Diplomacy & Crisis News

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy aims to enhance the F-35 Lightning II's survivability with BriteCloud decoys to counter radar-guided missiles. The F-35, a stealthy 5th-generation multirole jet, is already equipped with advanced self-protection systems.

-The BriteCloud decoy will further protect the aircraft, making it more effective in potential conflicts against near-peer adversaries like China or Russia. The F-35 comes in three variants: the conventional F-35A, the STOVL F-35B, and the carrier-based F-35C, each designed for different takeoff and landing methods.

-The F-35 is renowned for its versatility in various missions and its ability to coordinate battlefield assets.

U.S. Navy Enhances F-35 Lightning II with Advanced BriteCloud Decoys

The U.S. Navy is looking to make the F-35 Lightning II, its most capable jet, even more effective with the addition of advanced decoys.

With the prospect of a conflict against China in the Indo-Pacific always at the back of the mind, the Navy wants to make its carrier-based F-35s more survivable in a near-peer operational environment.

To that effect, the Navy wants to buy active expendable BriteCloud decoys to increase the defensive countermeasures of its F-35C.

Manufactured and sold by Leonardo, the BriteCloud is an off-board decoy deployed by an aircraft to jam the digital radio frequency of incoming radar-guided anti-aircraft missiles and divert them. Using a flight-stabilized body and its active jammer, the BriteCloud creates a credible decoy aircraft, thus confusing the incoming munition.

Although the F-35 Lightning II is a stealth jet, enemy munitions could still lock into it and shoot it down. Its stealth capabilities just make it harder to do so, giving more time to the pilot to complete a mission.

The advanced decoys will make the F-35 more survivable in a potential future conflict with a near-peer adversary like China or Russia.  

The aircraft already operates the ASQ-239 onboard self-protection system, and the BriteCloud will work in conjunction with that to further increase the jet’s defensive capabilities.

THE MOST ADVANCED MULTIROLE JET TODAY

The F-35 Lightning II is the most advanced jet in the skies today.

A 5th-generation multirole aircraft, the F-35 can perform a variety of missions. Indeed, the three versions of the F-35 can conduct Air Superiority, Close Air Support, Strategic Attack, Electronic Warfare, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR), Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD), and Destruction of Enemy Air Defense (DEAD) missions. 

The aircraft can also organize the battlespace around it. Through its advanced, interlinked sensors and radars, the F-35 Lightning II can communicate with other assets on the battlefield and guide them to targets, much like a quarterback would guide his teammates to victory.

The F-35 Lightning II comes in three versions: A, B, and C. In terms of capabilities, they are the same aircraft; where they differ is on how they take off and land.

The F-35A is the conventional aircraft that takes off and lands from runways. This is the most popular version of the stealth jet with the U.S. Air Force alone having ordered 1,763 aircraft.

The F-35B is the Short Take-Off, Vertical Landing (STOVL) iteration of the aircraft and can take off and land like a helicopter. Its STOVL capability allows it to operate from almost anywhere, making it a great expeditionary aircraft. This is the second most popular version; its biggest customers are the U.S. Marine Corps, Japan, Italy, and the United Kingdom.

Finally, the F-35C is the carrier version of the aircraft and is specifically designed to take off and land on aircraft carriers. It has a more robust superstructure and landing gear that can withstand the immense pressures of carrier operations. With only 340 F-35Cs sold, this is the least popular iteration – only the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps have purchased it.

Stavros Atlamazoglou is a Greek Army veteran (National service with 575th Marines Battalion and Army HQ). Johns Hopkins University. You will usually find him on the top of a mountain admiring the view and wondering how he got there.

This article was first published by Sandboxx News.

Summary and Key Points on the NGAD Debate: The U.S. Congress has appropriated $4.2 billion since 2015 for the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) Program, aiming to replace the prematurely discontinued F-22 Raptor.

-The NGAD seeks to develop a Sixth-Generation fighter and a technological ecosystem to maintain air superiority.

-It focuses on propulsion, uncrewed systems, materials, and sensors.

-Despite significant funding, some argue that true future air dominance lies in space capabilities.

Future of Air Dominance: Why NGAD Might Be a Flawed Investment

The article suggests prioritizing space-based defense systems to counter hypersonic threats rather than investing in another generation of expensive aircraft.

Since 2015, the United States Congress has appropriated $4.2 billion (and counting) for the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) Program. The goal is to replace the F-22 Raptor Fifth-Generation air superiority fighter that was prematurely discontinued during the height of the 2008 Financial Crisis and subsequent federal budget battle. In the eyes of US defense planners, a gaping hole in America’s strategic defenses (as well as the pocketbooks of defense contractors) has existed since the F-22 program was unceremoniously discontinued in 2009. 

Therefore, a new, Sixth-Generation warplane program is required to fill that gap.

For the US Air Force, the NGAD Program is not just about a new air superiority fighter jet. The USAF is attempting to create an entire technological innovation ecosystem that will support the continued struggle for air dominance over any and all rivals. According to the Institute for Defense and Government Advancement (IDGA), the program could lead to a singular new warplane model that outmatches anything currently in the air fleets of other nations. Or the NGAD Program “could manifest a combination of systems, such as manned, unmanned, optionally manned, cyber and electronic components." 

These configurations may deviate significantly from the traditional notion of a “fighter.”

The NGAD Program is addressing four major points of concern that Air Force planners believe will be decisive in creating the next platform for air dominance. Propulsion, uncrewed systems, materials, and sensors. Many of these aspects of the NGAD Program were areas of concern in the previous Fifth-Generation warplane programs of the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programs. The NGAD Program leaders are especially interested in fusing lightweight, revolutionary composite materials with uncrewed platforms that would operate in tandem with manned Sixth-Generation warplanes. 

As of June 2022, the NGAD Program requested $1.6 billion in the FY2023 budget. For FY2024, the requested NGAD budget was $2.3 billion. Between 2024 and 2027, it is projected by IDGA that the NGAD Program will receive around $11.7 billion. The systems are expected to be put into operation as early as the 2030s.

But now, a whole series of articles have come out against the idea. Even the Air Force might question the wisdom of NGAD. 

NGAD: A Bad Idea? 

Yet, the Pentagon is missing the point. 

Because the future of air dominance is not in the wild blue yonder, nor should stealth be the penultimate goal for the next generation warplane.

It is much higher than that. With the advent of the United States Space Force as the sixth branch of the US military, it is high time that war planners start innovating. You want air dominance and superiority? You need space dominance. And only a Space Force led by officers who believe in the policy of space dominance can provide absolute control over the skies above the Earth.

For all the money that is being spent on NGAD, little is being thought about the Space Force beyond limited satellite defense. The advent and application of hypersonic weapons platforms not only makes stealth an ancillary concern (or it should at least), but it also means that future wars will be fought at a distance. Given how America’s rivals—notably Russia—has outpaced America’s hypersonic weapons program, we are all made more vulnerable today. 

No Sixth-Generation warplane will be able to detect or protect against hypersonic attacks, the way space systems can.

Space Systems Can Defend Us from Hypersonic Attack

It is only in the strategic high ground of space where an advanced suite of early detection sensors can be permanently deployed that will be able to track hypersonic launches. Further, it is in the dark depths of space from where effective countermeasures against hypersonic attacks can likely be mounted. In an age of constrained budgets and a general skepticism toward greater military spending from both the Left and the Right, the Department of Defense must fundamentally rethink the way it crafts national defense strategies—and builds the systems needed to implement those strategies. 

The Air Force, with its massive budget, is no longer dealing in the final strategic domain. The air is now truly subordinate to space. And Space Force’s leadership must recognize that and must fight for a far greater share of the budgetary pie. 

Forget Sixth-Generation warplanes. Rather than looking at things from the ground-up, Pentagon planners must begin viewing the strategic situation from space-down. These planners must focus instead on building the weapons needed for comprehensive space-to-air-to-ground dominance. 

Defense Policy Innovation is Needed Now

So, rather than blowing our defense budget on building what, let’s face it, will be a somewhat redundant—and mind-bogglingly expensive—weapons platform for the Air Force, why not focus on moving the strategic ball forward? Why not place the onus for next generation air dominance in the hands of an organization that operates on a physically higher strategic domain, such as the United States Space Force? 

Our enemies have, after all, begun to catch up to the Americans. In key technological domains, such as hypersonics, they are even outpacing us. We don’t need more of the same. America deserves innovation. Otherwise, our rivals will not only catch up to us. They will leapfrog us—and likely defeat us when the inevitable next great power war erupts.

About the Author 

Brandon J. Weichert is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, as well as at American Greatness and the Asia Times. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower (Republic Book Publishers), Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The USS Gerald R. Ford is the most advanced aircraft carrier globally, marking the start of a new class of supercarriers for the U.S. Navy. Its first deployment lasted 239 days, involving significant operations in areas like Israel and the Red Sea, conducting over 10,000 aircraft sorties.

-The carrier boasts advanced technologies like the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS), Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG), and Advanced Weapons Elevators (AWE), enhancing aircraft turnaround by 30%.

-Despite its $13 billion cost, the Ford-class requires a 20% smaller crew than its predecessors, aiding in the current military recruitment crisis.

USS Gerald R. Ford: A New Era in Aircraft Carrier Technology

The USS Gerald R. Ford is the most advanced aircraft carrier in the world. The U.S. Navy’s latest carrier to enter service, the USS Gerald R. Ford is also the first ship of a whole new class of supercarriers. 

In January, the aircraft carrier and its battlegroup completed their first full-length operational deployment, which included presence in operationally “hot” areas around Israel and the Red Sea. 

First Deployment Down

In total, the carrier spent 239 days at sea (with three extensions to its deployment because of the Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel and the Houthis strikes against shipping in the Red Sea), conducted 43 replenishments at sea, conducted 10,396 aircraft sorties, and sailed almost 85,000 miles. 

“Throughout our time in the Mediterranean, the ship and crew both performed remarkably. Our sailors breathed life into the ship’s advanced technologies to demonstrate the extraordinary capabilities Ford-class carriers will provide to future generations,” Capt. Rick Burgess, the commanding officer of the aircraft carrier, said as the carrier strike group was finishing its deployment. 

The flattop carried F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jets, EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft, MH-60R Seahawk helicopters, E-2D Hawkeye airborne warning aircraft, and C-2A Greyhound transport aircraft.

“At the height of our readiness and proficiency, we were called to the Eastern Med, and proved to be the right ship at the right time to answer our nation’s calling. The Gerald R. Ford is everything our nation hoped it would be, and more,” the carrier’s skipper added. 

The USS Gerald R. Ford can pack more than 75 fighter jets, transport aircraft, and helicopters. In terms of performance, the nuclear-powered ship can reach speeds of over 30 nautical knots (about 35 miles per hour) and can operate for 25 years nonstop before its nuclear reactor requires maintenance.  

However, all this performance and new technology doesn’t come cheap. The USS Gerald R. Ford cost the American taxpayer $13 billion. Although the cost per ship is expected to fall with the subsequent vessels of the class, the cost will still be hefty. 

New Ship, New Technology 

The Ford-class aircraft carriers come with 23 new technologies. Undoubtedly, the star is the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EALS), which can launch aircraft at a faster pace. Some other technological additions the Ford-class brings are the Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) and Advanced Weapons Elevators (AWE). 

Combined together, these three technologies aim for a faster turnaround of aircraft in the range of a 30 percent increase. In a potential conflict with China in the Indo-Pacific, launching and recovering aircraft at rapid rates could be key, considering the potent Anti-Access/Aerial Denial (A2/AD) systems the Chinese military operates.

“The new systems incorporated onto Ford-class ships are designed to deliver greater lethality, survivability and joint interoperability with a 20% smaller crew than a Nimitz-class carrier, paving the way forward for naval aviation,” the Navy has stated about the class’ new technology.

The fact that the Ford-class requires a 20 percent smaller crew than its predecessors is important at a period where the Navy—and indeed the whole military—are suffering from a recruitment crisis. 

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 the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). His work has been featured in Business Insider, Sandboxx, and SOFREP. Email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: Aircraft carriers, among the most complex naval vessels, are essential for power projection but have had several failures throughout history. 

-Japan's Hyuga and Ise, converted from battleships to carriers, were ineffective due to their mixed roles and lack of adequate air support.

-The Shinano, converted from a Yamato-class battleship, was designed to support other carriers but sank before proving its utility. Russia's Admiral Kuznetsov, plagued by mechanical issues and inadequate upgrades, remains unreliable.

-Thailand's Chakri Naruebet, once powerful, now serves minimal functions due to budget cuts and lack of operational aircraft.

The 5 Worst Aircraft Carriers Ever 

Aircraft carriers are, with the possible exception of submarines, the most complicated naval vessels afloat. Not only do carriers have the traditional concerns of warships to deal with, they must also safely manage a fleet of aircraft which are often complicated in their own right. Despite these complications, carriers are among the most useful and lethal of warships. Even now, 100 years after the first purpose-built carrier HMS Hermes was laid down, major naval powers are still building these ships.

Not everyone does aircraft carriers correctly, and there have been several clunkers with the CV designation. Most of these ships are from the early years of naval aviation, before roles and missions were clearly assigned and the technology to build them was in its adolescent years. Others were poorly designed by latecomers to the aircraft carrier game, and some were perfectly useful ships made bad by insufficient training, maintenance or aircraft.

Hyuga and Ise:

During the First World War, Japan launched two new battleships of the Ise-class. Ise and her sister ship Hyuga were 640 feet long and displaced 29,990 tons. The two ships were each armed with twelve 14-inch guns mounted in six turrets of two guns each, twenty 5.5-inch guns and four 3-inch guns. The battleships each had twelve inches of steel armor at the main belt, tapering to three inches at the ends, deck armor of up to 2.5 inches, and eight inches of armor protecting the main guns.

The Battle of Midway proved a disaster for Imperial Japan, with the loss of four top of the line aircraft carriers to determined American aerial attacks. The decision was made to convert the two battleships into battleship carriers. Both Japan and the United States had converted large warships into aircraft carriers, but this had typically occurred during the construction process, far before the ships were complete.

Japanese officials took the two aging battleships and rushed to add as much aviation capabilities as possible. The conversion deleted the two stern main gun turrets, leaving the ships with just four turrets of two guns each, and in their place was installed a short flight deck. Each ship was designed to carry up to twenty-four airplanes. The ships’ anti-aircraft armament was heavily reinforced, particularly with anti-aircraft rockets. The conversions were completed by fall 1943.

The resulting “battle carriers” were half carrier and half battleship, and all disappointment. By 1943 it was clear that battleships and aircraft carriers had very different roles. Assigned to a carrier force, both Hyuga and Ise could contribute a marginal number of planes. Assigned to a battleship force, they had not enough guns to make a serious contribution. The two ships’ minimal air wings never reached full potential: by the time the conversions were complete, Japanese naval aviation was in a death spiral, lacking enough trained pilots, airplanes and fuel to fight effectively. Both ships were sunk towards the end of the water, raised afterward for scrap in rebuilding Japan—arguably their most important and successful use.

Shinano:

Many early conversions of battleships and battlecruisers to aircraft carriers were successful, such as the American Lexington-class. The conversion of Shinano from one of the largest battleships ever to something like, but not exactly an aircraft carrier, was not.

Shinano began her existence as the third ship in the famous Yamato-class battleships. Shinano was laid down at Yokosuka Naval Yard in May 1940, but construction slowed down in 1941 and into 1942. After the Battle of Midway, the Imperial Japanese Navy changed course and began modifying Shinano to act as an aircraft carrier. Navy officials argued about her ultimate design: one faction demanded Shinano be outfitted as a real aircraft carrier. Had she been so, she would have been the largest carrier in the world, with an overall length of 872 feet—fifty feet longer than the U.S. Navy’s Essex-class fleet carriers.

Another faction wanted Shinano built out as a support ship for other carriers, carrying spare parts, fuel, ammunition and spare airplanes for Japan’s carrier fleet. Shinano would not participate in combat and indeed would have no facilities for storing aircraft of her own. Ultimately, a compromise was hammered out in which the ship would act as a support ship for the rest of the carrier fleet but also carry forty-seven fighters for her own protection.

Shinano was doomed by design and wartime realities. As an aircraft carrier capable of self-defense only she was all but worthless, and the lack of crews and aircraft would have hamstrung her use. As a ship designed to support aircraft carriers she was a white elephant, for there were few carriers left to support. Had she ventured beyond Japan she would have been little more than a target for American carrier-based aviation.

Shinano never had a chance to demonstrate her utter lack of use in combat. Five hours after leaving Yokosuka Naval Base for sea trials, she was torpedoed by the submarine USS Archerfish. She rolled over and sank at 1017 hours, November 29, 1944.

Admiral Kuznetsov:

The first and only true aircraft carrier completed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, Kuznetsov was a follow-on to the Kiev-class carriers. Construction on the ship began in 1981 at the Nikolayev Shipyard, now in modern-day Ukraine. Kuznetsov was commissioned in 1990, in the dying days of the Soviet Union, and was inherited by Russia. The carrier was neglected in the early 90s due to a lack of funds and underwent a long refit from 1996 to 1998. Between 1991 and 2015, she completed only six patrols at sea.

Kuznetsov is old and needs to be retired, but as Russia’s only carrier that likely won’t happen any time soon. Until recently the ship’s propulsion system was unreliable, and in 2009 an electrical system problem led to a fire that killed one sailor. The ship’s hangar was too small, and it badly needed new arresting gear and electronics upgrades.

Russia’s only carrier went into drydock in Spring 2018 for an extended refit. The three year refit was planned to fix most of these issues, but funding for the project was cut in half and many upgrades were put on indefinite hold. In October 2018, Russia’s PD50 drydock sank while Kuznetsov was floating out, damaging the carrier in the process. Russia still insists the refit will be completed on schedule--someday.

Chakri Naruebet:

Although now an increasingly crowded field, for decades the only aircraft carrier native to East Asia (excluding the 7th Fleet) belonged to Thailand. HTMS Chakri Naruebet is a light carrier in the traditional sense, a flexible platform for missions spanning from sea control to disaster relief. Once a fairly powerful naval weapon, budget cuts and a lack of spare parts have reduced it to a shadow of its former self.

Chakri Naruebet was named after the Thai royal dynasty. Built by Spain’s Bazan Shipyards, the design was based on the Spanish Navy’s carrier Principe de Asturias. The Thai carrier was commissioned in 1997, measuring 597 feet long and displacing 11,400 tons. She was originally equipped with nine Harrier vertical takeoff and landing fighters, but the planes have run out of spare parts and no longer fly. Chakri Naruebet’s remaining air “wing” consists of four SH-60 Seahawk helicopters.

Chakri Naruebet was literally built with quarters fit for a king—the Thai king actually—leading to it being nicknamed “The World’s Largest Royal Yacht.” Budget cuts mean the Thai Navy rarely takes her out to sea.

About the Author 

Kyle Mizokami is a defense and national-security writer based in San Francisco who has appeared in the Diplomat, Foreign Policy, War is Boring and the Daily Beast. In 2009 he co-founded the defense and security blog Japan Security Watch. 

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The Alaska-class battlecruisers were developed by the U.S. Navy in response to Germany’s “pocket battleships” and Japan’s rumored “super cruisers.”

-Initiated in the 1930s and supported by President Roosevelt, these ships aimed to combine speed and firepower. However, their development was slow, and by the time they entered service in 1944, aircraft carriers and submarines had become more critical in naval warfare.

-Only two ships, Alaska and Guam, were completed, primarily serving in escort and shore bombardment roles. Despite their speed and advanced 12-inch guns, the Alaska-class ships were ultimately rendered obsolete by changing naval combat tactics during World War II.

Why the U.S. Navy's Alaska-Class Battlecruisers Were Doomed to Fail

Before World War Two, Germany had its hybrid “pocket battleships,” which were fast and powerful.

The United States wanted something that could challenge this class of ships. Not as big as a battleship but faster with guns that could wreck smaller vessels.

That led the U.S. Navy to think up the idea of the Alaska-class battlecruiser.

But unfortunately, for this class of ships, they were obsolete by the time they came into service.

Keeping up with the Germans and Japanese

The Alaska-class started out in the 1930s. Then it was Japan that entered the fray of competing ships. It was thought at the time that the Japanese were developing their own “super cruiser,” and the U.S. Navy wanted to keep up with modern vessels of war tit for tat.

FDR Was Fine With the Plan

President Roosevelt, always a navy supporter, was game for the new American battlecruiser. These ships were going to set the standard for speed and power. But the problem was that they were not going to be able to stand up and dominate a regular battleship.

Get New Ships in the Water

They were also going to be expensive – each costing $74 million in 1941 dollars, but the navy needed to fight a two-front war, and finally, Congress agreed to pass a law that would enable the number of ships to grow by 70-percent. There was going to be an astonishing 257-new ships. Six Alaska-class battlecruisers were approved.

Pearl Harbor Primed the Pump for New Ships

The Pearl Harbor attack got the ball rolling at American shipyards. But this new fever was for building aircraft carriers instead of big, capital battleships and cruisers. What was the navy going to do with a battlecruiser when carriers succeeded in bombing Japanese shipping with airplanes and American submarines feasting on Tokyo’s best naval vessels and merchant ships?

Battlecruiser Has Its Charms

The battle cruiser was still something the brass was interested in. As the World War Two National Museum wrote regarding the Alaska-class, the battlecruiser may have had a role. The speed and guns were appealing. 

“The modern 12” guns carried by the Alaska’s were also an improvement over the 14-inch guns carried by the older battleships in the U.S. fleet. Moving at a top speed of 33 knots, these ships were designed to be cruiser-killers, and would be able to get in and get out of trouble as quickly as possible and throw a hell of a punch,” the museum wrote in a profile.

The War Was Almost Over Before They Got to the Fight

The navy completed the first two ships of the class in late 1944 – the Alaska and the Guam. The Hawaii never made it to service. It wasn't until 1945 before the Alaska and the Guam recieved a mission. This was for escort and shore bombardment duty. They never filled the role they were envisioned for.

One thing the Alaska-class did well was to assist other ships during Japanese kamikaze attacks. They had great air defense and could escort wounded ships to safety.

Why the Alaska-Class Failed 

The navy should have learned from this experience with the Alaska-class. It takes substantial time to build a warship and naval combat changed rapidly over the course of World War II and even the years leading up to the conflict. Carrier-borne aviation and submarines quickly dominated naval concerns, and the battlecruiser was a solution in search of a problem. Too bad, because the Alaska-class vessels were good-looking and fast, that in another war, perhaps one fought in the 1930s, could have dominated the seas.

About the Author

Brent M. Eastwood, PhD, 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.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

How the culture war subsumed efforts to curb global warming.

Instead of abandoning Kyiv, Washington should give it the tools to win.

Summary and Key Points: Lockheed Martin has resumed deliveries of the F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter after overcoming issues with the TR-3 software updates. The F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) announced a phased delivery approach, starting with aircraft having initial training capabilities and progressing to robust combat training capabilities by the end of August.

The TR-3 update is crucial for the forthcoming Block 4 upgrade, enhancing the aircraft’s capabilities and allowing it to carry additional weapon systems.

Over 100 aircraft awaiting updates in storage hangars will now be delivered. This resumption marks significant progress for the F-35 program.

Lockheed Martin Resumes F-35 Deliveries After Overcoming TR-3 Software Issues

After many months of frustration and delays, Lockheed Martin has resumed deliveries of the F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter.

The F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) announced that longtime issues with the TR-3 software updates have been overcome and that the stealth aircraft is once more getting delivered.

F-35 Lightning II Deliveries Resume

“We have initiated a phased approach to the delivery of TR-3 F-35 aircraft,” Lieutenant General Mike Schmidt, the JPO’s program executive officer, said in a press release.

“The first phase will deliver jets with an initial training capability in July and August. By the end of August, we will be delivering jets with a robust combat training capability, as we continue towards the delivery of full TR-3 combat capabilities in 2025. Our focus has been on providing our customers with aircraft that are stable, capable, and maintainable, and this phased approach does that,” Schmidt added.

This is a compromise among the JPO, Lockheed Martin, and the military customers. The aircraft that are going to be delivered will require further software updates to be combat-ready. But in order to get the process moving, the different parties reached a compromise to start delivering aircraft with a limited version of the TR-3 update that can be updated in the future.

The TR-3 software update is quite important because it will enhance the aircraft’s capabilities and make it more competitive in a near-peer operational environment. Moreover, the update is necessary for the upcoming Block 4 upgrade to work; the Block 4 upgrade will allow the F-35 Lightning II to carry additional weapon systems and further increase its advanced capabilities.

“TR-3 and Block 4 represent a critical evolution in capability and their full development remains a top priority for us,” said Bridget Lauderdale, vice president and general manager of the F-35 Program at Lockheed Martin.

“These and further software updates over the life of the program will ensure the F-35 continues to be an effective deterrent and the cornerstone of joint all-domain operations now and decades into the future,” she added.

Here at The National Interest, we have closely followed the saga around the TR-3 software update and the operational and national security consequences of delaying deliveries of America’s most advanced fighter. For several months, Lockheed Martin has been producing F-35 stealth fighter jets that, instead of getting delivered to the U.S. military or several other foreign customers, were forced to sit in storage hangars, waiting for the key TR-3 software update. Although the exact number of F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter jets stored in hangars remains classified, it is estimated that over 100 aircraft will need to be updated before they join the operational fleet.

“I am extremely proud of all the hard work the government and industry team have put into the delivery of TR-3 configured F-35s. This is an important first step, and although much work remains, I am confident our team will work tirelessly to achieve the desired and necessary results that our warfighters, allies and customers require.” Schmidt said.

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. 

Summary and Key Points: The F-4 Phantom II, an iconic third-generation American warplane, served from 1961 to 1996 and participated in conflicts like the Vietnam War and Desert Storm. Developed by McDonnell Aircraft, this tandem, two-seat, twin-engine jet was used by the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and eleven other nations, including Iran.

-Powered by two General Electric engines, it could reach speeds of 1,485 mph and carry a variety of missiles and a Gatling cannon.

-Despite its impressive capabilities and service record, it was retired as newer fourth and fifth-generation aircraft, like the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon, became operational.

The F-4 Phantom II Had the Perfect Lifespan

The F-4 Phantom II is one of America’s most iconic warplanes. After entering service in 1961 and retiring in 1996, this bird is the stuff of legends. A unique design, the F-4 Phantom II was the world’s premier third-generation warplane. It served in multiple conflicts, from the Vietnam War to Desert Storm. Even with its incredible service record, though, the warbird was retired at the appropriate time. 

The F-4 Phantom II was one of the best, but by that time, the plane was a third-generation bird living in a fourth-generation warplane world. In fact, by the time the last U.S. Phantom was retired, the fifth generation had already arrived. 

The F-4 In All Its Glory

A tandem, two-seat, twin-engine, all-weather, long-range supersonic jet interceptor and fighter-bomber, this warbird was originally developed by McDonnell Aircraft for the U.S. Navy. After it entered service with the Navy, the Marine Corps also adopted this plane, and so did the Air Force. Eleven other nations used these birds as well. 

As an interesting aside, the Islamic Republic of Iran’s military still uses the F-4s they inherited from the government of the deposed Shāh.

The F-4 Phantom II has a maximum range of 1,450 miles (2,334 km) and an operational ceiling of 56,100 feet (17,099 meters). It is powered by two General Electric J79-GE-17 afterburning turbojet engines, each producing 17,900 pounds of thrust. The maximum speed of the F-4 Phantom II was 1,485 miles per hour at 48,000 feet.

This bird was not to be toyed with. She carried with her into battle a 20 mm M61 Vulcan Gatling cannon with 640 rounds. In other words, she could do some damage as a close air support (CAS) bird. The Phantom also carried a variety of air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles, including the AIM-7 Sparrow, AIM-9 Sidewinder, AGM-65 Maverick, and AGM-45 Shrike. F-4 Phantom IIs could carry nuclear weapons as well. 

These birds came equipped with an impressive countermeasures suite including chaff and flare dispensers. What’s more, the F-4 Phantom II was equipped with an AN/APQ-72 radar, an AN/APG-59 pulse-Doppler radar, and an AN/APR-25 radar warning receiver. All these tools came in handy when needing to repel fire either from enemy warplanes or from the ground. 

F-4 Fighter Phantom: Its Time Had Come

With the arrival of fourth-generation successors such as the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon, the F-4 Phantom II had served her purpose. 

Understandably, the men who flew her and who have studied her engineering love this plane. They should. But it simply could not compete with the next-generation birds. Even in the CAS mission set, the A-10 Thunderbolt II was a superior plane. 

The F-4 had its time. It broke multiple records. The F-4 had an astonishing initial climb rate of over 41,000 feet per minute. The F-4 set a transcontinental speed record as well as achieving the world sea level speed record. 

There is much to be proud of when remembering the F-4 Phantom II. But by 1996, its time had come. It needed to be retired with its legacy of heroic and legendary service. Just as all men should know when to leave the party, the same is true for planes. 

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. Main image is from a fire aboard USS John F. Kennedy in 1968.

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?)

Roughly half of House and Senate Democrats boycotted the speech as protesters in Washington denounced the Israeli leader’s visit.

Violent demonstrations have shattered Sheikh Hasina’s aura of invincibility.

Negotiations are expected to occur in a few weeks with a focus on super-pollutants.

The Republican ticket has unified—around a fundamentally unrealistic foreign policy.

Summary and Key Points: Russia’s only aircraft carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov, has been stuck in drydock undergoing prolonged and problematic modernization efforts. Originally launched in the 1980s, the carrier has faced numerous issues, including design flaws, outdated mazut fuel, and significant operational failures.

-Kuznetsov has been beset by multiple fires, a falling crane, and embezzlement scandals at its repair shipyard.

-Despite plans to return it to service by the end of 2024, its troubled history and the ongoing Ukraine invasion suggest that it may never sail again. Scrapping the carrier could be the most practical option for Moscow.

Is It Time for Russia to Scrap the Embattled Admiral Kuznetsov?

The refit of Russia’s sole aircraft carrier goes on with no end in sight. For years now, Admiral Kuznetsov has been virtually wasting away at various shipyards as it undergoes “modernization” efforts on drydock. The plagued carrier might not ever enter service again. Even if the flagship of the Russian Navy does make it back out to sea, its troubled history, design flaws, and underwhelming capabilities will sideline the vessel. It will be more of a burden than an asset. 

Admiral Kuznetsov was supposed to venture from the port of Murmansk this year after spending nearly a decade tied to the dock. According to Russian state-run media last summer, the country’s only aircraft carrier was nearing the end of its refit saga. 

But this did not happen. The Soviet-era flattop remains dry-docked in Murmansk. As TASS reported: "According to the adjusted plan, factory sea trials of the aircraft carrier should begin in the spring of 2024. If the tests pass without glitches, then the ship can be handed over to the fleet at the end of 2024. If something goes wrong during the tests, then a shift to 2025 is inevitable." 

Clearly, Kuznetsov did not pass these initial tests.

Introducing Admiral Kuznetsov

Russia’s sole carrier was constructed by the Black Sea Shipyard during the Cold War and officially launched in the mid-1980s. Intended as the lead ship of a two-ship Kuznetsov class, the dissolution of the Soviet Union left Kuznetsov an only child. 

Kuznetsov was originally laid down as “Riga,” followed by “Leonid Brezhnev” and later “Tbilisi.” Ultimately, the carrier was renamed to honor Soviet Admiral Flota Sovetskoho Soyuza Kuznetsov. The Soviets intended Kuznetsov to function as a heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser during the Cold War, capable of supporting and defending missile-carrying submarines and other aircraft. However, the carrier’s design flaws, infrastructure issues, and perhaps bad luck have prevented her from achieving any of these missions.

Russia’s Sole Aircraft Carrier May Be Cursed 

Unlike modern carriers that are powered by nuclear energy, Kuznetsov runs on a goopy, tar-like substance called mazut. During the Cold War, this fuel source was popular due to its thick viscosity. While older military and commercial vessels relied on mazut in the past, the substance’s numerous shortcomings have led manufacturers to use nuclear or gas turbine propulsion systems instead. 

Kuznetsov was simply not built to withstand its intended service life. Poor piping installed during the carrier’s initial construction prevents its boilers from operating at full capacity simultaneously. This issue has only confounded the mazut’s drawbacks, as proper boiler and piping installations are required to ensure it can be adequately preheated and pressurized.

As previously detailed by Harrison Kass, “Mazut would be considered a Bunker B or Bunker C fuel. Bunker fuels, which is a colloquial term for the fuel oil that marine vessels use, are divided into A, B, or C classifications, based on their boiling points, carbon-chain lengths, and viscosities. A is the highest quality classification. C is the lowest. Lower quality fuel emissions, like mazut’s, typically produce large amounts of sulfur and have negative effects on the environment and human health.”

Kuznetsov’s mazut issue is not the carrier’s only limiting factor. The Russian carrier uses a simple bow ramp to carry out flight operations, while its foreign near-peers have shifted to magnetic-powered catapults and steam-powered catapults that work much better. The first and only time Kuznetsov used this system in combat was in 2016-2017, when she deployed to Syria. Two airframes were lost due to faulty arresting wires during this stint in the Middle East, essentially proving the carrier useless.

Should Moscow Scrap Admiral Kuznetsov Once and for All?

Kuznetsov’s Syria deployment is just one chapter in a desultory history. Between 2016 and 2022, the carrier suffered from multiple fires onboard, a falling crane, and even a crime of embezzlement relating to the shipyard where she once underwent repairs. It appears Kuznetsov will not re-enter service with the Russian Navy as planned by the end of the year.

Considering the ongoing invasion of Ukraine, it is unlikely the carrier will receive enough resources, funding, and labor to enable her to sail the seas any time soon. Perhaps nixing Kuznetsov altogether is the best plan of action for Moscow.

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. 

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

The former president’s health and mental acuity haven’t received nearly enough scrutiny.

Now that Democrats have installed Kamala Harris as the presumptive 2024 nominee, focus is shifting to who Harris may pick as her running mate. The Vice President pick is typically about pure political calculus – geography, deficiency balance, demography balance – and Harris’s pick will be no different.

Here are a few of the leading candidates, in no particular order.

Senator Mark Kelly

Mark Kelly probably has the most compelling biography in the Democratic Party. Combat pilot. Test pilot. Astronaut. Husband of a gun-violence victim (who happened to be a sitting congresswoman). Senator. The Kelly template is reminiscent of John Glenn’s, who pivoted from fighter pilot to the Mercury program, where he became the first American to orbit the Earth in Friendship VII, before serving as the US Senator from Ohio.

Glenn is an American icon, who enjoys broader name recognition than Kelly, for his early NASA exploits, although Kelly spent significantly more time in space (four Space Shuttle missions versus Glenn’s one Mercury mission).

Unlike Glenn, Kelly is not quite a national figure (politically). Yet Kelly has that moderate appeal (as a gun owner and Second Amendment supporter) that could help Harris attract independents. Oh, and Kelly represents Arizona – a vital swing state that will help decide the entire election.

Governor Josh Shapiro

“Perhaps nobody in the Democratic Party right now is a bigger rising star,” The Washington Post wrote of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro. The former attorney general could become the first Jewish person ever elected on a presidential ticket and could help Harris compete for Pennsylvania’s all-important 19 electoral votes.

Shapiro could also help the Harris ticket appeal to independents and moderates. “More than 3 in 10 Pennsylvania Donald Trump supporters also supported Shapiro,” The Washington Post reported.  

Shapiro, like Kelly, is newer to national politics – and may seem green for a national ticket.

Governor Roy Cooper

Californian Kamala Harris could help bolster her credentials in the South with North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper. The second-term governor is a household name in North Carolina, where he has served in office since the 1980s.

Cooper remains extremely popular in North Carolina, where has won five statewide campaigns – in years that Republicans carried the state for the presidential election. Cooper is the most experienced, and presumably, the most politically savvy name on Harris’s shortlist. Cooper is also older, however, at 67 – which may be more of a turn-off than usual, given the concerns over Biden’s age, and the hype over Harris’s relative youth.  

Governor J.B. Pritzker

Governor J.B. Pritzker is well-established in elite Democratic circles, and, not coincidentally, happens to be a billionaire. Accordingly, Pritzker could help bring some mainstream and financial clout to the ticket (not that the ticket will be lacking in either).

But while Pritzker has been a competent governor, he doesn’t have the geographic appeal; Illinois is a solidly blue state that Harris likely has in the bag. What Harris needs on the ticket is someone who can help her win votes she would not otherwise earn. Pritzker may prove to be an electoral redundancy.

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.

Will the U.S. Navy replace its dedicated electronic warfare fighter jet with a new aircraft? Based on some recent statements by Boeing officials, it looks like that the Navy is thinking of replacing the EA-18G Growler electronic warfare fighter jet with an improved version of the brand new F-15EX Eagle II.

F-15EX Eagle II: A New Electronic Warfare Fighter Jet?

To begin with, electronic warfare aircraft like the EA-18G Growler have a niche but very important mission: find and suppress enemy radar and radio by jamming and kinetic strikes to enable other fighter jets and bombers to complete their missions.

As air defense weapon systems and sensors become more advanced so electronic warfare aircraft become more important on the battlefield.

In a potential conflict with China in the Indo-Pacific, electronic warfare aircraft would play a key role in helping the U.S. military and its allies establish air superiority. Beijing has invested heavily in Anti-Access/Aerial Denial (A2/AD) systems to restrict the capabilities of the Navy and prevent its aircraft carriers from entering the fray in force. Several of these A2/AD systems rely on powerful sensors and radars to perform their mission. This is where electronic warfare aircraft like the EA-18G Growler come into play.

A New Electronic Warfare Fighter Jet?

According to Boeing’s executive director for fighter jet business development, Rob Novotny, the defense and aerospace giant is evaluating the technical feasibility of introducing the electronic warfare capabilities of the EA-18G Growler into the F-15EX Eagle II platform.

The Boeing official highlighted that the project is quite new and is currently undergoing the initial stages of determining viability. In terms of potential clients, Novotny said that both NATO and U.S. allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific would likely be interested.

The F-15EX Eagle II is the newest fighter jet in the U.S. military. A 4.5th generation aircraft, the F-15EX Eagle II is a multirole aircraft that can achieve both air superiority and deliver accurate strikes on the ground. The Air National Guard received its first operational F-15EX Eagle IIs this summer.

The Navy has been using the EA-18G Growler operationally since 2009 and today flies approximately 150 aircraft of this type. Based on the structure of the F/A-18 Hornet/Super Hornet, the EA-18G Growler is expected to go out of production in the next few years, thus encouraging discussion about the Navy’s future electronic warfare capability.

“Modern aerial combat requires command of the electromagnetic spectrum, and this platform would lead the way into the next decade or two,” Novotny said. 

The brand new F-35C Lightning II stealth fighter jet that is gradually entering service for the Navy is also capable of electronic warfare missions, but the EG-18 Growler remains the only dedicated aircraft for that type of mission in America’s naval air fleet.

There is an argument that giving the electronic warfare mission to the F-35C would be the better option, given the aircraft’s stealth capabilities. However, there is another argument that electronic warfare capability could create stealth conditions if enemy sensors are taken out from afar via electronic warfare means.

“Stealth means, to me, I can go to a place where the enemy doesn’t want me to go, and I can operate in their environment, achieve my objective, and not be targeted,” the Boeing official added. 

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.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Last month’s Russia-North Korea summit was a reminder of the dangers of bilateral military cooperation between the two rogue regimes. 

Pyongyang has provided millions of artillery rounds and dozens of missiles to prolong Moscow’s brutal invasion of Ukraine. In return, Pyongyang receives economic benefits and potentially high-end military technology.

Less noticed were pledges by Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to augment bilateral trade. Resulting measures could increase the already extensive numbers of North Korean workers in Russia. These workers, along with those sent to China and other countries, work in violation of UN resolutions. They allow the Kim regime to evade international sanctions by earning foreign currency for its prohibited nuclear and missile programs.

North Korea, for decades, sent its citizens to work abroad for wages that benefit the regime. However, UN Security Council Resolution 2397, adopted in December 2017, required UN member-states to repatriate all North Korean workers within their borders by December 2019.

Despite this edict, more than 100,000 North Korean laborers continue to work in 40 countries, though predominantly in China and Russia. They generate an estimated annual revenue of $500 million for Pyongyang. They labor in factories, agriculture, construction, logging camps, and mining operations. North Korea also operates restaurants in at least five countries, generating $700 million in annual revenue for the regime.

In December 2023, a Russian Construction Ministry official announced that Moscow requested 2,000 workers from North Korea in order to address labor shortages in Siberia. In February 2024, hundreds of North Korean workers were seen disembarking from a train near Vladivostok. In April 2024, North Korea sent workers to the Russian-occupied Donbas region in Eastern Ukraine.

In 2022, Chinese officials indicated there were 80,000 North Koreans just in Dandong, a seafood industry hub. Large groups of North Koreans have been sent to work at clothing and electronics parts factories in China’s Jilin Province.

North Korean overseas workers are exploited. They work in highly abusive conditions and in violation of international labor laws. The workers usually receive only 10% to 30% of their salary, with the rest provided directly to the North Korean government. Workers have to relinquish their passports and often work between 14 and 16 hours a day, with no holidays, except perhaps for one day a month. They can suffer confinement, beatings, and sexual exploitation.

Recently, North Korean workers in China engaged in strikes and riots after not receiving wages for several years. In January 2024, some 2,000 North Korean workers occupied a factory in Jilin Province, beating to death a North Korean official in charge of managing them, to protest unpaid wages.

In addition to laborers, North Korea sends IT workers overseas for activities both illicit and legitimate (though still UN-proscribed). The North Koreans use false foreign identities to fraudulently gain employment as freelance computer engineers with technology and virtual currency companies. Thousands of highly skilled North Korean information technology workers currently operate in Belarus, China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Russia, and Singapore.

Some North Korean IT workers can earn more than $300,000 per year, with 90% of the wages going to the regime. Most of the North Korean IT workers are engaged in non-hacking computer activity, but they are often involved in virtual currency companies and are able to launder illicitly obtained funds back to North Korea. Some use their access to foreign companies to carry out malicious cyber activities.

In May 2024, the United States announced charges against an Arizona woman, a Ukrainian man, and three foreign nationals on allegations of illegally helping North Korean IT workers pose as U.S. citizens and gain employment with 300 unwitting U.S. companies. The scam provided money and proprietary information to the North Korean regime.

Identifying and exposing North Korean violations will be harder after Russia vetoed the annual reauthorization mandate for the UN Panel of Experts created in 2009 to identify evidence of violations of UN resolutions. The panel also monitored and publicized UN member-states’ compliance with enforcing required sanctions.

Half-hearted enforcement of U.S. laws and UN sanctions by the Biden administration undermines the effectiveness of international efforts to hold North Korea, and other nations, accountable for violating those laws. The U.S. has also long refrained from going after Chinese and Russian banks and businesses assisting North Korea’s illicit nuclear and missile programs.

The U.S. should target North Korean overseas workers by requesting countries eject North Korean workers lest they face secondary sanctions against their companies, government agencies, or financial institutions.

Similarly, Washington should impose sanctions against any entity supporting North Korean cybercrimes and malicious cyber activity, including by providing technology, equipment, training, and safe haven to North Korean hackers.

Washington should take the lead in working with foreign governments to reduce Pyongyang’s use of illicit means to finance its growing military threat to the region and to the American homeland.

About the Author: Bruce Klingner

Bruce Klingner is Senior Research Fellow for Northeast Asia at the Heritage Foundation. He previously served 20 years with the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency, including as CIA’s Deputy Division Chief for Korea.

Image Credit: Shutterstock. 

Demonstrations in New Caledonia, which legally belongs to French sovereignty, caused a diplomatic row between France and Azerbaijan. The demonstrations and tensions in New Caledonia began after a public debate in the country about a new voting law, which, according to supporters of independence from France, discriminates against the indigenous population – the Kanaks.

The French claimed that they had noticed another flag flying in the demonstrations alongside the Kanak flag and it was the flag of Azerbaijan. Another claim of the French against Azerbaijan is that suddenly there is a group within Azerbaijan that is connected to the government and publicly supports the people of New Caledonia in their struggle against France. This, although difficult to define as “conclusive evidence”, was enough for the authorities in France to assume that there are people in Azerbaijan who support New Caledonia. The French were not satisfied with suspicions, but they issued statements and publicly blamed Azerbaijan for the instability in New Caledonia.

Another thing that caused France to raise its suspicions towards Azerbaijan as a country that interferes in the internal affairs of France, is the involvement and support of Azerbaijan in the NAM movement, or its full name “The Non-Aligned Movement”. NAM is a movement that began in the 1960s to help developing countries liberate themselves from the yoke of colonialism (with an emphasis on the countries of the Soviet Union, because during the founding period, the Cold War took place) to conduct themselves independently, without external intervention of the big powers.

In addition to this, NAM works to help peoples who cry out for independence to get their independence politically, economically, and socially. The principles that guide the NAM movement and the country of Azerbaijan, which is itself a country that has been liberated from colonialism for many years, will make it easy for the movement and the country to cooperate over the years. It was accompanied by a common desire in French colonies.

Although France is no longer a power since the beginning of the last century, it no longer controls half of the world, but it has not given up its influence in the countries and regions it controls.  France actually wants influence economically, politically, and militarily also in the lands it left a long time ago. Allowing this is called “neo-colonialism” these days. Because of France’s foreign policy towards the countries it liberated, it managed to arouse the ire of all kinds of anti-colonial movements around the world, including in New Caledonia. Instead of the people in power having a reckoning with France regarding France’s foreign policy and its attitude towards countries affected by them, they preferred to find a scapegoat to take the blame for the instability in the French colonies.

One would think that because of France’s way of acting with its colonies and the countries that were formerly its colonies, it would ideologically support countries that want to expand their territory, but no. French hypocrisy came out in full force when it came to the Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict. France supported Armenian separatism in the Karabakh region and Armenia’s military terrorist operations nearby. France tried to circumvent the just demand for the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan following territorial claims by Armenia, when both houses of the French Parliament recognized the independence of the “Republic of Artsakh” in 2020, although Armenia itself did not recognize it. The French support for Armenian separatism goes well with the arguments against France, which acts selectively and cynically in everything related to support for international principles and the value of sovereignty. One can understand that what interests France are personal geopolitical interests and nothing more.

The point that the Haitian media keeps accusing Azerbaijan of anti-French potential emphasizes the French’s confidence in the lack of French foreign policy, which is characterized as colonial behavior. For example, an article from the French magazine Le Monde presents Azerbaijan’s anti-colonial actions as anti-French actions and is spreading false information about French foreign policy. It is difficult to know whether the French act this way because the French journalists really do not understand how France’s colonial foreign policy is perceived externally or because of repressed feelings of guilt from the hopes that France makes for the peoples it rules and dominates. To be sure, the sentence about the camel that cannot see its own hump does not fit the country in the same way that in this situation as it fits the description of France.

 In conclusion, it is clear to see that French foreign policy continues in many areas of the country. France’s attempts to mark Azerbaijan as undermining its sovereignty in New Caledonia, apparently stem from a search for a scapegoat in order not to give it the judgment for its actions. If not, probably out of feelings of guilt the French prefer not to see the damage they are doing and have done, to many peoples and many countries.   

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy faces significant challenges in the Indo-Pacific, particularly against China’s advanced anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) systems, which threaten the traditional role of aircraft carriers.

-The potential for a Chinese invasion of Taiwan has prompted military planners to consider new strategies, including the use of autonomous drones and mobile forces to counter Chinese amphibious landings. Carriers may be repositioned as reserve forces or deceptive tools to draw Chinese resources.

-The evolving technology and strategic importance of carriers necessitate a careful reevaluation of their role in potential conflicts with China.

U.S. Aircraft Carriers in a War with China:

As the world progresses deeper into a decade of concern, military planners continue to contend with the potential of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. 

Chinese President Xi Jinping has made no secret of his ambitions toward the island nation. Should a military clash begin in the region, U.S. military leadership right now would be faced with several tough choices on how to respond. One of the key decisions would be how to use the U.S. Navy’s carriers. Once invulnerable floating fortresses, rapid Chinese advances in anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities leave these vessels facing new and serious risks. As thinking evolves, several theories on potential uses for carriers have begun to emerge.

Carrier Vulnerabilities and Traditional Roles

Naval strategy in the Pacific during the Second World War relied heavily on carriers. Though these vessels remained vulnerable to shore-based threats, across the vast reaches of America’s island-hopping campaign they were able to protect battle fleets and landing forces while projecting power against enemy fleets and positions. 

Until the past decade or so, this is the role they would have filled in a conflict with China: sailing with impunity in the South and East China Seas, as well as the Strait of Taiwan, to rout Chinese landing forces and strike strategic locations on the mainland. 

Major advances in both the quantity and quality of Chinese anti-ship missile systems have made this strategy untenable. Recent wargames projected the U.S. would lose two carriers at the outset of hostilities simply due to their presence within range of these systems. The saturation of the combat area with A2/AD systems means the Navy will be unlikely to employ carriers in their traditional role. It appears that establishment thinking has begun to understand this and to fight against the inertia of traditional plans to explore new strategies for defending Taiwan. 

Outlining Different Strategies

It is widely recognized that allowing China unimpeded access to the Strait of Taiwan to conduct amphibious landings would result in Taiwanese defeat. While the Republic of China Armed Forces possess some capabilities to contest control of the Strait, it is likely these would be reduced to low operation capability shortly after the outbreak of hostilities, thanks to mainland China’s overwhelming quantitative superiority. 

As discussed above, conventional U.S. forces are also at risk should they attempt to project power into the Strait. This is why some leaders are looking to lessons from Ukraine to make the Strait a “hellscape” for Chinese forces. In this scenario, the U.S. floods the region with autonomous aerial, surface, and subsurface drones: cheaply made, difficult to detect, and highly lethal. The idea would be to limit the effectiveness of a Chinese landing and to buy Taiwanese and coalition defenders time to move assets into the region to blunt a Chinese assault. 

A similar plan envisions drawing high-profile U.S. forces – such as carriers – back to or behind the second island chain. In their place would remain a dispersed, mobile force “to blunt Chinese attacks and reassure allied publics.” These units would serve a similar function to the drones of the “hellscape” strategy, attacking valuable People’s Liberation Army Navy ships while incurring relatively few losses in return. While unable to fully stop an invasion, they could buy time for reserve forces to reach the battlefield. 

How Do Aircraft Carriers Fit Into the Equation?

Whatever strategy the U.S. and allies pursue, the role of carriers will need to be re-evaluated. Some thought has already gone into the more granular aspects of strategy, but there is still much room for discussion and debate. From a grand strategy perspective, carriers would be part of an outside force to assist mobile units in the first island chain. In this scenario, carriers would act almost as a reserve force to either plug any gaps on the defensive or exploit gaps on the offensive. 

Simultaneously, holding carriers out of harm's way allows them to act as a “fleet in being” and require the PLA to devote resources to A2/AD instead of offensive capabilities aimed at taking Taiwan. 

Finally, some envision upending the use case for carriers entirely and using them as a deceptive force to draw out Chinese resources without undertaking offensive missions essential to the war effort. 

Much thought must be given to the use of carriers in a conflict with China. Continued advances in technology, such as the recently unveiled AIM-174B, will also change the calculus around carrier strategy, and planners must stay abreast of such developments.

While losses happen in war, carriers represent a massive investment. The loss of a carrier would be a devastating blow, not only strategically but also to the prestige of the U.S. As such, pursuing an appropriate strategy without succumbing to risk aversion is essential.  

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.