered attack submarine class reportedly sank while docked, echoing the 1969 sinking of the U.S. Navy’s USS Guitarro (SSN 665) in San Francisco Bay.

-The Guitarro’s mishap occurred as nuclear and non-nuclear work teams independently filled tanks for separate assignments without coordination, leading to uncontrolled flooding through uncovered hatches.

-After the Navy's investigation cited "culpable negligence" and inadequate communication, it took three days to refloat the submarine, delaying its commissioning by almost three years and costing $140 million in repairs.

In September, U.S. defense officials revealed that the lead ship of a new class of Chinese nuclear-powered attack submarines sunk while undergoing construction.  

The incident took place in the spring, and the Chinese government sought to hide the fact until a think tank analyst spotted the sunk sub at its pier.  

Although a hugely embarrassing incident for the ambitious Chinese military, it is not unheard of for submarines to sink while at port. Indeed, the U.S. Navy experienced a similar incident, but fifty-five years ago when shipbuilding technology wasn’t as developed as it is today.  

It’s 1969. The war in Vietnam is raging. The Navy has committed important resources to supporting the ground fighting in southeast Asia. But the number one threat remains the Soviet Union. The Navy continues to invest in and prepare capabilities that would help it defeat the Soviet Navy in the event of a conflict.  

Nuclear-powered submarines were all the rage. Using the immense energy of newly-tamed nuclear energy, subs powered by a nuclear reactor could operate for longer periods, sail faster, and were also harder to detect. Fast-attack submarines were particularly desired because of their ability to find and sink enemy warships and logistical vessels. To this day, a wolfpack of good fast-attack submarines properly led can wreak havoc on an adversary naval force.  

The USS Guitarro (SSN 665), a Sturgeon class nuclear-powered fast-attack submarine, is undergoing final touches before it gets commissioned and joins the operational fleet. Construction of the warship is taking place at the San Francisco Bay Naval Shipyard. Work on the sub is proceeding as scheduled. Indeed, has been under construction for four almost four years, and the plan is to commission it in eight months.  

Then, all of a sudden, at approximately 8:30 PM, the USS Guitarro starts sinking while still tied to the dock. Nuclear and non-nuclear construction groups had been working on the boat on two different assignments that required filling certain tanks on the boat to bring it closer to the surface. The two groups had not been coordinating despite working on assignments that influenced one another, and the water reached uncovered hatches. The submarine kept taking more and more water. Eventually, the submarine could take no more and sunk.  

The Navy conducted a thorough investigation following the incident to determine what caused one of its priced nuclear-powered attack submarines to sink while in port. The cause of the sinking was “uncontrolled flooding within the forward part of the ship.” The report concluded that the sinking was accidental. However, the immediate cause of the sinking was, “culpable negligence of certain shipyard employees.” Moreover, inadequate coordination contributed to the accident.  

It took Navy crews three days to refloat the sunk submarine. 

The whole incident caused a commissioning delay of almost three years and up to $140 million in repair costs.  

Building and maintaining a naval fleet is not an easy task. And enemy fire is not the only danger to the longevity of a fleet.  

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. 

Key Points: Recent Russian tactical gains in southern Donetsk have added pressure on Ukrainian forces, with notable progress near Vuhledar and towns like Hirnyk and Kurakhivka, according to British Military Intelligence. This progress includes the capture of small towns over a 20 km front, bolstering Russia's ability to threaten Pokrovsk, a key Ukrainian logistics hub.

-Despite suffering high casualties—over 1,000 per day on average—Russian forces sustain these advances with continuous recruitment, using attrition tactics that Kyiv resists to preserve its manpower.

-As the conflict drags on, Russia’s numerical advantage in troops remains a strategic hurdle for Ukraine.

The Russian forces have made significant tactical progress over the past few weeks. Although the Russian military hasn’t been able to achieve an operational breakthrough that would open the way to winning the war, the tactical successes are putting pressure on the Ukrainian forces.

In its latest assessment of the conflict, the British Military Intelligence estimated that “in southern Donetsk oblast, Russian forces have made advances in several areas along a 20km wide front.”

“Russian forces have seized control of several small towns and advanced up to 9km in some areas within the space of a week. These advances follow from Russia gaining control of Vuhledar at the beginning of October 2024,” the British Military Intelligence assessed.

Since September, the Russian forces have been making slow but gradual progress in certain parts of the contact line. The Donbas has been mostly where the Russian forces have been making gains, though the area around Kharkiv in eastern Ukraine is also an active one.

“Also in southern Donetsk oblast, Russian forces seized the town of Hirnyk and claim to have captured Kurakhivka. 15km southeast of Pokrvosk, Russia seized Selydove, which likely further sets conditions for Russia to threaten the logistics hub of Pokrovsk,” the British Military Intelligence added in its operational estimate.  

The Ukrainian military is fighting hard to maintain its control in Pokrovsk, a key logistical hub on that part of the battlefield that would be a significant blow if it were to fall to the Russian forces. For one thing, it would limit the Ukrainian military’s ability to conduct both offensive and defensive operations in the sector.

“Russia continues to prioritise the southern Donetsk frontlines maintaining favourable force ratios in this sector, which partly explains the increased pace of Russian advances,” the British Military Intelligence stated.

The big question is for how long the Russian military can sustain the rate of advance? Because it doesn’t come cheap. For over six months now, or 180 days, the Russian forces have been averaging more than 1,000 casualties each day. Sometimes, the average rises to even 1,300 casualties per day for a few weeks. And yet, despite the heavy losses, the Russian military continues to have enough men to sustain its World War One-tactics on the battlefield.

“Despite heavy personnel losses, Russia continues to recruit high numbers to sustain its operations in southern Ukraine,” the British Military Intelligence concluded.

And the high rate of casualties is partly the reason behind the recent tactical success of the Russian forces on the ground. Simply put, Moscow can put more men on the meatgrinder, and it doesn’t care. Kyiv, conversely, has been very reluctant to commit all of its manpower to the conflict, arguing that there needs to be enough young men to power the economy after the war. Western military aid can help the Ukrainian military kill and wound more Russian forces, but troop numbers are also important. And in that regard, the Russian military has a clear advantage.

Stavros Atlamazoglou is a seasoned defense journalist specializing in special operations and a Hellenic Army veteran (national service with the 575th Marine Battalion and Army HQ). He holds a BA from Johns Hopkins University and an MA from 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.

What You Need to Know: The U.S. Navy extended the service life of three Ticonderoga-class cruisers—USS Gettysburg, USS Chosin, and USS Cape St. George—thanks to modernization upgrades and the successful implementation of the Transferrable Reload At-sea Mechanism (TRAM), allowing at-sea missile reloads.

-Initially slated for retirement by FY27, the cruisers will now remain active until the late 2020s, addressing the Navy's need for more operational warships. The modernization aligns with the Navy’s Warfighting Excellence initiative, ensuring these cruisers continue contributing to mission readiness.

-TRAM technology will also support future frigates, enhancing fleet flexibility and reducing dependency on port visits.

Days after the United States Navy announced that a dozen Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers would see their service lives extended, it was announced that three aging Ticonderoga-class cruisers (CG 47) will also continue to sail the world's oceans longer than expected.

On Monday, the Department of the Navy announced service life extensions for USS Gettysburg (CG-64), USS Chosin (CG-65), and USS Cape St. George (CG-71).

"This decision adds 10 years of cumulative ship service life from fiscal year 2026 to 2029," the U.S. Navy stated.

The three warships were chosen as all had "received extensive hull, mechanical and engineering, as well as combat system upgrades as part of an extended modernization program," with the work for CG-64 completed in fiscal year 2023 (FY23), while the modernization of CG-65 was finished in fiscal year 2024 (FY24), which ended on September 30. CG-72 is now on track to have the modernization completed in the current fiscal year (FY25).

"As a former cruiser Sailor, I know the incredible value these highly-capable warships bring to the Fleet and I am proud of their many decades of service," said Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro.

The Ticonderoga class modernization began in the 2010s, according to a report from USNI News. It was undertaken by the sea service to keep 11 of its 22 guided-missile cruisers in operation until the 2030s. As part of the effort, seven cruisers were taken out of active service, overhauled, and then returned to service as older vessels were subsequently retired.

FY24 saw four Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers decommissioned – including USS Vicksburg (CG-69) in June, and USS Cowpens (CG-63) in August. Both vessels had also undergone the modernization program. USS Leyte Gulf (CG-55) and USS Antietam (CG-54) were decommissioned in September, at the end of FY24.

The U.S. Navy had sought to retire all of its cruisers from the Ticonderoga class by fiscal year 2027 (FY27) but was forced to reverse course.

"After learning hard lessons from the cruiser modernization program, we are only extending ships that have completed modernization and have the material readiness needed to continue advancing our Navy's mission," Del Toro added.

There is no denying that the U.S. Navy has too few warships, but a factor in the extension of the three cruisers was the successful test of the Transferrable Reload At-sea Mechanism (TRAM) on USS Chosin last month. It was employed "to load an empty missile canister into the ship's MK 41" VLS while the vessel was in the open ocean, the service previously announced.

Reloading the VLS isn't exactly high-tech, and instead employs a time-tested cable and pulley system, but the point remains that it allows sailors at sea to do what normally required a trip back to port. Moreover, it is a time-consuming process. TRAM – which will be used with the future Constellation-class frigates – will enable guided-missile cruisers and destroyers to reload the VLS at sea.

"This transformational logistics capability enables U.S. Navy ships to rearm without needing to pull into port," the Navy added. "The service life extensions align with Secretary Del Toro's priority of Warfighting Excellence and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti's Navigation Plan, which prioritizes putting more ready players on the field."

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is sending North Korean combat troops to Russia to attack Ukrainian forces. This is an extremely risky action on his part, suggesting that he is desperate. While these troops have years of North Korean military training, they have no modern combat experience and are getting little preparation from the Russians. If they are committed to mass assaults on Ukraine’s front line, that could be disastrous for the troops and a problem for Kim.  

Kim likely understands some of the risks he is running. But prompt action by South Korea, Ukraine, and the United States could amplify those risks and discourage Kim from continuing his combat troop commitments. A failure to act could jeopardize the cohesion of the Ukrainian front lines and could even lead to a strategic breakthrough for the Russian forces which could become a disaster for Ukraine. 

If Kim perceives that his forces have succeeded, he may become emboldened to test his military forces against South Korea. 

North Korea has reportedly deployed 12,000 combat troops to assist Russia in expelling Ukrainian forces from Russian territory in the Kursk region. This Ukrainian incursion into Russian territory has been a serious embarrassment for Russian President Vladimir Putin. While Russian forces have slowly pushed Ukraine’s forces back, Putin likely hopes that the addition of the North Korean forces will defeat Ukraine's offensive and perhaps even lead to a breakthrough in Ukraine's defensive line.  

Interestingly, the Russians have dressed the North Korean forces in Russian uniforms and given them fake Russian identifications, suggesting that Putin wants it to appear that Russian forces, not North Korean forces, are solving this Ukrainian invasion problem. 

The fact that Ukraine was able to make a significant incursion into Russia with its much smaller military could eventually lead other nationalities to consider comparable actions against Russian aggression. Although Putin has sought to downplay the significance of Ukraine's offensive, it could over time raise questions in Russia about Putin's leadership performance. 

Meanwhile, Kim has benefited from Russian assistance. The North Korean economy is in terrible shape and the Kim regime is unable to independently meet the needs of the North Korean people. These inadequacies raise questions about the quality of Kim's leadership and the viability of the North Korean juche philosophy, which roughly translated means self-reliance. 

Fortunately for Kim, his father and grandfather spent decades building and stockpiling artillery and other munitions well beyond North Korea’s needs for potential conflict on the peninsula. Kim spotted Putin's need for artillery munitions and started selling his outdated, excess stocks to Russia in exchange for hard currency, food, and military technology. Kim has used the hard currency in part to improve the lives of at least some of his people, especially the elites, presumably reducing discontent with the regime. 

Kim has reportedly shipped millions of artillery shells, munitions , and weapons to Russia, enabling Russia to continue its advances against Ukrainian forces. 

Of course, many of North Korea’s artillery munitions produced in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s which had been largely stored underground are in questionable condition. At least some did not work, and some exploded when fired, causing Russian casualties. However, many did work, making Russia willing to pay for what North Korea shipped. 

The quantity of the munitions that Kim was prepared to send to Russia has likely been largely dissipated, which means Russian hard currency payments will soon be significantly reduced. This means that the improvement in the lives of some North Koreans could be ending, likely increasing instability above what it was before the Russian arms sales began. 

Kim therefore needed to find another way to acquire hard currency. So now he is selling North Korean combat personnel to Russia for something like $2,000 each per month, almost all of which the North Korean regime is likely keeping. The problem with this approach is that Kim is probably not sending personnel from unreliable families to Russia, fearing that they would defect. Kim likely felt he could afford to send soldiers from politically elite families. 

The North Korean combat forces have reportedly received relatively little training on Russian military operations. That suggests that Russia is planning to use many of them for mass assaults on Ukraine's frontline positions, where many Russian conscripts have died. Russia has reportedly been suffering 1,200 casualties per day, an extremely large number. 

If Russia employs these tactics with the North Korean forces, the lack of adequate North Korean medical services and supplies will exacerbate the situation. Casualties will undoubtedly anger some number of North Korean families that have been relatively supportive of the regime. Moreover, Russia is unlikely to pay for soldiers who are either dead or wounded, implying that Kim will need to send more troops over time to continue the flow of hard currency to his regime.  

Kim reportedly attempted to prevent the families of the dispatched soldiers from learning about their deployment to Russia, but this effort failed. So North Korea is seeking to isolate their families in the North to avoid any potential rebellion.  

It is reported that South Korea is already sending some information about the deployment into North Korea, which may be stoking opposition and instability. If this information campaign were expanded and augmented by U.S. efforts, many more North Korean families would be alerted to the selling of their sons to Russia. 

It is also reported that South Korea is contemplating sending some of its military personnel to Ukraine for observation and other non-combat purposes.  

Both South Korea and the United States should deploy experts in psychological operations to transmit messages to the North Korean troops to induce defections. Some North Korean defectors living in the South already are seeking to join such a deployment. Any new defectors would likely provide valuable insights into the situation in North Korea, something that Kim would hate: he does not want the outside to know how bad things are there. 

In addition, South Korean and U.S. personnel should be transmitting information about the wider world to the North Korean soldiers, anticipating that if they ever get back to the North they will pass on at least some of it to their families. This could include K-pop and other items of interest to the average young North Korean. 

Kim will hate this even more. He has called K-pop a vicious cancer that could cause his regime to collapse.  

At some point, the loss of control over the North’s information environment may even lead Kim to feel that it is too risky to send more combat forces to Russia. This would be a good outcome for South Korea, the United States, and especially Ukraine. 

But if North Korean forces help Russia achieve a breakthrough, that could be dire for Ukrainian forces. Such a situation could also strengthen the Kim regime at home and perhaps even convince Kim that he could successfully carry out limited attacks on South Korea, a truly unwanted outcome.  

Bruce W. Bennett is a senior international/defense researcher at RAND, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research institution. He works primarily on research topics such as strategy, force planning, and counterproliferation within the RAND International Security and Defense Policy Program. 

 Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

What You Need to Know: A Royal Air Force (RAF) F-35B has successfully landed on the Japanese flattop JS Kaga for the first time, marking another step in enhancing interoperability among allied forces in the Indo-Pacific. This follows similar trials with the U.S. Navy’s F-35B on the Izumo-class vessel.

-The transformation of Japan’s JS Kaga and JS Izumo into F-35B-compatible carriers reflects Tokyo’s evolving defense capabilities amid regional tensions.

-While Japan avoids calling these ships “aircraft carriers” due to constitutional restrictions, their expanded air capabilities have drawn China’s attention, as the upgraded Izumo-class carriers could support air operations reaching targets within mainland China.

Just weeks after a United States Navy Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II conducted its first landing on the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) flattop JS Kaga (DDH-184), a Royal Air Force F-35B also landed on the multi-functional destroyer for the first time.

"Landmark landing! A F-35 pilot has landed on a Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force platform for the first time. @RoyalNavy Lt Cmdr Baker - a test pilot on exchange with the Patuxent River Integrated Test Force - conducted the flight that aims to boost allies' integration," UK Defence Staff in US announced on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.

The vertical landing on November 2 occurred while the JMDSF warship was operating in the Pacific Ocean, off the coast of San Diego.

"Pax ITF flight test members, U.S. Sailors and Marines, and the JS Kaga crew are executing developmental tests during these sea trials to gather the necessary compatibility data to certify F-35B Lightning II short takeoff and vertical landing aircraft operations," the F-35 Lightning II Pax River Integrated Test Force (PAX ITF) announced.

"Following analysis, the test team will make recommendations for future F-35B operational launch and recovery envelopes, further enhancing the Japanese navy's capabilities," PAX ITF added. "The results of the testing will contribute to improved interoperability between Japan and the United States, strengthening the deterrence and response capabilities of the Japan-U.S. alliance and strengthening the security environment in the Indo-Pacific region."

JS Kaga is one of the JMSDF Izumo-class multi-functional destroyers being transformed to operate with the F-35B, the fifth-generation fighter's short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) variant. The ongoing tests follow similar ones carried out with JS Izumo in 2021, marking the first time a Japanese warship has operated with fixed-wing aircraft since the Second World War.

The JMSDF has operated the JS Izumo and JS Kaga since 2013 and 2015 respectively. Though the two warships may resemble modern aircraft carriers, were officially described by Tokyo as a "multi-purpose operation destroyer" due to their main purpose being to seek out and destroy enemy submarines in the self-defense of Japan with rotary aircraft.

In 2018, Tokyo approved a plan that would greatly enhance the capabilities of the warships – transforming them into de facto aircraft carriers. Each of the vessels has already begun a two-stage transformation that will allow them to operate fixed-wing aircraft – notably the F-35B Lightning II.

JS Izumo has undergone its initial modification stage, which included the application of heat-resistant paint to its flight deck, while JS Kaga has seen the aforementioned modification of its bow section – which has resulted in it earning comparisons to the U.S. Navy's Wasp-class and America-class amphibious assault ships.

Despite the modifications to its helicopter destroyers, Tokyo remains cautious in its exact terminology, refraining from explicitly labeling the modified Izumo-class vessels as aircraft carriers. That decision aligns with the nation's long-standing defensive security policies under the pacifist constitution, which was adopted after the Second World War. It did require some "reinterpretation" of the constitution's Article 9 – allowing Japan to exercise the right of "collective self-defense," and to engage in military action if one of its allies were to be attacked.

However, each of the converted warships could greatly enhance the JMSDF's ability to carry out air operations in the contested East China Sea – a move that has earned condemnation from Beijing. China may also note that Japan could be among the largest operators of the F-35 in Asia, and is currently on track to purchase at least 42 of the fifth-generation stealth fighters.

The carrier-based aircraft could be employed to strike positions within mainland China. According to a report from Interesting Engineering, researchers at the National Defence University's College of Joint Operations, operated by China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) have conducted war game studies and warned that U.S.-made stealth aircraft – including the F-35 but also the F-22 Raptor – could hit already Shanghai with cruise missiles while operating from Japanese airspace.

Coupled with a carrier, the stealth F-35B could possibly strike targets even deeper within China. Whether that fact serves as a deterrent to Beijing, or only increases the saber-rattling has yet to be seen.

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

What You Need to Know: The U.S. Air Force and Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) recently conducted a joint "elephant walk" at Misawa Air Base, showcasing aircraft like the F-16 Fighting Falcon, JASDF F-35A, and P-8 Poseidon.

-This powerful display, involving a close taxi formation, serves as a show of readiness and deterrence against regional threats, namely China and North Korea.

-Elephant walks trace back to WWII, with the term coined due to aircraft’s nose-to-tail lineup resembling elephants.

-These exercises highlight unit strength and collaboration, and for Misawa, reinforced the U.S.-Japan defense commitment amid rising Indo-Pacific tensions.

On Friday, the United States Air Force and the Japanese Air Self Defense Force (JASDF) conducted a joint "elephant walk" at Misawa Air Base on Japan's home island of Honsh , the 35th Fighter Wing announced. It involved a variety of aircraft.

"Four U.S. #AirForce F-16 Fighting Falcons, four #Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters, four JASDF F-2s, one JASDF E-2D Hawkeye, one U.S. #Navy C-12 Huron, and one U.S. Navy P-8 Poseidon perform an Elephant Walk," the Defense Visual Information Distribution Service (DVIDS) announced on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter. Photos showed the aircraft lined up in a show of force.

It was just the most recent elephant walk – the term for taxiing a number of aircraft before takeoff – to include U.S. Air Force fighters and other aircraft.

In addition to the close formation on the ground, such demonstrations can involve a minimum interval takeoff as a show of power, and to serve as a deterrent to regional rivals – in this case, China and North Korea.

Two years ago, a formation of two dozen F-15C/D Eagle fighter jets assigned to the 44th and 67th Fighter Squadrons, a KC-135 Stratotanker assigned to the 909th Air Refueling Squadron, an E-3 Sentry assigned to the 961st Airborne Air Control Squadron, and an HH-60 Pavehawk assigned to the 33rd Rescue Squadron was seen lined up on the runway as a part of routine wing readiness exercise at Kadena Air Base, Japan.

Though the elephant walk at Misawa Air Base was on a smaller scale, it was notable for including U.S. and Japanese aircraft lined up together – highlighting the commitment of the U.S. Air Force to stand by its regional partners. In June 2020, the base also conducted an elephant walk formation composed of 31 aircraft, which was also meant to emphasize the efforts to enhance interoperability with the JASDF.

"This demonstration took the work of many agencies and individuals across the base, and the 35th Fighter Wing is grateful to our partners for showcasing the amazing, combat-ready force available to our Indo-Pacific leaders if called upon during a crisis," said Col. Kristopher Struve, who served as the 35th Fighter Wing commander at the time of the 2020 demonstration, the first bilateral and joint elephant walk at Misawa Air Base.

The first elephant walks occurred during the Second World War when large fleets of allied bombers massed for attacks – and observers on the ground noted that as the aircraft lined up, it resembled the nose-to-tail formations of elephants walking to a watering hole.

Today, the U.S. Air Force employs elephant walks to show the capability of a unit as well as the teamwork that is required to conduct such an operation. It also can help pilots prepare for the launching of fully armed aircraft in a mass event if needed.

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. Image are of various elephant walks in history. 

What You Need to Know: Ukraine has adopted advanced protective measures for main battle tanks (MBTs) to counter drone threats on the frontlines, moving beyond makeshift solutions to purpose-built armor.

-Developed by Metinvest under Rinat Akhmetov's Steel Front initiative, these steel screens shield vulnerable areas like engines and ammo compartments from explosives dropped by drones.

-Unlike DIY options, these screens use high-grade steel for optimal strength without impairing tank maneuverability or visibility. While installation is complex, frontline reports indicate a 30-40% increase in vehicle survivability, allowing crews to survive attacks and evacuate safely. The protective screens may redefine MBT resilience in modern warfare.

Ukraine's Steel Front Takes Shape: The use of drones and other unmanned aerial systems (UAS) in Ukraine has changed the role of the main battle tank (MBT) – where the powerful behemoths can be all too easily targeted, disabled, and even destroyed. Both Moscow and Kyiv have looked at ways to increase the survivability of their MBTs, and that has included ad hoc solutions that include netting, strapping wooden logs to the side, and notably welding "cope cages" over the turret and engine compartments.

However, those ad hoc solutions have given way to more carefully planned options, and Ukraine has been looking to utilize more carefully planned protection. This has included specially-designed protective screens – developed by Metinvest, and based on the framework of Rinat Akhmetov's Steel Front. The screens were meant to help counter drones and even explosive devices that are now being used on the frontlines.

"The primary objective of these screens is to save the lives of soldiers. Additionally, they protect the most vulnerable parts of the vehicles, such as the engine and ammunition, from attacks from above, as drones often drop explosive devices from this trajectory," explained Oleksandr Myronenko, chief operating officer of Metinvest Group.

He told The National Interest that the screens were designed to block or reduce the impact of explosives dropped by drones. Each screen can be installed directly on the vehicle and provide protection both in combat and while stationed in shelters. Sandbags or netting are also used only when storing vehicles in fixed positions.

"The screens are made from high-quality steel, which increases their resistance to explosions," said Myroneko. "Simple DIY methods, like homemade metal grids, cannot always achieve the same level of strength or consistent protection."

As the adversary's primary goal is to immobilize the vehicle first and then destroy it if possible, most of the drones and loitering munitions that the Kremlin's forces are employing have been tasked with rendering a tank immobile.

"Our screens function as nets that prevent drones from making contact with the vehicle’s body," added Myroneko. "This helps to protect both the vehicle and its crew."

The first cope cages appeared just months after Russia launched its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Drones proved to be an unexpected game changer for Kyiv, and dozens or perhaps even hundreds of Russian tanks were subsequently targeted.

Russian troops took those ad hoc measures, but in some cases, it impacted the operations of the tank and even diminished some capabilities. The Steel Front screens developed by Metinvest were designed to provide added protection without compromising the vehicle's fighting abilities.

The only downside is that it can't be installed at the front. More than just a welder and a few tools are required. But the results can pay off quickly.

"Depending on the vehicle model – including the Abrams, Bradley, Leopard, etc. – installing a screen takes a team of 10–12 people approximately 12 hours on average," said Myroneko. "This includes securing the screens, testing compatibility, and conducting mobility and combat-readiness tests. This process is relatively quick, allowing vehicles to be prepared for battle in a short time."

In addition, the protective screens were designed so that they do not affect the mobility or combat capabilities of the vehicles.

"The focus was on maintaining the maneuverability of tanks and armored vehicles," Myroneko continued. "The average weight of a grid screen for a tank is about 430 kg, which is negligible given the overall weight of the tank."

He also explained that all of the components are made from steel, including the metal structures for the frame, metal grids, and sheet metal.

"However, these do not impair maneuverability, speed, or combat mission execution," Myroneko stressed. "The screen structures are positioned in a way that does not obstruct the driver’s view or block essential functions, such as movement, shooting, ventilation, or cooling systems."

According to Metinvest, soldiers on the frontlines have claimed the screens can increase a vehicle's survivability increase by 30-40%.

"We have documented real cases where vehicles were stopped on the battlefield, but thanks to our screen, the crew remained alive and unharmed," said Myroneko. "The soldiers were able to evacuate, and the vehicle was later retrieved for repair."

It isn't clear how many MBTs and other armored vehicles have been fitted with the screens but each one could be another game changer.

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: Main image is from Creative Commons. All others are from Metinvest Group.