Diplomacy & Crisis News

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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).

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. 

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. 

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. 

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. military is developing its own anti-ship capabilities to counter threats in the Indo-Pacific, particularly from China's advanced anti-ship ballistic missiles like the DF-21D and DF-26B. During the 2024 Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise, the U.S. Air Force tested the Quicksink, a low-cost, GPS-guided bomb, using a B-2 Spirit stealth bomber to sink the ex-USS Dubuque.

-This new strategy emphasizes using stealth bombers to deliver precision-guided bombs, offering a potentially effective and economical method to neutralize large naval threats, including carriers, echoing tactics successfully employed during World War II.

There has been a lot of hype about China's advanced anti-ship ballistic missiles. Both the DF-21D, with a range of up to 2,150 km, and the DF-26B, with a range of 4,000 km, threaten naval vessels operating in the Indo-Pacific – notably the U.S. Navy's nuclear-powered supercarriers.

The range of those weapons could deny access to U.S. and other warships in the South China Sea and in other waters Beijing claims.

However, the United States is also developing anti-ship ordnance, and earlier this month put its low-cost Quicksink to the test. The guided bomb was dropped by a U.S. Air Force B-2 Spirit stealth bomber during the ongoing Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2024 exercise. 

The long-range strategic bomber employed the relatively inexpensive GPS-guided bombs in a SINKEX of the ex-USS Dubuque (LPD-8), an Austin-class amphibious transport dock.

"This capability is an answer to an urgent need to quickly neutralize maritime threats over massive expanses of ocean around the world at minimal costs," the U.S. Navy's 3rd Fleet said in a statement following the sinking of the former LPD-8.

It was one of two SINKEX, a sink-at-sea live-fire training exercise involving decommissioned U.S. Navy warships, with the ex-USS Tarawa also sunk by a long-range anti-ship missile.

Much of the emphasis on anti-ship ordnance in recent years has gone to ballistic missiles and hypersonic weapons. The speed and kinetic force of hypersonic missiles would mean that an explosive warhead might not be required to do significant damage to a warship such as a carrier.

But that is only if the missiles, hypersonic or otherwise, strike a target. 

Experts suggest that could be far more difficult than it sounds. The Pacific Ocean is vast, and carriers are speedy vessels screened by a carrier strike group that includes guided-missile destroyers specifically designed to counter incoming threats. Likewise, efforts are underway to develop Directed Energy Weapons including lasers that could counter missiles and drones.

Even as the U.S. military continues to develop hypersonic missiles, it is now exploring a rather old-school anti-ship approach – bombs dropped by aircraft. It worked with great success in World War II to send the Imperial Japanese Navy's fleet of carriers to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, and it could do the same to China's new carriers.

"The B-2's demonstrated anti-maritime capability will constrain if not deter plan operations east of Taiwan or off the Philippines," retired U.S. Navy Capt. Carl O. Schuster, former director of the U.S. Pacific Command Joint Intelligence Center, told CNN. "You cannot ignore a weapon that can sink a 25,000-plus-ton ship with one hit."

Schuster makes a good point. A low-cost guided bomb delivered by a stealth aircraft – not a missile fired from land-based launchers – might just be the true carrier killer. 

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) and South Korea are making significant advancements in electromagnetic and laser weapon technologies.

-Japan's new 13DDX destroyers may soon be equipped with electromagnetic railguns and high-powered lasers.

-Concurrently, South Korea's Hanwha Aerospace has begun production of the Laser Air Defense Weapon, Block-I, designed to neutralize North Korean drones.

-This system, part of Seoul's "Star Wars" initiative, offers a low-cost defense solution with each laser shot costing around $1.50.

-The platform, which can be mounted on trucks or warships, has a range of 1.8 miles and is expected to be deployed by year-end.

The Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) announced that its new class of 13DDX destroyers could be armed with electromagnetic railguns and high-powered lasers. 

Just days after that announcement, South Korea’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) said Hanwha Aerospace had begun production of a new anti-aircraft laser weapon.

According to a report from the Korean Times, the Laser Air Defense Weapon, Block-I was developed to shoot down North Korean drones. Deployment of the high-powered laser could begin by the end of the year. DAPA signed a contract with Hanwha last month, but the effort to develop the laser weapon has been years in the making.

Hanwha publicly unveiled the air-defense laser platform at the DX Korea 2020 Defense Show. The company said the weapon could detect and track small unmanned aerial vehicles and neutralize them at close range with a twenty kW laser. The platform was slated to complete testing by 2023 and has run a little behind schedule. 

The South Korean "Star Wars"

The Block-I laser weapon was developed as part of Seoul's "Star Wars" effort to integrate laser technology into current battlefield platforms. Lasers are seen as a low-cost solution to a low-cost threat. Small military drones can have a price tag in the thousands of dollars, but the air-defense missiles and rockets to shoot them down can cost tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

A laser weapon can swing the pendulum back in favor of the air-defense system, with each shot costing only around $1.50 (~2,000 won).

"Low-cost drones and rockets have swung the economic calculus of offense and defense in favor of those using large volumes of cheap unmanned systems and munitions to overwhelm more-sophisticated air and missile defenses," James Black of RAND Europe wrote in a blog post in January, per CNN.

According to DAPA, each Block-I laser platform measures just under 30 x 10 x 10 feet (9 x 3 x 3 meters) and can be mounted on a truck chassis for land mobility. It could also be mounted on warships. It can fire a laser ray that is nearly impossible to detect before impact. The laser beam has a range of around 1.8 miles (3 km).

"It is invisible and noiseless, does not require separate ammunition and can be operated only when electricity is supplied," the South Korean defense agency stated, while further noting that more powerful versions could be developed to take out larger targets, including aircraft and ballistic missiles. Development is already underway on a Block-II weapon that will offer improved output and range.

Earlier this year, the UK's Royal Navy announced it had developed a line-of-sight laser-directed energy weapon that could strike a £1 coin from a distance of up to a kilometer.

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The Kirov-class battlecruiser, a formidable nuclear-powered warship, was designed by the Soviet Navy to counter U.S. carrier strike groups and project naval power during the Cold War.

-Equipped with a vast array of weapons, including SS-N-19 long-range anti-ship missiles, surface-to-air missiles, and torpedo systems, the Kirov-class is among the largest and most heavily armed surface combatants in operation today.

-Its nuclear propulsion grants it significant endurance at sea, making it a powerful tool for asserting Russian naval presence and disrupting potential adversaries. These battlecruisers were built as a strategic alternative to costly aircraft carriers.

The Kirov is a class of nuclear-powered guided-missile battlecruisers built for the Soviet Navy and later operated by the Russian Navy. These warships are considered to be the largest and heaviest surface combatants in operation in the world today. 

The Kirov class was designed to counter the U.S. Navy’s submarines with its large payload of SS-N-14 anti-submarine missiles, and later to counter U.S. carrier strike groups. 

The Kirov class is powered by nuclear reactors, which provide a high degree of autonomy and endurance in comparison with conventionally powered warships. Their nuclear reactors enable the warships to operate for extended periods at sea without refueling.

The Kirov class is equipped with an array of weapons systems, including a 130 mm AK-130 twin-barrel gun used for surface and air targets. SS-N-19 Shipwreck long-range anti-ship missiles are deployed. Twenty of these missiles can be launched from the ship.

Twelve eight-round Vertical Launch Systems are installed for these new missiles. 

Two main launchers that pop off SA-N-4 surface-to-air missiles are positioned on the bridge, with a total of forty missiles.  

Further, SA-N-9 surface-to-air missiles are loaded on the Kirov-class, with two octuple launchers installed at the forward deck, carrying an additional 16 missiles.

Not content with creating a giant missile truck at sea, the Russians installed 533 mm torpedo tubes on the Kirov class. Specifically, two quintuple launchers were installed at the hull, capable of launching Type 53 torpedoes and SS-N-15 missiles.

A single RBU-1200 is positioned on the forward deck while two RBU-1000s are located at the aft deck. 

Oh, and then there’s the potent CADS-N-1 CIWS (Close-In Weapon System) armed with SA-N-11 missiles. Six of these CIWS are installed on the boat’s superstructure, giving it potent defenses against incoming fire. 

The Kirov-class battlecruiser has a range of approximately 14,000 nautical miles at a speed of 30 knots.

Back in the Cold War, the Reds built the Kirov-class warships primarily to counter the U.S. Navy’s carrier battle groups and to assert naval power. The battlecruisers were designed to engage with and neutralize American aircraft carriers, which were considered the backbone of the U.S. Navy’s offensive capabilities. 

Additionally, the Kirov-class ships were intended to serve as commerce raiders, disrupting the flow of American and Canadian ground reinforcements to Europe in the event of a conflict. 

The Kirov-class battlecruiser is a powerful warship designed to project Soviet/Russian naval power and to counter U.S. naval forces. Its nuclear propulsion, long-range missiles, and extensive weapons systems make the Kirov a force on the high seas. 

They were built to counter the U.S. Navy’s aircraft carrier capabilities without replicating that expensive ability. It was, in fact, a smart stopgap for a nation, like Russia, that is not a conventional maritime power but will still need to hold the line at sea against any U.S. naval force. 

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: Italy is set to expand its F-35 fleet, signaling a continued commitment to NATO's defense strategy. Initially scaled back due to budget concerns, Italy now plans to acquire an additional 20 F-35 Lightning II fighters, bringing its total closer to the original target.

-As a Tier 2 member of the Joint Strike Fighter program, Italy has played a significant role in the aircraft's development.

-With European nations increasingly adopting the F-35, concerns are rising over potential supply chain disruptions and interoperability challenges.

-The expansion underscores the F-35’s crucial role in countering modern threats from Russia and China.

NATO member Italy announced this week that it could increase the size of its Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fleet – with calls to acquire an additional twenty of the advanced all-weather multirole fighters. The aircraft would likely be produced at the F-35 assembly plant in Cameri, Italy.

Rome had initially committed to acquiring 131 F-35s – including sixty-nine conventional takeoff and landing F-35A variants, and sixty-two F-35Bs, the short/vertical takeoff and landing (S/VTOL) – to replace the Aeronautica Militare's (Italian Air Force's) Panavia Tornado aircraft and the Marina Militare's (Italian Navy's) McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II.

However, the numbers were scaled back to just sixty F-35As and thirty F-35Bs due to economic concerns over the cost of the aircraft under the government of Mario Monti.

In March, General Luca Goretti, the head of the Italian Air Force, called for the number of F-35s to be increased back to the original number.

"The Italian Air Force has always believed that the F-35 aircraft is the most advanced weapon system available today, crucial to continue to guarantee capabilities that are irreplaceable for an Air Force that aspires to be strategically relevant and operationally decisive, not only in carrying out the daily national Air Defense mission but especially to operate in conflict scenarios where we might be called upon to counter a well-equipped and heavily armed opponent determined to impose itself by any means possible," Goretti said on March 8, 2023, during a hearing at the Defense Commission of the Camera dei Deputati (lower house of Italian parliament), per a report from The Aviationist.

Rome's support for the Lightning II isn't unexpected. Last October, Goretti showered praise on the aircraft while speaking online with the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. The Italian air chief said the fifth-generation stealth fighter "was used to change the attitude of the overall air force.

As a Tier 2 member of the Joint Strike Fighter program, the Italian aerospace industry had played a major role in the Lightning II's development, investing $1 billion – behind just the United States and the United Kingdom. In addition, the Italian Air Force was among the earliest adopters of the F-35 in Europe, Air & Space Forces magazine reported, while quoting Goretti.

"The F-35 has to be considered not only an aircraft, but it has to be considered a node of data information," Goretti said. "So we use that aircraft to change completely the mindset of the people. It is no longer an aircraft to fly but actually is a data machine available in the air for everyone."

Italy declared Initial Operational Capability (IOC) for its F-35A aircraft in 2018, and the current program of record calls for its ninety Lightning IIs to be delivered through 2030.

As of the end of 2023, the Italian Air Force had received twenty-three F-35A models and two F-35Bs. The aircraft are based in Ghedi, located in Lombardy, and Amendola in Apulia; while multiple training aircraft are still in the United States at Luke Air Force Base (AFB), Arizona.

The F-35 has been selected by several NATO members including Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom. In addition, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, and Poland are also set to adopt the stealth fighter in the coming years to help maintain regional security and stability. Romania and Greece have also recently announced plans to acquire the all-weather multirole fighter.

Lockheed Martin expects the NATO members and other partners in Europe to have about 500 F-35s in service by the decade's end.

However, some experts have questioned whether it is truly a good thing to have so many allies and partners operating the same aircraft – even one with multiple variants.

As European Security & Defense reported this month, the "overlapping procurement of the same fifth-generation combat aircraft system by multiple NATO members was intended to ensure both interoperability as well as cooperative maintenance and support for the aircraft among the participating nations."

Yet, there is an increased "risk that prolonged delivery delays or an interruption of key component supply chains could have a greater than usual impact on force development."

The year-long delay of the Technology Refresh-3 (TR-3) certainly comes to mind as an example of a problem that has already impacted such deliveries.

The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) refused deliveries, and Lockheed Martin is now dealing with the backlog of aircraft as a truncated version of the software/hardware update introduced. It could be well into next year before the aircraft produced since last summer is finally delivered – while those aircraft will still need to be fully updated down the line.

As David Axe, writing for the UK-based Telegraph newspaper, further suggested, a lot is now riding on the F-35.

"Russia and China are deploying fifth-generation fighters right now. The West only makes one fifth-generation jet today – the F-35 – and even if the various Western sixth-gen projects like Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) or the planned UK-Italian-Japanese 'Tempest' pan out, there won't be anything but the F-35 able to match Putin's and Xi Jinping's forces for at least a decade," Axe explained. "The stakes, in fact, could not be higher."

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh was killed in Iran on July 31. Haniyeh was one of the most well-known faces of Hamas in the region. Ever since he took over Hamas’ Political Bureau in 2017, he has been a key leader in navigating the rising power of Hamas in the region and globally. Now, Haniyeh is dead, and his group is suffering blows in both Gaza and throughout the Middle East. Ten months of war in Gaza may now move in a fundamentally new direction.

Haniyeh is presented as the political face of Hamas, as if he is different than the military part of Hamas that led the attack on Israel on October 7. 

When the attack took place, Haniyeh was in Doha, Qatar, along with other Hamas leaders. These leaders included Saleh al-Arouri, who was based in Beirut but had fortuitously arrived in Doha in time for the October 7 attack. While the details of the attack may have been kept from Haniyeh, such as the exact time it would take place, it’s clear Haniyeh supported the attack. Shortly afterward, he gathered Hamas leaders in Doha for a video where the men prayed and celebrated and later spoke in praise of the attack.

Haniyeh’s goal in the wake of October 7 was to drum up support in the region. His Qatar headquarters allowed him to make the acquaintance of various Middle Eastern leaders. Consequently, he enjoyed a great deal of influence regionally and internationally. Haniyeh has held numerous meetings with Turkey’s long-time leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. He traveled to Saudi Arabia under the guise of a religious pilgrimage in April 2023 for meetings. He has also traveled to the Egyptian capital of Cairo.

Haniyeh’s travels in the region, before and after October 7, illustrate how the unprecedented terror attack on Israel, including the murder of more than 1,100 people and kidnapping of 250 on October 7, has not dimmed Hamas’ relations in the region. In fact, it’s possible to conclude that Hamas has received more regional support after October 7. Haniyeh was the center of that support. Hamas has other officials and well-known figures, such as the Hamas-based leader Yahya Sinwar, as well as Ghazi Hamed, Mahmoud Zaher, Khalil al-Khayya, Khaled Meshaal, Zaher Jabareen, Basem Naim, Mahmoud Zaher, Osama Hamdan, and Sami Abu Zakhri. Still, none of them reach the level of Haniyeh. Meshaal, for instance, was replaced by Haniyeh in 2017 and has taken a back seat in recent years. After Israel killed Marwan Issa and likely killed Muhammed Deif in Gaza, it appears Sinwar is the last well-known Gaza-based leader of Hamas. Sinwar’s brother is also a key leader, but the two of them should be seen as one element.

Hamas has also suffered two critical setbacks abroad. Saleh al-Arouri was killed in Beirut in January. Haniyeh is now dead as well. This means that Hamas has suffered blows to its political leadership in Gaza, Lebanon, and Qatar. This doesn’t mean Hamas cannot recover. In the past, it also lost leaders. Ahmed Yassin and Abdel Aziz Rantisi were killed by Israel in 2004. Their deaths helped pave the way for Haniyeh. However, it took time for Haniyeh to build up Hamas’ power after their demise. Haniyeh was essential to Hamas’ electoral victory in the Palestinian elections in 2006 and briefly served as the prime minister of the Palestinian Authority. Hamas fumbled that role and seized Gaza in a coup in 2007, killing and exiling political opponents and turning Gaza into a platform for terror attacks on Israel.

It was Haniyeh who led Gaza down the road of becoming a springboard for ever-larger attacks on Israel. Hamas acquired longer-range rocket technology with Iran’s backing, transforming its short-range Qasam rocket arsenal into a colossus of long-range rockets that could hit Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Haniyeh also helped secure more funding via Doha, propping up Hamas in Gaza. With the funding, Hamas was able to build hundreds of miles of tunnels and position its rockets in a more sophisticated manner so it could fire barrages of more than 100 rockets at a time.

By the time Sinwar had fully transformed Hamas into the twenty-four battalions of fighters that launched the October 7 attacks, Haniyeh was ensconced in Doha. By this time, the day-to-day tactics of Hamas were in Sinwar’s hands. However, strategic planning was in Haniyeh’s hands. He was the one who galvanized support for Hamas after October 7. He reached out to Turkey. He sent a Hamas delegation to Russia and China. When Beijing hosted fourteen Palestinian factions in China, Haniyeh played a key role. In fact, Haniyeh met a Chinese envoy to Qatar in March 2024 to pave the way for China’s role in trying to reconcile Palestinian groups.

Israel has waged almost ten months of war in Gaza. This has been a tactical success, grinding down Hamas battalions and eliminating numerous Hamas members. Israel estimates that around 14,000 Hamas members have been eliminated. Hamas has also run out of most of its rockets during this war and lost control of the southern Gaza border with Egypt. Hamas still controls a swath of Gaza, mostly because Israeli forces carry out sweeps of neighborhoods and then leave. The war is dragging on, and there is no clear strategy to end it. Endless ceasefire and hostage talks have not been fruitful. Haniyeh drove a hard bargain in these talks, seeking a long-term ceasefire and a slow release of hostages that would go on for months or years. This would benefit Hamas because a trickle of hostage releases would let it celebrate its success each week as Israel was forced to release detainees in exchange. This would enable Hamas to increase its influence in the West Bank, with its eyes set on a Palestinian unity government brokered by China.

If a unity government is formed in Ramallah, it is likely Hamas will be part of it, either officially or informally. Haniyeh would have seen this as an opportunity to return to the West Bank and swoop in, emerging again as the Palestinian prime minister almost two decades after losing the job in 2007. If he’d returned, he would have come back to a changed region, one where U.S. power is much reduced and where China, Russia, Iran, and Turkey are backing Hamas. Israel also faces much larger threats today than in 2007. In 2007, Hezbollah was weakened by the 2006 war. Now, it is strong. Haniyeh would have understood this. Instead of returning to the West Bank, though, he is now off the political map permanently. Haniyeh’s killing in Iran could thus lead to a fundamental recalculation in the region. Israel, following a tactical victory over Hamas in Gaza, could now be on the verge of a strategic victory over Hamas’ plans for the day after the war.

Seth Frantzman is the author of The October 7 War: Israel’s Battle for Security in Gaza (2024) and an adjunct fellow at The Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Image Credit: Shutterstock.com.

Summary and Key Points: The DF-17, China's hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV)-powered medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM), is designed to target foreign military bases and fleets in the Western Pacific, posing a significant threat to U.S. and allied forces.

-The U.S. Department of Defense's 2022 and 2023 China Military Power Reports highlighted the DF-17's capabilities, including its ability to evade existing missile defense systems like THAAD and Patriot.

-The DF-17's range, speed, and maneuverability make it a formidable weapon, with potential roles in both land-attack and anti-ship operations. U.S. lawmakers have been warned of the growing threat posed by China's advancements in hypersonic technology.

A few years ago, a report from the Pentagon warned that China's Dong Feng-17 (DF-17) hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV)-powered medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) had been designed to strike foreign military bases and fleets in the Western Pacific.

The DF-17 was among the platforms specifically called out in the U.S. Department of Defense's (DoD's) 2022 China Military Power Report (CMPR), and further noted that it could replace some of Beijing's older short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) units."

"The DF-17 passed several tests successfully and is deployed operationally. While the DF-17 is primarily a conventional platform, it may be equipped with nuclear warheads," the Pentagon's report stated, while it further cautioned that the DF-17 could also be impervious to U.S. air-defense systems, such as the "THAAD [Terminal High Altitude Area Defense], SM-3 [Standard Missile-3], and Patriot" missile systems.

Last year's 2023 Report on the Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China further noted, "The PRC's deployment of the DF-17 HGV-armed MRBM will continue to transform the PLA's missile force. The system is possibly intended to replace some older SRBM units and is intended to strike foreign military bases and fleets in the Western Pacific, according to a PRC-based military expert."

The  DF-17 is the first missile designed for the operational deployment of a HGV by the People's Liberation Army Rocket Force (PLARF). U.S. officials first confirmed the existence of the DF-17 prototypes in January 2014 – and it was initially identified as the Wu-14 – while the Pentagon had monitored at least nine flight tests through November 2017. Tests took place at the Taiyuan Satellite Launch Centre in Shanxi Province.

China's 10th Research Institute is reported to have been responsible for developing the DF-17 along with other Chinese HGVs. Also known as the "Near Space Flight Vehicle Research Institute," the organization operates under the China Aerospace Science Industry Corporation (CASIC) 1st Academy.

The DF-17 was first noted in a PLA parade in October 2019 and is believed to have entered service in 2020.

"Although HGVs are slower than conventional ballistic reentry vehicles, their higher maneuverability and lower-altitude flight allow them to evade missile defense systems as their flight paths are harder to predict. U.S. officials have stated that the prototypes have been shown to perform 'extreme maneuvers' and 'evasive actions," the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance (MDAA) reported, adding, "The DF-17 is a vital weapon in China's arsenal, as it provides the PLARF with a missile that is highly capable against existing missile defenses and sensors. With its range, the DF-17 could reach South Korea and Japan, challenging their missile defense systems."

The DF-17 is a solid-fuelled road-mobile medium-range ballistic missile, and it measures around 11 meters (36 feet) in length and weighs around 15,000 kg. According to Army Recognition, the DF-17 missile is mounted on 10x10 military truck chassis with two axles at the front and three axles at the rear. The truck chassis is used as a TEL (Transporter Erector Launcher), which can carry, elevate to the firing position, and launch one or more missiles. The front of the truck is equipped with a crew cab with two doors on each side. The truck is reported to be powered by a diesel engine developing 500 to 600 hp and can reach a top speed of 70 km/h with a maximum cruising range of 650 km.

The DF-17's booster is believed to same as that used for China's DF-16 ballistic missile. Its accompanying DF-ZF HGV reportedly reaches speeds of Mach 5-10 (1.72-3.43 km/s) in its glide phase, while it is believed to have a range between 1,250 to 1,800 km (780–1,120 miles) – with some sources suggesting it could be as great as 2,500 km (1,550 miles). It may be armed with conventional or nuclear warheads.

Due to the use of a HGV instead of a conventional reentry vehicle, there has been speculation that the DF-17 could be employed to target U.S. Navy aircraft carriers operating within its effective range. While Beijing's Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles, notably the DF-21D, employ conventional reentry vehicles, which, although faster than HGVs, are less maneuverable.

As they enter service in greater numbers, it is entirely possible (and even likely) that the DF-17 and DF-ZF will be used in a land-attack role alongside an anti-ship role.

In March of last year, the threat of the DF-17 and similar weapons was brought before members of Congress.

"While both China and Russia have conducted numerous successful tests of hypersonic weapons and have likely fielded operational systems, China is leading Russia in both supporting infrastructure and numbers of systems," Paul Freisthler, the Defense Intelligence Agency's chief scientist for science and technology, told U.S. lawmakers.

"Over the past two decades, China has dramatically advanced its development of conventional and nuclear-armed hypersonic missile technologies and capabilities through intense and focused investment, development, testing and deployment," said Friesthler while testifying in front of the House Armed Services Committee.

The Pentagon understands the very serious threat that the DF-17 poses, but it remains unclear how it might respond.

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

All images are Creative Commons.