Diplomacy & Crisis News

Summary: Russia is reportedly allocating funds to equip its new Yasen-M class nuclear submarines with Zircon hypersonic missiles.

-Despite setbacks and losses in its naval fleet during the Ukraine invasion, this move could significantly enhance Russia's naval capabilities.

-The Yasen-class submarines, first conceptualized during the Cold War and updated in the 2000s, are known for their advanced technology and low noise levels.

-With the potential addition of the Zircon missile, capable of reaching Mach 9.0, these submarines could pose a significant threat.

-However, economic challenges due to the ongoing war may hinder the completion of this ambitious project.

Game-Changer: Russian Submarines May Soon Deploy Zircon Hypersonic Missiles

Russia is reportedly allocating funds to equip its new nuclear submarines with hypersonic missiles. 

Last summer, the head of Russia’s largest shipbuilder announced that the Zircon missile will be incorporated on the Yasen-M, the leading class of Russian submarines. Considering how poorly Russia’s naval fleet has fared during the country’s invasion of Ukraine, this capability could be a game-changer for the Kremlin. 

Kyiv claims its forces have sunk or disabled about a third of all Russian warships in the Black Sea since February 2022. In September, Ukraine confirmed it had successfully wrecked Russia’s Rostov-on-Don submarine during a missile attack in occupied Crimea. While the feat is noteworthy, Moscow’s underwater capabilities are still quite formidable, and its subs are arguably far more durable than its surface vessels. The potential introduction of Zircon-carrying Yasen submarines should worry Ukraine and Western officials.

Introducing the Yasen-Class

Russian officials prioritized their inherited fleet of submarines after the Soviet collapse in the 1990s. The Yasen class was first conceptualized during the Cold War, but the lead ship did not complete construction until 1993. The submarine class was conceptualized by Malakhit, a merger of two design bureaus. 

Funding issues halted the Yasen class’ progress, and when Moscow returned to the project in the late 2000s, new technologies had rendered the initial design obsolete. Instead of nixing the project altogether, though, Russian officials opted to relaunch the submarine class under a new “Yasen-M” designation. This new name came with specific design modifications that made the class relevant once more.

The Severondvinsk, the lead ship of the Yasen class, finally commissioned in 2014. The Kazan (K-561) followed suit and was commissioned in 2021, succeeded by the Novosibirsk (K-573) and Krasnoyarsk (K-571). The next boat planned to enter service with the Russian fleet is the Arkhangelsk (K-564). Seven additional submarines could join the class down the line. 

Specs & Capabilities

Each submarine has a submerged displacement of 13,800 tons and can reach a top speed of up to 35 knots. The upgraded variant is shorter, includes enhanced onboard electronics, and runs on a new KTP-6 reactor designed to minimize the submarines’ noise levels. According to reports, the reactor’s cooling loop facilitates a more natural circulation of water that does not require the constant operation of main circulation pumps, which tend to be extremely noisy. The Yasen ships are the first to be equipped with a fourth-generation nuclear reactor, which reportedly has a quarter-century-long core life and will not need refueling.

In terms of armaments, the Yasen submarines are well-equipped. Each submarine features 10 silos for vertically launched cruise missiles, in addition to Kalibr-PL and Oniks cruise missiles. The Kazan is also incorporated on the submarines, which can operate the UKSK (3P-14B) vertical launch system, composed of 8SM-346 modules.

Now, Russian state-run media claims that the submarines will arm the advanced long-range Zircon hypersonic cruise missile. Designated by NATO as SS-N-33, the 3M22 Zircon is perhaps Moscow’s most threatening new weapon. 

According to the Kremlin, the weapon can reach a top speed of Mach 9.0. Alexei Rakhmanov, chief executive officer of the United Shipbuilding Corporation, recently told RIA that, "Multi-purpose nuclear submarines of the Yasen-M project will ... be equipped with the Zircon missile system on a regular basis.”

While the prospects of Russia’s Yasen-M submarines being equipped with Zircon missiles is concerning, the economic reality of the venture is murky. After more than two years of war in Ukraine, Moscow’s funds, manufacturing abilities, and other resources are depleted. It is unlikely that Russia has the means to complete this modification while the war rages on. 

If these hypersonic missiles are incorporated onto the Yasen submarines, it will give a huge boost to Russia’s naval strategy.

About the Author: Maya Carlin 

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary: As of 2024, the vulnerability of U.S. aircraft carriers to China's advanced anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) systems has become a significant concern.

-These carriers, symbols of U.S. military power, are increasingly at risk from modern warfare technologies.

-The potential loss of a carrier would severely limit U.S. military response options and necessitate a strategic pivot towards developing weapons to counter A2/AD threats.

-The U.S. Navy needs to adapt to these modern warfare dynamics and reconsider its reliance on aircraft carriers as primary assets, focusing instead on more resilient and adaptable platforms like submarines and anti-A2/AD technologies.

Rethinking U.S. Naval Strategy: The Rising Threat to Aircraft Carriers

As of 2024, this prediction seems increasingly plausible. Aircraft carriers, long seen as symbols of US military supremacy, are vulnerable to China's A2/AD systems designed to counteract US power projection. With the US already facing global military challenges and a shift in warfare technology, the loss of an aircraft carrier could limit US military response options and necessitate a strategic pivot towards developing weapons capable of countering A2/AD threats. This scenario underscores the need for the US Navy to adapt to modern warfare dynamics and reconsider its reliance on aircraft carriers as primary assets.

The Vulnerable Giants: Are US Aircraft Carriers Becoming Obsolete in Modern Warfare?

“The only way the US Navy divorces itself from the aircraft carrier cult is if it loses one in combat…which it’s going to, very soon, if things keep going at this rate.” Those prophetic words were spoken to me by a retired US Navy captain (and former neighbor of mine) way back in 2018. Back then, I assumed that he was just being the old codger he’d always presented himself as. 

Now, in 2024, he seems correct in his assessment. 

And what a feather in the cap it’ll be for any Chinese missile battery commander who manages to either sink or disable the flight deck of one of America’s carriers. 

Aircraft Carrier Drama: What is a Flat Top Next to Victory?

The aircraft carrier is, without a doubt, the greatest symbol of US military power to date. Able to travel anywhere on the high seas, making port calls along the way, these floating airbases are continual reminders of the potency—and investment into—military dominance that the US government has made over the years. 

Most of America’s aircraft carrier fleet are comprised of the Nimitz-class, with the new Ford-class being the replacement for these systems (though it remains to be seen if the Navy will actually be able to completely replace the Nimitz-class, due to the costs of the Ford-class carriers).

Whether it is the Nimitz-class or the Ford-class carriers, the fact remains that these systems are the most prominent warship on the high seas today. 

Carrying dozens of potent warplanes, reconnaissance aircraft, and possessing a suite of other important military capabilities, the aircraft carrier is America’s most prominent power projection platform. And since the United States is physically so much farther away from the territories of its rivals, the US military requiresoffensive power projection systems. 

To overcome the threat that America’s flat tops pose to them, the Chinese military has built a stunning array of what’s known as anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) weapons. These capabilities are specifically tailored to stunting the power projection potential of US aircraft carriers. Knowing how symbolic these weapons platforms are for the American psyche, as well as how expensive they are, Beijing has surmised that knocking these behemoths out in combat would prove so destructive to any American war effort against China, that Washington might sue for peace with China rather than risk a wider war.

Just How Could the US Retaliate If Its Aircraft Carriers Were Knocked Out?

Many reading this are incredulous about that notion. After all, US aircraft carriers are not only wildly expensive platforms with countless important other equipment aboard, but they are staffed by thousands of American sailors. If China got in a lucky shot and either sank or disabled a flat top, surely the Americans would “bring down the wrath of God” upon the Chinese, just as Uncle Sam did against Japan in the Second World War and against al Qaeda following 9/11. 

In the first case, the United States was a dominant manufacturing power that could truly be the “arsenal of democracy.” Losing ships in combat, as the US did in WWII, was not as catastrophic as today. In the second case, despite the speedy retaliation US forces engaged in after 9/11, ultimately, the United States lost the Global War on Terror. 

Since the War on Terror ended, the United States has found itself mired in a losing war in Ukraine. It is being challenged by petty tyrants from Iran to North Korea to Venezuela. Rag-tag insurgents, like the Houthi Rebels, are holding US power hostage in the Red Sea and Strait of Bab El-Mandeb. 

So, it is not entirely unbelievable that a near-peer competitor, like China, with its superiority in A2/AD systems or hypersonic weapons, could conceivably knock out an American carrier.

Once that sad event occurs, just how would the US retaliate? Would Washington escalate to nuclear warfare? Would they attempt to bomb China directly? 

The point is that, once the carriers are removed as the primary weapon system for the Navy, given how much the Navy has invested in its carriers, there will be both a limit to how the military could respond to a Chinese A2/AD attack as well as a degree of reticence. 

Likely, submarines would have to become a better power projection platform. But the Navy would have to be willing to lose a high number of these in combat. The defense industrial base is already having problems meeting increased demand for more submarines. In a wartime environment, this could be catastrophic. 

The Real Pathway Forward: Build Anti-A2/AD

Clearly, the aircraft carrier has become as useless to modern warfare as the battleship became when the Second World War broke out. Recognizing this problem now, rather than waiting for hostilities to erupt, would be the first necessary step for the Navy to avert the calamity of losing one of its flat tops to China’s A2/AD systems. 

Rather than continuing spending exorbitant sums of tax dollars on a wasting asset, like the aircraft carrier, why not redirect those funds into weapons that can overwhelm the A2/AD capabilities of China? Once those A2/AD systems were neutralized, then, the Navy could bring its flat tops into the fight. 

As it stands now, however, the aircraft carrier is going to get destroyed and usher in America’s defeat by China’s A2/AD.

About the Author

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

All images are Shutterstock, 

Building barriers against Russian aggression now can save lives later.

Summary: The U.S. Navy is delaying the construction of its next-generation SSN(X) attack submarine to the 2040s, citing budget constraints and a strained defense industrial base.

-This decision comes alongside cuts to the Virginia-class submarine program, which is already in dire need of increased numbers.

-The Block V Virginia-class, a highly advanced and capable submarine, is argued to be sufficient for current and near-future conflicts, particularly in the challenging littoral zones near China.

-Critics suggest that the Navy should focus on enhancing and expanding its existing Virginia-class fleet rather than investing in the expensive and long-term SSN(X) program, which is seen as less relevant to imminent threats.

The United States Navy is delaying the construction of their next-generation attack submarine. Way back in 2014, the Navy first confirmed that it was working on the SSN(X) stealth attack-class submarine. This was planned as a successor to the Navy’s Virginia-class attack submarine (which is still fairly early in its life cycle). 

In 2021, the Navy’s original plan was to begin building the new attack sub in 2031. That then got pushed back to 2035. Now, as the Navy prepares for a future of constrained budgets and a stretched defense industrial base—with deteriorating shipyards, to boot—the Navy is pushing back this new stealth sub to the 2040s.

Of course, it isn’t only the new SSN(X) stealth attack submarine that is getting a short shrift. The current next-generation attack submarine, the Virginia-class, which is desperately needed in far greater numbers, has been cut year-by-year. Citing budget constraints, the Navy cut its request the build new Virginia-class submarines for fiscal year 2025 from two units to just one. 

So, forget about the glamorous SSN(X). 

The Navy is making all the wrong choices when it comes to preparing itself for the next round of great power conflict at sea.

What’s Wrong the Virginia-Class Block V?

For many, the most recent upgraded version of the Virginia-class attack submarine which has been around since 1998—the Block V variant—is the pinnacle of submarine technology. Many, like this author, question the Navy’s definition of “modernization” if it basically seeks to reinvent the wheel. 

Why not just keep augmenting the Virginia-class submarines, as was done to create the Block V, until the 2040s? Wouldn’t that be cheaper? 

After all, the Block V version of the Virginia-class attack sub is unlike anything else that’s in the water today. Sure, China is developing its own versions. But America still retains technical supremacy over China’s submarine fleet. And the Block V is a key element behind America’s submarine supremacy.

In the case of the Block V Virginia-class versus the SSN(X) prototype, the Navy argues that the SSN(X) is vastly different from the Virginia-class Block V model. My old colleagues at the Congressional Research Service assess that the SSN(X) will, “incorporate the speed and payload of the Navy’s fast and heavily armed Seawolf (SSN-21) class SSN design, the acoustic quietness and sensors of the Virginia-class design, and the operational availability and service life of the Columbia design.” 

Whereas the Virginia-class subs were designed in an era where “multi-mission dominance in the littoral” zones of enemy territory were necessary, according to my colleague Maya Carlin. From the 2020s on, however, most naval experts believe that US submarines will be increasingly challenged by near-peer navies undersea. Evoking Carlin’s assessment again, the new SSN(X) will “carry a greater array of payloads and will be able to perform multi-mission functions with a ‘renewed priority’ in antisubmarine warfare (ASW) mission against threats in large numbers.” 

Of course, this is all just posturing and theorizing. 

What we know for sure is that the Block V will do just fine for the United States—even in the era of increased challenges from near peer rivals, such as China. That’s because the kind of warfare that will likely occur whenever the Sino-American conflict erupts will be waged much closer to the littorals of Asian states than they will be fought in the deep blue sea, where the US Navy still dominates…and where China would not be foolish enough to fight.

No, US submarines will be essential for rolling back a Chinese invasion, or naval blockade, of Taiwan. That will mean operating in the notoriously shallow and difficult South China Sea as well as the tight spaces of the Taiwan Strait. So, a submarine more capable in shallower waters, that can get closer to shore, is preferable for the mission at hand than any theorized great power war in the 2040s or 2050s. 

The Navy Needs to Stop Fantasizing About Future War & Focus on the Current War

The Navy, however, cannot help itself. The fantasists in the bureaucracy want to build systems for some future conflict that has yet to materialize; a conflict that is basically a repeat of the Second World War with slightly better technology and with mostly different actors. 

But this is flawed thinking. And it certainly is not strategic. 

If there is to be a war with China over Taiwan, it will likely be fought between now and 2025. Therefore, the Navy needs to shelve its plans for the expensive SSN(X) and redirect its precious funds into building more Block Virginia-class submarines and maybe modernizing the existing batch of Los Angeles-class submarines, too. It will be the current crop of US submarines, not some fantastical prototype, that will decide the outcome of the undersea war.

About the Author

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

For strategic reasons, Russia has openly or tacitly supported separatist or Eurosceptic movements in Europe (whether the United Kingdom’s “Brexit” from the EU, Scottish independence, or Catalan separatism) to weaken the unity of its rivals. Of course, for the same reasons, it does not accept similar withdrawals of its neighbors, the former Soviet republics, from Russia’s Eurasian sphere of influence and the multilateral organizations that bind it together. Presidents Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin both manufactured and sustained conflicts to maintain their influence in Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine and prevent them from joining the West.

Armenian prime minister Nikol Pashinyan has announced that he supports European integration. “Many new opportunities are largely being discussed in Armenia nowadays and it will not be a secret if I say that includes membership in the European Union,” Armenia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Ararat Mirzoyan said. To join the EU would require an “Armexit” from the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), as no country can belong to two customs unions.

Pashinyan has not been critical of the EEU, unlike his condemnations of the Russian-led CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organisation), from which he is also threatening to withdraw. Pashinyan has made no mention of replacing the CSTO with an aspiration to join NATO. Nevertheless, the Kremlin no longer views the EU and NATO as separate entities. Russian officials and media have strongly condemned the European Union mission in Armenia, which was established in January 2023, seeing it as the thin edge of the country moving into the EU, thereby establishing a de facto security relationship with Europe and the United States. Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov claimed the EU mission in Armenia is “turning into a NATO mission.” 

The Kremlin warned Armenia that it could not survive without Russia. RT (formerly Russia Today) head Margarita Simonyan, who is herself Armenian but a fervent Putin supporter, accused Pashinyan of betraying Armenia “for a meager pension.”

Russia controls Armenia’s energy sector. 850,000 Armenians live as migrant laborers in Russia, almost a third of the population of Armenia. Their large remittances are a significant contribution to the country’s economy.

Since Pashinyan came to power in a color revolution in 2018, he has talked up European integration while increasing economic cooperation and trade with Russia. Armenian-Russian trade is growing, not declining. Armenia is a major re-exporter of Western goods to Russia, breaking sanctions imposed by the West in the aftermath of the invasion of Ukraine. To prevent the United States from imposing sanctions against Armenia, the Armenian Central Bank has banned Armenian banks from using the Russian “Mir” national repayment system.

Pashinyan blames Russia for not militarily intervening in support of Armenia during the 2020 Second Karabakh War with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan also condemned Russia’s so-called “peacekeepers” for not protecting the Karabakh separatist enclave in 2023.

Pashinyan has frozen Armenia’s CSTO membership and is no longer contributing to its budget. Armenian officials have also raised the possibility of Armenia withdrawing from the CSTO, drawing a barrage of Russian threats.

Pashinyan has demanded Russia withdraw Russian border guards from Zvartnots International Airport in Yerevan and its international borders. Armenia is considering whether to ask Russia to close its military base in Gyumri, which would be far more provocative. The base resulted from a 1995 agreement between Moscow and Yerevan and was renewed by a 2010 protocol, extending the lease until 2044. Pashinyan would have immense difficulty unilaterally closing the Russian military base.

Relations with Russia are a domestic football. Military defeat has eroded the support base of the opposition from the so-called “Karabakh clan” who ran Armenia for most of its independence since 1991. The Kremlin would ideally like to replace Pashinyan with a pro-Russian regime like what existed prior to 2018. Russia supports the pro-Russian Armenian Apostolic Church, whose Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan calls for Pashinyan’s resignation. Russia’s media, which continues to have a large audience in Armenia, has supported the demands for Pashinyan’s ouster, blaming him for Armenia’s military defeats in 2020 and 2023. 

The Kremlin was always suspicious of color revolutions, believing them to be CIA-orchestrated conspiracies against Russia. Consequently, Russian media have spread conspiratorial claims that Pashinyan was brought to power by “globalist” forces and has since then “obediently implement[ed] their programs.” Armenia was allegedly being dragged into the EU by masonic lodges, which are “the real master of the entire European Union.” On March 24, Armenia blocked two TV shows by Kremlin propagandist Vladimir Solovyov and ended the agreement to re-transmit Russian television broadcasts to Armenia the following month.

Pashinyan said it had been a mistake for Armenia to rely solely on Russia since 1991. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov responded by saying Russia would be forced to revise its relations with Armenia as it is aligning with “Russia’s enemies.” Pashinyan did not attend Putin’s May 7 inauguration. In turn, Lavrov accused Armenian leaders of defaming Russian border guards, Russian military personnel at its base in Gyumri, and the CSTO.

Pashinyan’s rhetoric on European integration will not lead to anything concrete because a hyper-nationalistic and imperialistic Kremlin will never allow an Armexit. The West is foolishly encouraging Armenia’s withdrawal while ignoring the possible severity of Russia’s response. As seen in Ukraine, Putin will fight long and hard to keep his neighbors from asserting their independence from Russian control.

Taras Kuzio is a Professor of Political Science at the National University of Kyiv Mohyla Academy and author of Fascism and Genocide: Russia’s War Against Ukrainians (Columbia University Press, 2023).

Image: Asatur Yesayants / Shutterstock.com. 

Summary: The BRICS bloc, comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, is gradually emerging as a significant economic and financial trading alliance, challenging the U.S.-dominated global economic order. Historically, the U.S. has maintained its economic dominance through its central role in international trade, its status as a net creditor post-World Wars, and the U.S. dollar's position as the primary reserve currency. However, recent geopolitical and economic developments, such as Russia's resilience to Western sanctions and the U.S.'s economic turbulence post-COVID-19, have highlighted the vulnerabilities of the U.S. economy. The rising national debt and deficits further compound these challenges. As BRICS grows in influence, it poses a potential threat to the U.S. dollar's dominance, which could have severe implications for America's economic stability and global standing.

Rising National Debt: America's Achilles' Heel in the Face of BRICS

In the 2012 film Prometheus, a prequel to Ridley Scott’s 1979 hit Alien, one of the lead characters, Michael Fassbender, looks upon an embryo of the iconic monster and quips, “Big things have small beginnings.” 

One could say the same thing about the rising economic and financial trading bloc, loosely known as the BRICS bloc. 

BRICS is short for “Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.” The term can find its roots in a 2001 Goldman Sachs report about the economy of the developing world. Many in the West have attacked the term and the very notion that this budding economic alliance is anything but a gigantic show for the leaders of those countries to look like statesmen.

Yet, just as with the embryonic alien monster in Prometheus, the BRICS bloc has moved from a mere theory in the minds of turn-of-the-21st-century Wall Streeters and is slowly growing into a financial dagger aimed at the heart of the U.S.-led economic system. 

America is the Beating Heart of the Global Economy

Americans secured a position at the center of international trade by the middle of the twentieth century. 

After the First World War, the United States became a net creditor for the rest of the depleted world’s powers. Again, by the end of the Second World War, as Peter Hitchens documents in his masterful book The Phoney Victory: The World War II Illusion, Washington had spent much time erasing the British Empire’s once-dominant position atop the world economy.

From there, the United States ensured its continued economic dominance throughout the twentieth century by isolating and containing its chief rival in the Cold War, the Soviet Union. Economically cut off from the rest of the world and made into a giant pariah, the USSR could not compete in the long run with the Americans. Further, during this time, the United States ensured that its currency became the primary reserve currency. 

And, because oil was traded on the U.S. dollar, the American currency was empowered even more than it already was. Since the Federal Reserve was able to print its own money whenever it needed to, which it always did, the U.S. could finance itself in ways no other nation in the world could. 

It didn’t hurt that the United States was the only industrialized economy still standing after World War II. As the rest of the world was getting back on its feet, the U.S. was 15-20 years ahead of its potential economic competition. 

All these factors created a positive feedback loop ensuring that, so long as the United States remained the dominant economic power in the world system, deficits would not matter. We could spend as profligately as we wanted. Washington could also employ its powerful spot atop the world financial system to craft devastating financial weapons, such as sanctions, to harm countries with which it has problems. 

The U.S. foreign policy establishment got used to this. Sanctions against rogue regimes like Venezuela or Iran or North Korea, have been proven to be useful. The thinking in Washington was to use our economic leverage to impoverish our rivals, rather than risk direct warfare with them. 

The Folly of Washington Abusing America’s Economic Dominance

Yet the usefulness of sanctions over time has rightly been questioned. 

Washington got it into its mind that it could sanction fellow great powers, such as Russia. Indeed, this is precisely what Washington has done since the Russians illegally invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014. Things only worsened for Russia after they invaded Ukraine in 2022. But something unexpected happened. After the initial shock of Western sanctions wore off, the Russian economy not only survived, but it started to thrive, even in the face of American sanctions.

At the same time, the U.S. economy is going through its own turbulence. COVID-19 and the subsequent global lockdowns shattered what turned out to be brittle supply chains. What’s more, both the Trump and Biden Administrations engaged in the most irresponsible level of deficit spending in the history of America, first to combat the economic downturn caused by the lockdowns, then to stimulate the ailing economy (it didn’t work). 

As a result, inflation skyrocketed, as did interest rates. The price of everything became unaffordable. Average, middle-class Americans—the backbone of the American economy—are in dire straits after four years of this. 

Looking on at these trends, the rest of the world, notably the Global South, began thinking that there was no way that the U.S. economy could go on. Russia and China, feeling threatened by the American willingness to use their economic leverage with such wanton abandon, not only against rogue states, but against fellow great powers, have taken to forming the BRICS into something more than just a cool-sounding acronym. 

Don’t Doubt the Challenge from the Developing World

Naysayers in the West argue that no matter what, a Sino-Russian-led BRICS coalition could never challenge the U.S.-dominated economic order.

But the U.S. economy doesn’t look strong. Plus, many other countries in the Global South are worried that the weaponized dollar could be used against them, and they are looking for a hedge against that.

And here is why the U.S. national debt and its out-of-control deficits matter. 

With a $1.5 trillion deficit this year, $35 trillion in overall debt, and $1 trillion in interest payments this year, if the U.S. dollar is no longer the primary global reserve currency and there is suddenly a true rival to the U.S. currency, then the entire American financial system comes crashing down.

The ultimate victory for China, Russia, and so many of America’s other enemies would be to kneecap the U.S. economy by sweeping away the U.S. dollar’s dominance. Once the U.S. dollar is knocked off its pedestal, over time, printing and spending its own money to get through each fiscal year becomes impossible. 

The Debt is a National Security Crisis-in-Waiting

U.S. Navy Adm. Mike Mullen famously quipped that the country’s national debt is the greatest national security threat America faces. He was correct. 

By carrying the debt load that the United States has been carrying—and constantly piling more—all while using the dollar’s dominant position as a cudgel against other great powers, Washington has set the conditions to turn the small BRICS bloc into something truly monstrous over the next several decades. 

Once that happens, life in the United States becomes very bleak quickly and America goes from a superpower to a middle power in terminal decline overnight. Those are the stakes as the Sino-Russian-led BRICS economic bloc slowly arises.

About the Author

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

Image Credit: Shutterstock. 

Centrists seem increasingly willing to partner with the far right.

Summary: The T-90M Main Battle Tank (MBT), once heralded as "Russia’s most advanced armored vehicle," is struggling in Ukraine.

-Initially expected to dominate, the T-90M has faced significant losses, highlighting the vulnerabilities of modern tanks in contemporary warfare.

-Russia has lost nearly 100 T-90M tanks, exposing the limitations of even the most advanced models against Ukraine's effective use of drones and NATO-provided anti-tank weapons.

-This situation underscores the need for military adaptation to new combat realities.

-The T-90M's performance illustrates that advanced technology alone is insufficient without updated strategies and tactics suited to the modern battlefield.

Russia’s T-90M Tanks Struggle in Ukraine’s Modern Warfare

There’s an old adage which goes, “the bigger they are, the harder they fall,” one could ascribe this notion to Russia’s T-90M Main Battle Tank (MBT). At one time, it was dubbed as “Russia’s most advanced armored vehicle.” Now, it is struggling to hold its own in the killing fields of Ukraine. This armored beast was supposed to be the top-of-the-line MBT deployed to Ukraine. 

Its presence alone would send the Ukrainians scattering. It has not performed as expected in Ukraine.

A Growing Problem for Modern Militaries 

In fact, its mixed performance in combat highlights why the even more sophisticated Russian MBT, the T-14 Armata, has been kept in reserve for the duration of the war. It further explains why the Russians have preferred to rely on their decades-old Soviet-era MBT, the T-72. The old T-72s are cheap and easy to mass-produce. If they’re lost, it’s not as detrimental to the Russian Armed Forces as would be losing large numbers of the T-90M or the T-14 Armata. 

Known as the Proryv-3, the T-90M entered service with great fanfare. It has now received less laudatory publicity because of its mixed record in combat. The T-90M was seen as not only an upgrade from the original T-90 MBT but as a significant step up from the legendary T-72. The new T-90M has a 125mm 2A46M-4 smoothbore gun, it is able to fire missiles at enemy tanks at a distance of up to three miles away, as well as deploying standard ammunition. 

Since the beginning of the Ukraine War, however, the Russians have lost almost 100 of these advanced tanks. Russia has visually confirmed 97 T-90 losses, with the more advanced T-90M making up a significant portion of these losses. This suggests that the T-90M, despite its advanced features, is not as invincible as the Russians thought it was. 

It also highlights an ongoing issue that both the Russian and US militaries have yet to fully acknowledge and adapt to: the changing nature of warfare. 

T-90M Tank and the Failure to Adapt 

For example, the reason that so many Russian tanks have been lost is, in part, because of Ukraine’s robust drone fleet and the NATO-provided anti-tank weapons, such as the Javelin. Drones have completely changed the dynamic of modern combat. And this is a reality that is apparently lost on many war planners today in the capitals of the great military powers.

The T-90M is another example of pride. 

You see, like the Americans with their aircraft carriers, the T-90M was viewed as a symbol of Russian military power. It was an example that Russians used when seeking to convince themselves—and the world—that Russia had recovered from the doldrums of the post-Soviet era. And because the T-90M has had a mixed record (not great, not terrible, as the meme goes), it has embarrassed the Russians. 

In the end, the T-90Ms mediocre performance in Ukraine serves as a stark reminder that no matter how advanced a weapon is, it is only as good as the strategy, tactics, and realities on the ground in warfare. The realities on the ground in Ukraine is that the terrain is difficult for certain tanks to operate. 

Because of the presence of large drone swarms in the war, as well as effective anti-tank weapons, many of the strategies need to be updated (and, therefore, the platforms and the way they’re used must be fundamentally changed). Failure to adapt has led to the wanton destruction of systems, such as the T-90M, once assumed to be so advanced they would crush all who opposed them.

The T-90M is not a total failure. It just isn’t necessarily worth the hype or the investment. 

About the Author 

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. 

Summary: During the late 1950s, the U.S. Navy considered enhancing its Iowa-class battleships by replacing their 16-inch guns with advanced missiles, including nuclear-armed Regulus II cruise missiles.

-Another option was to keep the big guns but arm them with Mk 23 "Katie" nuclear shells, developed in 1953 with an estimated yield of 15 to 20 kilotons.

-Despite production of about 50 nuclear shells and modifications made to the USS Iowa, USS New Jersey, and USS Wisconsin for storage, these nuclear projectiles were withdrawn from service by 1962 without ever being used in combat.

-The Iowa-class battleships remained the most powerful U.S. warships during World War II, and the potential nuclear armament would have made them the world's largest nuclear artillery platforms.

Nuclear Shells: The Secret Weaponry of U.S. Navy's Battleships

In the age of the battleship, it was the big guns that were the vessels' true defining feature. However, by the end of the Second World War, new technologies emerged – and it was clear that those big guns simply weren't going to cut it in future conflicts.

The United States Navy considered transforming its largest battlewagons and giving the vessels a bit more firepower – nuclear firepower.

As previously reported by The National Interest, in the late 1950s, the U.S. Navy first proposed overhauling the Iowa-class ships by removing all of the 16-inch guns and replacing them with anti-aircraft and anti-submarine missiles. As "guided missile battleships," each would also carry four Regulus II cruise missiles, each of which could flatten a city a thousand miles distant with a nuclear warhead more than 100 times as powerful as the bomb used on Hiroshima.

The result would have certainly been the most powerful battleship ever, yet, as previously reported, it was also riddled with a significant number of inefficiencies – notably the fact an Air Force bomber could attack as many targets, at a greater range, and requiring far fewer personnel. Moreover, at $1.5 billion in 2020 dollars, the conversion would have been expensive.

The Iowa-class and Its Big Guns

The U.S. Navy also considered another option – one that would have kept the big guns, yet, armed it a very special round.

With primary armament that consisted of nine 16-inch (406mm)/50-caliber guns in three 3-gun turrets, including two forward and one aft, the U.S. Navy's four Iowa-class battleships were the most powerful warships built by the United States during the Second World War. Each of those guns was 66 feet (20 meters) long, which was 50 times their 16-inch bore (50-caliber) from breech face to muzzle.

Each of those guns weighted about 239,000 pounds (108,000 kg), while the projectiles weighed from 1,900 to 2,700 pounds (850 to 1,200 kg) and had a maximum speed of 2,690 feet per second with a range of 24 miles (39 km). At maximum range, the projectiles would spend almost a minute and a half in flight.

While that was impressive, during the early stages of the Cold War in 1953, the U.S. Navy began a top-secret program to develop Mk 23 "Katie" nuclear naval shells, which reportedly had an estimated yield of 15 to 20 kilotons. Designed to be launched from the best seaborne artillery platforms of the era, which happened to be the four Iowa-class battleships, the shells could have given the Navy some serious hitting power.

At the time the shells were developed, the U.S. military had aircraft and missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, but it was determined that the Mk 23/Mark 7 16-inch cannon combination could provide an extremely accurate platform, one that was usable in any weather condition – compared to the early jet aircraft and even missiles that were grounded in inclement weather.

Production of the shells seemed to have begun in 1956, and about 50 of the special nuclear rounds were reported to have been produced. The diameter of each was around 410 mm, while each was 160 cm in length, and they weighed 680 to 860 kg. It has been suggested the projectiles may have been installed inside of an otherwise unaltered HC Mk 13 shell body, but other sources noted that the Katie projectile was slightly smaller than the Mk 13.

According to GlobalSecurity.com, USS Iowa (BB-61), USS New Jersey (BB-62) and USS Wisconsin (BB-64), each had an alternation made to the respective Turret II magazine to incorporate and secure storage areas for the projectiles. A total of 10 of the nuclear shells, along with nine Mk 24 practice shells, could be contained in the secure storage area. USS Missouri (BB-63) had been placed in the reserve fleet in 1955 and was thus ever not altered to accommodate the nuclear shells.

As Brent Eastwood reported, "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."

While the actual guns weren't modified, the introduction of the Katie shells made the Iowa-class battleship's 16-inch guns the world's largest nuclear artillery. These were also the only U.S. Navy warships potentially armed with nuclear shells – and it is still unknown if any of the three battle wagons ever actually carried the shells in active service. The U.S. Navy's policy has remained to neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons aboard its ships.

However, it is known that the nuclear projectiles were all withdrawn from service by October 1962, with none ever having been fired from the 16-inch guns. USS Wisconsin had fired one of the practice shells during a test in 1957, while one of the projectiles was expended as part of Project Plowshare, which was the peaceful use of nuclear explosive devices for construction purposes. An inert Mk 23 shell body is currently on display at the National Atomic Museum in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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

Main image is from Shutterstock. All others are Creative Commons. 

Summary: Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine began in February 2022, significant attention has been given to Russian casualties, which have surpassed half a million troops. Ukrainian casualties, although less reported, are also considerable, with approximately 30,457 civilian casualties and 31,000 military personnel killed.

-Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy disputes Russian claims of 300,000 Ukrainian casualties, asserting the losses are far lower but still substantial.

-According to the UN, over 10,582 Ukrainian civilians have been killed.

-A U.S. intelligence report estimated 315,000 Russian troop casualties by December 2023, a figure that likely increased since.

-The high casualty rates highlight the ongoing attrition and call into question the wisdom of continuing the war, prompting suggestions for peace negotiations.

Ukraine War Casualties: Over Half a Million Russian Troops Lost Since Invasion

Significant press coverage has been dedicated to the Russian casualties suffered since Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine began in February 2022. The numbers are staggering, with more than half a million troops lost so far. 

Less coverage has been dedicated to Ukrainian casualties, which are also significant. To date, Ukraine has suffered roughly 30,457 civilian casualties (killed and wounded) and 31,000 troop losses (killed). This total is also significant, surpassing American losses during the entirety of the Vietnam War and indicating the tangible price of the resistance.

Disputing the Figures

According to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Russian claims of 300,000 Ukrainian casualties are overblown.

“31,000 Ukrainian military personnel have been killed in this war. Not 300,000, not 150,000, not whatever Putting and his deceitful circle have been lying about,” Zelenskyy said. “But nevertheless, each of these losses is a great sacrifice for us.”   

Zelenskyy declined to say how many Ukrainian troops had been wounded or were missing in action. Zelenskyy also said he didn’t know exactly where the civilian death toll stood. “We don’t know how many of our civilians they killed. We don’t,” Zelenskyy said. He believes that “tens of thousands of civilians” have been killed in the occupied territories of Ukraine, but adds that the precise numbers will not be clear until the war ends.

According to The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 10,582 Ukrainian civilians had been killed as of February 2024, with another 19,875 Ukrainian civilians injured. The Office did note that the numbers could be higher.

Staggering Casualty Estimates in Ukraine War 

According to estimates from a U.S. intelligence report declassified last December, the Russians had suffered 315,000 troop casualties (killed and wounded). The number has undoubtedly grown in the six months since the report was declassified. And the number is certainly higher than the 6,000 or so casualties that Putin’s government has reported.

“If accurate, the [315,000 casualties] would represent 87% of the roughly 360,000 troops Russia had before the war,” the Associated Press reported.

An independent Russian news outlet, Mediazona, reported that “about 75,000 Russian men died in 2022 and 2023 fighting in the war.” Another report from Mediazona suggested that Russia’s casualty rate has remained consistent, and that Russia is still “losing about 120 men a day.”

The remarkably high casualty rates on both sides call into question the wisdom of continuing the war. In two years of fighting, Russia has done little to win Ukrainian territory. Meanwhile, Ukraine has proved incapable of expelling Russia. The conflict has long since become a slog of attrition, with entrenched positions and dependence on artillery strikes. The ever-rising casualty rates should inspire the parties to sue for peace – or at least inspire the Western powers bankrolling Ukraine’s continued resistance to pressure their proxy into seeking an off-ramp.

About the Author: Harrison Kass 

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. 

Summary: Ukraine’s Special Operations Forces recently claimed to have destroyed two Russian tanks, a modern T-90 and an older T-72, using first-person-view drones in the Donetsk region.

-This highlights the significant tank losses Russia has suffered since its invasion of Ukraine, with estimates of at least 3,000 tanks lost.

-The T-72, a Soviet-era tank, has particularly struggled against Ukraine’s Western-supplied weaponry.

-Despite upgrades like the T-72B3 model, featuring advanced fire control systems and enhanced armor, these tanks remain vulnerable to modern anti-tank measures, including drones.

-As Ukraine continues to receive modern Western tanks, the outlook for Russia’s aging tank fleet remains bleak.

The Struggle of Soviet-Era Tanks: T-72s Hit Hard in Ukraine Conflict

Ukraine’s Special Operations Forces claimed last month that it had taken out two Russian tanks using first-person-view drones in the Donetsk region. 

According to a Telegram post, a modern T-90 main battle tank was taken out alongside an older T-72. While the attached footage has not been independently verified, Moscow has lost a great many tanks during its invasion. As of March, the International Institute for Strategic Studies estimated that Moscow had lost at least 3,000 of them since the war began in early 2022. Kyiv claims this number is actually much higher. 

The T-72 has perhaps struggled most. First introduced roughly five decades ago, this tank has struggled to survive against Ukraine’s stockpile of Western-delivered weaponry. Open-source intelligence tracker Oryx estimated that Russia lost at least 1,200 of these Soviet-era MBTs during the first year of fighting alone.

Introducing the T-72

The T-72 was developed by the Soviets at the height of the Cold War. Since its introduction to service in the 1970s, more than 18,000 T-72s have been exported to 30 countries. In fact, the Tank Museum at Bovington Camp in southwest England’s Dorset County notes that, “The T-72 is the most widely used main battle tank in the world. It has been manufactured in six countries, is in service with the armies of 35 nations and has fought in all the major wars of the last 20 years.”

The tank’s latest iteration, the T-72B3, was introduced in 2010. Equipped with a slew of enhancements, this model is considered to be a third-generation tank. The MBT is equipped with an advanced fire control system, a 2A46M5 125mm smoothbore gun, and a new thermal sight. The upgraded “Ural” also carries Relikt Explosive Reactive Armor, which provides greater protection against projectiles including tandem warheads and high-velocity missiles.

In addition to these features, the T-72B3 is also fitted with a range of self-protection measures. As detailed by Army Technology, “The T-72B3M MBT is mounted with the new Relikt explosive reactive armour (ERA) replacing the previous Kontakt-5 second-generation ERA. The new armour offers superior protection against shaped charges, tandem warheads, armour-piercing fin-stabilised discarding sabot (APFSDS) rounds, anti-tank guided missiles, as well as low-velocity and high-velocity missiles.”

How Has the Ural Fared in Ukraine?

Like other Soviet-era tanks, the T-72 has struggled against its Western counterparts and anti-tank weaponry in Ukraine. Drones have decimated Russian tanks. These aerial weapons are cheap to produce and easy to operate, contributing to their widespread use by both sides in the war.

But while Moscow’s MBT fleet continues to grow smaller, Ukraine is receiving additional shipments of more modern Western platforms, including the American-made M1A1 Abrams. As the invasion rages on, the future looks grim for Russia’s remaining tanks.

About the Author: Maya Carlin

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and Shutterstock. 

Summary: In September, the U.S. Army canceled the M1A2 System Enhancement Package version 4 (SEPv4) for the Abrams main battle tank (MBT) and shifted focus to developing the M1E3, aiming to prepare for battlefield threats of the 2040s.

-The M1E3 will integrate the best features of SEPv4 while reducing the tank's weight.

-General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) received a contract to design the lighter M1E3, intended to complement the M30 Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle.

-The Army aims to field both vehicles simultaneously, though challenges remain, including reducing the tank's weight to below 60 tons. 

-The development is influenced by lessons from the Ukraine conflict, emphasizing mobility and protection against aerial threats.

M1 Abrams Tank Gets a Revamp: Introducing the Lighter, More Agile M1E3

Last September the United States Army canceled the development of the M1A2 System Enhancement Package version 4 (SEPv4), which was to offer the latest upgrades to the Abrams main battle tank (MBT). The U.S. Army shifted the proverbial gears to focus instead on the M1E3, stating it would "focus on making the capability improvements needed to fight and win against future threats on the battlefield of 2040 and beyond."

As previously reported, the decision to essentially scrap the SEPv4 module and pivot to the M1E3 came following years of testing and analysis, while it listened to operational feedback from those who call the MBT their office on wheels! Rolling forward, the M1E3 is meant to take the best features of the SEPv4, but also offer a slimmed-down Abrams that is ready to face the battlefield threats of the 21st century.

Last month, the U.S. Army awarded General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) – the maker of the Abrams – a new contract to begin the preliminary design on the lighter variant, DefenseNews first reported. Over the next year to year and a half, the U.S. Army will work closely with the defense contractor in determining how the new M1E3 should shape up. While it isn't meant to be rushed out, the goal would be for the new MBT to enter service alongside the now-in-development M30 Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle.

American Rheinmetall Vehicles (ARV) and GDLS are currently competing for the contract to develop the XM30 vehicle is on track to replace the aging M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles that first entered service in the 1980s.

"I think that there would be real goodness for the Army if M30 combat vehicles and M1E3 tanks could be fielded simultaneously to an [armored brigade combat team]," Norman told DefenseNews, adding, "I think the Army senior leaders are going to push us to try to align those schedules, and whether that can be done is an open question right now."

M1 Abrams Tank on a Diet

One factor in ditching the SEPv4 was that for decades, the upgrades on the M1 Abrams simply added more of everything, including armor and advanced equipment. But it also added a lot of weight. The original version of the American M1 MBTs that entered service just over four decades ago weighed in at a relatively lean 67.6 tons, while the current models in service today have beefed up like all too many Americans, with the current model exceeding 73 tons.

The U.S. Army has called for M1E3 to weigh less than 60 tons, but putting the MBT on such a diet will come with challenges that still need to be addressed.

"That might be a little aggressive, but we're pretty ambitious," Norman added. "In order to do that, we anticipate having to change the crew configuration, potentially looking at opportunities to go to a remote turret or an optionally manned turret in order to save the space under armor."

Lessons From Ukraine

U.S. military leaders have also been closely monitoring the massive tank and other vehicle losses that both Russia and Ukraine have seen in the more than two-year-long war, notably how low-cost aerial drones have been employed with great success.

"UAVs are the IEDs of the sky: It's just a mobile IED," a defense industry source who asked not to be named told Breaking Defense. "We spent so much time in Iraq and Afghanistan handling the underbody. … And they're still hitting mines and detracking… [but] crews are surviving."

General Norman also told Breaking Defense that these lessons will help shape the future of the Abrams. He maintained that while the MBT remains well protected against direct fire threats from enemy tanks and other vehicles, it remains vulnerable to top attacks including from anti-tank guided missiles, loitering munitions, and drones.

"The Abrams, and any main battle tank for that matter, is most effective when it can be employed in the offense, or in a situation where they can move around periodically," Norman further emphasized. "It is a mobile protected capability that provides great mobility and firepower and it protects the group. When they stay stationary, they become vulnerable to any number of threats."

Thus it may not just be the Abrams that needs to evolve into a lighter version as the M1E3, but the way it is operated will also need to adapt.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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

Election results in India suggest the ruling BJP will return to power, but with a reduced mandate that has surprised pollsters. The natural order of coalition rule is back.

Summary: The U.S. Air Force is heavily investing in its Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program to ensure aerial supremacy through the mid-21st century. This sixth-generation platform, comprising advanced fighters and AI-enabled drone wingmen, is a response to the rapid advancements in aerial technology by Russia and China.

-With an estimated budget of $28.5 billion from 2025-2029, each NGAD airframe will cost "multiple hundreds of millions" of dollars.

-The program, rooted in DARPA’s 2014 Air Dominance Initiative Study, aims to replace the aging F-22 fleet.

-Featuring cutting-edge materials, sensors, and engines, the NGAD will likely be the first sixth-generation fighter to enter service globally, ahead of similar programs in Beijing and Moscow.

U.S. Air Force's NGAD: Pioneering the Future of Air Dominance

The U.S. Air Force is betting on its upcoming Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter in order to retain supremacy in the skies well into the middle of the century. 

The developing sixth-generation platform is the service’s answer to the current threat environment. Russia and China are rapidly expanding their own aerial programs, and the race to secure the technology of the future is ongoing. Time is of the essence.

The Air Force has drastically increased its planned spending on the NGAD program. According to recently published budget documents, the service is set to spend at least $28.5 billion from 2025-2029. While exact price estimates will probably shift down the line, each new airframe will cost “multiple hundreds of millions” of dollars, according to Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall. 

NGAD may cost taxpayers a large sum over the years, but maintaining air supremacy will be well worth it.

The Origins of NGAD

Back in 2016, the Air Force released its Air Superiority 2030 Flight Plan, which evolved into the NGAD. DARPA’s Air Dominance Initiative Study, published two years earlier, was at the heart of the program. 

The futuristic “family of systems” consists of a sixth-generation fighter and a constellation of AI-enabled drone wingmen. As detailed by Sandboxx News, “At the heart of the Collaborative Combat Aircraft concept is the need for capable artificial intelligence agents that can fly NGAD’s drone wingmen, take cues from local human operators, and even serve as advanced co-pilots inside the crewed fighter itself to help reduce the massive cognitive load pilots must manage while flying their aircraft in combat. The Air Force’s Project VENOM is among the efforts underway to make exactly that happen.”

In addition to the presence of uncrewed systems, the NGAD will include the output of the Advanced Engine Technology Program aimed at improving electrical power generation. The sixth-gen platform is also expected to feature innovative composite materials and structures, as well as a range of sophisticated radar, sensors, and electro-optical cameras. The ultimate goal is to fully retire the older fifth-generation F-22 aircraft once enough NGADs are produced. For now, the service plans to procure around 200 NGAD stealth fighter jets, although the number could change.

Beyond NGAD: Enter F/A-XX 

The Air Force’s NGAD is not the only next-gen platform in the works in the U.S. military.

The Navy is also developing a sixth-gen F/A-XX jet. Recently, the Navy made drastic cuts to its new fighter, however, in order to contend with congressionally imposed budget cuts. It appears the Air Force’s sixth-gen platform will be the first of its kind to enter service in the country.

If Beijing and Moscow are slower to produce their own futuristic counterparts, the Air Force’s NGAD will be the first of its kind to enter service across the globe.

About the Author: Maya Carlin 

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

All images are Creative Commons or from Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The AbramsX features advanced Chobham armor, a powerful 120mm smoothbore gun, and a gas turbine engine providing 1,500 horsepower, allowing it to reach speeds of up to 45 miles per hour.

-Additionally, it includes a digital command system and a laser warning receiver system.

-While technologically advanced, there are concerns that the AbramsX might be designed for past wars rather than future conflicts.

AbramsX: The Future of Main Battle Tanks or a Relic of the Past?

In recent years, the main battle tank has come in for a lot of criticism – especially the more advanced versions of the weapons system. 

In the Iraq War, MBTs were next to useless as the insurgency got underway. In Ukraine now, the Russians are so afraid of risking their advanced T-14 Armata tanks that they are relying on the old Soviet-era T-72 MBT to do the heavy lifting. (These systems are easy to produce and relatively cheap.) 

Nevertheless, the Americans are moving ahead with another iteration of the Abrams, the tank that did so much to help the U.S. win during Operation Desert Storm and which remains the pinnacle of active MBTs – at least until the T-14 shows what it can do. 

The coming version is known as the AbramsX.

The Abrams Tank Gets a Second Wind

Named after U.S. Army General Creighton Abrams, the Abrams is a third-generation MBT originally designed by Chrysler Defense, which is now known as General Dynamics Land Systems. 

The original M1 Abrams first entered service in the 1980s and was designed to do one thing: stop the Red Army from breaching Western Europe via the Fulda Gap in Germany. That conflict never materialized, so the Abrams was put to work in other areas, most notably during Operation Desert Storm. 

Sadly, the conflict in Europe that the Abrams was designed to fight appears to be upon us yet again in the killing fields of Ukraine. As a result, the Americans have promised 31 older M1 Abrams tanks to Kyiv. But Ukraine has resisted deploying these assets, because they are older and are too heavy for the soft ground of Ukraine. 

Geography is important in war, who knew?

Some Technical Specifications for the AbramsX

Still, the new AbramsX is on its way. One of its notable features is its advanced Chobham armor. This composite armor, developed in the United Kingdom in the 1960s, provides superior protection against a wide range of threats, including kinetic energy penetrators and high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) rounds. 

The new Abrams is also armed to the teeth. It’s equipped with a 120mm smoothbore gun, the mainstay gun of Western main battle tanks for decades. This gun can fire a variety of ammunition types, including Armor-Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot rounds and high-explosive HEAT rounds.

But the AbramsX isn’t just about firepower and protection. It’s also about mobility. The tank is powered by a gas turbine engine that provides a whopping 1,500 horsepower. This allows the AbramsX to reach speeds of up to 45 miles per hour on roads, making it one of the fastest tanks in the world.

The AbramsX features other advanced technologies. Its digital command and control system allows the crew to share information and coordinate their actions more effectively. It also has a laser warning receiver system, which can detect when the tank is being targeted by laser-guided weapons and automatically deploy countermeasures. 

Is the New AbramsX Really Worth It?

America’s newest AbramsX MBT is a modern marvel of engineering – like, for example, America’s vaunted fleet of aircraft carriers. The new Abrams combines advanced armor, firepower, mobility, and technology to create a tank that’s a force to be reckoned with on the battlefield. Much like the U.S. Navy’s flattops, though, the AbramsX, while advanced, might be designed to fight yesteryear’s wars.

About the Author 

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: Aircraft carriers have long epitomized U.S. naval power, but advances in anti-ship technology, including drones and missiles, now challenge their viability.

-These massive vessels, costly and symbolically significant, are increasingly vulnerable to inexpensive, sophisticated attacks from adversaries like China.

-In a potential conflict, losing an aircraft carrier would be a devastating blow.

-If carriers become obsolete, the U.S. Navy might shift towards stealthier and more agile vessels such as submarines and destroyers.

-Despite heavy investments in new carrier classes, the Navy could adapt to maintain maritime dominance, drawing on its long history of evolution and innovation in naval warfare.

Are Aircraft Carriers Becoming Obsolete in Modern Warfare?

Aircraft carriers have long been symbols of U.S. naval power, but recent advancements in anti-ship technology, such as drones and missiles, have raised questions about their future viability.

These massive, expensive vessels are increasingly vulnerable to cheaper, more sophisticated attacks, particularly from adversaries like China.

In a potential conflict, the loss of an aircraft carrier would be a significant blow, both strategically and psychologically.

Should carriers become obsolete, the Navy might pivot towards stealthier and more agile vessels, such as submarines and destroyers, to maintain its maritime dominance.

Despite significant investment in new carrier classes, the Navy could adapt and find new ways to project power if required.

Aircraft carriers define the power of the U.S. Navy today. But the Navy has existed for 230 years – 248 years if you count the Continental Navy – and for the great majority of that time, the maritime service did not have aircraft carriers at all. If carriers become obsolete, the Navy will probably adapt and endure.

Why Might the Aircraft Carrier Era End?

Some pundits question the viability of the aircraft carrier in contemporary combat environments. Thanks to recent advances in anti-ship technologies, relatively cheap and low-tech equipment might be used to contain or even destroy advanced surface vessels. Drones, for example, can be deployed in swarms. They have caused problems for exponentially more expensive and more sophisticated U.S. warships off the coast of Yemen. Anti-ship missiles have become increasingly effective and have the potential to target and destroy aircraft carriers.

Carriers are, of course, massive targets – both in the literal and figurative sense. In the literal sense, aircraft carriers are one-fifth of a mile long. They carry 5,000 sailors and 100 aircraft, and they cost billions of dollars per unit. In the figurative sense, aircraft carriers are the symbol of a nation’s naval might and general fortune. Felling an aircraft carrier in the modern era would be a victory of a significance that is hard to calculate. Accordingly, they make a very attractive target. 

In a potential war against China, the U.S. would depend on carriers to deploy air power throughout the Indo-Pacific region. The Chinese undoubtedly would use their stockpile of anti-ship missiles, as well as their growing fleet of submarines, aircraft carriers, and surface vessels, to target American aircraft carriers. The loss of just one carrier would be devastating to any American war effort. Frankly, the American public is probably not conditioned for the casualties that the sinking of an aircraft carrier would entail – potentially double the lives that were lost on 9/11.

What Would Replace the Aircraft Carrier?

If, for some reason, the U.S. Navy had to move past the aircraft carrier, the process would be cumbersome and likely made with great reluctance.

Right now, the Navy has considerable resources invested in its carrier fleet – investment befitting a vessel type that is indeed the cornerstone of the service. But it could move on if necessary, and if the maritime service faces an existential threat, it will adjust accordingly. 

Adjustment could look like a pivot toward stealthier, sleeker, smaller vessels. More submarines, for example, or destroyers – vessels that would be harder for the enemy to target with drones and anti-ship missiles, and harder to locate in the first place. 

The Navy is banking on aircraft carriers being the vessel of the future. That’s why they’re comfortable investing $13 billion per boat in the brand-new Ford-class carrier. But if for some reason the Navy needed to move past the iconic aircraft carrier, it would find a way.

About the Author: Harrison Kass 

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

A new book examines the past and present of Russian thinking on deterrence.

This time, Israel must heed Theodor Meron’s warning.

Summary: The U.S. Navy's procurement of the Constellation-class frigates has faced significant issues due to rushed oversight, as highlighted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

-The $22 billion program awarded Fincantieri a contract in April 2020 before the ship design was complete, leading to potential cost increases and delays.

-The GAO criticized the Navy for not demonstrating key systems and suggested land-based testing to mitigate risks.

-Delivery of the first ship, USS Constellation, has been delayed from 2026 to 2029, with costs projected to exceed initial estimates.

-Despite these setbacks, the Constellation-class frigates are expected to enhance the Navy's multidomain warfare capabilities significantly.

GAO Report: U.S. Navy's Constellation-Class Frigate Program Faces Major Delays and Cost Overruns

The U.S. Navy mishandled one of the largest procurement programs of recent years, according to the Congressional watchdog.

In a recent report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) assesses that the Navy botched the procurement of the new Constellation class frigates because it was in a rush.

A Contract Too Soon

According to the GAO report, the Navy fell short on its oversight of the Constellation-Class Guided-Missile Frigate (FFG 62) Program, which is expected to cost approximately $22 billion.

In April 2020, the Navy awarded Fincantieri the initial contract for one plus nine frigates even though the design was incomplete. As such, costs could skyrocket before there is an operational capability.

“The frigate is using many mission systems already proven on Navy ships. However, the Navy has yet to demonstrate two systems—the propulsion and machinery control systems,” the GAO report stated.

“A planned update to the frigate test plan—combined with the opportunity afforded by schedule delays—could offer the Navy the chance to conduct land-based testing of these two unproven systems. This testing would reduce the risk of discovering issues after the ship is at sea,” the GAO report added.

To make matters even worse, Fincantieri is behind schedule with the first warship of the class, USS Constellation, and instead of delivering it on 2026 will have it ready by 2029.

In terms of costs, the new class of warships is expected to average at less than $1 billion per frigate. The USS Constellation is projected to cost approximately $1.4 billion, and in May the Navy awarded a $1 billion contract for an additional two Constellation frigates. In total, the Navy has ordered six ships as of June.

GAO has made several recommendations to the Navy that could get the program back on track. These proposals include a restructuring of the design stability metric to ensure quality over quantity; the use of an improved metric to better estimate the design stability before construction begins on the second frigate of the class; the identification of opportunities to improve the acquisition strategy; additional land-based testing of technology and systems.

The Constellation Class Frigates

Despite their cost, in terms of capabilities, the Constellation class frigates are going to boost the Navy’s ability to conduct multidomain warfare across the world. For example, the new warships will be able to operate in both open water, such as the open Indo-Pacific, and littoral, such as the first island chain, environments.

“This ship class will be an agile, multi-mission warship, capable of operations in both blue-water and littoral environments, providing increased combat-credible forward presence that provides a military advantage at sea,” the Navy states about its upcoming warship.

According to the Navy, the new class of frigates will be able to conduct surface warfare, anti-submarine warfare, air warfare, and electromagnetic warfare. As multirole warships, the Constellation frigates will be able to fill many gaps and potentially free up larger warships, such as destroyers, for more demanding missions.

To be effective in its role, the new frigates will pack quite an arsenal, including torpedoes, Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR), Baseline Ten (BL10) Aegis Combat System, and a Mk 41 Vertical Launch System.

Through the Constellation class, the Navy is reviving the concept of frigates. Although in use by many navies around the world, frigates have been absent from the Navy roster since the early 2000s when the last Oliver Hazard Perry ships were retired.

About the Author 

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary: Congress is pushing the U.S. Air Force to purchase more F-15EX Eagle II fighter jets and keep the production line open longer amid rising tensions with China. A proposal in the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) aims to increase the Air Force's fleet to 122 F-15EXs, more than the current target of 98 but still short of the original goal of 144.

-The move reflects lawmakers' belief in the F-15EX's potential and aims to avoid issues faced with the prematurely closed F-22 Raptor production line.

-The F-15EX, capable of Mach 2.5 speeds and carrying 30,000 pounds of munitions, offers versatile capabilities for both near-peer and less advanced conflicts. While not a fifth-generation aircraft, it complements the F-35 and F-22 by handling various missions and freeing up these advanced jets for critical tasks. Congress's intervention underscores the importance of maintaining robust and adaptable air capabilities in an era of global competition.

Congress is forcing the Air Force to buy more F-15EX Eagle II fighter jets and keep the aircraft’s production line open for longer as tensions with China continue to rise.

A recent proposal to the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) – the military budget – seeks to force the Air Force to buy more F-15EX Eagle II fighter jets and prevent the production line from closing too early.

Congress’ move suggests that the lawmakers see a lot of potential in the F-15EX Eagle II and don’t want to limit options for the Air Force down the line. Congress is likely trying to prevent what happened with the F-22 Raptor stealth fighter jet, which had its production line close too soon with the result of having extreme difficulties keeping an operational F-22 fleet.

With the new proposed amendment to the NDAA, the Air Force would end up having a total of 122 F-15EX Eagle II fighter jets, which is still fewer than the initial goal of 144 aircraft but more than the current target of 98 aircraft.

Indeed, the F-15EX Eagle II looks like is here to stay and play an important role in the Air Force’s deterrence capabilities. As the overall U.S. military enters a phase of increased competition across the globe, aircraft like the F-15EX Eagle II with versatile capabilities that can prove useful in both near-peer warfare and against less advanced adversaries are invaluable.

Congress understands that and is looking to safeguard the F-15EX Eagle II capability well into the future by ensuring that the Air Force buys an adequate number of aircraft. Although it might sound strange that Congress, which is the approver of military funds, is forcing the Air Force to spend more money on a capability, this is the way the American democracy works, and it generally works well because Congress has a better view of long-term threats than the Air Force, which is focused on its own turf.

THE F-15EX EAGLE II

The F-15EX Eagle II is truly a beast in the air. It can hit speeds of up to Mach 2.5 (close to 2,800 miles per hour) while carrying around 30,000 pounds of munitions. It has an operational range of 2,000 miles without refueling and a combat radius of about 800 miles. Depending on the mission, it can carry a large number of both air-to-air (up to 12 missiles) and air-to-ground munitions (up to 24 bombs and missiles), making it a versatile platform able to undertake several mission sets, including air superiority and ground attack.

The F-15EX Eagle II iteration is very similar to the older versions of the F-15 and thus pilots and maintainers need less time to get accustomed to it. Although not a 5th-generation aircraft like the F-35 and F-22, the F-15EX Eagle II is advanced enough to be competitive in a 5th-generation battlefield. But what makes the aircraft particularly useful is its ability to excel in any mission in between, thus freeing up 5th-generation resources for the most pressing missions.

The Air Force intends the F-15EX Eagle II as a temporary solution to the delays of the F-35 program. As we have discussed previously at Sandboxx News, the F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter jet production is facing serious delays due to a software suite. The delays are becoming so serious that assembly lines are producing brand-new F-35 fighter jets that can’t be delivered and are instead stored up.

Perhaps the most interesting fact about the F-15EX Eagle II is that it wasn’t intended to be an aircraft for the U.S. Air Force. Indeed, the Air Force didn’t envision the need for another version of the venerable F-15 –which happens to be the most effective air superiority fighter jet currently in the world with a kill ratio of 103 kills to three losses across all of its versions. Instead, the F-15EX Eagle II came to be because a group of U.S. partners in the Middle East, mainly Saudi Arabia and Qatar, worked with Boeing and funded upgrades for their fleets of F-15 aircraft. As a result, the F-15SA and F-15QA were developed for the Saudi Air Force and Qatari Air Force, respectively. Eventually, when the U.S. Air Force expressed an interest in an advanced version of the F-15, Boeing had already done the research and development.

About the Author: 

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

This article was first published by Sandboxx News.