The National Interest

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.

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. 

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.

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. 

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.

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, 

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.

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, 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.

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.

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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. 

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. 

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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."

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."

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Summary: Throughout history, fire has been a devastating weapon, from the Byzantine Empire's secretive "Greek fire" to modern flamethrowers and incendiary weapons. The U.S. military has largely abandoned such weapons, but Russia has continued to develop and deploy them. The TOS-1A Solntsepek, a thermobaric rocket launcher mounted on a T-72 tank chassis, exemplifies this trend. Designed to incinerate targets with a massive, high-temperature explosion, the TOS-1A has seen use in Ukraine, where its destructive power has been highlighted.

-Despite their effectiveness, thermobaric weapons are controversial due to their indiscriminate nature and potential for civilian casualties. The latest version, the TOS-2 Tosochka, is currently undergoing trials, further advancing Russia's incendiary capabilities.

During the Middle Ages, the Byzantine Empire developed its infamous "Greek fire" – a weapon that was so devastating that its military kept it largely a secret. Even today it remains somewhat of a mystery of how it was made or who "invented it." Yet, it is known that it harnessed the power of fire and literally burned a trail of destruction in its path, while it was nearly impossible to extinguish.

In addition to burning the enemy alive, Greek fire was also used for psychological warfare, as the sight and sound of the weapon alone were intimidating and disheartening to enemy soldiers. It was arguably one of the first "terror weapons" to see widespread use.

Though fire as a weapon largely diminished over time, it was revived during the First World War with the advent of the man-portable flamethrower. The ability to shoot fire at an enemy proved highly effective, so much so that the United States military even developed specialized flamethrowing tanks!

However, even before the end of the Cold War, many nations including the United States ceased using such horrific weapons. Yet, Moscow had essentially gone in another direction and it has since doubled down with its efforts to utilize fire on the modern battlefield. Rather than the backpack-and-nozzle systems that were employed with infantry throughout both World Wars, Russia developed its TOS-1A Solntsepek ('Scorching Sun'), a multiple rocket launcher platform mounted on a T-72 tank chassis to launch thermobaric rockets.

In this way, it is more about launching weapons that start a fire than shooting flames!

The TOS-1A was an updated version of the TOS-1 'Burantino,' a heavily armored rocket launcher that could launch incendiary and thermobaric rockets – and meant to kill or rush any "soft target" in its path.  It was essentially a 220 mm 24-barrel multiple rocket launcher that was mounted on the chassis of a T-72/T-90 main battle tank.

The system's first combat tests took place in 1988 and 1989 in the Panjshir Valley during the Soviet–Afghan War. Much like the Byzantine Empire's Greek Fire, the Solntsepek proved to be a terror weapon that caused panic. It has been employed in the ongoing war in Ukraine, where Russian airborne troops have been equipped with the TOS-1A.

"You are being given a formidable weapon, which has no equal in the arsenals of the collective West," one Russian colonel said in the statement posted by the defense ministry, Newsweek reported.

According to Russian state media and defense exporter Rosoboronexport, the TOS-1A has a maximum range of 5.6 miles and can be combat-ready within a minute and a half.

The latest TOS-2 'Tosochka' heavy flamethrowers are currently undergoing trial tests, the Russian military announced last Friday according to Tass.

"Heavy flamethrower TOS-2 is one of the newest weapons with the RCBD [Radiological, Chemical and Biological Defense] troops," Chief of Russia's Chemical, Biological, and Radiation Protection Forces Lieutenant-General Igor Kirillov said in an interview with the Russian Defense Ministry's Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper. "The pilot batch of the weapons at the issue was delivered to the military this year and it is currently under a trial test."

When deployed, thermobaric ordnance is a devastating weapon as it employs oxygen from the surrounding air to generate a high-temperature explosion. Also known as aerosol or vacuum bombs, these can create a  massive shockwave followed by a fire cloud where the temperature can reach 2500-3000 degrees Celsius (4500-5450 Fahrenheit). In addition to certainly killing anyone within the blast radius, the heat from the weapon can cause significant damage to structures and vehicles –igniting any fuels and lubricants, as well as setting off any ordnance. Many targets are essentially vaporized.

Anyone who survives the blast can't be described as the "lucky one," as they often have severe injuries to the lungs, eyes, ears, and colon.

The weapons are not unlawful or prohibited by the Geneva Convention, but their use on civilian targets would violate the law of armed conflict (LOAC). Thermobaric weapons are "likely to cause civilian casualties due to their indiscriminate and uncontained nature," the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation has warned.

The first reported deployment of thermobaric weapons in Ukraine occurred in the early stages of the ongoing Ukraine war when 70 Ukrainian fighters were killed in the northeastern town of Okhtyrka. Russian doctrine appeared to be that the best way to attack people in buildings in urban combat was to ensure that people inside could never make it out – or would be wounded so badly they were not capable of continuing to fight.

The Russian military is not alone in using such insidious weapons.

The United States had employed thermobaric weapons in Vietnam, but those tended to be air-dropped over enemy positions. During the War in Afghanistan, the U.S. military employed such weapons against the cave complexes in which Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters had taken refuge in the Gardez region.

In late October of 2023, a video circulated online that showed a Ukrainian drone strike a Russian TOS-1A. Soon after the first-person view (FPV) drone hit the Russian vehicle, it set off a secondary explosion that produced a massive fireball. The TOS-1A appeared to have been destroyed by its own ordnance, and its crew was left burning – not in hell, but quite literally within the TOS-1A.

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary: The U.S. Army's new M10 Booker light tank has ignited debate over its necessity and effectiveness in modern warfare.

-Critics argue that the M10 is an outdated concept, unnecessary in today's changing combat landscape as demonstrated in conflicts like those in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Ukraine.

-Despite its advanced sensors and communication systems, the M10 faces operational challenges due to its lighter weight and reduced armor compared to heavier tanks like the Abrams.

-Detractors claim that the M10 offers redundant capabilities and that the funds spent on its development could have been better invested in emerging technologies such as cyberwarfare, unmanned systems, and long-range precision strikes.

-This debate highlights broader concerns about the Army's ability to innovate and adapt to contemporary warfare demands.

The US Army’s M10 Booker, a light tank recently added to the Army’s arsenal, has sparked a debate about its necessity and role in warfare. The Army’s officials insist that it not be referred to as a light tank (that’s what it is). 

Meanwhile, the detractors of the M10 argue that it is a weapon system not worth the money invested into it because the nature of ground warfare, as proven by the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, have fundamentally changed. A Twitter user derided the M10 by tweeting, “Let’s be real, the M10 ‘totally not a light tank’ Booker light tank is named after a private noone [sic] heard of before as well.”

It's just yet another example of the wastefulness—and lack of innovation—that the US Army has struggled to overcome since the end of the Cold War (lest we forget the rather accurate 1998 HBO comedy film The Pentagon Wars starring Kelsey Grammer detailing the disastrous development of an armored personnel carrier?) 

Even in the Global War on Terror, the US Army struggled to adapt to what was then a novel warfighting environment. The US Marines, the other major ground force in the US military, adapted almost seamlessly to the kind of counterterrorism missions that were required in the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while the Army struggled. 

In the post-9/11 era, when great power conflict is again upon us, the other branches have sketched out new warfighting concepts whereas the Army keeps repurposing its old AirLand Battle concepts from the Cold War era.

Without a reliable doctrine to guide the force, it’s no surprise that the Army’s development of warfighting equipment is as listless as the rest of the force. 

The M10 Booker is an armored vehicle designed to support infantry brigade combat teams (BCT) by providing a mobile, protected direct fire capability. It is intended to suppress and destroy fortifications, gun systems, and trench routes. Further, the M10 is meant to protect against enemy armored vehicles. The Booker is equipped with a 105mm main gun and a suite of advanced sensors and communication systems.

But light tanks have not fared very well in modern combat, especially against near-peer adversaries. Just look at Ukraine’s experience with the admittedly older French AMX-10RC units that were so poorly matched against Russia’s armor that the Ukrainians unilaterally withdrew the French light tanks and forbade their further use in combat. Sure, the Booker is more advanced than the AMX-10RC. But the issue isn’t sophistication. It’s armor and firepower.

Here are just a few things that the critics in multiple publications have raised as downsides to the Booker. 

First, the M10 Booker is believed to offer redundant capabilities. It’s meant to fill a gap in the Army’s capabilities, providing a light tank option to support infantry brigades. Yet, the M10 offers nothing new that older, cheaper vehicles in the Army’s inventory doesn’t already offer. Both the Abrams Main Battle Tank and the Stryker Mobile Gun System do the same things that the M10 is meant to do.

The M10 cost $1.14 billion in the production and fielding of up to 96 units of these vehicles. The money spent on developing and deploying these light tanks could have been spent on other areas of need for the US Army, such as improving existing systems or investing in new technologies.

The M10 Booker is not without its operational challenges. Its smaller size and lighter weight compared to the M1 Abrams make it more vulnerable to enemy fire. Additionally, the M10 Booker’s reduced armor protection and firepower could limit its effectiveness in certain combat situations (such as the kind currently being experienced in Ukraine). 

In the last decade alone, the face of warfare has changed so much that it is almost unrecognizable. It is, understandably, hard for some in power to keep up with those changes. But it is their duty to try to keep up. That means not designing a force that is meant to fight yesterday’s wars. The Army needs to focus much more on enhancing cyberwarfare capabilities, unmanned systems, and long-range precision strikes.

The M10 Booker offers none of these capabilities. 

The M10 Booker is yet another example of the US Army failing to learn and adapt. Failure to adapt means that a force becomes rigid and unable to improvise in combat. Being unable to fully improvise in unique combat situations means that the force will be unable to overcome the enemy.

And that spells defeat. 

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: Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Moscow has reportedly lost around 330 aircraft, including the advanced Su-34 "Fullback" fighters.

-Ukraine's use of Western-developed weapons, notably the U.S.-delivered Patriot air defense missile system, has significantly contributed to these losses.

-The Su-34, an evolution of the Cold War-era Su-27 Flanker, officially entered service in 2014 and is known for its distinctive platypus nose and side-by-side cockpit.

-Despite its advanced capabilities and robust armament, the Fullback has proven vulnerable in the conflict, with numerous videos showing its destruction.

-The ongoing war threatens to further deplete Russia's stockpile of these crucial aircraft.

Since invading Ukraine in February 2022, Russia has reportedly lost some 330 aircraft. Moscow’s fighter airframes have proven vulnerable to Ukraine’s stockpile of advanced Western-developed weapons. 

Ukrainian officials claimed that nine Russian jets were destroyed in May alone. While these numbers cannot be independently verified, the U.S.-delivered Patriot air defense missile system has certainly aided Kyiv’s ability to take down Moscow’s top-tier fighters, including the Su-34. Nicknamed the “Fullback” by NATO, this all-weather supersonic fighter has been an essential asset for Russia for many years.

The Soviet-era Su-34 fighter derived from the Su-27 Flanker during the Cold War. While the Su-34 took its maiden flight before the collapse of the USSR, evolving requirements imposed by the Russian Aerospace Forces pushed back the fighter’s official introduction to service until 2014. 

The Fullback’s several unique characteristics include a platypus nose and side-by-side cockpit. Aside from these external characteristics, the jet retains its predecessor’s basic layout, engine, construction, and wing structure. The jet is powered by a pair of Saturn AL-31FM1 engines, which give it a top speed of Mach 1.8 and a service ceiling of around 56,000 feet.  

The Fullback can lug more than 17,000 pounds of weapons across a dozen hardpoints positioned underwing and beneath the fuselage. The jet can also carry a wide range of precision-guided and unguided bombs and rockets, including KAB-500 laser-guided bombs. As detailed by Airforce Technology, the jet can also carry Vympel R-27, Vympel R-73, and NPO-R-77 missiles used primarily for defense against adversarial aircraft if detected by the rear-facing radar.

Two distinct variants of the Fullback have been produced, both of which Russia exports to foreign client states. The Su-34FN is the maritime strike fighter version of the Fullback, equipped with anti-submarine warfare systems, a Sea Snake radar, a radio sonobuoy system, and other unique attributes. Since this model is designed to elevate the fighter’s naval warfare capabilities, it is highly sought out across the globe.

The Kremlin may claim that its Su-34 fighter is essentially invulnerable, but the platform’s performance in Ukraine suggests otherwise. As explained by Ukrainian Air Force spokesperson Yurii Ihnat, "Our experience suggests that after Russian planes are downed and destroyed, the occupiers do not dare come closer – this is the case across the northern, southern, and eastern fronts. The closer the aircraft armed with guided bombs approach, the farther those bombs can reach into our defenses." 

Countless videos have circulated in recent months purporting to show the destruction of Russian fighters, including Fullbacks. As the war rages on with no end in sight, Moscow’s Su-34 stockpile will surely dwindle further.

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: The Su-57 boasts stealth features, advanced weaponry, and high maneuverability, but its stealth capabilities are questioned compared to U.S. counterparts like the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II.

-Meanwhile, the U.S. is developing the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program, aiming to surpass fifth-generation fighters with advanced AI, unmanned systems, and cutting-edge technology.

-Despite Russia's claims, the Su-57 may fall short of true fifth-generation standards and is unlikely to evolve into a sixth-generation fighter easily.

It would be unwise to dismiss all Russian military hardware out of hand. While jokes can still be made that a hammer is the tool typically employed to repair its tanks and that its submarines are better at diving than surfacing, the fact remains that the former Soviet Union managed to produce some truly advanced aircraft.

The Kremlin has continued that tradition, and the Sukhoi Su-57 (NATO reporting name "Felon") is currently one of only four  "fifth-generation" fighters built to date – the others being the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, and the Chengdu J-20 (NATO reporting name "Fagin").

Yet, where Moscow often loses creditability is that it all too often overhypes even its very best aircraft – and looks almost stupid in the process.

The Kremlin boasted that its Su-57 employs composite materials including polymer, fiberglass, and aluminum load-bearing honeycomb fillers. It also featured an aerodynamic configuration that includes a pair of internal weapons bays, which help provide a low level of radar and infrared signature.

Each of the aforementioned bays was designed to carry up to four K-77M beyond visual range radar-guided missions. In addition, the Su-57 can carry a pair of K-74M2 short-range infrared-guided missiles in underwing fairings, but at the expense of its stealth.

According to Air Force Technology, the Russian aircraft is also equipped with 3D thrust vector jets for higher maneuverability and is capable of developing supersonic cruising speed. The twin-engine fighter is powered by Izdeliye 117 or AL-41F1 augmented turbofans, and it can fly at a speed of up to Mach two without afterburners, while it can reach a range of up to 3,500km at subsonic speeds.

The Su-57 has been further noted to employ a powerful onboard computer – which has been described as an electronic second pilot – while its radar system is spread across its body. Its onboard avionics systems include active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar and ELINT systems.

Russia has further suggested that an upgraded and even more advanced model of the Su-57 could be in the works and that it would be the world's first in-service "sixth-generation" aircraft.

This was first noted in a November 2017 report from Russian state media outlet Tass, which cited Russian Aerospace Force ex-commander and Chairman of the Federation Council Defense and Security Committee Viktor Bondarev, who explained, "This is actually a splendid plane and it can embrace both fifth-and sixth-generation features. It has huge modernization potential. Importantly, it is the best among the existing versions of its stealth characteristics. It incorporates all the best that is available in modern aviation science both in Russia and in the world."

Yet, even as Russia continues to tout the aircraft, Western aviation experts have suggested the Su-57 is mostly hype – and that Moscow lacks the manufacturing capabilities even to produce the aircraft in significant numbers. That has been noted by the fact that the Su-57 first flew in January 2010 but didn't enter service until December 2020.

First conceptualized back in 2014 in a DARPA's Air Dominance Initiative study, the United States Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program is designed to achieve air superiority, yet, the NGAD shouldn't be seen as simply a single aircraft.

Last year, at the POLITICO Defense Summit, U.S. Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall explained that the manned NGAD aircraft will control the uncrewed fighters escorting it. A variety of multi-mission drones, which have been dubbed Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA), could act as loyal wingmen, while all of the aircraft could be networked together enhancing the situational awareness for the manned and unmanned craft alike.

Moreover, as previously reported by Maya Carlin, there are likely five different technologies that will be prioritized in the NGAD's fighter design including advanced weapons, stealth, digital design, propulsion, and thermal management. While sixth-generation technology has not been precisely defined, the features in the NGAD program are expected to exceed the capabilities of fifth-generation counterparts.

Therefore it would still seem like quite the leap that the Su-57, or any fifth-generation fighter for that matter, could be upgraded to a sixth-generation fighter so easily.

The next generation will likely include advanced digital capabilities, including highly-capable artificial intelligence (AI), data fusion, and battlefield, command, control, and communications (C3) capabilities; will be optionally manned; employ enhanced human-systems integration with virtual cockpits; advanced stealth airframes and avionics; advanced variable-cycle engines; increased-range stand-off and BVR (beyond visual range) weapons; and even be equipped with directed-energy weapons such as laser CIWS (close-in weapons systems).

Finally, some Western analysts have even suggested that Russia's Su-57 fighter has a design that is much closer to an advanced fourth-generation fighter than a true fifth-generation aircraft. 

Its stealth is nowhere near as effective as that of the F-22 Raptor or F-35 Lightning II. It may be less detectable than an F-15 Eagle or F-16 Fighting Falcon, but the Su-57 simply has a poor cross-section compared to its main fifth-generation rivals.

In conclusion, the Su-57 may be a very capable aircraft – even if Russia doesn't have all that many in service – but it simply can't be considered sixth-generation when it is barely a fifth-generation fighter.

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.

Summary: As tensions escalate between Beijing and Washington over the South China Sea and Taiwan, the battle for air superiority intensifies. The U.S., long a leader in aerial combat with the introduction of the F-22 Raptor, now faces competition from China's Chengdu J-20 and Russia's Sukhoi Su-57. The U.S.'s F-35 Lightning II is widely regarded as the most advanced fifth-generation fighter, combining stealth, speed, and advanced avionics.

-However, the U.S. Air Force is already looking ahead with its Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program, which aims to develop a sixth-generation fighter incorporating advanced weapons, AI technology, and unmanned aerial vehicles.

-Demonstrator NGAD aircraft are already airborne, with a contract expected in 2024, underscoring the need for cutting-edge air superiority in the current global threat climate.

Now that tensions between Beijing and Washington are ramping up over the South China Sea and Taiwan, the fight for air superiority between the two nations is at an all-time high.

For many years, the U.S. retained aerial might over its adversaries. When the F-22 Raptor was first introduced to the service, it became the world’s first-ever fifth-generation fighter platform. However, Moscow and Beijing pushed to modernize their respective aircraft capabilities around this time and ultimately developed their fifth-generation counterparts - the Chengdu J-20 and the Sukhoi Su-57. While America’s latest F-35 Lightening II fighter platform is widely considered to be the most formidable of its kind to take to the skies, the U.S. Air Force is already looking towards the future with its Next Generation Air Dominance program (NGAD). 

Although no explicit definition can be applied to fifth-generation airframes, experts and military experts alike generally agree that stealth characteristics are the foundation.

The leading fifth-generation airframes today combine precision attack capabilities, agility, speed and situational awareness with stealth.

The Lockheed Martin F-22 and F-35 Lightening II, in addition to China’s Chengdu J-20 and Russia’s Sukhoi Su-57, fall into this category.

Each of these fighters is considered lightyears ahead of preceding platforms, yet the F-35 stands out for its particular cutting-edge features. 

This article takes a look at what will separate the F-35 and NGAD, as many experts are now questioning if the U.S. Air Force needs a 6th generation fighter like NGAD. 

When the F-35 was well within its development phases in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the fighter incorporated new systems that were truly at the bleeding edge of combat aircraft design.

As the product of the Joint Strike Fighter program, the F-35 was developed to fulfill the specific needs of both the Navy and Air Force.

International partners notably participated in the JSF program, including the U.D., Italy, Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands.

By the late 1990s, both Lockheed Martin and manufacturing competitor Boeing were selected based on their concept demonstrator aircraft. Ultimately, Lockheed was selected as the winner, and the F-35 entered its development phase. 

The F-35 was designed to fly at speeds reaching Mach-1.6 (times the speed of sound), which is attainable with a full internal payload. With nearly double the internal fuel of its predecessor the F-16 Fighting Falcon, the Lightening II has a greater combat radius. Since the F-35 is highly armed, it is considerably heavier than the lightweight fighters that came before it. The lightest of the F-35 variants has an empty weight of just over 29,000 pounds.

Three main F-35 variants exist: the conventional takeoff and landing F-35A, the short take-off and vertical-landing F-35B and the carrier-based F-35C.

One of the most pivotal upgrades incorporated in the F-35 is advanced technology. Built on lessons learned from designing the Raptor program, the F-35 is equipped with sophisticated sensors and avionics components. The open architecture code installed in this platform enables continuous updates and improvements over time.

In addition to this top-notch avionics suite, the F-35 has an extremely low radar cross-section. 

While the F-35 will likely be dominating the skies for years to come, the Air Force is already working towards its next-generation strategy. First conceptualized back in 2014, the NGAD program is designed to achieve air superiority.

Five different technologies that will be prioritized in the fighter’s design are advanced weapons, stealth, digital design, propulsion and thermal management.

While sixth-generation technology has not been precisely defined, the features in the NGAD program are expected to exceed the capabilities of fifth-generation counterparts. 

Significantly, AI technology and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) will be incorporated into the NGAD. These collective combat aircraft are expected to fly alongside a sixth-generation fighter jet. The concept of moving away from the idea that fighters have to be a single, crewed aircraft is also being toyed with in Beijing. While the U.S. became the first country to introduce a fifth-generation airframe to the playing field, it won’t necessarily be the first to get a sixth-generation successor out front first. 

The Air Force has indicated that demonstrator NGAD aircraft are already airborne and that within a year a contract could be awarded to start its official development.

As posted in Breaking Defense: “The Department of the Air Force released a classified solicitation to industry for an Engineering and Manufacturing Development contract for the Next Generation Air Dominance Platform with the intent to award a contract in 2024,” adding that “This solicitation release formally begins the source selection process providing industry with the requirements the DAF expects for NGAD, as the future replacement of the F-22.”

Considering the current threat climate, the introduction of the military’s new-generation fighter program is essential to preserving America’s dominant aerial capabilities.

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary: The USS New Jersey (BB-62), a former United States Navy Iowa-class battleship from World War II, will return to its home in Camden, New Jersey, after spending the spring in drydock at the Philadelphia Naval Yard for extensive maintenance.

-The historic battleship, currently serving as a museum ship, underwent its first dry docking in over thirty years for crucial hull repairs.

-The vessel is scheduled to leave Philadelphia on June 14, with a brief stop in Paulsboro before its grand homecoming celebration on June 20. Despite delays, the USS New Jersey will be back in time for Fourth of July celebrations, ensuring the preservation of this significant piece of naval history.

The former United States Navy's World War II Iowa-class battleship USS New Jersey (BB-62) spent much of the spring in drydock undergoing maintenance at the Philadelphia Naval Yard, but in a few weeks time, the historic warship will be back home in the Garden State.

Officials at the Battleship New Jersey Museum & Memorial announced late last week that preparations are underway for a June 20 homecoming celebration for the battle wagon. The vessel is now scheduled to depart Philadelphia on June 14, and the "Big J" will dock in Paulsboro for six days before making a triumphant return to Camden.

The historic warship, which opened as a museum ship on Oct. 15, 2001, had spent decades in the water and was in need of a major restoration. This marked the battleship's first dry docking in more than three decades, and efforts to preserve the ship focused on hull repairs.

In March, USS New Jersey was carefully guided down the Delaware River en route to the North Atlantic Ship Repair facility at the Philadelphia Navy Yard, back to the very berth where it was built and subsequently launched on December 7, 1942.

The original plan to preserve the 80-year-old, 887-foot-long, 45,000-ton vessel called for the repairs to be completed in time for Memorial Day. However, the museum and memorial's newly-titled CEO Marshall Spevak told the Courier-Post newspaper last month that work has taken longer than expected as unexpected issues were discovered during the restoration. That included the welding of a steel ring around the outward propeller shafts as part of an effort to prevent future leaks, while ultrasonic tests were conducted to determine the thickness of the steel hull. The biggest task was the application of around 18,000 linear feet of sealant to further stop corrosion and future leaks – and more importantly to ensure that the elements won't win and sink this battleship!

The ship will now be back in time for the Fourth of July celebrations.

"We'll be leaving the Philadelphia Navy Yard on June 14," Spevak told WHYY. "We'll be heading to Paulsboro for a quick pit stop as we did on the way down here. And then on June 20, we’ll be leaving Paulsboro and traveling the six miles upriver underneath the Walt Whitman Bridge again and back to our home court in Camden."

The stopover is needed to remove water in the ballast tanks.

"When we stopped there on the way on the way down to the dry dock, we actually put about almost 500,000 gallons of water in the forward tanks in order to even out the ship," Spevak added. "What we'll be doing when we return is taking that water off. So we'll de-water about 500,000 gallons from the forward tanks at Paulsboro. And then after that, that’s when we'll be ready to return back to Camden."

The USS New Jersey is the only Iowa-class battleship to be maintained as a museum in her namesake state. Three locations were originally determined to be suitable for the warship, including Bayonne, Jersey City, and Camden.

Several factors came into play – notably the fact that the vessel was already undergoing the necessary preparation in Philadelphia, which was just across the Delaware River from Camden. However, after Jersey City opted not to submit a proposal, Bayonne became the frontrunner and was selected as the site for the museum.

In the end, it was decided that Bayonne was too close to New York City, which was home to the USS Intrepid (CV-11), as the U.S. Navy feared the battleship would overshadow the carrier. In the end, it was decided that Camden would be the future home for the Big J – and perhaps fittingly, BB-62's home is across the river from the Independence Seaport Museum, the home of the protected cruiser USS Olympia (C-6), the oldest remaining steel ship afloat.

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.

The main image is from Creative Commons. All others are from the National Interest via Ethan Saunders on seen at the USS New Jersey.