The National Interest

When Donald Trump picked JD Vance as his running mate, he whiffed. Overconfident in victory, he doubled down on the MAGA base. Has Kamala Harris now made the same mistake in choosing the sixty-year-old Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, a hero to the progressive wing of the Democratic party who popularized the term “weird” to describe Trump and co.?

Pundits such as Jonathan Chait are fretting that Harris missed an opportunity to move to the center. “What the selection does,” he wrote, “is forfeit her best opportunity to send a message that she is a moderate.” But there are good reasons to suspect that Walz, whose hard-hitting, no-nonsense, straight-talking speaking style has turned him into a social media sensation, might be able to compensate for some of Harris’ weaknesses in attracting voters in the Midwest.

Walz, who was born in 1964, grew up in Nebraska. After moving to Minnesota in the 1990s, he taught social studies at Mankato West High School and coached the football team, which won several championships. Walz has served in the National Guard for several decades and went on to push for veterans’ benefits. He has also served multiple terms in Congress, where he voted against intervening in Syria in 2013. He has also called for a “working” ceasefire in the Gaza war and should be able to bring many of those who voted “uncommitted” back into the Democratic fold. Choosing Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, by contrast, would have ensured that Harris had inflamed the disputes among Democrats surrounding Israel and the Gaza war.

Walz can speak effectively about the social issues that are proving to be an albatross around the Trump campaign’s neck—specifically, the issue of IVF. As Vance’s unbridled statements about women are being unearthed on what seems like almost a daily basis, Walz will surely focus on his own family’s experiences. He and his wife, Gwen, tried to have a child for seven years before fertility treatments finally succeeded. “It’s not by chance that we named our daughter Hope,” Walz has said. Vance voted against a Senate bill to protect IVF, prompting Walz to declare on MSNBC, “I don’t need him to tell me about my family. I don’t need him to tell me about my wife’s healthcare and her reproductive rights.” The only thing he and Vance apparently have in common is a taste for Diet Mountain Dew. Perhaps the loser of the election can send the winner a case of it.

No doubt Walz will be pummeled for the rioting that took place in May 2020 in the Twin Cities after the murder of George Floyd. The Trump campaign is licking its chops at the thought of depicting Harris and Walz as radicals who are unfit, if not incapable, of governing America. The rap on Walz is that when the Black Lives Matter riots took place, he froze, failing to send in the National Guard in a timely fashion to end the looting and violence. Walz needs to provide a clear and compelling account of why he waited three days to dispatch the National Guard—the best way to do that is probably by highlighting his own service in it. If he debates JD Vance, Trump’s running mate, this episode is sure to be a major line of attack.

Still, even as Walz and Vance joust, it’s reasonable to wonder whether any of it will really matter. Speaking at the National Association of Black Journalists convention last week, Trump himself responded to a question about Vance by observing, “Historically, the vice-president—in terms of the election—does not have any impact. I mean, virtually no impact.” It’s not clear that it will be any different in 2024 than in the past.

Jacob Heilbrunn is editor of The National Interest and is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center. He has written on both foreign and domestic issues for numerous publications, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Foreign Affairs, Reuters, Washington Monthly, and The Weekly Standard. He has also written for German publications such as Cicero, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, and Der Tagesspiegel. In 2008, his book They Knew They Were Right: the Rise of the Neocons was published by Doubleday. It was named one of the one hundred notable books of the year by The New York Times. He is the author of America Last: The Right’s Century-Long Romance with Foreign Dictators.

Image: Rebekah Zemansky / Shutterstock.com.

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. must prepare for the possibility that Russia successfully deploys nuclear-armed anti-satellite weapons, which could destabilize global security and disrupt conventional military operations reliant on satellites.

-While arms control efforts are crucial, the U.S. should also focus on ensuring its military can operate in a "denied space" environment. This includes wargaming scenarios where satellites are compromised and training to maintain strike capabilities without satellite support.

-Such preparations would reinforce deterrence and ensure varied response options to any potential nuclear aggression in space.

In February, it was revealed that Russia has been developing a nuclear-armed anti-satellite weapon. The Biden administration's response has focused mainly on arms control efforts aimed at preventing Russia from acquiring a space-based nuclear weapon in the first place. These efforts are important, but they are also insufficient. Steps must be taken now to prepare for the possibility that diplomacy fails. Nuclear anti-satellite weapons have the potential to fundamentally alter existing nuclear paradigms, creating a much more destabilizing environment than exists today. The U.S. must take action now to ensure it is ready to deal with the challenges posed by nuclear weapons in space. By preparing now, before nukes are put in orbit, the U.S. can better work to prevent such a day from ever happening at all.

U.S. deterrence strategy has long centered on its ability to tailor both conventional and nuclear response options to a wide range of different contingencies, as well as deliberate ambiguity surrounding when it would use nuclear weapons. Both these concepts would be thrown out the window if a nuclear anti-satellite weapon were detonated today. While the exact capabilities of Russia's space weapon are unknown, it is likely to pose as much a threat to its own satellites as it is those of the United States.

In May, then-Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy John Plumb testified that Russia's weapon would be "indiscriminate," and "pose a threat to all satellites operated by countries and companies around the globe." The U.S. would therefore likely be left without the ability to retaliate against Russia in space if it detonated its weapon. The only option would be to strike targets on the ground. At present, conventional U.S. forces rely heavily on access to satellite-provided GPS, intelligence, and communications. A conventional strike in this environment would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to carry out. A nuclear strike would be more feasible (though also challenging). A serious conversation should address whether a surface nuclear strike would be an appropriate response to a nuclear attack that does not directly kill people on Earth.

However, it is still critical that the president retain a variety of options to respond to the use of such a weapon. Thus, central to deterrence in a world of nuclear anti-satellite weapons will be the ability of conventional military forces to operate without access to satellites.

If satellites went down in the aftermath of the detonation of a nuclear space weapon, the ability of long-range strike fighter aircraft and bombers to carry out non-nuclear surface attacks against enemy targets would be crucial to maintaining the option of a conventional response to such an action. There have been some efforts to improve the ability of U.S. forces to fight in an environment without access to space, but these have been limited compared to activities aimed at maintaining such access. The latter efforts are important, but they will likely not be options once a nuclear anti-satellite weapon goes off.

The Navy and Air Force, with support from the Space Force, should wargame different "denied space" contingencies aimed at learning how to operate in an environment without access to satellites. The lessons from these wargames should then be applied and continued in actual live military exercises. These exercises would be aimed both at training pilots, aircrews, and commanders to conduct operations in a denied space environment but would also demonstrate to Russia and other potential U.S. adversaries that it will always have the option of retaliating with varying degrees of force to any type of nuclear aggression.

The U.S. should continue pursuing arms control efforts aimed at preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons in space. However, it must also be prepared for the possibility that these efforts fail. By preparing conventional strike fighter assets to conduct operations in a denied space environment, the U.S. will be adequately ready for a world where nuclear weapons are orbiting the Earth.

Luke Widenhouse is a research assistant at the Yorktown Institute and rising senior at St. John’s College in Annapolis, MD.

This article was first published by RealClearDefense.

Summary and Key Points - What will a 7th Generation Fighter Do in the Sky?: The future of military aviation is focused on evolutionary advancements rather than revolutionary leaps. The B-21 Raider builds on the B-2 Spirit's successes, and sixth-generation fighters are advancing current technologies.

-The concept of aircraft "generations" was popularized as a marketing tool by Lockheed Martin with the F-35.

-While the seventh generation isn't yet defined, it may feature autonomous capabilities, advanced materials, and multinational collaboration. However, such advancements could be decades away, possibly emerging in the 2070s or later.

The future is always around the corner, so we can always expect something new. Sometimes it will be small steps forward, while other times, it will be great leaps ahead. With military hardware, we've really reached a point where most of the advances are evolutionary, building on past successes and proven features rather than revolutionary – which could take designers in an entirely new direction.

Such is the case with the B-21 Raider, which is now in development. It is mainly building on the successes of the B-2 Spirit, and both feature a flying wing design. Likewise, most sixth-generation fighter designs have focused on what worked with fifth-generation aircraft and have taken it much further.

The question then is what we can expect with the "next-generation" beyond what is already in the prototype stage? Yet, even aviation experts can only ponder what we could expect to see.

"To be honest, I've not really heard anyone even mention 7th generation," explained Gareth Jennings, aviation editor at Janes, told me months back.

"Most 'Tier 2' nations that are building aircraft – Turkey, South Korea, etc. – are building their own fifth-generation jets, while Tier 1 nations (US, UK [and partners], France [and partners]) are looking at sixth generation. 7th Generation isn't really 'a thing' as yet," added Jennings. "That said; it is possible to look at the progression of previous generations and extrapolate that forward to take an educated stab at what might be features in a 7th generation jet."

However, Jennings further continued that even our concept of the generations of such wasn't set in stone. In fact, until the development of today's most modern fighters, there was no talk of a particular aircraft falling into a particular generation.

"It's important to first note that 'generations' don't really exist – they have only come into being as a way of classifying aircraft since Lockheed Martin used the term 'fifth-generation' to describe its F-35, and all older aircraft were kind of backfilled into what previous generation they were determined to best fit – so the F-4 became a third-generation aircraft, and the Eurofighter a fourth generation aircraft, etc.," said Jennings. "Lockheed Martin will readily admit that it was a marketing gimmick to make their product stand out, but it has stuck and is now in widespread use."

Even though the designations were actually only retroactively created, the U.S. Air Force has since broken down the respective capabilities of the generational designations:

*First-Generation: Jet propulsion

*Second-Generation: Swept wings, range-finding radar, and infrared-guided missiles

*Third-Generation: Supersonic flight, pulse radar, and missiles that can engage opponents from beyond visual range

*Fourth-Generation: High levels of agility, some degree of sensor fusion, pulse-doppler radar, reduced radar signature, fly-by-wire, look down/shoot down missiles, and more.

"So the thing about generations is that each new generation focuses on a number of key performance attributes while retaining the key performance attributes that defined the generations before it," Jennings suggested. "As an example, the third-generation F-4 Phantom retained the supersonic speed that largely defined the previous generation, but added to that advanced (for its day) mission computing and guided missiles."

In addition, the fourth-generation aircraft then took all of this and added fly-by-wire and advanced avionics, whilst the fifth-generation took all of this and added stealth, sensor fusion, and supercruise, Jennings noted.

"The sixth-generation will take this and add capabilities that haven't yet been publicly defined, but which are understood to include flexible payloads; an adaptable airframe; long-range sensing; analytics and computing; laser directed-energy weapons; advanced materials; intelligent maintenance; dynamically reconfigurable architecture; cyber protection; manned-unmanned teaming (MUM-T); trusted artificial intelligence (AI) reasoning; airspace integration; hypersonic-propulsion technologies; space technologies; and a future 'wearable' cockpit," he further explained. "Added to these technological attributes, the sixth-generation is designed to be affordable and to utilize futuristic manufacturing processes and methods."

It is also important to note that aircraft have been unique in that they have been so steadily upgraded over the past 80 years. By contrast, the United States military is still fielding its M1 Abrams, a "third-generation" main battle tank (MBT). Two factors need to be considered, however. First, it was indeed a revolutionary leap forward, rather than evolutionary – and thus it may have reached a level of armored perfection, at least until some new technology is developed.

Second, and more importantly, the M1 Abrams has been steadily improved in a way that fighter aircraft generally aren't. However, the Cold War-era B-52 Stratofortress remains a capable bomber that will remain in service even as the aforementioned B-21 Raider comes into service. By the time the B-52 is finally retired, it could have served for nearly 100 years – and few military platforms have seen such longevity. This has been made possible due to the improvements it has received.

Jet fighters, which have increasingly become multirole aircraft, have continued to evolve – and will continue to do so. That explains why the 70-year-old B-52 and 50-year-old M1 Abrams tank remain in service, while efforts are already underway to replace the fifth-generation F-22 Raptor, which only entered service in 2005!

All that said, it is likely that some in the aerospace sector are thinking well beyond the currently-in-development aircraft to what can come next. The question becomes what could the next generation actually look like. We need only look to other technological developments in our civilian world today to see what the next great leap forward could bring.

"With the advent of the Metaverse, 3D metal printing, and the increasing capabilities of realistic simulation, our ability to create new weapons, including fighters quickly, is advancing significantly," explained technology analyst Rob Enderle of the Enderle Group.

"At the same time, autonomous technology is becoming more viable, and the concept of human digital twins is creating the opportunity for a next-generation fighter not limited by human frailties," Enderle told this reporter. "While it often takes a war to force a legacy process, like aircraft creation, to adjust to the speed of current technology, there is no reason why the next generation of high-performance fighters couldn't be created in months rather than years, and be configured to be flown by a digital twin of a top gun pilot."

The 7th generation fighter thus may not be decades in development and could be a response, even a reaction, to what the sixth-generation may offer.

"It can reasonably be supposed that the 7th generation will again take all of these facets, and add some as yet undefined/unknown technological capabilities that will define it as being different and more advanced than all that have gone before it," said Jennings. "What these will be is hard to say, as anything we can now imagine as being a viable and desirable technology and capability is already being addressed in the sixth-generation, and it's hard to imagine what hasn't yet been conceptualized or invented. My personal feeling, however, is that by the time we start to get to thinking about the 7th generation, the technology will be there to remove the pilot altogether and for the platform to be fully unmanned (not just remotely piloted, but autonomous in its own right). The issues, however, won't be technological, but will be more ethical, moral, and/or even legal as to the extent society is comfortable with the idea of such capabilities being developed and deployed."

However, what is also likely is that multinational efforts may be required to design, develop and, most importantly, produce the next generation.

"In terms of programmatics, as with the fourth, fifth and sixth generation, it is likely that any 7th generation program will be an effort in multinational collaboration (in the West at least), due largely to the costs involved in such an undertaking, as well as the need for common requirements, and to maximize the exports that will help pay for it," Jennings added.

While Enderle suggested the time gaps could come down, Jennings isn't as confident. It is true that technology is rapidly increasing, which can allow for materials to be printed – advancing prototyping and even production – while computer-aided design (CAD) can also speed the development; yet, the cost will remain a factor.

"For timelines, the gap between each generation has progressively lengthened as technologies have become more complex (at the same time as becoming more stable – the big jumps we saw in aviation technology and innovation at the dawn of the jet age are now much more incremental), while development, manufacturing, procurement, operating, and sustainment costs have risen to the extent that most nations would prefer to continue to use older aircraft which they can upgrade at a quicker pace and lower cost to keep pace with (most of) their peers and near-peers," he noted.

"As such, I wouldn't expect 7th generation to enter the discourse until probably the 2070s or even later."

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. 

All images are Creative Commons. 

This piece has been updated extensively since its first publication. 

Summary and Key Points: On April 15, 2024, the U.S. Air Force conducted its largest "elephant walk" involving B-2 Spirit bombers at Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri.

-A dozen B-2s, representing nearly two-thirds of the entire fleet, participated in this show of force as part of the Spirit Vigilance exercise.

-The event demonstrated the readiness and strategic importance of the B-2 in the nuclear triad, especially after the fleet was grounded for part of 2023.

Nearly two-thirds of the entire United States Air Force's fleet of Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit bombers took part in a show of force like no other on Monday, April 15, 2024. A dozen of the stealth bombers assigned to the 509th Bomb Wing lined up on the runway at Whiteman Air Force Base (AFB), Missouri, and executed a mass fly-off to cap off the annual Spirit Vigilance exercise.

It was the largest "elephant walk" – the term for the close formation of aircraft that taxi en masse prior to takeoff – involving the long-range strategic B-2 Spirits to date.

"This is a reminder that the B-2 Spirit bomber is the visible leg of nuclear triad," Col. Geoffrey Steeves, 509th Operations Group commander, had previously said of Spirit Vigilance. "Simply put, the B-2 is the world's most strategic aircraft. It is the only aircraft on the planet that combines stealth, payload, and long-range strike. We are charged with delivering the nation’s most powerful weapons for our most important missions."

While the B-2 regularly makes the rounds at high-profile events, including a flyover of the Rose Bowl college football matchup in California, it is rare to see more than a single of the flying wings. The previous record for mass fly-offs of B-2s occurred during the Spirit Vigilance 2022 exercise and involved eight bombers.

That display of power included about 40% of the total Spirit fleet. With eight bombers on the runway at roughly $2 Billion a piece, it drew approximately $16 billion in stealth bombers to a single location. On April 15 – somewhat fitting in that it was "Tax Day" – the price tag for the show of force had a $24 billion price tag. Yet, as a reminder to America's adversaries, these are truly "priceless moments."

It also was meant to serve as a reminder of the capabilities of the B-2 Spirit, which had been grounded for the first half of 2023, following an accident that closed Whiteman's runway. Though the Air Force maintained that the bombers could be employed if absolutely necessary in response to a major crisis the Spirit's wings were clipped for almost six months.

Putting 60% in the air in a single fly-off made it clear the Spirit is back in the sky.

The first elephant walks occurred during the Second World War when large fleets of allied bombers massed for attacks – and observers on the ground noted that as the aircraft lined up, it resembled the nose-to-tail formations of elephants walking to a watering hole.

Today, the U.S. Air Force employs elephant walks to show the capability of a unit as well as the teamwork that is required to conduct such an operation. It also can help pilots prepare for the launching of fully armed aircraft in a mass event if needed

The elephant walk involving the dozen B-2 Spirits also came just days after the U.S. Air Force demonstrated its formidable air power at Kadena Air Base, Japan, by performing a strategic lineup of diverse military planes including F-15 Eagles, F-16 Fighting Falcons, F-22 Raptors, and F-35 Lighting IIs fighters, as well as RC-135, P-8, E-3, and RC-135 aircraft.

"This gathering of air power comes as we welcome our new rotational units, bringing F-16Cs and F-22As to the Keystone of the Pacific, while also saying arigatou and farewell to our F-35As and Air National Guard F-15Cs," Kadena Air Base announced via a statement.

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

Image Credit: U.S. Air Force. 

The characterization, by Donald Trump and his surrogates, of Vice President Kamala Harris’s alleged failings concerning border security is an amalgam of willful ignorance and bad faith. The many lies and half-truths are often spewed by Brandon Judd, the president of the Border Patrol Union who sometimes “opens” for the former President at some of his many rallies. Judd, it seems, is much more interested in parroting the Trump orthodoxy on Border Security than serving as a leader with the integrity that the men and women of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) deserve.

Unlike Trump and his cronies, The Biden-Harris Administration has known all along that no matter how many physical or legal barriers are erected in the name of border security, migrants will continue to seek asylum in the United States as long as conditions in their home countries are intolerable. President Biden wisely charged Vice President Harris with leading the diplomatic efforts (not “Border Czar”) to help reduce crime, violence, poverty and corruption in those nations responsible for the greatest percentage of migrants… and she made significant progress.

While Republicans were admiring the “Wall”, mugging for the cameras in their boots and jeans, Kamala Harris was doing the hard, time-consuming, frustrating, behind-the-scenes diplomacy. Working with the Northern Triangle countries of Central America, she was able to enlist the aid of over 50 American companies who invested $5 billion in those countries. Following this, migration from the targeted nations dropped by 50-60%. Conditions in the Northern Triangle nations are not going to improve over night. What is required is a long-term, multi-national effort to eliminate those factors that cause desperate people to flee their homeland. Fortunately, a future Harris administration understands that.

Trump relishes blaming Vice President Harris for what he asserts is chaos at the border and I, for one, agree that there is much to be done to improve unacceptable conditions at our borders.  The facts are, however, that the Biden-Harris Administration has made significant strides in improving border security even without the vital resources that would have been deployed under the bipartisan border bill; resources that would have drastically improved both the force strength and the effectiveness of CBP.  

The Biden-Harris Administration instituted tough restrictions on asylum claims that have, arguably, been instrumental in reducing illegal crossings to their lowest level since 2020. The Administration also deserves considerable credit for the recent evisceration of the leadership of the notorious Sinaloa Cartel with the arrest of cartel leaders “El Mayo” Garcia and Joaquin Guzman Loera, son of the infamous “El Chapo” Guzman. Additionally, in June 2021, under the leadership of Vice President Harris, Task Force Alpha, a law enforcement task force was established with the cooperation of Mexico and the Northern Triangle nations to combat smuggling and human trafficking.

Border Security is one of the most difficult, divisive, politically fraught and complicated national security issues facing our nation. It is irresponsible, in the extreme, for members of either party to use the border and its many related issues as a political weapon. But that is where we are today; particularly as it pertains to the GOP, its platform and the rantings of its presidential candidate and his surrogates.

Instead of focusing on meaningful, long-term solutions to a complex problem, like Vice President Harris has been doing, Trump and his minions engage in “Border Security Theater.” Over the course of the past six years, Trump and his surrogates (including the recently selected ice presidential candidate J.D. Vance) have periodically flocked to the Southwest border to stage photo ops in front of Trump’s “Wall.” Continuation of the supremely ineffective wall and the mass deportation of migrants are what pass, these days, for the heart of Trump’s “Border Policy.” The approach is breathtaking in its cynicism and emptiness.

In a feat of ethical gymnastics truly worthy of a gold medal, it is riveting to watch Brandon Judd laud the former President for his inspired leadership on border security, all the while knowing  that Trump bullied the GOP leadership into torpedoing the first tough, bi-partisan and meaningful border bill in generations. It was a bill that he and his union enthusiastically endorsed. That’s some chutzpah.

The nation was finally on the cusp of being able to bring meaningful change to our badly broken border and immigration programs, including more CBP Agents, advanced technology for detecting concealed contraband, more immigration judges, and much else. Trump, of course, initially favorable to it, had the deal killed when he realized he needed to preserve it as a campaign issue. This was unconscionable.

In November, the electorate will have a clear choice as to who is likely to bring positive, meaningful change to our troubled borders. With Trump, it will be more of the same – walls, rhetoric, threats, and bluster. With Kamala Harris, we have a chance to address the root causes driving migration and, perhaps, for the first time, focus on a permanent solution. For me, that’s an easy call.

Robert Kelly is the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Drug Enforcement and former Deputy Chairman of the government’s Border Interdiction Committee. 

Image Credit: Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The Russian military has reportedly deployed the T-14 Armata tank in Ukraine months back, but it remains unconfirmed if these tanks are engaging in combat.

-The T-14, despite being a highly advanced main battle tank, has faced production delays and is considered too costly to deploy widely.

-The Kremlin may be hesitant to risk the T-14 in combat due to the potential damage to its reputation if it were destroyed. This suggests that Russia lacks confidence in the tank’s performance under battlefield conditions.

Is the Russian military finally deploying its latest T-14 Armata main battle tanks into Ukraine? 

Recent footage from months back indicates that the T-14 Armata is working and is in operational condition, but it won’t be seeing actual combat any time soon. 

The T-14 Amrata has been years in the making.

Weighing 55 tons and with a crew of three (commander, driver, and gunner), the T-14 Armata tank packs a 125mm main gun with an automatic loading system. 

Despite years of promotional fanfare, the tank has suffered production delays and manufacturing issues. 

In March, Sergey Chemezov, who leads the Russian defense giant Rostec, confirmed prior Western intelligence assessments and our coverage here at The National Interest that the Russian military hasn’t deployed the T-14 Armata tank in Ukraine. 

Chemezov said that the T-14 Armata is simply too expensive to deploy in the fighting in Ukraine, adding that the T-90 main battle tank is a more efficient option. 

Previously, the TASS state news agency had stated that the Russian military had used the T-14 Armata in Ukraine several times. The state-controlled media outlet has been known to push the Kremlin’s narrative, regardless of its accuracy. 

For all terms and purposes, the T-14 Armata should be considered a failed project. 

Russia has been engaged in the largest conflict since the end of World War II. It has lost between 450,000 and 320,000 men killed, wounded, and captured. The Ukrainian forces have also destroyed tens of thousands of heavy weapon systems. In more than 25 months of combat, the Russian forces have little to actually show for these devastating casualties. 

If the Kremlin is hesitant to deploy its most technologically advanced main battle tank even in the face of so many challenges, then it clearly doesn’t have any faith in it and doesn’t believe that it can perform under operational conditions. 

Claims about exorbitant costs are for domestic consumption. Despite the heavy international sanctions on Russia in response to its illegal invasion of Ukraine, the high energy prices have made the Kremlin billions of dollars. Moscow has the money to spend on its defense. 

An additional explanation as to why the Kremlin isn’t deploying the T-14 Armata is marketing. Moscow knows that it is vey likely the Ukrainian forces with their Western anti-tank systems would have a field day against the T-14 Armata.

Footage of smoldering T-14 Armata tanks in the fields and ditches of Ukraine would make it very marketable to foreign customers. Despite the overall questionable quality of Russian military hardware, Moscow is still a big player in the international arms market. 

Before the fateful February 24, 2022, Russia was making between $15 and $12 billion a year from selling weapon systems abroad. Its customers ranged from emerging powers like China and India to European countries like Cyprus to African warlords.

Although the number of foreign sales has dropped since the illegal invasion of Ukraine, the Kremlin still makes between $8 and $5 billion a year. 

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Speculation abounds regarding where Iran or its proxies will strike as retaliation for Israel’s recent assassinations of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh and Hezbollah deputy Fuad Shukr. While numerous scenarios are being discussed, all remain conjectural. However, one particular possibility warrants extended consideration.

This time, Iran’s interest in hitting Israel is not just about showing force but about exercising power and inflicting significant pain and damage upon the Israelis. Yet, Iran faces a major problem: while they can inflict damage in a first strike, they lack the military means and capability to protect themselves from retaliatory strikes by either Israel, the United States, or a combination of both and their allies. Therefore, the best scenario for Iran would entail a strike that creates a chain reaction that preoccupies Israel so that it can’t mount an immediate or effective counterattack.

One specific target could be the narrow strip of land between the West Bank and Gaza. This Israeli territory, approximately fifty-eight miles long, separates about 2.7 million Arabs in the West Bank from about 1.8 million Arabs in Gaza. The Israelis have numerous military bases in this area to ensure their protection. In a strike, Iran could aim to damage these military bases, hoping that the built-up resentment and anger in the West Bank over the last eight months would lead to a revolt against the Israelis. An indicator that Iran might target this area is that in the list of targets published by Iranian media, four out of the seven targeted military bases are located in this strip.

Iran is also counting on the possibility that outrage in the West Bank, combined with the ongoing conflict in Gaza and tensions with Hezbollah to the north, will cross-fertilize into an unmanageable situation for Jerusalem. In this context, Iran might consider this strip of land as Israel’s Achilles Heel. By applying military pressure to this region, Iran might hope to create an opening for Hamas militia in Gaza and factions in the West Bank to connect or at least cause more problems for an overstretched IDF. An attack like this could also jeopardize transportation and land communication between the north and south of Israel, creating major logistical obstacles.

It’s also crucial to note that Iran has been trying to arm the West Bank. They have attempted to smuggle weapons through Jordanian smugglers or via drones, often with the help of Hezbollah and their Syrian proxy, the Imam Hussein Brigade. There is a chance that Iran has already succeeded in smuggling some weapons into the West Bank. Following an attack, Iran would hope this situation triggers widespread violence.

In this scenario, Iran’s next step could be to leave the ensuing chaos to Hezbollah, keeping Israel occupied while Iran regroups or seeks to initiate negotiations.

However, the dilemma that Iranians still face is that there is no guarantee that, in such a scenario, there would be a division of labor between the United States and Israel. In this division, Israel would counter the unrest in the West Bank, Gaza, and its own territory, while the United States would directly confront Iran. This uncertainty is a significant challenge for Iran, especially given the upcoming U.S. elections. A lack of response or a weak response in protecting a major U.S. ally in the Middle East could be costly for President Biden’s party and his party’s nominee, Kamala Harris.

Iran’s solution to such a scenario could be to unleash Shia proxies to launch attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq, Syria, and Jordan. Arguably, this part of the retaliation has already commenced. Still, when it comes to attacking U.S. troops, Iran’s proxies in Syria might emerge as key players, as U.S. troops in al-Tanf in Syria’s Homs province are much more vulnerable compared to those in Iraq. Meanwhile, the Houthis could continue their attacks against Israel, striking the Eilat port and escalating their harassment of international maritime traffic in the Red Sea, causing a surge in shipping costs and financial pressure on the West.

However, while all these actions can exert pressure on the United States and Israel, the use of proxies still does not resolve Iran’s main problem: the power asymmetry between itself and the Israeli-American partnership. In this context, Iran must be cautious. Any reckless employment of proxies could lead to a severe response that jeopardizes the proxy network it has spent four decades building. This would not only harm Iran but also its main international partners, China and Russia. Continued conflict in the Red Sea would increase the cost of trade for China, which has already been complaining to Iran. Additionally, the use of proxies in Syria could provoke a major strike against the Assad regime, endangering Russia’s efforts and gains in Syria. This may be one of the reasons behind Russian National Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu’s sudden visit to Tehran.

In this context, it is safe to say that whether or not the fifty-eight-mile strip between the West Bank and Gaza is Israel’s Achilles heel, a reckless strike could expose Iran’s soft underbelly.

Arman Mahmoudian is an adjunct professor at the University of South Florida’s Judy Genshaft Honors College, teaching courses on Russia, the Middle East, and International Security. He is also a research assistant at the USF Global and National Security Institute, focusing on Russia and the Middle East. Follow him on LinkedIn and X @MahmoudianArman.

Image: Saeediex / Shutterstock.com.

Summary and Key Points: Ukraine claimed to have sunk the Russian Kilo-class submarine Rostov-on-Don in the Black Sea, marking the second time this submarine has been targeted. The first attack in September heavily damaged the sub, which was reportedly under repair or in sea trials when hit again.

-This loss would be significant for Russia's Black Sea Fleet, especially since additional submarines can't enter the Black Sea due to Turkey's control over the straits.

-The incident remains unverified by Western sources and unacknowledged by Russia.

Cue the social media memes, Ukraine – a nation that has no navy to speak of – claimed to have sunk yet another Russian submarine, the previously damaged Kilo-class Rostov-on-Don, which was targeted on Friday in a missile strike. If confirmed, it would be the second successful targeting of the Russian Navy submarine in the past year.

It was last September that Ukrainian forces attacked Rostov-on-Don with a cruise missile when the boat was in drydock, and believed it to be sunk. Though heavily damaged, the submarine was repaired and may have been engaged in sea trials when she was hit again. The diesel-electric improved Kilo-class attack submarine was launched in June 2014 and commissioned in December of that same year.

"A Russian submarine went to the bottom of the Black Sea," the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense announced, adding, "As a result of the attack, the submarine sank. Great work, warriors." During the strike, four S-400 Triumf air-defense systems were also reported to have been targeted.

The sinking of the submarine hasn't been independently verified by Western media outlets, while the Kremlin hasn't acknowledged the recent missile attack on the occupied Crimea.

Employing Western Aid

Though Ukraine has employed domestically-built aerial drones to target distant Russian air bases as well as the Kremlin's tanks on the frontlines, and it has used sea-skimming naval drones against the Russian Navy's Black Sea Fleet, much of the success in striking the occupied Crimea has been the result of long-range Western missiles.

That ordnance, along with the naval drones, has forced the Russian Navy to relocate its warships away from Sevastopol.

"The Rostov-on-Don was probably also about to retreat to Novorossiysk," Yörük Ik, a geopolitical analyst from the Bosphorus Observer maritime consultancy based in Istanbul, told Newsweek.

Losing a Black Hole

Though the Russian Navy is reported to operate more than sixty diesel-electric Kilo-class submarines, which are reportedly armed with Kalibr missiles that can be used to strike targets on land or at sea, the loss of the Rostov-on-Don would still be a blow to the Kremlin as it can't send additional submarines to the Black Sea.

The Black Sea Fleet had six of the submarines in service when Russia launched its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, but three were not in the waters of the Black Sea at the time and access to the waters has been closed to military warships by Turkey, which controls access via the Dardanelles and Bosphorus Straits.

The boats had been seen as powerful platforms for striking positions on land and at sea as the Kalibr missiles can be launched from torpedo tubes while the boat is in a submerged position.

The boats were nicknamed "Black Holes" by the U.S. Navy as they were designed to operate in shallower, coastal waters where they can be employed in anti-surface warfare (ASuW) and anti-submarine warfare (ASW) missions. The upgraded Kilo-II boats are seventy-four meters long and displace more than 3,900 tons, and due to their strong hull, the submarines have an operational depth of 240 meters and can dive to a maximum depth of 300 meters, overall with an operational range of up to 7,500 miles.

The Russian submarines have been considered among the world's quietest underwater cruisers, and the boats can travel at speeds of up to twenty knots, while they have sea endurance of forty-five days. Each of the Russian boats is operated by a crew of fifty-two submariners.

It might seem that there is now an actual hole in one of those Black Holes, and this time it might not be so easy to patch it up.

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. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gearing Up For War?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can We Expect "Head-on Air Combat"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such weapons should be seen a real threat to warships.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All images are from the U.S. Navy. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

More from National Interest

PAK DA - Russia Is Building a New Stealth Bomber 

Houthis Might Have Attacked a Navy Aircraft Carrier - Report 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wing Design Gave It Excellent Performance

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

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

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

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

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

All images are Creative Commons and or Shutterstock. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More from National Interest

PAK DA - Russia Is Building a New Stealth Bomber 

Houthis Might Have Attacked a Navy Aircraft Carrier - Report 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.