Diplomacy & Crisis News

Summary and Key Points: During the Korean War, the U.S. Navy outfitted Iowa-class battleships with nuclear capabilities through Operation Katie, enabling them to fire Mark 23 "Katie" nuclear shells.

-The USS Iowa, USS New Jersey, and USS Wisconsin were equipped to carry these 15-20 kiloton nuclear projectiles, similar in power to the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

-This classified program, which began in 1952, aimed to provide the Navy with unparalleled firepower capable of destroying entire cities or Soviet battle groups. Although the Katie shells were never used in combat, their presence highlighted the extent of nuclear armament strategies during the Cold War.

With the Korean War in full swing in the early 1950s, the U.S. Navy had its own wants and needs, plus rivalries with other service branches. The Army, Air Force, and submarines with the Navy were armed with nuclear weapons, but no surface ships could fire atomic devices. One plan was to outfit three of the Iowa-class battleships so they could launch a nuclear shell from the vessels’ main 16-inch guns.

Operation Katie was the name of the program. The moniker came from the abbreviation for kilotons (kt). The idea was to take Army tactical nuclear shells and retrofit them for battleship use.

These were called Mark 23 "Katie" nuclear projectiles and fifty were produced beginning in 1952 and the first arrived in 1956.

The navy outfitted the USS Iowa, USS New Jersey, and USS Wisconsin with altered magazines on the ships to carry the shells. Each ship would have ten Katie projectiles and nine practice shells.

This would give the navy the biggest and most powerful nuclear artillery in the world – a total of 135–180 kilotons of yield.

The Mark 23 was derived from the Army’s Mark 9 – the first nuclear artillery shell. The Navy’s Mark 23 had a 15-20 kiloton nuclear warhead – about the size of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War Two.

So, the Katie would be able to take out a city day or night and in all weather. In a naval battle, it could destroy an entire Soviet battle group. The navy’s nuclear shell was thought to be accurate.

These shells required careful engineering. “Naval Gazing,” a blog dedicated to the USS Iowa and other battleships, had this to say about nuclear devices fired from artillery.

“An artillery shell is an incredibly difficult environment to put a complicated device like a nuclear warhead. It must withstand normal handling, thousands of Gs of acceleration as it’s fired, and the centrifuge of a shell spinning at 10,000 rpm or more.”

It was no surprise that the navy wanted to keep this under wraps, and they never confirmed or denied the presence of nuclear shells on the vessels.

But it is plausible that the shells were employed on the battleships. In those days nuclear planners believed the United States could “win” a nuclear war with the Soviets. The Katie shells showed just how far the military was willing to go with nuclear weapons. The nuclear option that would escalate from a conventional war was a real prospect.

Fred Kaplan, writing in his book The Bomb: Presidents, Generals, and the Secret History of Nuclear War summarized the military’s thinking during the era.

“All of these options envision the bomb as a weapon of war, writ large. This vision has been enshrined in the American military’s doctrines, drills, and exercises from the onset of the nuclear era through all its phases.”

Thus, the Katie was part of a larger military strategy. By 1962, the Katie shells were removed and thankfully never used, although the USS Wisconsin may have fired a practice round in 1957. The body of a Mark 23 shell is on display today at a nuclear museum in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Brent M. Eastwood, Ph.D., is the author of Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare. He is an Emerging Threats expert and former U.S. Army Infantry officer. You can follow him on Twitter @BMEastwood.

Image Credit: All Images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The Essex-class aircraft carriers, with 24 built and 17 seeing combat in WWII, played a crucial role in U.S. naval dominance from the mid-20th century through the Vietnam War.

-Designed with input from naval personnel, these carriers were built for durability and combat efficiency, with innovations like Special Treatment Steel and advanced propulsion systems.

-They saw action in key battles across the Pacific, proving resilient against kamikaze attacks.

-The final Essex-class carrier, USS Oriskany, notably served in Vietnam. Decommissioned in the 1970s, these carriers leave a legacy of exceptional shipbuilding and naval combat prowess.

If you were a sailor assigned to U.S. Naval aviation during the middle of 1943 and onward, you probably served on one of the Essex-class of aircraft carriers.

Twenty-four were built though the Navy originally wanted 32. This stalwart served through the 1960s and 1970s when the new super aircraft carriers came online. 

These capital ships meant business. They beat back the Japanese and helped face down the Soviets during the Cold War after a sterling record toward the end of World War Two. One of the more famous carriers even served in Vietnam.

This is the story of the worthy Essex-class carrier that won’t leave you disappointed.

Of the 32 original Essex ships, the Navy cancelled eight while 24 were laid down. Seventeen of the Essex-class carriers saw combat in the Second World War. The Essex ships served at the end of the war in the Pacific starting in 1944, at a time when scads of Japanese kamikaze pilots menaced American vessels. The Essex-class were survivable carriers, some suffered damage from the suicide missions, but no ship was lost.

The Essex-class began in the late 1930s with the rise of Germany and Japan. Congress passed legislation in 1938 to increase the tonnage of ships in a departure from limitations imposed by the Washington Naval Treaty that ended in 1936. Designers wanted the carriers to sail through the Panama Canal, so this put a limit on their size. But engineers and officers who served onboard other carriers envisioned a flat-top that could bring the fight to the enemy and win major naval engagements.

The shipbuilding activity was a team effort from the beginning. In a process that was ahead of its time, feedback and opinions from pilots, catapult and arresting gear personnel, ship drivers, and maintenance technicians were gathered and used to design the Essex-class. 

Curiously, the Navy wanted to employ a concept called the “Sunday Punch.” This meant the flight deck would be capable of handling four squadrons totaling 90 aircraft for a decisive blow against the enemy with a single mission. Aviation chiefs envisioned at least 36 fighters, 37 dive bombers, and 18 torpedo bombers. This made it difficult to build the flight deck big enough to handle all those airplanes. But if the design eliminated some of the guns and allowed the deck to hang over the ship, the arsenal of aircraft would fit. 

The Navy determined that the island could be downsized to enlarge the flight deck too. Putting the folding elevators toward the edge of the ship also conserved space on the rectangular-shaped flight deck. The deck was finally designed to be 872 feet with two catapults and several arrestor cables.

In an innovation for that time, the shipbuilders used Special Treatment Steel (STS), which is a nickel-chromium steel alloy. This enabled many parts of the ship such as the hangar deck and bulkheads to have more protective armor. The ships displaced 34,000 tons.

In those days, the United States had several shipyards in Virginia, Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania. Construction began in 1941. The first of the class, the USS Essex, had its keel laid after Pearl Harbor. By 1942, five other Essex-class carriers were being built. 

Several design improvements were used in the ship's engine rooms. Steam turbines were implemented instead of the turbo-electric designs of Langley and the Lexington-class. There would be four boiler rooms and two engine rooms located at the center of the ship. Each boiler room had two Babcock and Wilcox boilers burning at 850°F. The engines were Westinghouse steam turbines with low-pressure and high-pressure turbines affixed to double-reduction gears. This enabled 15 to 20,000 nautical miles of range with a speed of 15 knots.

The Essex-class would have early types of shipborne radar for tracking enemy ships and aircraft. It could carry 1,600 tons of munitions. Armaments included eight five-inch dual-purpose guns, thirty-two 40mm Bofors anti-aircraft guns, and 46 Oerlikon anti-aircraft guns. 

The Essex-class was busy during the Philippines, Okinawa, and Iwo Jima campaigns. The carriers often launched all their airplanes for attacks to soften the beach landings and to conduct close air support for the marines fighting on the ground. Enemy airplanes, especially the occasional Japanese bomber that made it through the defenses, and the kamikaze pilots, took their toll and caused damage, but no sinkings occurred. 

The last of the Essex-class was the USS Oriskany made famous by one of its pilots, John McCain, who was shot down and taken prisoner in 1967. The Oriskany made multiple tours in the Vietnam War. My father-in-law Eddie Sanchez served on the Oriskany toward the end of the war as a flight deck crewman. The Oriskany was performing numerous sorties around the clock in those days. I asked Sanchez if he worked on the flight deck for 24 hours and 24-hours off to rest up. He said, “We worked 48 hours straight and only about 10 to 12 hours to rest after each rotation. Then it was back on the flight deck. Countless airplanes landed and took off. I remember constant action.” The duty was dangerous. Sanchez once saw a sailor cut in half with a broken arrestor wire whipped across the deck. Some sailors were lost overboard due to various accidents. 

The Essex-carriers were decommissioned in the 1970s. USS Lexington became a training carrier in Pensacola, Florida, and was finally taken out of service in 1991. Now USS Lexington and her sister ships USS Yorktown, USS Intrepid, and USS Hornet are preserved as four of the five aircraft carrier museum ships in the United States.

Naval aviation would never have dominated the air without the Essex-class. The carriers served with distinction, from World War Two, until the Vietnam War. The battles were dangerous as the capital ships provided the Japanese with large targets to hit. And the Oriskany proved it could hold its own in battle during Vietnam. The Essex leaves a proud legacy of combat and shipbuilding prowess with innovative design. It would be difficult to imagine today’s industrial base building that many carriers in such a short amount of time. 

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: Lockheed Martin's European F-16 Training Center (EFTC) in Romania has successfully graduated its first class of mission-ready F-16 pilots. Located at the Romanian Air Force 76th Air Base near Fetești, the center, supported by the Netherlands, trained seven Romanian pilots in advanced flight operations and tactics.

-Opened in November, the EFTC aims to enhance NATO's air defense capabilities by providing comprehensive training, including night missions and dissimilar air-to-air exercises.

-U.S. Ambassador Kathleen Kavalec praised the pilots and highlighted future plans to extend training to other regional allies, including Ukraine. Romania continues to modernize its air force with additional F-16 and F-35 acquisitions.

Last summer, aerospace giant Lockheed Martin announced it would establish the European F-16 Training Center (EFTC) in Romania to enhance mission readiness throughout Europe by training Romanian pilots to fly and operate the F-16 Fighting Falcon to hopefully expand and include training for other nations.

The flight training facility, located at the Romanian Air Force 76th Air Base near Fete ti, Romania opened in November. The Netherlands, a fellow NATO member state, supported the EFTC by supplying fourteen F-16s to train Romanian and Ukrainian aviators.

Less than a year after the effort was first unveiled, Lockheed Martin acknowledged that the facility released its first batch of "mission-ready F-16 pilots." just last week.

"This milestone enhances Romania's air defense capabilities and mission readiness with our 21st Century Security training solutions. We appreciate Romania’s trust in us and are committed to supporting their pioneering efforts, including hosting the first European F-16 Training Center, which underscores their strategic importance within NATO and European defense," said OJ Sanchez, vice president and general manager of the Integrated Fighter Group at Lockheed Martin.

According to defense contractors, the EFTC has seen its training capabilities expanded, and the Fighting Falcons have been employed in "night training missions and executing dissimilar air-to-air training exercises with allied NATO air forces." Seven Romanian pilots completed the program, while the second and third classes began in early July and were set for September of this year.

"I want to convey my hearty congratulations to the seven Romanian Air Force pilots who have successfully completed a demanding course of instruction over the past eight months, which included rigorous academics, simulator flights, mission planning, airborne missions, and much more," said U.S. Ambassador to Romania Kathleen Kavalec.

"Throughout this course of instruction, these pilots have learned not only to operate an advanced fighter jet but how to employ it as a team in formations while executing modern air-to-air and air-to-surface tactics," added Kavalec, who also stated, "We look forward to Romania opening up training to other regional allies and partners, especially Ukraine."

Romania has looked to bolster its air force capabilities, replacing the Soviet-era MiG-21s with the far more advanced F-35 and F-16 fighters. In 2023, Romania had committed to acquiring thirty-two Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning IIs, with plans to add 16 more to form three full squadrons by the decade's end.

While the fifth-generation aircraft are set to arrive by the end of the decade, Romania will continue to operate refurbished F-16 Fighting Falcons acquired from its great northern NATO ally: Norway. Romania formally requested those second-hand Lockheed Martin-made fighters in 2021 and completed the order in 2023 in a deal worth $418 million.

The first batch of the Fighting Falcons landed in November and joined the seventeen F-16AM/BM fighters the Romanian Air Force already operated – purchased from Portugal. The remainder of the twenty-six fighter jets, along with parts and services, are set to be delivered by 2025.

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: Northrop Grumman CEO Kathy Warden announced that the U.S. Navy is expected to select a partner for its F/A-XX sixth-generation fighter program next year.

-Despite budget cuts, Warden is confident in the continuation of the competition. The F/A-XX aims to replace the F/A-18 Super Hornet, featuring advanced capabilities such as manned and unmanned operations, directed energy weapons, and drone control.

-While Northrop Grumman hasn't confirmed its participation, it stands well-positioned after exiting the Air Force's NGAD program. The Navy's decision will be pivotal as it navigates budget constraints while ensuring future air dominance.

Over the course of last week, Northrop Grumman CEO Kathy Warden has announced expectations that the United States Navy will select its partner for the next generation fighter sometime next year. The sea service has kept its cards close to the chest regarding its F/A-XX sixth-generation fighter, but Warden expects that the U.S. Navy will formally announce which company will build the aircraft, even as the funding for the program has been scaled back.

"We have not received any updates that would suggest the Navy is changing their approach. They are in competition now for selection to occur next year," Warden stated during the company's second-quarter 2024 earnings call last Thursday.

The future of the U.S. Navy's Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program – not to be confused with the U.S. Air Force program of the same name – has been in question, since the service announced it will be cutting $1 billion from its Fiscal Year 2025 (FY25) budget proposal. This development was closely followed by calls from Capitol Hill to trim defense spending, this was grim news for the U.S. Navy, as the service already has several big-ticket programs in the works.

"In terms of our overall collection of opportunities, we continue to believe that the Department of Defense will move forward with sixth-generation platforms. The timing is a bit in flux on many of them as they sort out budget priorities, but we are confident that we're well positioned when and if they do move forward," Warden added. With so much funding flying over to these sixth-generation flighters, what can be expected from the U.S. Navy’s latest improvements in aerial capabilities?

The U.S. Navy's F/A-XX program seeks to develop a replacement for the carrier-based F/A-18 Super Hornet. Similar to the Air Force's NGAD effort, the F/A-XX has reached a pre-Milestone B phase, a point in the federal funding timeline that is just ahead of awarding a contract for engineering and manufacturing development.

"The F/A-XX will be a sixth-generation fighter jet with manned and unmanned capabilities," reported Stavros Atlamazoglu for the National Interest.

"The Navy is looking for an aircraft that would be able to operate from aircraft carriers­it will require a stronger structure and landing gear compared to aircraft designed for conventional operations," Atlamazoglou added. "In terms of capabilities… the Navy is looking for a fighter jet that would have directed energy kinetic capabilities (laser weapons) and the ability to operate with and control drone swarms. As for mission sets, the Navy is looking for an aircraft that would be able to operate in permissive or semi-permissive environments with potent adversary air defense systems and establish air superiority through long-range kill chains."

The timeline isn't yet clear, but it is expected that the F/A-XX could enter service by the mid-2030s. That would line up with the U.S. Navy's current contract for the Super Hornet with aerospace giant Boeing, which will continue to produce the advanced Block III variant of the F/A-18 through 2027.

These developments supplement previous statements made by the United States Department of Defense's (DoD's) Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Bill LaPlante, "I think they’re going to figure it out," LaPlante proclaimed during a speech at Farnborough, the largest aviation event in the United Kingdom. "It's not going to stop. It's going to continue. It's just going to be, well, better informed."

The programs will continue, possibly evolving from the original program’s goals.

Warden has not confirmed that Northrop Grumman is competing to win the F/A-XX contract, but the company bowed out of the U.S. Air Force's NGAD program last year – leaving Boeing and Lockheed Martin to fight over scraps. As noted, Boeing produces the F/A-18 Super Hornet, while Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor on the F-35 Lightning II, including the F-35C carrier-based variant operated by the U.S. Navy.

Northrop Grumman is the prime contractor on the U.S. Air Force's B-21 Raider, the long-range strategic bomber that will replace the aging Rockwell B-1B Lancer and Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit. In addition, Northrop Grumman manufactures components for both the F/A-18 and F-35.

In its Q2 2024 earning call, the company announced its "sales increased 7% to $10.2 billion, as compared with $9.6 billion in the second quarter of 2023."

Moreover, second-quarter 2024 sales reflected "strong demand" for its products and services, while Northrop Grumman's net earnings totaled $940 million, or $6.36 per diluted share, as compared with $812 million, or $5.34 per diluted share, in the second quarter of 2023.

"The Northrop Grumman team extended our strong performance into the second quarter with continued double-digit earnings growth, fueled in part by a 7 percent sales increase and expanding operating income. Our diverse portfolio includes capabilities in high demand and we have invested to create capacity and drive productivity to deliver differentiated capabilities for our customers," said Warden. "We are laser-focused on performance and continue to expand profitability through the deliberate actions we are taking. With strong support for our programs, growing global orders for our products, and solid execution in our business, we are increasing our revenue and EPS guidance for the year."

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: Naval exercises have revealed vulnerabilities in the U.S. Navy’s supercarriers. In 2005, a Swedish Gotland-class submarine successfully "sank" the USS Ronald Reagan during war games, evading an entire carrier strike group's defenses.

-Similarly, in 2001, a German Type 206 submarine breached the USS Enterprise's defenses, while an Australian Collins-class sub captured photos of the USS Abraham Lincoln in 2000.

-These incidents highlight the underestimated threat of diesel-electric submarines, which have outmaneuvered advanced sonar systems and demonstrated their ability to strike powerful carriers, raising questions about the future role and security of supercarriers in modern naval warfare.

Naval exercises are conducted to help ensure that sailors are prepared for the "real deal" – hoping it will never come. It is often said that "We train like we fight;" and valuable lessons are learned from that training. 

The National Interest has previously reported how during a 2005 war game involving the U.S. and Swedish navies, a $100 million Gotland-class submarine successfully foiled an entire American carrier strike group (CSG) that included the $6 billion Nimitz-class nuclear-powered supercarrier USS Ronald Reagan.

As noted by Harrison Kass, "During the war game, the Gotland was tasked with attacking the Ronald Reagan against the entire might of the CSG defending it. The CSG was the heavy favorite, but the Gotland was able to elude the supercarrier's passive sonar defenses and land multiple virtual torpedo strikes. The hypothetical damage inflicted would have been enough to sink the carrier."

That incident served to question the future role of supercarriers – yet, it wasn't exactly news, as the U.S. Navy's nuclear-powered flattops had previously fallen victim to old-school subs.

In 2001, the German Type 206 diesel-electric submarine U24 – designed to operate in the shallow Baltic Sea and built in the 1960s – was deployed to JTFEX 01-2 naval exercises in the Caribbean Sea and managed to break through all the security around the USS Enterprise (CVN-65). The submarine fired green flares and took photographs of the U.S. Navy's flattop, essentially "sinking it."

"The U-24 could have rammed the aircraft carrier, the boat was that close," a submariner serving on the U-24 told the German outlet T-Online in 2013.

Months before the U24 "sank" CVN-65, an Australian Collins-class submarine was also able to penetrate the powerful surface and underwater naval defenses of a carrier strike group and close-in photographs of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) through its periscope during the RIMPAC 2000 naval exercise off Hawaii.

HMAS Waller managed to avoid detection from surface ships, as well as Los Angeles-class nuclear-powered fast attack submarines throughout the RIMPAC exercise. The vessel performed far better than expected in the exercises.

The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) boat performed similarly during the Operation Tandem Thrust wargames in 2001 when she "sank" two USN amphibious assault ships in waters just over 70 meters (230 ft) deep; although the submarine was "destroyed" later in the exercise. Two years later, during a multinational exercise in September 2003, which was attended by HMAS Waller and sister boat HMAS Rankin, Waller successfully "sank" a Los Angeles-class nuclear submarine, prompting claims from the United States Navy that diesel submarines such as the Collins-class remained one of the major threats facing modern navies.

The RAN has a total of six Collins-class submarines in service – the first built in Australia. The submarines, which are enlarged versions of Swedish shipbuilder Kockums' Västergötland-class, were originally referred to as the Type 471 before being named to honor Australian Vice Admiral John Augustine Collins. The boats were constructed between 1990 and 2003 in South Australia by the Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC).

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. 

From the Vault

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

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

Summary and Key Points: In a daring operation, Ukraine employed drones to strike a Russian Tu-22M3 bomber at the Olenya military airfield in Murmansk Oblast, deep within the Arctic Circle.

-This marks the first time Kyiv has targeted Russian territory so far north, highlighting the reach of its drone capabilities.

-Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky praised the precision of the attack, which aimed to reduce the Russian air threat. The Kremlin claimed it shot down several drones but has not confirmed damage to the bomber.

-The incident raises questions about Ukraine's drone launch points and Russia's defense vulnerabilities.

Earlier this month, the Kremlin took much glee in declaring that its Federal Security Service (FSB) "thwarted" an attempt by Ukrainian intelligence to recruit a Russian pilot to hijack and defect with a Tupolev Tu-22M3 (NATO reporting name Blackfire) supersonic strategic bomber. However, this past weekend, Kyiv opted for a different tactic – it employed drones and reportedly flew it more than 1,000 miles to damage, and possibly destroy, at least one of the bombers.

If true, this could be the second Tu-22M3 bomber to have been destroyed on the ground, while another was shot down in April.

It was just over a year ago that a Ukrainian drone was employed to strike the first Tu-22M3 at the Soltsy-2 air base in Novgorod Oblast. It was noted for being especially daring as it was several hundred miles from Ukraine – but this week, Kyiv's forces struck even deeper.

On Saturday, Ukrainian forces struck the Olenya military airfield in Russia's Murmansk Oblast, more than 1,100 miles from the front. It marked the first time that Kyiv had struck Russian territory within the Arctic Circle – and not far from Severomorsk, home to the Russian Navy's Northern Fleet.

Similar raids were carried out against the Engels airfield in the Saratov Oblast and the Diagilevo air base in the Ryazan Oblast. An oil refinery near the latter air base was also targeted.

"Each destroyed Russian airbase, each destroyed Russian military aircraft – whether on the ground or in the air – means saving Ukrainian lives. Guys, our warriors, I thank you for your precision!," Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said in a statement.

Moscow hasn't confirmed that the Tu-22M3 was damaged in the recent raid, but the Russian Ministry of Defense claimed that it had shot down a dozen "kamikaze drones" in five regions.

There has been much speculation as to where the drones were launched from on Saturday, and if from Ukraine it meant the unmanned systems were remotely piloted vast distances without being observed. Alternatively, it has been suggested that Ukrainian operatives launched the drones from well within Russia.

The Kremlin may have assumed the region would be safe, as Kyiv is currently prohibited from employing Western-made long-range weapons on targets within Russia out of fear that it could escalate the war. However, Ukraine has employed drones instead, hitting military positions deep inside Russia, oftentimes without claiming direct responsibility.

The Olenya military airfield made for an inviting target.

"Some of the largest wilderness areas in the European part of the country are on the Kola Peninsula, and south of the Murmansk region is Arkhangelsk and Karelia, two sparsely populated large regions mainly covered by forest," The Barents Observer reported.

"It was a question of when, not if, Ukraine was going to strike the base," Associate Professor Lars Peder Haga with the Norwegian Air Force Academy also told The Barents Observer. "Still an impressive feat, with Olenya 1,800 km from the Ukrainian border, with more or less continuous GPS jamming in the region."

Russia has tried to downplay these strikes, and when acknowledging them, has labeled the attacks as acts of terror. 

The Tu-22 was originally introduced in 1983, and it is in some ways analogous to the United States Air Force's B-1 Lancer.

Yet, whereas the B-1 has greater range and is a true intercontinental bomber, the Backfire is faster but is essentially a "theater" bomber in that it was designed to strike continental Europe and possibly some targets in the Atlantic. It also has far less bomb load capacity. The Federation of American Scientists reported, "Its low-level penetration features make it a much more survivable system than its predecessors."

The bomber saw limited use at the end of the Soviet-Afghan War, and Russia currently maintains a force of more than 100 Tu-22M bombers in all configurations. The Backfire also was used in nearly 100 operational sorties against rebels in Chechnya in the mid-1990s and Georgian forces in the 2008 South Ossetian war. One of the Tu-22Ms was lost in combat, shot down by a Georgian missile in the latter conflict.

The Tu-22M3 is a modernized version, developed in the early 1980s and it officially entered service in 1989. It has an operating range of 7,000 km (4,350 miles) and is capable of carrying nuclear weapons. It was on April 14, 2022, that Tu-22M3s were employed in the conflict in Ukraine for the first time, where the bombers dropped "dumb bombs" as part of the Kremlin's campaign to take the then-besieged city of Mariupol.

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

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The future of the RAF's F-35 program is uncertain following Labour's victory in the UK general election, as the new government plans a sweeping defense review.

-Labour's focus on the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) could see F-35 orders reduced further.

-Already, the planned acquisition has been cut from 138 to 48, with only 34 delivered. Defense analyst Francis Tusa highlights the F-35's flaws compared to the domestically controlled GCAP.

-While the UK Ministry of Defence reaffirms its commitment, the final decision on the number of F-35s will depend on Labour's prioritization of GCAP and other defense needs.

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II has been in service with the Royal Air Force (RAF) since June 2018, when the first F-35Bs arrived at RAF Marham and formed the reinstituted 617 Squadron "Dambusters." Three years earlier, RAF Lakenheath had been selected as the first U.S. Air Force base in Europe to receive the fifth-generation stealth fighters, and it continues to provide training opportunities with the aircraft in the UK.

However, the future of the F-35 and the RAF has remained very much in question since the Labour Party's massive victory in the general election on July 4. Labour, which returned to power after 14 years, has vowed to carry out a sweeping defense review – and that could result in several programs being scaled back or even canceled outright.

There are already questions as to what it means for the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP), which evolved from the UK's domestic Tempest project to develop a sixth-generation fighter. However, as The Telegraph newspaper reported, GCAP is "underpinned by a treaty with partner nations Japan and Italy," and that could make it "far trickier politically than cutting F-35s."

The United Kingdom and the United States may maintain a special relationship, but it may only go so far when it comes to the former's defense spending. GCAP may be too important for the UK to scale back from – but the same can't be said of the F-35, especially as it isn't under the control of London.

"The F-35 is very much a less capable, flawed platform, with a quite stormy future, full of uncertainty," Francis Tusa, an independent defense analyst told The Telegraph. "Sure, there isn't yet a flying Tempest. But the three partners are in control of their destinies with it – which is not the case with F-35."

BAE Systems has noted that more than 1,000 suppliers are supporting the GCAP program, while 3,500 people work directly on the development of the aircraft, and further supports 16,000 jobs in the UK.

Already, the British Ministry of Defence has scaled back its F-35 orders, down from a planned acquisition of 138 F-35Bs – the short/vertical takeoff and landing (S/VTOL) variant of the Joint Strike Fighter – to just 48 aircraft. To date 34 have been delivered.

The previous Conservative government had announced earlier this year that it was "in negotiations" for an additional twenty-seven F-35s, which would see the RAF receive the stealth fighter through 2033. The deal, which Tusa said was valued at around £5 billion ($6.2 billion), has yet to be finalized.

Yet, the MoD has reaffirmed its commitment to the program.

"Whether operating from land or onboard our aircraft carriers as a central component of the UK's Carrier strike capability, the F-35B delivers a cutting-edge capability for the UK," a MoD spokesperson told the UK's paper of record. "We are committed to the F-35 programme, and the UK builds approximately 15pc of each aircraft, securing highly skilled jobs and significant economic growth within the UK."

Supporters of the F-35 program have further noted that it has been widely adopted by NATO allies and regional partners in Europe and the Indo-Pacific – allowing for greater interoperability. It was just last week that Greece officially signed onto the program.

It could be well over a decade before the GCAP enters service, and that is provided there are no delays with the program. For that reason, Professor Justin Bronk, a senior research fellow for air power and technology at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), suggested that the UK should move to expand its F-35 fleet, albeit cautiously.

"I think the UK should definitely proceed with the follow-on order of 27, to take the fleet to 74," he also told The Telegraph. "That's more or less the functional minimum for the fleet to meet its obligations. Beyond that, I don't see much fiscal room for additional orders in the foreseeable future and, in any case, if there was additional money ... I would put it into weapons and maintenance and spares, to improve the combat capability and availability."

At one point, the UK was on track to be the largest operator of the F-35 in Europe, but it will now be up to Labour to decide not whether the program is scaled back, but by how much.

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

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The USS Wisconsin, a heavily armed battleship known as "Big Whiskey," served in World War II, the Korean War, and Operation Desert Storm.

-Renowned for its impressive firepower, it boasted nine 16-inch guns capable of hitting targets 23 miles away and twenty 5-inch guns with a range of nine miles.

-The ship's armor included 12-inch thick protection around the hull and 17-inch around the gun turrets.

-Modernized in the 1980s, it was equipped with Harpoon anti-ship missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles, and Phalanx anti-missile guns.

-Decommissioned in 2006, the USS Wisconsin now serves as a museum ship in Norfolk, Virginia.

When the U.S. Navy wanted to take out targets 23 miles away, the battleship USS Wisconsin was the go-to ship for awe-inspiring naval gunfire. Battleship Wisconsin was one of the most heavily-armed warship ever built.

It was also relatively fast for a battleship with a top speed of 30 knots. Battleships were normally associated with World War Two, but Wisconsin even served in Operation Desert Storm. This ship was in reserve as late as the late 1990s, and in 2006 it was finally retired and assigned to be a museum vessel in Norfolk, Virginia.

Nicknamed the “Big Whiskey,” Wisconsin served in World War Two, the Korean War, and the first Gulf War. In World War Two, it fought in the Philippines, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and even shelled Japan.

Its suite of arms was impressive. No enemy ship wanted to mess with Wisconsin’s firepower. She had nine 16-inch guns in three-gun turrets, which could send 2,700-pound armor-piercing shells some 23 miles. Wisconsin was also armed with twenty 5-inch guns mounted in twin-gun turrets, which could eliminate targets up to nine miles away.

When fired, the guns recoiled around four feet which made it look like the ship was going sideways.

Displacing a massive 45,000 tons, it had a crew of 1,900 sailors. The battleship's armor consisted of 12-inches of a combination of nickel and iron around the hull with 17-inches of protection around the gun turrets.

Wisconsin returned to combat in 1951, after deactivation at the end of World War Two. The battleship destroyed numerous ground targets in North Korea and these actions resulted in Wisconsin winning its sixth battle star.

The Reagan administration wanted Wisconsin to take a major role toward the end of the Cold War as it became a missile-launching battleship. By 1988, the ship came back to life bustling with modern weapons. It was modernized and armed with a launcher for Harpoon anti-ship missiles, 32 Tomahawk cruise missiles, and four Phalanx anti-missile Gatling-type guns to protect against enemy missiles.

During the “shock and awe” bombing phase at the beginning of Operation Desert Storm in 1991, Wisconsin helped initiate the campaign by firing 24 Tomahawk missiles at targets in Iraq. Then it destroyed various enemy, artillery batteries, command posts, and infantry bunkers during 36 fire missions.

But here mission did not stop there. Wisconsin wasn’t just a battlewagon, it also delivered cargo and mail to the soldiers, airmen, and Marines who were fighting Saddam Hussein’s hordes. Plus, it took part in the deception campaign that demonstrated a fake amphibious landing to mislead the Iraqis.

But the age of the battleship was over decades prior, and the Navy decided it was time to retire this warship once and for all. Finally, in 2006, the Big Whiskey was decommissioned for good. But what a colorful history.

It had a feature role in three wars. It ever showed that World War Two-era battleships could still have a part to play in modern warfare. And Wisconsin convinced the navy that well-built ships could survive for decades.

Now that is some serious naval history.

Brent M. Eastwood, PhD, is the author of Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare. He is an Emerging Threats expert and former U.S. Army Infantry officer.

All images are creative commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy's Fiscal Year 2025 budget proposal includes cuts to the Virginia-class submarine program, reducing the planned acquisition from two to one submarine.

-This move has raised concerns among House Armed Services Committee members, who argue it could destabilize the defense supply chain and undermine U.S. undersea dominance.

-The reduction comes as the Navy faces delays in submarine deliveries, with boats arriving an average of 30 months late.

-The focus has shifted towards current operations and innovative technologies, with the potential threat from China looming large. The budget cuts highlight a strategic shift, prioritizing immediate readiness over long-term capabilities.

The United States Navy's nuclear-powered Virginia-class cruise missile fast-attack submarines are noted for incorporating the latest in stealth, intelligence gathering, and weapons systems. The boats which were designed for a broad spectrum of open-ocean and littoral missions, including anti-submarine warfare and intelligence-gathering operations are scheduled to replace the older Los Angeles-class submarines.

The sea service already has 23 of a planned 66 in service, and the submarines will be acquired through at least 2043 and will remain in service with the U.S. Navy through at least 2060 – while the final boats built could operate into the 2070s and beyond.

However, the U.S. Navy's Fiscal Year 2025 (FY25) budget request called for numerous cuts, including to the Virginia-class program. According to reports, the latest budget proposal includes money for only one Virginia -class attack submarine instead of the planned two. Even worse is the fact that while the U.S. Navy has been purchasing the fast attack submarines at a rate of two per year for the past four years, only an average of 1.2 submarines has been delivered annually.

The further reduction has sparked concern among House Armed Services Committee members, who have argued that such a move introduces instability into the defense supply chain and undermines the United States' undersea dominance.

"Simply put, now is not the time to insert instability in the supply chain with uncertainty in procurement rates,"House Armed Services Committee lawmakers argued in the letter to the Biden administration this past January. "The FY2025 budget will come at a pivotal time for the Virginia-class submarine program and sustaining our unmatched edge in the undersea domain. Any deviation from the planned cadence of the construction and procurement of two submarines per year will reverberate both at home and abroad, with allies and competitors alike."

The boats set to be delivered this year have been arriving on average 30 months late, and the U.S. Navy has delayed several major shipbuilding and modernization efforts. In that context, the sea service opted to save around $4 billion in the FY25 spending plan by nixing the second Virginia-class sub.

"We did reduce the funding to one Virginia-class submarine in FY25. But we maintain the funding for nine out of the planned 10 Virginia class [during the five-year FYDP]," Under Secretary Erik Raven told reporters.

The U.S. Navy's FY25 budget request has highlighted a strategic shift towards prioritizing current operations, personnel, and innovative technologies like unmanned systems – as these could yield faster results for the fleet.

The service is thus focused on the near-term, and considers the 2020s a decade of concern, with the potential for China to invade Taiwan before 2030.

As Brandon J. Weichert reported for The National Interest, it isn't just fewer Virginia-class submarines that will be coming soon. The Navy's SSN(X) program has also been pushed back – with the service focused on the coming decade rather than a platform that won't be in service until the 2040s.

Wiechert suggested that the U.S. Navy should go even further and focus on the Block V version of the Virginia-class to maintain its technological edge over China's submarines. Moreover, any potential conflict is likely to erupt much closer to the littoral waters of the Western Pacific rather than the deep blue sea, where the U.S. Navy still dominates.

The question is whether the U.S. has enough SSNs in the fleet, and the likely answer is that it doesn't. As Wiechert further suggested, it "will be the current crop of US submarines, not some fantastical prototype, that will decide the outcome of the undersea war."

If a war is real possibly – and fortunately that's still a very big IF – the United States doesn't have enough of anything, including submarines, surface combatants like aircraft carriers, and guided-missile destroyers, nor does it have enough aircraft. In a war, there will be losses, likely lots of losses. As noted, it could take years to replace any submarines lost as only about one is being delivered annually.

Even as China is out-producing the U.S., it can't replace its losses much faster. The hope is that cooler heads prevail with military thinkers seeing that such a war is unwinnable given the costs and risks that it wouldn't escalate into an even deadlier conflict.

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 or contact us: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Donald Trump has made a habit of trying to bend the Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI to his will, ignoring norms and protocols. If he gets another shot at the presidency, he might go even further, forcing these agencies to launch baseless investigations against his political enemies and anyone he deems disloyal. This could inflict lasting damage on both organizations and the rule of law.

After the FBI executed search warrants and indicted him, Trump’s attacks on the agency intensified. He’s even threatened to dismantle the FBI—a move that would leave Americans less safe by creating a void in national security, the intelligence community, and federal law enforcement. Dismantling the FBI would result in an increase in terrorist and espionage threats, child exploitation, corrupt political activity, and gang violence.

Trump, along with media outlets like Fox News and Newsmax, and certain congressional members, continue to push the narrative that the FBI and DOJ are weaponized against conservatives. These claims are nothing more than conspiracy theories based on speculation and fabrications.

As a former FBI intelligence professional, I can attest to the agency’s strict adherence to policies, guidelines, and laws. Any investigative or intelligence activity starts with the least intrusive methods—like open-source research and database checks—and only escalates when there is credible evidence of a threat. Each step requires layers of supervisory and legal review.

For example, an "Assessment" allows limited activities based on authorized purposes. A "Preliminary Investigation" kicks in when there's an allegation of criminal or national security threats. The most intrusive, a "Full Investigation," is only conducted with substantial evidence and legal oversight. This process ensures that investigations and intelligence activity are grounded in evidence not political whims.

If the FBI were truly weaponized as Trump claims, agents could bypass these steps and required procedures, and launch full investigations without oversight, akin to practices in authoritarian regimes like Russia and China. This isn't the FBI we have and I can assure you it is not the FBI we want.

Instead, the FBI operates within a legal framework where actions like searches and arrests are based on corroborated evidence and require judicial approval. The FBI cannot target individuals based on First Amendment activities alone. But Trump’s rhetoric suggests he’d ignore these safeguards, using the DOJ and FBI to settle scores and silence dissent. Trump could use the FBI to target individuals who simply make a social media post disagreeing with him or target someone who speaks out in the media against him and his policies. Normal citizens who speak out against Trump could be the target of unlawful investigative powers to include searches of their homes and electronics, constant physical and electronic surveillance, and harassment.

If Trump dismantles and remakes these agencies to suit his interests, it would be a game-changer. Trump and his allies would gain unfair advantages, while his opponents would be targeted. This kind of selective enforcement undermines the principle of equal justice under the law.

The impact on January 6 insurrectionists would be particularly troubling. Under a Trump-aligned FBI and DOJ, these individuals could escape accountability, encouraging more political violence. Trump has called these individuals patriots, which they are not, and promised to pardon them in a second term. This would set a dangerous precedent, suggesting that violent actions supporting the ruling power are acceptable.

My career goal dating back to the 9/11 terrorist attacks was to join the FBI in order to protect the American people. I was lucky enough to join the most elite law enforcement and domestic intelligence agency, the FBI, in 2008. The FBI’s mission is to protect the American people and uphold the Constitution of the United States. A second Trump presidency would upend that mission where we could see the DOJ and FBI actually used for personal vendettas and political retribution, rather than focusing on significant national security and criminal threats facing our country, thus eroding the integrity of the FBI and our legal institutions. The dismantling of these agencies would not only weaken law enforcement and our intelligence community, but also pave the way for authoritarian rule, threatening the democratic principles that are the foundation of American society.

All FBI personnel take an oath to “protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic….” Donald Trump poses a significant threat to our democratic republic and the rule of law.

Nate Huber served as an Intelligence Analyst and Supervisory Intelligence Analyst with the FBI for nearly 14 years, working in counterterrorism, counterintelligence, cybercrime, and violent crime.

Summary and Key Points: Joe Biden's exit from the 2024 presidential race has reshaped the electoral landscape, potentially boosting Democrat chances while leaving the contest between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump in a tight race.

-New Fox News polls indicate a close competition in battleground states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, with Harris enjoying higher favorability among voters concerned about abortion. At the same time, Trump leads on issues like the economy and immigration.

-Harris's upcoming VP pick, likely from a battleground state, could further influence the race. Candidates like Senator Mark Kelly and Governor Josh Shapiro are considered, aiming to secure key states.

Joe Biden’s exit from the 2024 race was a paradigm-shifting moment, the contours of which won’t be clear until November when tens of millions of Americans cast their vote. What we know now is that Biden’s exit likely improves Democrat’s chances of retaking the White House, although Trump may still maintain his statistical edge. The race, of course, will be decided in the battleground states where new Fox News polling suggests the race is tight.

One of the quirks of the electoral college system is the resulting emphasis on battleground states. The election, within which over one hundred million voters will participate, will ultimately come down to a few voters in a few states. Georgia. Arizona. Pennsylvania. Michigan. Wisconsin. The states that are up for grabs, which either candidate could claim.

And it’s not just a few battleground states that will determine the election – most votes in our polarized electorate know precisely where they stand – but a few counties in a few states – where undecided suburban voters reside.

So, really, the 2024 presidential election is going to come down to a few soccer moms in Pittsburgh, Decatur, and Grand Rapids.

Fox News found that voters in four battleground states – Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin – approve of Biden’s withdrawal from the race. “The survey finds the horserace between Harris and former President Donald Trump looks a lot like the Biden-Trump race did in April – extremely close,” Fox News reported. “Harris and Trump are tied in two states (Michigan and Pennsylvania). Trump is ahead by 1 point in Wisconsin, and Harris is up by 6 in Minnesota.”   

Digging deeper, the survey reveals a more nuanced look at the race. Harris enjoys a higher favorability rating than Trump—except for in Michigan, where the two candidates are tied. Harris is especially favored among voters who answered that abortion is their top issue for the 2024 election. Trump, meanwhile, registered large margins over Harris with voters who prioritized the economy and immigration.

Harris, acutely aware of her traction in the battleground states, will select a running mate who helps boost her chances in the battleground. The entire shortlist consists of picks who hail from battleground states that could break for either Harris or Trump.

The calculus holds that, in picking a battleground-associated candidate, that battleground will ultimately break for Harris. So, picking Senator Mark Kelly theoretically could put Harris over the top in Arizona; picking Governor Josh Shapiro could put Harris over the top in Pennsylvania; and so on. That’s the theory, anyway.

Sarah Palin was supposed to win back independents while invigorating the base, but that backfired. But expect the battleground polls to shift once Harris picks her VP in the next few weeks. Expect either Kelly or Shapiro. And expect a bump for Harris in the state from which the VP hails.   

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

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Democrats have been elated with their new standard bearer, Kamala Harris since Joe Biden stepped down from the ticket.

Support for the Democratic ticket has swelled, with a massive influx of cash and volunteer labor and, more importantly, genuine optimism that the ticket is now built for victory.

But can the honeymoon, the “sugar high,” sustain itself?

The 2024 election has been recast. Fortunes have shifted. Vegas odds have been adjusted. Biden had been a zombie walking towards what some predicted would be a Mondale-esque defeat. Harris gives Democrats a fighting chance, and the voters are ecstatic.

The other shoe will drop. Soon. Even Harris acknowledged as much. “She is not blinded by the sugar,” one Harris aide told POLITICO. “She understands the gravity and excitement of the moment but also understands the work that needs to be done.”

Namely, Harris needs to use the critical three weeks before the Democratic National Convention to sustain her newfound momentum, expand her appeal further, and capture swing states.

Not long ago, Democrats were asking themselves whether Biden’s ticket was suffering from dead weight at the bottom of the ticket; whether Kamala Harris had the appeal or the ability to boost Biden’s reelection chances, or whether instead she was a glaring liability.

Some Democrats, even allies of the Vice President, proposed privately that Harris needed to be dropped from the ticket. When Biden announced that Harris would indeed be his running mate, many questioned the wisdom of his decision.

Obviously, the contrast between that Harris – the one that might be a political liability – and this Harris – the one that is enjoying cult-like status – is unprecedently stark.

Chances are strong that Harris will revert back towards the mean, as one tends to do. The new cultlike status is likely unsustainable, at least at its current fever pitch, because one, the status is more about the Biden-dropping-out circumstances than anything Harris has done, and two, Harris lacks the Obama-like charisma to sustain her own cult of personality.

Expect gravity to take hold before Harris achieves escape velocity – especially given that the entire GOP will now be pivoting their attention toward maligning the once deeply unpopular Vice President.

Republicans will do what they can to deride Harris and remind voters how unpopular she was just a few short weeks ago.

“Kamala Harris is just as incompetent as Joe Biden and even more liberal,” Trump campaign staffer Karoline Leavitt told POLITICO. “Not only does Kamala need to defend her support of Joe Biden’s failed agenda over the past four years, she also needs to answer for her own terrible weak-on-crime record in California. A vote for Kamala is a vote to continue inflation, open borders, high has prices, and war around the world.”

Then, of course, you have Donald Trump himself. Trump has a talent for sniffing out a political opponent’s weakness, rebranding them with a crippling nickname (Crooked Hillary Clinton. Lyin’ Ted Cruz. Low Energy Jeb Bush), and recasting them as an unserious choice – it may be Trump’s most significant political talent. Expect Trump to entirely shift his attention to Harris in the next few days.

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The Paris Summer Olympic Games opened in a dazzling ceremony on the Seine, featuring international athletes and performances despite the rain. Notably absent were Russia and Belarus, banned from the event, with some athletes competing under a neutral flag. In contrast, Russia's Navy Day Parade in St. Petersburg, attended by President Vladimir Putin, was scaled down due to security concerns, featuring just twenty surface ships, four sailing craft, and a submarine.

-The muted parade highlighted ongoing security issues, as the focus remained on the conflict in Ukraine. This year's event was a stark contrast to last year's more impressive display.

On Friday, the eyes of the world were on Paris, France – even a steady rain couldn't damper the energy at the opening ceremonies of the Summer Olympic Games. From the parade of international athletes waving to crowds from boats cruising down the romantic River Seine to dramatic performances harkening back to French history, the spectacle of the City of Lights exudes a certain je ne sais quoi that was truly unforgettable.

As the rain-soaked, smiling Olympians passed by the cameras and flashing lights, some nations seemed to be absent from this treasured international event. Among the nations not present this year were Russia and its close ally Belarus, who were banned from attending. While a handful of Russian and Belarusian athletes have been allowed to compete, they must do so under a neutral flag – and were not allowed to attend the parade on the Seine.

Russian officials have been silent on the matter and instead opted to focus on its own river parade in St. Petersburg – namely the annual Navy Day Parade, which is held on the last Sunday of July. The event has been greatly scaled back – with this year's main parade canceled, reportedly out of security concerns. Yet, Russian state media still attempted to hype the event to Olympic proportions.

"A naval parade involving cutting-edge combat ships and gunboats, a submarine and sailing vessels began on the Neva River in St. Petersburg to celebrate Russia's Navy Day," TASS reported, further noting that the momentous occasion was attended by Russian President, Supreme Commander-in-Chief Vladimir Putin, who reviewed the procession of warships.

Was the parade of proud Russian war machines as “Olympic” as state media proclaimed? Surprisingly, this was the smallest such Navy Day event since it was reinstated in 2017, involving just twenty surface ships, gunboats, four sailing craft, and a single submarine. These were small vessels that the Kremlin could afford to recall back to the homeland for ceremony, while the rest of the Baltic Fleet remained moored far from the Neva River.

The flotilla of ships in the parade included the Project 12700 coastal minesweeper Alexander Obukhov, as well as the Project 21631 missile corvettes Grad, Naro-Fominsk, Grad Sviyazhsk, and Serpukhov. The Project 22800 Karakurt-class missile corvette Odintsovo, the Project 20380 missile corvette Boiky, the Project 23550 icebreaking patrol ship Ivan Papanin and the Project 636.3 Varshavyanka-class large diesel-electric submarine Mozhaisk also made an appearance.

This was a stark contrast to last year, when a more impressive display of forty-five ships of all sizes, plus nuclear-powered submarines and some 3,000 military personnel, took part in the parade. This year's event also included a few notable choices, highlighting the evident ongoing security concerns.

"A group of anti-saboteur boats opened the Main Naval Parade on the Neva River. The anti-saboteur boats Nakhimovets and Yunarmeyets Tatarstana sailed along the Neva River. The Project 11770 amphibious assault craft Alexey Barinov traditionally carried a replica of Tsar Peter the Great's botik (boat)," TASS further reported.

Approximately 2,500 Russian naval infantry troops marched at the foot columns at Senate Square in St. Petersburg at the conclusion of the parade, continuing the theme of diminished assets that the military can display, as their focus is still centered on the conflict in Ukraine.

Only a handful of foreign vessels were present this year, a far less stimulating on the Neva River than what went down on the Seine. It included the Algerian Navy training ship Soummam, the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) guided missile destroyer Jiaozuo, and the Indian Navy's frigate Tabar. The presence of the latter two vessels was noteworthy for the fact – that apart from being from two nations that are currently in an arms race with one another – each was larger than Russia's own warships in the parade.

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: Throughout history, warships have played pivotal roles in shaping world events and asserting naval dominance. This top 10 list highlights the greatest warships ever built, from the Carthaginian Quadrireme, which showcased advanced naval engineering, to the USS Johnston, known for its heroic stand at the Battle of Leyte Gulf.

-Each warship, including Zheng He’s Treasure Ships and HMS Victory, reflects a unique blend of technological innovation and strategic importance.

-These vessels not only changed the course of battles but also left lasting legacies in naval history, demonstrating the evolution of maritime warfare from ancient times to modern conflicts.

World history has been defined by the ability of man to travel across vast distances.  

Until the dawn of airpower, the mighty warship allowed for these great expeditions. History is replete with famous—or, in some cases, infamous—warships. 

While certainly not exhaustive, this top ten list will take you through what this author believes are the greatest warships that ever sailed.

The Carthaginians were likely the greatest naval power of the Mediterranean Sea in the ancient world. Their navy was more advanced than even the larger Roman Empire to their north. In fact, the Roman Empire, a mostly land-based power, recognized the sophistication of the Carthaginian navy and strove to crush it, realizing that Carthage was the only group standing between Rome and total dominion over the Mediterranean. 

Many have read about the ancient Greek triremes, but few may be aware that the Carthaginians perfected this design with the quadrireme. 

These boats had four rows of oars on each side, allowing for greater speed and power compared to triremes. These boats could also carry more marines and equipment for naval combat. When Rome captured some of the Carthaginian quadriremes during the First Punic War between the two powers, they reverse-engineered the boat, which in turn allowed for the larger Rome to clone Carthaginian capabilities and ultimately defeat the Carthaginians.

Chinese Admiral Zheng He, operating under orders from the Ming emperor, led a series of missions consisting of 300 gigantic wooden warships. These great ships went from China down to India, over to the Persian Gulf, and even making it as far south as East Africa, long before Europeans ventured there. The fleet achieved its goal of “increasing the prestige of China and its emperor overseas.” 

This fleet consisted of warships that were five-masted and six-masted troop transports, as well as six-to-seven masted transports carrying grain, horses, and water. They featured divided hulls with several watertight compartments, too.  

Sadly for Zheng He, despite the magnificent success of his voyages, his chief benefactor, the Ming emperor, died and was succeeded by court Mandarins—bureaucrats—who resented Zheng He. Their goal was to turn China inward, away from the world. All that hard work that Zheng had put into his voyages, all the resources spent on building the greatest fleet that the world had ever seen—and it was at the time of its creation—was for naught. 

The ships were mothballed, their mission ended, and Zheng He fell out of favor with the court. But he showed the world just what great ships could do.  

In 1662, the Japanese pirate known as Koxinga (or Cheng Cheng-kung) led a resistance against the ruling Chinese dynasty at the time, as well as against the Dutch East India Trading Company’s presence on Formosa (modern Taiwan). In need of a new base, Koxinga strove to dislodge the Dutch presence on Formosa. No one had dared take on the technologically superior Dutch. But Koxinga had a plan. Part of his plan involved the use of Chinese sailing ships known as “Junks.” 

Koxinga was brutal, and he especially loathed the superior and haughty Dutch who had encamped on the island redoubt he dreamed of using for his own purposes. No one believed Koxinga, with his rag-tag force, could dare to take on the might of the Dutch East India Company’s military power. But he did, and his fleet of Junks, though smaller than the warships that the Dutch deployed, were greater in number and used their maneuverability and smaller size to get in close to the Dutch warships and engage in swarming tactics. 

In a stunning turnaround, Koxinga evicted the Dutch and humiliated the powerful Europeans. The 1662 Sino-Dutch War for control over Taiwan should be required learning for American strategists today, who believe that China yearns to control Taiwan (they do) but cannot take it because of a lack of proper seapower. The Dutch said the same thing about Koxinga. His rag-tag fleet proved them all wrong.

When one thinks of the First World War, they think of the brutal trench warfare that defined the Western Front. But an interesting fight erupted along the periphery of the war, in the Asia-Pacific. 

Germany held a port in China as a concession. From that port operated Admiral Maximilian von Spee’s East Asia Squadron, consisting of heavily armored and armed cruisers that the British had taken to calling “pocket battleships.” While the entire squadron was legendary in its own right, one warship in the group stands out. That is SMS Emden.

Led into combat by the elegant and dashing Commander Karl von Muller, this small German cruiser of 3,600 tons displacement, with two masts and three funnels, armed with ten 4.1-inch and eight 5-pounder guns, as well as two submerged torpedo tubes, turned out to be a decisive actor against Allied forces and shipping throughout the Indian and Pacific Oceans. Separating herself from the East Asian Squadron and taking on the Allies at sea on her own, this warship became the stuff of legends in the press both in Germany and throughout the Allied nations. 

Writing in 1915 of her exploits, U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander Lyman A. Cotton explained that, “German ports of any character were few and far between, being located at widely divergent points in the South Sea Islands. Thus the prospect for a small German cruiser at sea in the Pacific did not seem very favorable for accomplishing anything to injure or embarrass her enemies, which by this time included four nations possessing powerful navies—England, Russia, Japan, and France. On all sides her enemies had ships, naval p-orts and commercial ports ready and capable of naval use, while the little Emden had only her bunkers full of coal, her speed of 25 knots, her determination to accomplish something, and such facilities as the high seas afforded.”

Nevertheless, Emden captured multiple ships belonging to enemy fleets and garnered a fearsome reputation as a true raider. Ultimately, she was cornered on a small island in the South Pacific by the Royal Australian Navy warship, HMAS Sydney. Most of her crew was captured on North Keeling Island after the crippled warship was beached by her skipper, Herr Muller. Although they ended in debacle, Emden’s exploits are worth remembering. Because both she and the rest of her East Asia Squadron did more to complicate the efforts of the Allies than most other German feints had. If Japan had not entered the war against Germany, it is likely that the East Asian Squadron would have been even deadlier than it was.

This beast was Admiral Horatio Nelson’s flagship at the decisive Battle of Trafalgar, in which Britain’s Royal Navy knocked Napoleon’s navy out of the Napoleonic Wars for good. Built and completed in 1765 (and still in commission today, more than 259 years later), Victory is docked at Portsmouth Historic Dockyard. This ship was clearly built to last. It was one of the larger warships of its era, coming in at 227 feet and carrying a whopping 104 guns among her three decks. 

Victory is the embodiment of both her era and the man who ultimately commanded her during her greatest victory over Britain’s most significant enemy to that time. The warship is entwined with Nelson’s heroism and swashbuckling attitude. It was on HMS Victory that Nelson hoisted his famous flag signal that read, “England expects that every man will do his duty.” This became a rallying call for the British. Oddly enough, Napoleon, when he had learned of the flag signal, ordered that every French warship be festooned with a variation which read, “La France compte que chacun fera son devoir” (or, “France expects that everyone will do his duty.”) 

Admittedly, like much of the French naval effort during the Napoleonic Wars, this slogan comes across as a cheap knockoff of the proper English version. 

Ultimately, Victory outlasted her famous commanding officer. Nelson was fatally shot aboard the warship during its penultimate stand at Trafalgar. To this day, no one is certain which French sailor got the kill-shot on Nelson, although several British veterans claimed to have shot Nelson’s killer afterward. Regardless, Nelson’s leadership ended Napoleon’s quest to become what Nelson described as the “George Washington of France.” 

Ville de Paris was considered a first-rate ship-of-the-line for the French Navy. She was the flagship of the French naval forces assigned to assist American revolutionaries during the Revolutionary War against the British Empire. This warship presided over bruising defeats of the otherwise dominant British fleet. In fact, for many of the French sailors, their campaign to aid the American revolutionaries was a bit of payback for having lost their North American empire to the British a decade before, in the French and Indian War (known in Europe as the Seven Years’ War). 

She was completed in 1764, too late to serve in the Seven Years’ War. This boat was a 90-gun first rate and one of the first three-deckers to be completed for the French Navy since the 1720s. Indeed, by the time the Revolutionary War had erupted in America, she would become the most important warship keeping the American revolutionaries in the fight. Had it not been for the French and Spanish fleets, the American revolution would have been crushed by untrammeled British seapower. 

In 1778, Ville de Paris fought at the Battle of Ushant, an indecisive battle waged 100 miles off the coast of the French island of Ushant along the mouth of the English Channel. 

Engagements like this, however, kept the British fleet bogged down and spread thin. 

Ultimately, the storied warship was lost with all hands (save one crewmember) in battle with the British. 

The U.S. Navy was a battleship navy for decades before making the switch to the aircraft carrier. A number of American battleships made waves in the Second World War. USS New Jersey is one such battlewagon. In fact, it is the most decorated battleship in U.S. Navy history. She fought in every U.S. conflict from WWII to Desert Storm. 

Coming in at nearly 888 feet long and displacing a whopping 57,540 tons at full load, this warship is one of America’s finest ever built. The “Big J” shelled targets on Okinawa and Guam. It clobbered the hell out of the North Koreans, too, during the Korean War. Possessing an arsenal of nine, 16-inch/50 caliber Mark 7 guns, twenty 5-inch/38 caliber guns mounted in twin-gun dual purpose turrets, and an array of Oerlikon 20 mm and Bofors 40 mm anti-aircraft guns, this battlewagon was unstoppable. 

File this under “they don’t build ‘em like they used to.”

This was, quite frankly, the greatest aircraft carrier ever. “The Big E,” or “Gray Ghost,” as she was affectionately known by her crews, was the most decorated and legendary aircraft carrier of World War II. Belonging to the Yorktown class of carriers, Enterprise was instrumental in multiple battles that defined the outcome of WWII’s Pacific Theater. 

This boat was instrumental at the Battle of Midway, which most historians believe was the turning point in the war that ensured the United States would come out victorious. Enterprise’s airwing was responsible for sinking an astonishing three Japanese aircraft carriers at this battle, as well as an additional cruiser. 

Enterprise was damaged at the Battles of the Eastern Solomon Islands and Santa Cruz Islands. Each time, she persevered and inflicted greater harm than she received. 

There was a reason the veterans who served aboard this legendary flattop fought vehemently with the United States government to convert it into a museum at the war’s end.

Instead, this boat was mothballed after the war and sold for scrap. To this day, she is fondly remembered by naval historians and the few World War II veterans who remain alive. 

During the War of 1812, really merely a continuation of America’s Revolutionary War, the British and their American cousins went at it again. This time the strategic picture was much bleaker for the nascent American republic. The White House, along with the rest of Washington, D.C., had been burned by the marauding British. A famous American slogan that erupted from the end of the war was “neither an inch gained nor ceded!” Considering the damage the war inflicted upon the United States, that seems hardly like a worthwhile conflict.

But, as with all wars, there were still heroes. And the platforms they utilized to achieve hero status are remembered as much as the men who rose to prominence. One of them was USS Lawrence under the command of Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry. He commanded a U.S. Navy squadron on Lake Erie. Perry’s mission was to ensure that Lake Erie became a totally U.S.-dominated zone. Lawrence was Perry’s flagship.

Lawrence’s big day occurred on September 10, 1813. In the early morning of that day, Perry spotted a squadron of British Royal Navy warships off of Lake Erie’s Rattlesnake Island. Commodore Perry is described as “brazenly ordering his man to set sail and engage the British immediately.” Perry’s group had a gust of favorable wind, allowing for the American squadron—led by Lawrence—to attack the British head-on. In the ensuing battle, Lawrence was crippled by the British warship HMS Detroit. Lawrence was abandoned mid-battle, with Perry transferring his flag to USS Niagara.

With his battle flag fluttering in the wind (which read “Don’t Give Up the Ship”), Perry won the battle from Niagara. But he transferred back to the crippled Lawrence, where he received the commanding officer of the British squadron and accepted his surrender. Famously, Perry sent a letter to William Henry Harrison saying, “We have met the enemy and they are ours.” On top of the surviving American warships, Perry took with him the captured British ships—including two ships, two brigs, one schooner and one sloop. 

It was Lawrence, though, that had made this victory possible. And Perry understood this. That is why he demanded that the British surrender on Lawrence rather than Niagara.

Named after U.S. Navy Lieutenant John V. Johnston, an officer who served in the American Civil War, Johnston was built in 1942 and launched a year later under the command of Lieutenant Commander Ernest “Big Chief” Evans (Evans was a descendant of Native Americans from Oklahoma). It was a Fletcher-class destroyer that fought in the Pacific Theater of the Second World War. Johnston was the beneficiary of newer designs bigger in size than its sister ships in the Fletcher class. This allowed for more anti-aircraft guns, electronic equipment, and their operators to be on the ship without losing its offensive potential. 

This was a relatively small boat compared to the kinds of warships one thinks of when they think back to the Second World War. She possessed four Babcock & Wilcox boilers and could hit a top cruising speed of roughly 44 miles per hour. This boat had a range of about 7,500 miles and carried around 273 sailors onboard. 

From the moment that he assumed command, Evans told his crew, “This is going to be a fighting ship. I intend to go in harm’s way, and anyone who doesn’t want to go along had better get off right now.” His crew was fiercely loyal, and they would follow him to the gates of hell on more than one occasion, including in the final, greatest battle the warship ever partook in.

Indeed, Johnston would play a pivotal role in the Battle of Leyte Gulf in the Philippines, during what historians have since come to call the “Battle off Samar.” That day, Johnston and six other destroyers were performing escort duty for a handful of small-deck escort carriers that were protecting the Marine landings on the Leyte beachhead. Johnston detected a massive Japanese Imperial Navy flotilla that was supposed to have been moving away from the island, but in fact, had come to attack the beachhead. This flotilla included the largest battleship ever built, Yamato.

The aircraft carriers were the prize the Japanese wanted to catch. Without those carriers, the Marine landings would be over, and the island would again belong to the Japanese. 

Not waiting for orders, Evans engaged in a suicidal torpedo run at the larger Japanese force. Three other destroyers followed Johnston into the fray. Shockingly, Evans’ gambit worked. Johnston drew fire away from the carriers, taking a pounding from the Japanese flotilla. Firing all ten of Johnston’s torpedoes (and hundreds of rounds from its 5-inch gun), the ship sank a Japanese heavy cruiser while providing cover for the other destroyers to launch their torpedoes.

Three hours would go by until the tiny Johnston would buckle under the sustained assault from the Japanese flotilla. But not before the Japanese commanders assumed they were up against a much larger American force and backed down. The Japanese failure to take advantage of the weakened American state permanently ended the Imperial Japanese Navy’s ability to go on the offensive for the duration of the war. 

Johnston was lost with 186 members still onboard, including Evans. But the impact of that storied ship makes it the greatest warship of all time. Its decisive role at Leyte Gulf may have helped to end the war when it did. And we know Evans’ actions that day saved the lives of countless Marines and the carriers that were defending them (despite one of those carriers being sunk).

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. 

From the Vault

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

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

Summary and Key Points: The F-15SE Silent Eagle, developed by Boeing in 2009, was an advanced variant of the F-15E Strike Eagle, designed to compete with Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightning II. It boasted stealth features, including canted vertical stabilizers and conformal fuel tanks, reducing radar cross section and increasing range.

-Equipped with advanced avionics, sensors, and weapons systems, it could perform multiple mission sets. Despite its lower cost and impressive capabilities, South Korea opted for the F-35, leading to the Silent Eagle's discontinuation.

-This decision left a gap in affordable, stealthy fourth-generation fighters, potentially limiting the diversification of modern air combat capabilities.

The F-15SE Silent Eagle, developed by Boeing in 2009, was an advanced variant of the F-15E Strike Eagle, designed to compete with Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightning II.

It boasted stealth features, including canted vertical stabilizers and conformal fuel tanks, reducing radar cross section and increasing range. Equipped with advanced avionics, sensors, and weapons systems, it could perform multiple mission sets. Despite its lower cost and impressive capabilities, South Korea opted for the F-35, leading to the Silent Eagle's discontinuation.

This decision left a gap in affordable, stealthy fourth-generation fighters, potentially limiting the diversification of modern air combat capabilities.

The F-15SE Silent Eagle: What Should Have Been

The F-15SE Silent Eagle was a proposed all-weather multirole strike fighter developed by Boeing. A variant of the F-15E Strike Eagle, the aircraft was first conceptualized in 2009. It was supposed to pull business away from Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightning II by offering a cheaper but still stealthy warplane.

While still a fourth-generation aircraft, the Silent Eagle’s stealth capabilities were beyond anything its F-15 siblings could offer. A number of features would have reduced its radar cross section and improved its survivability in contested airspace. 

Possessing advanced avionics, sensors, and weapons systems, the Silent Eagle was designed for a variety of important mission sets. 

It could arm a variety of air-to-air missiles, including the AIM-9 Sidewinder and AIM-120 AMRAAM. Air-to-ground munitions included the Joint Direct Attack Munition and Small Diameter Bomb. The bird would have carried AGM-84 Harpoon missiles as well as AGM-65 Mavericks. 

The Silent Eagle would have flown with external fuel tanks for extended range. These Conformal Fuel Tanks increased the aircraft’s internal fuel capacity. The stealthy warbird would have possessed vertical stabilizers that were canted outward at 15 degrees. (All other F-15 models have perfectly parallel stabilizers.)

These stabilizers reduced radar cross section, but they also increased its range by 75–100 miles over the jet’s non-stealthy predecessors. 

The aircraft was to feature a Digital Electronic Warfare suite for electronic attack and protection. The Silent Eagle had Infrared Search and Track for passive detection and tracking of enemy aircraft. Advanced countermeasures dispensers for chaff and flares were included. An F-15 Silent Eagle would have packed a powerful radar system for enhanced situational awareness and electronic warfare capabilities. 

The South Korean Air Force considered purchasing these birds in 2009 at $100 million per unit (as opposed to the F-35 at $176 million per unit). Ultimately, however, South Korea went with the pricier, fifth-generation warplane. 

South Korea is a medium power, and Seoul now seeks to build its own indigenous warplane, the KF-21. It might have just made more sense to purchase a tranche of the F-15 Silent Eagles. Their capabilities would have been impressive. They come from an established global supply chain. They’re advanced, but not so complex that it would be a catastrophe to lose or damage one in combat. 

Seoul went with the fifth-generation bird. Because of that, we never got to see a stealthy variant of the ubiquitous American F-15. Too bad. It might have helped plug some significant gaps in America’s overall defense.

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. 

From the Vault

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

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

Summary and Key Points: Britain faces an identity crisis, attempting to maintain global military influence despite economic constraints. The costly Future Combat Air System (FCAS) program exemplifies this struggle. Instead of investing in an uncertain and expensive new system, Britain should consider restarting the F-22 Raptor production line with the United States.

-The F-22, though prematurely cut by the Obama administration, remains the world's most advanced air superiority fighter.

-Partnering to produce more F-22s would provide Britain with a superior warplane at a potentially lower cost and strengthen collective defense capabilities, aligning better with Britain's financial and strategic realities.

Forget FCAS! Britain Should Help Restart the F-22 Production Line

Britain is going through an identity crisis. In fact, they’ve been having one since 1945. Their empire is gone. A nation that long defined itself by leadership of a globe-spanning empire has had great difficulty coming back to Earth as just another medium-sized power in a world that is not run according to its preferences. 

Brexit, while an important step for the nationalist-populist movement sweeping across so much of the developed world, did not help to allay the identity crisis. 

The British economy cannot support an imperial military the way it once did. Nevertheless, London has persisted in its commitment to become a primary world military power again. 

They’re investing in the systems designed to accomplish this task. Well, they’re trying to invest in those systems.

Britain has two modern aircraft carriers. But operating these behemoths is a challenge. In fact, the British have struggled repairing HMS Queen Elizabeth after it suffered a freakish onboard fire. This has created a significant capability gap in the Royal Navy. 

To pay for these monstrosities, by the way, the Royal Navy had to mothball several other ships that it could have used, and it needed to redirect finite resources away from platforms that were cheaper and might have given Britain greater leverage over its enemies.

Now comes the Future Combat Air System (FCAS). The Royal Air Force is trying to build a “systems of systems,” and emulate the U.S. Air Force’s Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program. 

The NGAD is replete with problems. So, too, is the British program.

The FCAS faces budgetary woes. It’s simply too expensive. Especially because it’s not just a plane, it’s an entire ecosystem of next-generation, era-busting aerospace and computer technologies. 

Such wonder weapons are a fanciful dream, especially considering the dire financial and economic straits facing Western nations. Britain itself is a tiny country with finite resources. It cannot complete such a herculean project.

The British have already purchased a tranche of the American-designed F-35 Lightning II fifth-generation warplane. Trying to reinvent the wheel, as the NGAD and FCAS programs attempt to do, when there are plenty of excellent and advanced warplanes available for purchase, is a waste of limited resources and time. 

If Britain is really looking to build something new, they should look to something slightly older than the FCAS: the F-22 Raptor.

Here is the world’s most advanced air superiority fighter, cut down in its prime by a shortsighted Obama administration. Every expert has assessed that the F-22 remains the world’s most powerful warplane and will be for many years to come. 

But there are too few F-22s, because the Obama administration killed the production line in 2009. If Britain really wanted to be a pal and to ensure the ideal of collective defense in the air lives on between the U.S. and UK, then they would help restart the F-22 production line.

In the long run, it would be cheaper and more effective – and still allow Britain to have an advanced warplane capability. 

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. 

From the Vault

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

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

Summary and Key Points: The USS George Washington (CVN-73) has completed its midlife refueling and overhaul and is heading to Japan as the U.S. Navy’s forward-deployed aircraft carrier. However, the USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74) may face a Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) extending beyond five years. Meanwhile, the USS Boxer (LHD-4), a Wasp-class amphibious assault ship, recently returned to service following rudder repairs but will undergo significant maintenance next spring, potentially lasting 18 months.

-Despite these issues, the USS Boxer earned seven Navy-wide awards for sustained superior performance, highlighting its resilience and operational excellence amidst ongoing challenges.

The United States Navy has a new problem involving one of its aircraft carriers. After an extended midlife refueling and overhaul, the USS George Washington (CVN-73) is now finally on her way to Japan, where she will become the sea service's forward-deployed aircraft carrier. The troubles with the Nimitz-class nuclear-powered supercarrier are over, but the U.S. Navy is expecting that her sister vessel, USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74), could face a Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) that will extend to more than five years.

Another issue is impacting another carrier – namely the Wasp-class amphibious assault ship USS Boxer (LHD-4). What makes this notable is that the vessel, only returned to service earlier this month following an emergency rudder repair. The flattop was deployed on April 1 but was forced to return to San Diego Bay just 10 days later to deal with the problems.

"Following a successful operational test of its rudders, the amphibious assault ship USS Boxer (LHD-4) and embarked elements of the 15 Marine Expeditionary Unit departed San Diego, conducting pre-deployment training and operations in U.S. 3rd Fleet," the U.S. Navy said in a statement to USNI News earlier this month. "It remains on schedule for an Indo-Pacific deployment."

In recent years, the 843-foot-long warship has spent more time undergoing repairs than actually on deployment – and while LHD-4 is finally en route to the Indo-Pacific, the amphibious assault ship will be forced to undergo more significant repairs next spring.

The U.S. Navy hasn't said what kind of further repairs are required, nor did it say where the work will be carried out, but it was reported that USS Boxer could be pierside for as long as 18 months.

The U.S. Navy released a solicitation notice on May 17 that sought contractors capable of conducting maintenance on the vessel – and it noted the work could begin in April 2025 and run through October 2026. The sea service has sought "a highly capable contractor with substantial human resources capable of completing, coordinating and integrating multiple areas of ship maintenance, repair, and modernization," while the anticipated scope of the procurement includes all labor, supervision, production, testing, and quality assurance necessary to prepare for and accomplish this CNO (Chief of Naval Operations) Availability."

The solicitation called for the work to be completed on the West Coast, which may be necessary given that LHD-4 is homeported in San Diego, California.

"Given that this Availability will be greater than 10 months in duration, the Navy would compete the acquisition on a coast–wide basis (West), without limiting the place of performance to the ship's homeport," the U.S. Navy stated.

It would seem that the problem isn't so great that the current deployment needs to be further delayed; yet, it may be significant enough that the vessel will be out of service for a year-a-half. The issues aren't entirely new either.

As Breaking Defense reported, USS Boxer has suffered a plethora of problems, including engine component failures and now the rudder mishap.

The sea service can ill afford to have the amphibious assault ship down for such an extended period, especially after it was forced to scrap USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6), following a fire that broke out while the ship was undergoing maintenance at Naval Base San Diego in July 2020.

USS Boxer is the fourth Wasp-class LHD. She was constructed by Ingalls Shipbuilding at Pascagoula, Mississippi, and was commissioned in February 1995.

Despite the maintenance issues, in March, the United States Navy announced that USS Boxer earned seven Navy-wide awards for sustained superior performance. That included the Battle Effectiveness Award; the Maritime Warfare Excellence Award; the Command, Control, Communications and Information Warfare Excellence Award; the Logistics Management Excellence Award; the Self Sufficiency Award; the Force Health and Wellness Unit Award or Green 'H'; and the Captain Edward F. Ney Memorial Food Service Award.

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

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy is exploring modifications to its Virginia-class submarines to enhance seabed warfare capabilities. This comes as underwater infrastructure, such as cables and pipelines, faces increased threats, highlighted by last year's Nord Stream pipeline sabotage.

-Currently, the USS Jimmy Carter, a highly modified Seawolf-class submarine, performs such specialized tasks, equipped with unique features like the "Multi-Mission Platform" for special operations and seabed missions.

-While the Virginia-class Block V variant may introduce advanced seabed capabilities, the Jimmy Carter remains a critical asset in safeguarding underwater infrastructure and conducting covert operations.

A report published by The Drive indicates that a modified Virginia-class submarine variant capable of carrying out seabed warfare might be in the midst. Over the last decade or so, underwater cables, infrastructure and other networks have grown exponentially. Considering seabed attacks are very challenging to defend against, the potential for attacks under water pose a significant threat. In September of last year, a series of bombings and subsequent gas leaks damaged the Nord Stream 1 and 2 natural gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea. This sabotage and the consequences surrounding it highlight the role seabed warfare may play in future conflicts.

While a specially modified Block V Virginia-class submarine aimed at defending U.S. underwater infrastructure would provide an instrumental asset to the Navy, the service already sails an SSN built for these types of tasks. The USS Jimmy Carter is a highly modified variant of the formidable Seawolf class of submarines.

During the height of the Cold War, America and the former-USSR were embroiled in a grueling arms race. Both nations were working hard to achieve Naval superiority over the other. In an effort to contend with the Soviet’s ballistic missile and attack submarines, including the Typhoon-class and the Akula-class, U.S. engineers designed the Seawolf SSNs. The Seawolf vessels were developed to replace the aging Los Angeles-class submarines, which were less advanced than its Soviet counterpart in terms of acoustic strength. By the late 1980’s, the Navy began constructing its new class of submarines in hopes of restoring its edge over the Soviets.

Production time on the Seawolf was lengthy, and by the time the new submarine was commissioned in 1997 the geopolitical landscape had altered quite a bit. For this reason, the number of Seawolf boats expected to be built decreased from 29 to just 12. The ship’s whopping price tag of over $3 billion per vessel also hindered additional submarines from being constructed. Ultimately, only three Seawolf-class submarines were ever launched.

The USS Seawolf (SSN-21) was the first vessel in the class to be constructed. Built by the Electric Boat Division of General Dynamics and Newport News Shipbuilding, the new submarine was officially launched in 1995.

During the boat’s trial period, the Seawolf proved to achieve unprecedented speed. Three years later, the Connecticut (SSN-22) was commissioned and followed closely by the Jimmy Carter (SSN-23) in 2004. 

Designed to destroy Soviet ballistic missile submarines before they could locate and target U.S. cities and military installations, the Seawolf-class SSNs immediately became the mainstay of the Navy’s underwater arsenal. The new submarines were equipped with a modular design that enabled future upgrades such as ordnance development of sonar systems to be easily incorporated. Two turbines rated 52,000 hp, a single shaft, a pumpjet propulsor and a GE PWR S6W reactor helped make the Seawolf-class vessels so powerful.

All vessels were constructed out of high-strength steel to enable the ships to dive as deep as 490 meters beneath the sea-level. Additionally, the SSNs hosted a S6W pressurized water reactor which allowed the subs to travel at a maximum speed of 40 miles per hour.

Weapons-wise, all three Seawolf-class vessels could pack a punch. An eight-tube, double-deck torpedo room allowed the vessels to engage multiple targets simultaneously. In comparison, the class’ Los Angeles predecessors could only sport half this number of torpedo tubes. The three Seawolf vessels have recently undergone facelifts and now feature a Lockheed Martin AN/BQQ-10 (V4) sonar processing system.

While all three Seawolf-class submarines are sophisticated vessels, the USS Jimmy Carter hosts several modifications differentiating it from its peers. In fact, the Jimmy Carter’s capabilities are so unique that some industry experts consider it to be its own class of submarines.

Due to the ship’s “Multi-Mission Platform,” the Jimmy Carter is around 100 feet longer than the USS Connecticut and USS Seawolf counterparts. This platform allows the vessel to engage in special operations, including the deployment of Navy SEALS or seabed missions. According to Popular Mechanics, “Because of the USS Jimmy Carter’s advanced stealth and unique troop-deployment bay, it is considered the most dangerous submarine currently carrying out missions.”

Although a new Virginia-class Block V variant could feature more advanced seabed capabilities, the USS Jimmy Carter’s unique operations over the years should not be discounted.

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. 

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: Britain's new Dreadnought-class SSBNs are essential for maintaining its nuclear deterrent, set to replace the aging Vanguard-class submarines. Designed to carry Trident II/D5 ballistic missiles, these nuclear-powered subs will feature advanced sensors, increased autonomy, and artificial intelligence.

-Despite economic challenges and competing defense priorities, Britain must invest in more than the planned four Dreadnought-class subs to ensure robust defense capabilities in the Atlantic.

-By focusing on submarines rather than aircraft carriers, Britain can enhance its naval strength and strategic deterrence, addressing threats closer to home while maintaining a potent maritime presence.

The Dreadnought class is a new generation of ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) being developed for the British Royal Navy. 

The lead boat in the class, HMS Dreadnought, is currently under construction. The class is intended to replace the existing force of Vanguard-class SSBNs that have been in service since the 1990s, and it will carry the United Kingdom’s nuclear weapons deterrent. 

It is expected that Dreadnought will enter service in the early 2030s.

Britain has sought to replace its aging Vanguard-class submarine force since 2011, when the Dreadnought class was first announced.

Currently, the UK intends to build just four of these submarines, likely because the British military is a shadow of its former glory. Further, whatever funds the British military had at its disposal were likely blown on aircraft carrier vanity projects over the last decade. 

Indeed, the Dreadnought-class submarines would have been a much better investment by Britain’s Ministry of Defense than were Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales.

What Can the Dreadnought-class Do?

In terms of capabilities, the Dreadnought class is a nuclear-powered submarine, giving it a great range. While it is not known specifically what the maximum range of this boat will be, it will likely be akin to that of its Vanguard-class predecessor, thereby exceeding 10,000 nautical miles. 

Details on this program are murky, but what is known is that the Dreadnought class will feature a Common Missile Compartment (CMC). 

According to the UK Defence Journal, “CMC aims to define the missile tubes and accompany systems that would be used to launch new ballistic missiles, successors to the current Trident II/D5 missile fleet used by the USA and Britain.”

In terms of nuclear weapons capabilities, the key element of any SSBN, British designers are expanding the diameter of each vertical launch tube from 2.21 meters to 3.04 meters, meaning the Dreadnought will have greater interoperability with its allies. The U.S. Navy’s replacement for the Los Angeles-class attack submarine, the Virginia-class Block III submarine, did something similar with their cruise missile launch tubes, installing the Common Weapon Launcher.

A Dreadnought-class submarine will carry Trident II/D5 ballistic missiles that can arm multiple nuclear warheads. 

The Dreadnought-class SSBN is believed to cost Britain’s MOD the equivalent of $39.9 billion. The costs include the design, construction, and testing of these new boats. But the British have to spend gobs of their taxes on modernizing the country’s rather depressing shipyard capabilities in order to reliably build and maintain these advanced submarines. 

The Dreadnought intends to employ cheaper sensors, increased autonomy, and artificial intelligence capabilities. Further, the Dreadnought-class SSBN is expected to carry a crew of around 130. 

Britain Isn’t a Superpower Anymore

Britain has yet to come to grips with the fact that it is no longer the world’s superpower. Indeed, it is a middle power in relative decline. Their budgets do not comport with their lofty ambitions. 

For example, British strategists still speak seriously about going “East of Suez” with their two-aircraft carrier fleet. Yet at the same time, they struggle to maintain these two ships and are faced with significant threats much closer to their shores, emanating from Russia, but also from Argentina in relation to the Falkland Islands, an issue that has never been fully resolved. 

The British Royal Navy is as ever the most important aspect of Britain’s military. But it is not, and never will be, big enough or well-funded enough to do everything British strategists want it to do. London should refocus its intentions and tailor its capabilities accordingly. Rather than trying to be a global power projection force, perhaps Britain should focus instead on being a potentate in the Atlantic, specifically the North Atlantic. 

The Dreadnought class sounds like a solid investment for Britain. Rather than continuing to seek power via aircraft carriers, Britain should get smaller in its power-projection platforms. 

Submarines, such as the Dreadnought class, are the future, as are unmanned underwater vehicles. Only four Dreadnought-class subs are being built. That’s a problem. They should be building an armada of them to dominate the North Atlantic and deter Argentina in the South Atlantic. 

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. 

From the Vault

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

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