Diplomacy & Crisis News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gearing Up For War?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parroting Putin on F-16 Fighters 

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

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

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

Can We Expect "Head-on Air Combat"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

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

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

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

Railgun Technology: A Century-Old Dream Facing Modern Challenges

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

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

China’s Ongoing Railgun Efforts

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

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

How Railgun Tech Works

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

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

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

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

About the Author: Maya Carlin, Defense Expert 

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aircraft Carrier Vs. The Carrier Killer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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

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

Summary and Key Points: While the Ford-Class aircraft carrier boasts advanced technology and reduced crew requirements, recent events raise questions about its vulnerability to modern threats like drones and "carrier killer" missiles.

-The Navy faces the challenge of justifying the high costs and strategic relevance of these massive vessels in an era where smaller, more agile threats pose significant risks.

The Ford-Class Aircraft Carrier Debate Is Just Getting Started 

The USS Gerald R. Ford, the lead vessel of a new class of nuclear-powered carriers that will begin to replace the Cold War-era Nimitz-class on a one-for-one basis over the next several decades, isn't just the largest warship ever built – it is also the most expensive.

Its total price tag came in at about $13.3 billion, nearly 30 percent higher than initial estimates. It has suffered from numerous delays and the "kinks" are still being worked out of some of its key systems. That fact isn't entirely surprising as it is a new-class of carrier loaded with new technology.

Things are supposed to be easier, while the costs are expected to reduced to build the next carriers in the class.

It was also reported that the U.S. Navy can expect to save about $5 billion per ship in maintenance costs over the life of the program than the preceding Nimitz-class. The service had previously set a target of $4 billion per ship in savings.

Moreover, the Ford-class of carriers relies on greater automation, and the vessels were designed to operate effectively with nearly 700 fewer crew members than the Nimitz-class. The savings in operations and maintenance could free up money for other readiness and acquisition needs.

But is the Modern Aircraft Carrier Still Worth the Cost?

The U.S. Navy's nuclear-powered supercarriers can provide force projection around the world. No other naval force in the world can send carriers to deal with multiple hotspots at the same time.

This would seem to justify the $13.3 billion price tag of CVN-78 and the future vessels of the class that are to come. Yet, recent lessons from the battlefield and advances in technology could put this into question.

Earlier in 2023, an Iranian drone flew near the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69), which is now operating in the Persian Gulf. The unmanned aerial system (UAS) reportedly came within 1,500 yards of the warship. Though it didn't do any damage, it isn't hard to believe that a loitering munition system – also known as kamikaze drone – such as Russia's Lancet, or a drone swarm could be employed and do significant damage to a carrier.

Such a strike might not sink a Nimitz-class or Ford-class carrier, but there is no denying that a supercarrier is truly a big target. It is a situation where an enemy only needs to get lucky one time!

As has been seen in the war in Ukraine, sea-based drones have successfully targeted the Russian Navy's Black Sea Fleet in port, and a carrier could make a tempting target for terrorists and rogue operators. 

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

Such weapons should be seen a real threat to warships.

The Moskva, flagship of the Black Sea Fleet, was sunk in the spring of 2022 by Ukrainian land-based launchers. It was the largest warship sank since the Second World War.

Though a carrier is far more protected, it is still a big and expensive target.

Aircraft Carriers Will Be Lost in War

Earlier in 2023, the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. held a series of war games that simulated a Chinese invasion of Taiwan in 2026. In the simulations, the U.S. and its allies, including Japan, were able to successfully defend Taiwan but still lost two carriers – and sometimes as many as four!

Replacing such warships would take tens of billions of dollars and decades to build them. That should serve as a warning that perhaps the large carriers are as antiquated as the battleship.

It should be remembered that the Casablanca-class escort carrier USS Bismarck Sea (CVE-95) was the last U.S. Navy flattop to be sunk in combat – after she was hit by two Japanese kamikaze attacks on February 21, 1945. 

We must hope that CVE-95 will remain the last carrier to ever be sunk, but a $13.3 billion warship is a mighty tempting target!

Author Experience and Expertise

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.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy faces significant challenges with its aircraft carrier fleet, despite having 11 nuclear-powered carriers. High costs, lengthy construction times, and a strained supply chain make building more carriers difficult.

-The Navy's recruiting struggles and maintenance demands leave only half of the fleet fully operational at any given time. Additionally, workforce and material shortages compound these issues.

-Even as the Ford-class carriers replace the aging Nimitz-class, the U.S. Navy is stretched thin, unable to easily expand its fleet or meet new crises.

The U.S. Navy Has Too Few Aircraft Carriers These Days

Aircraft carriers remain the largest capital warships in the world today – and there are actually quite a few of the vessels in service. Including amphibious assault ships (LHA), there are now 47 active aircraft carriers in the world, operated by fourteen navies. More than a third of the flattops are in service with the United States Navy, which maintains eleven nuclear-powered CATOBAR carriers, including ten Nimitz-class and one Gerald R. Ford-class.

In addition, the U.S. Navy operates two America-class LHAs of a planned 11; as well as seven Wasp-class ships – while an eighth was seriously damaged by fire and subsequently decommissioned in 2021.

The current U.S. fleet of Nimitz-class carriers will also be followed into service, and replaced on a one-for-one basis by future carriers of the Gerald R. Ford-class, which are more automated as part of an effort to reduce the amount of funding required to maintain and operate the vessels. In its 2018 report to Congress, the Navy stated its intention to maintain a 12 CVN force as part of its 30-year acquisition plan.

The current plan calls for Ford-class carriers to then replace the Nimitz-class flattops on a one-for-one basis over the next four decades. Yet, it is also just as likely that the United States Navy will never actually replace each of its Nimitz-class carriers and instead could seek to develop smaller warships that could still do the job.

Are There Enough Aircraft Carriers?

The question likely being considered by U.S. naval planners is whether there are now enough carriers in service right now. The short answer is that the U.S. carrier fleet – despite its size – is spread thin.

The Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) has remained in the Middle East engaging the Houthi rebels in Yemen, while the first-in-class USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) saw its deployment to the Mediterranean extended twice. The latter carrier is now undergoing maintenance availability, primarily to address software upgrades and other general touch-ups.

Such post-deployment overhauls and refits are routine and necessary. The longer the carrier is deployed, the longer it then spends in port. And as it stands just three carriers are now able to respond to developments in the Indo-Pacific.

In other words, while the U.S. Navy may have 11 nuclear-powered carriers on paper, it would seem that only half are ever fully available – leaving the sea service stretched thinner than it would like.

Why Not Build More?

The next obvious question would be to build more carriers. Yet, there are several factors why that isn't even close to an option.

As Brandon J. Weichert noted for The National Interest, "Today, the average cost for building a nuclear-powered, aircraft carrier­a supercarrier, such as America's new Gerald R. Ford-class is upwards of $13.3 billion. It costs an additional hundreds of millions of dollars to maintain. Previous models are only slightly less expensive."

Weichert added, "Their complexity and exorbitant cost make them not only tempting targets for rivals, but if they were to be destroyed or seriously damaged in combat, it would effectively make them a wasting asset. Billions of dollars would be lost and the US Navy’s power projection abilities would be seriously degraded."

In other words, the United States can't afford to lose such a high-value target in a war, but it also can't afford to build more. And this only factors in the monetary cost. The United States Navy – like nearly all the branches of the U.S. military – is struggling to meet recruiting quotas.

It barely has the sailors needed to operate the current fleet, which is at the smallest it's been since the First World War. Yet, short of conscription, it is doubtful the U.S. Navy would have the sailors for even a few more supercarriers.

America Can Barely Build the Current Carriers

The final consideration is that today's supercarriers take years to build, and even if the U.S. suddenly had the money and the manpower, it lacks the facilities to build any additional carriers.

In January, the Aircraft Carrier Industrial Base Coalition (ACIBC) warned that rough waters lay ahead following a survey it conducted last November. The trade association represents about 2,000 vendors from across the country that make up the supply chain for Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII), the largest military shipbuilding company in the United States.

Those companies provide parts and services for the construction and maintenance of U.S. Navy aircraft carriers, and according to the survey, it is a critical moment for the industry as 95% of the vendors have faced challenges due to rising costs from inflation, while 79% have experienced raw material cost increases of at least 7%. More than one in 10 (91%) of vendors surveyed said they faced challenges as a result of material availability or delivery, and 76% said they directly experienced an increase in the amount of time it takes to build and deliver their products.

Workforce issues also remain a serious problem, as 85% of the firms said they continue to face challenges in hiring, training, and retaining their respective workforces. Moreover, 32% said that workforce-related challenges have had a detrimental impact on their ability to fulfill contracts.

Conclusions – The U.S. Navy is Spread Thin, Get Used to It

The takeaway is that the future Ford-class carriers are already running behind schedule, but hopefully, they won't be as over budget as the lead vessel of the class. The Navy is also scaling back on its mid-to-long-term projects to focus on the near term.

That will mean relying on the carriers it has, and hoping that there aren't multiple crises and that no carrier is suddenly lost to overseen circumstances.

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 from the U.S. Navy. 

Summary and Key Points: The Ford and Nimitz classes are America's most modern aircraft carriers, each with distinct advancements. The Nimitz uses a steam-powered catapult system, while the Ford features the more efficient Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS).

-For landing, the Nimitz employs the MK 7 Aircraft Recovery System, whereas the Ford uses the Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) system, designed to handle a wider range of aircraft with less maintenance.

-These differences highlight the technological evolution in carrier operations, improving sortie rates and reducing costs.

Ford-Class vs. Nimitz-Class: Aircraft Carriers from Different Generations 

Since the invention of the aircraft carrier in the early twentieth century, the general design of the hallmark vessel has remained unchanged. Aircraft carriers are, invariably, a vessel built to transport, launch, and land aircraft.

Accordingly, aircraft carriers have a runway atop what is generally a massive hull with the capacity to house large crews, large amounts of aircraft, and all that is necessary to sustain both crew and aircraft. But, of course, the specifics can change from aircraft carrier to aircraft carrier. The runway. The launching system. The radar systems. The propulsion systems. The crew quarters. Plenty of opportunity for variation exists in what is functionally both a floating city and a floating air base.

Let’s take a look at the differences between America’s two most modern classes of aircraft carriers, the Ford and the Nimitz.

Launching System

Vital to the function of any aircraft carrier is the ability to launch aircraft. In the early days of aircraft carriers, prop planes would simply take off from the carrier deck, generating enough momentum and lift, of their own accord, to be able to take off within the length of runway that the aircraft carrier deck allowed. But modern American supercarriers, launching modern jets, rely on a catapult system. The catapult hitches to the jet’s wheel and slingshot the jet forward, building speed quickly and seamlessly.

The Nimitz and Ford have different types of catapult systems, however. The Nimitz relied upon a steam power catapult, which generated and harnessed steam to engage the catapult. The newer Ford dispelled with the Nimitz, in favor of the EMALS system.

The EMALS, or Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, is what the name implies: an electromagnetic catapult. The EMALS is an improvement over the traditional steam catapult, offering increased reliability and efficiency,  with more accurate end-speed control and smoother acceleration. The result is a higher sortie rate, and over time, a cost reduction due to decreased manning and maintenance requirements.

Arresting Gear

What goes up must come down. The counterpoint of the launching system is the arresting gear used to safely land an aircraft back on an aircraft carrier’s deck. Easier said than done. Most modern runways are 5,000 to 8,000 feet long, allowing pilots a significant margin of error and plenty of space to decelerate their aircraft smoothly. Carriers, on the other hand, afford a pilot just 350 feet within which to land and halt their aircraft – which requires the assistance of an arresting gear.

On the Nimitz, landing aircraft were arrested with the MK 7 Aircraft recovery system. The MK 7 is a “hydropneumatics system composed of the engine structure, a cylinder and ram assembly, a crosshead and fixed sheaves…and cable arrangement.” The MK 7 is fairly ‘old school.’ The Ford operates with an updated arresting gear, the Advanced Arresting Gear System (AAG). The AAG uses rotary engines and water turbines paired with an induction motor; the AAG was built to handle a wider range of aircraft, with less manpower and less maintenance. The result is an arresting gear system that is more hands-off, yet can handle more aircraft.

So, despite outwardly appearing quite similar, the Ford and Nimitz have some crucial differences with respect to the nuts and bolts required to successfully complete carrier operations.

About the Author: Harrison Kass

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

More from National Interest

PAK DA - Russia Is Building a New Stealth Bomber 

Houthis Might Have Attacked a Navy Aircraft Carrier - Report 

Summary and Key Points: The F-16XL was an advanced variant of the F-16 Fighting Falcon, designed with a delta wing and increased payload capacity, earning it the nickname "beast mode."

-It was developed to compete with the F-15E Strike Eagle in the USAF's Enhanced Tactical Fighter Program.

-Despite its ability to carry more ordnance, achieve supercruise, and provide greater lift and maneuverability, the F-16XL lost out to the F-15E due to production costs and the existing F-15 infrastructure.

-The F-16XL remains a symbol of untapped potential in military aviation.

Meet the F-16XL Fighter 

The F-16XL was a bomb and missile truck – what we would call “beast mode” today. It was even faster than the standard F-16.

You can’t picture the Air Force without the F-16 Fighting Falcon.

It has flown for nearly 50 years. It is fast, compact, and highly-maneuverable.

The F-16 is combat proven. At least 25 air forces fly it around the world.

It has been updated over the decades to make it even better. The F-16 may fly with the U.S. Air Force until 2025. But one version has military analysts wondering what could have been. Try contemplating the F-16XL, which was a delta-wing model that could have changed the F-16 program – maybe for the better.

What Was the F-16XL All About?

In 1977, the F-16XL was meant to replace the variable sweep wing F-111 Aardvark. Designers of the F-16XL decided to go with a delta-wing design that would be twice the area of the F-16 wings. It was thought that the cranked arrow wing shape, paired with the strength of the standard F-16 fuselage, would garner even more speed and maneuverability. General Dynamics thought the best way to test these new configurations was to hook up with NASA in 1980. This partnership yielded 3,600 hours of testing just in a wind tunnel alone.

A New Capability: Supercruise

The main idea behind the F-16XL was to evaluate whether the different air frame could achieve supercruise (sustained supersonic cruising without afterburners) capability. This would allow the F-16XL to save on fuel and extend its range.

Wing Design Gave It Excellent Performance

Meanwhile, the cranked arrow wing shape would accomplish a quarter more lift than the base F-16. All those tests with NASA created a version called the Model 400. As Alex Hollings from Sandboxx described it, “This new wing design, which saw a 50-degree angle near the root of the wing for supersonic performance and a 70-degree angle where the wings extended for subsonic handling.”

What’s Not to Like

That meant the aerial combat capability could send the F-16XL into the territory of the F-15, “much smoother ride at high speeds and low altitudes.” The F-16XL was also 600 pounds lighter than the standard F-16, which added to its maneuverability. And Air Force technicians could add more ordnance to its payload under those new wings. Twenty-seven hardpoints were now possible. This could make the F-16XL into a bomb and missile truck – what we would call “beast mode” today. No external fuel tanks would be required. And the F-16XL would be faster than the F-16.

Time for a Competition

The consortium produced two F-16XLs. They first flew successfully in 1982. A year earlier the Air Force announced the Enhanced Tactical Fighter Program which was a competition between the F-16XL and the  F-15E Strike Eagle from McDonnell Douglas to replace the F-111. General Dynamics believed the F-16XL’s range and weapons payload would best the F-15E. Unfortunately, for the F-16XL, the F-15 was already in production. The F-16XL was going to be more expensive to build at serial production. The F-15E was slightly faster with its two engines. This would allow it to lose an engine in combat and still be able to fly back to base.

The Air Force thus chose the F-15E and the F-16XL goes down as a fighter that had so much potential that it was a shame it lost out. The design gave it more than capable performance and all the weapons it carried at supercruise would make it a tough customer with its high maneuverability and extended range. This must have been a disappointment to the design crew at General Dynamics. The F-16XL will be remembered by that team as a superior airplane that would have made the Air Force and many of its pilots happy.

Expert Biography

Dr. Brent M. Eastwood is the author of Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare. He is an Emerging Threats expert and former U.S. Army Infantry officer. You can follow him on Twitter @BMEastwood. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science and Foreign Policy/ International Relations.

All images are Creative Commons and or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The F-16XL, a variant of the F-16 Fighting Falcon, was designed to compete with the F-15E Strike Eagle in the USAF's Enhanced Tactical Fighter competition.

-Although it lost to the F-15E, the F-16XL's innovative cranked arrow wing design offered greater lift, maneuverability, and payload capacity.

-Two prototypes were later used by NASA for research, contributing valuable data on supersonic flight and sonic booms. Today, these prototypes are preserved as testaments to the aircraft’s advanced design and potential.

The F-16XL Won't Ever See Combat Anywhere, For a Reason

The F-16 Fighting Falcon made headlines last year when the White House granted Ukraine the green light to fly them amidst the ongoing invasion.

The American-made supersonic multirole fighter aircraft was initially designed for the U.S. Air Force more than five decades ago. While the platform may be aging, it plays a critical role in the service’s fleet.

Over the last fifty years, several Fighting Falcon variants emerged, all featuring enhanced capabilities designed to keep the platform relevant in the modern era.

However, not all these variants made it to the service phase.

Notably, General Dynamics’ F-16XL was turned over to NASA a few years after losing the USAF’s Enhanced Tactical Fighter competition to the F-15E Strike Eagle.

The Fighting Falcon Platform

Following the lessons learned in the Vietnam War, U.S. officials recognized the need for an air superiority fighter.

Engineers outlined that a small, lightweight aircraft that could maneuver with minimal energy loss would be an ideal fit. The Air Force initially opposed the Advanced Day Fighter concept as the service felt it would jeopardize its F-15 Eagle program.

Ultimately, however, the idea of competitive prototyping was finalized and the Lightweight Fighter proposal was funded. By the 1970’s, the F-16 Fighting Falcon was designed.

Introducing the F-16XL

Shortly after manufacturer General Dynamics was awarded the Lightweight Fighter program contract, subsequent Fighting Falcon variants were conceptualized.

The Air Force desired a replacement fighter for its F-111 Aardvark and McDonnell Douglas submitted its new Fighting Falcon design to go up against the new F-15E Eagle. The USAF ultimately awarded McDonnell Douglas the contract. However, this wasn’t the end of the rope for the F-16XL idea.

The F-16XL’s NASA legacy

Two of these F-16XL prototypes referred to by their serial numbers #849 and #848 were eventually relegated to NASA’s Langley Research Center. Both jets were used in a variety of experiments that only concluded in the late 1990’s.

In 1995, F-16XL #849 participated in a sonic boom study where it successfully flew 200 feet behind a NASA SR-71 Blackbird to ascertain the boundary of the airframe’s supersonic shockwave. NASA heavily modified the two Fighting Falcon variants, installing a turbine-drive suction system and a thickened left-wing pulled in boundary layer air flowing over the wing.

The F-16XL was designed with a cranked arrow shape that accomplished greater lift than the base F-16.

As Alex Hollings from Sandboxx described it, “This new wing design, which saw a 50-degree angle near the root of the wing for supersonic performance and a 70-degree angle where the wings extended for subsonic handling.” Weighing nearly 600 pounds less than earlier variants, the F-16XL possessed greater maneuverability. The F-16XL could also carry twice the ordinance of the F-16A and deliver it 50% farther.

While the F-16XL prototypes are currently sitting in storage at the Air Force Flight Center Museum at Edwards and on display at the Museum Air Park, they are still revered by aviation buffs.

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 B-21 Raider, the U.S. Air Force’s next-generation stealth bomber, is expected to cost approximately $750 million per unit, making it less expensive than the B-2 Spirit it replaces.

-Despite its lower cost, the B-21 is designed to ensure enduring air superiority with advanced capabilities, including an open architecture for integrating new technologies.

-While the Air Force currently plans to procure around 100 units, concerns remain that China could produce its Xi’an H-20 bombers in greater numbers, potentially challenging U.S. air dominance in a future conflict.

B-21 Raider: A Cost-Effective Stealth Bomber for the USAF

If reports are correct, the U.S. Air Force’s next-generation B-21 stealth bomber won’t break the bank when it is introduced into service. The upcoming platform, designed to replace the Air Force’s aging B-1B Lancer and B-2 Spirit bombers, is estimated to cost roughly $750 million per unit. 

If this number, estimated by GlobalData, holds, the Raiders will actually be less expensive than the Spirit bombers they replace. The bomber’s lower cost will be especially important, considering the Air Force is simultaneously developing its Next Generation Air Dominance fighter jet. While the Raider’s budget will help anchor support for the B-21 program, the timely introduction of the airframe is what matters most. Tensions across the globe are continuing to escalate, and Beijing and Moscow are both pursuing next-generation bomber platforms of their own.

The B-21 Raider - What We Know

Like all U.S. bombers before it, the B-21 is being designed to ensure America’s enduring airpower capability and to cement U.S. air superiority over adversaries for another generation. The B-21 is named to honor the Doolittle Raiders of WWII, whose innovation and daring are recognized for altering the course of the conflict. In 1942, the Raiders became legends when they launched B-25 Mitchell bombers off the flight deck of the USS Hornet before carriers were actually designed for aircraft take-offs. 

The Air Force established the Long Range Strike Bomber program in 2011. Manufacturer Northrop Grumman was awarded the development contract a few years later, outcompeting Lockheed Martin and Boeing. According to a 2016 Government Accountability Office report on the program, Northrop was selected due to the lower costs associated with its design prototype. The bomber was formally designated the B-21 the same year. In 2018, the program completed its critical design review, and the Air Force selected Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota to host the bomber and its training unit. 

Once introduced, the bomber will certainly be the most advanced airframe of its kind. It will operate alongside the Boeing B-52J Stratofortress. 

“The B-21 Raider program is on track and continues flight testing at Northrop Grumman’s manufacturing facility on Edwards Air Force Base, Calif,” the Air Force said in a press release. “The B-21 will have an open architecture to integrate new technologies and respond to future threats across the spectrum of operations, greatly enhancing mission effectiveness and joint interoperability in advanced threat environments, strengthening U.S. deterrence and strategic advantage.” 

A senior Air Force official mirrored this rhetoric in a recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. 

“We are in the flight test program, the flight test program is proceeding well,” Andrew Hunter, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, technology and logistics, stated during the hearing. “It is doing what flight test programs are designed to do, which is helping us learn about the unique characteristics of this platform, but in a very, very effective way.”

Most of the aircraft’s specs and capabilities remain highly classified. However, the service and Northrop have revealed limited information. According to released footage of the bomber, the Raider is expected to be much smaller than its Spirit predecessor. Based on its smaller size, the B-21 could sport roughly half of the B-2’s 60,000-pound payload capacity. Additionally, a recent Sandboxx News report suggested that the bomber’s wingspan could be around 15% shorter than the Spirit, meaning the new bomber will be harder to detect on radar.  

With the B-21 now expected to cost a lot less than the B-2, perhaps the Air Force could procure more than its planned 100 airframes. Some analysts are concerned that even if the Raider is more advanced than its Chinese counterpart in terms of capabilities, the Xi’an H-20 bomber could be quantitatively superior. Beijing could produce double or triple the number of B-21s, which would certainly impede the Air Force in a potential conflict.

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. 

More from National Interest

PAK DA - Russia Is Building a New Stealth Bomber 

Houthis Might Have Attacked a Navy Aircraft Carrier - Report 

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Air Force plans to limit B-21 Raider production to 100 units, citing potential future technological advancements as a reason to avoid overcommitting.

-Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin highlighted that better technology may emerge by the mid-2030s, altering procurement strategies.

-Despite initial projections of up to 250 units, the production rate is expected to be slow, at less than 10 per year, to protect the program from budget cuts.

-This cautious approach reflects past experiences with scaled-back procurement of advanced military systems.

B-21 Raider and That Math Problem 

How many B-21s will the US Air Force need?

The U.S. Air Force (USAF) has stated that they do not intend to buy more than 100 B-21s. The reason: building so many B-21s takes time. And by the time so many B-21s are built, the USAF may well have a better, more advanced option to buy.

As Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin explained in April, the B-21 “is the future of our bomber force,” but better technology may be available in the near future, making the USAF reluctant to commit to procuring more than 100 B-21s.

Allvin suggested the USAF would reach 100 B-21s sometime in the mid-2030s, perhaps later. “I think there are other technological advancements that we would see to be able to augment that and have better mix…before we commit to that as being the platform…beyond that.”

B-21 Raider: The bomber of the future

Originally, the USAF was expected to procure between 80 and 100 B-21s.

That number was then upgraded to “at least 100.”

At one point, some pundits recommended that the USAF procure as many as 250 B-21s, to supplement retirements of the B-1 and B-2 bomber fleets.

Obviously, the 250 projection was overblown; Allvin’s 100-airframe cap is the new expectation.

If the USAF doesn’t produce 100 or so B-21s until the mid-2030s, that would mean the airframe is produced at a relatively languid pace—less than 10 per year.

As Air and Space Forces Magazine reported, “Pentagon acquisition and sustainment chief William LaPlante recently said that the B-21’s production rate was deliberately set at a low level to protect it from budget cuts.”

“One of the key attributes of this program,” LaPlante said through a spokesperson, “has been designing for production from the start – and at scale – to provide a credible deterrent … if you don’t produce and field to warfighters at scale, the capability doesn’t really matter.”

Subject to change

Procurement projections tend to change. Especially when the procurement relates to a system as advanced and expensive as the B-21 Raider.

Consider the F-22 Raptor, which was ultimately procured in far fewer numbers than originally projected.

The B-2 Spirit, the stealth bomber that the B-21 is being produced to replace, suffered similarly; less than two dozen B-2s ever joined the Air Force fleet.

Airframes are hardly the only system to have their budget and production cut.

The Seawolf class submarine was canceled after just three vessels were completed.

The Zumwalt class destroyer was cancelled after just three of the 32 planned vessels were completed. The narrative arc is routine.

And the B-21 is still early enough in its production life where it is vulnerable to suffering a similar fate – especially if the Air Force only intends to build the B-21 at a rate of ten or so airframes per year.

B-21 Pressure Cooker 

The B-21 may have added pressure, however, relative to other programs that were canned mid-way through production.

The B-21 is expected to be a lynchpin of the US bomber fleet moving forward. Existing airframes are being retired just to make way for the B-21, so failing to supply it would lead to a shortage relative to current bomber numbers.  

About the Author: Harrison Kass 

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

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Air Force's B-21 Raider program faces rising costs, with Northrop Grumman renegotiating higher prices for the next batch of 19 aircraft.

-Initially agreed to take a loss on early lots, Northrop has now secured a higher cost ceiling, raising concerns about the affordability of the B-21.

-The bomber's price tag could reach $600 million per aircraft, potentially limiting the total number the Air Force can procure. This development could challenge plans to replace aging bombers and maintain the Air Force's strategic capabilities.

B-21 Raider Price Hike Is Coming

Everything is costing more, and it isn't just groceries, and the burritos at Chipotle. The United States Air Force is going to have to shell out a few more bucks to pay for its fleet of B-21 Raider long-range strategic bombers to Northrop Grumman, the prime contractor of the next-generation aircraft.

The aerospace firm had previously agreed to take a "loss" on the first lots of the B-21, following negotiations with the contractor early this year, but as Defense One first reported on Monday, Northrop Grumman has been able to subsequently re-negotiate "a higher cost ceiling" for the next batch of 19 aircraft.

"B-21 remains on track to meet its key performance parameter for Average Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) of $550 million in Base Year 2010 dollars," Northrop Grumman stated in a June 18 press release, which highlighted key factoids about the future backbone of the U.S. Air Force's bomber fleet.

"The government has fixed price production options for the first 21 aircraft. Final terms, quantity, and pricing beyond the first 21 aircraft are subject to negotiation. The government and Northrop Grumman have established not to exceed pricing for an additional 19 aircraft. The average not to exceed value for the subsequent lots is above the average unit price of the five LRIP lots," the aerospace firm added. 

Inflation Woes – Just Part of the Problem for B-21

The B-21 Raider, which is set to replace the aging B-1B Lancer and B-2 Spirit in the coming decade, has been touted as being the most advanced bomber aircraft ever built. It is also on track to be the most expensive, potentially exceeding the B-2 if enough Raiders aren't built.

Current estimates put the price tag for the bomber as high as $600 million per aircraft, but only if the Air Force can buy the aircraft in volume to spread out the R&D costs. Yet, due to the rising costs, there had been concerns that the United States Air Force would be hard-pressed to buy enough of the B-21 Raider bombers in the coming years. In other words, the air service is facing a dilemma – it needs to buy more of the bombers to lower the per unit cost, but the price could still go up anyway, reducing the number that it can reasonably afford to buy!

The Raider entered its Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) in January, and the first five production lots of the B-21 will total just 21 airplanes. However, that is entirely by design and was meant to ensure the costs are managed accordingly. That may not work out as planned.

The Air Force hasn't provided an updated unit cost, while the service has also scaled back how much it requested to go towards the program for fiscal year 2025 (FY25), down to $2.7 billion from $4 billion projected last year.

As previously reported, the U.S. Air Force anticipates a need for about 100 B-21 Raiders, while Northrop Grumman, which as the prime contractor has a vested interest in producing more aircraft, recommended a program of at least 200 bombers.

The total number of the B-21 Raiders will come down to what lawmakers are likely willing to fund.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The B-21 Raider, the U.S. Air Force’s next-generation stealth bomber, recently completed its first test flight and is set to replace the B-2 Spirit.

-While the program appears to be progressing, concerns remain about its completion due to high costs and public scrutiny.

-Critics question whether the B-21 is necessary, given the U.S.'s already substantial defense budget.

-However, with significant investment and minimal controversy, the B-21 is likely to proceed as planned, aiming to enhance America's deep penetration bombing capabilities and maintain its military advantage.

The B-21 Raider Does Have 1 Thing Crtiques Keep Attacking

The B-21 Raider is being heralded as the next big entry into the USAF’s force structure.

Slated to replace the B-2 Spirit as America’s stealth bombing option, the B-21 recently made its first test flight, and is expected to join the force within the next few years.Yet, some observers are asking whether the program will be completed or whether the B-21 might suffer a fate similar to the B-1A, whose funding was cut before the bomber could ever be produced.

Introducing the B-21 Raider

Last November, the B-21 made its maiden test flight. And while the Air Force hasn’t chosen to share much about the program with the public, the B-21 seems to be moving along satisfactorily.

“The B-21 Raider is in flight testing,” said Ann Stefanek, an Air Force spokeswoman. Stefanek emphasized that the testing is an important step toward providing “survivable, long-range, penetrating strike capabilities to deter aggression and strategic attacks against the United States, allies, and partners.”

The B-21 would be the first new American bomber to join the fleet in about three decades. The last US bomber, the B-2, was developed through the 1980s and 90s.

And although it’s been more than a generation since the US last produced a new bomber, the cost of the program, plus the secrecy of the program, has some observers asking questions, wondering whether the project will ever be completed, or whether the project ever should be completed.

Does America need the B-21?

The need for the B-21 derives, in theory, from the advancements made in air defense technology.

Essentially, the B-2 is no longer as stealthy, as capable of deep penetration missions, as when first debuted. The result is that the US may have lost some ability to deliver ordnances behind enemy lines, undetected. And as such, US deterrence may be reduced.

The B-21 would, in theory, rejuvenate the US’s ability to perform deep penetration bombing runs, hence rejuvenating our deterrence.

But deep penetration bombing runs aside, and some naysayers are pointing out that America has, without even a close second, the highest defense budget of any nation on Earth.

The commitment to a new stealth bomber is naturally going to raise questions from a public who has watched so much of their tax base go directly to Lockheed Martin, or the B-21’s creator, Northrop Grumman.

Will the B-21 be cut?

The B-21 program appears to be moving ahead as planned. Things change. But significant resources have already been invested in the B-21.

Also, unlike most canceled programs, the B-21 is not a political hot potato. For the most part, the general public is unaware of the B-21; no one is pressuring their local congressperson to take a stance on the B-21. It’s just not a controversial issue (like the B-1A, or the F-35). Which means the bomber will likely proceed as planned.

“The ability to conduct long-range strikes at scale in all threat environments has been a decisive U.S. military advantage for more than 7 years,” wrote retired Air Force Colonel Mark Gunzinger. “Long-range bombers enable theater commanders to strike enemy targets inaccessible to other U.S. and allied forces.”

With Gunzinger, and like minded military-brass, and profit-minded aerospace executives, leading the charge for the B-21 – without public opposition – expect the B-21 to be produced as scheduled.

About the Author: Harrison Kass 

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: China’s DF-17 missile, equipped with a hypersonic glide vehicle, represents a significant challenge to U.S. military dominance in the Indo-Pacific.

-Capable of evading traditional defense systems, this weapon extends China's anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities, making U.S. military operations near Chinese shores increasingly difficult.

-The DF-17's range and maneuverability threaten U.S. carriers and bases, complicating power projection in the region.

The DF-17 Missile Threat from China 

As the U.S. grapples with developing countermeasures, the DF-17 underscores the shifting balance of power in favor of China.

China has developed a comprehensive ability to defeat the United States military in combat. No, it’s not some new warship or airplane. It’s both simple and unconventional. Beijing has determined that the Americans cannot be beaten by matching them bullet-for-bullet. 

Instead, China’s military has accurately assessed that any war with the United States will be fought close to China’s shores, giving China what amounts to a homefield advantage. While the Americans must come from distant lands. 

Therefore, if China can deny the Americans the ability to reliably project power into China’s backyard, then Beijing’s forces can defeat the Americans—and enjoy free reign over their part of the Indo-Pacific.

Chinese A2/AD Beats U.S. Military

As I have detailed in previous reports for this site, the Chinese have built a long-range, comprehensive anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capability that can prevent the deployment of most US military platforms in the event of a geopolitical crisis between the two great powers. Meanwhile, China has the capability, with these missiles, to target US military bases in the Indo-Pacific. 

What’s more, the Chinese have created so many of these relatively cheap missiles, drones, and hypersonic weapons that the Chinese can easily pop these weapons off at will—and have enough spares on hand to delay US power projection long enough for them to wrest control over the South China Sea, or the Senkaku Islands, or even, God forbid, Taiwan itself.

Understanding the DF-17

One such system is the Dong Feng-17 (DF-17) Medium-Range Ballistic Missile (MRBM). It comes equipped with a Hypersonic Glide Vehicle (HGV), which can fly at speeds above Mach Five and radically maneuver while in flight, making defending against this weapon with traditional anti-missile defense systems difficult, if not impossible. The DF-17 was first introduced to the public during China’s National Day military parade in October 2019, after it had reportedly been in development since 2014.

The DF-ZF, or the designation for the DF-17 HGV, is launched atop a ballistic missile, providing the initial boost to high altitudes before releasing the aforementioned HGV. The DF-ZF glides back to the Earth at hypersonic speeds, radically altering its course to avoid anti-missile defenses. 

The range of this beast is around 1,118 to 1,553 miles, meaning that no US aircraft carrier will be able to get within range of wherever a war between China and the United States erupts. Indeed, these A2/AD systems complicate the ability of any US Navy surface warship to safely and effectively operate near these Chinese systems. 

Let us not forget, too, that the DF-17 is meant to be used primarily for conventional strikes. 

A Nuclear Threat to America’s Carriers?

Although, it can be equipped with a nuclear warhead as well, according to Army Recognition. The Chinese military has already stated its intention to sink up to three US Navy aircraft carriers in the event of a war between the United States and China. Our elite laugh out loud at those claims, confusing the Chinese military of today with the Chinese military of thirty years ago. 

But Washington should wake up to the fact that it isn’t 1994 anymore. 

The unipolar moment is long over. And the United States is a drastically declining power (thanks to the current crop of leaders who’ve failed the country on every level) whereas the Chinese, whatever the future may hold, are for now a rising power with the ability to dominate their near-abroad at the expense of the United States. The DF-17 is one such example of how the Chinese have completely done an end-run around America’s perceived strategic advantages—notably at sea.

The DF-17 can be used in a variety of missions, from precision strikes against high-value targets to strategic deterrence. The missile’s ability to evade current defense systems, such as the much-ballyhooed Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), if any are even available since so many of these systems have been deployed to Ukraine, and Patriot systems (again if any are available for the Indo-Pacific, considering how many have been sent to the Mideast and Ukraine), makes the DF-17 a true challenge to the US military.

DF-17: Washington’s Nightmare Fuel

Washington is closely monitoring the development of the DF-17 and other hypersonic weapons. Further, the US is struggling to create both its hypersonic capabilities as well as its defenses against Chinese (and Russian) hypersonic weapons, such as the DF-17. 

More generally, until the Pentagon can reliably overcome the Chinese A2/AD threat, which they currently cannot, the US military will be defeated by China in any fight over Taiwan. 

And that fight is coming much sooner than most people realize.

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?)

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

While the RMS Titanic is, by far, the most storied ocean liner in history, the most storied ocean liner in United States history is, likely, the aptly named SS United States.

Built in the postwar period between 1950 and 1951, the United States Lines SS United States is the largest ocean liner ever built domestically. The SS United States is also the fastest ocean liner to ever cross the Atlantic Ocean. In fact, the SS United States still holds the Blue Riband (an unofficial accolade awarded to the ocean liner with the fastest Atlantic Crossing), which she has held since her maiden voyage in 1952.

Designing the United States

William Francis Gibbs was credited with designing the SS United States. Curiously, Gibbs began his career as an attorney but gained notoriety as a project manager in the restoration of a German ocean liner. Eventually, Gibbs and his brother would become prominent warship designers during World War II, with credits to their names including the Liberty-class and Fletcher-class. Gibbs was especially known for efficient hull designs and propulsion – which would come into play as he designed the SS United States.

The SS United States cost $79 million to construct – most of which the United States government underwrote. The vessel was built to the demanding specifications of the US Navy, which called for the vessel to be strictly compartmentalized, and to feature separate engine rooms. The reason for the stringent safety standards: the Navy wanted to be able to convert the SS United States into a warship, with minimal transition time, in the event she was needed for wartime service.

Gibbs built the SS United States to the Navy’s standards – and also to his own standards. The propulsion system, as was Gibbs’s calling card, was efficient. The vessel featured eight M-Type boilers capable of generating 310,000 pounds of steam per hour. The boilers were split into two separate engine rooms, as per the Navy’s requirements. Four were located forward, and four others were located after. Steam from the boilers turned four Westinghouse double-redaction geared turbines. Each turbine was capable of producing 60,000 horsepower, for a combined 240,000 horsepower. The turbines led to four shafts,  which in turn led to four propellers. The two outermost propellers had four blades while the innermost two had five blades. The unorthodox blade configuration helped to reduce cavitation and vibration and allowed the SS United States to achieve her record-breaking speeds.

Breaking Records for SS United States 

The top speed of the SS United States is still disputed, after being withheld as sensitive military information. Different sources have published different top speeds, ranging from between thirty-five knots and forty-three knots. The true speed is believed to be about thirty-eight knots per hour.

The vessel’s speed was put to good use on her maiden voyage, in 1952, when the SS United States crossed the Atlantic Ocean, from New York, New York to Cornwall, United Kingdom in just here days, ten hours, and forty minutes. The run was fast enough to earn the Blue Riband, which has not been relinquished in the seventy years since. On her return voyage, the SS United States set a record for the fastest westbound voyage, with a run of three days, twelve hours, and twelve minutes.

About the Author: Harrison Kass 

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Marine Corps’ VMFA-311 “Tomcats” squadron has achieved initial operational capability with the F-35C Lightning II, marking a significant milestone in readiness for carrier-based operations.

-This achievement means the squadron is fully equipped and trained to deploy in combat if needed. The F-35C’s advanced capabilities make it a critical asset for air superiority, close air support, and intelligence missions.

-The Marine Corps has a total order of 420 F-35s, including 67 F-35Cs, emphasizing the importance of these aircraft in future operations.

The F-35C Is Now All About the Tomcats 

The U.S. Marine Corps tactical aviation community achieved an important milestone this week after its second fighter jet squadron achieved initial operational capability with the F-35C Lightning II stealth fighter jet.

Designed for aircraft carrier operations, the newest F-35C squadron is now combat-ready in the event of a contingency.

The “Tomcats” Are Ready

Last week, Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 311 “Tomcats” declared initial operational capability and is ready to fly the F-35C to war if necessary.

“I am incredibly proud of the Marines and Sailors in this squadron as they hit this critical milestone that ensures greater lethality and operational readiness for the Wing, the Marine Corps, and the joint force,” U.S. Marine Corps major general James Wellons, the commanding general of 3rd MAW, said in a press release.

Achieving initial operational capability is a big milestone and signifies that the unit has the aircraft, the right equipment, and the necessary trained pilots and maintainers.

“Initial operational capability is a milestone and achievement in readiness. It’s all on the backs of the Marines out there. What they do in their day-to-day actions is what made this possible,” Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel Michael Fisher, the commanding officer of VMFA-311, stated.

Previously, the squadron flew the AV-88 Harrier and F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets.

“Nothing changes for us, our pursuit of excellence and how we carry ourselves, initial operational capability is a byproduct of daily competency and being good at our job,” Fisher added. “It is a great accomplishment, but when we wake up the next day, we are going to keep doing the same thing. Now full operational capability is the goal.”

F-35C activity is picking up. Only a few days ago, the Navy announced the forward deployment of an F-35C squadron in Japan to be close to China, Russia, and North Korea. And now, the Marine Corps announced the second operational F-35C squadron.

“The Tomcats have a storied history that includes legends such as Ted Williams and John Glenn, and participation in every major conflict since World War II. Today’s Marines add another chapter to that legacy with the introduction of the F-35C and fifth-generation capabilities to VMFA-311,” Wellons added.

The Marine Corps has ordered a total of 420 F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter jets. Broken down, the order is for about 353 F-35B aircraft, which rely on a Short Take-Off, Vertical Landing (STOVL) mechanism to take off and land, and sixty-seven F-35Cs. The Marine Corps is the biggest customer of the F-35B (the United Kingdom has ordered 138 F-35Bs, Japan forty-two F-35Bs, Italy thirty F-35Bs, and Singapore twelve F-35Bs). It is also one of the only two customers for the F-35C, with the U.S. Navy being the other and biggest one with an order for 273 F-35Cs.

A fifth-generation, multirole fighter jet, the F-35 Lightning II can conduct six mission sets: Air Superiority, Close Air Support, Strategic Attack, Electronic Warfare, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR), Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD), and Destruction Enemy Air Defense (DEAD). The aircraft comes in three versions: the F-35A, the conventional take-off and landing version; the F-35B, which is a STOVL aircraft; and the F-35C, which is designed for carrier operations.

About the Author: 

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

How a grassroots uprising toppled Sheikh Hasina.