The National Interest

Summary and Key Points: The Iowa-class battleships were the pinnacle of U.S. naval power during World War II, designed for speed, firepower, and durability.

-Despite the shift from battleships to aircraft carriers following the Pearl Harbor attack, these vessels remained vital to the U.S. Navy through the end of the 20th century.

-Equipped with powerful 16-inch guns, advanced radar, and capable of reaching flank speeds of up to 35.2 knots, the Iowa-class battleships were unmatched in their time.

-Though rearming these historic ships is unlikely, their legacy endures as a testament to American naval engineering and the pivotal role they played in maritime warfare.

America’s legendary Iowa-class battleships were the premier capital ships of the United States Navy throughout the Second World War. It is likely that had so many battleships not been taken out of commission by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, these worthy vessels might have remained the central power projection platform for the US Navy. 

But Japan’s decimation of the American fleet at Pearl Harbor meant that the days when the battleship was the dominant player in the Navy were over.

Still, the Iowa-class battleship was a remarkable piece of technology for its era. 

The Iowa-class battleships would, in many cases, serve the United States until the end of the twentieth century. There is even occasional talk about rearming and modernizing the few battleships that remain on display as museums today and reforming them into floating missile trucks. 

While these ruminations are on the fringe, they are still brought forth into the public eye. This scenario is highly unlikely, but it’s easy to see why one might look back to the battleships of old and see some credence to bring them out of retirement.  They still may be useful in today’s age of highly contested areas of operation for the US Navy, notably to the advent of enemy anti-access/area-denial, or A2/AD systems.

The Iowa-class battleships were equipped with four General Electric steam turbines, each driving a single, massive propeller for the battlewagon. These turbines were powered by eight Babcock & Wilcox boilers, which produced steam at a pressure of 600 psi (4,137 kPa) and a temperature of 850 degrees Fahrenheit. This power plant provided a total of 212,000 shaft horsepower (158 MW), driving the battleships to their maximum speed of thirty-three knots (or 37 miles per hour).

Iowa-class battleships were designed to be fast and maneuverable, with a length of 887 feet and a beam of 108 feet. They had a displacement of 45,000 tons and a crew of 1,515 officers and enlisted men. 

These battlewagons were equipped with a variety of weapons—notably potent cannons meant to break through enemy defensive perimeters and obliterate the armor of enemy warships from a distance. These battleships came equipped with 16-inch guns in three, tripe turrets, twenty 5-inch guns in ten twin turrets, and numerous anti-aircraft guns. An Iowa-class battleship came equipped with (for its time) advanced radar and fire control systems, which allowed for the battleships to engage enemy ships and aircraft more effectively than many other, older platforms that served in the WWII-era fleet.

One feature, though, stands out for a warship as massive as the Iowa-class. And that is the “flank speed” feature on this boat. Flank speed on an Iowa-class battleship refers to the maximum speed at which a ship can travel. The Iowa-class battleships, being speedy and maneuverable, could get moving at a clip of just shy of forty miles per hour—a real feat for such a large and heavy ship. 

During a shakedown cruise of the Iowa-class battleship, the USS New Jersey, the warship attained an astonishing speed of 35.2 knots—which she maintained for a staggering six continuous hours of operation! 

It was a key asset when under fire or at risk from aerial attack, as zig-zagging was a common technique US surface warships employed when trying to evade air attack from Japanese warplanes while at sea. 

What’s more, being able to travel at this top speed in battle allowed the Iowa-class to keep up with the fast carrier task forces of the US Navy, as they often provided cover for the carriers, and engaged enemy warships effectively.

Although it is an old system from a bygone era, the Iowa-class is an admirable old boat. Not only does it pack an unbelievable punch. This battlewagon can go petal to the metal when the situation demands. There’s a reason the surviving members of the Greatest Generation still speak of the legendary glories of the Iowa-class battleships. They truly were second to none. 

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. All photos are of various submarine styles. 

From the Vault

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

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

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy's Forrestal-class aircraft carriers, built during the Cold War, marked a significant advancement in sea-based warfare. Designed to accommodate larger airframes and advanced weaponry, these supercarriers were integral to America's military strategy.

-The class included four ships: Forrestal, Saratoga, Ranger, and Independence, each varying in size and capabilities. The USS Ranger, the third of the class, was the first U.S. carrier designed with an angled deck from the start.

-Ranger played a crucial role in the Vietnam War and later participated in significant operations, including those in response to the Entebbe hostage crisis and conflicts in the Persian Gulf.

The U.S. Navy’s Forrestal-class aircraft carriers represented the pinnacle of progression in the sea-based warfare realm during the Cold War.

These supercarriers were built as the arms race between America and the Soviet Union was brewing.

Designed with then-extraordinary tonnage, the Forrestal vessels were intended to integrate larger airframes capable of carrying more advanced weaponry. Four ships in this class were constructed during the 1950’s, the Forrestal (CVN-59), Saratoga (CVN-60), Ranger (CV-61) and Independence (CV-62).

Compared to its predecessors, the Forrestal carriers were roughly 25% larger in size. The previous Midway-class ships could carry 65-75 airframes, while the Forrestal carriers could sport up to 100.

These new supercarriers measured 100 feet longer and nearly 20 feet wider than the Midways, enabling them to sail the seas more stably regardless of weather conditions.

When the Forrestal ships first entered service, they possessed the largest hangar and flight decks. Aircraft were becoming more extensive as the military understood that they could carry the smaller nuclear weapons being designed following the Second World War.

The four ships in the Forrestal class were unique as none were identical in size, armament, or power output.

USS Ranger was the third of the Forrestal-class supercarriers constructed for the Navy. She also had the distinction of being the first American carrier designed from the beginning as an angled-deck ship. Ranger was laid down in 1954 by Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock and Newport News, Virginia. She officially launched two years later and was commissioned at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard.

Following her launch into service, USS Ranger participated in air operations in the Caribbean in addition to individual ship exercises. Until the early 1960’s, she was part of the Pacific Fleet. However, this shifted when the Vietnam War broke out.

The Ranger contributed mightily to the war effort over the next eight years. In 1967, she became the first carrier to deploy with the new A-7 Corsair II jet attack plane and UH-2C Seasprite turboprop rescue helicopter.

As detailed by Seaforces:

 “From carrier refresher training for CVW-2, Ranger proceeded to fleet exercise Moon Festival. From 9 to 16 October 1967, the carrier and her air wing participated in every aspect of a major fleet combat operation. Her efficiency honed to a fine edge, Ranger departed Alameda on 4 November 1967 for WestPac. Arriving Yokosuka 21 November, she relieved USS Constellation and sailed for the Philippines on the 24th. After arriving at Subic Bay on 29 November, she made final preparations for combat operations in the Tonkin Gulf. Commander, Carrier Division 3, embarked on 30 November as Commander, TG 77.7; and Ranger departed Subic Bay on 1 December for Yankee Station.”

In 1968, Ranger took part in Operation Formation Star when North Korea seized an American environmental research ship. In addition to this stint, the supercarrier would spend the next few decades operating off the coast of Kenya in the wake of the rescue of Israeli hostages held at Uganda’s Entebbe airport and in the Persian Gulf.

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The Seawolf-class submarine is a remarkable yet rare vessel, with only three ever produced due to high costs. That makes some experts declare the Seawolf the F-22 Raptor of submarines. 

-Designed during the Cold War, the Seawolf was meant to be the pinnacle of U.S. submarine technology, featuring a nuclear-powered, fast-attack design that was faster, quieter, and more heavily armed than its predecessors.

-With a $5 billion price tag per unit, the Seawolf was equipped with advanced features like an HY-100 steel hull and a propeller-less pump-jet propulsion system for enhanced stealth.

However, with the end of the Cold War and a shift in defense priorities, the program was canceled after only three submarines were built.

The Seawolf-class submarine is a remarkable machine. Yet, only three Seawolfs were ever made. Why? The same reason that applies to most weapons systems having their production halted: money.

Money was no issue during the Cold War. Instead, during the Cold War, taxpayers and their duly elected representatives were happy to spend indulgently on defense programs – from the F-117 stealth aircraft to the Nimitz-class aircraft carriers to the “Star Wars” missile defense system to the Seawolf-class submarine.

In many respects, the Cold War boiled down to an elaborate arms race. In all realms – air, land, and sea – the superpowers raced urgently to design and build cutting-edge military equipment.

The tempo of the arms race was such that only existential conflict can inspire. It was essential because both the US and the Soviet Union possessed nuclear weapons, which inspired both nations to place many of their resources into furthering their nuclear triad.

At sea, developing the nuclear triad meant building nuclear-powered submarines that could lurk indefinitely, with the capacity to fire nuclear warhead-tipped missiles, thus providing a hard-to-track nuclear launch pad that could be secretly stationed in any waters around the world.

The result: deterrence. And to maintain the edge in deterrence each superpower upped the ante in submarine investment. The culmination of the escalating investment, on the American side, was the Seawolf-class submarine.

But once the Soviet Union collapsed, the impetus for much of America’s defense spending collapsed, too. Taxpayers and their duly elected representatives withdrew their support. Funding dried up. Defense programs were cancelled – some still in their infancy, like the Seawolf, of which only three had been made. Yet, the three Seawolfs still serve today, patrolling the world’s oceans as a reminder of what the US fleet might have looked like had the Cold War persisted another decade or two.

The Seawolf is a nuclear-powered, fast-attack sub with a $5 billion per unit price tag (in 2018 dollars).

The vessel is not cheap. But the massive price tag yielded an impressive submarine: bigger, faster, quieter, and more heavily armed than the preceding (and widespread) Los Angeles-class.

“The U.S. Navy had builders cram all kinds of goodies into the Seawolf submarine,” National Interest contributor Brent Eastwood wrote for National Interest months back. The “goodies” start with the hull, which was built entirely from HY-100 steel – an upgrade over the weaker HY-80 steel used to build preceding submarines. With the enhanced steel hull, the Seawolf could dive to depths of 490 meters. The Seawolf could also cruise; with the submarine’s S6W pressurized water reactor, the Seawolf had a max speed of 35 knots – not a world-record, but very impressive all the same. More importantly, the Seawolf is very quiet, with a “propeller-less pump-jet propulsion system” that “allowed it to maintain acoustic stealth even when cruising a brisk 20 knots, whereas most submarines are forced to crawl at 5-12 knots to remain discrete,” Eastwood explained.

And, true to the objectives of the Cold War, the Seawolf was built to handle up to 50 UGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles – putting the Soviet Union on notice.

Alas, the Navy cancelled production of the Seawolf. Originally, 29 Seawolf submarines were to be built. Three were completed – the Seawolf, Connecticut, and Jimmy Carter – before the program was canned.

Harrison Kass is a defense writer with over 1,000 published pieces. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, he joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison has degrees from Lake Forest College, the University of Oregon, and New York University. He lives in Oregon and listens to Dokken.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy's latest iteration of the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, known as Block III, has recently gained attention with new images showcasing the Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) Block III system.

-This version features a distinctive "muffin top" midsection designed to accommodate future upgrades, emphasizing the Navy's commitment to enhancing electronic warfare capabilities amidst rising tensions with China and Russia.

-These destroyers, equipped with advanced radar systems and formidable weaponry, are crucial for maintaining U.S. naval dominance. Each Block III ship, estimated at $2 billion, represents a significant investment in modernizing the fleet.

In November of last year, new images of the U.S. Navy’s latest Arleigh Burke-class iteration circulated in the military news realm.

Pictures of the service’s cutting-edge Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) Block III installation were published for the first time aboard one of these destroyers.

The new system makes the Arliegh Burke Class Block III ship look very different from its predecessors. Specifically, the new destroyer features a large, bulging middle frame that some have dubbed “the muffin top.”

The Navy’s latest destroyer class is being constructed amidst rising tensions between Washington and Beijing.

As stated by GlobalData Defense analyst James Marques, “It’s right to say that the US is contemplating force size – and maintaining a larger fleet of Arleigh Burke ships is part of the answer.”

Named to honor World War II American destroyer officer Admiral Arleigh Burke, this class of guided-missile destroyers are larger and more heavily armed than their predecessors. The class’ design was derived in part following lessons learned by the Royal Navy during the Falklands campaign.

Additionally, the Navy built on the existing Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruisers, which were highly pricey and challenging to maintain. With these two notions in mind, engineers constructed a modern destroyer with capabilities to lower its radar cross-section, among other enhancements.

A smaller cross-section makes it more difficult for enemy warships to detect, a critical asset for the Navy. The Arleigh Burke-clas ships were also equipped with a Collective Protection System which enables her to function in conditions contaminated by radiological, chemical or biological materials.

In terms of sensor system, a slightly downgraded variant of the Aegis Combat System was incorporated into the ships, allowing them to launch, track, and evade missiles at the same time.

The USS Arleigh Burke was commissioned back in 1991, after several years of testing. From combat system to propulsion plant testing, the destroyer underwent thorough examinations prior to launching. Similar to other modern American surface combatants, DDG 51 uses gas turbine propulsion. Each Arleigh Burke ship is equipped with four General Electric LM 2500 gas turbines to produce 100,000 total shaft horsepower by a dual shaft design.

This enables the class of destroyers to sail at speeds reaching 30+ knots in the ocean. In terms of weapons, these destroyers are quite formidable. Each ship is armed with 56 Raytheon Tomahawk cruise missiles and a combination of land-attack missiles, anti-ship missiles, and a Tercom-aided navigation system. Both types of missiles are launched from a pair of Lockheed Martin MK41 vertical launch systems.

Over the years, several enhancements were incorporated into the destroyers. In the early 2000s, Raytheon commenced deliveries of the Standard MissileSM-3, which has a kinetic warhead and is constructed for deployment against both short-range and medium-range ballistic missiles.

As detailed by Naval Technology, “The SM-3 will be upgraded to SM-3 Block IIA and SM-3 Block IIB. USS John Finn launched an SM-3 Block IIA missile to intercept and destroy the target successfully during a flight test off the coast of Hawaii in October 2018.” Arleigh Burke ships are also fitted with the Sea Sparrow missile and eight Boeing Harpoon surface-to-surface missiles, among other enhancements.

Last December, the first Flight III Arleigh Burke went underway for the first time to undergo builder’s trials in the Gulf of Mexico. This destroyer class is the first to possess an active electronically scanned array AN/SPY-6 Air and Missile Defense Radar.

Additionally, the latest Block III iteration uniquely includes three Rolls Royce 3-megawatt generators on the Flight 11A ships with Royce’s 4-megawatt generators. The DDG 51 class program manager for Program Executive Office Ships reiterated that “As the first Flight III ship, DDG-125 is the culmination of years of dedication and perseverance to design, build and integrate the Flight III capability of [Aegis Combat System Baseline 10], [SPY-6 Air and Missile Defense Radar] and the supporting systems such as the new electric plant and associated upgrade to the machinery control system.”

Block III’s bulky midsection was in part designed so that future upgrades could be incorporated into the destroyers. Electronic attack capabilities are critical as non-state actors and rogue entities across the seas are possessing more and more capable unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), anti-ship cruise missiles and even ballistic missiles. China and Russia are also rushing to secure more sophisticated electronic warfare capabilities as geopolitical tensions ramp up.

Each Arleigh Burke Block III Class variant is estimated to cost around $2 billion, including the Navy providing around $1 billion of equipment for each ship. While this cost may seem high, the rapid introduction of these advanced destroyers to service will be essential for America’s prowess in the seas.

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

All images are Creative Commons and or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The Russian Su-47 is a unique, experimental aircraft known for its forward-swept wings, a design rarely seen in aviation. Introduced in 1997, the Su-47's distinctive wing configuration offers several advantages, including higher lift-to-drag ratio, improved maneuverability, and better stability at high angles of attack.

-Despite its impressive performance, only one Su-47 was ever built, serving primarily as a testbed for future Russian fighter designs like the Su-35 and Su-57.

-The aircraft remains an aviation curiosity, and its influence can be seen in subsequent Russian designs, including the more recent KB SAT SR-10 trainer.

While some have described the fighter as stealthy, this somewhat stealth plane has become a much-discussed aviation subject. We asked a former member of the U.S. Air Force and an expert to give us his take on the Russian plane: 

The Russian Su-47 is one of the world’s most distinct, most easily recognizable aircraft. The reason: forward-swept wings. Whereas nearly every other aircraft in the world has either straight wings like the A-10 Warthog, delta wings like the Dassault Rafale, or aft-swept wings like every commercial aircraft you’ve ever flown on. The Su-47’s wings sweep forward, making the warplane impossible to miss. Indeed, the Su-47’s wing configuration is rare: no swept-forward design has ever entered mass production.

A few mid-century aircraft designers experimented with forward-swept wings. The Nazis briefly experimented with a Junkers Ju 287 multi-engine bomber featuring forward-swept wings. Convair proposed a supersonic bomber, the XB-53, with forward-swept wings – but the plane was never built.

Forward-swept versions of the Bell X-1, the Douglas D-558, and the North American P-51 Mustang were all proposed. Back then, however, the materials required to make a forward-swept wing that was strong and stiff enough to support flight – without being too heavy – were simply not available. Forward-swept wings need to be stronger than traditional wing configurations because of the forward-swept wing’s aeroelastic behavior; they twist upwards during flight.

Accordingly, these front-swept proposals all died in the design phase. Japan did have some success with a forward-swept fighter in World War II – the Nakajima Ki-43. Yet, the Ki-43’s forward-sweep was minimal, barely perceptible, although technically present.

After the war, as materials science improved, aircraft designers persisted with forward-swept experimentation. Using newly developed, strong yet light carbon fibers, Cessna designed the NGP prototype, CZAW built the Parrot, and Saab built the Safari. More significantly, Grumman built an X-29 experimental jet with aggressively forward-swept wings.

Only two X-29s were ever built but it was an exceptional aircraft, capable of maintaining control at a 67-degree angle of attack.

Finally, in 1997 Russia introduced its Su-47 at the Paris Air Show. Like the Grumman X-29, the Su-47’s forward-sweep is aggressive. In other respects, however, the aircraft is ordinary. The forward fuselage, vertical stabilizers, and landing gear were all taken directly from the Su-27. With canards leading the wings, the Su-47 is extremely maneuverable.

Though experimental flying and tests provide demonstration, the Su-47 has proven some of the forward-swept configuration’s advantages: higher lift-to-drag ratio; improved stall resistance; improved stability at high angles of attack; anti-spin characteristics; lower minimum flight speed; shorter take-off and landing distances; better agility in dogfights.

Along with a distinct appearance, the Su-47 has high-end specifications. The Su-47 has a maximum speed of Mach 2.21 and a range of 2,100 miles. The jet can operate within a service ceiling of 59,000 feet and can handle 9g’s. With a 45,900 feet per minute climb rate, the Su-47 can really climb.

Only one Su-47 was ever built and it was never outfitted with armament. The plane reliably impressed on the air show circuit, demonstrating its remarkable wing shape and remarkable agility. Insights gleaned from the Su-47 program were applied toward the development of Russia’s 4.5-generation fighter, the Su-35, as well as the fifth-generation Su-57. And the Su-47 seems to have a spiritual successor; in 2015,

Russia unveiled the KB SAT SR-10, a single-engine jet trainer with – you guessed it – forward-swept wings. Although, the SR-10 is a markedly humbler aircraft than the Su-47.

Harrison Kass is a prominent defense writer with over 1,000 articles published. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, he joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison has degrees from Lake Forest College, the University of Oregon, and New York University. He lives in Oregon and regularly listens to Dokken.

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov is notorious for belching thick black smoke, a result of its outdated Mazut-fueled propulsion system.

-Mazut, a heavy fuel oil, produces harmful emissions and poses environmental risks, contributing to the carrier's poor performance and operational limitations.

-Originally a Soviet-era design, the Admiral Kuznetsov was intended as a stepping stone for a more expansive Soviet carrier fleet, but the collapse of the USSR left Russia with a dilapidated vessel.

-Despite its inefficiencies, Russia continues to invest in the carrier, highlighting a questionable commitment to maintaining a largely ineffective naval asset.

Belching thick black smoke into the cerulean blue skies as it traverses the world’s oceans, the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov leaves a black Sharpie-like line for all its potential adversaries to see. It’s a unique sight on the world’s oceans because most warships today do not spew such filth visible to the naked eye as the boat navigates throughout the world. 

But the Admiral Kuznetsov is a rare and unique boat. Not in the valuable way, but in the sunk cost way. 

An aging, decrepit carrier held over from the final days of the Soviet Union, the Kuznetsov billows its pollution into the skies above because of its archaic propulsion system. Kuznetsov is powered by Mazut, a tar-like fuel that is a byproduct of the oil refining process and is commonly used in industrial and commercial applications such as heating and power generation. 

Mazut is also known as heavy fuel oil or bunker fuel, and it is typically used in large ships and power plants.

Mazut has a high sulfur content and is, again, known for its thick, black smoky emissions. When burned, mazut releases a number of harmful pollutants into the air, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter. These pollutants can have a significant impact on air quality and can contribute to a range of health problems, including respiratory illnesses, heart disease, and cancer.

In addition to its impact on air quality, mazut can have a negative effect on water quality. When spilled or leaked into bodies of water, which the Admiral Kuznetsov routinely and notoriously does with wanton abandon, mazut can form an oil slick that can harm aquatic life and damage the surrounding ecosystem. 

Thus, Russia’s war both on its neighbors and on the environment continues unabated in the twenty-first century.

The use of mazut fuel on the Admiral Kuznetsov has been a source of controversy, as it contributes to the ship’s poor environmental performance. Indeed, mazut, unlike other sources of fuel that power warships, is a highly limiting factor in the operational abilities of the dying Russian flattop, despite that it is a relatively abundant and cheap fuel source. 

The decision to use mazut fuel on the Admiral Kuznetsov is likely due to multiple factors, though. Yes, it is abundant in Russia and cheap. But another possible reason is that the use of mazut was an attempt by the old boat’s Soviet engineers to simplify the aircraft carrier’s propulsion system. 

Gas turbine engines are typically designed to run on lighter, cleaner fuels, but the use of mazut may have been seen as a way to reduce the warship’s complexity (and, therefore, to cheapen its construction and maintenance).

When the Soviets designed the Admiral Kuznetsov, they did it more as a proof of concept and less as the beginning of a new trend in the Soviet Navy. Had the flattop been successful (more importantly, had the USSR not collapsed when it did), the Admiral K would have been used as the basis for springboarding the Soviet Red Navy into massive aircraft carrier operations to challenge the U.S. Navy. 

Since the USSR did unexpectedly collapse and the Russians entered a dark decade of despair in the aftermath (that Russia is only now climbing out of), Moscow has been forced to remain committed to a clearly dilapidated warship. 

When—and if—the Russians really do enhance their carrier capabilities, one can anticipate that the next batch of Russian carriers will be far more complex and reliable than the current Admiral Kuznetsov.

At the same time, though, Russia has never been (and likely never will be) a maritime power. With that in mind, it might be a better move for the Russians to prioritize their ground, space, and air forces over their navy. 

They might want to simply focus on building submarines and smaller surface warships, as the Russians are better at that than they are at wasteful carrier operations. 

However, Moscow’s decision to blow so much money on keeping the dying Admiral Kuznetsov sailing indicates Moscow’s frankly bizarre commitment to the Admiral K that defies strategic logic and reason. 

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

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The South Korean "Star Wars"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. All photos are of various submarine styles. 

From the Vault

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image Credit: Shutterstock.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The Lockheed X-24C, an ambitious hypersonic aircraft project from the late 1970s, was canceled due to budget constraints, leaving its potential unfulfilled.

-Developed by NASA and the USAF's National Hypersonic Flight Research Facility, the X-24C aimed to build on the advancements of the X-15 and X-24B programs, with plans to reach speeds of Mach 8 using a scramjet engine. Had the program continued, the U.S. might have been far ahead in hypersonic technology today.

-Instead, the project remains a missed opportunity, while nations like Russia and China have advanced in fielding hypersonic weapons.

The annals of aviation history is littered with canceled projects, concepts that for one reason or another never came to be. The projects remains as blueprints, never to be built or flown. One such cancelled project was the Lockheed L-301, or X-24C, an experimental air-breathing hypersonic aircraft that was decades ahead of its time.

While the X-24C program never got off the ground, in January 1977, the program was “tentatively scheduled to operate two vehicles for eight years and to conduct 100 flights per vehicle.” But by September 1977 – just nine months later – NASA and the United States Air Force’s National Hypersonic Flight Research Facility (NHRF), who contracted with Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works to lead the project,  abandoned the X-24C for the same reason so many promising aviation projects were abandoned: budget constraints.

The X-24C was expected to build upon the advancements of the X-15 and the X-24B programs. The X-15 was the vaunted hypersonic rocket-powered aircraft that the USAF and NASA operated.

The X-15 was a remarkable machine, depicted recently in the film First Man, in a recounting of an incident one-time X-15 pilot Neil Armstrong had, in which he “skipped” his X-15 off the atmosphere of the Earth. The USAF and NASA had once considered controlled flight (as in the X-15) to space rather than the capsules-launched-atop-a-rocket scheme (as in Mercury, Gemini, Apollo) that eventually won out; the X-15 was the culmination of the fly-to-space trials.  

The X-24B, meanwhile, was an experimental aircraft that was designed to build and test lifting body concepts. The X-24B was used to test unpowered reentry and landing – a technique that the Space Shuttle would later use.

The X-24C was to take the lessons learned during the X-15 and X-24B projects, with the expectation that the X-24C would be able to reach Mach 8 speeds and perform hypersonic skip-glide maneuvers for long range missions.

Initially, the X-24C was designed to carry the XLR-99 engine, which had been used previously on the X-15. But the design was changed; the XLR-99 was replaced with the LR-105, which was the sustainer engine used on the Atlas launcher. The LR-105 burnt RP-1 and LOX and was designed to bring the X-24C to hypersonic speeds, at which point the airframe’s hydrogen fueled, air breathing ram/scramjet (mounted in the belly of the airframe) would ignite, propelling the X-24X to speeds in excess of Mach 8 and altitudes in excess of 90,000 feet.

The ”scramjet propulsion concept is still widely considered to be the most likely candidate for hypersonic aircraft to this day,” Alex Hollings wrote for Sandboxx. “A normal jet engine uses a compressor section (fan blades) to compress air to be mixed with fuel and ignited, but at hypersonic velocities, that compressor becomes a hindrance, slowing airflow to subsonic speeds as it passes through.” A scramjet, however, “uses the immense pressure created by air flowing into the engine at supersonic speeds to handle compression, making it a far more efficient means of propulsion at such high velocities.”

As NASA estimates, scramjets could be used to achieve speeds of Mach 15 or higher. To date, NASA has achieved speeds of Mach 9.6 using a scramjet (the X-43A unmanned hypersonic aircraft).

Had the X-24C project proceeded, the US would likely be much further ahead today with respect to scramjet technology. Today, however, the US lags “behind nations like Russia and China in fielding operational hypersonic weapons.” Both China and Russia have already fielded hypersonic weapons. The US has not, although the Pentagon has indicated it will procure 24 hypersonic weapons next year. Despite the US lag in fielding hypersonic weapons, billions have already been invested in the development of the cutting edge weaponry – which are expected to fundamentally change the way wars are fought.

Why? Because hypersonic weapons will travel at about Mach 5, which means they will have enough kinetic energy to destroy targets without even using an explosive – and because to date, nothing exists that can coherently defend against hypersonic missiles. Anyways, had the X-24C program proceeded, the US likely would have fielded hypersonic missiles sooner.   

Hollings is optimistic that, had the X-24C program proceeded, Lockheed Martin could have pulled off the impressive scramjet technology. “If anyone could make a hypersonic aircraft leveraging a combination of conventional and scramjet propulsion work in the 1970s, the guys who were making rocket-assisted F-80 fighters in the ‘50s and the space-scraping SR-71 in the ‘60s probably could.”

We’ll never know, however. The X-24C was a fascinating concept that exists now only as an unfulfilled blueprint.

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: A Saudi Royal Air Force F-15SA fighter jet recently crashed during a training mission at King Abdulaziz Air Base, killing both crew members, including Prince Talal Bin Abdulaziz. This follows another F-15SA crash last July, raising concerns over the safety of this advanced fighter.

-The F-15SA, a heavily upgraded version of the F-15S, features advanced avionics, electronic warfare systems, and weaponry, making it one of the most capable aircraft in Saudi Arabia's arsenal.

-Despite its cutting-edge design, the F-15SA program, worth nearly $30 billion, faces challenges as it continues to operate within the region.

Earlier last year, a Saudi Royal Air Force F-15SA fighter jet crashed, killing its two crew members on board, the kingdom confirmed. The crash occurred during a training mission at King Abdulaziz Air Base in Dhahran in the eastern portion of the Middle Eastern nation.

This latest incident followed another crash of the Saudi Arabian variant of the McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle in July. That mishap occurred near the King Khalid Air Base in Khamis Mushait, during which its two pilots were also killed.

It has been reported that Prince Talal Bin Abdulaziz was one of the two pilots killed in the recent crash.

The F-15SA is the most advanced version of the upgraded two-seat F-15S Strike Eagle, and is currently operated by the Royal Saudi Air Force's No. 3 Wing at King Abdulaziz Air Base, No. 92 Squadron RSAF; and No. 5 Wing at King Khalid Air Base, No. 6 Squadron RASF and No. 55 Squadron RSAF.

It is an advanced version of the Strike Eagle, and it was developed to incorporate features from, and even build on South Korea's F-15K Slam Eagle, Singapore's F-15SG, and the F-15SE Silent Eagle. The F-15SA is equipped with a number of enhanced systems and structural improvements compared to the basic F-15S used by the RSAF.

The fourth-generation fighter is powered by two GE Aviation F110-GE-129 afterburning turbofans, the F-15SA employs a fly-by-wire flight control system – which allows for the reactivation of additional underwing pylons stations one and nine – as well as advanced cockpit displays and Raytheon's AN/APG-63(V)3 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar

The aircraft further features a structurally redesigned wing and a new nose barrel.

The F-15SA is equipped with BAE Systems-developed digital electronic warfare system/common missile warning system (DEWS/CMWS); Lockheed Martin's AN/AAS-42 infrared search and track (IRST) system; a Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) and a Link-16 multifunctional information distribution system (MIDS). The platform can be equipped with Lockheed Martin’s AN/AAQ-33 Sniper advanced targeting pod (ATP), as well as the firm’s AN/AAQ-13 Low Altitude Navigation and Targeting Infrared for Night (LANTIRN) system.

The F-15SA can employ a range of weapons and can be configured for both air-to-air and air-to-surface operations. In an aerial combat role, the F-15SA can be armed with the AIM-9X Sidewinder short-range air-to-air missile and the AIM-120C-7 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM). The multi-role fighter is also fitted with a single M61 Vulcan 20mm cannon.

For air-to-surface engagements, the aircraft can carry the AGM-84H/K Stand-off Land Attack Missile-Expanded Response (SLAM-ER) precision-guided, air-launched cruise missile. In addition, it can be armed with the AGM-88 High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM); GBU-24 Paveway III laser-guided bomb and Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), as well as Mk.82 500lb and Mk.84 2,000lb general purpose bombs.

According to Boeing, the F-15SA can carry up to 12 air-to-air missiles and 24 air-to-ground munitions.

Riyadh announced in December 2011 that it had signed a $29.4 billion Foreign Military Sales Letter of Offer and Acceptance solidifying its plans to purchase 84 F-15SA fighter aircraft and upgrade its current fleet of 70 F-15S aircraft to the SA configuration. As part of the agreement, Saudi airmen attended Air Force technical training courses at multiple U.S. Air Force installations, including Sheppard Air Force Base (AFB), Texas, and Keesler AFB, Miss.

"The F-15SA will help deter potential aggressors by increasing Saudi's tactical air force capability to defend KSA against regional threats. The CONUS-based contingent would improve interoperability between the USAF and the RSAF. This approach will meet Saudi's self-defense requirements and continue to foster the long-term military-to-military relationship between the United States and the KSA. Saudi Arabia, which currently has the F-15 in its inventory, will have no difficulty absorbing the F-15SA aircraft into its armed forces," the Defense Security Cooperation Agency had announced in advance of the sale and noted that Saudi Arabia's fleet of F-15SAs would not alter the basic military balance in the region.

The first F-15SA was rolled out at Boeing's St. Louis facilities in April 2013, while the final F-15SA advanced fighter aircraft were delivered in December 2020.

"The F-15 Strike Eagle is a world-renowned dual-role fighter with an already exemplary reputation. These dramatically advanced versions of that battle-tested platform provide a strong deterrent capability to potential aggressors and strengthen our long and important relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia," said Col. Ronald E. Dunlap III, AFLCMC F-15SA Security Assistance program manager, at the time of the transfer. "I'm extremely proud of our AFLCMC team working with Boeing and alongside the Royal Saudi Air Force over the past several years to deliver this vital capability."

Though the F-15SA primarily operates over the skies of Saudi Arabia, one of the aircraft took part in the Athens Flying Week Air Show in August 2023.

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 North American XB-70 Valkyrie, conceived in the late 1950s, was an ambitious project to create the world's fastest and highest-flying bomber. With its futuristic design, six powerful afterburning engines, and advanced technology, the Valkyrie aimed to bypass Soviet defenses through sheer speed and altitude.

-However, the advent of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and changing military priorities led to the program's cancellation.

-Despite its promise, only two prototypes were built, with one now displayed at the National Museum of the United States Air Force. The XB-70 remains a symbol of Cold War innovation and unfulfilled potential.

In the late 1950s, the North American XB-70 Valkyrie looked like it had been ripped straight out of the pages of a science fiction comic book. With a sharp, angular design, six afterburning engines, and the latest targeting, navigation, and electronic warfare systems America could muster, the XB-70 was to become the world’s biggest, fastest, and highest-flying bomber in history… Until it wasn’t.

Today, the Valkyrie serves not just as a reminder, but arguably as the very pinnacle of the Cold War aviation philosophy of circumventing defenses through ever higher and faster platforms. The XB-70, like America’s famed SR-71 Blackbird and its defunct interceptor sister the YF-12, aimed to deliver on both in classic American style: by burning through budgets like jet fuel.

Born on the precipice of the missile age, the Valkyrie may have become America’s go-to nuclear deterrent, had the technology to build it been available just ten years sooner. But time waits for no man nor machine, and the Valkyrie was no exception.

The program that was to eventually produce the Air Force’s B-70 supersonic bomber began in the mid-1950s, thanks to rapid advancements in the science surrounding supersonic flight. In an incredible bit of irony, the XB-70 was intended as a replacement for the brand-new-at-the-time B-52 Stratofortress, which despite having incredible range and payload capabilities, was already vulnerable to Soviet intercept fighters by the time it entered service in 1955. Now, nearly seventy years later, the XB-70 is merely one of the many bombers to fail to dethrone America’s mighty BUFF; a list that is soon to include the retiring B-2 Spirit and B-1B Lancer.

At the time, the primary threats a bomber faced during a mission were intercept fighters and anti-aircraft guns, both of which could be mitigated by simply flying higher than they could reach and faster than they could shoot. This approach, while simple in theory, created incredible engineering challenges that would lead to some of the most exotic, dynamic, and capable aircraft ever to take to the skies.

Initial designs for the XB-70 leaned on what engineers called the “brute force concept,” which called for carrying an absolutely massive amount of fuel for a long-duration subsonic flight into Soviet territory and an aerodynamic design that was optimized for high performance during a relatively “short” sprint through enemy airspace. This approach led to absolutely massive concepts that leveraged external fuel tanks that could be jettisoned once they were depleted. These “tip tanks” may have been disposable, but they were neither small nor cheap. As a 1960 Congressional report pointed out, each 191,000-pound tip-tank was approximately the same size as America’s existing B-47 Stratojet long-range bomber.

When presented to legendary Air Force general Curtis LeMay, the man behind America’s B-29 bombing raids in the Pacific Theater of World War II, he dismissed the massive 750,000-pound bomber outright.

“This isn’t an airplane,” LeMay reportedly said, “this is a three-ship formation.”

With orders to go back to the drawing board, North American’s team turned to a recently published paper by Alfred J Eggers and Clarence Syverston from the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. The innocuously titled document “Aircraft Configurations Developing High Lift-drag Ratios at High Supersonic Speeds” explained that aircraft that were designed from nose to tail for a single flight condition could dramatically outperform those designed to compromise between both high and low-speed flight. In fact, it went on to prove that aircraft, inlet, and engine designs meant to maintain high supersonic speeds could offer comparable fuel economy to designs meant for subsonic operation.

In other words, the paper offered the startling conclusion that the Valkyrie could reduce its fuel needs by a wide margin by adopting a specifically high-speed design and then simply keeping the pedal to the medal, so to speak.

North American returned with a proposal for a bomber that was designed from the ground up to fly the majority of its missions at Mach 3 and at 70,000 feet (though some sources claim 80,000). In order to achieve and maintain these high speeds, their XB-70 was actually designed to “ride” on the shockwave it produced at supersonic speeds, using a delta-wing, slab-sided fuselage, and a large triangular intake on its belly, positioned well ahead of the bomber’s engines.

This angular intake allowed North American’s designers to intentionally position the high pressure created by the shock wave on the bottom side of the wings. In other words, the XB-70 would surf at Mach 3 on a shock wave of its own creation.

Despite its futuristic aesthetic, this new XB-70 Valkyrie wasn’t too far off in dimensions from the B-52 it intended to replace, at least when compared to the 750,000-pound behemoth originally proposed. It was longer, at 185 feet versus the B-52’s 160 or so feet, and much more narrow, with a wingspan of just 105 feet versus the B-52’s 185. It boasted a nearly 30-foot-long bomb-bay big enough to accommodate any nuclear or conventional weapons in Uncle Sam’s arsenal that was marketed as adaptable to suit Special Electronic Counter Measure (ECM) suites or reconnaissance pods to allow the high-speed bomber to serve in non-kinetic roles.

The bomber was powered by six General Electric YJ93-GE-3 afterburning turbojet engines that were rated at 30,000 pounds of thrust each with their afterburners engaged, though the engines actually produced closer to 29,000. Even if they were a bit over-sold, that still shakes out to more than 174,000 pounds of thrust, which was almost three times that of the brand-new-at-the-time B-58 Hustler, which was the world’s first operational Mach 2 bomber. These engines were lined up on the centerline of the underside of the aircraft, giving it a tail view that now looks almost reminiscent of an Imperial Star Destroyer from the Star Wars franchise, despite being thirty or so years earlier.

The XB-70 was operated by a four-man crew comprised of a pilot (and aircraft commander), co-pilot, bomb and navigation officer, and defensive systems officer. Incredibly, the cabin was designed to provide each crew member with an “encapsulated ejection seat” that would enclose around them to provide pressurized oxygen for the descent from 70,000 feet. This approach wasn’t unheard of, as a similar ejection capsule had already been designed for the B-58.

If the encapsulated seat landed in water, it worked like a boat and even came complete with a radio and fishing equipment. Documents show that the aircraft would also carry 45 pounds of survival equipment, including cold-weather clothing, a hunting rifle, and a week’s worth of rations, for each crew member—though it’s unclear if that was stowed in the ejection seat capsule or not.

This system included a provision for the pilot to remain with the aircraft in a sealed capsule while the other crew members ejected, allowing him to ensure the damaged bomber didn’t careen into populated areas or nearby American forces before ejecting himself.

The fuselage, and in fact most of the aircraft’s external surfaces, were all made using a stainless steel honeycomb-style “sandwich” approach to construction, which offered a great deal of strength and low weight. In a report penned by future president Lyndon B. Johnson and other members of the Senate Preparedness Subcommittee, North American was credited with leveraging lessons learned in development of programs like the the intercontinental supersonic SM-64 Navaho cruise missile and, of course, the hypersonic X-15 research plane in their construction methods. Wherever possible, high-strength titanium alloys were used to further cut down on weight.

The materials used in the Valkyrie’s construction were chosen specifically for their ability to manage the high heat of flight at Mach 3, well above what was commonly known as the “thermal barrier” for aircraft that leveraged aluminum in their fuselage construction. As a result, aluminum-based fighters like many of those employed by the Soviet Union couldn’t be upgraded to close this speed gap, and entirely new platforms would have to be designed.

The Valkyrie’s large delta-wing was paired with forward canards, referred to as horizontal stabilizers in some source materials, which provided lift ahead of the aircraft’s center of gravity and allowed for better trim control and a reduction in trim drag at high supersonic speeds. The canards themselves had flaps, which coupled with using the aircraft’s elevons as flaps and that large delta-wing allowed for lower speeds on take-off and landing than would otherwise be possible with such a design.

Secondary power for the Valkyrie’s onboard subsystems was touted as extremely lightweight and efficient and was described as able to provide “the equivalent horsepower of a modern V-8 engine in one-third the volume and two-thirds the weight.”

Despite the design’s dedication to high speeds, the outer-most portions of its wings, or outer wing panels, were actually hinged to allow for improved subsonic and supersonic flight. The panels would lie flat during take-off and low-speed flight, effectively extending the wing surface and improving the aircraft’s lift to drag ratio. Once the Valkyrie was flying at supersonic speeds, the wingtips would angle down to reduce the wing area behind the bomber’s center of gravity (reducing trim drag) and increase directional stability at high speeds.

Cabin pressurization was achieved by using the immense pressure of the air pouring into the intake during supersonic flight, with an engine-driven compressor assisting as needed to keep the interior feeling like a comfortable 8,000 feet above sea level. This pressurized cabin created what the Air Force referred to as a “tee-shirt” flight environment, which not only made long-duration flights more comfortable but also eliminated the need for special pressure suits like those worn by SR-71 and U-2 pilots. Skipping this time-consuming suit-up step would allow for faster scramble times in the event of a nuclear war.

The Valkyrie leveraged a bombing and navigation system developed by IBM that incorporated gyro-stabilized inertial navigation alongside automatic star-tracking to continuously provide up-to-date information about time and distance to target. A search-radar system with such high definition that its imaging was compared to “taking a photograph” was intended, and the aircraft’s defensive systems operator would be capable of jamming radar frequencies as well as operating conventional countermeasures like flares and chaff.

On paper, the XB-70 would provide the altitude and speed necessary to defeat Soviet defenses, the payload capacity to carry America’s most powerful weapons, and the fuel economy to fly more than 6,000 miles without a top-up. In the age of speed and altitude, the Valkyrie would rule the roost. But unfortunately for this envelope-pushing design, the world was changing quickly around it.

In a lot of ways, the XB-70 promised to be the most advanced and capable bomber ever built, but it came at a time when the very future of bombers was in flux. In 1959, the SM-65 Atlas missile, America’s first operational Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM), entered service. That same year, testing began on the UGM-27 Polaris missile, America’s first submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM). These new weapon systems revolutionized America’s approach to delivering nuclear munitions to far-flung targets. No longer was it necessary to put bomber crews in harm’s way, nor did it seem as appropriate to invest heavily into new bomber designs at the dawn of what many thought would be “the missile age.”

On December 3, 1959—one day after taking office—newly appointed Secretary of Defense Thomas Gates cut the XB-70 program back to a single flyable prototype, bereft of any of the military-specific subsystems it would need to serve as a bomber… but even with the fangs removed from the Valkyrie, the program itself still had quite a bit of fight left in it. Despite this decision, the program was given injections of funds in 1960 and again in 1961.

In 1960, then-senators John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson both made public statements in support of the program shortly before winning the year’s presidential election against sitting Vice President Richard Nixon and Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. Johnson even oversaw a 60-page argument in favor the XB-70 from the Preparedness Investigating Subcommittee, writing a full-page letter to open the report calling for it to be restored as a military weapon system. As a bit of historical humor, Johnson cites the B-52’s “obsolescence” as reason for continuing the program (the B-52 is now expected to remain in service beyond the 2040s).

But it wouldn’t be long before both politicians changed their tunes. Just a year later, in 1961, newly elected President Kennedy would give the XB-70 the final ax. The program limped on for eight more years as a technology demonstration effort that would field two prototype aircraft designated XB-70As. One prototype was destroyed after colliding with an F-104 Starfighter during a flying photoshoot in 1966, and the other would find a lasting home at the National Museum of the United States Air Force at Wright Patterson Air Force Base.

But even that still wasn’t the end for the XB-70 Valkyrie. The Air Force and North American would go on to pitch that platform for a wide variety of jobs, including launching and recovering spacecraft in flight, serving as a supersonic refueler, a supersonic personnel transport, and even an ICBM launch platform. None of these efforts, however, we enough to pull the expensive program back off the page and into real production.

Before long, bombers would once again come back into fashion, thanks initially to the fact that they can be recalled once launched, making them a good rapid-response option for early warnings of a potential nuclear threat. As time went on, the benefits of crewed bomber platforms coupled with the advent of stealth would place strategic bombers right back at the top of America’s nuclear strategy heap. But with stealth came a reduced focus on speed and altitude, relegating the XB-70 Valkyrie’s incredible new capabilities to the scrab bin for good.

Today, with hypersonic flight increasingly an area of focus for the United States and its near-peer competitors, it seems likely that we’ll see a resurgence of aircraft that are capable of flying at such blistering speeds. If so, we may yet see some of the lessons learned from the XB-70 program manifest in future bomber platforms. But the Valkyrie itself will always remain another what-if filed away neatly in the bowels of the Pentagon.

Alex Hollings is a writer, dad, and Marine veteran who specializes in foreign policy and defense technology analysis. He holds a master’s degree in Communications from Southern New Hampshire University, as well as a bachelor’s degree in Corporate and Organizational Communications from Framingham State University. This first appeared in Sandboxx News. 

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy's California-class cruisers, developed in the 1970s, were among the first nuclear-powered missile cruisers and were designed to counter the growing Soviet submarine threat. These heavily armed ships, featuring advanced missile systems and nuclear reactors, represented cutting-edge naval technology.

-However, the high operational costs and asbestos-related issues significantly impacted their long-term viability. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the introduction of the more cost-effective Ticonderoga-class cruisers, the California-class was eventually phased out.

-Despite their short service life, these cruisers marked an important era in naval warfare innovation.

The U.S. Navy missile cruisers developed in the 1950s possessed some of the newest and most cutting-edge weapons systems available on existing hulls.

To counter the rapidly growing Soviet threat, the Navy prioritized its sea-based capabilities.

Before the Second World War, a ship was designated a cruiser when its primary missions involved raising enemy commerce and generally engaging in enemy ships of equal or lesser size. Over the years, however, the cruiser designation grew to refer to defense vessels surrounding an aircraft carrier.

By the time the Cold War began heating up, the U.S. and the Soviet Union were rapidly expanding their respective submarine fleets, rendering the need for more advanced nuclear-powered defensive shifts. 

Prior to the California-class cruisers, the Navy relied on its Belknap-class predecessors. These singe-ended guided-missile cruisers were originally developed by the 1960’s. The ships were designated as destroyer leaders (known today as frigates) and were later re-classified as guided missile cruisers.

 Armament-wise, the Belknap-class ships could pack a punch. Armed with a twin-rail RIM-2 Terrier Mk 10 Missile Launcher, the cruisers could launch RURi-5 ARSOS. Belknap-class cruisers were also fitted with two twin-caliber guns and later were outfitted to spot RIM-67 Standard missiles. Once these cruisers hit the water, the Navy began developing its successor class.

The USS California (CGN-36) was the fourth nuclear-powered cruiser to ever enter service with the U.S. Navy.

This cruiser led its class, which were all built between 1970 and 1975. The USS California was joined by the USS South Carolina.

Like its predecessor, this class of cruisers was armed to the teeth. Each ship in this class featured 2 Mk 13 missile launchers which used RIM-66D Standard missile air targets. Additionally, the ships carried 4 single Mk 32 torpedo tubes, each capable of using Mk 46 anti-submarine torpedoes. 

Naval Encyclopedia has outlined additional specs and capabilities surrounding the California-class cruisers: “These missile cruisers defined as “fleet escorts” (“cruisers” in 1975) were defined from the experiments carried out on USS Truxtun and USS Bainbridge in nuclear propulsion. They were the first of this type in “serial” production. Extremely expensive they used a new generation of reactor, the D2G whose lifetime of the heart was three times longer. Their arrangements required the adoption of a long and massive hull without recess, returning to this standard defined in the thirties. Their armament was much larger than previous cruisers, including two of the new 127 mm Mk42 guns, two launchers of the new standard SAM, and one ASROC.” 

Even though the California-class cruisers were nuclear-powered, which minimized expenditures for fueling the ships, the hefty costs associated with operating both California and South Carolina were debilitating.

Once the Soviet Union collapsed, the Navy could no longer justify its massive budget concerning the California-class vessels. Additionally, the newer Ticonderoga-class cruisers were developed at this time and proved to be more cost-effective to operate and maintain than its predecessor. 

Besides its price tag, the California-class cruisers faced asbestos issues. The cruisers’ manufacturer, Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock, used asbestos pretty extensively in its construction as thermal insulation for pipes.

The consequences have been detailed by Shrader & Associates: “Asbestos lagged pipes were common in all ships built before the late 1970s, including the nuclear-powered California. The absence of boilers did not preclude the use of asbestos in engineering spaces, in fact, the increase in piping and the lagging to insulate it caused by the several cooling systems required by nuclear power may have increased it. Asbestos-lagged pipes ran throughout the ship, in nearly every compartment. Maintenance requirements regarding asbestos and potential for exposure began to be promulgated in the late 1970s and early 1980s, they were often ignored. Asbestos insulation was not scheduled to be removed unless it was damaged or required to support other maintenance.” 

The California-class cruisers’ successor- the Virginia-class- was no more successful in its service history.

Although the Virginia vessels were given a 38-year service life trajectory, all ships in this class were decommissioned less then 14 years after first setting sail for the Navy. The cruisers in this class received a New Threat Upgrade in the early 1980s, which included a large overhaul aimed at enhancing the ship’s responses to modern threats.

Due to this enhancement, in addition to other notable specs and capabilities possessed by the Virginia-class boats, this class did prove to be ideal escorts for the fast-powered aircraft carriers in the service like the Nimitz-class ships.

However, similar cost constraints suffered by the California-class plagued its long-term success. 

Maya Carlin 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 USS United States (CVA-58) was an ambitious post-WWII supercarrier project that was ultimately canceled just days after its keel was laid. Designed as a massive, flush-deck carrier to accommodate long-range bombers, the vessel faced significant practical challenges, including lack of an island for command operations and difficulties managing aircraft on deck.

-The program's cancellation, driven by opposition from the U.S. Air Force and budget concerns, led to a significant shift in naval strategy, paving the way for more practical supercarrier designs like the USS Forrestal.

-The USS United States is now seen as a bold but flawed vision of naval aviation's future.

Since the founding of the United States Navy on October 13, 1775, there has been only a single vessel named USS United States – it was one of the original six frigates that served as the core of the U.S. Navy in the first half of the 19th century. Three other vessels were to bear the name, and that included a Lexington-class battlecruiser that was canceled due to the Washington Treaty when just slightly over 10 percent complete.

Much more recently, the U.S. Navy's ninth nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and the eighth in the Nimitz-class was to be named USS United States – but her name was changed to honor President Harry S. Truman in February 1995 at the direction of then-Secretary of the Navy John H. Dalton.

President Truman it should be noted had approved the construction of five new "supercarriers" in July 1948 and the proposed class was to be for the United States. It was never to be, and that's likely for the best.

The USS United States (CVA-58) was meant to be the lead ship of a new class of supercarriers developed after the Second World War. It remains unclear why it had the CVA designation, but it was either for attack or atomic.

Its design was seen as ambitious and even cutting edge but was likely entirely impractical and as a result just five days after her keel was laid down, the program was canceled.

Truman approved the construction of the new class of carriers after funds had been provided in the Naval Appropriations Act of 1949. The design was quite the radical departure from the World War II-era flattops and in some ways evoked the "streamline modern" of the Art Deco architecture and design movement that became common with post-war automobiles and aircraft.

It truly was a flattop in the literal sense, as the proposed 65,000-ton carrier (83,000 tons fully loaded) would feature a flush deck that was designed to launch and recover large aircraft of 100,000 pounds, which in turn could carry the nuclear weapons of the era that weighed as much as five tons.

The chief proponent for the proposed supercarrier was Admiral Marc Mitscher, who saw the need for the warship to be able to handle the latest and most effective aircraft of the day.

The vessel was to be 1,000 feet long, without an island, and equipped with four aircraft elevators and four catapults, while the flight deck was axial, not angled.

That flush deck was meant to provide more space for large bombers – such as the B-29 Superfortress or its successor – although those aircraft would have to be secured to the flight deck as it would have been impossible to move them up or down in an elevator to the hangar. In addition, a small hanger was to have been provided for the fighter escort. As the design evolved, additional space was given for those escorts.

It was planned that the vessel's air wing would be made up of about a dozen bombers as well as nearly fifty fighters.

Whereas the primary mission was to carry long-range bomber aircraft, the United States-class was also intended to provide tactical air support for the air and amphibious forces, as well as to conduct sea control operations.

The lack of an island on the flight deck presented a number of issues that the designers had to deal with. 

First, it meant the ship lacked a position for radar, but also other command and control capabilities. A small tower-like platform could help direct movement on the flight deck, but radar, navigation, war planning, and other operations would have been relegated to a specially outfitted command ship cruiser.

As a result, instead of being the flagship of a strike group, the USS United States and the other carriers of the class would have been floating airfields or arsenal ships.

The U.S. Navy's bombers would have had to remain on the flight deck during an entire voyage. That would have been a serious concern for the carrier during high winds – a fact noted in July 2022 when a F/A-18 Super Hornet flew off the deck of the USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) while the carrier was deployed to the Mediterranean.

Then there was the issue of how the smoke from the power plants and how it would be diverted away from the flight deck had to be resolved.

The Imperial Japanese Navy's light carrier Ryūjō had proved that a flush flight deck presented such problems and it addressed the smoke by moving the funnels higher up the side of the hull and curved them downward. The Japanese warship was noted for not being particularly stable in rough seas, however.

Designed as a conventional carrier, as nuclear technology was still in its infancy, the USS United States would have required eight Foster-Wheeler boilers and four Westinghouse turbines, which could produce 280,000 hp while four screws could allow the massive vessel to reach speeds in excess of 33 knots.

Construction costs were estimated to be around $190 million ($2.4 billion in 2023 dollars), while the cost of the task force to accompany the massive warship would have driven the total price tag to more than $1.265 billion in 1948 dollar – more than $16 billion in 2023 dollars.

As noted, the USS United States was canceled just five days after the keel was laid down – in no small part due to pressure from the United States Air Force, which had viewed the carrier as an embodiment of the U.S. Navy's nuclear aspirations. The Joint Chief of Staff and then Secretary of Defense Louis A. Johnson seemed to agree that such an aircraft carrier's main function would only serve to duplicate the role of the Air Force.

After the program was scuttled, then Secretary of the Navy John Sullivan immediately resigned, while the subsequent "Revolt of the Admirals" resulted in Admiral Louis Denfeld being relieved of his position as Chief of Naval Operations.

The cancelation of the USS United States didn't mark the end for the supercarrier. Instead, just five years later the U.S. Navy moved forward with the more conventionally figured USS Forrestal-class.

As nuclear weapons shrank in size it was also determined that a massive warship designed to accommodate bombers wasn't actually required. In fact, during the 1950s, nuclear weapons were sent to sea on the USS Franklin D. Roosevelt – a carrier far smaller than the planned USS United States.

Though some look back on the USS United States as a missed opportunity, it should be seen that the U.S. Navy really dodged a torpedo-sized bullet. The flush flight deck carrier wasn't a step forward.

 Art Deco was fine for cars and architecture – it was simply wrong for a carrier.

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

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

President Joe Biden’s abrupt announcement to terminate his presidential re-election campaign upended the U.S. political landscape just a few months before the November election. While foreign policy rarely features prominently in a presidential campaign, the start of his political downturn can be traced to the disastrous U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. As we approach the third anniversary, the horrific scenes of chaos and confusion in Kabul will be revisited, and this unfortunate chapter in American foreign policy will torment his political legacy long after he leaves office. 

Although Biden enjoyed a “honeymoon period” at the start of his presidency, his approval rating noticeably dropped after the Afghanistan withdrawal, falling from 49 percent at the start of August 2021 to 43 percent a month later, according to Gallup polling. One year later, his approval rating plunged further to the 38 percent line, where it has languished since then. To be clear, Afghanistan was not the only factor affecting public opinion. The administration’s COVID-19 recovery policies created a sharp rise in inflation that compounded economic fears, intensified the (already fraught) political tensions in Washington, and exacerbated the sour mood of the country. Nevertheless, this foreign policy blunder provided an opening for his critics and political rivals to exploit during his re-election bid.

As I have written previously, President Biden deserves credit for ending America’s longest war. He concluded (correctly, in my view) that “nearly twenty years of experience has shown us that the current security situation only confirms that ‘just one more year’ of fighting in Afghanistan is not a solution but a recipe for being there indefinitely.” There was no clear path to “victory,” and the costs of continuing military operations in Afghanistan exceeded the benefits, especially given competing national interests in Europe (Russia) and the Indo-Pacific (China). Moreover, Biden inherited the flawed Afghanistan Peace Agreement from his predecessor, which included an infeasible deadline for withdrawing all U.S. forces by May 1, 2021. Although he subsequently extended the deadline, this did not provide nearly enough time to plan, coordinate, and execute an orderly retreat, as the administration would come to learn with horrendous consequences.

Some argue that President Biden should have maintained a small, enduring military footprint in Afghanistan (approximately 2,500 troops). Unfortunately, the Taliban would have likely viewed this as an abrogation of the agreement and created a daunting force protection challenge for U.S. troops remaining in the country. In fact, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley recently testified that he thinks “the probability is greater than not that the Taliban would have reinitiated combat operations.” In the White House, Biden described the choice in starker terms: “There was only the cold reality of either following through on the agreement to withdraw our forces or escalating the conflict and sending thousands more American troops back into combat in Afghanistan, and lurching into the third decade of conflict.” Shortly after the last U.S. troops departed Afghanistan, he took “responsibility for the decision” to terminate military operations in a war that “should have ended long ago.” While his words are commendable, Biden also deserves criticism for the conduct of the withdrawal itself.

Congress is investigating the botched withdrawal operation that resulted in the deaths of thirteen U.S. service members, including numerous interviews and hearings on the subject. Veterans testified about the “organizational failure at multiple levels,” a sentiment shared by senior leaders including Milley and former CENTCOM Commander General Kenneth McKenzie. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Mike McCaul (R-TX) bluntly concluded that “what happened in Afghanistan was a systemic breakdown of the federal government at every level—and a stunning, stunning failure of leadership by the Biden administration.” More recently, Gold Star family members appeared on stage at the Republican National Convention, where they criticized the chaotic withdrawal—and Biden—in a genuine display of emotion that captured the human costs of foreign policy decisions going awry. 

While these events keep Afghanistan in the public eye (and collective memory), they also raise a question of whether there is time for Biden to notch any major foreign policy “wins” on his scorecard to offset the withdrawal fiasco before he retires from office. Two obvious possibilities come to mind: the ongoing wars in Ukraine and Gaza.

To his credit, Biden quickly pivoted from the debacle in Afghanistan by proactively responding to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and galvanizing international support to blunt President Vladimir Putin’s territorial ambitions. In addition to coordinating tough multilateral sanctions and increasing diplomatic isolation against Russia, his administration established the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, a coalition of some fifty nations that has provided over $100 billion in foreign assistance and support to help Ukraine defend its sovereignty. 

Russia’s aggression also provided NATO with a renewed sense of purpose. The alliance just celebrated its seventy-fifth anniversary in Washington, DC, where President Biden proclaimed that “today, NATO is more powerful than ever” while emphasizing the importance of collective security to confront autocrats who “want to overturn global order.” Alarmed by Putin’s belligerence, previously “neutral” countries Finland and Sweden have joined the alliance. Moreover, twenty-three NATO member states are expected to meet or exceed the target of investing at least 2 percent of GDP in defense, compared to only three allies in 2014.

Despite dire predictions that Russia would seize Kiev in days or weeks, the war continues two years later. Additionally, Biden overcame months of stiff resistance from some Republicans in Congress to provide Ukraine with the resources to continue the fight. That said, Moscow retains a formidable military force in Ukraine with a resilient economy and deep resources. As a result, the situation remains a stalemate, with the stakeholders looking to November’s U.S. presidential election as a significant indicator of conflict resolution.

Notwithstanding intense domestic criticism (including members of his own political party), President Biden has maintained steadfast U.S. support for Israel following Hamas’s monstrous attacks on October 7, 2023, that killed 1,200 people and took some 240 people hostage. During his recent speech to a joint session of Congress, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed gratitude that “[Biden] came to Israel to stand with us during our darkest hour, a visit that will never be forgotten.” That said, the two leaders have clashed over the conduct of the nine-month-long war in Gaza. Biden reportedly pressed Netanyahu to accept a ceasefire agreement during their subsequent meeting at the White House.

Meanwhile, in Gaza, the Israeli Defense Force continues military operations to defeat Hamas militants, and civilians suffer the devastating collateral effects of the war. While ongoing diplomatic efforts to achieve a ceasefire might succeed, a long-term political solution remains frustratingly elusive. Moreover, the situation in the Middle East remains tense, and events such as the appalling rocket attack in the Golan Heights that killed twelve children and Israeli retaliation against Hezbollah could provoke a wider expansion of the conflict.

The next president of the United States will inherit a wide array of foreign policy challenges that will require difficult choices and tradeoffs. Although national interests and strategy can (and should) guide these decisions, the Afghanistan withdrawal serves as a reminder they also produce political consequences. While President Biden’s emotional address to the nation formalized the end of his political re-election campaign, his political misfortune began years earlier with the calamitous events in Afghanistan and the associated stigma of “strategic failure” after nearly two decades of conflict. Although his foreign policy legacy can be framed by an unwavering support for democracy and the global order, as well as an enduring commitment to alliances and partnerships in a time of tremendous strategic uncertainty and conflict, he will always be associated with this tragic episode in U.S. history.

Jim Cook is a Professor of National Security Affairs at the U.S. Naval War College. The views expressed here are entirely his own and do not reflect those of the U.S. Naval War College, the Department of Defense, or the United States Government. Follow him on LinkedIn and X @jlcookri.

Image: Jonah Elkowitz / Shutterstock.com.

Summary and Key Points: Russian Tu-95 bombers, escorted by Su-35S and Su-30SM fighters, recently conducted a 10-hour flight over the Sea of Japan, marking another strategic patrol amid heightened military activities.

-This follows a joint patrol with Chinese bombers near Alaska's Air Defense Identification Zone. The Russian Ministry of Defense confirmed the operation complied with international airspace regulations, but did not specify which foreign fighters intercepted the bombers.

-This incident is part of Russia's increased bomber patrols in the region, with the Tu-95, a Cold War-era aircraft, continuing to play a crucial role in Moscow's long-range aviation strategy.

Less than a week after Russian Tupolev Tu-95 and Chinese Xi'an H-6 bombers conducted a joint patrol near the Alaska Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ), the Russian Cold War-era long-range aircraft were deployed over the Sea of Japan on Tuesday.

"Two missile-armed Tu-95MS strategic bombers of the Russian Aerospace Force's long-range aviation have carried out a scheduled flight in the airspace over the international waters of the Sea of Japan. The flight lasted more than 10 hours," the Russian Ministry of Defense told state media outlet Tass while noting that the bombers were escorted by Sukhoi Su-35S and Sukhoi Su-30SM fighters.

"At certain stages of the route, the strategic bombers were escorted by foreign fighters," the ministry added. The flight followed international rules involving the airspace over the neutral waters. "Long-range aviation pilots regularly fly over the international waters of the Arctic, the North Atlantic, the Black and Baltic seas, and the Pacific Ocean."

Though the Kremlin acknowledged that the bombers were "escorted by foreign fighters," it didn't indicate which nations intercepted the Russian aircraft. However, according to a report from Stars & Stripes, South Korean jets "made sorties and the military took the necessary measure," while the Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) also "scrambled fighters to intercept the Russian aircraft."

The exact type of fighters sortied by South Korea and Japan have not been confirmed.

This marks just the most recent offense in which Russian bombers took part in a flight over the Sea of Japan. Just last December, another pair of Russian Aerospace Force's Tu-95s were joined by two Chinese H-6 bombers and took part in a maritime patrol flight over the same waters. That air armada consisted of seventeen aircraft, a scene that the JASDF was quick to notice and respond to by scrambling its fighters to intercept the Russian and Chinese planes.

As with its flights to the waters near Alaska, Moscow has increased its bomber patrols in the Sea of Japan – often employing the Tu-95

The Tupolev Tu-95 (NATO reporting name Bear) is among the oldest aircraft designs still flying anywhere in the world, and it is further noted for being the only propeller-powered bomber currently in operation. The Russian Aerospace Forces operates the highly updated Tu-95MS variant, which was actually newly built at the latter stages of the Cold War.

Much like the United States Air Force's Boeing B-52 Stratofortress, the Tu-95 has been steadily upgraded and will likely remain in service well into the 2040s or later.

The choice of propeller-driven engines was made due to the fact that jet engines burned through fuel far too quickly, and the Soviet Air Force lacked the capability to refuel its bombers in flight. Instead of being a speedy bomber, the Tu-95 was noted for being able to fly slowly and steadily to get the job done. Moreover, it was among the only Soviet-era bombers that could fly a distance of 5,000 miles and strike targets within the United States from territory within its borders. The updated variants are reported to have a range that is greater than 9,300 miles (15,000 km).

Though the name "Bear" was originally employed by NATO, it was adopted by the Kremlin as the aircraft's official nickname. The bomber was also a symbol of pride for the Soviet Union and often was demonstrated at European Air Shows.

Despite its first entering service 70 years ago, the Tu-95 wasn't employed in combat until 2015 – when a pair of Tu-95s were used in a series of long-range airstrikes as part of the Russian military intervention in Syria.

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. 

There has not been anything weird about Kamala Harris’ rollout of her campaign for the presidency. She’s moved swiftly to consolidate control over the delegates to the Democratic convention in Chicago, which will serve as a coronation if the elation surrounding her among Democrats is anything to go by. She’s also attacking Donald Trump head-on over immigration, claiming that he’s the one who has stymied real progress in choking off further influxes from Central and South America. A new poll from Bloomberg/Morning Consult suggests she has eliminated Trump’s polling lead in seven battleground states. Now, she is taking a leaf from the Trump playbook in delaying the announcement of her pick for vice president until next Tuesday. The longer she waits, the more she heightens the drama as various candidates, ranging from Minnesota Governor Tim Walz to Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, try to catch her eye with public performances.

Will Harris be Walzing to victory? He’s come on strong with his disarming, folksy manner. Rather than accept the framing of the media or the GOP about him being too left-wing, he mocks the notion from the outset. “What a monster,” he declared after CNN’s Jake Tapper queried him about his support for free school breakfasts and lunches. The sixty-year-old Walz is a former social studies teacher with a long record of military service who has regularly won re-election in rural districts as a Congressman. His experience as both a legislator and a governor may offer some extra appeal for Harris, who will need a loyal lieutenant who can collaborate with Congress successfully. Republicans will pummel Walz over his support for abortion rights and for failing to send in the National Guard into the Twin Cities immediately after rioting erupted in the wake of the murder of George Floyd. But the biggest reservation that Harris will have in tapping Walz is the most obvious one—he doesn’t come from a swing state.

Josh Shapiro does. The fifty-one-year-old, whose speaking cadence sounds uncannily similar to Barack Obama’s, would accentuate the age contrast with Trump. Shapiro enjoys a 61 percent favorability rating in Pennsylvania. He is also a centrist who tends to attract the ire of the progressive left for denouncing American protesters of Israel’s war in the Gaza Strip. He has also lowered corporate tax rates. The question mark hovering over Shapiro is whether he would suppress the enthusiastic wave of enthusiasm that Harris is currently experiencing among progressives who might see him as too pro-Israel and too pro-business. But if you believe that Harris needs to run to the center and to lock down the state’s 19 electoral to buttress the Democratic blue wall—and many Democratic pundits do—then Shapiro is your guy. Harris is slated to make her announcement on Tuesday in Philadelphia, which might suggest that Shapiro occupies the pole position.

Then there is Arizona senator Mark Kelly, who would send what the Wall Street Journal is calling a “tough-on-the-border” signal. The former Navy combat pilot, astronaut, and border-state senator would bring a lot of heft to the ticket and isn’t mired in controversies over Israel and the Gaza Strip. Kelly isn’t known as an attack dog, but given the ferocity of Harris’ own speeches, maybe she doesn’t really need one. As her speech in Atlanta on Monday indicated, she has no inhibitions about taunting Trump.

For now, Harris’ own version of the Apprentice show will continue as she ponders whom to choose. As Harris demonstrates her media savvy, it can’t be a comfortable feeling for Trump, who has become habituated to framing the 2024 race. No longer.

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 Credit: Shutterstock.