Diplomacy & Crisis News

Summary and Key Points: The railgun, an advanced artillery system using electromagnetic force to launch projectiles at high velocities, has faced significant challenges, leading to the U.S. Navy canceling its program in 2021.

-The main issues included durability, integration with ship power systems, and underperformance in tests. Despite this, China claims to be advancing its railgun technology, potentially incorporating it into their naval forces.

-While some analysts believe China may be bluffing to provoke U.S. spending, others worry about China's genuine progress in this field.

The Great Railgun Debate

When the catapult was introduced into warfare, it changed history forever. Empires were built or destroyed by this ingenious weapon. They seem antiquated today, but the concept of taking an object and hurling it at enemy formation or fortification keeps its appeal. 

We are obviously well beyond the era of catapults. But the U.S. military and others have toyed with a more high-tech version of this artillery piece: the railgun.

What is the Railgun?

Basically, a railgun uses electromagnetic force to propel an object toward a target at an extremely high velocity. The innovation is that the railgun uses electricity rather than chemicals to give the projectiles their speed.

The speed we are talking about leaves little time to react. There is in theory little defense against this type of attack. 

But while this technology was the great dream of many U.S. military engineers, it never came to fruition. 

What Happened to This Weapon?

According to ExecutiveGov, the Navy canceled the program because “the rails could easily experience wear and tear from firing multiple projectiles, resulting in a very high surface temperature, which can magnify durability issues even more.” 

Further, these weapons are power hogs, and their inability to integrate into the warship’s electrical grid made them useless as weapons. 

Finally, when railguns were tested at the U.S. Army’s Dugway Proving Ground in the Utah desert, they didn’t hit the range their designers had promised. 

All of this left the Navy with nothing to show for over a decade of work and hundreds of millions of dollars invested. In 2021, the Navy canceled the program and redirected its resources to more conventional defenses as well as its hypersonic weapons program.

The Navy couldn’t make it work, and we were told that it wasn’t that big of a deal. If the Navy couldn’t do it, certainly no one else, especially a foreign power, could ever attain this radical technology.

China Enters the Chat

But China claims it is proving these Western leaders wrong. 

With China becoming a wealthy and modernizing nation-state, it is inevitable that they would enhance their military capabilities. As part of the effort, China is working on some radical, advanced new military technologies. One such new capability, they claim, is the railgun. 

Beijing announced the existence of their program just two years after the Pentagon abandoned theirs. 

Some in Washington, such as the analysts at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), don’t think that the Chinese have the railgun. They believe China is bluffing on the topic. They see a sort of reverse-Reagan approach to handling the U.S. threat to China. U.S. President Ronald Reagan got the USSR to spend itself into oblivion partly by lying about what new systems the Americans were building, and China is doing that to the U.S. today.

But after every Chinese advance, the Western press enters the scene to downplay the threat and disparage anyone who would believe such sophistry. Beijing is undoubtedly turning some variation of the Reagan plan against the U.S. Yet China is also truly developing some advanced – and fearsome – technologies to combat the Americans.

Enter the Chinese railgun. They purportedly have a rudimentary version of the one the Americans had been developing. Chinese strategists also claim that the new railguns are being easily incorporated into their warships to give their naval force added protection and power-projection capabilities. 

The United States military, meanwhile, is struggling with all these problems. If China can build a railgun when the U.S. cannot, that is good reason to worry. 

About the Author

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. All photos are of various submarine styles. 

From the Vault

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

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

Summary and Key Points: China's People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) is reportedly developing a "jam-resistant" Yu-10 torpedo, designed to effectively strike moving targets with high accuracy. This torpedo, launched from a Type-039B submarine, was demonstrated in a test that reportedly sunk a retired landing vessel.

-The Yu-10's capabilities are seen as a significant threat to large naval targets, including aircraft carriers.

-The ongoing development of such advanced torpedoes highlights China's efforts to enhance its submarine warfare capabilities, posing a growing challenge to U.S. naval forces.

China Developed Jam-Resistant Torpedo

The People's Liberation Army (PLA) has repeatedly touted the capabilities of its DF-21D and DF-26B "carrier killer" missiles that can be fired by land-based mobile launchers. Beijing's deployment of such weapons could deny access to a potential adversary in the East and South China Seas, but now it seems that the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) could have in its arsenal a weapon that could be employed anywhere its submarines can travel.

China state media broadcaster China Central Television (CCTV) highlighted the capabilities of what was believed to be the PLAN's Yu-10 torpedo. In a video presented on the media outlet last month to mark the 70th anniversary of the founding of the PLAN's submarine, a Type-039B diesel-electric submarine (NATO reporting name Yuan class) fired the torpedo at a Type 074 amphibious landing vessel.

"Its stern was lifted out of the water by the explosion shock wave, accompanied by a column of water nearly 100 meters (328 feet) high," reported The South China Morning Post, adding that the Yu-10 is believed to have entered service around 2015, quoting an article in the Ordnance Industry Science Technology, a Chinese military magazine.

"From the CCTV video, the power of this torpedo means even an aircraft carrier could hardly escape the fate of sinking, let alone destroyers or landing docks. Even if not sunk, they would be essentially out of operation," the Chinese military publication had stated. "This technology uses the wake generated by the target vessel to correct the torpedo’s orientation to better track and effectively strike moving targets, which greatly improves the responsiveness and accuracy of the torpedo, making it more resistant to jamming."

Though the report from The China Morning Post claimed the Yu-10 has an estimated range of fifty km (thirty miles), which is comparable to the U.S. Navy's MK-48 Mod 7, the exact specifications of the Yu-10 torpedo have not been published, nor has its use in sinking the amphibious landing vessel been independently verified.

Chinese SINKEX – Response to U.S. RIMPAC?

The apparent sinking of a retired Type 074 amphibious landing vessel was likely conducted in response to a pair of Sinking Excercise (SINKEX) drills carried out during the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2024 multinational exercises, and follows a similar event in June in which the amphibious transport dock ex-USS Cleveland (LPD-7) was sunk during the Valiant Shield (VS) 2024.

The Austin-class amphibious transport dock – the third ship of the U.S. Navy to be named for the Ohio city – had been maintained at the Naval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, since November 2017. The retired vessel was sunk as a target on June 17, during a naval-fire exercise.

During RIMPAC 2024, a U.S. Air Force B-2 Spirit bomber successfully sank the ex-USS Dubuque (LPD-8) – another Austin-class amphibious transport dock – with a GPS-guided bomb. Even more impressively, the decommissioned U.S. Navy amphibious assault ship USS Tarawa (LHA-1) was sunk after being hit by a Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) from a U.S. Navy F/A-18F Super Hornet.

That Sinking Feeling

These recent U.S. and Chinese exercises highlight that sinking a warship may be the easy part, at least with the right ordnance. The trick would be getting through the vast screen of guided-missile destroyers and other defenses.

The danger for the U.S. Navy is that submarines like the PLAN's Type 039B are noted for employing an air-independent power (AIP) system that can allow them to remain submerged for long periods, operating quietly and stealthily.

As previously reported, several U.S. carriers have been notionally "sunk" in exercises by similar submarines, raising concerns about the safety of the floating air bases against such threats. Coupled with a "jam-resistant" submarine could make for a dangerous threat indeed.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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

You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points - F/A-18 Fighters for Ukraine?: While Ukraine's receipt of F-16 fighter jets is seen as a significant boost, the limited number of these non-stealth aircraft may restrict their impact in the ongoing conflict.

-The F/A-18 Super Hornet, though versatile and capable, would face similar challenges, such as detectability by advanced Russian air defenses.

-Both aircraft would likely be used defensively, offering improvements but not dramatically altering the conflict's course. The war is expected to continue as it has for nearly three years.

Would the F/A-18 Super Hornet Better Serve Ukraine’s Defense?

Would the Ukrainians benefit from the gifting of Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet?

The Ukrainians are celebrating the arrival of the F-16 fighter jet – a gift from the Americans that has been billed as a potential game changer in the two-and-a-half-year-old conflict. But does the F-16 provide the Ukrainians with game-changing capabilities? And was the F-16 the best airframe for the Ukrainians?

What can the F-16 offer?

Despite making its first flight fifty years ago in 1974, the F-16 is still a reliable and capable fighter. This single-engine fighter is equipped to operate in all weather conditions and a variety of different roles, making the F-16 well-suited for the volatile conditions of conflict. The F-16 is distinct for its frameless bubble canopy, which permits the pilot an exceptional, unobstructed field of vision. In production (almost) continuously since 1973, the F-16 is numerous, with 4,604 airframes built.

Yet only a handful of the F-16s have been sent to Ukraine, where officials believe at least 130 F-16s will be needed to neutralize Russian air power. The Ukrainians have not disclosed exactly how many F-16s they received, but it has been estimated that the number does not come close to approaching 130, meaning the effectiveness of the F-16 will be limited – in large part because the jet will be used conservatively in account of how finite the resource is.

Also limiting the effectiveness of the F-16 is the lack of stealth capabilities. Whereas modern fighters have minuscule radar cross sections, which permit operations in contested air space, the F-16 was designed before such stealth technology had been developed, and thus is easily detectable with modern air defense systems. The result is a jet that would have limited use in the conflict’s front lines. Instead, the F-16 would likely be used primarily in defensive situations.

Would the F/A-18 Have Been a Better Option?

As the F/A designation suggests, the F/A-18 is a versatile aircraft, offering impressive capabilities in both offensive and defensive situations. And while the F/A-18 is commonly associated with carrier operations, the jet is of course capable of operating from land, as well.

The F/A-18 has been built in far fewer quantities (1.480) than the F-16 and has been distributed far less (just three countries operate the F/A-18, whereas about twenty-five operate the F-16), meaning the Ukrainians are not going to receive the F/A-18 in quantities exceeding that of the F-16.

The F/A-18, also designed in the 1970s, is equally lacking in stealth technology. The result would be similar: the F/A-18 would struggle to survive against Russia’s advanced air defense systems and would likely be confined to a purely defensive role.

To be clear, the Ukrainian’s circumstances will be improved with the addition of the F-16 – and would be improved with the addition of the F/A-18; both airframes offer a quantity and quality increase over the existing Ukrainian inventory. But the improvements yielded won’t be sufficient to expel the Russian invaders, or to force Putin into some sort of peace agreement, or capitulation. The war will likely persist in much the same way it has persisted for nearly three years.

About the Author: Harrison Kass 

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The delivery of American-made F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine is a significant development, but their impact on the war might be limited. Ukraine needs around 130 F-16s to neutralize Russian air power, but the number received is much lower. The F-16, like the JAS 39 Gripen, is non-stealth, making it vulnerable to Russian air defenses.

-While both aircraft could be valuable in defensive roles, neither is likely to change the conflict's dynamics significantly without more substantial numbers and capabilities.

JAS 39 Gripen: The Fighter Jet Ukraine Needs? 

The big news out of Ukraine is the delivery of American-made F-16 fighter jets to Kyiv’s forces. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy spent months lobbying for the fourth-generation fighters. Now the jets are finally ready for deployment against Russian aggressors.

“F-16s are in Ukraine. We did it. I am proud of our guys who are mastering these jets and have already started using them for our country,” Zelenskyy said. “These jets are in our sky and today you see them. It’s good that they are here and that we can put them to use.”

But the F-16 is unlikely to impact the war as much as Zelenskyy has advertised. Ukrainian officials have said Ukraine would need 130 F-16s just to neutralize Russia’s existing air assets. While the precise number of F-16s delivered to Ukraine has not been disclosed, we can be fairly certain that number is not 130. The result will be an F-16 force that is vulnerable to Russia’s air defense systems. 

Would another jet be more effective? Could Ukraine add something else in the NATO inventory, like the JAS 39 Gripen?

What About the JAS 39?

The F-16 has two shortcomings in Ukraine. First, the jet has not been supplied in numbers sufficient to tip the balance. Second, the F-16 is not a stealth aircraft. 

Let’s consider the supply issue first. To date, 4,604 F-16s have been built. They are in service with the United States and 25 other operating entities. The jet is prolific. The JAS 39, meanwhile, has been produced less than 300 times and is in service with just four air forces, two of them from NATO member-states. Ukraine could not turn to the JAS 39 to find the 130 airframes needed to neutralize Russian air power. That number would constitute nearly 50% of the type ever made and would need to come exclusively from Hungary and Sweden. That won’t happen. 

The F-16 is numerous and has long since proliferated throughout the NATO air force network, and Ukraine is still nowhere close to procuring the amount of F-16s needed to really make a difference against Russian air power. If Ukraine were to inherit the JAS 39, the limited numbers procured would make it a precious commodity, inspiring the kind of cautious use that would limit the jet’s impact on the outcome of the conflict.  

The second problem is that the JAS 39, like the F-16, is a non-stealth fighter. The Russian military has many deficiencies, but air defense does not seem to be one of them. Non-stealth fighters would not be survivable against Russian air defenses, meaning the JAS 39 would need to avoid frontline and behind-frontline operations. 

The JAS 39, like the F-16, would be limited to a more defensive role. This is valuable, of course, but unlikely to lead Russian forces to abandon Ukrainian territory.

About the Author: Harrison Kass, Defense Expert 

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

When Donald Trump picked JD Vance as his running mate, he whiffed. Overconfident in victory, he doubled down on the MAGA base. Has Kamala Harris now made the same mistake in choosing the sixty-year-old Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, a hero to the progressive wing of the Democratic party who popularized the term “weird” to describe Trump and co.?

Pundits such as Jonathan Chait are fretting that Harris missed an opportunity to move to the center. “What the selection does,” he wrote, “is forfeit her best opportunity to send a message that she is a moderate.” But there are good reasons to suspect that Walz, whose hard-hitting, no-nonsense, straight-talking speaking style has turned him into a social media sensation, might be able to compensate for some of Harris’ weaknesses in attracting voters in the Midwest.

Walz, who was born in 1964, grew up in Nebraska. After moving to Minnesota in the 1990s, he taught social studies at Mankato West High School and coached the football team, which won several championships. Walz has served in the National Guard for several decades and went on to push for veterans’ benefits. He has also served multiple terms in Congress, where he voted against intervening in Syria in 2013. He has also called for a “working” ceasefire in the Gaza war and should be able to bring many of those who voted “uncommitted” back into the Democratic fold. Choosing Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, by contrast, would have ensured that Harris had inflamed the disputes among Democrats surrounding Israel and the Gaza war.

Walz can speak effectively about the social issues that are proving to be an albatross around the Trump campaign’s neck—specifically, the issue of IVF. As Vance’s unbridled statements about women are being unearthed on what seems like almost a daily basis, Walz will surely focus on his own family’s experiences. He and his wife, Gwen, tried to have a child for seven years before fertility treatments finally succeeded. “It’s not by chance that we named our daughter Hope,” Walz has said. Vance voted against a Senate bill to protect IVF, prompting Walz to declare on MSNBC, “I don’t need him to tell me about my family. I don’t need him to tell me about my wife’s healthcare and her reproductive rights.” The only thing he and Vance apparently have in common is a taste for Diet Mountain Dew. Perhaps the loser of the election can send the winner a case of it.

No doubt Walz will be pummeled for the rioting that took place in May 2020 in the Twin Cities after the murder of George Floyd. The Trump campaign is licking its chops at the thought of depicting Harris and Walz as radicals who are unfit, if not incapable, of governing America. The rap on Walz is that when the Black Lives Matter riots took place, he froze, failing to send in the National Guard in a timely fashion to end the looting and violence. Walz needs to provide a clear and compelling account of why he waited three days to dispatch the National Guard—the best way to do that is probably by highlighting his own service in it. If he debates JD Vance, Trump’s running mate, this episode is sure to be a major line of attack.

Still, even as Walz and Vance joust, it’s reasonable to wonder whether any of it will really matter. Speaking at the National Association of Black Journalists convention last week, Trump himself responded to a question about Vance by observing, “Historically, the vice-president—in terms of the election—does not have any impact. I mean, virtually no impact.” It’s not clear that it will be any different in 2024 than in the past.

Jacob Heilbrunn is editor of The National Interest and is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center. He has written on both foreign and domestic issues for numerous publications, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Foreign Affairs, Reuters, Washington Monthly, and The Weekly Standard. He has also written for German publications such as Cicero, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, and Der Tagesspiegel. In 2008, his book They Knew They Were Right: the Rise of the Neocons was published by Doubleday. It was named one of the one hundred notable books of the year by The New York Times. He is the author of America Last: The Right’s Century-Long Romance with Foreign Dictators.

Image: Rebekah Zemansky / Shutterstock.com.

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. must prepare for the possibility that Russia successfully deploys nuclear-armed anti-satellite weapons, which could destabilize global security and disrupt conventional military operations reliant on satellites.

-While arms control efforts are crucial, the U.S. should also focus on ensuring its military can operate in a "denied space" environment. This includes wargaming scenarios where satellites are compromised and training to maintain strike capabilities without satellite support.

-Such preparations would reinforce deterrence and ensure varied response options to any potential nuclear aggression in space.

Why the U.S. Must Prepare for a World with Nuclear Anti-Satellite Weapons

In February, it was revealed that Russia has been developing a nuclear-armed anti-satellite weapon. The Biden administration's response has focused mainly on arms control efforts aimed at preventing Russia from acquiring a space-based nuclear weapon in the first place. These efforts are important, but they are also insufficient. Steps must be taken now to prepare for the possibility that diplomacy fails. Nuclear anti-satellite weapons have the potential to fundamentally alter existing nuclear paradigms, creating a much more destabilizing environment than exists today. The U.S. must take action now to ensure it is ready to deal with the challenges posed by nuclear weapons in space. By preparing now, before nukes are put in orbit, the U.S. can better work to prevent such a day from ever happening at all.

U.S. deterrence strategy has long centered on its ability to tailor both conventional and nuclear response options to a wide range of different contingencies, as well as deliberate ambiguity surrounding when it would use nuclear weapons. Both these concepts would be thrown out the window if a nuclear anti-satellite weapon were detonated today. While the exact capabilities of Russia's space weapon are unknown, it is likely to pose as much a threat to its own satellites as it is those of the United States.

In May, then-Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy John Plumb testified that Russia's weapon would be "indiscriminate," and "pose a threat to all satellites operated by countries and companies around the globe." The U.S. would therefore likely be left without the ability to retaliate against Russia in space if it detonated its weapon. The only option would be to strike targets on the ground. At present, conventional U.S. forces rely heavily on access to satellite-provided GPS, intelligence, and communications. A conventional strike in this environment would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to carry out. A nuclear strike would be more feasible (though also challenging). A serious conversation should address whether a surface nuclear strike would be an appropriate response to a nuclear attack that does not directly kill people on Earth.

However, it is still critical that the president retain a variety of options to respond to the use of such a weapon. Thus, central to deterrence in a world of nuclear anti-satellite weapons will be the ability of conventional military forces to operate without access to satellites.

If satellites went down in the aftermath of the detonation of a nuclear space weapon, the ability of long-range strike fighter aircraft and bombers to carry out non-nuclear surface attacks against enemy targets would be crucial to maintaining the option of a conventional response to such an action. There have been some efforts to improve the ability of U.S. forces to fight in an environment without access to space, but these have been limited compared to activities aimed at maintaining such access. The latter efforts are important, but they will likely not be options once a nuclear anti-satellite weapon goes off.

The Navy and Air Force, with support from the Space Force, should wargame different "denied space" contingencies aimed at learning how to operate in an environment without access to satellites. The lessons from these wargames should then be applied and continued in actual live military exercises. These exercises would be aimed both at training pilots, aircrews, and commanders to conduct operations in a denied space environment but would also demonstrate to Russia and other potential U.S. adversaries that it will always have the option of retaliating with varying degrees of force to any type of nuclear aggression.

The U.S. should continue pursuing arms control efforts aimed at preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons in space. However, it must also be prepared for the possibility that these efforts fail. By preparing conventional strike fighter assets to conduct operations in a denied space environment, the U.S. will be adequately ready for a world where nuclear weapons are orbiting the Earth.

About the Author 

Luke Widenhouse is a research assistant at the Yorktown Institute and rising senior at St. John’s College in Annapolis, MD.

This article was first published by RealClearDefense.

Summary and Key Points - What will a 7th Generation Fighter Do in the Sky?: The future of military aviation is focused on evolutionary advancements rather than revolutionary leaps. The B-21 Raider builds on the B-2 Spirit's successes, and sixth-generation fighters are advancing current technologies.

-The concept of aircraft "generations" was popularized as a marketing tool by Lockheed Martin with the F-35.

-While the seventh generation isn't yet defined, it may feature autonomous capabilities, advanced materials, and multinational collaboration. However, such advancements could be decades away, possibly emerging in the 2070s or later.

What Will the 7th Generation Fighter Jet Look Like?

The future is always around the corner, so we can always expect something new. Sometimes it will be small steps forward, while other times, it will be great leaps ahead. With military hardware, we've really reached a point where most of the advances are evolutionary, building on past successes and proven features rather than revolutionary – which could take designers in an entirely new direction.

Such is the case with the B-21 Raider, which is now in development. It is mainly building on the successes of the B-2 Spirit, and both feature a flying wing design. Likewise, most sixth-generation fighter designs have focused on what worked with fifth-generation aircraft and have taken it much further.

The question then is what we can expect with the "next-generation" beyond what is already in the prototype stage? Yet, even aviation experts can only ponder what we could expect to see.

"To be honest, I've not really heard anyone even mention 7th generation," explained Gareth Jennings, aviation editor at Janes, told me months back.

"Most 'Tier 2' nations that are building aircraft – Turkey, South Korea, etc. – are building their own fifth-generation jets, while Tier 1 nations (US, UK [and partners], France [and partners]) are looking at sixth generation. 7th Generation isn't really 'a thing' as yet," added Jennings. "That said; it is possible to look at the progression of previous generations and extrapolate that forward to take an educated stab at what might be features in a 7th generation jet."

However, Jennings further continued that even our concept of the generations of such wasn't set in stone. In fact, until the development of today's most modern fighters, there was no talk of a particular aircraft falling into a particular generation.

"It's important to first note that 'generations' don't really exist – they have only come into being as a way of classifying aircraft since Lockheed Martin used the term 'fifth-generation' to describe its F-35, and all older aircraft were kind of backfilled into what previous generation they were determined to best fit – so the F-4 became a third-generation aircraft, and the Eurofighter a fourth generation aircraft, etc.," said Jennings. "Lockheed Martin will readily admit that it was a marketing gimmick to make their product stand out, but it has stuck and is now in widespread use."

The Road to 7th Generation: Generations Described

Even though the designations were actually only retroactively created, the U.S. Air Force has since broken down the respective capabilities of the generational designations:

*First-Generation: Jet propulsion

*Second-Generation: Swept wings, range-finding radar, and infrared-guided missiles

*Third-Generation: Supersonic flight, pulse radar, and missiles that can engage opponents from beyond visual range

*Fourth-Generation: High levels of agility, some degree of sensor fusion, pulse-doppler radar, reduced radar signature, fly-by-wire, look down/shoot down missiles, and more.

"So the thing about generations is that each new generation focuses on a number of key performance attributes while retaining the key performance attributes that defined the generations before it," Jennings suggested. "As an example, the third-generation F-4 Phantom retained the supersonic speed that largely defined the previous generation, but added to that advanced (for its day) mission computing and guided missiles."

In addition, the fourth-generation aircraft then took all of this and added fly-by-wire and advanced avionics, whilst the fifth-generation took all of this and added stealth, sensor fusion, and supercruise, Jennings noted.

"The sixth-generation will take this and add capabilities that haven't yet been publicly defined, but which are understood to include flexible payloads; an adaptable airframe; long-range sensing; analytics and computing; laser directed-energy weapons; advanced materials; intelligent maintenance; dynamically reconfigurable architecture; cyber protection; manned-unmanned teaming (MUM-T); trusted artificial intelligence (AI) reasoning; airspace integration; hypersonic-propulsion technologies; space technologies; and a future 'wearable' cockpit," he further explained. "Added to these technological attributes, the sixth-generation is designed to be affordable and to utilize futuristic manufacturing processes and methods."

Other Hardware Leaps Forward

It is also important to note that aircraft have been unique in that they have been so steadily upgraded over the past 80 years. By contrast, the United States military is still fielding its M1 Abrams, a "third-generation" main battle tank (MBT). Two factors need to be considered, however. First, it was indeed a revolutionary leap forward, rather than evolutionary – and thus it may have reached a level of armored perfection, at least until some new technology is developed.

Second, and more importantly, the M1 Abrams has been steadily improved in a way that fighter aircraft generally aren't. However, the Cold War-era B-52 Stratofortress remains a capable bomber that will remain in service even as the aforementioned B-21 Raider comes into service. By the time the B-52 is finally retired, it could have served for nearly 100 years – and few military platforms have seen such longevity. This has been made possible due to the improvements it has received.

Jet fighters, which have increasingly become multirole aircraft, have continued to evolve – and will continue to do so. That explains why the 70-year-old B-52 and 50-year-old M1 Abrams tank remain in service, while efforts are already underway to replace the fifth-generation F-22 Raptor, which only entered service in 2005!

About the 7th Generation Aircraft

All that said, it is likely that some in the aerospace sector are thinking well beyond the currently-in-development aircraft to what can come next. The question becomes what could the next generation actually look like. We need only look to other technological developments in our civilian world today to see what the next great leap forward could bring.

"With the advent of the Metaverse, 3D metal printing, and the increasing capabilities of realistic simulation, our ability to create new weapons, including fighters quickly, is advancing significantly," explained technology analyst Rob Enderle of the Enderle Group.

"At the same time, autonomous technology is becoming more viable, and the concept of human digital twins is creating the opportunity for a next-generation fighter not limited by human frailties," Enderle told this reporter. "While it often takes a war to force a legacy process, like aircraft creation, to adjust to the speed of current technology, there is no reason why the next generation of high-performance fighters couldn't be created in months rather than years, and be configured to be flown by a digital twin of a top gun pilot."

The 7th generation fighter thus may not be decades in development and could be a response, even a reaction, to what the sixth-generation may offer.

"It can reasonably be supposed that the 7th generation will again take all of these facets, and add some as yet undefined/unknown technological capabilities that will define it as being different and more advanced than all that have gone before it," said Jennings. "What these will be is hard to say, as anything we can now imagine as being a viable and desirable technology and capability is already being addressed in the sixth-generation, and it's hard to imagine what hasn't yet been conceptualized or invented. My personal feeling, however, is that by the time we start to get to thinking about the 7th generation, the technology will be there to remove the pilot altogether and for the platform to be fully unmanned (not just remotely piloted, but autonomous in its own right). The issues, however, won't be technological, but will be more ethical, moral, and/or even legal as to the extent society is comfortable with the idea of such capabilities being developed and deployed."

However, what is also likely is that multinational efforts may be required to design, develop and, most importantly, produce the next generation.

"In terms of programmatics, as with the fourth, fifth and sixth generation, it is likely that any 7th generation program will be an effort in multinational collaboration (in the West at least), due largely to the costs involved in such an undertaking, as well as the need for common requirements, and to maximize the exports that will help pay for it," Jennings added.

While Enderle suggested the time gaps could come down, Jennings isn't as confident. It is true that technology is rapidly increasing, which can allow for materials to be printed – advancing prototyping and even production – while computer-aided design (CAD) can also speed the development; yet, the cost will remain a factor.

"For timelines, the gap between each generation has progressively lengthened as technologies have become more complex (at the same time as becoming more stable – the big jumps we saw in aviation technology and innovation at the dawn of the jet age are now much more incremental), while development, manufacturing, procurement, operating, and sustainment costs have risen to the extent that most nations would prefer to continue to use older aircraft which they can upgrade at a quicker pace and lower cost to keep pace with (most of) their peers and near-peers," he noted.

"As such, I wouldn't expect 7th generation to enter the discourse until probably the 2070s or even later."

About the Author: Peter Suciu

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. 

All images are Creative Commons. 

This piece has been updated extensively since its first publication. 

Summary and Key Points: On April 15, 2024, the U.S. Air Force conducted its largest "elephant walk" involving B-2 Spirit bombers at Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri.

-A dozen B-2s, representing nearly two-thirds of the entire fleet, participated in this show of force as part of the Spirit Vigilance exercise.

-The event demonstrated the readiness and strategic importance of the B-2 in the nuclear triad, especially after the fleet was grounded for part of 2023.

The Big B-2 Bomber Elephant Walk 

Nearly two-thirds of the entire United States Air Force's fleet of Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit bombers took part in a show of force like no other on Monday, April 15, 2024. A dozen of the stealth bombers assigned to the 509th Bomb Wing lined up on the runway at Whiteman Air Force Base (AFB), Missouri, and executed a mass fly-off to cap off the annual Spirit Vigilance exercise.

It was the largest "elephant walk" – the term for the close formation of aircraft that taxi en masse prior to takeoff – involving the long-range strategic B-2 Spirits to date.

"This is a reminder that the B-2 Spirit bomber is the visible leg of nuclear triad," Col. Geoffrey Steeves, 509th Operations Group commander, had previously said of Spirit Vigilance. "Simply put, the B-2 is the world's most strategic aircraft. It is the only aircraft on the planet that combines stealth, payload, and long-range strike. We are charged with delivering the nation’s most powerful weapons for our most important missions."

Smells Like Team B-2Spirit

While the B-2 regularly makes the rounds at high-profile events, including a flyover of the Rose Bowl college football matchup in California, it is rare to see more than a single of the flying wings. The previous record for mass fly-offs of B-2s occurred during the Spirit Vigilance 2022 exercise and involved eight bombers.

That display of power included about 40% of the total Spirit fleet. With eight bombers on the runway at roughly $2 Billion a piece, it drew approximately $16 billion in stealth bombers to a single location. On April 15 – somewhat fitting in that it was "Tax Day" – the price tag for the show of force had a $24 billion price tag. Yet, as a reminder to America's adversaries, these are truly "priceless moments."

It also was meant to serve as a reminder of the capabilities of the B-2 Spirit, which had been grounded for the first half of 2023, following an accident that closed Whiteman's runway. Though the Air Force maintained that the bombers could be employed if absolutely necessary in response to a major crisis the Spirit's wings were clipped for almost six months.

Putting 60% in the air in a single fly-off made it clear the Spirit is back in the sky.

Elephant Walk – A Display of U.S. Resolve

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

The elephant walk involving the dozen B-2 Spirits also came just days after the U.S. Air Force demonstrated its formidable air power at Kadena Air Base, Japan, by performing a strategic lineup of diverse military planes including F-15 Eagles, F-16 Fighting Falcons, F-22 Raptors, and F-35 Lighting IIs fighters, as well as RC-135, P-8, E-3, and RC-135 aircraft.

"This gathering of air power comes as we welcome our new rotational units, bringing F-16Cs and F-22As to the Keystone of the Pacific, while also saying arigatou and farewell to our F-35As and Air National Guard F-15Cs," Kadena Air Base announced via a statement.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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

Image Credit: U.S. Air Force. 

The characterization, by Donald Trump and his surrogates, of Vice President Kamala Harris’s alleged failings concerning border security is an amalgam of willful ignorance and bad faith. The many lies and half-truths are often spewed by Brandon Judd, the president of the Border Patrol Union who sometimes “opens” for the former President at some of his many rallies. Judd, it seems, is much more interested in parroting the Trump orthodoxy on Border Security than serving as a leader with the integrity that the men and women of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) deserve.

Unlike Trump and his cronies, The Biden-Harris Administration has known all along that no matter how many physical or legal barriers are erected in the name of border security, migrants will continue to seek asylum in the United States as long as conditions in their home countries are intolerable. President Biden wisely charged Vice President Harris with leading the diplomatic efforts (not “Border Czar”) to help reduce crime, violence, poverty and corruption in those nations responsible for the greatest percentage of migrants… and she made significant progress.

While Republicans were admiring the “Wall”, mugging for the cameras in their boots and jeans, Kamala Harris was doing the hard, time-consuming, frustrating, behind-the-scenes diplomacy. Working with the Northern Triangle countries of Central America, she was able to enlist the aid of over 50 American companies who invested $5 billion in those countries. Following this, migration from the targeted nations dropped by 50-60%. Conditions in the Northern Triangle nations are not going to improve over night. What is required is a long-term, multi-national effort to eliminate those factors that cause desperate people to flee their homeland. Fortunately, a future Harris administration understands that.

Trump relishes blaming Vice President Harris for what he asserts is chaos at the border and I, for one, agree that there is much to be done to improve unacceptable conditions at our borders.  The facts are, however, that the Biden-Harris Administration has made significant strides in improving border security even without the vital resources that would have been deployed under the bipartisan border bill; resources that would have drastically improved both the force strength and the effectiveness of CBP.  

The Biden-Harris Administration instituted tough restrictions on asylum claims that have, arguably, been instrumental in reducing illegal crossings to their lowest level since 2020. The Administration also deserves considerable credit for the recent evisceration of the leadership of the notorious Sinaloa Cartel with the arrest of cartel leaders “El Mayo” Garcia and Joaquin Guzman Loera, son of the infamous “El Chapo” Guzman. Additionally, in June 2021, under the leadership of Vice President Harris, Task Force Alpha, a law enforcement task force was established with the cooperation of Mexico and the Northern Triangle nations to combat smuggling and human trafficking.

Border Security is one of the most difficult, divisive, politically fraught and complicated national security issues facing our nation. It is irresponsible, in the extreme, for members of either party to use the border and its many related issues as a political weapon. But that is where we are today; particularly as it pertains to the GOP, its platform and the rantings of its presidential candidate and his surrogates.

Instead of focusing on meaningful, long-term solutions to a complex problem, like Vice President Harris has been doing, Trump and his minions engage in “Border Security Theater.” Over the course of the past six years, Trump and his surrogates (including the recently selected ice presidential candidate J.D. Vance) have periodically flocked to the Southwest border to stage photo ops in front of Trump’s “Wall.” Continuation of the supremely ineffective wall and the mass deportation of migrants are what pass, these days, for the heart of Trump’s “Border Policy.” The approach is breathtaking in its cynicism and emptiness.

In a feat of ethical gymnastics truly worthy of a gold medal, it is riveting to watch Brandon Judd laud the former President for his inspired leadership on border security, all the while knowing  that Trump bullied the GOP leadership into torpedoing the first tough, bi-partisan and meaningful border bill in generations. It was a bill that he and his union enthusiastically endorsed. That’s some chutzpah.

The nation was finally on the cusp of being able to bring meaningful change to our badly broken border and immigration programs, including more CBP Agents, advanced technology for detecting concealed contraband, more immigration judges, and much else. Trump, of course, initially favorable to it, had the deal killed when he realized he needed to preserve it as a campaign issue. This was unconscionable.

In November, the electorate will have a clear choice as to who is likely to bring positive, meaningful change to our troubled borders. With Trump, it will be more of the same – walls, rhetoric, threats, and bluster. With Kamala Harris, we have a chance to address the root causes driving migration and, perhaps, for the first time, focus on a permanent solution. For me, that’s an easy call.

About the Author: Robert Kelly

Robert Kelly is the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Drug Enforcement and former Deputy Chairman of the government’s Border Interdiction Committee. 

Image Credit: Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The Russian military has reportedly deployed the T-14 Armata tank in Ukraine months back, but it remains unconfirmed if these tanks are engaging in combat.

-The T-14, despite being a highly advanced main battle tank, has faced production delays and is considered too costly to deploy widely.

-The Kremlin may be hesitant to risk the T-14 in combat due to the potential damage to its reputation if it were destroyed. This suggests that Russia lacks confidence in the tank’s performance under battlefield conditions.

The T-14 Armata and Tank Drama

Is the Russian military finally deploying its latest T-14 Armata main battle tanks into Ukraine? 

Recent footage from months back indicates that the T-14 Armata is working and is in operational condition, but it won’t be seeing actual combat any time soon. 

The T-14 in Ukraine? Well...

The T-14 Amrata has been years in the making.

Weighing 55 tons and with a crew of three (commander, driver, and gunner), the T-14 Armata tank packs a 125mm main gun with an automatic loading system. 

Despite years of promotional fanfare, the tank has suffered production delays and manufacturing issues. 

In March, Sergey Chemezov, who leads the Russian defense giant Rostec, confirmed prior Western intelligence assessments and our coverage here at The National Interest that the Russian military hasn’t deployed the T-14 Armata tank in Ukraine. 

Chemezov said that the T-14 Armata is simply too expensive to deploy in the fighting in Ukraine, adding that the T-90 main battle tank is a more efficient option. 

Previously, the TASS state news agency had stated that the Russian military had used the T-14 Armata in Ukraine several times. The state-controlled media outlet has been known to push the Kremlin’s narrative, regardless of its accuracy. 

T-14 Armata: A Failed Project for Russia

For all terms and purposes, the T-14 Armata should be considered a failed project. 

Russia has been engaged in the largest conflict since the end of World War II. It has lost between 450,000 and 320,000 men killed, wounded, and captured. The Ukrainian forces have also destroyed tens of thousands of heavy weapon systems. In more than 25 months of combat, the Russian forces have little to actually show for these devastating casualties. 

If the Kremlin is hesitant to deploy its most technologically advanced main battle tank even in the face of so many challenges, then it clearly doesn’t have any faith in it and doesn’t believe that it can perform under operational conditions. 

Claims about exorbitant costs are for domestic consumption. Despite the heavy international sanctions on Russia in response to its illegal invasion of Ukraine, the high energy prices have made the Kremlin billions of dollars. Moscow has the money to spend on its defense. 

An additional explanation as to why the Kremlin isn’t deploying the T-14 Armata is marketing. Moscow knows that it is vey likely the Ukrainian forces with their Western anti-tank systems would have a field day against the T-14 Armata.

Footage of smoldering T-14 Armata tanks in the fields and ditches of Ukraine would make it very marketable to foreign customers. Despite the overall questionable quality of Russian military hardware, Moscow is still a big player in the international arms market. 

Before the fateful February 24, 2022, Russia was making between $15 and $12 billion a year from selling weapon systems abroad. Its customers ranged from emerging powers like China and India to European countries like Cyprus to African warlords.

Although the number of foreign sales has dropped since the illegal invasion of Ukraine, the Kremlin still makes between $8 and $5 billion a year. 

About the Author

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Speculation abounds regarding where Iran or its proxies will strike as retaliation for Israel’s recent assassinations of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh and Hezbollah deputy Fuad Shukr. While numerous scenarios are being discussed, all remain conjectural. However, one particular possibility warrants extended consideration.

This time, Iran’s interest in hitting Israel is not just about showing force but about exercising power and inflicting significant pain and damage upon the Israelis. Yet, Iran faces a major problem: while they can inflict damage in a first strike, they lack the military means and capability to protect themselves from retaliatory strikes by either Israel, the United States, or a combination of both and their allies. Therefore, the best scenario for Iran would entail a strike that creates a chain reaction that preoccupies Israel so that it can’t mount an immediate or effective counterattack.

One specific target could be the narrow strip of land between the West Bank and Gaza. This Israeli territory, approximately fifty-eight miles long, separates about 2.7 million Arabs in the West Bank from about 1.8 million Arabs in Gaza. The Israelis have numerous military bases in this area to ensure their protection. In a strike, Iran could aim to damage these military bases, hoping that the built-up resentment and anger in the West Bank over the last eight months would lead to a revolt against the Israelis. An indicator that Iran might target this area is that in the list of targets published by Iranian media, four out of the seven targeted military bases are located in this strip.

Iran is also counting on the possibility that outrage in the West Bank, combined with the ongoing conflict in Gaza and tensions with Hezbollah to the north, will cross-fertilize into an unmanageable situation for Jerusalem. In this context, Iran might consider this strip of land as Israel’s Achilles Heel. By applying military pressure to this region, Iran might hope to create an opening for Hamas militia in Gaza and factions in the West Bank to connect or at least cause more problems for an overstretched IDF. An attack like this could also jeopardize transportation and land communication between the north and south of Israel, creating major logistical obstacles.

It’s also crucial to note that Iran has been trying to arm the West Bank. They have attempted to smuggle weapons through Jordanian smugglers or via drones, often with the help of Hezbollah and their Syrian proxy, the Imam Hussein Brigade. There is a chance that Iran has already succeeded in smuggling some weapons into the West Bank. Following an attack, Iran would hope this situation triggers widespread violence.

In this scenario, Iran’s next step could be to leave the ensuing chaos to Hezbollah, keeping Israel occupied while Iran regroups or seeks to initiate negotiations.

However, the dilemma that Iranians still face is that there is no guarantee that, in such a scenario, there would be a division of labor between the United States and Israel. In this division, Israel would counter the unrest in the West Bank, Gaza, and its own territory, while the United States would directly confront Iran. This uncertainty is a significant challenge for Iran, especially given the upcoming U.S. elections. A lack of response or a weak response in protecting a major U.S. ally in the Middle East could be costly for President Biden’s party and his party’s nominee, Kamala Harris.

Iran’s solution to such a scenario could be to unleash Shia proxies to launch attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq, Syria, and Jordan. Arguably, this part of the retaliation has already commenced. Still, when it comes to attacking U.S. troops, Iran’s proxies in Syria might emerge as key players, as U.S. troops in al-Tanf in Syria’s Homs province are much more vulnerable compared to those in Iraq. Meanwhile, the Houthis could continue their attacks against Israel, striking the Eilat port and escalating their harassment of international maritime traffic in the Red Sea, causing a surge in shipping costs and financial pressure on the West.

However, while all these actions can exert pressure on the United States and Israel, the use of proxies still does not resolve Iran’s main problem: the power asymmetry between itself and the Israeli-American partnership. In this context, Iran must be cautious. Any reckless employment of proxies could lead to a severe response that jeopardizes the proxy network it has spent four decades building. This would not only harm Iran but also its main international partners, China and Russia. Continued conflict in the Red Sea would increase the cost of trade for China, which has already been complaining to Iran. Additionally, the use of proxies in Syria could provoke a major strike against the Assad regime, endangering Russia’s efforts and gains in Syria. This may be one of the reasons behind Russian National Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu’s sudden visit to Tehran.

In this context, it is safe to say that whether or not the fifty-eight-mile strip between the West Bank and Gaza is Israel’s Achilles heel, a reckless strike could expose Iran’s soft underbelly.

Arman Mahmoudian is an adjunct professor at the University of South Florida’s Judy Genshaft Honors College, teaching courses on Russia, the Middle East, and International Security. He is also a research assistant at the USF Global and National Security Institute, focusing on Russia and the Middle East. Follow him on LinkedIn and X @MahmoudianArman.

Image: Saeediex / Shutterstock.com.

Répondre aux bombardements de l'armée de Tel-Aviv contre les populations civiles libanaises en ciblant des localités israéliennes jusque-là épargnées par les tirs de ses troupes. Cette menace récurrente de M. Hassan Nasrallah, le chef du parti-milice allié à l'Iran donne la mesure de la montée des (...) / Israël, Proche-Orient, Liban, Conflit israélo-arabe, Palestine - 2024/08

Summary and Key Points: Ukraine claimed to have sunk the Russian Kilo-class submarine Rostov-on-Don in the Black Sea, marking the second time this submarine has been targeted. The first attack in September heavily damaged the sub, which was reportedly under repair or in sea trials when hit again.

-This loss would be significant for Russia's Black Sea Fleet, especially since additional submarines can't enter the Black Sea due to Turkey's control over the straits.

-The incident remains unverified by Western sources and unacknowledged by Russia.

Did a Russian Kilo-Class Submarine Get Hit by Ukraine? 

Cue the social media memes, Ukraine – a nation that has no navy to speak of – claimed to have sunk yet another Russian submarine, the previously damaged Kilo-class Rostov-on-Don, which was targeted on Friday in a missile strike. If confirmed, it would be the second successful targeting of the Russian Navy submarine in the past year.

It was last September that Ukrainian forces attacked Rostov-on-Don with a cruise missile when the boat was in drydock, and believed it to be sunk. Though heavily damaged, the submarine was repaired and may have been engaged in sea trials when she was hit again. The diesel-electric improved Kilo-class attack submarine was launched in June 2014 and commissioned in December of that same year.

"A Russian submarine went to the bottom of the Black Sea," the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense announced, adding, "As a result of the attack, the submarine sank. Great work, warriors." During the strike, four S-400 Triumf air-defense systems were also reported to have been targeted.

The sinking of the submarine hasn't been independently verified by Western media outlets, while the Kremlin hasn't acknowledged the recent missile attack on the occupied Crimea.

Employing Western Aid

Though Ukraine has employed domestically-built aerial drones to target distant Russian air bases as well as the Kremlin's tanks on the frontlines, and it has used sea-skimming naval drones against the Russian Navy's Black Sea Fleet, much of the success in striking the occupied Crimea has been the result of long-range Western missiles.

That ordnance, along with the naval drones, has forced the Russian Navy to relocate its warships away from Sevastopol.

"The Rostov-on-Don was probably also about to retreat to Novorossiysk," Yörük Ik, a geopolitical analyst from the Bosphorus Observer maritime consultancy based in Istanbul, told Newsweek.

Losing a Black Hole

Though the Russian Navy is reported to operate more than sixty diesel-electric Kilo-class submarines, which are reportedly armed with Kalibr missiles that can be used to strike targets on land or at sea, the loss of the Rostov-on-Don would still be a blow to the Kremlin as it can't send additional submarines to the Black Sea.

The Black Sea Fleet had six of the submarines in service when Russia launched its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, but three were not in the waters of the Black Sea at the time and access to the waters has been closed to military warships by Turkey, which controls access via the Dardanelles and Bosphorus Straits.

The boats had been seen as powerful platforms for striking positions on land and at sea as the Kalibr missiles can be launched from torpedo tubes while the boat is in a submerged position.

The boats were nicknamed "Black Holes" by the U.S. Navy as they were designed to operate in shallower, coastal waters where they can be employed in anti-surface warfare (ASuW) and anti-submarine warfare (ASW) missions. The upgraded Kilo-II boats are seventy-four meters long and displace more than 3,900 tons, and due to their strong hull, the submarines have an operational depth of 240 meters and can dive to a maximum depth of 300 meters, overall with an operational range of up to 7,500 miles.

The Russian submarines have been considered among the world's quietest underwater cruisers, and the boats can travel at speeds of up to twenty knots, while they have sea endurance of forty-five days. Each of the Russian boats is operated by a crew of fifty-two submariners.

It might seem that there is now an actual hole in one of those Black Holes, and this time it might not be so easy to patch it up.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Trente ans après la fin de l'apartheid, la petite communauté juive d'Afrique du Sud est plus que jamais divisée. Une partie a profité du système raciste, l'autre a résisté. Deux leçons contradictoires de la Shoah s'opposent : celle d'un « plus jamais ça » universaliste, qui pousse les uns à soutenir (...) / Apartheid, Afrique du Sud, Judaïsme, Palestine (Gaza), Palestine - 2024/08

Since the start of its war on Ukraine in February 2022, Russia has experienced a massive population exodus. Ideological objectors, political opponents, and those simply seeking to avoid conscription have sought the shelter of other nations. Accurate data about this cohort, however, is in short supply, complicated both by Kremlin propaganda and by the fact that some of these exiles have since made their way back to Russia. 

A new study by The Bell, a leading Russian opposition news outlet, suggests the ranks of those who fled Russia and still remain abroad is significantly larger than commonly understood. 

“The wave of people leaving Russia since February 2022 is the most significant exodus from the country in three decades,” the study notes. That’s something of an understatement. According to recent estimates, more than 800,000 left Russia since the start of the war, marking the largest out-migration since the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. And while a small percentage has since returned to Russia, the overwhelming majority remain abroad. “At least 650,000 people who left Russia after it invaded Ukraine are still abroad,” according to The Bell. 

In absolute terms, that figure represents less than 1% of Russia’s total population of over 146 million. But its impact is outsized on a number of levels. 

One is economic. Specifically, the study notes, “those who left Russia can be characterized as highly politicized, well-educated and in a better financial situation than the average Russian. They are typically young (aged 20-40) and 80% have university-level education.” Because of this comparatively high level of achievement, “[t]hey are more likely to run their own businesses or work in white-collar roles such as IT, data analysis, sciences or the creative sector.” 

Their departure has exacerbated an already serious problem. Even before Russia’s latest invasion of Ukraine, political scientists were warning that the deepening authoritarianism of President Vladimir Putin’s government was driving out the country’s creative class. Indeed, in the years preceding Russia’s “special military operation” against Ukraine, Russia was seeing an average annual outflow of roughly 100,000 people. Since the start of the current war, the situation has become much, much worse. 

That’s because “the hundreds of thousands of those who left are among Russia’s most active and enterprising,” The Bell study notes. As such, their departure “will make it harder for innovation to trickle through the economy and for productivity to increase, potentially hampering Russia’s economic potential for years to come.” The results will be measured in Russia’s declining global competitiveness and economic vibrancy.

Another reason the current exodus is so damaging has to do with demographics. For more than half a century, Russia has been locked in a cycle of deepening population decline, with death and emigration significantly outpacing live births. The situation became a full-blown crisis in the decade after the collapse of the USSR, before rebounding modestly to match European levels of fertility (roughly 1.5 live births per woman). This situation still prevails today.

Even that figure remains well below the fertility rate of 2.1 children per family required for a sustainable replenishment of the Russian population. It has also proven to be stubborn, staying largely static despite numerous Kremlin initiatives designed to boost birth rates. Now, Russia’s war on Ukraine – and the open-ended nature of that conflict – has spurred even steeper decline, as potential conscripts and other objectors eye the national exits.

All of which this augurs potentially momentous changes for the nature of the Russian state. Earlier this year, ROSSTAT, Russia’s official statistics agency, estimated that in a worst case scenario, the national population could drop to 130 million people by the middle of the century. Such a decline would fundamentally upend Russia’s ability to control its vast national territory, which spans eleven time zones. It would be hard to defend territory from the predations of China, with whom Moscow supposedly now boasts a “no limits partnership.”

This brings us back to the true costs of the Ukraine war. Russian officials have made clear that they see the subjugation of their country’s western neighbor as an overriding strategic priority, as well as a prerequisite for renewed national greatness. But, in practical terms, Putin’s war of choice has sped up internal processes that could lead to Russia’s profound decline – or even its outright ruin. 

Ilan Berman is Senior Vice President of the American Foreign Policy Council in Washington, DC. 

Summary and Key Points: The Royal Navy's HMS Prince of Wales is currently preparing for a deployment, having traveled to Scotland to load up on ammunition. While the deployment is officially described as a "routine logistics visit," speculation has arisen that the carrier could be combat-ready for a potential earlier mission.

-This could involve supporting an evacuation of UK nationals from Lebanon if conflict escalates between Hezbollah and Israel, or assisting U.S. Navy operations in the Middle East.

-The situation remains fluid, and the carrier's exact mission has not been officially disclosed.

Is the Royal Navy's HMS Prince of Wales Readying for Deployment to the Middle East?

Earlier this year, there was speculation that the Royal Navy would dispatch one of its two aircraft carriers to aid the United States Navy in the Middle East to help deter an escalation in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. Those plans were scuttled after the flagship HMS Queen Elizabeth was forced to head to Rosyth Dockyard in Scotland after a mechanical fault was discovered during a pre-sailing check in February.

It was just last week the HMS Queen Elizabeth returned to the Portsmouth Naval Base in the south of England and will prepare for her next deployment, while her sister carrier HMS Prince of Wales is now heading to Scotland. Though the latter vessel also underwent even more significant repairs two years ago; this trip to Glenmallan to load up on ammunition for another yet-to-be announced-deployment.

It was in June that the 65,000-tonne HMS Prince of Wales returned to the naval base after serving as the NATO command ship in the largest exercise held by the international military alliance since the Cold War. Prince of Wales was forced to replace HMS Queen Elizabeth at the last moment due to the aforementioned mechanical fault. Following a brief maintenance period, the second of the Royal Navy's two carriers is now on the move, but it hasn't been announced where she will head next.

Gearing Up For War?

The deployment to Scotland has been described as a "routine logistics visit," and the carrier is indeed set to take part in a deployment to the Indo-Pacific next year, but Iain Ballantyne, editor of the Warships International Fleet Review told the UK's Daily Express newspaper that "perhaps the UK Government is taking the sensible contingency of having the Prince of Wales combat ready to deploy on an earlier mission? This might be to support an evacuation of UK nationals from Lebanon if a full-scale war erupts between Hezbollah and Israel."

Ballantyne added that the carrier could operate alongside the U.S. Navy's Nimitz-class nuclear-powered supercarrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71), which is now in the Red Sea and will be replaced by USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) in the coming weeks.

It was last week that Iranian officials met with those of Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and the Yemeni-base Houthi rebels in Tehran. There are now further fears that a wider regional war could break out between Iran and its proxies with Israel.

Since last fall, the Houthis have been conducting strikes on commercial shipping in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, supposedly in support of Hamas, while the militant group has also launched missile strikes on Israel. The United States Navy has operated a carrier or other warships in the region since Hamas carried out its terrorist attack into southern Israel on October 7, 2023.

Though the U.S. Navy twice extended the deployments of both USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) and USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) and is now playing a game of "musical chairs" with its carriers, it would seem unlikely the Royal Navy could go it alone in the region. The Royal Navy would still likely need to be supported by U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyers to screen HMS Prince of Wales.

Yet, it is possible that the Royal Navy carrier could help aid the U.S. Navy in its operations in the region, proving the naysayers wrong.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

Summary and Key Points: Following Ukraine's acquisition of U.S.-made F-16 Fighting Falcons, Russia's state-owned arms company, Rostec, declared that these jets would be "destroyed," dismissing them as inferior to Russia's Su-35S and Su-57 fighters.

-Despite these bold claims, the F-16s still pose a significant threat with advanced missile capabilities. However, it remains unlikely that Russia will risk direct air combat, particularly involving the Su-57, due to the potential for propaganda setbacks.

-The F-16s are expected to be used primarily for defensive roles against missiles and drones.

Russia State Arms Company Said F-16s Will be Destroyed

Just a day after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky poised with a pair of U.S.-made F-16 Fighting Falcons at an undisclosed location, Russia's state-owned military-industrial conglomerate Rostec issued a bold proclamation that the jets would be "destroyed."

On Monday, Rostec officials told state media outlet Tass that the F-16s aren't up to the task as the all-weather multirole fighters aren't as advanced as the fighters in service with the Russian Aerospace Forces. Still, the report warned that the F-16s shouldn't be taken entirely for granted.

"If you look at the specifications of the US-made aircraft, the conclusion is unambiguous: It is not a rival to the Su-35S, much less the Su-57. In a head-on air combat, our jets are superior to the US fighter jets. The F-16 is not the newest jet, but this is no reason to rejoice and relax. The jet can carry advanced missile systems and can cause a lot of problems. Nevertheless, they, as the rest of Western equipment, will face the same end: destruction," the state-owned corporation said.

Parroting Putin on F-16 Fighters 

Russian President Vladimir Putin has been even more dismissive of the Fighting Falcons, previously stating that the aircraft wouldn't change the situation on the ground, but he also warned that by supplying the F-16s, the West is prolonging the conflict.

"If they supply F-16s, and they are talking about this and are training pilots, this will not change the situation on the battlefield," Putin said in March as Ukrainian pilots were being trained on the Fighting Falcon.

Though U.S. and other Western pilots typically train on the F-16 for years, Kyiv's aviators have been given a crash course lasting several months.

Can We Expect "Head-on Air Combat"

The claims from Rostec are also noteworthy as the Sukhoi Su-57 (NATO reporting name Felon), which received so much type has largely been absent from the skies over Ukraine. Its combat operations have been rather limited, and it is reported to have only operated from within Russian airspace launching missiles into Ukrainian-held territory.

It would seem highly unlikely that the Kremlin would send any Su-57s up against the Fighting Falcon, even if the general consensus would be that the Russian fighter maintains an edge. As a fifth-generation fighter with stealth capabilities, the Su-57 would be more than a match for the F-16.

Yet, Russia will likely remain cautious about how it engages the U.S.-made fighters. While shooting one down would certainly be a huge propaganda coup for Moscow, it likely won't want to risk an even greater embarrassment should an F-16 shoot down a Su-57.

The same may even hold true for the Su-35 (NATO reporting name Flanker-E/M), an improved variant of the Su-27 air superiority fighter. Already, Moscow has seen around half a dozen of its 120 Su-35s lost in the ongoing war in Ukraine, most from ground-based air defense systems.

There has been little "dogfighting" or even air-to-air beyond visual range engagement between Russian and Ukrainian fighters, and it remains questionable whether Moscow's pilots are really any better than Kyiv's. Still, Ukraine will no more want to risk its F-16s than Russia wants to risk its Su-57s.

Instead, the F-16s will likely be employed in the short term to counter the Kremlin's missiles and drones. Any close air support (CAS) or ground strikes probably won't happen for some time.

It may be up to Russia to risk proving its aircraft – and as importantly its pilots – are truly better than the F-16 Fighting Falcons flown by Ukrainian aviators. But that almost certainly won't happen.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: Railgun technology, first conceptualized in World War I, has been pursued by various nations due to its potential for high-velocity, non-explosive projectiles. However, technical challenges, particularly related to power and durability, have stymied progress.

-While the U.S. has recently shelved its railgun projects, China continues to explore this field, recently testing an electromagnetic railgun with artificial intelligence.

-Despite these efforts, achieving a reliable and effective railgun remains a significant challenge, with both nations facing setbacks in their developments.

Railgun Technology: A Century-Old Dream Facing Modern Challenges

Since the concept of the railgun was first introduced during World War I, many nations have invested heavily in acquiring this linear motor device. Also referred to as a rail cannon, this weapon uses electromagnetic force to launch high-velocity projectiles. Over the years, emerging technologies and other advancements have led to real-world efforts to develop such a powerful platform.

However, many of these efforts have failed due to power and durability issues that even the most cutting-edge engineers have been unable to circumvent. The U.S. appears to be sidelining its rail gun efforts completely. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) is no closer to achieving the pursuit of this weapon, however, the plan is to continue to prioritize developing this field further.

China’s Ongoing Railgun Efforts

In May, a Naval Engineering University team in Beijing used artificial intelligence technology in its latest railgun endeavors. According to Chinese state-run media outlets, the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) tested an electromagnetic railgun by firing a smart bomb 15 km at a speed over Mach-5.0. Although the test launch was not deemed successful, it demonstrates Beijing’s continued pursuit of rail gun technology.

The U.S. has also invested heavily in acquiring rail gun capabilities in the past, even if related efforts have been essentially put on the back burner more recently. Over the last decade, analysts estimate that the Navy has allocated upwards of $500 million to its Electromagnetic Railgun (EMRG) program. In 2022, however, a U.S. Congressional Research Service report noted that the U.S. had ceased funding for its railgun project but that the Navy still hoped the weapon could be potentially valuable for missile defense down the line.

How Railgun Tech Works

Since the overall objective of such a program would be the ability to fire projectiles at hypersonic speeds, they would not even need to contain explosives in order to inflict damage on targets.

Nearly two decades ago, the Pentagon tasked BAE Systems and General Atomics to develop a working railgun that would help steer onboard guns away from gunpowder-based propulsion to electric propulsion.

As detailed by Popular Mechanics, “Unlike traditional naval guns that ignite gunpowder or some other powder charge to send a projectile down a tube, railguns don’t rely on explosions. This means the railgun could fling a projectile faster and farther without storing dangerous and bulky powder charges, and the guns weren’t subjected to the extremely high pressures involved in a powder explosion. Power would be generated by a ship’s integrated power system, which is designed to generate, store, and release huge amounts of electricity.”

While in theory, the rail gun concept could provide a huge asset to a Navy’s armament capabilities, several technical issues have prevented it from coming to fruition. The overarching problem associated with this weapon is power itself. Acquiring enough power to actually launch such a projectile in a controlled and reliable manner is simply not a realistic endeavor for a warship.

About the Author: Maya Carlin, Defense Expert 

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Depuis la dissolution de l'Assemblée nationale, les esprits s'échauffent. Des élus sont agressés, des permanences saccagées, des militants tabassés. Les menaces pullulent sur les réseaux sociaux, les dirigeants politiques s'invectivent. Face à ce climat, une solution transpartisane semble se dégager : (...) / Politique, France, Histoire - 2024/08

Summary and Key Points: U.S. aircraft carriers face growing threats from China’s anti-ship ballistic missiles, like the DF-21D and DF-26B, designed to target and potentially sink these massive vessels.

-As carriers have been pivotal in U.S. military strategy, losing one would be catastrophic and could reshape naval warfare. The question now is whether these supercarriers are still viable in modern conflicts, especially against a near-peer adversary like China.

-While carriers remain central to U.S. power projection, their vulnerability to advanced missile systems could prompt a reassessment of their role in future warfare.

Is the Age of the Aircraft Carrier Coming to an End?

Military planning is about considering the numerous hypothetical scenarios – such as how and where an enemy might strike, but more importantly whether and even how a potential foe's weapons systems can be countered. No doubt America's enemies likely have considered how to hit and sink an aircraft carrier – and it is just as likely U.S. Navy officials have been kept up at night worrying about such an unthinkable event.

The sailors of the United States Navy must do everything right absolutely every time, while an enemy only has to get lucky once. That fact is no doubt understood by the sailors who have been serving in the Red Sea, facing missile and drone strikes launched by Houthi rebels operating in Yemen.

So far the United States Navy has a perfect record, countering every missile fired at its warships. Arguably the odds are stacked in favor of the U.S. military, which has the best and most advanced air defense systems in the world operated by highly trained sailors.

In a conflict against China, however, the odds could shift.

As previously reported, three decades ago, China introduced its DF-21D (Dong Feng-21, CSS-5), a medium-range, road-mobile ballistic missile. It has been described as the world's first anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) or "carrier killer." Designed to replace the obsolete Dong Feng-2 (CSS-1), it was China's first solid-fuel road-mobile missile to use solid propellant. Able to deploy a 600 kg payload with a minimum range of 500 km (311 miles) and a maximum range of 2,150 km, the DF-21D’s warhead is likely maneuverable and may have an accuracy of 20 m CEP (circular error probable).

Beijing has since developed multiple DF-21 variants, including a dual nuclear/conventional capable version (DF-21C) and another designed as an anti-ship ballistic missile (DF-21D). In 2016, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) also revealed that it believed a new nuclear variant, the DF-21E CSS-5 Mod 6) was also being produced.

Moreover, while the DF-21D could be used near the "home waters" of China, Beijing has also developed another missile that poses a threat to warships operating throughout much of the Indo-Pacific region.

This is the DF-26B (Dong Feng-26), a road-mobile, two-stage solid-fueled intermediate-range ballistic missile that was first unveiled during a military parade in September 2015. It has a reported range of 4,000km (2,485 miles) and it can be used in both conventional and nuclear strikes against ground as well as naval targets.

The mobile launcher can carry a 1,200 to 1,800 kg nuclear or conventional warhead, and as it could directly strike a target such as the U.S. territory of Guam in the event of war it should be seen as a formidable weapon. More ominously, the DF-26B has been described as a carrier killer due to how it could be used to target the U.S. Navy’s fleet of Nimitz- and Gerald R. Ford-class nuclear-powered supercarriers.

Aircraft Carrier Vs. The Carrier Killer

Aircraft carriers were vital during the Second World War in defeating Japan in the Pacific, and the flattops have proven vital in confronting aggression during the Cold War and throughout the Global War on Terror (GWoT). Yet, the number of carriers has actually diminished even as the United States Navy operates 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers – more than any other nation in the world.

Instead of having a large fleet of conventionally powered carriers, the United States relies on a smaller number of massive flattops. The question now is whether the United States Navy could risk such vessels in a conflict against a near-peer adversary, notably China.

Losing a single carrier would be devastating as it couldn't be quickly replaced.

Yet, a war against China wouldn't simply be a replay of World War II. Even if the conflict were to be fought in the Indo-Pacific, it wouldn't be an island-hopping campaign. More importantly, U.S. bombers can already strike any spot on the globe thanks to aerial refueling fly CONUS-to-CONUS missions.

Thus, the hypothetical is whether carriers are now the weapons needed for a war against China. It is unlikely that such a conflict would be decided by even a single decisive naval battle. Rather it would likely be one of stealth bombers, missiles and possibly even nuclear weapons should the conflict escalate to that point.

Yet, the point remains that if an enemy has enough missiles, drones, aircraft, submarines, etc. – a carrier is going to be sunk. But that goes both ways. China can ill afford to lose its capital ships any more than the U.S.

Perhaps that realization is enough that cooler heads will prevail again, and keep any potential Cold War 2.0 from turning hot.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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

Image Credit: U.S. Navy Flickr and Creative Commons.