Diplomacy & Crisis News

Summary and Key Points: In the ongoing war in Ukraine, small commercial off-the-shelf drones and custom-built loitering munitions have revolutionized modern warfare, allowing Ukrainian forces to effectively target Russian tanks and positions.

-In response, Moscow has deployed its own drones, sparking a technological arms race as both sides develop advanced counter-drone measures.

-This includes enhanced camouflage, cope cages for vehicles, and jamming technology to disrupt drone communications and video feeds.

Small commercial off-the-shelf drones carrying modified ordnance and specialty-built loitering munitions have both proven to be game changers in modern warfare in the ongoing war in Ukraine. Since the early days of the fighting, Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) have been employed by Ukrainian soldiers to target Russian tanks and forward positions to great effect. Moscow responded by deploying its own drones to target the Ukrainian platforms – and as a result, both sides are now working to develop counter-drone technology.

It has included better camouflage techniques, cope cages added to tanks and other vehicles, and even soldiers armed with shotguns as a last resort. Yet, increasingly, it has included jamming technology to disrupt communications over a wide area, as well as directed radio waves to cut a drone operator's video feed.

The drone wars continue to drone on.

Two years ago, drones began to reshape the modern battlefield, and some lamented it meant the end of the Main Battle Tank (MBT) – as the lumbering behemoths proved vulnerable to low-cost drones. But for every new weapon platform, there are efforts to counter it.

Now Electronic Warfare (EW) is once again reshaping the battlefield. A literal arms race is now underway as each side seems to counter the others' drones with jammers and scramblers, while in turn efforts are being made to overcome the latest anti-drone technology.

This week, Russian state media reported that experts at the Sky Warrior training center have also developed a new mobile EW platform that can interfere with the remote controls of first-person view (FPV) drones across a range of frequencies.

"We have developed an electronic warfare system. More than fifty products have been dispatched to the frontline. Our equipment has displayed its capabilities. It works well against FPV drones, including drones on offset frequencies. Our enemies are now flying on frequencies from 337 MHz to 1100 MHz. All of these frequencies are available and we can jam them easily," a Russian specialist identified as Pastor told Tass, and claimed that Kyiv's forces lacked the resources to overcome the Sky Warrior's radio-electronic warfare protection.

The report further suggested that Ukrainian drones were being "disabled and crash(ed) 300-400 meters away from the jamming equipment. They cannot get closer. The product comes in several configurations: a stationary unit for a motor vehicle and a man-portable kit for an infantryman - a box with straps weighing about 15 kg."

The jammer developed by Sky Warrior is reported to have three modes of operation, including being activated manually where it can "ward off" an approaching drone, triggered automatically should a drone come into range, or active all the time. Yet, it remains unclear if the jammers will impact Russian drones or other communications.

Kyiv has also been deploying jammers that according to recent reports can block about seventy-five percent of frequencies that Russia's drones currently employ to communicate with their operators. However, what has remained more challenging is countering the latest types of loitering munitions, notably the Kremlin's Lancet "kamikaze drones" that are entirely autonomous once a target has been marked.

At the same time, Ukraine's special forces have begun to introduce new drone technology that can fly and strike targets without GPS and with limited operator input, countering the Russian jammers.

The arms race of drones, jammers, and counter-jamming technology will continue, further reshaping the way modern conflicts may be fought.

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. 

Summary and Key Points: The Battleship USS New Jersey, the most decorated warship in U.S. Navy history, is back and better than ever following a $10 million restoration.

-This summer, the Iowa-class battleship will host unique events, including the Philadelphia Ship Model Society’s sixth annual ModelCon on August 3, featuring over 100 historic ship models.

-Additionally, the ship will celebrate World War II Victory Day on August 10 with special guided tours, a flyover of U.S. warplanes, and opportunities for attendees to fire the ship’s Quad 40 and 5-inch guns.

-The recent restoration, completed at the Philadelphia Navy Yard, addressed crucial repairs, including hull preservation and corrosion prevention. The ship, now back at its Camden, New Jersey, home, is expected to draw more visitors and host memorable events that highlight its storied past and continued significance as a floating museum.

The nation's oldest continuously active ship model clubs in the United States will hold its sixth annual ModelCon at what is arguably the most impressive location for such an event. The Philadelphia Ship Model Society, which was founded in 1931 and is devoted to the art of ship model building, will host its event on the United States Navy's Iowa-class battleship USS New Jersey (BB-62).

The one-day event on Saturday, August 3, promises to include more than 100 models of historic vessels, including warships that survive only in model form.

The Philadelphia Ship Model Society's ModelCon is just one of several planned events that the famed battlewagon – the most decorated U.S. Navy warship – is hosting this summer.

In addition to special guided tours of the engine room and turrets, BB-62 will offer a World War II victory day celebration on August 10. It will include a flyover of U.S. warplanes, displays of artifacts from the conflict, and a talk on the Japanese surrender 79 years ago by Battleship New Jersey's curator Ryan Syzmanski. There will also be an opportunity for attendees to pay to fire the ship's Quad 40 and 5-inch guns as a salute to the aircraft.

This summer's events are all the more special because the more than 80-year-old Iowa-class battleship looks better than ever following a $10 million makeover that restored the vessel to her former glory.

Though the restoration project, which began in March ran a little longer than expected – and meant the vessel wasn't back at her home on the Camden, New Jersey, waterfront for Memorial Day this year – it proved worth the wait. In late June, USS New Jersey completed her 12-week-long repairs at the Philadelphia Navy Yard's Dock #3, where the battleship was built and launched during the Second World War.

As New Jersey.com reported, "It was the first time it had left its dock in decades."

The original plan to preserve the 80-year-old, 887-foot-long, 45,000-ton vessel called for the repairs to be completed in time for Memorial Day, and the start of the peak tourist season. The warship is a major attraction for the Garden State, drawing 80,000 visitors annually.

The museum and memorial's newly-titled CEO Marshall Spevak told the Courier-Post newspaper that unexpected issues were discovered during the restoration, resulting in the delay. Additional work included the welding of a steel ring around the outward propeller shafts as part of an effort to prevent future leaks, while ultrasonic tests were conducted to determine the thickness of the steel hull. The biggest task was the application of around 18,000 linear feet of sealant to further stop corrosion and future leaks – and more importantly to ensure that the elements won't win and sink this battleship.

Fortunately, during the time at dry dock, the ship was opened to special tours, where visitors could literally walk under the historic vessel.

And now that USS New Jersey is back in Camden where she will continue to be preserved as a floating museum, we can only expect the battleship to play host to some truly special events.

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 and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: Japan's Soryu-class submarines, introduced in 2009, are a key component of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) as tensions rise in the South China Sea.

-Equipped with advanced lithium-ion batteries for extended underwater endurance and quieter Kockums Stirling engines, these submarines are designed for stealth and efficiency.

-Each Soryu-class submarine features six torpedo tubes capable of launching Type 89 torpedoes and UGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles, making them formidable in potential conflicts with China or North Korea.

-Interest in the Soryu-class has extended internationally, with several countries considering procurement, although Japan remains the sole operator for now.

In order to push back at a hostile China and a nuclear North Korea, Japan is modernizing its naval capabilities. 

Tensions in the South China Sea are only growing, as outlined in Tokyo’s annual white paper released earlier this month. 

If a full-blown conflict were to erupt, Japan would likely lean on its advanced fleets of Soryu- and Taigei-class submarines.

The Taigei-class is the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force’s newest stealth submarine. With its weapons capacity, high-strength steel, and lithium-ion batteries designed for greater underwater endurance, these boats are widely considered some of the best in service today. 

However, the Taigei’s predecessor should not be overlooked. In fact, Japan’s Soryu-class boats share some impressive attributes with their Taigei counterparts.

Japan’s first air-independent propulsion submarine class was introduced to service in 2009. Compared to previous submarine classes with lead-acid batteries, the Soryu’s lithium-ion batteries provide greater power storage. 

Since submarines are most vulnerable to detection and enemy attack while surfaced, technologies that keep these boats underwater for longer stretches of time are vital. Lithium-ion batteries recharge more quickly than lead-acid batteries. The class’s eleventh submarine, Oryu, is the first to mount these batteries. 

Soryu submarines are equipped with Kockums Naval Solutions Stirling engines adapted from engines used in Sweden. As explained previously by Caleb Larson, “The unique engine uses bottled liquid oxygen so that the engine’s diesel fuel can combust. The advantage of this propulsion system is that it runs much quieter than a traditional diesel engine. Furthermore, its range is estimated to be around 6,100 miles or about 9,800 kilometers.”

The lead ship of the class, Soryu, commissioned in 2009, was followed by Unryu, Hakuryu, Kenryu, Zuiryu, Kokuryu, Jinryu, Sekiryu, Seriyu, Shoryu and Oryu. Each Soryu submarine measures 84 meters in length and can sail up to 20 knots when fully submerged. 

Each submarine features six HU-606 533 mm torpedo tubes for Type 89 torpedoes and UGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles, according to Naval Technology. The Soryu boats also field cutting-edge sensors, radars and countermeasures.

The Soryu subs are so impressive that several nations have approached Tokyo about possible procurements. Morocco, India, Norway, Taiwan, the Netherlands, and Australia have expressed interest in purchasing the submarine-class. While Japan remains the only country today to field these impressive boats, future deals could permit the Soryu ships to sail for other nations down the line. 

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The F-16s Ukraine is getting are likely to be used conservatively, primarily for air defense roles such as shooting down missiles, drones, and enemy aircraft rather than engaging directly with Russian ground forces.

-Due to the threat posed by advanced Russian air defense systems, Ukrainian pilots may avoid using these aircraft in the most dangerous combat zones.

While more F-16s are expected to arrive from NATO countries like Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway, these deliveries will take years. Therefore, the impact of the F-16s on the -conflict may be limited in the short term, contrary to the high expectations set by Ukrainian officials.

After months of lobbying, Ukraine has finally received their first batch of F-16 fighters, which Zelensky’s government believes are crucial in pushing back against the Russian invasion.

“Ukraine has been pushing its Western allies for F-16s for Ukraine for months,” the AP reported, “saying they were critically needed to fight back against the onslaught of missiles Russia has fired against it.”

The US had been hesitant to supply F-16s to the Ukrainians for fear that gifting fourth-generation fighters would further escalate the war, which is now in year three. But Zelensky, who has proven an effective advocate for his country’s security, has continued to press NATO allies for all variety of weaponry.

Zelensky was in Washington earlier this month, urging lawmakers to “remove all limitations on how Western-provided weapons are used,” the AP reported, “specifically allowing Ukraine to fire Western-provided weapons against an expanded set of Russian targets.”

President Joe Biden relented, authorizing the delivery of the F-16s. Exactly how many F-16s were delivered to Ukraine, and from which NATO member the F-16 was delivered, is not clear; the Ukrainian government hasn’t even confirmed the receipt of the single-engine fighters.

But the F-16s have arrived and will soon see combat above the skies of Ukraine. Whether the F-16s will make a substantial difference in the conflict remains to be seen, but it seems unlikely that the Cold War fighter will offer an immediate panacea for Ukraine’s deficiencies.

Ukrainian officials have said that Ukraine needs at least 130 F-16 fighters to neutralize Russian air power. While the exact number of F-16s sent to Ukraine is unknown, we can assume its far fewer than 130. According to the Washington Post, Ukraine will have far too few F-16s, which will be quite susceptible to advanced Russian air defense systems, meaning the F-16s will probably be used in a conservative manner – “to shoot down aerial targets such as missiles, drones, and aircraft – rather than strike Russia’s invading ground forces and other military assets near the front.” So, the F-16 will be used to boost Ukraine’s air defense systems, which adds value to the war effort, of course – but the F-16 is not going to offer the paradigm shift in the conflict that Zelensky had advertised.

Ukraine can be expected to treat the gifted F-16s, and the pilots who have recently graduated from an intensive F-16 training program, to be treated preciously, preserved from the most dangerous action. “Official have said that the planes, at least initially, are unlikely to fly too close to the front-line fighting, meaning it is unclear they will even be able to deter attacking enemy aircraft from crossing into Ukraine from Russian airspace,” the Washington Post reported.   

More F-16s are likely on the way; NATO members including Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway have vowed to supply Ukraine with 80 F-16s, but their donations will take years, meaning Ukraine will have to use their existing F-16s sparingly in the meantime.

In sum, don’t expect the much-touted F-16s to make a drastic difference in Ukraine’s resistance.

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 F-16 Fighting Falcon, first developed in the 1970s as an air-superiority fighter, has become one of the most widely produced and versatile combat aircraft in history.

-Originally designed with the Energy-Maneuverability Theory to maximize agility, the F-16 has been continuously upgraded with advanced avionics, sensors, and more powerful engines, making it a formidable opponent in modern air combat. With its 11 external hardpoints and advanced radar systems, the F-16 remains highly relevant despite being a fourth-generation fighter.

-As Ukraine receives F-16s from Denmark and the Netherlands, these aircraft are expected to significantly enhance the Ukrainian Air Force's capabilities against Russian forces. 

First conceived in the 1970s as a day air-superiority fighter, the F-16 Fighting Falcon has gone on to become one of the most widely produced combat aircraft ever. The brainchild of Col. John Boyd and the “Fighter Mafia,” the F-16 was designed to maneuver with minimal energy loss. It was the first fighter to take advantage of the new Energy-Maneuverability Theory of dogfighting. 

From these beginnings, the F-16 has been progressively upgraded, gaining Beyond Visual Range capabilities, improved sensors and avionics, and more powerful engines. The jet can remain in the air longer than enemy near-peers due to its superior combat radius. 

Older F-16 variants feature nine hardpoints for weapon payloads and can carry the AIM-9 Sidewinder, Raytheon AMRAAM, Raytheon Sparrow, and other air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles.

Many nations outside the U.S. recognize the value of the F-16 – there are over 30 current, former, and future operators. F-16s headed to Ukraine now are being supplied by Denmark and the Netherlands. 

Stealth aircraft are the future but there is still a place for non-stealthy, fourth-generation fighters. Modern stealth fighter aircraft are relatively limited in their payload, since they must carry weapons internally to maintain a small radar cross section. By contrast, modern F-16s have 11 external hardpoints. The inclusion of the AN/APG-80 AESA radar and IRST give upgraded F-16s sensors with capabilities similar to the most modern fighters. 

Currently, the Ukrainian Air Force fights Russia with Soviet-era Su-27s and Mig-29s, compared to Russia’s newer Su-30s and Su-35s. F-16s are at least on par with these aircraft. Opponents of providing F-16s to Ukraine have argued that Russia’s advanced S-400 SAM system would easily outclass these fighters.

But those who applaud the transfer of F-16s point to the platform's potential integration with Western weapons systems. If Western aid continues and provides more advanced weaponry to Ukraine such as the AIM-120 air-to-air missile, it is far easier to equip those weapons on F-16s which have already been approved for their use. Any weapons the U.S. or other supply must be jury-rigged onto Soviet aircraft that were not designed to carry them, which hinders their utility. 

Although F-16s are older, they are still highly capable combat aircraft and, with all their upgrades, very relevant on the modern battlefield. While it’s unlikely they will rapidly shift the tide in the air war over Ukraine, they represent a valuable asset that strengthens Ukraine’s overall position and gives them much room to grow. 

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

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The United States has provided over $56 billion in military aid to Ukraine, including $55.4 billion since Russia's large-scale invasion in February 2022. This support has focused heavily on artillery, with the U.S. sending more than 200 M-777 howitzers, 40 M142 HIMARS systems, and millions of shells, including precision-guided munitions. The U.S. has also supplied Ukraine with 400 million bullets and anti-tank weapons.

-While the U.S. leads in support, key allies have also played vital roles. The U.K. was the first to send main battle tanks and long-range cruise missiles, inspiring similar contributions from Germany and France.

-Germany has also provided critical air defense systems, while a coalition of European nations pushed for the delivery of F-16 fighter jets, which Ukraine recently received. The U.S., along with its allies, continues to provide essential military aid, bolstering Ukraine's defense against Russian aggression.

The United States has committed over $56 billion in military aid to Ukraine over the past four years, including $55.4 billion since the Kremlin launched its large-scale invasion on February 24, 2022. 

A few facts stand out about America’s support of the Ukrainian military. 

Artillery is the king of the battle. Most casualties in the war have been caused by artillery fire. As such, the U.S. has made sure to send guns and shells to Ukraine in bulk. 

Specifically, the Pentagon has sent or committed to sending to Kyiv more than 200 M-777 155 mm howitzers, 72 105 mm howitzers, 40 M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, and close to 4.5 million 203 mm, 155 mm, 152 mm, 130 mm, 122 mm, and 105 mm shells. 

Among these artillery rounds are some specialized munitions like the M982 155 mm Excalibur precision-guided shell, the 155 mm Remote Anti-Armor Mine system, and cluster munitions. The demands of the conflict are high, and the Ukrainian forces need more artillery still. 

When it comes to small arms and anti-tank weapons, the U.S. has provided over 400 million bullets, 40,000 grenade launchers, and approximately 140,000 anti-tank weapons, including FGM-148 Javelins, AT-4s, and Tube-Launched, Optically-Tracked, Wire-Guided missiles. 

By the numbers, America is by far Ukraine’s biggest supporter, but several other countries have provided important security assistance. Sometimes, these countries provide new types of weapons and munitions even before the U.S. 

The United Kingdom was the first to commit main battle tanks to Ukraine. When it committed to sending Challenger 2 MBTs, London broke through a debate among NATO members and inspired Germany to send Leopard MBTs, while the U.S. sent the M1 Abrams. 

Moreover, London was the first to commit long-range cruise missiles to Ukraine (Storm Shadows), which finally allowed for precision strikes against Russian targets deep behind the frontlines. France followed soon thereafter by sending its own SCALP-EG cruise missiles to Ukraine.

In addition, Germany has provided important air defense capabilities to Ukraine. These help defend against countless missile and drone attacks against Ukrainian urban centers and critical infrastructure. Berlin has provided three MIM-104 Patriot and six IRIS-T air defense systems with the necessary munitions and sensors. 

Furthermore, a group of countries including the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway pushed hard for the delivery of F-16 Fighting Falcon fighter jets to the Ukrainian Air Force, despite reservations in the U.S. After many months of debate, Kyiv received its first F-16s this week, with more on the way. 

The U.S. has been leading the international effort to provide Ukraine with the necessary tools to fight Russia’s invasion, but it is lucky to have strong allies and partners in its efforts.

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

All images are Creative Commons or from Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The Ford-class aircraft carriers, like the USS Gerald R. Ford, are the latest nuclear-powered carriers in the U.S. Navy, designed to replace the aging Nimitz-class. Despite advanced technologies like the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG), the Ford-class faces significant challenges.

-Reliability issues with these systems, coupled with untested weapons elevators and jet blast deflectors, raise concerns about their combat effectiveness and high costs.

-With increasing threats from enemy A2/AD capabilities, the Ford-class carriers may struggle to justify their investment.

America’s great love affair with the aircraft carrier continues unabated, with the creation of the Ford-class aircraft carrier. Its namesake, the USS Gerald R. Ford, named after America’s thirty-eighth president, is the latest class of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers in service to the United States Navy. These boats are intended to slowly replace the ten Nimitz-class carriers that have been in operation since the 1970s. The USS Gerald R. Ford was commissioned in 2017.

Ford-class carriers are equipped with two Bechtel A1B nuclear reactors, which provide the ship with an astonishing speed of over 35 miles per hour. This is comparable to the speed of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. For a warship of this size, that is an incredible feat. However, given that the Nimitz-class carriers can do the same—and they’re cheaper to build and maintain than the Ford-class—it begs the question as to why the Navy really needed the Ford-class carriers.

The Navy says that the Ford-class carriers are designed to be more efficient and have a higher sortie generation rate than their Nimitz-class predecessors. The ship’s design allows for a more efficient flow of aircraft, fuel, and ordnance, which helps to increase the number of aircraft that can be launched and recovered in a given time period. 

Yet, the real challenge to U.S. aircraft carriers today, regardless of their class, is enemy anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities that are meant to blunt the power projection capabilities of U.S. aircraft carriers by keeping them outside of the operational range of their air wings (meaning that they are rendered combat ineffective).

The Ford-class carriers are equipped with a bevy of new, advanced technologies meant to augment their operations, including things like the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and the Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG), which are designed to improve the efficiency and safety of aircraft launch and recovery operations. 

A single Ford-class carrier costs more than $13 billion to build. It will cost hundreds of millions of dollars more to maintain over the course of its service. The Navy insists that the maintenance costs for the Ford-class will be lower than those of the older Nimitz-class carriers. 

But that remains very much in doubt. 

Because of the inclusion of so many advanced, and frankly untested, systems supporting the new carrier’s operations, the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) has already faced several issues since its commissioning in 2017. Such issues have increased the cost of the warship and even delayed its entry into service, creating significant strategic gaps in the Navy’s surface fleet disposition and capabilities. 

Some notable problems included reliability issues afflicting the aforementioned EMALS and AAG launch systems. The EMALS has had a failure rate that places it well below expectations and the AAG, designed to catch landing aircraft, has experienced similar reliability issues. This, of course, means that the safety of naval aviators—and their expensive aircraft—is put in significant jeopardy. 

Meanwhile, the Ford-class weapons elevators have malfunctioned more than they have performed as expected. There are eleven advanced weapons elevators (AWEs) meant to rapidly move bombs and missiles from the ship’s magazines to the flight deck. In a heavy firefight, in which the safety of the warship itself was in question—or in which the ship’s airwing was called upon to engage in massive deployments—failure of these AWEs could lead to the destruction of the warship in battle and the defeat of the United States Navy.

Jet Blast Deflectors (JBD) protect the flight deck from the intense heat generated by aircraft engines during takeoff. These systems have struggled with reliability problems, notably regarding their electromechanical actuator subsystems. Again, even without the threat of enemy A2/AD fire damaging the carrier’s critical flight deck, if the deck is not protected from the wear-and-tear of combat operations, it won’t last long in combat, making the carrier a wasting asset. 

Because of these issues, there have been significant cost overruns and delays, prompting many analysts to question whether the investment into the Ford class was even worth the price tag. It likely was not.

There are currently three Ford-class carriers being built, with two more planned for the future. Of those carriers, the USS Gerald R. Ford is actively serving in the fleet, even recently being deployed to the Eastern Mediterranean in response to the horrific Hamas attacks against Israel on October 7, 2023. The USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79), the USS Enterprise (CVN-8), and the USS Doris Miller (CVN-81) are all in the construction pipeline. 

Higher sortie rates, greater technology, and an impressive flanking speed make these carriers appealing to the U.S. Navy. It remains to be seen, however, whether these carriers will overcome the serious—and growing—A2/AD challenge posed by America’s rivals, notably China. 

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?)

The Biden administration and a bicameral, bipartisan majority of Congress are working to promote semiconductor production in the United States. This would be news to the Department of Justice (DOJ), which is opening an investigation into American chip darling Nvidia. Antitrust scrutiny of Nvidia detracts from American efforts to promote economic and national security regarding semiconductor production, undermining the administration’s priorities. Such a course should be abandoned.

The federal government has undertaken two significant efforts to foster investment and security in the American semiconductor industry. One is the CHIPS and Science Act, which allocated $52.7 billion to incentivize companies to produce semiconductors in the United States. Complementing CHIPS, the U.S. Department of Commerce has imposed export controls on advanced semiconductors to prevent foreign adversaries and their domestic firms from acquiring advanced chips. Even with the law’s shortcomings, semiconductor investment has boomed alongside investments in AI.

Yet the DOJ is taking a different approach to the American semiconductor sector. Recent reporting revealed that the DOJ and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will investigate several leading AI companies, including Nvidia. The DOJ has yet to release any information on what prompted the investigation, but there are some clues.

Earlier this year, the FTC’s Office of Technology’s Tech Summit devoted an entire panel to issues related to AI, chips, and cloud computing. U.S., EU, and UK competition enforcers recently signed a joint statement articulating their approach to issues concerning generative AI foundation models and AI products, including specialized chips for AI training, Nvidia’s specialty.

While the Biden administration has enabled a more aggressive approach to antitrust enforcement, particularly in nascent markets, legislative and regulatory action on technology has prioritized promoting domestic production or protecting national security, not expanding antitrust tools. The DOJ’s investigation would undermine its own administration’s priorities to the detriment of American firms, citizens, and sovereignty.

An antitrust investigation of Nvidia would impose costs in the short term and create long-term legal uncertainty. Nvidia is no pauper; it can afford a lawsuit. However, the opportunity cost of litigation should not be ignored. One of the largest beneficiaries of CHIPS funding is Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC). Nvidia is dependent on TSMC for manufacturing key chips. With CHIPS Act projects encountering difficulties, forcing Nvidia to reallocate capital away from designing chips and driving demand for TSMC’s services is counterproductive. Nvidia is already dealing with lost revenue after redesigning chips for the Chinese market to comply with export controls. An antitrust suit is unlikely to be resolved quickly, and while the cost may not be debilitating, the uncertainty and potential risk are detrimental to U.S. priorities.

Further, Nvidia’s strength comes from its market-leading product offerings, but it is not guaranteed that its dominance will continue. Nvidia was already dealt an antitrust blow when the FTC blocked the firm’s attempted acquisition of AMD, a competing semiconductor design firm. The FTC’s move proved prescient, as AMD is now gunning for Nvidia’s silicon crown. Big tech companies that are building custom chips to create alternatives to Nvidia present another challenge. One cannot ignore Intel; the legacy chipmaker was awarded nearly $20 billion through the CHIPS Act and now argues that Nvidia should watch the throne. 

Beyond hardware, Nvidia is also facing challenges to its integrated software stack. The open-sourcing of Pytorch 2.0, a software library that helps engineers avoid using Nvidia’s proprietary software language when working with its hardware, could lower barriers to entry and switching costs for AI developers and deployers. Another challenge comes from a group creating standards for interconnect in AI chips, the technology which links together multiple servers to power cutting-edge AI applications. Nvidia is absent from this group, which is spearheaded by the company’s competitors and some of its largest customers. Firms are responding to market realities by promoting interoperability and open standards to spur competition and innovation.

The Biden administration and Congress have enacted a plan to expand domestic semiconductor manufacturing capacity, flawed as it may be. A DOJ antitrust investigation into Nvidia undermines such efforts by targeting a critical component of America’s advanced semiconductor sector. The administration’s inability to order policy preferences and promote a predictable regulatory environment is a self-inflicted error. The DOJ should reconsider its investigation or at least refresh itself on the administration’s priorities next time. 

Joshua Levine is the Manager for Technology Policy at the Foundation for American Innovation.

Image: JamesonWu1972 / Shutterstock.com.

Detaining UN and NGO workers, intensifying attacks on global shipping, and earning the ire of regional and global powers. Are these the behaviors of a state acting out of desperation or the machinations of non-state actors consolidating power and flexing unchecked local military prowess? This is precisely the question being debated by analysts regarding the actions of the Houthi rebel movement in Yemen.

Over the past month, militias affiliated with the Houthis have increased attacks on Red Sea shipping, launched increasingly deadly drone attacks toward Israel, and detained more than fifty Yemenis working with foreign organizations. These were the immediate reactions to a recent financial crisis precipitated by the closure of the Central Bank in Sana’a, which has placed additional obstacles to currency transfers and civil servant salaries in Houthi-held territory in northern Yemen. The liquidity of the bifurcated Central Bank, with its other branch in Aden, had been maintained by Saudi financing since the onset of the conflict in 2015, affording the kingdom a degree of leverage over the Sana’a-based Houthi government. Irregular payments to public sector salaries in Sana’a, a consequence of periodic economic sanctions and continued restrictions, have long contributed to the decline of healthcare, sanitation, and other services across the country.

The decision to escalate the Red Sea crisis might be an act of revenge against the United States and Saudi Arabia for targeting Houthi military and financial capabilities. However, the Houthis might instead be perceiving the closure of the Sana’a Central Bank as Saudi Arabia abandoning the last form of leverage over the Houthi territory. After initially hedging their bets, the Houthis appear to have shifted almost entirely toward the Iranian camp, assuming that Iran and its allies can guarantee future state finances. Rather than pursue reconciliation with the internationally recognized government in Aden, the Houthi leadership has sought to isolate itself from the region further.

The Bab al-Mandeb Strait, the southern gate to the Red Sea, has historically been a source of global commerce and prosperity for states in South Arabia. Not only have the Houthis neglected this territorial treasure, but they have transformed it into Bab al-Mawt, or the gates of death, for shipping companies daring to cross the waters approximate to Yemeni territory. On June 12, the Houthis claimed their first successful drone boat attack against a Greek-owned carrier on the coast of Yemen. This has only encouraged a precipitous increase in the number of attacks, further threatening commercial shipping in the Red Sea region.

The proverbial gates were also closed to international organizations previously operating in Sana’a and its environs. Yemeni staff affiliated with the World Food Program, the National Democratic Institute, and others were spuriously charged with espionage and arrested, effectively closing one of the world’s last remaining windows into an increasingly isolated society. The innocuous gathering of population statistics and the coordination of foreign humanitarian aid were depicted by Houthi media as malicious intelligence gathering and as attempts to subvert government control.

These policy directions are typical of other Iranian proxies around the region, especially Hezbollah and Hamas, who have prioritized self-interested short-term destruction of society rather than focus on long-term development. In a country often dubbed as the greatest manmade humanitarian crisis, the Houthis have consolidated their political power at the expense of exacerbating the suffering of the country’s population. They have done so by drawing Yemen into a regional conflict with Israel and moving the country closer to Iran, making it difficult for Saudi Arabia and Yemeni opposition parties to reconvene the negotiations that appeared on the verge of ending the conflict as late as September 2023.

Rather than weaken the Houthi government, aerial bombing of Houthi military targets by American and British aircraft has only inflated the Houthi sense of self-prominence in regional affairs. What was once an empty slogan of “Death to American! Death to Israel!” has become an actionable policy. Furthermore, allied forces can’t hope to win a war from the air, especially against an enemy terrain well-known for its mountainous caverns that traverse the northern highlands of the country. 

This same terrain withstood centuries of Ottoman imperial wars, five years of intensive Egyptian bombing raids during the 1960s, and, most recently, a 2015 Saudi bombing campaign and blockade. The Houthi militias that fought the Saudis to a standstill and descended from the same tribes that clashed with the Ottomans and the Egyptians know well the futility of aerial campaigns. Accordingly, they are prepared to wait out the conflict in perpetuity. If the Biden administration is hoping to outlast the Houthis in a war of attrition, then they have already lost. While the Houthis have the luxury of time, the Biden administration is under pressure to “solve” the Yemen crisis before November.

After nearly a decade of civil war, a conflict that international interests have overrun is no closer to being solved than it was in 2014. If anything, the opposing sides have become even more entrenched, with the Houthis isolating themselves and their population from the outside world. The war in Yemen will not be solved by external actors forcing a particular model on the country but ultimately by Yemeni groups themselves. 

Unfortunately for the region and the Yemeni people, it looks as if the Houthis have garnered sufficient legitimacy and internal support to declare sole political control over the northern regions of the country. It remains, however, unlikely that Houthi governance could spread to the southern regions surrounding Aden or the eastern regions of Hadramawt. A potential outcome for Yemen remains a federalist state with at least three distinct regions, ultimately granting the Houthis a degree of autonomy in the north while dividing power up in the rest of the country. The international community must work to sever Iranian support for the group and force the Houthi leadership to assume responsibility for its own citizens and abandon extremist ideology in exchange for non-Iranian international support.

Asher Orkaby is a research fellow in Near Eastern Studies at Harvard University and the author of Beyond the Arab Cold War: The International History of the Yemen Civil War, 1962–68, published by Oxford University Press. Follow him on X: @AsherOrkaby.

Image: MhmdArt / Shutterstock.com.