Diplomacy & Crisis News

As NATO approaches its 75th anniversary, the transatlantic community stands at an inflection point. The Pax Americana is over, democracy is in retreat, and the rules-based order hangs by a thread. Meanwhile, the U.S. is more riven with acrimony and disagreement than at any point since the Civil War. Further American security assistance to Ukraine remains uncertain as Russia continues to make incremental gains across the 600-mile front. On the other hand, Europe has no more aid to give. If one can draw a positive from the past two years, it’s the reinvigoration of NATO. However, many are rightfully wondering whether unity will be enough. Without American aid, Ukraine would have fallen, and Europe is more reliant on Washington for security than ever before. It’s time to reassess the transatlantic security architecture. NATO must remain the cornerstone, but the alliance needs a robust European pillar. America can no longer single-handedly confront every global crisis. Perhaps controversially, the circumstances mandate a pan-European army under the auspices of the EU.

The fact that Britain, France, and Germany cannot support Ukraine without American aid should be a wake-up call in every Western capital. The Russian invasion revealed shocking decay within even Europe’s most capable militaries. Their tanks did not work, ammunition was scarce, and their defense industrial bases proved incapable of keeping up. This readiness level is deplorable, but so is Washington’s response. President Biden is repeating a strategic mistake that has plagued every administration since the Cold War. This error is the failure to realize the advantages of a militarily self-sufficient EU. The U.S. needs a capable ally that shares its values to safeguard mutual interests and check autocratic aggression. Moreover, the EU needs a credible tool to back its words if it desires a prominent role in the evolving multipolar order.

Unfortunately, the EU cannot support a war effort in its own backyard against an adversary whose economy is ten times smaller. No European country can perform autonomous operations across the full spectrum of conflict without American intervention. Moreover, Europe lacks the capabilities expected of modern militaries, notably aerial refueling, command and control, and transport. For example, the French required American aerial transport to conduct its counterterrorist operations in the Sahel. Considering France is one of Europe’s predominant military powers, this instance is particularly illustrative but surely not the only example.

Given these stark realities, Western policymakers should push for a European military anchored in the Atlantic framework. The EU should aim for an army numbering at least 100,000 troops from various member states. Participation would be optional for each state, and Brussels would need to hammer out the minutiae, like command structure and ensuring civilian control. Such a prospect seems fantastical from an American perspective, but Europe has made similar efforts in the past.

Unfortunately, the U.S. has stymied previous European attempts to enhance self-sufficiency. As the continent’s security guarantor, Washington historically wielded a de facto veto over European security policy. Consequently, American skepticism has fostered a view within Europe that establishing an independent military force would strain relations with their main security provider. Indeed, Germany, Poland, and the Baltics have publicly rebuffed France’s push for a European army based on this principle.

Since the USSR’s dissolution, each president has voiced a common concern: No EU military can duplicate NATO’s capabilities. Madeleine Albright expressed this reservation after the Saint-Malo declaration, where historically dubious Britain finally endorsed an autonomous European military force. The second Bush administration even countered an EU proposal for a rapid reaction force with a NATO equivalent. During the Trump years, the administration threatened retribution against any plans that came at the expense of American defense contractors or duplicated NATO. Meanwhile, Biden resorted to the same narrative about preserving the alliance’s integrity and avoiding replication. Instead of discouraging European ambitions, the U.S. should empower its allies across the Atlantic.

The U.S. should enthusiastically endorse the concept of a European army or, at a minimum, a form of strategic autonomy. Doing so would legitimize the idea, especially among countries hesitant for fear of upsetting the U.S. Moreover,  American backing would enable Washington to shape the process and ensure its alignment with NATO. If done correctly, a pan-European army would complement the alliance, not replicate it. NATO-EU collaboration could identify weak points where Brussels could fill the gap. The EU could then make these additional assets available within NATO.

The EU would need to establish a mechanism for joint procurement. Each country currently develops its militaries individually, so there is no coordination to ensure efficient allocation of capabilities. This fragmentation results in too many weapons systems, redundancies, and wasteful spending. By pooling resources, the EU could prioritize capabilities that are impractical for individual nations to pursue, such as aircraft carriers and aerial refueling. The ultimate objective should include a Europe that can independently conduct operations across the full spectrum of conflict. NATO would still serve its core function of collective security but with a strengthened European pillar.

Like any course of action, this endeavor comes with pitfalls. As a supranational organization, many may question, “Who would die for the EU?”. However, decades of integration have fostered a generation loyal to both their nation-state and the EU. Politicians and citizens alike see themselves as embodying and serving the interests of the European project. And with a population of 450 million, a force of 100,000 soldiers willing to defend Europe is not an unreasonable goal. Additionally, this force would complement national militaries, not supplant them. Certain countries like France take immense pride in their armed forces and would understandably never relinquish their military tradition.

Another concern is the suggestion that European countries should simply increase their defense spending. However, this is not a matter of spending, which Europe has substantially increased over the last decade. In aggregate, EU countries allocate more funds to their militaries than China and Russia. Despite this investment, they still lack critical capabilities.

Such an endeavor would span decades, but the key is to set the process in motion. Had Washington recognized the benefits of this plan decades ago, the situation in Ukraine would be much different today. Furthermore, a strategically autonomous Europe would allow the U.S. to divert more resources and, most crucially, its attention to the Asia-Pacific. The U.S., Europe, and a select number of partner countries represent the last bastions against a system where might makes right. Unfortunately, current politicians are governed by the same outmoded post-Cold War thinking. Once American policymakers realize they cannot do everything at once, the free world will be in a much better position.

Every day, Israel is plagued by more terror attacks.  Today, a terrorist opened fire on an Israeli minibus in the Binyamin region.   Last night, an explosive device was thrown on a passenger bus in Gush Etzion.   And a Palestinian who was planning a suicide bombing attack was recently arrested near Jericho.   These are merely a few of the terror incidents that Israelis have dealt with recently.   

According to the Global Terrorism Index, Israel is among the countries most affected by terrorism.  This makes one ponder, which countries are the safest ones in the world?  

According to the World Terrorism Index, Azerbaijan ranked 18th among 141 countries as being among the safest countries in the world.  Singapore, Norway, Iceland and Finland are the world’s safest countries, with Singapore being first place and the other three being tied for second place.   The top ten included Hong Kong, Switzerland, Canada, Indonesia, Denmark, Slovenia, Luxembourg, Austria, China and the Netherlands.

The Global Terrorism Index (GTI) is a comprehensive study analyzing the impact of terrorism covering 99.7 per cent of the world’s population. It takes into account the number of terrorist incidents, deaths from terrorism, counter-terrorism, the effectiveness of terrorism investigations and many other indicators.  The GTI report is produced by the Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP), using data from Dragonfly’s TerrorismTracker database and other sources.

Azerbaijan is also included in the list of 20 most secure countries in the world for crime rates.  The ranking is by the Numbea resource, which has the world’s largest statistical database of countries and cities.  During the survey, the residents were asked if they could walk alone in the city at night, were satisfied with the work of the police and whether they had been attacked or robbed over the past 12 months.

Indeed, Oghuz, Azerbaijan may be one of the few places in the world where it is safe to leave synagogues unlocked at night, without fearing burglars and anti-Semitic vandals.  There is also an Armenian church in the center of Baku.  Despite Azerbaijan’s conflict with Armenia, it remains in good condition.  As Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev proclaimed, “Today, Azerbaijan is an island of security.”

The countries experiencing the most significant levels of terrorist activities and threats, ranked by their respective threat levels, are as follows: Burkina Faso leads with 8.571 scores, followed by Israel with 8.143, Mali with 7.998, Pakistan with 7.916, Syria with 7.890, and Afghanistan with 7.825.

Subsequent rankings include Iran in 26th place with 4.464 scores, Turkey in 29th with 4.168, the USA in 30th with 4.141, Russia in 35th with 3.016, France in 38th with 2.647, Norway in 53rd with 1.747, Armenia in 76th with 0.423, the United Arab Emirates in 79th with 0.233, and Lithuania in 87th with 0.059 incidents.

Seldom discussed since the Russian aggression against Ukraine are the vast disparities between the economic wealth of the west versus the much smaller, communist/socialist dictatorship economies of Russia, Iran and North Korea (RINK) Here are two numbers to make my point perfectly clear: GDP of combined NATO countries is $47 trillion. Combined GDP of RINK is $3 trillion.  The USA alone is $28 trillion at year end 2023, compared to Russia’s $2.5 trillion, or more than 10 times larger. If wars are won purely based on economic strength, the Russian aggression should have been repelled and ended with Russia crawling back to their side of the Ukraine border within a few months had the NATO countries acted with resolve and the military might their economies can support.

When considering whether to spend another $60 billion on Ukraine (most of which is recycled through American miliary equipment manufacturers), Americans might be surprised to learn what they are getting for their $150 per person contribution. They would be supporting a fierce fighting force in relatively poor country with a per capita income level of less than $5000, compared to the USA which enjoys per capita income of $70,000.  The Ukrainians are fighting to the death for many historical reasons, one of which is to escape the stunted economic growth the country has experienced while under the control of the Kremlin. Ironically, Ukraine is poor because unlike its former USSR neighbor countries, it failed to achieve escape velocity from the iron grip of the corrupt Russian government between 1990 and 2014, when the Maiden protests finally succeeded in expelling the Kremlin’s puppet dictator Yanukovych.

Thinking about what the Ukrainians have achieved with such a relatively poor country is extraordinary. A nation with 44 million people (or roughly 35 million after the outflow of refugees) is holding off a nation of 150 million people with vast oil and gas reserves to pay for their military. The disparity in GDP between Russia and Ukraine is even more stark, barely $200 billion for Ukraine versus $2.5 trillion for Russia. This is why financial assistance is essential for Ukraine. NATO countries excluding the USA have combined GDP of $18 trillion, with Germany being the largest at $4 trillion. Total NATO GDP is $47 trillion or almost 20x that of Russia. The west and NATO citizens need to seriously adjust their perception of this ”war” and the massive imbalance in economic might.  Russia’s propaganda machine has everyone believing they have some form of economic parity and have successfully done a workaround our sanctions. When the fact is that Russia and their corrupt economy is holding by threads and with a hundred billion or more of military spending by the west, which as we have said is a very small price to pay, Russia would retreat. Putin knows this, fears this and explains his irresponsible nuclear threats.

Since WW2, Russia has been framed in the American mindset as the other superpower in terms of nuclear weapons. But what most Americans probably do not know is that Russia is far from a peer in economic terms. As stated earlier, USA GDP is $28 trillion at year end 2023 and Russia is under $3 trillion, yet Russia is able to fund upheaval, repression and bloodshed in Ukraine, the Middle East with Hamas and Iran, Georgia, Venezuela and Cuba to name just the most obvious trouble spots.  Russia will spend some $80 billion on military this year, or 3.2% percent of GDP, and up to $600 billion between 2022-2025.  But aside from the inner circle of oligarchs, the average Russian lives on well under $15,000 a year and in constant fear of speaking out about the police state in which they reside.

The US will spend about the same percentage of GDP, or about $840 billion in 2023 alone. Thus, in pure economic terms the additional $60 billion for Ukraine amounts to just an additional 7% of defense spending and just 2/10s of one percent of GDP. Given that Russia is disrupting American interests worldwide, most notably in Ukraine, the supplemental spending bill is a very small price to pay to stop Russia. The Ukrainians have done a brilliant job depleting the Russian military. Now Russian soldiers like American soldiers in Vietnam are not committed to what they are fighting for.  Whereas the Ukrainians are fighting for their independence, thus united in their conviction that they are on the right side of history.  With the proper amount of support, Ukraine together with NATOs financial superiority can push Russia back to Russia.

Consider Russia’s two favorite collaborators in global upheaval. Iran has a GDP of under $400 billion and North Korea has unreliable data which suggests GDP of $100 billion. Conditions for the average Iranian and North Korean are dismal, with per capita income levels of $4,400 and $2,000. Their leaders care far more about global aggression than the lives of their citizens. Adding the GDPs of Russia, Iran and North Korea total some $3 trillion, hardly a match for the USA or NATO combined, which account for almost half of global GDP.

Question for the military historians? How many wars were fought where one side was allowed to bomb its neighbor into oblivion and send tens of thousands of troops across their border into their small neighbor, but the nation being attacked is told by its “allies” that it cannot cross the border and attack inside the aggressors’ territory? This is the miscalculation of NATO, while the brave Ukrainian people endure nightly missile attacks.

The widely held view that Putin would not stop at the border of Ukraine if he were victorious was echoed by President Biden in his State of the Union address last week.  But he failed to credit the incredible work of the Ukrainian people to date in repelling the Russian onslaught given their much smaller population, economy and military resources. Given the threat posed by Putin, the money spent to date and the money proposed by the White House amounts to about $250 per capita spend by each American.

For this small expenditure as a percentage of the defense budgets and GDP of the USA and NATO GDP, the Ukrainian accomplishments to date are truly remarkable:

• Stopping the surprise attack on their capital city Kyiv and pushing the Russian military back to the region where fighting has been going on since and 2014.
• Russian military casualties in the tens of thousands, causing Putin to constantly draft more men, many to their graves, resulting in mounting suppressed opposition to the invasion.
• Shooting down the majority of massive nightly missile and drone attacks, showing NATO the limits of Russian warfare technology and requiring Putin to go begging for more ammunition from other pariah states like Iran and North Korea.
• Destroying 16 Russian ships in the Black Sea Fleet, without having a navy of their own.

Ukrainians Aspire to Independence and Higher Quality of Life Than Russia Can Offer

Since the fall of the USSR in 1991, the countries that became independent democracies and members of the EU have seen their nation’s wealth and per capita income rise significantly more than that of Russia or the countries stuck under Russian de facto control (e.g. Belarus to this day and Ukraine until 2014). In 2014 Ukraine was finally able to get rid of their Russian imposed President after the Maiden protests, but Russia almost immediately invaded Crimea and the eastern part of Ukraine and has forced democratic Ukraine to get bogged down in a war for independence ever since.

Former USSR states that have joined the west have experienced increases in GDP and per capita income of 8 to 10 times, or compound annual growth rates (CAGR) in the mid-teens since 1990. Ukraine and its neighbor Poland were equivalent at about $65 billion of GDP when the USSR collapsed, but a capitalist democratic Poland which joined the EU and escaped the yoke of Russian oversight has seen its GDP increase from $65 billion in 1990 to $688 billion as of 2022 the most recent year of full data. Poland’s per capita income has grown from $1,731 in 1990 to $18,321 as of 2022.  The same extraordinary growth has been generated by Lithuania, Latvia, Czech, Estonia and other East European countries. For example, Lithuania grew GDP from $7 billion in 1990 to $70 billion in 2022 and per capita income grew from $2,168 to $24,827 in 2022.

Compare these success stories which were accomplished by the hard work and ingenuity of their people in a free capitalist system, to the Russian experience. Russia has experienced GDP growth from $516 billion to $2.5 trillion, mostly the result of their oil wealth, a fourfold increase, or about 7% annually, but much less than the 13% annual growth of the nations that joined the EU. Per capita income has increased from $3,493 to $15,345 in that time frame. Thus, Russia grew at a much slower pace than their former subjugated states and on a per capita basis Russia fell behind their former colonies. Bear in mind, Russia has the benefit of tremendous natural resources wealth which has been siphoned off by oligarchs due to corruption, which significantly inflates the Russian numbers. Unfortunately, the average Russian citizen is far below the average per capita number as a result.

Ukraine has the potential to achieve the same economic growth as Poland and other neighboring states once the war and Russian aggression ends. The Ukrainians were outraged in 2013 when the Russian puppet leader Viktor Yanukovych vetoed the opportunity to sign an association agreement with the EU and this ultimately led to the Maiden Riots in 2014 which forced Yanukovych out of the country. Unfortunately, Ukraine has suffered terribly from Russian interference since 1990. The current GDP before the invasion in 2022 was just under $200 billion, or per capita income of $4,534.

 Once Ukraine’s population is allowed to blossom as a democratic capitalist society more closely aligned with the west rather than living under the thumb of the corrupt Russian regime, the economy should experience growth in the teens as well and eventually make good on debts to the west. A free capitalist Ukraine would experience a return of millions of skilled computer scientists and other highly educated citizens who could contribute to Ukraine and all of Europe via EU membership.

Bruce Harting serves on the Board of a Bank and is a Managing Director at a US investment banking firm

Summary: The F-35 Lightning II, a stealth fighter jet, received Pentagon approval for full-scale production on March 12, marking a significant milestone for the program. Under Secretary of Defense William LaPlante praised the decision, which signals the program's stability and readiness to fulfill nearly 3,500 orders across its three versions. Despite this achievement, the program faces challenges with delivering the aircraft. Technical issues and manpower shortages have halted deliveries, despite Lockheed Martin producing at normal rates. The awaited TR-3 software update, crucial for new munitions and enhanced capabilities, further complicates deliveries. The Department of Defense may accept aircraft with older software to ensure timely fulfillment, underscoring the jet's critical role in national security.

The F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter jet achieved another major milestone after the Pentagon approved full-scale production on March 12. 

“This is a major achievement for the F-35 program,” Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment William LaPlante said in a press release.

Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer, is now cleared hot to meet the vast demand for the aircraft from the U.S. military and from dozens of foreign partners. In total, there are almost 3,500 orders for the three iterations of the F-35, with several additional countries waiting to enter the program and submit their own orders. 

“This decision — backed by my colleagues in the department — highlights to the services, F-35 cooperative program partners, and Foreign Military Sales customers that the F-35 is stable and agile, and that all statutory and regulatory requirements have been appropriately addressed,” LaPlante added.

The F-35 Lightning II is the most advanced fighter jet in the skies today. A multi-role, fifth-generation stealth aircraft, the F-35 Lightning II comes in three versions (A, B, C) and can operate from the ground, from aircraft carriers, and in expeditionary conditions. 

Full-scale production approval is an important milestone, but it is of limited practical value. There are some serious issues with the production of the F-35 that largely negate the effect of the Pentagon’s announcement. 

Deliveries of F-35s have largely been halted. In its February fast facts on the F-35 program, Lockheed Martin indicated “990+” deliveries. More than a month later, in the March fast facts, the manufacturing company displays the exact same number of deliveries. To make matters more complicated, Lockheed Martin announced a few months ago that it reached the 1,000-aircraft milestone in production. 

Lockheed Martin has been producing aircraft at normal rates (approximately 158 aircraft a year) but isn’t delivering them, because technical issues and manpower shortages are delaying necessary software updates for the manufactured aircraft. 

Specifically, Lockheed Martin has been trying to roll out the TR-3 update, which includes upgrades to the F-35’s onboard digital infrastructure, data storage and processing capabilities, and user interface. In addition, the TR-3 will allow the fifth-generation stealth fighter to carry new air-to-air and air-to-ground munitions, as well as pack better sensors and cyber warfare countermeasures. 

If that wasn’t enough to complicate the situation, the F-35 Program is waiting for yet another major upgrade (Block 4) that cannot go through until the TR-3 software is ready. Block 4 is an important milestone in the F-35 program, and it will ensure that the stealth fighter is ready to fight and prevail in a contested near-peer operational environment. 

Although Lockheed Martin expects the issues with the TR-3 software to be resolved this year – within the summer according to some estimates – the Department of Defense is considering accepting deliveries of the aircraft with the older TR-2 software. 

Smooth and timely deliveries of the F-35 are a national security issue, as the fifth-generation fighter jet can make the difference in a potential conflict with a near-peer adversary. 

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 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. Email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

Image Credit: Shutterstock. 

Key Point: The United States Navy's USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) is actually the second oldest nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in service in the world today and is currently scheduled to be replaced around 2029 when the new Gerald R. Ford-class supercarrier USS Enterprise (CVN-80) enters service. That is already later than the originally planned 2028 retirement for the CVN-69.

However, last year the U.S. Navy extended the service life of the second oldest Nimitz-class vessel as the Ford-class vessels are running late. The USS Nimitz (CVN-68) is currently on track to be retired in 2026 – and the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower could even remain in service into the early 2030s.

Mark Cancian, a retired Marine colonel now a senior adviser with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., told Stars & Stripes on Thursday that keeping the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower beyond the original timeline for its retirement gives the Navy flexibility.

"It would help avoid that gap between when you plan on retiring the Eisenhower and when the Kennedy and other Ford-class carriers are ready to deploy," he explained, adding, "There is tension if you retire carriers on time and there are delays with replacements. You could end up with 10 carriers instead of 11 or 12. To be fair to the Navy, the president is always going to call on them to go anywhere in the world."

That point was made clear last October when President Joe Biden ordered the Eisenhower to the Middle East to support the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) following the Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel. Since last fall, CVN-69 has been in the Red Sea – joined by the guided-missile cruiser USS Philippine Sea and guided-missile destroyers USS Gravely and USS Mason to stop Houthi missile attacks on shipping. The carrier strike group remains in the U.S. Naval Forces Central Command/U.S. 5th Fleet area of operations to support maritime security and stability in the Middle East region.

Extending the older carriers may be necessary as the U.S. Navy's future carriers may be late in arriving. The USS Gerald R. Ford had been originally scheduled for delivery in 2015, only to be pushed back to May 2017. Her first full overseas deployment was only last year – and she is next expected to head to the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard for a $182.2 million electrical upgrade.

Moreover, two other Nimitz-class carriers, the USS George Washington (CVN-73) and USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74) are currently "out-of-service" at Naval Station Norfolk, Norfolk, Virginia – with the former completing her four-year Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) that began in August 2017. The latter vessel is next up for the scheduled RCOH, which will be completed sometime by the end of the decade.

The USS Dwight D. Eisenhower – "Ike" to its crew – is the second of the ten Nimitz-class carriers in service with the Navy today. Named to honor the 34th president of the U.S. and General of the Army, the ship has remained in service for more than four decades.

Congress authorized CVN-69 in 1970, which it later commissioned seven years later. Following more than a year of fleet training, Ike was deployed to the Mediterranean. The mighty shift underwent a major overhaul to be fitted with newer technology in the mid-1980s and was later released back into the waters by 1987.

Over its lengthy service history, the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has been deployed to a litany of combat operations. The ship’s first deployment was dubbed Operation Eagle Claw during the 1980 Iran hostage crisis. One of the carrier's most notable deployments took place during Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. CVN-69 made history when she became the second nuclear-powered carrier ever to transit the Suez Canal.

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. 

Summary: Before Alaska's statehood, the U.S. Navy embarked on an ambitious project to construct a new class of battlecruisers, the Alaska-class, in honor of the territory. Initially planned as a six-ship fleet, only two, the USS Alaska and USS Guam, were completed. These vessels emerged in response to the evolving naval threats of the 1930s, aiming to counter the German "pocket battleships" and rumored Japanese large cruisers. The Alaska-class, notably larger than existing cruisers, marked a departure from the limitations set by the Washington Naval Treaty, showcasing a significant leap in naval armament and design. Built by the New York Shipbuilding Corporation, these ships were equipped with formidable weaponry, including nine 12-inch guns and a plethora of secondary armaments, making them far more powerful than their predecessors.

Before Alaska officially became a state, the U.S. Navy designed a new fleet of battlecruisers that it named in the territory's honor. 

Six ships were initially planned for the class, but only two were built. The lead ship of the class, the USS Alaska, was laid down in 1941, followed by the USS Guam. These ships were designated as battlecruisers when they were introduced into service, since they were much larger than the Navy’s existing cruisers at the time.

The origins of the Alaska class can be traced back to the early 1930s. The Navy prioritized the construction of vessels capable of going up against Nazi Germany’s Deutschland-class cruisers, known as “pocket battleships.” Imperial Japan at the time was also rumored to be developing a new large cruiser class. Due to the guidelines outlined in the interwar periods under the Washington Naval Treaty, prior ship classes designed by the U.S., Britain, Japan, France, and Italy had been limited to 10,000 tons of displacement. But larger ships were returning to the seas.

Both Alaska and Guam were built by the New York Shipbuilding Corporation. Construction of the third ship in the class, Hawaii, was canceled in 1947 when she was roughly 84% complete. The remaining three ships that were planned – the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Samoa, were eventually canceled. 

The Alaska and Guam never fulfilled their planned roles. After Imperial Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941, the U.S. Navy shifted its focus to the development of aircraft carriers.

The Alaska measured roughly 808 feet long, with a beam length of 91 feet. The hefty battlecruiser displaced 29,779 long tons, and more than 34,000 tons at full load. 

Since the Alaska was much larger than her predecessors, she was able to sport a more formidable armament. The battlecruiser was armed with a main battery of nine 12-inch L/50 Mark 8 guns in three triple gun turrets. A secondary battery consisting of twelve 5-inch L/38 dual-purpose guns in six twin turrets was also incorporated. As detailed by National World War II Museum curator James Linn, “Standard American heavy cruiser design, like the 673 feet-long, 14,500-ton Baltimore-class, were armed with (9) 8” guns, (12) 5” guns, and (24) 20mm guns. By comparison, the Alaska’s were 808 feet-long and weighed 29,771 tons. They were armed with (9) 12” guns, (12) 5” guns, (56) 40mm guns, and (34) 20mm guns.”

Following her commissioning, the USS Alaska sailed toward Hampton Roads before beginning her shakedown cruise in the Chesapeake Bay. She then returned to the Philadelphia Navy Yard to be fitted with the new Mk 57 fire control directors for her 5-inch guns. Alaska would sail for Hawaii in 1945 where the ship would be assigned to Task Group 12.2 based out of Pearl Harbor. Alaska, alongside her sister ship Guam, was tasked with providing anti-aircraft defense for the Navy’s carriers.

The Alaska first saw combat in the Second World War in March 1945 when she participated in airstrikes over Okinawa. Japan launched a massive Kamikaze attack during this battle. 

Subsequent events have been outlined by Naval Encyclopedia: “When USS Franklin was badly damaged by bomb hits and a kamikaze, USS Alaska and USS Guam, now in the same unit, as well as two other cruisers and destroyers were detached, forming 58.2.9 in order to escort the crippled Franklin to Ulithi. They were attacked and USS Alaska claimed another D4Y. It happened that gunfire from one of her 5-inch guns accidentally caused flash burns on several men nearby which became her only casualties of war. She became fighter director due to her better air search radar, vectoring fighters in interception along the way, and downed a Kawasaki Ki-45 Toryu.”

In the later days of the war, the Alaska was assigned to Cruiser Task Force 95. Overall, the battlecruiser was awarded three battle stars for her performance during the war. By the end of the 1950s, the Navy considered converting Alaska and Guam into guided missile cruisers. However, the costly nature of such a conversion was nixed by the service. The Alaska was officially stricken from the Naval Vessel Registrar in 1960 and was broken up for scrap.

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.

Email the author or contact us: Editor@nationalinterest.org. 

Summary: The escalating nuclear threat from Russia, accentuated by its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, puts a spotlight on President Vladimir Putin's unpredictable demeanor and alarming rhetoric on nuclear weaponry. With election season underway in Russia, Putin's assured re-election is being promoted through a media blitz, despite the nation's corrupt political landscape rendering it almost unnecessary. Putin's boast about Russia's superior nuclear triad, capable of launching nuclear weapons from ground, air, and sea, underscores a formidable deterrence strategy. These assertions are not taken lightly, as the Kremlin has issued credible nuclear threats against Ukraine and the West since the conflict's inception on February 24, 2022.

The large-scale invasion of Ukraine showed that Russian President Vladimir Putin is unhinged and unpredictable. So when he starts talking about nuclear weapons, Putin’s words might not be completely empty. 

It is election season in Russia, and Putin is going on a media spree to bolster his image – though in the country’s corrupt political system, it’s rather unnecessary. His re-election for another six years is certain. 

During one of his media appearances, Putin spoke about the Russian nuclear triad. 

“Our triad, the nuclear triad, it is more modern than any other triad. Only we and the Americans actually have such triads. And we have advanced much more here,” the Russian leader said in an interview on Russian state television. 

When referring to the “triad,” Putin was talking about the capability of some nuclear powers to launch nuclear weapons from the ground, air, and sea. The ability to launch nukes from these three domains creates the best possible deterrence, as it ensures a second strike in the event of a surprise attack. 

For example, if Russia attacked the United States with intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) carrying nuclear warheads, the U.S. military would be able to respond with a nuclear strike from its submarines, which patrol around the world nonstop with nukes at the ready. During the Cold War, when tensions with the Soviet Union were sky-high, the U.S. Air Force had strategic bombers armed with nuclear weapons flying 24/7, ready to strike back in the event of a surprise Soviet attack. 

If it works properly, a nuclear triad is unbeatable and lets the other side know that a surprise first strike would not go unpunished. 

The Kremlin has repeatedly threatened Ukraine and the West with nuclear warfare since Russia invaded on February 24, 2022. These are credible threats. The U.S. intelligence community even prepared assessments for a possible Russian tactical nuclear strike somewhere in Ukraine. 

But how many nuclear weapons does Russia have?

The Russian military possesses the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. While estimates vary, the Kremlin probably has around 5,600 nuclear warheads of all sizes and destructive power. 

The Strategic Rocket Forces, a separate branch of the Russian military, is responsible for maintaining and operating Moscow’s ground-launched nuclear weapons. Western estimates suggest that Russia has over 300 ICBMs that can be matched with about 1,200 nuclear warheads.

When it comes to the maritime component of the Russian nuclear triad, the Russian Navy has 11 ballistic missile submarines (Delta, Kilo, and Borei class subs) that can each carry about 16 ballistic missiles equipped with nuclear warheads.

Finally, the air leg of the Russian nuclear triad includes Tu-160 Blackjack and Tu-95MS Bear long-range strategic bombers that can carry air-launched cruise missiles equipped with nuclear warheads. The Russian Aerospace Forces are also working on a new bomber, the PAK DA, which is expected to have some sort of stealth capabilities. 

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 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. Email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

Image Credit: Shutterstock. 

As the U.S. announces plans to build a humanitarian aid port in Gaza, a confrontation now brews between the Biden administration and the Netanyahu government over Palestinian refugees. Can President Biden forestall an Israeli military offensive into the border city of Rafah? In this episode, Jacob Heilbrunn speaks with Greg Priddy, a Senior Fellow for the Middle East at the Center for the National Interest. Priddy previously served as Director for Global Oil at Eurasia Group.

His recent piece “Joe Biden’s Gaza Port Initiative Can’t Hide U.S.-Israel Discord” appears in The National Interest.

Image Credit: Joe Biden/Creative Commons. 

Summary: Russia is upgrading its Tu-160 Blackjack bomber, known as the Tu-160M2, with a production relaunch in Kazan. This strategic bomber, the world’s largest, heaviest, and fastest, will see improvements in armament, electronic warfare systems, and onboard equipment. Despite its impressive capabilities, including Mach 2 speed and powerful Kuznetsov NK-32 engines, the original Tu-160 faced maintenance issues. The Tu-160M's impact on Russia’s military efforts, particularly in Ukraine, remains uncertain, given the country's history of delayed military deliveries. This modernization effort highlights Russia's intent to enhance its strategic aerial capabilities amidst ongoing geopolitical tensions.

Russia is working to upgrade its Tu-160 Blackjack bomber, the largest and heaviest aircraft in the world capable of Mach 2 flight. 

The upgraded Tu-160, known as the Tu-160M2, will be built at a relaunched production line in Kazan.

But will the updates address the maintenance problems that plagued the original? And will the aircraft make a meaningful contribution to Russia’s hampered war effort in Ukraine?

Known to NATO as the “White Swan,” the Tu-160 Blackjack is a supersonic, variable-sweep wing nuclear-capable heavy strategic bomber and airborne missile platform. 

Designed by the Tupolev Design Bureau, the Tu-160 was introduced in 1987, shortly before the fall of the Soviet Union. Only the experimental American XB-70 Valkyrie was a longer or faster bomber. 

Nearly four decades after its design, the Tu-160 is still the largest and heaviest combat aircraft in use anywhere in the world. It is the fastest bomber in service and the largest and heaviest variable-sweep wing airplane ever flown.

To propel such a heavy airframe, the Tu-160 relies on four Kuznetsov NK-32 afterburning turbofan engines, which happen to be the most powerful engines ever fitted to a combat aircraft.

About 30% of the Tu-160’s airframe is built from titanium, a lightweight and uncommonly strong alloy, yet the jet weighs about 110 tons when empty. The swing-wing hinge alone weighs about six tons.

Four crew members are needed to pilot the Tu-160 – a pilot, co-pilot, bombardier, and defensive systems operator. Each crew member sits in a K-36LM ejection seat, which is found in several Soviet/Russian aircraft.

The Tu-160 was one of the last weapons systems delivered to the Soviet Union. When the USSR fell, Kyiv inherited half of the Soviet’s fleet of Tu-160s, which happened to be stationed in Ukraine. Russia negotiated to purchase back a portion of the lost bombers, while the remaining airframes were scrapped.

The Ukrainian jets represented a significant portion of the total Tu-160s, as the jet was never produced in mass numbers. Until modernization efforts were undertaken, only nine test airframes and 27 serially produced airframes had ever flown.  

Last year, the Kremlin announced that the Tu-160M had entered trials with the Russian Defense Ministry.

“The first upgraded protype of the Tu-160M strategic missile-carrying bomber developed by the Tupolev Public Company has entered the program of state joint trials,” the United Aircraft Corporation, a state-owned company, said.

The newest version of the Tu-160 is being offered with notable upgrades to the armament, electronic warfare systems, and onboard radio-electronic equipment. The first Tu-160M with upgraded equipment began a factory test in December 2021, shortly before Russian President Vladimir Putin directed his forces to invade Ukraine.

The new production push could result in upward of 50 new Tu-160M aircraft being delivered to the Russian air force.

However, Russian weapons manufacturers don’t have the most reliable track record of delivering products smoothly or efficiently.

So don’t expect Russia to be in command of 50 new Tu-160Ms anytime soon.

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: Russian Military. 

Summary: The U.S. Navy's need for an advanced attack submarine fleet is critical in countering A2/AD strategies employed by adversaries like China and Russia. The Virginia-class Block V submarines, costing $4.3 billion each, offer a more affordable yet equally advanced alternative to the Seawolf-class. Despite their importance in penetrating enemy defenses and projecting power, the Navy has scaled back on ordering these submarines due to industrial and budgetary constraints. This decision comes at a time when the Navy continues to invest in Ford-class aircraft carriers, despite their vulnerability to A2/AD systems. The Block V Virginia-class submarines, with capabilities for long-range missile strikes and special operations support, are essential for maintaining U.S. maritime dominance, especially in shallow waters like the South China Sea.

The U.S. Navy requires a large fleet of advanced attack submarines if it is to project power. This is because rivals such as China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea –  and even non-state threats like the Yemen-based Houthi rebels – are building anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) defensive systems. These are designed to prevent traditional U.S. power projection platforms such as the aircraft carrier from approaching contested territories, thereby negating the U.S. military’s ability to deter these rivals. 

With only a handful of the expensive and complex Seawolf-class attack submarines on hand, the Navy has come to rely on the newer Virginia-class Block V submarines. 

These systems, costing $4.3 billion per unit to build, are considered more affordable than the Seawolf and just as advanced. 

The Navy had been building an average of two Virginia-class subs per year. But, much to the shock of many defense experts, the Navy canceled one of the Virginia-class submarines from its requests for Fiscal Year 2025, citing a “struggling industrial base and stifled procurement funding stemming under Congressional spending caps.” 

Not to worry, though, the Navy continues blowing its budget on the $13 billion Ford-class aircraft carrier, which is likely to be kept out of any fight with China out of fear of what Beijing’s A2/AD capabilities could do to it. 

The Navy has been explicit about its need to expand the attack submarine fleet, but it has consistently failed to accomplish this worthy goal. Considering steady advances in China’s A2/AD systems, and the aforementioned “struggling industrial base” here in America, the Navy needs to start moving much faster toward the goal. Otherwise its ability to project power will be seriously diminished. 

The Virginia-class Block V submarine allows the Navy to project power deep inside an enemy’s A2/AD bubbles. It is likely the best U.S. Navy attack submarine ever built to date. 

These submarines can carry out devastating missile strikes at long range. Because they possess what many experts refer to as acoustic dominance, they can evade detection far better than any other submersible platform. 

Meanwhile, the Block V Virginia class’ fly-by-wire control system allows the ships to operate more safely in shallower waters. The South China Sea and Taiwan Strait are considered far shallower than other locations U.S. submarines operate, making the fly-by-wire system key to ensuring safe operations while the submarines maneuver in those contested regions. 

This class of submarine can carry up to 37 torpedo-sized weapons. The Block V has an expanded vertical launch system that can accommodate 28 projectiles, namely the Tomahawk cruise missile. The new Tomahawks being outfitted to the Block V possess an anti-ship missile capability, as well as their traditional land-attack mode. 

Lastly, the submarine has a reconfigurable torpedo room that can substitute as a preparation area for large U.S. Special Forces teams. These commandos can store themselves and their equipment in this part of the submarine. Once the submarine reaches its destination, the operators can stealthily maneuver themselves off the vessel and move toward their targets. 

Virginia-class Block Vs are designed for more efficient combat operations in littoral waters. In other words, these subs can get close to the enemy and blitz the bejesus out of them in ways that aircraft carriers and their attendant air wings will be unable to do if A2/AD systems are present and effective. The Virginia class was meant to wage war on China. Yet the Navy continues to shortchange itself by refusing to build sufficient numbers of these systems. 

Inevitably, the Navy will realize how essential this submarine is to win the next war. Sadly, it doesn’t seem like anyone in Washington cares or understands what’s happening to the U.S. Navy.

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.

Summary: The Russian military recently bolstered its armored forces with a new delivery of T-90M "Proryv" main battle tanks (MBTs) from Rostec, the state aerospace and defense conglomerate. This latest shipment aims to replenish units that have suffered losses in Ukraine, though the exact number of tanks in the batch remains undisclosed. Highlighting the continuous evolution of military technology, these modernized tanks come equipped with a suite of enhancements designed to increase crew survivability and combat effectiveness.

Russian state aerospace and defense conglomerate Rostec has reportedly delivered a new batch of T-90M “Proryv” main battle tanks (MBTs) to the Russian military. The shipment of the modernized tanks was meant to replace recent losses in Ukraine, but it is unclear how many MBTs were actually in the latest “batch.”

More importantly, Rostec announced that the newly supplied tanks feature a range of enhancements aimed at improving crew survivability and operational effectiveness in combat scenarios.

The T-90M Proryv is the latest modernization variant of the Russian MBT that first entered into service in 1994.

Dylan Malyasov recently wrote in the Defence Blog that the T-90M Proryv tanks boast all-around protection and a modern, highly automated fire control system designed for 24/7 operation. Other upgrades to the Russian-made MBTs include an advanced turret, as well as enhancements to the powertrain, transmission system, and suspension, resulting in improved armor protection.

As previously reported by Harrison Kass for The National Interest, one area where the T-90M is superior to its predecessor is its armor. Whereas the T-90 relied upon Kontakt-5 armor, the M-variant will be encased within Relikt built-in Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA). ERA can protect against tandem warheads—and reduces the chance of penetration from armor-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) rounds. Additional protective features include rubber side skirts, cage armor, and spall lining. To further protect the crew, the T-90M uses an NBC system, which uses tank interior sealing and overpressure generation to protect against mass destruction weapons.

The Proryv variant is armed with a 125mm 2A46M-4 smoothbore gun that is capable of firing standard ammunition as well as anti-tank guided missiles Refleks NATO Code AT-11 Sniper-B rounds. Secondary armament includes a remotely operated weapon station armed with an NSVT 12.7mm heavy machine gun and a 7.62mm PTKM coaxial machine gun. The T-90M’s configuration is similar to the previous models, with a driver compartment at the front, a turret at the center of the hull, and a power plant located at the rear. It is propelled by a 1000mm 12-cylinder engine, allowing it to reach speeds of 60 kilometers per hour on roads and 50 km off-road.

However, the T-90M has still been noted for inheriting many of the technical deficiencies typical of earlier Soviet-era tank designs, including those found in the T-72/80/90 family—notably the autoloader in the turret.

Yet, it was just last month that Russian president Vladimir Putin poured significant praise on the T-90 Proryv during a trip to Uralvagonzavod, while he also called for more advanced fighting vehicles.

“T-90 is the best tank in the world without any exaggeration. Our tankmen and the adversary recognize it as the best in the world,” Putin added while acknowledging that any military hardware can get outdated with time. “We have to think about new generations of hardware. The designers know what to make and are working already.”

In addition to the new batch of T-90Ms that Rostec has produced, it was further reported this week that India has already produced nearly 1,000 of the Russian-designed tanks under license.

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.

Summary: The U.S. Air Force's B-21 Raider represents the next leap forward in strategic bomber technology, having taken its maiden flight in November of last year. As it moves through development towards becoming the backbone of the Air Force's long-range strike capabilities, questions about the total number of units to be produced remain open. The initial plan for a minimum of 100 bombers aims to modernize and replace aging fleets, with a focus on countering emerging threats from near-peer adversaries like China.

The U.S. Air Force's B-21 Raider took its maiden flight last November. While progress is being made on developing the future backbone of the Air Force's bomber fleet, there is still no solid consensus on how many of the long-range strategic bombers will be produced. A formal decision is unlikely to be made anytime soon.

"The decision point, with lead time accounted for, to go past 100 is not until the mid to late '30s," Lt. Gen. Richard G. Moore Jr. told lawmakers on the House Armed Services Committee on March 12.

"So the commitment right now is to 100 aircraft. That takes us for procurement into the late '30s," Moore added. "The decision whether or not to go past that may very well not be based on China, because it will be made at a time when we don't foresee the security environment and we don't need to."

As reported by Air & Space Forces magazine, the Air Force planned to acquire a minimum of 100 B-21 Raiders to replace its aging B-1B Lancers and B-2 Spirits. The Raider is set to operate alongside the even older B-52 Stratofortress until the late 2040s, and perhaps even beyond. However, officials at Air Force Global Strike Command have argued that the service needs more of the future stealth bombers to effectively counter near-peer adversaries, notably China.

In addition to the single B-21 currently being used for flight testing, at least five other prototype Raiders are in various stages of production. Those six will be dedicated to test activities, but after the developmental and operational testing has been completed, they will be modified into operational bombers.

It is unclear whether the Air Force will reach the minimum of 100 bombers requested by 2039. That will require annual production of six or seven bombers. The service hasn't disclosed how many aircraft are being produced throughout the Low-Rate Initial Production phase, which the bombers entered in January. 

Aerospace firm Northrop Grumman was awarded the contract to produce the next-generation bomber in 2015, and the company quickly assembled a nationwide team to design, test, and build the B-21. The Raider – named for the 80 men who took part in the World War II Doolittle Raid on Tokyo in the spring of 1942 – was developed using the aerospace firm's digital engineering practices and advanced manufacturing techniques in tandem.

The testing aircraft are being built on the same lines, using the same tools and processes, that will build the eventual full-production aircraft. That approach was adopted to enable production engineers and technicians to capture lessons learned and apply them directly to follow-on aircraft, driving home a focus on repeatability, producibility, and quality.

Some 8,000 employees of Northrop Grumman and various other defense contractors of all sizes, spread across 40 states, have been secretly building the Air Force's new stealth bomber. Great efforts have been taken to prevent China and other potential adversaries from gaining access to its technology.

In addition to building a bomber with state-of-the-art technology and capabilities, Air Force officials have further emphasized the focus on containing costs while simultaneously allowing for maximum flexibility. The B-21 has been noted for being designed with an open systems architecture that would enable rapid integration of future capabilities to keep pace with the highly contested threat environment.

Yet, in addition to the Raider being the most advanced aircraft built to date, it could also be among the most expensive planes to ever fly, with each costing around $700 million. That could affect how many are built.

The Raider may also not be alone in the skies, as China could officially unveil its Xi'an H-20 to the public in the coming months.

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.

Summary: Russia's development of the Sukhoi S-70, also known as Hunter-B, signals a significant leap towards integrating advanced stealth and combat capabilities into its drone arsenal. Designed in collaboration between Sukhoi and MiG, the S-70 promises to be a formidable presence on the battlefield, potentially altering the dynamics of aerial combat with its stealth features, impressive speed, and long-range capabilities. Despite these advancements, the drone's deployment faces challenges, notably due to international sanctions that have impacted Russia's ability to procure crucial components, raising questions about the feasibility and timing of the S-70 reaching operational status. 

Drone warfare has taken center stage in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Both sides in the conflict use a wide range of domestic and imported unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to pursue their war efforts. 

Moscow relies on homegrown drones supplemented by Iran-designed counterparts, while Kyiv uses its own UAVs alongside weapons imported from the West. 

The Kremlin has long claimed that when it arrives, Russia’s Sukhoi S-70 drone will dominate on the battlefield. Often referred to as Hunter-B, when this stealth-heavy unmanned combat aerial vehicle does enter service, NATO will surely have to take note.

According to Russian state-run media sources, the Ohotnik S-70 drone has been under development for roughly fifteen years. 

In 2011, manufacturer Sukhoi was selected by Russia’s Defense Ministry to design and create a new unmanned reconnaissance and attack drone for its armed forces. Currently, the upcoming UAV is being created by Sukhoi and MiG collaboratively at the Novosibirsk Aircraft Production Association. The manufacturers debuted the S-70 in 2017, showcasing the weapon’s flying wing configuration. Within a few years, the drone successfully carried out its maiden flight and flew above the Chkalov State Flight Test Center in Akhtubinsk at an altitude of 600 meters.

In 2019, a Su-57 prototype was spotted flying alongside an S-70. According to Russian officials, the Su-57 is being used to test the S-70’s avionics systems. Russia’s Ministry of Defense published footage depicting the Hunter-B drone flying next to a Su-57 to test the jet’s radar and its ability to use long-range air-launched weapons.

The Hunter-B drone weighs approximately 20 tons and is powered by the same AL-31 turbojet engine that is used by the Sukhoi Su-27 fighter jet. With this engine, the UAV can reach speeds greater than 620 miles per hour, with a range of nearly 3,730 miles. Some Russian outlets suggest that the S-70 could deploy the Kh-59 Mk2 standoff cruise missile, which is estimated to be capable of reaching targets at least 150 miles away. Part of the Kh-59 series of heavy tactical missiles, this variant can carry a 500-pound warhead. 

The new drone is expected to fly alongside the Su-57 stealth fighter in a wingman role, similar to plans for the U.S. Air Force’s upcoming Next Generation Air Dominance program. Andrey Yelchaninov, first deputy chairman of the board of Moscow’s Russian-Military Industrial Commission, described the plan: 

“These planes and drones can interact not only with each other but also in various types of combat formations.” He added that “within a very short timeframe, there will be a possibility to control several Okhotnik drones from the Su-57 cockpit.”

Russian defense contractor Rostec examined the artificial intelligence datalink that enables the loyal wingman connection between the S-70 and the Su-57: 

“AI-based technology enables noise-immune coding through the use of parallel channels. This is the ‘wrap’ of the technology. Its structure includes multiple interleaving of symbols, time synchronization during transfer, simultaneous transmission of data in all directions [air-to-ground or air-to-air], and increasing the range of transmitted data.”

Since Russia first invaded Ukraine more than two years ago, the international community has imposed heavy sanctions on the Kremlin, crippling its defense output capabilities. In fact, Russia has so greatly struggled to acquire computer chips and other components necessary to sustain its military equipment that it has resorted to repurposing microchips from dishwashers and refrigerators. 

Moscow’s ability to produce the S-70 drones on schedule hinges on how it confronts its manufacturing limitations. Russia could resort to alternate means of acquiring the materials needed to get the Hunter-B drone to the frontlines. For example, Russian officials have depended on their Iranian counterparts to fulfill Moscow’s drone needs over the last two years. Tehran could contribute to Moscow’s production efforts regarding the S-70 drone as well. 

Russia has a tendency to exaggerate its military equipment’s capabilities, so the relative sophistication of the S-70 may be overblown. Considering Moscow’s lack of progress in the Russia-Ukraine war, the imminent deployment of the Hunter-B drone seems unlikely.

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.