Diplomacy & Crisis News

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy’s reliance on aircraft carriers faces significant threats from modern anti-ship ballistic missiles and comprehensive anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities, particularly from China. The Houthis in Yemen have demonstrated the vulnerability of carriers with their missile threats, highlighting the risks from non-state actors. China's DF-21D missile, designed to target and destroy U.S. carriers, poses an even greater threat. With a range of 900 miles and advanced guidance systems, the DF-21D can evade defenses and strike with high accuracy.

The growing Chinese missile arsenal and strategic capabilities put U.S. carriers at considerable risk in the Indo-Pacific.

China’s DF-21D “Carrier Killer” Missile is Poised to Massacre American Flat Tops

The U.S. Navy has long relied on its surface fleet, notably its aircraft carriers, to project power abroad. Indeed, since 1945, the dominance of America’s flattops went essentially unchallenged for decades. But those days are over. 

The rise of anti-ship ballistic missiles and comprehensive anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities make the deployment of America’s expensive aircraft carriers dangerous at best, and a fool’s run at worst. 

Despite knowing of the growing irrelevance of America’s carrier force, to say nothing of the fact that little has been done to counter the growing A2/AD threat, Washington continues to blow through tax dollars building increasingly complex and large aircraft carriers. 

The Houthi Anti-Ship Threat

Over the last eight months, the U.S. Navy has been dogged by anti-ship missiles belonging to Iran-backed Houthi rebels fighting in Yemen. Specifically, Dwight D. Eisenhower faced the prospect that an anti-ship missile launched by the Houthis might worm its way through Ike’s shipboard defenses and strike a blow. 

And we’re talking about the Houthis, a non-state actor holed up in the deserts and mountains of Yemen. We are not describing a major power with a technologically potent, growing, modern military, such as the kind the People’s Republic of China can field. 

If you are worried about the safety of your carriers when operating near arsenals controlled by non-state terrorist groups, just imagine the lethality of the systems built and launched by China. 

China’s Threat is Greater

Enter the Dong-Feng 21-D (DF-21D), China’s premier anti-ship ballistic missile. A variant of the DF-21, which is a medium-range, road-mobile, solid-fuel ballistic missile, the DF-21D is specifically designed to target and destroy U.S. aircraft carriers and other large naval vessels. Married with an expansive, sophisticated, multi-layered sensor network, China’s DF-21D could be lethal against lumbering American carriers that need to arrive within their airwings’ targeting range of Chinese assets if a shooting war erupts between the two great powers.

The DF-21D has a range of approximately 1,450 kilometers (900 miles). It is capable of carrying a high-explosive warhead. DF-21Ds are equipped with a terminal guidance system that allows them to home in on the target, making it a highly accurate weapon. The missile is believed to have a maneuverable re-entry vehicle (MARV) that can evade enemy defenses. 

China has never disclosed how many of these missiles they have. One can assume, however, given the premium that Chinese strategists have placed on being able to reliably threaten U.S. carriers and other surface warships, and considering China’s manufacturing capacity, that Beijing has these systems in abundance. 

What’s more, China’s island-building program in the South China Sea, and its extensive road-mobile launch capabilities all along the Chinese coastline, add to the DF-21D’s mobility and versatility.

China Wants to Sink Three US Aircraft Carriers with the DF-21D

The DF-21D gives the U.S. Navy nightmares precisely because it has the potential to sink an aircraft carrier with a single hit. The missile’s long range allows it to be launched from Chinese territory, thus keeping the launch platforms out of harm’s way. (U.S. forces are unlikely to carry out direct strikes against the Chinese homeland.) The MARV capability makes it very difficult for the Navy to intercept this weapon before it lands a killing blow on a U.S. flattop. 

Washington has allowed itself to be outclassed by the Chinese militarily in the Indo-Pacific. If a shooting war starts, America will very much be the underdog. 

In fact, U.S. forces just might lose, unless radical changes are made to the way the U.S. military’s force is structured. 

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?)

The Soviet Union’s Yak-38 fighter was the Soviet Union’s attempt to keep up with advances in Vertical Short/Takeoff and Landing (VSTOL) capabilities in Western fighters. The Yak-38 was intended to be an aircraft carrier fighter jet, which is where so much of the Soviet mind was fixated on: challenging the Americans on the High Seas with a carrier force of their own. Hence, the Soviet Navy throwing considerable resources that the USSR did not really  have on a carrier force that would ultimately never see the light of day. 

The Yak-38 was a small but essential part of those plans. Ultimately, the Yak-38 was deemed a failure by its pilots. This bird never quite lived up to the hype surrounding it. The Yak-38 certainly did not become the world sensation, James Bond.

The biggest issue facing the Yak-38 is the fact that it took years to just ensure that the Yak-38 was in top flying form. Various tests needed to be done. The VSTOL system was especially troubling for most Soviet pilots of the Yak-38. According to Peter Suciu, the VSTOL never worked. 

When the Yak-38 was sent to fight in the Soviet-Afghan War, its engines kicked up so much dirt and muck from the ground below that the engines could get clogged, crashing the bird. What’s more, the Yak-38 had limited range and it did not fare well in the extreme heat of Afghanistan. 

The Yak-38 was a Poor Weapons Carrier

The Yak-38 also had a pathetic weapons package. It could carry little more than 4,000 pounds of armaments. And it had only four external hardpoints to carry ordnance. 

Even though the Yak-38 was designed to be used aboard Soviet helicopter carriers, Yakolev did not install a radar system on the plane. This meant that the Yak-38 could not be used very effectively in fleet defense. 

For those unaware, while carrier-based warplanes are used for offensive missions, such as bombing distant targets, another key element of carrier-based warplanes is that they are to be used to protect the fleet they’re operating from. So, if a helicopter carrier that the Yak-38 was operating from suddenly fell under attack, its fighter screen would have been very limited because of the lack of radar onboard the Yak-38.

Some Other Yak-38 Facts

As for the engine, it had a single RD-27 engine and two lift jets that, as the name suggests, allowed for vertical takeoff and landing. The only issue was that there were numerous instances where at least one of the lift jets malfunctioned, leading the other one to overcompensate, sending the bird into a tailspin, resulting in it crashing. 

Evoking Peter Suciu once more, the Soviet engineers who knew about the lift jet issues installed an automatic ejection system to better protect Soviet pilots. If that system detected sudden changes in pitch, the pilot would be ejected.

It was a significant change in Soviet military policy, which often did not value the lives of its troops and created the cheapest equipment possible rather than spend the money on safety systems. The only problem for the Soviet pilots was that the auto ejection system was very sensitive. It was triggered by accident more often than it was triggered to actually save the life of the Red pilot. Rather than saving the life of the pilot, then, it likely ruined his career for having lost an expensive platform when there was nothing wrong.

Yakolev chose the RD-27 engines to power the Yak-38 to help get the bird to near supersonic flight speeds. But this had the unfortunate effect of diminishing the range of the warbird, which is why it did not perform well in combat over Afghanistan in the 1980s. A later variant of this bird, the Yak-38M, had more powerful RD-28 engines and tougher landing gear than the original had. 

Yak-38 Displays Late-Stage Soviet Problems

The Soviet Yak-38 was a disaster. 

It was an example of inefficiency and waste that had become the hallmark of the old Soviet system (which is one primary reason behind the collapse of the USSR). Rather than ask what they really needed to make their forces competent and competitive with Western militaries, the Soviet government simply copied (badly) the Harrier jumpjets that the British and Americans were embracing. 

Not only were the Yak-38s subpar when compared with the Harriers, but they were totally unreliable in combat, either in an offensive or defensive capacity.

More gallingly, Soviet planners knew this about the Yak-38. Yet, they went on to build 241 of these units—as well as an additional 38 units of the Yak-38M (which wasn’t much better than the original Yak-38). 

About the Author 

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Top Line Points: The U.S. Navy's Columbia-class submarines are set to replace the aging Ohio-class submarines, with the lead ship, USS Columbia (SSBN-826), expected to be delivered by 2027 and commissioned by 2030.

-The program faces numerous challenges, including cost overruns and delays, attributed to complex designs and America's struggling shipyard capabilities.

-The Columbia-class, with a $132 billion program cost, aims to build 12 submarines to replace 14 Ohio-class subs by the mid-2040s. Critics argue this approach is impractical, costly, and insufficient given current strategic threats, calling for radical changes in the defense industrial base.

Why the Navy's Columbia-Class Submarines Face Uncertain Future

The US Navy is building a new class of ballistic missile submarines that are meant to replace the aging Ohio-class submarines. This new class of boat, the Columbia-class is a top priority for the Navy. That’s because there have been multiple problems getting these new boats going—notably due to complications caused by America’s failing shipyard capabilities. 

The USS Columbia (SSBN-826) is the lead ship of the Columbia-class. It is currently under construction and is scheduled to be delivered to the Navy by 2027. From there, the Navy is expected to commission this new boat by 2030. 

Meanwhile, America’s critical submarine force is strained to its breaking point and needs every system it can get in the field immediately. That’s because the global threat environment is more dynamic and disfavoring of America’s current strategic position than at any time since the Interwar Years.

It is believed that the Columbia-class submarines will fully replace the Ohio-class subs by the mid-2040s, beginning with the first replacements occurring in 2031. That seems wildly impractical and stunningly long-range, considering the immediacy of the threats the military is facing. 

Cost Overruns

This program is expected to cost around $132 billion, with each Columbia-class submarine expected to run in at around $15 billion. 

Speaking of costs, there have been numerous overruns associated with the Columbia program. The Navy has attributed these overruns to various factors, including the complexity of the design, the need for new technologies, and the challenges of building the first boat of a new class. 

That, of course, is a convenient excuse papering over the fact that the US defense industrial base is so sclerotic and broken that it cannot even keep up with regular peacetime demands of maintaining the existing submarine force, let alone creating an entirely new class of submarines in a wartime environment. 

Something must change. 

And the solution won’t be found in building more expensive, more complex, and harder to maintain systems, like the Columbia-class. The solution must come in the form of radical changes to the defense industrial base and how America produces its warships, for example.

The Plan

Right now, the Navy intends to build a total of 12 Columbia-class submarines to replace the 14 Ohio-class submarines currently serving in the fleet. Whatever one may think of the star-spangled awesome new technologies incorporated into the Columbia-class submarine, one cannot help but to notice that, on top of taking an incredibly protracted period of time to replace the Ohio-class, the American taxpayers are paying more for less. 

There will be, after all, two fewer Columbia-class submarines than there are Ohio-class submarines.

Considering how most experts do not think that the Navy has enough of its existing submarines, now the Pentagon wants to retire an entire class of nuclear-powered, ballistic missile submarines and replace them with even fewer, newer warships? I understand that quality can often trump quantity. 

But honestly, Mao was right: quantity has a quality all of its own. This is a concept that China has long understood. It’s why, despite not having as comprehensively as advanced of a military as the Americans possess, it really doesn’t matter. Their forces can trust swarm American systems and destroy the more complex American systems that way.

A Columbia-class submarine is designed to have a crew of approximately 150 sailors, which is similar to the crew size of the Ohio-class submarines.

Her armaments include the Trident II D5 ballistic missiles, which are capable of carrying multiple nuclear warheads.

A Columbia-class submarine has a range that will likely be similar to the Ohio-class, so around 7,000 nautical miles (just over 8,000 miles). But the submarine, like all of America’s submarines, will be nuclear-powered. In other words, its range will be virtually unlimited.

It remains to be seen, though, if the Navy will even be able to deliver on the promises of the Columbia-class submarine. And many are asking why the Navy simply isn’t focused on maintaining and expanding their existing arsenal of submarines, rather than wasting time and money (that we don’t have) on reinventing the wheel. 

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. 

From the Vault

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

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

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy's Constellation-class frigate program, designed to replace the aging Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates, is facing significant complications due to design changes and bureaucratic miscommunications.

-Built by Fincantieri Marinette Marine, these frigates are based on the European FREMM design, but modifications requested by the Navy have led to cost overruns and delays.

-Set to debut in 2026, the program's future is uncertain amid budgetary concerns and the evolving nature of naval warfare, which raises questions about the necessity and practicality of these large manned warships in the current strategic environment.

The Navy’s Constellation-class is a Mess

The Constellation-class frigate is a new class of warship being built for the United States Navy. The lead ship of this new class of warship, the USS Constellation (FFG-62), is currently under construction at Fincantieri Marinette Marine in Marinette, Wisconsin. The Constellation-class is based on the European FREMM frigatethat was developed by the Italian shipbuilder, Fincantieri. 

Washington’s decision to utilize a foreign shipbuilder, such as Fincantieri, to construct one of the most important vessels coming online for the surface fleet is telling within itself. It indicates that Washington is attempting to increase its naval interoperability with European navies—notably the navies belonging to NATO, which utilize the Fincantieri-built FREMM frigate. 

Needless Complications

But that has caused a ridiculous amount of complications, too. 

Notably, the US Navy attempted to inject changes to the final design of the Constellation that ultimately ruined what the Italian shipbuilder was creating. In fact, the Navy’s additional requests for the warship, after Financtieri had already started cutting the steel for the warship, jeopardizes the entire program (due to the inevitable cost overruns that will not occur).

The Constellation-class is intended to replace the Navy’s aging Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates. The Navy plans to procure a total of 20 Constellation-class frigates, with the first ship expected to be delivered in 2026. 

Though, again, thanks to the unnecessary complications caused by improper communication between Navy planners and the shipbuilders at Fincantieri, that target date for deployment is unrealistic. 

Indeed, the warship has already been delayed once. Given the problems between Washington and Fincantieri, and the looming debt crisis the United States is likely to face soon, the idea that the US leadership (let alone the taxpayers) will be sanguine with this program running overbudget and overtime is low.

But the Navy persists in its plans. 

Do We Even Need a New Frigate?

Nevermind that the dawn of unmanned undersea vehicles (UUV) and the rise of advanced anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities—notably potent (and cheap) anti-ship ballistic missiles—renders the idea of large manned warships somewhat obsolete. Washington believes that it’s still 1994. All we need do is tweak our procurement processes here, alter our shipbuilding standards there, and the enemies of America will just wait for us to be ready. No adaptation to us by them, let alone by us to them, is needed.

These assumptions, of course, are wrong. Deadly wrong. The French military behaved much the same way in the Interwar Years, leading to complacency and unpreparedness by their armed forces. We know what happened as a result.

Designed as a multi-mission warship capable of conducting anti-submarine warfare (ASW), anti-surface warfare, and anti-air warfare operations, the Constellation-class is clearly borrowing from other Navy programs. 

The concept of a plug-and-play warship goes back to the Navy’s (failed) Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) model. It’s akin to being a Jack-of-all-trades-and-master-of-none. Although, it doesn’t sound as though the Navy is as married to that failed notion with the Constellation. One can expect this warship to be a bit more conventional than was the LCS (or the Zumwalt-class destroyer for that matter). 

But how conventional or practical, especially in light of the rise of UUVs and A2/AD? 

Some Specs

The Constellation is supposed to be equipped with a variety of weapons. These weapons include the MK 41 Vertical Launch System, which can launch both anti-ship and anti-submarine missiles. It can also employ Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) systems. The SAMs will provide short-range air defense capabilities for a warship that will likely be exposed to serious dangers from the growing arsenals of anti-ship missiles around the world.

In terms of defenses, the Constellation-class is planned to possess the AN/SPY-6(V) radar system, which provides advanced air and missile defense capabilities. This boat is designed to house an AN/SLQ-32(V) Electronic Warfare Suite, providing the warship with electronic support and electronic attack capabilities. 

The Constellation-class will be powered by a Combined Diesel-Electric and Gas (CODLAG) propulsion system, which provides increased efficiency and flexibility compared to traditional propulsion systems. The ship’s proposed maximum range is expected to be around 6,000 nautical miles (or 6,904 miles) and her top speed is planned to be 26 knots (or just shy of 30 miles per hour). It’s a fast ship.

On paper.

As noted above (and this author has reported in earlier articles at this site), the Constellation is fraught with bureaucratic SNAFUs that jeopardize the success (and affordability) of this program. It remains to be seen if these woes can be overcome in a realistic and timely way.

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. 

From the Vault

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

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

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Air Force has reactivated another B-1B Lancer, nicknamed "Rage," from the "Boneyard" at Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona. This aircraft, initially retired and preserved in Type 2000 storage, was brought back to replace a damaged B-1B.

-The Boneyard maintains a fleet of B-1Bs in a reclaimable condition, allowing for refurbishment and return to service. "Rage" will undergo extensive maintenance and upgrades before joining the frontline.

-With ongoing retirements, the Air Force is mandated to keep 45 B-1Bs operational until the B-21 Raider enters service.

-The potential restoration of other B-1Bs, including "Ruptured Duck," remains uncertain.

The B-1B Rage Bomber is Back in Service

The United States Air Force's fleet of Rockwell B-1 Lancer bombers has slowly been retired from service. There are fewer than 50 of the Cold War long-range strategic bombers in service, down from its original 100. In 2021, the fleet saw 17 bombers retired – but due to a few incidents, there have been occasions where some of the old Bones sent to the infamous "Boneyard" have returned to service.

That included the aircraft nicknamed "Lancelot," which was selected earlier this year to replace a B-1 Lancer that was damaged beyond repair after suffering an engine mishap during otherwise "routine" maintenance at Dyess Air Force Base (AFB), Texas in April 2022. The B-1 was flown to Tinker AFB, Oklahoma, to complete the regeneration process.

It was reported this week that another B-1B Lancer – nicknamed "Rage" – has also been resurrected. That aircraft, serial number 86-0115, was one of the original four out of the 17 retired bombers deemed to be maintained "in a reclaimable condition" so that they could be refurbished and returned to service. It was recently spotted flying at Davis-Monthan AFB in Tucson, Arizona. The base is home to the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group (AMARG), the unit that manages the Department of Defense's (DoD's) Boneyard of aircraft.

Congress has mandated that the service maintains a fleet of 45 B-1Bs – which will remain in service until the Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider enters service in the coming decade.

Preserved Aircraft

Aircraft preserved at the Boneyard in reclaimable condition aren't simply left to soak in the sun. Each of the B-1s was maintained in Type 2000 storage, one level below the flyable Type 1000 storage. This entails the aircraft being covered with a silicone-like sealant, which covers gaps, engines, and all glass.

The aircraft nicknamed Rage was pulled from storage after another B-1B Lancer with the 7th Bomb Wing also experienced a fire engine failure. As the projected repairs were deemed "cost-prohibitive," the decision was made to regenerate one of the four B-1s.

As reported by The Aviationist, the Rage will still need a bit of TLC, and "will undergo depot-level maintenance to incorporate missed upgrades from its retirement years and perform a thorough check of the airframe and avionics before returning to a frontline unit."

Another B-1B to Be Restored

The AMARG should expect to have its hands full, as it is almost certain that the unit will need to pull one of the remaining two B-1Bs in reclaimable condition and prepare it for restoration. Though the Air Force hasn't announced whether B-1B 85-0085 "Ruptured Duck," which crashed at Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota, on January 4 of this year, will return to service – it now seems highly unlikely.

There are currently no regeneration efforts – at least none that have been announced – but it would be hard to believe that the aptly named "Ruptured Duck" will fly again. Perhaps the Air Force should have the AMARG look at those lucky 13 B-1s that aren't in Type 2000 storage and consider ensuring that there will be enough B-1s that can actually take to the skies while the B-21 Raider program comes online.

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: Shutterstock.

With President Joe Biden officially out of the 2024 race Vice President Kamala Harris is on a glidepath, seemingly guaranteed to secure the Democratic nomination at next month’s convention.

But nominating Harris is no slam dunk victory for Democrats.

Rather, the party should be cautious about nominating a candidate who was essentially anointed, and who has popularity and electability problems of her own.  

Kamala Harris and Democrats Gave No Other Choice

The biggest problem with Harris’s inevitable nomination is that voters had no say whatsoever. The same could be said of Biden; Democrats failed to hold a proper primary, instead putting a heavy thumb on the scale to secure Biden’s repeat nomination.

Bypassing the primary for Biden was bad enough, deeply undemocratic, and completely pernicious. Biden may well have won a primary as an incumbent, and at least Biden can fall back on his genuine 2020 primary win amongst a crowded field as a reflection of some kind of voter endorsement, however outdated.

But when Biden stepped aside, and effectively handed the baton to Harris, all semblance of democracy was discarded.

Who decided that Harris would be the presidential nominee? Not the voters. Instead, a succession of elite elected officials threw their support behind Harris, implicitly blocking any other candidate. The cascade of endorsements started with Biden and the Clintons and proceeded from there to include just about anyone of relevance in the Democratic Party.

The reasoning was logical enough – the Party was urgent to unite and confront the looming Trump threat ASAP, and Harris was most well positioned to inherit Biden’s war chest and campaign infrastructure. Yet as convenient as the Harris tap-in was for Party elites, the simple fact remains is that voters had no say in her nomination, and that is heinously undemocratic – a fact exacerbated by the Democrat’s 2024 mantra: that Trump must be defeated because he represents an existential threat to democracy.

Well, only one of the 2024 major candidates will be democratically nominated, and it won’t be Harris.

Kamala Harris Should Give Democrats Pause

Harris will be anointed as the nominee for practical considerations. But practical considerations suggest Harris is not a great choice. Namely, Harris has an atrocious electoral history, and today, suffers from low popularity.

When Kamala Harris ran for Attorney General of California in 2010, she won. But there was a problem in Harris’s victory, something concerning; she won by a margin of less than one percent. As a Democrat. In California. Indeed, Harris almost lost to Republican candidate Steve Cooley in the rock-solid-blue Golden State. Of course, Harris did win, and went on to serve seven years as California’s Attorney General. But the close call suggested Harris wasn’t much of a campaigner and/or a politician – a suggestion that would be confirmed a decade later.

Harris’s 2020 presidential campaign opened to great fanfare, with an announcement on Good Morning America. The then-Senator was billed as a top candidate to challenge the then-incumbent Trump. But Harris ran an abysmal campaign, never threatening to poll above five percent. Rather than make a serious push for the White House, Harris’s campaign fizzled, leading to a formal (and early) withdrawal in December 2019.

Can Harris turn things around and run a better campaign for 2024? She’ll have high-end assistance and a consolidated Party. But something about Harris’s low-popularity as Vice President lends to a suspicion that her campaign troubles are no fluke; something about Harris’s political instincts just seems off – she’s certainly no Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.

And Democrats may well come to regret subverting democracy to anoint Harris as the Democratic nominee.   

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: Shutterstock. 

With Vice President Kamala Harris all but guaranteed to be handed the Democratic nomination (without a shred of voter input, mind you), speculation over who Harris will choose as a running mate is ramping up.

One name that comes up – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – can probably be dismissed out of hand.

AOC: No Way for Vice President? 

AOC is one of the most prominent politicians in the Democratic Party. As the marquee member of ‘The Squad,’ AOC enjoys something of a cult-like following and progressive credibility – despite being a pretty token Democrat.

AOC, who conforms rather comfortably with the rest of her Party, was quick to endorse Harris as president (like the rest of the Democrats).

In doing so, AOC signaled that the progressive wing of the Party was united with the mainstream wing and that the Democrats could likely avoid a squabbling, fractious, drawn-out nominating process that would (be democratic) hinder a pivot towards assaulting the Trump candidacy.

In endorsing Harris, AOC may also have been signaling an interest in joining the ticket, as some pundits have suggested, but that seems like a long shot.

Not Qualified

AOC isn’t totally green anymore – she has been a congresswoman for eight years now. But she’s still barely 35, new to politics relative to many of her peers, and a member of the House. In modern politics, the House is not known as a launching point for the White House.

Gerald R. Ford jumped from the House to the White House – but he was pretty much running the House after an impressive tenure. He was selected to join the Nixon team mid-administration thanks to exigent circumstances (Vice President Spiro Agnew’s disgraceful exit).

AOC is not long-tenured, does not run the House, and, despite the urgency of the Harris nominating process, is not dealing with exigent circumstances.

In short, AOC is not qualified to be Vice President. Consider the list of people who have more consequential positions and/or are more established than AOC. Governors. Senators. Another cycle or two, another position, maybe in the Senate, and perhaps AOC will be a worthwhile contender. But at the moment, it’s not close.   

Bad Geography and AOC

AOC’s lack of qualifications and other practical considerations prevent it from being selected for the ticket.

The first is geography. The election will come down to a few suburban voters in a few swing states. Arizona. Georgia. Pennsylvania. Michigan. Soccer moms outside of Pittsburgh, Tempe, and Atlanta will decide in 2024, and AOC isn’t a big draw for soccer moms outside of Pittsburgh, Tempe, or Atlanta. AOC represents New York, a state that Democrats have locked down, so adding AOC to the ticket won’t do much to win new voters in the all-valuable swing states.

The candidates Harris is considering will win new voters in swing-states. Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona, for example. Or Governor Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania. If the popular vote determined presidential elections, then maybe a running mate like AOC, from population-dense urban centers in Democrat-country, would be viable. But as long as the electoral college is used, swing-state logic will reign.

Don’t expect Harris to select, or even seriously consider, AOC for the 2024 ticket.

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: YouTube Screenshot. 

Debout, poignard à la main, la louve se tient face à l'ennemi, prête à défendre l'enfant, elle-même et ce qui viendra… C'est ainsi, en la paraphrasant, qu'on imagine l'Argentine Alfonsina Storni (1892-1938). Mère à 20 ans, elle signe son premier recueil de poésie en 1916. « Passée par le tamis de toutes (...) / Argentine, Femmes, Chili, Littérature - 2024/07

Sergueï Shikalov a 38 ans. Il se souvient d'une courte période où la Russie a été différente, d'une décennie où l'on pouvait croire que le pays, sortant du choc de la transition, allait se rapprocher des normes culturelles, politiques et sociales associées à l'Europe occidentale. Pour des gays nés en (...) / Europe de l'Est, Droits des minorités - 2024/07

Countless refugees and migrants flee horrific and oppressive conditions, but there is an element in forced displacement that does not receive enough attention: the weaponization of migration by dictators. This phenomenon undermines U.S. national security interests and hinders humanitarian and development assistance globally.   

For instance, 92 percent of the 6 million Ukraine refugees created by Vladimir Putin’s unprovoked war are hosted in Europe. Lithuania, Finland, Latvia, and Estonia have accused Russia and Belarus of using migration as a weapon. Polish prime minister Donald Tusk stated, “We are dealing with a coordinated, very efficient—on many levels—operation to break the Polish border and attempts to destabilize the country.”

Putin has done this before. Putin assisted Bashar al-Assad in using forced migration for his own ends, too. About 6.6 million left Syria for the Middle East and Europe, most notably Germany. In 2016, General Philip Breedlove, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander for Europe and head of the U.S. European Command, testified before Congress that “together Russia and the Assad regime are deliberately weaponizing migration in an attempt to overwhelm European structures and break European resolve.”

Wars in Ukraine and Syria understandably have large numbers of refugees. Yet surprisingly, a country not engaged in either internal or external conflict is the source of one of the largest refugee crises worldwide. Nearly 8 million refugees and migrants have fled Venezuela due to a man-made protracted crisis led by authoritarian dictator Nicolas Maduro and his criminal enterprise.

Maduro has weaponized migration to ease pressure from the United States and feed a false narrative that sanctions are causing migration. We cannot be fooled by this ruse. Heavy migration began at least five years before sanctions were imposed. Plus, exceptions in U.S. law exist so that food, medicine, and humanitarian assistance are permissible for sanctioned countries. The cause of human suffering, malnutrition, poverty, violence, and human rights violations is Maduro. However, if Maduro is allowed to steal the upcoming election just like in the past, millions more may flee in desperation.

Dictators of a feather flock together, and perhaps nobody better epitomizes the willingness of dictators to turn refugees into weapons than Daniel Ortega, as Nicaragua has become a centralized trafficking epicenter. Ortega is using security and military forces to transport people from its borders of Costa Rica to Honduras and allowing the airport to facilitate international trafficking. Hundreds of charter flights and thousands of people have already traveled through Haiti and Cuba to Nicaragua. After charter flights from as far away as India, France, and Germany were found connected to Nicaragua, the State Department last year warned of visa restrictions against companies suspected of assisting illegal migration.

Last month, the State Department finally put that warning into action and imposed visa restrictions on an executive of a charter flight company who was using Nicaragua to facilitate illegal migration. These rogue regimes also profit from the migration scheme, evidenced by the State Department acknowledging that “the Ortega-Murillo regime in Nicaragua continues to financially benefit from the exploitation of vulnerable migrants.”

While humanitarian assistance is needed to assist refugees, it is also impacting traditional development assistance. President and CEO of the Wilson Center and former Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development Ambassador Mark A. Green recently stated: 

Humanitarian assistance is a response, an immediate response—it’s not an answer, at least not a compassionate answer. I think our job is to dust off our development tools, adapt them, reshape them, reenergize them for this generational struggle…Every dollar of humanitarian assistance must be reinforced with threads of development and resilience to help displaced communities withstand future shocks. 

The United States is by far the largest humanitarian assistance donor, providing about $9.5 billion in 2023, but where is everyone else? Even if the donations of the second through tenth largest donor nations were combined, the sum would not surpass U.S. contributions. This model is not sustainable, so what should we do?

First, we must recognize the perils of inaction. Sticking our heads in the sand and hoping these protracted crises go away is inadequate. The United States and our allies must collaborate to resolve crises instead of focusing on mere containment.

Other countries need to contribute more humanitarian assistance. The Global Fund model leverages $1 of U.S. contributions for $2 provided by other donors. The Ukraine supplemental bill stipulated that funds for Ukraine may not exceed 50 percent of the total amount provided by all donors. A new incentive using these models should be applied to accelerate reforms in the humanitarian arena.

In addition, consider the Wilson Center’s Refugee and Forced Displacement Initiative working group report, which reaffirms the importance of U.S. leadership and offers policy recommendations for enhancing and strengthening refugee-related policies.

These challenges are not going away and are growing in size and scope. Most refugees are not returning to their countries of origin and remain in host countries or camps for many years. In addition, an average of 339,000 children are born as refugees every year—most in developing countries.

According to the UN, over 117 million people worldwide are forcibly displaced due to “persecution, conflict, violence, human rights violations and events seriously disturbing public order.” Chasing away their own citizens has benefits to these dictators: billions back in remittances to prop up their collapsed economies and fewer angry citizens to protest their corrupt misrule. State-sponsored weaponization of migration is unacceptable, and as we hold dictators to account, we must also renew our commitment to make every assistance dollar count. There’s no time (or money) to waste.

Eddy Acevedo was deemed a “traitor” to Nicaragua by Daniel Ortega and was sanctioned by the Russian Federation. He is the chief of staff and senior adviser to Ambassador Mark Green, the president and CEO of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. He was formerly the National Security Adviser at the U.S. Agency for International Development and senior foreign policy advisor for former Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL.). This opinion is solely that of the author and does not represent the views of the Wilson Center.

Image: David Peinado Romero / Shutterstock.com. 

What she can do to right U.S. foreign policy and bring back voters.

The British artist and provocateur on the stories behind the world’s most influential people.

Mme Giorgia Meloni et ses proches veulent en finir avec l'hégémonie culturelle supposée de la gauche, un projet toujours cher au populisme réactionnaire. Changer les responsables et diminuer les (déjà maigres) budgets ne suffit pas. Il faut imposer un « nouveau récit », célébrant les valeurs (...) / Italie, Culture, Extrême droite, Histoire - 2024/07

Boeing is reportedly studying whether it could transform its upgraded F-15EX Eagle II into an electronic warfare (EW) aircraft like its EA-18G Growler, a variant of the U.S. Navy's F/A-18 Super Hornet.

The study is still in its early stages. But as the aerospace firm continues to seek foreign buyers for the F-15EX, it could very well move forward.

"The Growler line has ended," Rob Novotny, Boeing's business development lead for the F-15, told Breaking Defense over the weekend. Novotny noted that F/A-18E/F production is also slated to end in 2027, and no additional EA-18Gs will be produced.

"There's a lot of conversation internally, could we turn this [the F-15EX] into a Growler," he added. "So we're looking at some trade work."

The F-15EX is already equipped with EW capabilities from its BAE Systems Eagle Passive Active Warning Survivability System (EPAWSS). According to BAE Systems, EPAWSS offers "several instantaneous full-spectrum EW capabilities, ­including radar warning, geolocation, situational awareness, and self-protection. The system enables freedom of maneuver and deeper penetration into battlespaces protected by modern integrated air defense systems."

No Stealth, No Problem for F-15EX

Novotny also addressed the Eagle II's lack of stealth, saying this should not be seen as a non-starter for a future EW aircraft.

"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," Novotny suggested.

The Boeing executive is also on the record saying, "Modern aerial combat requires command of the electromagnetic spectrum, and this platform would lead the way into the next decade or two."

Boeing Seeks to Keep the F-15 Eagle II Flying

The F-15EX Eagle II achieved Initial Operational Capability this month. The U.S. Air Force is set to acquire at least ninety F-15EXs, down from the 144 aircraft the air service had originally sought to replace its aging fleet of F-15C/D models

U.S. ally Israel is one of the principal operators of the F-15 and has sought to acquire more than fifty F-15EX Eagle IIs. Poland, Indonesia, and other undisclosed countries have also been reported as considering the F-15EX, which Boeing has marketed as a low-cost alternative to the fifth-generation F-35 Lightning II.

The original Eagle and Strike Eagle has more than 100 air-to-air victories, most with the Israeli Air Force, while not a single F-15 has been shot down to date.

Boeing may now seek to entice foreign buyers by offering an EW variant of the F-15EX, fitted with jamming pods and other systems. It could ensure that the Eagle II continues to soar for years to come.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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

All images are Creative Commons and Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Air Force's A-10 Thunderbolt II, nearing the end of its service, recently received a fresh application of its iconic shark teeth nose art by the 23rd Maintenance Squadron at Moody Air Force Base, Georgia. This distinctive look not only enhances the aircraft's aesthetic but also serves as a powerful symbol of intimidation and strength.

-The nose art, inspired by the WWII Flying Tigers, requires a detailed, multi-step painting process involving washing, sanding, masking, and applying multiple colors.

-The tradition of the shark teeth design continues to symbolize the A-10's formidable close air support role and connection to its historical roots.

The A-10 Warthog Gets a Makeover 

The Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II is a bit long in the tooth, and its days in service with the U.S. Air Force will end in the coming years. But airmen at the 23rd Maintenance Squadron at Moody Air Force Base, Georgia, recently offered a reminder that the aircraft is still a highly capable warbird. The airmen spent four days applying Flying Tigers nose art to A-10C Thunderbolt II tail number A213, ensuring the plane looks just as deadly as it performs.

"The distinctive appearance of the military aircraft is not just a matter of aesthetics, but a crucial aspect of our operational effectiveness – projecting power and intimidating adversaries," wrote Airman 1st Class Leonid Soubbotine of the 23rd Wing Public Affairs at Moody AFB. "The unmistakable shark teeth markings on aircraft from the 23d Wing serves as a visual deterrent, striking fear into the hearts of our enemies and instilling confidence in our allies."

Repainting is part of routine maintenance for the A-10 Warthog. Painting the shark teeth reportedly involved washing, sanding, and masking before applying the multiple colors that achieve the iconic look.

"For me it's important because the A-10 teeth are iconic in their own way," explained Tech. Sgt. Mark King, 23rd Maintenance Squadron corrosion manager. "It's even been adopted by the fashion industry and the teeth are everywhere. We're the only ones in the Air Force that actually apply it to our nose art and it means a lot to be able to represent it."

As noted, it is a multi-step, week-long process. It involves a specialized jet-sized paint booth and a large printer to produce the necessary decals and stencils. Then there is the actual painting, which involves trained airmen who are also talented artists.

"First and foremost, before it even rolls into the paint barn, it will be washed," added Staff Sgt. William Rogers, 23rd Maintenance Squadron aircraft structural maintenance craftsman. "The next steps are sanding and masking everything off that is not going to get painted to avoid overspray. After that, we mask and re-mask the jet – putting it through the multiple colors, stencils and different curing times."

About the Shark's Teeth Smile

The shark's notorious teeth are almost always associated with the "Flying Tigers," the American volunteer pilots who flew for the Chinese Nationalist government in its war against Japan.

They flew the Curtiss P-40B Warhawk marked with Chinese insignia, but under American control. Known as the First American Volunteer Group (AVG) of the Republic of China Air Force, but more commonly remembered as the Flying Tigers, the pilots were recruited under President Franklin Roosevelt's authority before Pearl Harbor. Their mission was to attack the Japanese and defend the Republic of China. The AVG first flew in combat on December 20, twelve days after Pearl Harbor.

Today, it is almost impossible to see a surviving Curtiss P-40 without the famous shark smile painted on the front. Most who know anything about World War II would be quick to point out that the iconic imagery painted on the front of the aircraft was started by the Flying Tigers – although why a tiger (flying or otherwise) would wear the face of a shark has never been explained.

The answer could be that it wasn't actually the Flying Tigers who first adopted the menacing smile with sharp teeth. The design was first employed not in the jungles of Burma where the AVG was first based, but in the deserts of North Africa. The Royal Air Force (RAF) No. 112 Squadron, fighting in North Africa, received its Curtiss fighters in July 1941, and after adopting a few iterations of nose art, finally settled on the definitive design. The unit eventually earned the nickname The Shark Squadron.

AVG pilot Charles Bond reportedly saw a photo of the Curtiss with the nose art on the cover of The Illustrated Weekly of India, and soon suggested to Chennault that the aircraft of the First Pursuit Squadron be painted with a similar design. The AVG commander's response was a blunt, "No."

Chennault wanted all the AVG aircraft to carry the markings. Quickly, many pilots and ground crewmen pitched in to paint the aircraft, Smithsonian magazine reported. AVG pilot and memoirist R.T. Smith said what many of the Flying Tigers thought at the time, "That looks mean as hell."

Regardless of whether the smile can trace its lineage back to the Flying Tigers or the RAF, it does look "mean as hell" on the A-10C!

"It feels great knowing that these jets are providing close air support for the troops on the ground," Tech. Sgt. King noted. "We're the only ones with those teeth, so they know who we are, where we’re from and what we do. Once they see the teeth, they know that Moody is here!"

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu 

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy's Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines are essential to maintaining America's nuclear triad and ensuring strategic stability. Despite initial plans to build 14 submarines within 78 months, labor shortages and supply chain issues have delayed production.

-Manufacturer Huntington Ingalls Industries' Newport News shipbuilding facility has faced delays in delivering sections of the submarines, impacting the timeline. The Columbia-class subs are critical as the existing Ohio-class vessels, built during the Cold War, are set to retire by 2028.

-These advanced submarines will feature modern technology, including electric drive and enhanced acoustic performance, to ensure they remain undetectable.

US Navy Faces Delays in Crucial Columbia-Class Submarine Production

The U.S. Navy’s fleet of submarines are vital to America's nuclear triad. As such, the service’s incoming Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines will be essential to strategic stability. The Navy at one time hoped to build 14 of these submarines in a 78 month period, but this is no longer possible due to labor shortages and supply chain issues. 

According to the U.S. Naval Institute, the greatest obstacle to the Columbia class’s introduction involves manufacturer Huntington Ingalls Industries’ (HII) Newport News shipbuilding facility in Virginia:

“Under the teaming arrangement for the Columbia program, lead contractor General Dynamics Electric Boat assembles the central barrel of the submarine’s hull at its yard in Groton, Conn., and its manufacturing facility in Quonset Point, R.I. Those modules built in New England are married to bow and stern sections that are constructed at Newport News and sent by barge up to the Columbia assembly hall in Connecticut. HII has been late in delivering the sections, delaying the timeline for construction.”

While the Columbia class is delayed, these vessels remain a high priority for the Navy. Since SSBNs guarantee nuclear retaliation against any enemy that attacks the U.S. with nuclear weapons, production of this class of boats is essential for national security. The existing Ohio-class vessels remain highly lethal, but they were built during the Cold War and are scheduled to retire by 2028 as they approach the end of their 42-year service life. In order to avoid a gap in capability, the Columbia-class subs must be operational by this time.

Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro talked about the significance of this new advanced class of submarines during the keel laying ceremony for the lead ship of the class, USS District of Columbia (SSBN 826), in June 2022. 

“Potential adversaries know the silent service is on patrol at this very moment, but they don’t know where and that protects us all,” Del Toro asserted, adding that “the venerable Ohio-class that has guarded us for decades is nearing the end of its service life. For the safety of our Sailors, and the security of our world, we must modernize our fleet, and our nuclear command, control, and communications systems.”

An Overview of the Columbia Class

The Columbia-class program started in 2007, when the U.S. Navy collaborated with industry partner General Dynamics Electric Boat to develop a next-generation submarine series. HII was awarded a contract for the design and construction of the new class and currently functions as Electric Boat’s major subcontractor responsible for engineering analysis, detail planning, development of components and technical services.

According to Naval Technology, these new submarines will feature X-shaped stern control surfaces and sail-mounted drive planes. The boats are also planned to run on electric drive instead of the reduction gearing and mechanical drive systems installed to power older nuclear-powered submarines. 

Each submarine will be equipped with 16 missile tubes for launching 16 Trident II D5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles. In addition to these missiles, the Columbia-class vessels will sport Mk 48 torpedoes and enhanced acoustic performance. Equipped with the top-of-the-line sensors, the Columbia-class ballistic missile subs will sail quietly, making them extremely difficult for adversaries to detect.

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. 

Summary and Key Points: With tensions between the United States and China escalating, the US Navy faces a strategic dilemma as it plans to retire the Ohio-class submarines, potentially as early as 2027. These guided-missile submarines are crucial for deterring Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific.

-The replacement, the Columbia-class, is not only expensive but also behind schedule, raising concerns about a capability gap. The Ohio-class submarines are equipped with a formidable arsenal, including Tomahawk cruise missiles and Mk48 torpedoes, and are essential for the US Navy's power projection.

-Retiring them prematurely could weaken US naval capabilities at a critical time.

The Ohio-Class Submarine Retirement Problem

With war between the United States and the People’s Republic of China on the possible horizon as tensions mount, the US government is poised to retire one of its greatest weapons against Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific: the Ohio-class submarine. 

This guided-missile attack submarine is an undersea juggernaut, brimming with a vast and lethal arsenal and one of the world’s most sophisticated undersea communications suites, the Ohio-class will be one of the most important weapons systems the US Navy can deploy against the Chinese military in war. 

Not only is it set to be retired—possibly as early as 2027, the same year that the Pentagon believes China will be able to attack Taiwan—but there are already an insufficient number of Ohio-class subs available. What’s more, the replacement system for the Ohio-class, the Columbia-class, is unbelievably expensive. 

Given the expense and complexity of the Columbia-class, even the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has warned that the Navy’s timeline for procuring the new submarines is unrealistic. 

This leaves the US Navy in a bit of a strategic pickle. 

A Strategic Pickle on Ohio-Class Submarine

The Navy already lacks sufficient submarines to deter China if they decided to go full bore into Taiwan. Plus, the naval shipyards charged with building the US Navy’s next systems cannot keep up peacetime demand. If a real war between the US and another near-peer rival were to erupt soon, it is unlikely that the Navy’s shipyards would be able to keep up with wartime demand. 

And that’s not even mentioning the fact that China, for a variety of reasons, is unlikely to wait until 2027 to attempt to drastically reorder the geopolitical chessboard in its favor. In essence, the force the United States has now is the force it will likely go into war with, should Beijing decide to make-good on their escalating threats against Taiwan. 

The Columbia-class will be a remarkable submarine and a worthy successor to the Ohio-class. But building this system out now—at the expense of maintaining the Ohio-class submarine—is foolish. 

Even if everything goes according to the Navy’s plan and they can start phasing out the Ohio-class subs and replacing them with the more expensive and complex Columbia-class submarines beginning in 2027, there will still not be enough Columbias available for many years to come. This will surely create a gap in American naval offensive abilities. A gap that would favor China. 

When the Chinese attack on Taiwan commences, the US Navy will need to have as many of its submersibles available as possible, as aircraft carriers will likely be deterred by Chinese anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) as well as their submarine fleet. American submarines will be one of the weapons platform that could keep the US Navy in a major fight against China. But some of these subs will be lost in combat or, at least damaged. 

If there are an insufficient number of submarines available, then a key power projection capability will be lost. 

Ohio-class Specs

The Ohio-class submarine is manufactured by General Dynamics Electric Boat Division. In SSGN configuration, It can carry up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles and Mk48 torpedoes (the Navy’s most advanced torpedo). The Ohio-class has four torpedo tubes. The boat is powered by a single nuclear reactor. 

The crew complement is usually 155 sailors, 140 enlisted plus 15 officers. These ships were built between 1974 and 1997. There are currently 18 total units in the Navy’s fleet (far too few already), 14 of them are ballistic submarines and four of them are guided-missile submarines—the class that is most important for dealing with China in a potential war. 

These four will be mothballed beginning in 2027.

The US Navy, like the rest of the United States Armed Forces, has taken many wrong turns since the end of the Cold War. One of those wrong turns has been to place high-tech solutions ahead of the more practical ones. 

Given the short timespan in which China may attempt an invasion of Taiwan that might suck the US military in, there should be no talk about retiring the Ohio-class in favor of more complex and expensive Columbia-class subs that might not even be deployable in any helpful number within the next decade. 

About the Author 

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: Earlier this year, the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) completed its first worldwide deployment, launching over 8,000 sorties in the Mediterranean in response to the Israel-Hamas war. Despite production issues, the Ford-class carrier's capabilities make it a critical asset.

-However, its high cost and vulnerability to cyber-attacks, hypersonic missiles, and UAVs raise concerns about the future of super-carriers. The Ford-class, designed to succeed the Nimitz-class, incorporates advanced technologies like EMALS and AAG, increasing sortie rates by 25% and generating triple the power.

-While modern threats challenge their effectiveness, the Navy's ability to project power globally remains crucial.

Ford-Class Aircraft Carriers: Balancing Cost, Capability, and Security

Earlier this year, the U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) completed its first worldwide deployment to the Mediterranean. The lead ship in the Navy’s latest class of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers performed well in its extended deployment, launching over 8,000 sorties in response to the Israel-Hamas war.

While the carrier’s trajectory to sea has not been linear since its production phase due to an array of issues, the ship’s unparalleled capabilities make it an essential asset to the service.

However, some analysts have argued that the Ford-class’ hefty price tag and vulnerability to cyber-attacks, hypersonic missiles and other new threats could render the whole “super-carrier” concept obsolete.

Could the Ford-class be the last U.S. Navy aircraft carrier class ever built due to the growing threats posed to aircraft carriers that are so expensive to build? 

Introducing the Ford-class Aircraft Carrier

Perhaps the significance of nuclear-powered carriers is best exemplified by the Nimitz-class ships. For nearly fifty years, these 100,000-ton vessels have remained the mainstay of the Navy. Capable of traveling at speeds more than 30 knots powered by two A4W nuclear reactors, the Nimitz carriers have proven to play a pivotal role in the service’s fleet.

As the Nimitz-class’ successor, the Ford-class is designed to feature even greater capabilities. Born from the CVN-21 program, the Ford class was developed to feature a more efficient design than its predecessor. Specifically, the incorporation of an Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALs) and an Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) have greatly enhanced the Ford ships.

What makes the Ford-class carriers so formidable?

With EMALs and AAG in place, the Ford-class carriers can launch 25% more sorties in addition to generating triple the amount of electrical power. The Ford ships are powered by the new Bechtel A1B reactor, which is more powerful than the A4W reactors that power the Nimitz ships.

The Ford-class was also designed with the future in mind. To more easily incorporate unforeseen technologies down the line, each ship in this class is designed with a larger power output.

Which weapons pose the greatest threat to carriers?

Since the Ford-class is equipped with top-of-the-line capabilities and equipment, it should be no surprise that the carrier class is quite expensive. Some analysts have argued that modern-day threats could more easily target carriers.

For instance, the increased use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) across the globe could threaten these floating airports.

Undersea unmanned vehicles (UUAVs) and hypersonic missiles could cause the greatest damage to carriers. In addition to these low-tech threats, the Ford-class aircraft carriers, with their complex systems, could be more prone to cyber attacks.  

Regardless of these potential downsides, the Navy’s ability to launch airframes from virtually anywhere in the world from the seas is undoubtedly essential to U.S. national security.

Smaller frigates and conventionally-powered carriers could also fulfill this role, but not to the same degree and to the same level of sophistication as newer nuclear-powered vessels.

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: U.S. Navy. 

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy is updating its fleet, focusing on the Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers to replace the outdated Enterprise and Nimitz-class carriers. Each Ford-class carrier costs $13 billion and incorporates advanced technology, costing taxpayers over $120 billion for the program.

-The Ford-class carriers feature a higher Sortie Generation Rate (SGR), the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS), the Advanced Arresting Gear System (AAG), reduced manpower requirements, and lower maintenance needs.

-These advancements aim to enhance airpower projection and efficiency while reducing long-term operational costs by $4 billion over the carriers' 50-year service life.

The Evolution of Aircraft Carriers: Meet the $13 Billion Ford-Class

The US Navy is contemplating the future, most particularly, the prospect of war in the Indo-Pacific against a near-peer rival in China. Accordingly, the US Navy is updating its inventory, beginning with the cornerstone of their fleet, the aircraft carrier.

In replacing the outdated Enterprise- and Nimitz-class carriers, the Navy is currently building the most expensive warship ever developed, the Gerald R. Ford-class – each of which costs $13 billion. The cost of each Ford carrier is mild relative to the costs of the program, which incorporates several new pieces of technology, and has cost US taxpayers in excess of $120 billion.

Ford-Class: The Best of the Best in Aircraft Carriers? 

The taxpayers are expecting to receive what they paid for – that being the best aircraft carrier ever built.

So far, thanks to a slew of new tech features, the Ford indeed appears to be the most sophisticated and modern carrier ever built. Let’s consider the Ford-class’s five most important features.

One, Sortie Generation Rate

Despite an aircraft carrier’s mechanical complexity, the purpose of the boat is quite simple: to provide off-shore airpower projection. Really, an aircraft carrier is just a floating and movable airfield that can be placed roughly anywhere in the world’s oceans.

So, to be effective, an aircraft carrier needs to be able to launch aircraft. It sounds self-evident, yes, but the rate at which an aircraft carrier can launch aircraft is a primary metric in evaluating the usefulness of a particular aircraft. The metric even has a name: Sortie Generation Rate (SGR). And the higher the SGR, the better.

The Ford-class is projected to provide an excellent SGR – 33 percent more than the preceding Nimitz-class carriers. Overall, the Ford is expected to produce 160 sorties per day (270 during a wartime crunch). The high SGR makes the Ford highly effective with respect to the boat’s primary task of projecting airpower.

Two, Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS)

The Ford is equipped with an Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, or EMALS, which is a modern alternative to the traditional steam piston catapult found on older aircraft carriers like the Nimitz and Enterprise. Whereas steam catapults use (as the name implies) steam to catapult an aircraft down the carrier’s truncated runway, the EMALS uses a linear induction motor. The EMALS’s linear induction motor generates magnetic fields that glide an airplane forward along a track.

The EMALS is considered an upgrade over the steam piston catapult because the EMALS will accelerate aircraft more smoothly (putting less wear and tear on the airframes).

Also, the EMALS will cost less, weigh less, and require less maintenance than the steam piston catapults. Additionally, the EMALS will reduce the Ford’s dependence on freshwater (and the corresponding energy-intensive desalination process). EMALS also recharges more quickly than steam, allowing for more aircraft launches (and a higher SGR).

Three, Advanced Arresting Gear System (AAG) for Ford-Class

The Advanced Arresting Gear System, or AAG, will replace the MK7 hydraulic arresting gear found on older aircraft carriers like the Nimitz and Enterprise. The AAG was built to handle a wider range of aircraft than the MK7, while using less manpower, and requiring more maintenance. The result is an arresting gear system that is more hands-off, yet can handle more aircraft.

The AAG uses rotary engines and water turbines paired with a large induction motor. The result is fine control of arresting forces – generated through a simple process. The AAG is less groundbreaking than the EMALS, but still offers an upgrade over preceding systems (and still boosts the Ford’s SGR).

Four, Manpower Reduction

Aircraft carriers are essentially floating cities. Well, maybe not cities but towns.

The Nimitz-class carrier, for example required 5,000 sailors to operate. So, inherent to the operations of the Nimitz was the feeding, housing, and paying of 5,000 people – in itself a complicated and expensive endeavor.

When designing the Ford, an effort was made to reduce the boat’s reliance on manpower; much of the Ford is built to run with automated technologies in place of sailors. The result is a carrier that needs 1,100 fewer sailors to operate than the Nimitz had needed. The 20 percent reduction in manpower requirements is expected to lead to long-term cost savings.

Five, Maintenance Reduction

The Ford was designed to operate with less maintenance than preceding aircraft carriers. So, with reducing maintenance in mind, the Ford was built with simpler nuclear reactors than the Nimitz or Enterprise. Similarly, the radar system was designed to be less finicky. And the EMALS and AAG were designed to require less maintenance than the preceding steam catapults and MK7 arresting gears.

In sum, the Ford should require significantly less maintenance over the course of its 50-year service life than older aircraft carriers required. Cost projections suggest that the Ford will save $4 billion in maintenance costs during its fifty years in service.

About the Author 

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. 

Summary and Key Points: The US Navy's long-standing reliance on aircraft carriers, central to its power projection since WWII, faces new challenges from advanced anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) systems developed by China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. These systems threaten the effectiveness and safety of carriers, including the next-generation Ford-class carriers, which are expensive and complex to build and maintain.

-Critics argue that investing in legacy systems like the Ford-class is imprudent in an era of rising national debt and evolving threats.

-They suggest redirecting funds towards more versatile and cost-effective technologies like Virginia-class submarines, unmanned vehicles, hypersonic weapons, and directed-energy weapons to maintain US naval superiority.

The Ford-Class Mistake

The United States Navy just can’t quit its love affair with the aircraft carrier.

Since the Second World War, flat tops have been the center of the US Navy’s surface fleet. The primary projector of American maritime power, a fleet without the newest, largest, and most sophisticated floating airbases would not be the same. 

Of course, these aircraft carrier arguments are eerily similar to the ones made by proponents of battleships 80 years ago.

Back then, it was the battleship that was the centerpiece of US Navy power projection and the aircraft carriers that were viewed as strange ancillary elements in the fleet. 

That quickly changed after Japan’s surprise attack at Pearl Harbor in the Second World War. 

Today, the Navy (and its supporters in Congress) operates as though it is still 1999. There are no real challenges to American military dominance. Carriers can come-and-go as they please anywhere on the face of the planet. All the locals can do is to stand in awe of America’s might when the flat tops show up to start imposing America’s will on the foreign shores they are deployed to. 

The Enemy Gets a Vote on Aircraft Carriers 

But America’s enemies have other plans. 

Leading this charge against America’s continued global dominance is none other than the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While China has built its own rudimentary carrier force, Beijing has been more interested in depriving the Americans of their number one naval power projection platform: the aircraft carrier. China plans to do this, thanks to their robust arsenal of anti-aircraft/area denial (A2/AD) systems that can basically sink—or seriously damage—an aircraft carrier at the onset of any conflict between China and the United States. 

And these A2/AD systems are infinitely cheaper and easier to replace than an American aircraft carrier. That is one reason that China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea have all invested vast sums into their respective A2/AD capabilities. The cost imbalance creates a strategic imbalance that likely favors the Chinese, Russian, North Korean, and Iranian militaries if it ever came to a showdown between their A2/AD capabilities and American flat tops. 

What’s the Point of the Ford-class Aircraft Carrier?

The Ford-class aircraft carrier is the next-generation aircraft carrier that the Navy is (slowly) building. It is intended to replace the existing fleet of 11 Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. Thus far, the Navy has deployed the first of this class in 2021—the USS Gerald R. Ford—and the next unit, USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) is set for deployment in 2025. After that, in 2028, will come the USS Enterprise (CVN-80). Lastly, the USS Doris Miller (CVN-81) is set for deployment in 2032. 

The USS Gerald R. Ford cost $13 billion and took more than a decade to get out of the shipyard. A year after it was deployed, in 2022, it was still enduring technical issues. The follow-on carriers in this class are expected to be cheaper. But the fact remains that the carriers are hugely expensive, take a very long time to build, and are basically so complex and expensive that they are irreplaceable. 

Since the funds have already been allocated for these warships, it will be difficult to cancel these systems. But future systems can absolutely be terminated. Especially if the United States military has not made developed any meaningful counter-A2/AD system—or anti-hypersonic weapon system—for these carriers. 

We are building big, beautiful targets against which China’s advanced rocket forces can practice with live fire. If even one of these ships is sunk or its flight deck is significantly damaged, it would become the equivalent of a strategic wasting asset. 

The Ford-class Aircraft Carrier: Decadence on Display

Diverting the funds and resources from any future Ford-class carrier after 2028 will be helpful for the US Navy to prioritize. First, it will need more Virginia-class attack submarines. Second, it will need to develop arsenals of sophisticated underwater unmanned vehicles (UUV) as well as advanced unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). Third, the Navy needs to invest in its own hypersonic weapons capacity. Fourth, Navy resources need to be put into directed-energy weapons (DEW). 

All these other expenditures, such as trying to replace the 10 Nimitz-class carriers with 10 Ford-class carriers when the Nimitz-class still has decades of service left, is one such example of wastefulness on the part of the Navy. It is the hallmark of a decadent country in decline that it has failed to adapt with the changing times. 

We are living in an era where interest payments on the national debt will soon outstrip the nearly $1 trillion US defense budget. To continue building legacy systems, like the aircraft carrier, when our enemies have developed cheaper ways of negating the efficacy of carriers in modern combat, is not just decadent. It’s irresponsible. And it could lead to the United States losing a war.

Cancel the Ford-class aircraft carrier now. 

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. 

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?)