Diplomacy & Crisis News

Former President Donald Trump has said little about what he might do on nuclear weapons policy if he gets back into the White House. This is surprising for someone who spent so much time talking about the bomb when he was in office. But if we look at his past policies and what he and his allies are saying, we can get a pretty good idea about what he might do. And it is not a pretty picture.

While in office, Trump threatened to “totally destroy” North Korea and then tried (and failed) to get a nuclear deal with its leader, Kim Jong Un. Trump walked away from a successful deal with Iran, only to see Tehran then accelerate its nuclear program. He withdrew from one arms control treaty with Russia and then refused to extend another. He considered resuming US nuclear testing, which would have violated yet another global pact. In short, Trump did on nuclear policy what he did on so much else: create chaos and undermine the rule of law.

With four more years, Trump could do even more damage, wreaking havoc on an already weakened network of treaties and agreements that have reduced the risk of nuclear proliferation and war.

Reagan’s “Star Wars” Dream

In his speech at the GOP convention, Trump had just one clear proposal related to nuclear policy: “We will replenish our military and build an Iron Dome missile defense system to ensure that no enemy can strike our homeland.” Short on details, this looks like a throwback to former President Ronald Reagan’s 1983 proposal—called the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) and derided as “Star Wars”—to build a system of space- and ground-based interceptors to make nuclear weapons “impotent and obsolete.” It made for great slogans, but after forty years and some $400 billion, the technology is still not up to the challenge. Israel’s Iron Dome system has had success because it has a limited mission: defend a small country (the size of New Jersey) from short-range missiles. But if you try to scale that up and cover a country the size of the United States against hundreds of Russian and Chinese long-range missiles, it just won’t work.

But it could set off a new nuclear arms race. If Moscow and Beijing take Trump’s plans seriously, their likely response would be to build hundreds of additional nuclear-armed missiles to overwhelm the new defense.

New Arms Race

Trump might provoke a new arms competition even without his Iron Dome on steroids. Robert O’Brien, Trump’s last national security advisor (2019-2021), wrote a recent article in Foreign Affairs calling for the United States, “to maintain technical and numerical superiority to the combined Chinese and Russian nuclear stockpiles.” The idea here, popular among conservatives at the Heritage Foundation and Project 2025, including Christopher Miller, Trump’s last defense secretary, is that Washington needs to have more nuclear weapons than Moscow and Beijing combined.

This is a terrible idea. Firstly, there is every reason to believe that Russia and China are already deterred from attacking the United States based on the current arsenal we have, which is about 3,748 nuclear weapons. Building more than we need is a waste of money. Second, guess what Moscow and Beijing will do if Washington suddenly builds more bombs? They will do the same, and we will be worse off since we will now be in the middle of a race for ever more deadly nuclear arms. Third, a US buildup would doom any chances of saving the US-Russian arms reduction process. The last remaining treaty, New START, expires in 2026 and unless we replace it there will be no legal limits on US and Russian warheads for the first time in fifty years.

Nuclear Testing

In the same article, former national security advisor O’Brien also writes that “Washington must test new nuclear weapons for reliability and safety in the real world for the first time since 1992—not just by using computer models.” The United States ended nuclear testing three decades ago (under President George H.W. Bush) and then signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996, banning all nuclear tests. Washington has conducted more nuclear tests (1,030) than all other nations combined. As long as the United States does not develop new types of nuclear weapons it has no need to test. But if we resume testing other nations would too, like Russia and China, and Beijing has only conducted forty-five tests. Imagine how much China could learn if Trump gives it an excuse to resume testing? The only state in the world today that is still conducting nuclear tests in North Korea (six tests); we should be pressuring Pyongyang to stop, not reopening this Pandora’s box.

Whoever wins in November, the next president will make decisions that could reshape US and global nuclear policy for decades to come. Under Trump, we could see billions spent on ineffective long-range missile defenses, the end of arms control the start of a new nuclear arms race, and new nuclear testing. All of this would make the world a more dangerous place and increase the risk of nuclear conflict. If Trump wins, get ready for a wild ride.

About the Author: Tom Z. Collina 

Tom Z. Collina is a national security expert and award-winning author. He is the former Director of Policy at Ploughshares Fund and an author, with former Defense Secretary William Perry, of “The Button: The New Nuclear Arms Race and Presidential Power from Truman to Trump.”

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Washington has switched from economic offense to defense.

As a matter of practice, military contractors have overcharged the Pentagon for years—at the expense of both taxpayers and the military.

However, several members of Congress are working to end the practice. Last year, Senators Warren (D-MA), Braun (R-IN), and Grassley (R-IA) teamed up with Reps. Garamendi (D-CA) and Deluzio (D-PA) to introduce legislation that will address the legal loopholes that enable military price gouging.

Acquisition experts understand these loopholes well, but unfortunately, most lawmakers are still unaware of how common it is for contractors to overcharge the military. Without a better understanding of the true scale of military price gouging, Congress is unlikely to pass legislation to prevent it.

That’s why Congress should include in the final FY 2025 defense policy bill Rep. Doggett’s (D-TX) provision to investigate potential overcharging by sole-source suppliers of military products and services. Due to unchallenged market power, sole-source contractors are well positioned to profiteer. Doggett’s provision would establish a panel to review sole-source military contracts and “determine whether the Department of Defense paid fair and reasonable prices.” By focusing on sole-source contracts, the panel would shine much-needed light on the issue of military price gouging writ large, the scale of which is near impossible to discern because so much of it is legal.

Over the course of decades, military contractors have consolidated and harnessed market power to slowly obscure military price gouging. Industry consolidation began when the Cold War ended, and the Clinton administration slashed defense spending. However, as Richard Loeb—former Executive Secretary and Counsel of the Cost Accounting Standards Board in the Office of Management and Budget—has pointed out, the administration simultaneously catalyzed an era of “acquisition reform” to protect contractor profits even as defense spending plummeted and the number of prime military contractors shrank from over fifty to just five. Merger mania has continued, further concentrating market power among the few. Military contractors wield that power on Capitol Hill, lobbying Congress to gradually chip away at acquisition laws designed to protect the government from unfair pricing schemes on military contracts. In so doing, lawmakers have left the Pentagon in the dark about contract negotiations with the defense industry.

Acquisition reform and industry consolidation have helped contractors overbill the military in pursuit of excess profits. As a result, military contractors have overcharged the Pentagon to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars on a single program, generating nearly 40 percent in excess profits. Indeed, a CBS investigation last year revealed that the Pentagon saved $550 million on the Patriot PAC-3 missile after conducting a 2015 cost review of Lockheed Martin and Boeing’s previous work on the program. Both contractors are repeat offenders, and they have long been among the top five prime contractors dominating the defense industry. The Pentagon’s internal watchdog exposed Boeing for inflating prices on spare parts in 2013 and 2011. In one case, the company charged over 177,000 percent above the fair and reasonable price for a helicopter spare part—$71.01 for a tiny metal pin worth 4 cents at the time. The trend continues. Just last month, two Lockheed subsidiaries agreed to a $70 million settlement with the Navy for doing the same thing—inflating prices on spare parts.

The Pentagon can’t negotiate reasonable prices with military contractors because it doesn’t have sufficient bargaining power. Contractors are often exempt from providing the Pentagon with “certified cost or pricing data.” Without this information, the Pentagon has little idea what companies’ costs are and, thus, what their profit margins might look like. Contracts may be valued below the mandatory disclosure threshold. Contractors may also produce a product that’s considered commercial—and theoretically, price competitive. However, the statutory definition of “commercial” is overly broad, encompassing products that aren’t sold to the public and sometimes never have been. Lawmakers expanded the commercial definition and raised the mandatory disclosure threshold for certified data at the behest of industry and under the guise of cutting red tape.

Without legal requirements for certified data, the Pentagon may ask contractors for historic or uncertified cost and pricing data. Yet, the Pentagon has few tools to ensure that this data meets requisite standards; among them, that they include “the minimum information necessary to permit a determination that the proposed price is fair and reasonable.” According to the Pentagon, current statutory and regulatory requirements discourage officials from requesting uncertified data. Instead, contracting officers often rely on historical cost and pricing data. Still, according to the Pentagon Inspector General, the department cannot evaluate price reasonableness “based solely on historical price comparison.” This is particularly concerning given the watchdog’s extensive analysis of contract pricing in recent years, which shows that price analysis methods like historical cost comparison enable “sole source contractors to earn excess profits without detection by contracting officers.” Effectively, military contractors can provide the Pentagon with any cost figures without consequence—even if they give zero indication of how reasonable current prices are. In other words, contractors can price gouge the military legally, likely under the government’s radar.

Still, the defense industry appears to resist almost any attempt by the Pentagon to evaluate contract price reasonableness. “Sweeping” is a process through which contractors overwhelm the Pentagon with cost and pricing data that was “reasonably available at the time of price agreement” but submitted after the fact. According to Senator Warren, contractors often sweep the Pentagon after price agreements and before contract awards to absolve themselves of the liabilities associated with breaking acquisition law and potentially “to hide data that might give the [Pentagon] a better price.” In other cases, contractors outright refuse to provide the Pentagon cost and pricing data, claim they can’t share it, or delay the provision of such data to the extent that the Pentagon may blindly agree to a contract price due to time sensitivity. So, the Pentagon doesn’t just struggle to obtain certified cost and pricing data. It’s a challenge to get any cost and pricing data—even from sole-source contractors, which are relatively uninhibited by the forces driving price competition.

The Pentagon has admitted that data denials “may be more prevalent [than reported], particularly with respect to sole source commercial items.” This is especially nefarious in a market that looks like a monopsony but operates like a monopoly, where sole-source contractors reign as kings. They have a documented history of refusing to provide even uncertified cost and pricing information. Since 1998, the Pentagon’s Inspector General has published several reports detailing data denials by sole-source contractors. TransDigm, Inc. is the most recent example and perhaps the most notorious. According to the Pentagon, the company “accounted for all Defense Logistics Agency cost and pricing data denials” in FY 2022. The company failed to respond to 401 requests for cost and pricing data from the agency, and that was after the Pentagon Inspector General exposed TransDigm for twice price gouging the Pentagon. The contractor generated a total of nearly $40 million in excess profits.

Ultimately, withholding cost and pricing data bolsters a contractor’s ability to increase profits by charging the Pentagon unfair and unreasonable prices. However, the defense industry already significantly outperforms other industries financially, and this is not just because the United States spends over a trillion dollars annually on national security. In many cases, the Pentagon reimburses contractors for research and development costs. It will even cover some capital costs, including those associated with the depreciation of assets like machinery and equipment. As a result, military contractors enjoy returns on assets and invested capital that are difficult to achieve in other industries where companies make those investments themselves. Still, military contractors leverage special treatment from the government to increase executive compensation and cash paid to shareholders, even at the expense of capital investment and internal research and development.

If the defense industry continues to consolidate, it will only get harder for the Pentagon to negotiate fair prices with military contractors. The department will have to rely on more and more sole-source contractors, which not only increases the risk of overcharging but also presents national security risks,  like supply chain vulnerability and reduced availability of certain resources. The entire nuclear triad is already dependent on one company, Northrop Grumman. As far as U.S. contractors go, General Dynamics manufactures a significant portion of tracked combat vehicles. Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman produce the military’s fixed-wing aircraft. The distillation of the defense industry to a handful of companies bodes poorly for both the military and taxpayer because it produces waste, not to mention a strong profit incentive for war.

As the defense industry’s primary customer and a steward of taxpayer dollars, the Pentagon needs to be a stronger buyer. However, never-ending acquisition reform continues to prevent that. Current laws are insufficient even to document price gouging by military contractors, much less prevent or remedy it. If retained in the final defense policy bill, Rep. Doggett’s provision would help the Pentagon better understand the scope of overcharging by sole source contractors—and ultimately, give lawmakers the information they need to hold industry accountable for overcharging the government at the expense of the taxpayer.

Julia Gledhill is a Research Associate for the National Security Reform Program at The Stimson Center. She focuses her research and writing on Pentagon spending, military contracting, and acquisition. In previous roles at the Project On Government Oversight and the Friends Committee on National Legislation, Julia worked on various national security issues related to Pentagon accountability, war powers, civilian protection, drone policy, the torture program, and U.S. lethal strikes.

Image: Mehmet Ali Poyraz / Shutterstock.com.

Summary and Key Points: The USS Florida (SSGN-78), an Ohio-class guided-missile submarine, recently completed a record-breaking 727-day deployment across the 5th, 6th, and 7th Fleet areas of operations, returning to Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Georgia.

-The submarine, one of four Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines converted to carry conventional cruise missiles, operated with two alternating crews, maximizing its strategic availability.

-Over the deployment, the USS Florida conducted vital national security missions, traveling over 60,000 nautical miles and visiting ports in Greece, Guam, Diego Garcia, and the United Kingdom. Despite the SSGNs' proven capabilities, the U.S. Navy plans to retire these submarines between 2026 and 2028.

The Ohio-Class SSGN Submarines are Like No Other in the U.S. Navy

Life on a submarine is likely never easy, which is why the United States Navy's Ohio-class boats are assigned two crews that allow the subs to increase their deployments and average sixty-six percent of their time at sea. The Ohio-class guided-missile submarine USS Florida (SSGN-78) recently completed a 727-day deployment to the 5th, 6th, and 7th fleet areas of operations, the United States Navy announced Wednesday.

The Ohio-Class SSGN returned to Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Georgia, late last month.

SSGN-78, one of the four Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) converted to an SSGN, was assigned to Commander, Submarine Group Ten, and began her deployment in August 2022. Over the past two years, the boat conducted five crew swaps. According to the U.S. Navy, employing two crews – each with its own captain – maximizes the "strategic availability, reduces the number of submarines required to meet strategic requirements, and allows for proper crew training, readiness, and morale."

"We have demonstrated the versatility of the SSGN platform to operate anywhere at any time," said Capt. Peter French, blue crew commanding officer. "We operated in several different oceans. It's very uncommon for East Coast submarines to deploy to the West Coast, but we managed to do an exceptional job completing the mission."

Ohio-Class: Conversion of the SSBNs to SSGNs

The Ohio-class SSBNs were developed to serve as a virtually undetectable undersea launch platform for the U.S. military's intercontinental missiles, and the boats became a key component of America's nuclear triad during President Ronald Reagan's time in office.

As the largest subs ever constructed for the U.S. Navy, and the third-largest submarine ever built, the boats were designed to carry the concurrently developed Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles. A total of eighteen of the Ohio-class submarines were constructed by the Electric Boat Division of General Dynamics between 1981 and 1997.

According to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START II), which was agreed in June 1992, the number of U.S. Navy strategic missile submarines was limited to fourteen beginning in 2002. Rather than simply phasing out or decommissioning four of the boats, the U.S. Navy opted to convert them to conventionally armed nuclear-powered cruise missile submarines (SSGNs).

Electric Boat was awarded a contract in September 2002 to convert the four oldest of the class including USS Ohio (SSBN-726), Michigan (SSBN-727), Florida (SSBN-728), and Georgia (SSBN-729); and each of those boats were refitted with vertical launching systems, which allow the submarines to carry up to 154 Tomahawk TLAM (land attack) or Tactical Tomahawk (block IV) missiles. According to Naval Technology, the conversion also allowed the nuclear-powered SSGNs to deploy special operations forces via Northrop Grumman's Advanced SEAL Delivery System (ASDS), while the boats were also fitted with a mission control center. The modifications required converting two of the twenty-four vertical payload tubes into a lockout, which could be used by special operators such as the Navy SEALs.

The SSGN Program Office was able to refuel and convert the four ballistic missile subs (SSBN) to SSGNs in just over five years, and more importantly for U.S. taxpayers for considerably less cost and at less time than it would take to build a new platform. All four of the vessels had completed their conversion by December 2007.

Despite the proven capabilities of the SSGNs, the U.S. Navy has announced plans to retire the four converted Ohio-class boats between 2026 and 2028.

Recent Deployment of SSGN-728

Exactly where SSGN spent her time at sea hasn't been disclosed, but the U.S. Navy only confirmed, "The crews conducted vital missions crucial to national security, enhancing operational capabilities and reinforcing deterrence effort, while traveling more than 60,000 nautical miles. The crews also had the opportunity to visit Greece, Guam, Diego Garcia, and the United Kingdom, as part of routine port calls."

At a media round table that included international military analyst firm Janes on July 25, Captain French praised the SSGN's "unprecedented strike capability," and acknowledged that "Missions change depending on what the combatant commander needs day to day."

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. 

Summary and Key Points: The A-12 Oxcart, predecessor to the famed SR-71 Blackbird, was a groundbreaking reconnaissance aircraft developed by Lockheed's Skunk Works in the late 1950s.

-Designed to gather intelligence at speeds up to Mach 3.5 and altitudes of 90,000 feet, the A-12 was faster and flew higher than its successor.

-Despite its impressive capabilities, the A-12's operational history was brief. It primarily served in Vietnam and played a crucial role during the USS Pueblo incident.

-The A-12 was retired in 1968 after just a year of service, overshadowed by the SR-71, which went on to become the more well-known aircraft. Today, the remaining A-12s are displayed in museums across the United States.

Meet the A-12 Oxcart: The SR-71’s Faster, Higher-Flying Predecessor

Aviation enthusiasts know the SR-71 Blackbird, America’s lightning-fast reconnaissance plane. They are not as familiar with its predecessor, the A-12 Oxcart. Despite its plodding name, the Oxcart could fly faster and higher than the Blackbird.

The Origin Story of the A-12

The U.S. in the 1950s was locked in a military-technological race with the Soviet Union and wanted every scrap of information it could source from behind the Iron Curtain. The U-2 spy plane, capable of flight above 70,000 feet, offered the first real look deep inside Soviet territory. 

But the high-flying U-2 was vulnerable to technological developments in surface-to-air missiles. After failed attempts to reduce the radar cross section of the U-2, designers at Lockheed met with the CIA and agreed to produce another reconnaissance aircraft. 

Skunk Works, the secretive Lockheed division dedicated to highly classified equipment for government programs, got to work. Lockheed had to compete with Convair’s Kingfish design, which incorporated a number of stealthy features. But the success of the U-2 program contrasted with Convair’s struggles with the B-58 Hustler. This swayed the CIA to select Lockheed’s design, the A-12.

Specs and Capabilities

The A-12 is visually similar to its better-known successor, the SR-71. It has a long fuselage with hard chines and blended delta wings topped by two inward-canted vertical stabilizers. The Oxcart is smaller than the SR-71 and has only one crewmember. Reports differ, but Lockheed has said it was designed to fly at 90,000 feet and Mach 3.5 – higher and faster than the Blackbird. 

Development began in the late 1950s, but the Oxcart wasn’t operational until 1967. The process was so drawn out in part because new technologies and materials were needed to support this ambitious aircraft. The platform made heavy use of titanium, and few companies had experience working with that material. Other advances in radar absorbing materials were included in the A-12, making it more stealthy.

Operations and Retirement of the A-12

The Oxcart was designed to spy on the Soviet Union, but after the loss of Gary Powers’ U-2 in 1960, seven years before the A-12 entered service, leaders deemed these missions too risky. Instead, the A-12’s first missions were over Vietnam. 

The A-12 program was actually canceled in 1966, before its missions over Vietnam even began. The aircraft flew for about a year in that theater. Perhaps its most significant contributions came during the USS Pueblo incident, when a Navy intelligence ship was captured by North Korea. A-12s dispatched to the region were able to locate and identify where Pueblo was being held. 

In June of 1968, the A-12 was retired. At that point, the SR-71 was operational and would go on to steal the spotlight. The nine remaining A-12s were placed into storage and eventually loaned out to museums across the country, where they can be viewed today. 

About the Author: Maya Carlin 

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

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Evan Gershkovich, Paul Whelan, and 14 others are freed from Russian detention in historic multicountry deal.

Summary and Key Points: Some Russian commentators, fueled by nationalist rhetoric, have continued to suggest that Alaska should be returned to Russia, despite the fact that the territory was legally purchased by the United States in 1867.

-This notion has resurfaced recently, with propagandist Olga Skabeyeva and Russian lawmakers like Oleg Matveychev calling for Alaska's return. However, these claims are entirely baseless, as Alaska was sold to the U.S. for $7.2 million in a legitimate transaction.

-The deal, initially criticized in the U.S. as "Seward's Folly," proved valuable after the discovery of gold and later, oil. American officials, including Alaska's Governor Mike Dunleavy, have dismissed these Russian claims with strong opposition.

Russian Commentators Can't Accept that Moscow Will Never Get Alaska Back

There is a common misconception that the United States was largely "stolen" from indigenous people. It's actually quite complicated because while it is true that someone was there before the European and later American settlers arrived, the U.S. was largely purchased.

Much of the land west of the Mississippi River was acquired from France as the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, and while it didn't include parts of what was then Spanish-America, the United States did later pay Mexico for the territory obtained after the Mexican-American War (1846-48). Additional land in what is today Arizona and New Mexico was acquired via the Gadsden Purchase in 1853. The United States also bought the Danish West Indies in 1917, with the islands now today the U.S. Virgin Islands.

All this is important to note, because few (if anyone) in Paris or Copenhagen ever called for the land back – and while there have been calls from some Mexicans who have suggested the Treaty of Guadalupe be annulled, no one takes it the least bit seriously.

Yet, in Moscow, there remain critics who seriously believe Alaska should be returned to Russia, along with other territory that was once controlled by the Czars. The latest was propagandist Olga Skabeyeva, who on Sunday's broadcast of the Russia-1 news program 60 Minutes described the 49th American state as "our Alaska" while discussing the recent joint Russian-Chinese deployment of bombers with the Alaska Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ).

Skabeyeva must have missed the memo that Russian North America as it was known was sold to the United States in 1867. This wasn't the first time that Russian pundits on state TV have suggested that Alaska and other historic lands should be returned to Moscow's control.

Russian Lawmakers Have Called for Alaska's Return

It was two years ago that Oleg Matveychev, a member of the Russian Duma, called for reparations from the United States that included the return of Alaska as well as a historic settlement in California. Both Alaska and Fort Ross in California were once part of the Russian Empire in the late 18th and 19th centuries before being sold to the United States.

Matveychev's argument was clearly in line with that of Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin, who had attempted to justify Russia's domination over Ukraine by suggesting the land was once controlled by Moscow.

Of course, any suggestion of a return of Alaska to Russia is entirely without merit. The 49th State wasn't acquired by the United States via conquest or even annexation. It was sold by Russia to the United States for $7.2 million – roughly two cents per acre – in March 1867. It gave the United States 375 million more acres of land, and was the third-largest land deal in history, after the 1803 Louisiana Purchase from France – the second-largest land deal – provided an additional 512 million additional acres.

For the record, the largest "land deal" was really a treaty without money changing lands. The 1494 Treaty of Tordesillas essentially split the lands outside Europe between Spain and Portugal, then the world's largest superpowers. Spain seems to have gotten the better deal, gaining control of much of modern-day Latin America – but Portugal was granted lands in Africa and the Far East.

Russia Was Also an Eager Seller of Alaska

As for the sale of Alaska, the deal had taken some time to work out, and Russia could only be described at the time as an "eager seller."

Fearing another war with Great Britain, Russia first approached the United States about selling the territory during the administration of President James Buchanan, but negotiations were stalled by the outbreak of the Civil War. Russia feared if war came with Britain it would be unable to defend the distant territory, which bordered British Columbia, and it also sought to bolster its struggling finances.

The deal was closed after the American Civil War, but many Americans thought it was a wasteful investment.

Critics of the deal called it "Seward's Folly" or "Seward's Icebox" as the Treaty with Russia was negotiated and signed by Secretary of State William Seward and Russian Minister to the United States Edouard de Stoeckl.

Those opposed saw it as little more than a frozen tundra that offered few prospects for settlers. It should be remembered that at the time the "American frontier" was still ripe with opportunity, and few saw a need for land that most would never venture to.

That sentiment changed when gold was discovered in 1898, and today Alaska is a major provider of domestic oil. It is clear that Russia may have negotiated a bad deal (at least for them) in selling the territory, which could explain why they want it back. Yet, even the suggestion of Russian claims over Alaska has been met with strong words from U.S. lawmakers.

"Good luck with that! Not if we have something to say about it. We have hundreds of thousands of armed Alaskans and military members that will see it differently," tweeted Alaska's Republican Governor Mike Dunleavy (@GovDunleavy) in 2022 when Matveychev's claims were first made.

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 and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The Seawolf-class submarines are among the most advanced and formidable in the U.S. Navy, designed during the Cold War to counter Soviet submarine threats.

-These submarines are equipped with pump-jet propulsors, allowing them to operate quietly at high speeds, with a flank speed of 25 knots (35 mph).

-The Seawolf class excels in stealth, making it nearly undetectable by enemy sonar, and it is armed with advanced weapons systems.

-However, only three of these submarines were ever built due to budget constraints. The recent accident involving the USS Connecticut has left the U.S. Navy with just two operational -Seawolf-class submarines, highlighting the limited availability of these critical assets.

The Seawolf-class Submarines are Wicked Fast

America’s Seawolf-class submarines are some of the most advanced subs in the world. They were built to counter the advancing Soviet submarine threat during the last decade of the Cold War. 

While all submarines are meant for covert, undersea warfare, some are better at the covert part than others. The Seawolf class is the best of all. 

Not only can it stealthily deliver special forces operators to a distant target, but it can quietly tap into undersea communications cables.

These subs come equipped with a feature known as a pump-jet propulsor, which uses a ducted propeller to generate thrust. This design allows for quieter operation and higher speeds compared to traditional propeller systems on lesser classes of submarine.

Flank Speed for Seawolf-Class Submarine 

Seawolf-class submarines can travel at 25 knots (around 35 miles per hour) using what is known as “flank speed.” This speed setting on the Seawolf-class submarine refers to the maximum power setting for the propulsion system. 

While at flank speed, the Seawolf class can quickly respond to threats, evade enemy vessels, and carry out missions including intelligence-gathering, surveillance, and reconnaissance.

In addition to their high speed, Seawolf-class submarines are designed to be extremely quiet, making them difficult to detect by enemy sonar systems. This combination of speed and stealth makes the Seawolf-class sub a unique and frightening foe in the underwater domain.

Seawolf-class submarines have a submerged displacement of 9,137 tons (12,139 tons for USS Jimmy Carter, which is a specialized variant of the Seawolf-class), and a length of approximately 353 feet. They are equipped with advanced sonar systems, such as the AN/BSY-2, which is considered one of the most advanced sonar systems in the world. 

Seawolf-class submarines have eight 26.5-inch torpedo tubes, which can be used to launch a variety of weapons including Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles, Harpoon anti-ship missiles, and Mk 48 guided torpedoes. 

When Three Just Aren’t Enough

Sadly, there are only three submarines in the Seawolf class. 

Originally, the Navy envisioned a fleet of 29. Budgetary constraints, technical complications, and the lack of a near-peer rival at the time of their development kept the numbers low and left the submarines overworked. 

A Crisis at Sea: the Connecticut Tragedy 

One of these submarines, USS Connecticut, crashed into an undersea mountain while on a mission off the coast of Hainan Island in the South China Sea. 

The submarine tore up its front and had to go limping back to port, where it will remain under repair until at least next September. Given the state of American shipyards, it could well be out of commission even longer.

Thus, the U.S. Navy now has only two of these essential subs at its disposal, all as the world system spins wildly out-of-control. 

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

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

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

From the Vault

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

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

Les nouvelles routes de la soie passent par l'Albanie, le Monténégro, jusqu'en Slovénie. Mais c'est avec Belgrade que Pékin a noué les liens les plus étroits, sur la base d'une amitié née en 1999, sous les bombes américaines qui détruisaient l'ambassade chinoise de l'ex-capitale yougoslave. Aujourd'hui, (...) / Balkans, République fédérale de Yougoslavie 1992-2003, Chine, Économie, Commerce, Serbie - 2024/08

Summary and Key Points: The Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov has long been a source of disappointment for Russian naval strategists, plagued by a series of mechanical issues, most notably its inefficient and environmentally harmful mazut-fueled propulsion system.

-The carrier, often seen belching thick black smoke and leaving oil slicks in its wake, has been undergoing a refit since 2018, with efforts focused on upgrading its outdated engines. Despite these efforts, the carrier remains docked in Murmansk, with experts doubting it will ever return to active service.

-The Admiral Kuznetsov symbolizes the struggles of a post-Soviet Russia trying to maintain a legacy warship amid dwindling resources and strategic miscalculations.

The Admiral Kuznetsov Spews Black Smoke

Russia’s only aircraft carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov, continues to disappoint Russian naval strategists. It was last seen at sea in 2018, being towed by a tugboat. Since that time, it has been at the shipyards for a refit. But most experts think the refit will fail to make the carrier worthwhile. 

The Russian Navy knows Admiral Kuznetsov is a wasting asset. Yet Moscow continues to throw money at it. 

One of the key changes during the refit reportedly involves the ship’s propulsion system. 

Kuznetsov uses gas turbines rather than nuclear power. A gas turbine usually runs on lighter, cleaner fuels. Instead, the Russians purposely designed Admiral Kuznetsov to utilize a dirty, cheap fuel source known as mazut. 

What is Mazut?

Mazut has a high sulfur content that is known for billowing black smoke emissions. This is one of the dirtiest fuels in the world. It is a significant pollutant and causes grave harm to the respiratory systems of people who breathe it, including the sailors aboard Admiral Kuznetsov.

Particulates spewed from Admiral Kuznetsov’s mazut-fueled gas turbine propulsion system include sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and other, lesser-known pollutants. 

Admiral Kuznetsov’s mazut-fueled engines also pollute the surrounding sea. The carrier was known for leaving large oil slicks in its wake that would linger and poison the surrounding aquatic environment for months after its transit. 

The Barents Observer noted in 2020 that Admiral Kuznetsov’s “engines were old, and the black smoke was caused by incomplete combustion of [mazut] and engine lubricant.”

A Strategic Vulnerability for Russia 

Having a large, billowing, easily identifiable smoke plume trailing your warship and leaving oil slicks in its wake is probably not the most strategically sound thing to do. With Moscow being so obviously committed to maintaining Admiral Kuznetsov against all reason, the Russians understand they need to address this obvious vulnerability. 

That is why, according to TASS, Russia included “replacements of the main boilers, turbo-gear units, gas turbine, diesel generators, and the propeller auxiliary systems.” 

Whether these changes will work or not remains to be seen. The propulsion system upgrades were supposed to be completed in 2020, with Moscow intending to test the warship by 2022. 

Obviously, this never happened. Admiral Kuznetsov remains ensconced at the Naval Yard No. 35 slip in Murmansk. 

A Hot Mess for the Russian Navy

Because the warship was a product of the late-stage Soviet Union, it sat incomplete for many years after the USSR collapsed. By the time it was finally completed, it was a hodgepodge of barely compatible systems. 

The quality of the craftsmanship for the different phases of development also varied, since some of the ship was built when the Soviets had money and resources, and other parts of the carrier were finished under the auspices of budget-limited post-Soviet Russia.

It's no surprise, then, that the ship’s engine ran on such a cheap, inefficient, and dirty fuel as mazut. What’s more surprising is that the Russians waited decades to address the propulsion system woes. 

The Russians seem to have waited too long. The integrity of the entire warship had been so badly compromised that it is highly unlikely she will hit the high seas ever again. 

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

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

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

From the Vault

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

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

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Air Force continues to rely on its aging B-1B Lancer bombers, even pulling retired airframes from the boneyard at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base for active service.

-Recently, the Air Force reactivated a B-1B, nicknamed Lancelot, to replace a damaged bomber, demonstrating the ongoing importance of the platform despite its age.

-The B-1B is being upgraded with new capabilities, such as the ability to carry the 5,000-pound GBU-72/B bunker-buster bomb, which will enhance its lethality.

Boneyard Resurrection: Why the Air Force is Reviving B-1B Bombers

As the Air Force faces delays in the B-21 Raider program, reactivating and modernizing B-1Bs helps bridge the gap in the service’s bomber fleet.

The U.S. Air Force’s B-1B bomber first flew several decades ago. Considering its age, it seems strange that the service continues to pull some of these airframes from the boneyard for operation. 

This spring, the service revealed that one of these Lancer bombers, nicknamed Lancelot, would replace another B-1 whose engine exploded during routine maintenance in 2022. Instead of spending to refurbish the wrecked bomber, the Air Force decided it would make more sense to activate one of its retired counterparts from the 309th Aircraft Maintenance and Regeneration Group at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona. 

The B-1B may be an aging platform, but the service continues to upgrade it. Lancelot will probably be modernized soon.

Just last month, images of a B-1B bomber carrying a new bunker-buster bomb circulated on social media. According to The Aviationist, the bomber was spotted flying over the Mojave desert with a 5,000-pound GBU-72/B. Photographer Ian Recchio was photographing aircraft and reptiles in the area when he was made aware of a B-1 approaching the area. 

“On this day, although I could not confirm definitively it was the Edwards B-1, it appeared while refueling on a KC-135 which is not so common to see, so of course I fired off a few frames,” Recchio said. “Both aircraft continued to circle the area for about 2 hours, and I took a few more opportunities to capture images.”

The GBU-72 will certainly elevate the B-1 bomber’s lethality if made operational. This modification, along with several others that have been introduced to the platform over the years, helps the aircraft keep pace with emerging threats. 

Considering the Air Force’s dwindling bomber fleet, the more B-1s snatched up from the boneyard and put back in the air, the better.

An Overview of the B-1B Lancer

In the years immediately after the Second World War, U.S. officials recognized the need for a new, modern bomber able to match the payload of the Air Force’s B-52 Stratofortress and the top speed of the B-58 Hustler. 

The resulting Advanced Manned Strategic Aircraft program, later renamed the B-1A, would blossom into the legendary aircraft still revered today. North American Rockwell’s bomber prototype was selected as the new B-1A. The model featured large variable sweep-wings to increase lift during takeoff and landing – similar to the North American XB-70 and General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark.

The B-1B bomber variant was approved by the Reagan administration in the early 1980s to counter the Soviet Union’s advancing aerial fleet. The upgraded bomber was equipped with an increased payload, as well as advanced sensors and radars. Over the years, the Lancer underwent several more upgrades. Last year, the B-1B received a modernized Identification Friend or Foe system, updated mass data storage, a new defensive avionics system, and Link 16 tactical data communications capability.

Pulling Lancers From the Boneyard

While the Air Force does field newer bombers, the service’s total fleet numbers are dangerously low. Even the upcoming B-21 stealth bomber program is expected to face some delays, a concerning prospect considering the uptick in geopolitical instability around the globe. For now, resurrecting B-1 bombers from the boneyard could help alleviate the service’s bomber gap until the Raider is ready.

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. 

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The Iowa-class battleships were the pinnacle of U.S. naval power during World War II, designed for speed, firepower, and durability.

-Despite the shift from battleships to aircraft carriers following the Pearl Harbor attack, these vessels remained vital to the U.S. Navy through the end of the 20th century.

-Equipped with powerful 16-inch guns, advanced radar, and capable of reaching flank speeds of up to 35.2 knots, the Iowa-class battleships were unmatched in their time.

-Though rearming these historic ships is unlikely, their legacy endures as a testament to American naval engineering and the pivotal role they played in maritime warfare.

Iowa-Class Battleships: The Fast and Fearsome Giants of WWII

America’s legendary Iowa-class battleships were the premier capital ships of the United States Navy throughout the Second World War. It is likely that had so many battleships not been taken out of commission by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, these worthy vessels might have remained the central power projection platform for the US Navy. 

But Japan’s decimation of the American fleet at Pearl Harbor meant that the days when the battleship was the dominant player in the Navy were over.

Still, the Iowa-class battleship was a remarkable piece of technology for its era. 

Wild Talk About Rearming the Iowa-class

The Iowa-class battleships would, in many cases, serve the United States until the end of the twentieth century. There is even occasional talk about rearming and modernizing the few battleships that remain on display as museums today and reforming them into floating missile trucks. 

While these ruminations are on the fringe, they are still brought forth into the public eye. This scenario is highly unlikely, but it’s easy to see why one might look back to the battleships of old and see some credence to bring them out of retirement.  They still may be useful in today’s age of highly contested areas of operation for the US Navy, notably to the advent of enemy anti-access/area-denial, or A2/AD systems.

Some General Specs

The Iowa-class battleships were equipped with four General Electric steam turbines, each driving a single, massive propeller for the battlewagon. These turbines were powered by eight Babcock & Wilcox boilers, which produced steam at a pressure of 600 psi (4,137 kPa) and a temperature of 850 degrees Fahrenheit. This power plant provided a total of 212,000 shaft horsepower (158 MW), driving the battleships to their maximum speed of thirty-three knots (or 37 miles per hour).

Iowa-class battleships were designed to be fast and maneuverable, with a length of 887 feet and a beam of 108 feet. They had a displacement of 45,000 tons and a crew of 1,515 officers and enlisted men. 

These battlewagons were equipped with a variety of weapons—notably potent cannons meant to break through enemy defensive perimeters and obliterate the armor of enemy warships from a distance. These battleships came equipped with 16-inch guns in three, tripe turrets, twenty 5-inch guns in ten twin turrets, and numerous anti-aircraft guns. An Iowa-class battleship came equipped with (for its time) advanced radar and fire control systems, which allowed for the battleships to engage enemy ships and aircraft more effectively than many other, older platforms that served in the WWII-era fleet.

Flanking Speed On the Iowa-class

One feature, though, stands out for a warship as massive as the Iowa-class. And that is the “flank speed” feature on this boat. Flank speed on an Iowa-class battleship refers to the maximum speed at which a ship can travel. The Iowa-class battleships, being speedy and maneuverable, could get moving at a clip of just shy of forty miles per hour—a real feat for such a large and heavy ship. 

During a shakedown cruise of the Iowa-class battleship, the USS New Jersey, the warship attained an astonishing speed of 35.2 knots—which she maintained for a staggering six continuous hours of operation! 

It was a key asset when under fire or at risk from aerial attack, as zig-zagging was a common technique US surface warships employed when trying to evade air attack from Japanese warplanes while at sea. 

What’s more, being able to travel at this top speed in battle allowed the Iowa-class to keep up with the fast carrier task forces of the US Navy, as they often provided cover for the carriers, and engaged enemy warships effectively.

Although it is an old system from a bygone era, the Iowa-class is an admirable old boat. Not only does it pack an unbelievable punch. This battlewagon can go petal to the metal when the situation demands. There’s a reason the surviving members of the Greatest Generation still speak of the legendary glories of the Iowa-class battleships. They truly were second to none. 

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

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

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

From the Vault

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

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

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy's Forrestal-class aircraft carriers, built during the Cold War, marked a significant advancement in sea-based warfare. Designed to accommodate larger airframes and advanced weaponry, these supercarriers were integral to America's military strategy.

-The class included four ships: Forrestal, Saratoga, Ranger, and Independence, each varying in size and capabilities. The USS Ranger, the third of the class, was the first U.S. carrier designed with an angled deck from the start.

-Ranger played a crucial role in the Vietnam War and later participated in significant operations, including those in response to the Entebbe hostage crisis and conflicts in the Persian Gulf.

USS Ranger: The Pioneering Supercarrier of the Forrestal Class

The U.S. Navy’s Forrestal-class aircraft carriers represented the pinnacle of progression in the sea-based warfare realm during the Cold War.

These supercarriers were built as the arms race between America and the Soviet Union was brewing.

Designed with then-extraordinary tonnage, the Forrestal vessels were intended to integrate larger airframes capable of carrying more advanced weaponry. Four ships in this class were constructed during the 1950’s, the Forrestal (CVN-59), Saratoga (CVN-60), Ranger (CV-61) and Independence (CV-62).

An overview of the Forrestal-class aircraft carriers

Compared to its predecessors, the Forrestal carriers were roughly 25% larger in size. The previous Midway-class ships could carry 65-75 airframes, while the Forrestal carriers could sport up to 100.

These new supercarriers measured 100 feet longer and nearly 20 feet wider than the Midways, enabling them to sail the seas more stably regardless of weather conditions.

When the Forrestal ships first entered service, they possessed the largest hangar and flight decks. Aircraft were becoming more extensive as the military understood that they could carry the smaller nuclear weapons being designed following the Second World War.

The four ships in the Forrestal class were unique as none were identical in size, armament, or power output.

The USS Ranger:

USS Ranger was the third of the Forrestal-class supercarriers constructed for the Navy. She also had the distinction of being the first American carrier designed from the beginning as an angled-deck ship. Ranger was laid down in 1954 by Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock and Newport News, Virginia. She officially launched two years later and was commissioned at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard.

Following her launch into service, USS Ranger participated in air operations in the Caribbean in addition to individual ship exercises. Until the early 1960’s, she was part of the Pacific Fleet. However, this shifted when the Vietnam War broke out.

The Ranger contributed mightily to the war effort over the next eight years. In 1967, she became the first carrier to deploy with the new A-7 Corsair II jet attack plane and UH-2C Seasprite turboprop rescue helicopter.

As detailed by Seaforces:

 “From carrier refresher training for CVW-2, Ranger proceeded to fleet exercise Moon Festival. From 9 to 16 October 1967, the carrier and her air wing participated in every aspect of a major fleet combat operation. Her efficiency honed to a fine edge, Ranger departed Alameda on 4 November 1967 for WestPac. Arriving Yokosuka 21 November, she relieved USS Constellation and sailed for the Philippines on the 24th. After arriving at Subic Bay on 29 November, she made final preparations for combat operations in the Tonkin Gulf. Commander, Carrier Division 3, embarked on 30 November as Commander, TG 77.7; and Ranger departed Subic Bay on 1 December for Yankee Station.”

In 1968, Ranger took part in Operation Formation Star when North Korea seized an American environmental research ship. In addition to this stint, the supercarrier would spend the next few decades operating off the coast of Kenya in the wake of the rescue of Israeli hostages held at Uganda’s Entebbe airport and in the Persian Gulf.

About the Author: Maya Carlin 

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The Seawolf-class submarine is a remarkable yet rare vessel, with only three ever produced due to high costs. That makes some experts declare the Seawolf the F-22 Raptor of submarines. 

-Designed during the Cold War, the Seawolf was meant to be the pinnacle of U.S. submarine technology, featuring a nuclear-powered, fast-attack design that was faster, quieter, and more heavily armed than its predecessors.

-With a $5 billion price tag per unit, the Seawolf was equipped with advanced features like an HY-100 steel hull and a propeller-less pump-jet propulsion system for enhanced stealth.

Why the U.S. Navy’s Seawolf Submarines Are Rare and Remarkable

However, with the end of the Cold War and a shift in defense priorities, the program was canceled after only three submarines were built.

The Seawolf-class submarine is a remarkable machine. Yet, only three Seawolfs were ever made. Why? The same reason that applies to most weapons systems having their production halted: money.

Money was no issue during the Cold War. Instead, during the Cold War, taxpayers and their duly elected representatives were happy to spend indulgently on defense programs – from the F-117 stealth aircraft to the Nimitz-class aircraft carriers to the “Star Wars” missile defense system to the Seawolf-class submarine.

In many respects, the Cold War boiled down to an elaborate arms race. In all realms – air, land, and sea – the superpowers raced urgently to design and build cutting-edge military equipment.

The tempo of the arms race was such that only existential conflict can inspire. It was essential because both the US and the Soviet Union possessed nuclear weapons, which inspired both nations to place many of their resources into furthering their nuclear triad.

At sea, developing the nuclear triad meant building nuclear-powered submarines that could lurk indefinitely, with the capacity to fire nuclear warhead-tipped missiles, thus providing a hard-to-track nuclear launch pad that could be secretly stationed in any waters around the world.

The result: deterrence. And to maintain the edge in deterrence each superpower upped the ante in submarine investment. The culmination of the escalating investment, on the American side, was the Seawolf-class submarine.

But once the Soviet Union collapsed, the impetus for much of America’s defense spending collapsed, too. Taxpayers and their duly elected representatives withdrew their support. Funding dried up. Defense programs were cancelled – some still in their infancy, like the Seawolf, of which only three had been made. Yet, the three Seawolfs still serve today, patrolling the world’s oceans as a reminder of what the US fleet might have looked like had the Cold War persisted another decade or two.

A world-class submarine

The Seawolf is a nuclear-powered, fast-attack sub with a $5 billion per unit price tag (in 2018 dollars).

The vessel is not cheap. But the massive price tag yielded an impressive submarine: bigger, faster, quieter, and more heavily armed than the preceding (and widespread) Los Angeles-class.

“The U.S. Navy had builders cram all kinds of goodies into the Seawolf submarine,” National Interest contributor Brent Eastwood wrote for National Interest months back. The “goodies” start with the hull, which was built entirely from HY-100 steel – an upgrade over the weaker HY-80 steel used to build preceding submarines. With the enhanced steel hull, the Seawolf could dive to depths of 490 meters. The Seawolf could also cruise; with the submarine’s S6W pressurized water reactor, the Seawolf had a max speed of 35 knots – not a world-record, but very impressive all the same. More importantly, the Seawolf is very quiet, with a “propeller-less pump-jet propulsion system” that “allowed it to maintain acoustic stealth even when cruising a brisk 20 knots, whereas most submarines are forced to crawl at 5-12 knots to remain discrete,” Eastwood explained.

And, true to the objectives of the Cold War, the Seawolf was built to handle up to 50 UGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles – putting the Soviet Union on notice.

Alas, the Navy cancelled production of the Seawolf. Originally, 29 Seawolf submarines were to be built. Three were completed – the Seawolf, Connecticut, and Jimmy Carter – before the program was canned.

About the Author: Harrison Kass

Harrison Kass is a defense writer with over 1,000 published pieces. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, he joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison has degrees from Lake Forest College, the University of Oregon, and New York University. He lives in Oregon and listens to Dokken.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy's latest iteration of the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, known as Block III, has recently gained attention with new images showcasing the Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) Block III system.

-This version features a distinctive "muffin top" midsection designed to accommodate future upgrades, emphasizing the Navy's commitment to enhancing electronic warfare capabilities amidst rising tensions with China and Russia.

-These destroyers, equipped with advanced radar systems and formidable weaponry, are crucial for maintaining U.S. naval dominance. Each Block III ship, estimated at $2 billion, represents a significant investment in modernizing the fleet.

Meet the Arleigh Burke Block III: The U.S. Navy’s Next-Gen Destroyer

In November of last year, new images of the U.S. Navy’s latest Arleigh Burke-class iteration circulated in the military news realm.

Pictures of the service’s cutting-edge Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) Block III installation were published for the first time aboard one of these destroyers.

The new system makes the Arliegh Burke Class Block III ship look very different from its predecessors. Specifically, the new destroyer features a large, bulging middle frame that some have dubbed “the muffin top.”

The Navy’s latest destroyer class is being constructed amidst rising tensions between Washington and Beijing.

As stated by GlobalData Defense analyst James Marques, “It’s right to say that the US is contemplating force size – and maintaining a larger fleet of Arleigh Burke ships is part of the answer.”

A Brief History of the Arleigh Burke-class

Named to honor World War II American destroyer officer Admiral Arleigh Burke, this class of guided-missile destroyers are larger and more heavily armed than their predecessors. The class’ design was derived in part following lessons learned by the Royal Navy during the Falklands campaign.

Additionally, the Navy built on the existing Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruisers, which were highly pricey and challenging to maintain. With these two notions in mind, engineers constructed a modern destroyer with capabilities to lower its radar cross-section, among other enhancements.

A smaller cross-section makes it more difficult for enemy warships to detect, a critical asset for the Navy. The Arleigh Burke-clas ships were also equipped with a Collective Protection System which enables her to function in conditions contaminated by radiological, chemical or biological materials.

In terms of sensor system, a slightly downgraded variant of the Aegis Combat System was incorporated into the ships, allowing them to launch, track, and evade missiles at the same time.

Specs & Capabilities

The USS Arleigh Burke was commissioned back in 1991, after several years of testing. From combat system to propulsion plant testing, the destroyer underwent thorough examinations prior to launching. Similar to other modern American surface combatants, DDG 51 uses gas turbine propulsion. Each Arleigh Burke ship is equipped with four General Electric LM 2500 gas turbines to produce 100,000 total shaft horsepower by a dual shaft design.

This enables the class of destroyers to sail at speeds reaching 30+ knots in the ocean. In terms of weapons, these destroyers are quite formidable. Each ship is armed with 56 Raytheon Tomahawk cruise missiles and a combination of land-attack missiles, anti-ship missiles, and a Tercom-aided navigation system. Both types of missiles are launched from a pair of Lockheed Martin MK41 vertical launch systems.

Over the years, several enhancements were incorporated into the destroyers. In the early 2000s, Raytheon commenced deliveries of the Standard MissileSM-3, which has a kinetic warhead and is constructed for deployment against both short-range and medium-range ballistic missiles.

As detailed by Naval Technology, “The SM-3 will be upgraded to SM-3 Block IIA and SM-3 Block IIB. USS John Finn launched an SM-3 Block IIA missile to intercept and destroy the target successfully during a flight test off the coast of Hawaii in October 2018.” Arleigh Burke ships are also fitted with the Sea Sparrow missile and eight Boeing Harpoon surface-to-surface missiles, among other enhancements.

Arleigh Burke Class Block III:

Last December, the first Flight III Arleigh Burke went underway for the first time to undergo builder’s trials in the Gulf of Mexico. This destroyer class is the first to possess an active electronically scanned array AN/SPY-6 Air and Missile Defense Radar.

Additionally, the latest Block III iteration uniquely includes three Rolls Royce 3-megawatt generators on the Flight 11A ships with Royce’s 4-megawatt generators. The DDG 51 class program manager for Program Executive Office Ships reiterated that “As the first Flight III ship, DDG-125 is the culmination of years of dedication and perseverance to design, build and integrate the Flight III capability of [Aegis Combat System Baseline 10], [SPY-6 Air and Missile Defense Radar] and the supporting systems such as the new electric plant and associated upgrade to the machinery control system.”

Block III’s bulky midsection was in part designed so that future upgrades could be incorporated into the destroyers. Electronic attack capabilities are critical as non-state actors and rogue entities across the seas are possessing more and more capable unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), anti-ship cruise missiles and even ballistic missiles. China and Russia are also rushing to secure more sophisticated electronic warfare capabilities as geopolitical tensions ramp up.

Each Arleigh Burke Block III Class variant is estimated to cost around $2 billion, including the Navy providing around $1 billion of equipment for each ship. While this cost may seem high, the rapid introduction of these advanced destroyers to service will be essential for America’s prowess in the seas.

About the Author: Maya Carlin 

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

All images are Creative Commons and or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The Russian Su-47 is a unique, experimental aircraft known for its forward-swept wings, a design rarely seen in aviation. Introduced in 1997, the Su-47's distinctive wing configuration offers several advantages, including higher lift-to-drag ratio, improved maneuverability, and better stability at high angles of attack.

-Despite its impressive performance, only one Su-47 was ever built, serving primarily as a testbed for future Russian fighter designs like the Su-35 and Su-57.

-The aircraft remains an aviation curiosity, and its influence can be seen in subsequent Russian designs, including the more recent KB SAT SR-10 trainer.

Su-47: Russia’s Experimental Fighter with Forward-Swept Wings

While some have described the fighter as stealthy, this somewhat stealth plane has become a much-discussed aviation subject. We asked a former member of the U.S. Air Force and an expert to give us his take on the Russian plane: 

The Russian Su-47 is one of the world’s most distinct, most easily recognizable aircraft. The reason: forward-swept wings. Whereas nearly every other aircraft in the world has either straight wings like the A-10 Warthog, delta wings like the Dassault Rafale, or aft-swept wings like every commercial aircraft you’ve ever flown on. The Su-47’s wings sweep forward, making the warplane impossible to miss. Indeed, the Su-47’s wing configuration is rare: no swept-forward design has ever entered mass production.

Forward-Swept Wings Were Experimental Before the Su-47

A few mid-century aircraft designers experimented with forward-swept wings. The Nazis briefly experimented with a Junkers Ju 287 multi-engine bomber featuring forward-swept wings. Convair proposed a supersonic bomber, the XB-53, with forward-swept wings – but the plane was never built.

Forward-swept versions of the Bell X-1, the Douglas D-558, and the North American P-51 Mustang were all proposed. Back then, however, the materials required to make a forward-swept wing that was strong and stiff enough to support flight – without being too heavy – were simply not available. Forward-swept wings need to be stronger than traditional wing configurations because of the forward-swept wing’s aeroelastic behavior; they twist upwards during flight.

Accordingly, these front-swept proposals all died in the design phase. Japan did have some success with a forward-swept fighter in World War II – the Nakajima Ki-43. Yet, the Ki-43’s forward-sweep was minimal, barely perceptible, although technically present.

After the war, as materials science improved, aircraft designers persisted with forward-swept experimentation. Using newly developed, strong yet light carbon fibers, Cessna designed the NGP prototype, CZAW built the Parrot, and Saab built the Safari. More significantly, Grumman built an X-29 experimental jet with aggressively forward-swept wings.

Only two X-29s were ever built but it was an exceptional aircraft, capable of maintaining control at a 67-degree angle of attack.

Finally, in 1997 Russia introduced its Su-47 at the Paris Air Show. Like the Grumman X-29, the Su-47’s forward-sweep is aggressive. In other respects, however, the aircraft is ordinary. The forward fuselage, vertical stabilizers, and landing gear were all taken directly from the Su-27. With canards leading the wings, the Su-47 is extremely maneuverable.

Though experimental flying and tests provide demonstration, the Su-47 has proven some of the forward-swept configuration’s advantages: higher lift-to-drag ratio; improved stall resistance; improved stability at high angles of attack; anti-spin characteristics; lower minimum flight speed; shorter take-off and landing distances; better agility in dogfights.

Along with a distinct appearance, the Su-47 has high-end specifications. The Su-47 has a maximum speed of Mach 2.21 and a range of 2,100 miles. The jet can operate within a service ceiling of 59,000 feet and can handle 9g’s. With a 45,900 feet per minute climb rate, the Su-47 can really climb.

Only one Su-47 was ever built and it was never outfitted with armament. The plane reliably impressed on the air show circuit, demonstrating its remarkable wing shape and remarkable agility. Insights gleaned from the Su-47 program were applied toward the development of Russia’s 4.5-generation fighter, the Su-35, as well as the fifth-generation Su-57. And the Su-47 seems to have a spiritual successor; in 2015,

Russia unveiled the KB SAT SR-10, a single-engine jet trainer with – you guessed it – forward-swept wings. Although, the SR-10 is a markedly humbler aircraft than the Su-47.

About the Author 

Harrison Kass is a prominent defense writer with over 1,000 articles published. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, he joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison has degrees from Lake Forest College, the University of Oregon, and New York University. He lives in Oregon and regularly listens to Dokken.

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. 

Will a convict enlistment drive solve shortfalls on the frontline?

Summary and Key Points: The Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov is notorious for belching thick black smoke, a result of its outdated Mazut-fueled propulsion system.

-Mazut, a heavy fuel oil, produces harmful emissions and poses environmental risks, contributing to the carrier's poor performance and operational limitations.

-Originally a Soviet-era design, the Admiral Kuznetsov was intended as a stepping stone for a more expansive Soviet carrier fleet, but the collapse of the USSR left Russia with a dilapidated vessel.

-Despite its inefficiencies, Russia continues to invest in the carrier, highlighting a questionable commitment to maintaining a largely ineffective naval asset.

Admiral Kuznetsov: Russia’s Sinking Investment in an Aging Warship

Belching thick black smoke into the cerulean blue skies as it traverses the world’s oceans, the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov leaves a black Sharpie-like line for all its potential adversaries to see. It’s a unique sight on the world’s oceans because most warships today do not spew such filth visible to the naked eye as the boat navigates throughout the world. 

But the Admiral Kuznetsov is a rare and unique boat. Not in the valuable way, but in the sunk cost way. 

An aging, decrepit carrier held over from the final days of the Soviet Union, the Kuznetsov billows its pollution into the skies above because of its archaic propulsion system. Kuznetsov is powered by Mazut, a tar-like fuel that is a byproduct of the oil refining process and is commonly used in industrial and commercial applications such as heating and power generation. 

Mazut is also known as heavy fuel oil or bunker fuel, and it is typically used in large ships and power plants.

Understanding Mazut

Mazut has a high sulfur content and is, again, known for its thick, black smoky emissions. When burned, mazut releases a number of harmful pollutants into the air, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter. These pollutants can have a significant impact on air quality and can contribute to a range of health problems, including respiratory illnesses, heart disease, and cancer.

In addition to its impact on air quality, mazut can have a negative effect on water quality. When spilled or leaked into bodies of water, which the Admiral Kuznetsov routinely and notoriously does with wanton abandon, mazut can form an oil slick that can harm aquatic life and damage the surrounding ecosystem. 

Thus, Russia’s war both on its neighbors and on the environment continues unabated in the twenty-first century.

The use of mazut fuel on the Admiral Kuznetsov has been a source of controversy, as it contributes to the ship’s poor environmental performance. Indeed, mazut, unlike other sources of fuel that power warships, is a highly limiting factor in the operational abilities of the dying Russian flattop, despite that it is a relatively abundant and cheap fuel source. 

The decision to use mazut fuel on the Admiral Kuznetsov is likely due to multiple factors, though. Yes, it is abundant in Russia and cheap. But another possible reason is that the use of mazut was an attempt by the old boat’s Soviet engineers to simplify the aircraft carrier’s propulsion system. 

Gas turbine engines are typically designed to run on lighter, cleaner fuels, but the use of mazut may have been seen as a way to reduce the warship’s complexity (and, therefore, to cheapen its construction and maintenance).

What the Admiral Kuznetsov Is & Is Not

When the Soviets designed the Admiral Kuznetsov, they did it more as a proof of concept and less as the beginning of a new trend in the Soviet Navy. Had the flattop been successful (more importantly, had the USSR not collapsed when it did), the Admiral K would have been used as the basis for springboarding the Soviet Red Navy into massive aircraft carrier operations to challenge the U.S. Navy. 

Since the USSR did unexpectedly collapse and the Russians entered a dark decade of despair in the aftermath (that Russia is only now climbing out of), Moscow has been forced to remain committed to a clearly dilapidated warship. 

Admiral Kuznetsov: The Aircraft Carrier Tragedy for Russia That Won't End 

When—and if—the Russians really do enhance their carrier capabilities, one can anticipate that the next batch of Russian carriers will be far more complex and reliable than the current Admiral Kuznetsov.

At the same time, though, Russia has never been (and likely never will be) a maritime power. With that in mind, it might be a better move for the Russians to prioritize their ground, space, and air forces over their navy. 

They might want to simply focus on building submarines and smaller surface warships, as the Russians are better at that than they are at wasteful carrier operations. 

However, Moscow’s decision to blow so much money on keeping the dying Admiral Kuznetsov sailing indicates Moscow’s frankly bizarre commitment to the Admiral K that defies strategic logic and reason. 

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 and/or Shutterstock. 

Why Chinese strategists see little difference between the two.

The world is not ready to confront a new international terror threat.