The National Interest

Summary: The U.S. Navy relies on aircraft carriers for force projection, protecting sea lanes, and supporting ground operations. Carriers have been crucial since WWII, but their role is threatened by advancements in adversary anti-ship weapons.

-Critics argue that large, expensive supercarriers are vulnerable and suggest a shift to more numerous, smaller, conventionally-powered flattops for greater flexibility and reduced costs.

-Despite these challenges, aircraft carriers remain vital to the Navy's 21st-century operations, much like tanks for the Army or bombers for the Air Force.

A recent hypothetical raised on some discussion boards was whether the United States Navy could exist without aircraft carriers. There were numerous considerations – including whether the smaller Amphibious Assault Ships should be counted as carriers.

Yet, the simplest answer is that from its founding on October 13, 1775, until March 1922, when USS Langley (CV-1) was commissioned, the sea service had no aircraft carriers in service. In other words, for nearly its first 150 years of existence, the U.S. Navy got by without any flattops – but that answer is being a bit cheeky, as of course until the early 20th century there were no heavier-than-air aircraft in military service (or even in existence), so it was a moot point.

Thus, the question is really about whether the carrier has a place in the modern 21st-century U.S. Navy. The answer is a bit more complicated.

Aircraft carriers are about force projection around the globe, so the short answer is that the United States Navy remains committed to the floating airfields.

"The United States is a maritime nation, and the U.S. Navy protects America at sea. Alongside our allies and partners, we defend freedom, preserve economic prosperity, and keep the seas open and free. Our nation is engaged in long-term competition. To defend American interests around the globe, the U.S. Navy must remain prepared to execute our timeless role, as directed by Congress and the President," the sea service explains concisely but to the point in its mission statement.

Although it doesn't specify how the U.S. Navy should execute that role, since the Second World War, carriers have played a vital role – replacing the battleship as the core of the fleet. Yet, as the U.S. Naval Institute noted in a 2018 report, the role the carrier now plays has narrowed considerably. It stated, "The centerpiece of U.S. power projection has been the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, a hugely expensive but immensely flexible asset that can conduct almost every naval role imaginable."

The argument against large supercarriers – one emphasized by the U.S. Naval Institute and others – is that near-peer adversaries including (but certainly not limited to) China have made great strides in developing so-called "carrier killer" weapons, including anti-ship missiles that can strike targets from hundreds of miles away. Moreover, efforts to develop nuclear-armed drones, hypersonic weapons, stealth aircraft, and even small unmanned aerial systems (UAS) all pose a serious threat to the flattop in the 21st century.

It is also true that the United States Air Force has shown that its long-range strategic bombers are more than capable of conducting CONUS-to-CONUS missions, while the U.S. military maintains bases worldwide.

However, while carriers are vulnerable to a plethora of weapons, and long-range bombers can strike targets around the world, the carrier remains vital in supporting ground operations on distant shores – while the deployment of the Nimitz-class nuclear-powered supercarrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) to protect commercial shipping in the Red Sea has proven, a U.S. Navy carrier strike group (CSG) can both defend the waterways and then launch strikes on enemy positions with near impunity.

The real question isn't whether the U.S. Navy needs aircraft carriers, but whether it needs 11 nuclear-powered supercarriers that make for large tempting targets. The answer may be a return to more numerous and less costly smaller conventionally-powered flattops. In addition to costing less to produce, these would be easier to retire and scrap at the end of their services lives. Disposing of nuclear-powered carriers remains an expensive proposition!

More importantly, in large operations multiple warships could be employed together – and such deployments could allow for greater flexibility.

All things considered, it is impossible to think that the United States Navy could exist in the 21st century without a fleet of aircraft carriers. It would be like asking whether the U.S. Army can operate without tanks, or the U.S. Air Force without bombers. It is possible that someday smaller unmanned platforms will replace the bombers, the tanks, and yes, even the carriers – but that isn't today. 

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Editor’s Note: The following article is adapted from the introduction to The New Line Institute for Strategy and Policy’s recently published report “Genocide in Tigray: Serious Breaches of International Law and Paths to Accountability” with the permission of the New Lines Institute.

Measured by the estimated number of deaths, the Tigray War in Ethiopia could be the deadliest armed conflict of the twenty-first century and one of the bloodiest since the end of the Cold War. From its outbreak in 2020 to the official ceasefire in 2022, the civil conflict claimed the lives of up to 400,000 soldiers and 300,000 civilians.

Despite the intense human suffering, this “forgotten” war has not garnered the international attention it desperately needs. There is an unfortunate sense in which the world is too ready to move on after its initial efforts. The International Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia dissolved before concluding its work. The United States, despite recognizing more than half a million deaths in the region and that crimes against humanity and war crimes had been committed there has restored financial and economic assistance to the status quo ante bellum. Similarly, the EU has returned to its $680 million development strategy with the nation despite a lack of accountability for the widespread abuses in the region.

The consequence has been that international efforts to verify serious breaches of international law have not been followed through or adequately supported. Victims will carry with them scarring and abuse from a conflict that, despite an apparent cessation of hostilities in 2022, did not result in a stable peace. Innocent lives continue to be lost, and many millions continue to face food insecurity resulting from military campaigns. More time must be given not only to investigate and, as needed, provide accountability for the blockade on humanitarian aid that contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Tigrayans but also to investigate and provide accountability for the widely-reported mass murder, rape, forced displacement, physical abuse, and torture which took place, as well as the targeting of key civilian infrastructure such as the healthcare system.

The New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy today published a new groundbreaking report on “Genocide in Tigray: Serious Breaches of International Law and Paths to Accountability” with an aim to fill this vacuum by informing stakeholders of the sheer scale and variety of the alleged criminal conduct; providing a legal analysis of the relevant allegations through the particular lens of the Genocide Convention and describing pathways to accountability which should be adopted, including measures at both the national and international levels.

The report was prepared by a group of international law professionals with expertise in fields including international human rights law and international criminal law. While several other reports have reached similar conclusions concerning some of the key factual allegations, the New Lines Institute report is the first to relate these allegations directly to the Genocide Convention and to call for action accordingly.

While the report finds that there is a reasonable basis to believe that all sides committed war crimes in the course of the conflict, Ethiopian and allied forces—specifically, members of the Ethiopian National Defense Force, the Eritrean Defense Forces, and the Amhara Special Forces, among other groups—also appear to have committed crimes against humanity against Tigrayans, as well as acts of genocide.

These acts of genocide include killings, the infliction of serious bodily and mental harm, intentional measures to prevent births, and the deliberate infliction of conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of Tigrayans. The report finds, furthermore, that certain individuals also appear to have made statements amounting to direct and public incitement to commit genocide.

Irrespective of whether this apparent conduct by the Ethiopian and allied forces was committed as part of a plan or whether it was supported at senior levels, Ethiopia was obliged as a state party to the Genocide Convention to take effective action to prevent the commission of genocidal acts and to punish such acts if they occurred.

As a consequence, the international community is compelled to act, including potentially by states instituting proceedings before the International Court of Justice under Article IX of the Genocide Convention. The international community should also take steps to secure an international, impartial, and independent criminal investigation, exercise universal jurisdiction where practicable, and thus ensure that justice for the numerous human rights violations is finally done in Tigray.

Dr. Azeem Ibrahim OBE is the Senior Director of Special Initiatives at the New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy in Washington, DC. The New Lines Institute report “Genocide in Tigray: Serious Breaches of International Law and Paths to Accountability” can be accessed here.

Image: Rudi Ernst / Shutterstock.com

Summary: The U.S. Army has received its first M10 Booker combat vehicles from General Dynamics Land Systems, entering low-rate initial production. The new weapons platform would certainly give nations like Russia trouble on any battlefield. 

-Named after two fallen American soldiers, the M10 Booker is designed to enhance the Army's firepower and maneuverability.

-Testing at Fort Liberty, NC, and Fort Stewart, GA, will assess its performance in various conditions.

-The Army plans to acquire 504 units, each costing between $12 million and $14 million, with full-rate production expected to begin next year.

The United States Army's new assault vehicle is charging forward. Last month, General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) announced that it delivered the first M10 Booker Combat Vehicles to the Army, as it reached low-rate initial production (LRIP).

"The M10 Booker is named after two American heroes who gave their lives in service to their country, and we are honored to design, build and deliver these vehicles to the Army," said Gordon Stein, General Dynamics Land Systems vice president and general manager for U.S. operations in a May 15, 2024 statement. "These latest Bookers incorporate improvements and lessons we learned from the Middle Tier Acquisition phase of the program, and we’re confident that Soldiers will find them highly useful in completing their missions."

The LRIP will support the U.S. Army's testing and logistic efforts, which will determine any modifications that may need to be made to the platform. Breaking Defense reported that the initial units will be sent to Fort Liberty, North Carolina, and put to the tests later this summer with the 82nd Airborne Division before some of the M10s then head to Fort Stewart, Georgia for additional gunnery training and testing.

"We will also put the vehicle through production qualification and testing in desert, arctic, temperate and tropical conditions, challenging it with obstacles like gaps and walls to scale, and engaging it with real word threats to ensure its survivability," said Maj. Gen. Glenn Dean, program executive officer for Ground Combat Systems, in an April U.S. Army press release.

Early next year, the Booker will then head to an Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) event to finalize any near-term and long-term modifications that GDLS will need to make. That will move the program forward, with the tracked vehicle on track to reach a full-rate production contract that could be awarded in the second quarter of next year.

Citing budget requests, Breaking Defense further reported that the U.S. Army eyes acquiring 504 M10 Bookers, with the initial vehicles costing between $12 million and $14 million.

Originally initiated as the Mobile Protected Firepower Vehicle (MPFV), it was officially designated the M10 last year – while it honors two different soldiers named Booker.

The first was Medal of Honor recipient Private Robert Booker of the 133rd Infantry Regiment, 34th Infantry Division, who was killed on April 9, 1943, near Fondouk, Tunisia, during the Second World War; while the latter was tank commander and Distinguished Service Cross recipient Staff Sergeant Stevon Booker, Company A, 1st Battalion, 64th Armored Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, who was killed in April 5, 2003, during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

"The Army is undertaking its most significant transformation in several decades to dominate in large-scale combat operations in a multidomain environment, and the M10 Booker is a crucial part of that transformation," added Doug Bush, the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology, in the April release.

The GDLS prototype beat out a design from BAE Systems in 2022. It is the first major combat vehicle developed for the U.S. Army since the late stages of the Cold War in the 1980s. The finalized M10 Booker is operated by a crew of four, including a commander, a driver, a gunner, and a loader.

Its main armament is the XM35 105mm cannon, while it is also armed with a 7.62mm coaxial machine gun, .50 caliber M2 commander's machine gun, and is further equipped with the Abrams primary weapon sight, smoke grenade launchers, blowoff panels, and an automatic fire suppression system. Those features are intended to increase the survivability against both direct and indirect fire, including from rocket-propelled grenades and improvised explosive devices (IEDs). The M10 can reach a top speed of 40 miles per hour, while two Bookers can be transported on the C-17 cargo plane.

It is now undergoing testing and will soon allow soldiers to move at a faster pace, and protect an assault force in a variety of terrains.

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

Summary: The U.S. Air Force's B-1B Lancer and the Soviet Tu-160 "Blackjack" are among the largest, fastest bombers, but they were designed with different philosophies.

-The B-1B, intended for low-level penetration to avoid radar, has been adapted for tactical support roles. Conversely, the Tu-160, designed for high-speed, high-altitude missions, has a greater takeoff weight but less payload diversity.

-Both aircraft have been modernized: the B-1B for supporting roles and the Tu-160M as a stopgap until Russia's PAK-DA stealth bomber is operational.

The U.S. Air Force’s B-1B Lancer “Bone” and the Tu-160 “Blackjack” of Soviet manufacture are known for being some of the largest, fastest bombers ever. 

At first glance, they appear nearly identical. Closer inspection, however, reveals that while the design considerations and technology available at the time of their creation meant they looked quite alike, the two aircraft were designed with different philosophies in mind. 

The B-1B was conceived in the 1960s as an attempt to marry the range and payload of the B-52 with the speed of the B-58. Technology had improved throughout the 1950s, and the U.S. Air Force recognized that speed and altitude were no longer the only safe defense for strategic bombers. 

Interceptor aircraft were long the only available tool able to attack bombers, and they could not match the high ceilings and top speeds of aircraft like the XB-70 Valkyrie. But then surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) were introduced. The shootdown of Gary Powers’ U-2 in 1960 by a SAM caused the Air Force to rethink its bombing doctrine, swapping high-altitude penetration for low-level ingress.

Flying at low level allows aircraft to take advantage of terrain masking. It breaks line of sight to the radar station, which struggles to get a return on the aircraft. Radar at the time was limited by ground clutter – false returns off of objects on the ground that rendered them useless below a certain elevation. 

For aircraft like the Valkyrie that were optimized for high-altitude flight, though, operations in the thick air down low made them inefficient and ineffective. 

The Department of Defense in the 1960s commissioned multiple studies on the feasibility and potential design of a low-altitude penetrator. Rockwell was awarded the B-1A development contract in 1970 and ultimately produced a variable-wing bomber capable of extended operations at low speeds, around Mach 0.85, but able to make a high-speed Mach 2.0 “dash” past Soviet defenses. 

Work continued throughout the 1970s, but the B-1A was canceled in 1977 due to improvements in ballistic and cruise missiles, as well as the forthcoming B-2 Spirit stealth bomber, which rendered the B-1A obsolete. 

In 1981, President Ronald Reagan revived the program. Returning as the B-1B, it was now intended to bridge the gap between the aging B-52 fleet and the B-2, which faced delays. 

Around the same time, the Soviet Union was finalizing plans for its supersonic strategic bomber. It too had begun work as early as the 1960s, but it was ultimately the revival of the B-1 program that prompted Soviet planners to begin production of the Tu-160.

Like the Bone, the Blackjack features variable geometry or “swing” wings, giving it better performance across the range of its flight envelope. It is much larger than its counterpart: 30 feet longer and with a takeoff weight 130,000 lbs greater.

Unlike the B-1B, the Tu-160 was never designed as a low-level bomber. Its top speed of Mach 2.0 far outstrips the Mach 1.25 of the B-1B, whose top speed was reduced as part of cost-cutting measures when the program was revived in the 1980s. 

Furthermore, while it does have a greater takeoff weight, the Tu-160’s payload capability is less diverse, as it only has two bomb bays with rotating launcher racks. The Bone has three bomb bays as well as optional pylons. It can also be fitted with a sniper targeting pod for air support missions. 

While the B-1B spent the 1990s and 2000s being modified into more of a support bomber, the Tu-160 has seen a revival of its own with the Tu-160M program. These bombers have upgraded airframes and avionics and give a major boost to the Russian long-range air fleet. Much as happened decades ago to the B-1B, the Tu-160M was approved in part as a stopgap measure until the PAK-DA stealth bomber is ready.

While the B-1B’s orientation changed over its lifetime toward more of a tactical support bombing role, advances in adversary air defenses mean it will most likely be limited to firing stand-off weapons and air-launched cruise missiles in any future conflict. In doing so, it will be carrying out the same mission as the Tu-160.

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

Summary: The U.S. Army accepted delivery of the M10 Booker combat vehicle in April, marking the occasion with a christening ceremony.

-Designed to enhance infantry brigades, the M10 Booker provides advanced lethality and protection.

-Only three units have been delivered so far, with comprehensive testing to follow.

-This includes evaluations in diverse environments and real-world obstacles.

-The vehicle, resulting from the Army's rapid acquisition pathway, is expected to be operational by summer 2025.

-Although it resembles a tank, the Army refers to it as a "combat vehicle," sparking debate among enthusiasts.

The U.S. Army in April accepted delivery of its newest combat vehicle, the M10 Booker. To commemorate the moment, the Army held a christening ceremony on April 18 at the Aberdeen Proving Ground. 

“The M10 Booker represents a new modernized capability for the Army, allowing light maneuvers forces to overmatch adversaries,” the Army said in a statement.

So far, just three M10 Bookers have been delivered to the Army. The new vehicle is expected to supplement the precision firepower of infantry brigades. The Army boasts that the M10 “without a doubt brings a new level of lethality and protection to our infantry forces and will allow our infantry soldiers to gain and maintain the speed and momentum that is critical on the modern battlefield.”

Doug Bush, the Army’s assistant secretary for acquisition, logistics, and technology, heralded the M10 with non-specific platitudes: “The Army is undertaking the most significant transformation in several decades to dominate in large-scale combat operations in a multidomain environment, and the M10 Booker is a crucial part of that transformation.”

For two years, the Army will exhaustively test the new M10 Booker. Testing will include high-volume firing and long-distance driving – all to better understand the vehicle’s reliability and durability. 

The M10 Booker will also be tested for effectiveness in different environments – specifically in desert, arctic, temperate, and tropical conditions. The M10 Booker will also test against real-world obstacles like gaps and walls, to see how well the vehicle will perform in the field, where any sort of battleground obstruction is possible.

The 82nd Airborne Division will be responsible for testing the M10 Booker for the next few months, with the hopes that an operational company outfitted with the vehicle will be ready for service in the summer of 2025.

The M10 Booker is the result of the Army’s Middle Tier of Acquisition pathway, which is used to develop “fieldable prototypes” and “production quantities” rapidly. According to the Army, the “M10 Booker is a benchmark modernization program, as the acquisition and requirement communities worked together to move this system into production in just under four years.”

There is debate over what exactly the new platform is. The vehicle looks like a tank – yet the Army has been reluctant to call the thing a tank. Doug Bush, for example, called the M10 a “combat vehicle” and refused to enter the “esoteric and borderline religious debate among the armored community about what [the word tank] means.”

Bush’s comments were not entirely well received. An online community of tank enthusiasts took one look at the M10, which features armor, a pivoting gun turret, and tracks, and said you could call the M10 whatever you want, but the thing is obviously a tank.

Military Times weighed in last June with a headline suggesting that the M10 is a tank: “The Army’s M10 Booker is a tank. Prove us wrong.”

What do you think?

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. 

Summary: Russian forces are set to enhance their aerial capabilities with increased production of Su-35 and Su-57 fighter jets from the Komsomolsk-on-Amur plant.

-Despite these additions, the Su-35, a modernized version of the Su-27 Flanker, has faced significant losses in the Ukraine conflict, particularly against Western-supplied air defense systems like the Patriot missiles.

-The Su-35 boasts advanced features and weaponry but has struggled to maintain superiority in combat.

-With nearly 350 Russian aircraft reportedly lost since the invasion began, the sustainability of Russia’s air force remains in question.

According to reports from the Komsomolsk-on-Amur plant, a steady uptick in the production of Su-35 and Su-57 fighters will bolster the Russian Aerospace Forces’ capabilities. While extra airframes will certainly help replenish Moscow’s hard-hit fleet amid its invasion of Ukraine, Su-35s have not performed well in the conflict. Armed with sophisticated Western-delivered weaponry, Ukrainian forces have shot down many of these Soviet-era fighters. 

The Ukrainian Defense Ministry announced that its forces had shot down at least seven Sukhoi glide-bombers earlier this year using American-made Patriot missiles. The Kremlin takes every chance it gets to tout its “fourth generation ++” fighters as superior jets, but they have yet to prove that title.

Moscow’s twin-engine supermaneuverable Su-35 platform is an evolution of the Soviet Su-27 Flanker. The Soviet planners who oversaw the program wanted a new fighter capable of going up against American fourth-generation jets like the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle and Northrop Grumman F-14 Tomcat. 

The first Su-35 prototype (initially known as the Su-27M) took its maiden flight in the early 1980s. As the platform progressed over the years, NATO gave it the moniker “Flanker-E.” Manufacturer United Aircraft Corporation describes the Su-35 as an airframe that “combines the qualities of a modern fighter (super-maneuverability, superior active and passive acquisition aids, high supersonic speed and long range, capability of managing battle group actions, etc.) and a good tactical airplane (wide range of weapons that can be carried, modern multi-channel electronic warfare system, reduced radar signature, and high combat survivability).”

Equipped with a dozen hardpoints for carrying external weapons and stores, the Flanker-E is a well armed platform. The fighter can carry a range of air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles, including the Vympel R-27, Molniya Kh-29, and the long-range Kh-58UShE. The Su-35 can launch the KAB-500Kr, KAB-1500Kr TV, and the KAB-1500LG laser-guided bomb. As detailed by Airforce Technology, the Russian platform also features countermeasures like a jammer and a radar warning system, and the Gryazev-Shipunov 30mm GSh-30-1 gun. 

Considering these specs and capabilities, the Flanker-E certainly should not be underestimated. However, these jets have suffered greatly in Ukraine. They are vulnerable to many Western air defense systems. In February alone, Moscow lost at least six of its 120 Su-35 airframes. According to Forbes, the rate at which Russia is losing its Flanker-E jets is “accelerating” and becoming “unsustainable.” 

Ukraine’s supply of Patriot missiles is not infinite, though, so the country’s defense against Russian airframes might diminish down the line. 

The Flanker-E is not the only Russian fighter struggling in the ongoing invasion. The General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine has claimed the destruction of nearly 350 Russian aircraft since the war began back in February 2022. While this number cannot be exactly verified, documentation and footage suggest that Russia’s aerial fleet has shrunk significantly. 

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 from Shutterstock. 

Summary: The USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69), the U.S. Navy’s second-oldest nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, will remain in the Red Sea for an additional month to protect commercial shipping.

-Originally deployed in October 2023, the carrier and its strike group, including the guided-missile cruiser USS Philippine Sea and destroyers USS Mason and USS Gravely, have conducted operations in the region under the U.S. 5th Fleet.

-The extension follows recent Houthi rebel attacks on commercial vessels in the area.

The United States Navy's second-oldest nuclear-powered aircraft carrier will remain deployed in the Red Sea to protect commercial shipping in the region for at least another month. Late last month, United States Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin extended the deployment of Nimitz-class supercarrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) and her strike group.

CVN-69 recently returned to the Red Sea after a brief deployment to the Eastern Mediterranean. The carrier and units of her carrier strike group (IKECSG) – including the Flight II Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Philippine Sea (CG-58), and the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers USS Mason (DDG-87) and USS Gravely (DDG-107) – departed their homeports of Norfolk, Virginia, and Mayport, Florida, on Oct. 13 & 14.

The carrier strike group consists of approximately 6,000 sailors.

IKECSG initially arrived in the region as part of a scheduled deployment to the region, but since last fall conducted operations as part of the U.S. 5th Fleet in the Red Sea, Bab Al-Mandeb Strait, Gulf of Aden, and Arabian Gulf including Operation Prosperity Guardian and self-defensive strikes into Iranian-backed Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen.

The Associated Press reported on Friday that a normal warship deployment averages around seven months, which was reached in the middle of May. However, Secretary Austin previously approved the first order to extend the deployment of the carrier strike group about four weeks ago. The news wire also noted that about 12% of the world's trade passes through the waters of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, which first have came attack last November.

Yemen's Houthi rebels have targeted commercial vessels, claiming it is in response to Israel's ongoing offensive in Gaza. However, most of the cargo ships targeted by the Iranian-back group have little to no connection with Israel, the United States, or its partners.

The Houthis have alleged twice in recent days that they have targeted USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and her escorts with drones and missiles, and made the dubious claim that they achieved multiple "direct hits" on the carrier and a destroyer. The United States Central Command (CENTCOM) has not addressed the Houthi claims directly, but said via a statement that it had shot down multiple Houthi munitions.

CVN-69 will continue to operate in waters that should be familiar to the vessel if not the entire crew. As previously reported the ship's first deployment – dubbed Operation Eagle Claw – was during the 1980 Iran hostage crisis, and it operated in the region. One of the carrier's most notable deployments also took place during Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, during which she became the second nuclear-powered carrier ever to transit the Suez Canal.

CVN-69 has been deployed for more than 200 days as of the beginning of May, and will now remain in the Red Sea a bit longer.

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Summary: The XB-70 was designed to be larger and faster than the B-52. It was 196 feet long, 31 feet tall at the tail, with a 105-foot wingspan, and powered by six turbojet engines.

-It could reach speeds of Mach 3.1 and fly at altitudes over 70,000 feet.

-A sleek, futuristic-looking bomber jet with a large delta wing design, six turbojet engines in a cluster underneath the fuselage, and a length of 196 feet.

-The aircraft is seen in flight, showcasing its impressive wingspan and powerful engines, against a backdrop of a clear blue sky at high altitude.

The six-engined XB-70 Valkyrie was designed for the United States Air Force during the Cold War to be capable of cruising for thousands of miles at Mach 3+ while flying at 70,000 feet (21,000 m) – and essentially immune to interceptor aircraft.

The sole surviving prototype is now maintained in the collection of the National Museum of the United States Air Force at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (AFB), Dayton, Ohio. While it hasn't flown since it arrived at the base on February 4, 1969, the massive aircraft was moved out of the museum's Research & Development Gallery last month for a good cleaning!

Here are some high flying facts about the North American XB-70 Valkyrie:

The United States Air Force envisioned the need for a larger and faster aircraft than the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress. North American Aviation (NAA) beat out Boeing during the design phase, and in 1958, it was awarded a development contract to develop a bomber that could fly at high altitudes at speeds of Mach 3 and would be capable of carrying nuclear and conventional weapons.

The XB-70 had a length of 196 feet, a height at the tail of 31 feet, and an estimated maximum gross weight of 521,000 pounds. Its delta wing had a span of 105 feet with six turbojet engines side by side in a large pod underneath the fuselage. As initially planned, the XB-70A – which was powered by six General Electric YJ93s of 30,000 lbs. thrust each with afterburner – was to have a maximum speed of Mach 3.1 (2,056 miles per hour, or 3,309 kilometers per hour).

The XB-70 met the Strategic Air Command (SAC) goals and was designed to fly at Mach 3 – three times the speed of sound – and higher than 70,000 feet (21,000 kilometers). According to the Federation of American Scientists, the concept called for the entire mission (including return) to be flown at Mach 3. While it could outrun any interceptor, it was vulnerable to Surface-to-Air Missiles (SAMs) of the 1960s vintage.

The issue was "Its straight and level trajectory would have been an easy course to plot and intercept," FAS warned "Further, the technology that made Mach 3 possible yielded an airframe with a large RCS that added to the effectiveness of SAMs against the XB-70.

According to an Air Force Times article published on New Year's Day in 1960, "Valkyrie" was selected following a SAC naming contest. More than 20,000 entries were submitted.

As previously reported, "The Valkyrie were maidens of extreme beauty, who ranged the heavens on their steeds, choosing those who were to die in battle and bearing the fallen heroes back to Valhalla." It was thus a fitting name for the aircraft!

The XB-70 was both ahead of its time, but also too late. As noted, it would have been vulnerable to SAMs, while less costly, nuclear-armed ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles) were also beginning to enter service. The XB-70 design offered payload flexibility but not mission flexibility – and while there were considerations to employ it as a reconnaissance aircraft with a bomber strike capability, as the RS-70, it was determined it wouldn't be ideal in either role. The Air Force already has the far superior SR-71 Blackbird filling the reconnaissance role!

As noted by the National Museum of the United States Air Force, while the program was canceled, two prototypes (AV-1 and AV-2) were ordered and employed as test vehicles – carrying out 129 flights between 1964 and 1969. Those flights generated a plethora of data on large supersonic aircraft. However, AV-2 was lost in June 1966 after an F-104 collided with the prototype XB-70 in mid-air, killing the F-104 pilot Joe Walker of NASA and XB-70 copilot Major Carl Cross of the Air Force, while North American pilot Al White was able to eject but as badly injured in the incident.

Less than three years later, the surviving prototype was flown to the Air Force Museum – later renamed the National Museum of the United States Air Force – where it is now on display, and following the recent cleaning, looking better than ever!

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary: The Dassault Rafale fighter jets from the Indian Air Force (IAF) will participate in Red Flag-Alaska 24-2, training with and against U.S. F-16 and F-35 fighters.

-This exercise allows the IAF to evaluate the Rafale against advanced aircraft, particularly as the F-35 simulates the Chinese J-20's capabilities.

-The training, involving over 100 aircraft and 3100 personnel, aims to enhance interoperability and combat readiness in a realistic threat environment, crucial given current India-China tensions.

The French-made Dassault Rafale will soon go head-to-head against the American-made F-16 Fighting Falcon and F-35 Lightning II in the skies over Alaska as part of this month's Red Flag-AK 24-2, which runs through June 14. Eight of the Rafale fighter jets, operated by the Indian Air Force (IAF), landed at Eielson Air Force Base (AFB), Alaska, last week – where they will take part in simulated dogfights with the American combat aircraft.

However, this is really about highlight the capabilities of the Dassault Rafale and how it can stand up to the most advanced aircraft operated by China.

"The exercise includes simulated dogfights between the Rafale and the American F-35 stealth fighter, the latter standing in for the Chinese J-20," Defence.in reported. "The J-20, a fifth-generation fighter frequently deployed by China along its disputed border with India, is a key concern for the IAF. The simulation allows Indian pilots to gain valuable experience against an aircraft with similar capabilities, enhancing their preparedness for potential real-world scenarios."

The F-35 and J-20 do have stark differences, with the former serving as a multirole fighter capable of ground attacks, while the latter was designed with air superiority in mind – yet the exercises will still enable the IAF to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the Rafale against a fifth-generation fighter.

According the United States Pacific Air Forces, "approximately 3100 service members are expected to fly, maintain and support more than 100 aircraft from 4 nations scheduled to participate in Red Flag-Alaska 24-2," while primary flight operations will take part in a realistic threat environment over the more than 77,000 square miles of airspace in the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex, the largest combat training range in the world. The United States Air Force has conducted the Red Flag exercises with allies and partner nations since 1975, and the IAF first took part in 2008.

"Red Flag-Alaska is designed to provide realistic training in a simulated combat environment enabling joint combined forces to exchange tactics, techniques and procedures while improving interoperability with fellow servicemembers," PAF added. "Red Flag-Alaska training spans from individual skills to complex, large-scale joint engagements."

The IAF's participation comes as tensions remain high between New Delhi and Beijing.

The Dassault Rafale – which means literally "gust of wind," or "burst of fire" in a more military sense – was developed as an "omnirole" fighter, meaning that it would replace seven types of combat aircraft in operation at the time of its development.

The new aircraft – originally conceived for the French Air Force and French Navy – was designed to carry out a wide range of missions, including air-defense/air-superiority, anti-access/area denial, reconnaissance, close air support, dynamic targeting, air-to-ground precision strike/interdiction, anti-ship attacks, nuclear deterrence, and even buddy-buddy refueling. It is slated to be the French armed forces’ prime combat aircraft until at least 2050, and has found favor with the IAF.

The fourth-generation combat aircraft utilizes a quadruple-redundant fly-by-wire system that provides for longitudinal stability and superior handling performance across three digital channels and one separately designed analog channel. The close-coupled/delta wing configuration ensures that the Rafale remains agile even at high angles of attack. The airframe radar cross-section is minimized by using appropriate materials and mold lines, including serrated edges to the trailing edge of the wings and canards.

It will now be put to the test against the very best multirole fighter in the world – and if he can hold its own that should only serve to make Beijing worry.

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

A recent Bloomberg article reported: “Hong Kong is turning to oil-rich Saudi Arabia for new funds to help offset a growing list of challenges facing its stock market.” That is quite an understatement for what was once one of the freest, cleanest financial capitals in the world. 

The reality is grimmer than the story suggests. Hong Kong may soon climb the ignominious list of finance centers that depend on laundered funds as more legitimate capital flees to locales that have not shed the rule of law. 

Saudi funds are the least of the city’s problems (and an unlikely salvation for the ailing city). More suspect are funds from places like Russia or elsewhere that legitimate bankers avoid. In April, Reuters reported that Hong Kong was among the transit points for Russian firms attempting to pay Chinese companies while evading Western sanctions related to the Ukraine War. Also mentioned were legal entities in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan that are friendly to Russia and convenient for Russia-related business activities—not great company. 

Hong Kong’s fall from grace has been steep. The city was once a British-run capitalist outpost in China known for its professionalism and lawfulness. China’s central government promised this system would continue for at least fifty years after London ceded the colony to Beijing in 1997. Since China’s opening began in the late 1970s, Hong Kong has been a mechanism for China to access capital and for foreigners to invest in China without being impeded by the mainland’s capital controls and communist economy.

Hong Kong’s arrangement worked relatively well until Beijing promulgated a vague and sweeping national security law in 2019. The government has used the law to imprison dissidents ranging from low-level peaceful protesters to Jimmy Lai, the publisher of Hong Kong’s popular pro-democracy Apple Daily newspaper, which the government shuttered. Recently, the government and judicial system have been occupied by outlawing the singing of popular songs. 

The government and businesses stuck in the city are trying to return to normalcy and portray Hong Kong as the dominant gateway to China. The Hong Kong Monetary Authority still boasts that “Hong Kong originates and intermediates two-thirds of China’s inward foreign direct investment (FDI) and outward direct investment (ODI) as well as most financial investments.” Last year, the government initiated a “Hello Hong Kong” advertising campaign stressing normalcy that even featured the chairman of the American Chamber of Commerce—a dalliance with Chinese propaganda that drew a U.S. congressional inquiry. 

The reality is less hopeful. Hong Kong’s stock exchange had a paltry twelve initial public offerings in the first quarter of this year—the worst performance since the 2009 economic crisis. A Bloomberg article in March detailed a “lost generation” of financial professionals in the former boomtown and summed up the situation: “The damage is underscored by the barrage of layoffs by Wall Street firms, the retreat of global capital into the world’s second-largest economy, and the city’s diminishing role as an international financial center.”

The fall from grace occurs at a time when other banking centers have cleaned up their acts. Switzerland has largely ceased to be the haven used to hide funds from the Internal Revenue Service. A senior finance official in the United Arab Emirates plainly told me that the amount of capital in the country and region means that bankers in Abu Dhabi and Dubai simply aren’t impressed by briefcases of cash from dubious sources—the risk is not worth the reward. In February, the multilateral Financial Action Task Force dropped the UAE from its list of countries at risk of illicit money flows. Last year, Singapore arrested ten foreigners from Cyprus, Cambodia, Dominica, China, Turkey, and Vanuatu and seized $740 million in laundered funds—a reminder that the city-state intends to keep its clean image. 

These developments leave Hong Kong as the path of least resistance for those seeking to deposit dirty money. The Ukraine War has accelerated the creation of new financial pathways and practices, with China and Russia, in particular, breaking from Western-dominated banks and financial data networks. This development creates opportunities not only for laundering funds from those countries but also for corrupt locales and individuals around the world.

Amid this decline, the U.S. government should recognize that Hong Kong is no longer clean or financially distinct from the rest of China and take steps to defend U.S. financial institutions from corruption. First, the U.S. Federal Reserve should revoke the Hong Kong Monetary Authority’s right to clear U.S. dollar-denominated transactions, which the Authority delegated to HSBC as its settlement institution. In 2022, several members of Congress criticized HSBC for colluding with Hong Kong authorities to harass pro-democracy activists. The Federal Reserve allows foreign dollar clearing only in Hong Kong, Japan, the Philippines, and Singapore. This mechanism, extended in 2000 primarily due to time-zone differences, allows Hong Kong banks to avoid the step of working through a U.S. bank when conducting dollar transactions.

Washington should end this privilege. It should also apply enhanced scrutiny to U.S. banks’ business in Hong Kong and encourage them to wind up operations. The Treasury should press foreign governments and institutions that want to curb money laundering to take a more jaded view of Hong Kong’s financial scene.

Should the city back off its repression and demonstrate a desire to return to the rule of law, it can restore its lost luster. Until then, the world should recognize Hong Kong as a repressive scofflaw.

Christian Whiton was a senior State Department advisor in the Bush and Trump administrations. He is the author of Smart Power: Between Diplomacy and War and a senior fellow at the Center for the National Interest.

Image: Shutterstock.com. 

Much time has been lost. Many opportunities for preemption, deterrence and collective action have been squandered. It is past time for NATO to stop Russia.

Why is swift, pathbreaking action imperative? For moral reasons.Will NATO really allow Russia’s genocidal campaign to continue on in the heart of Europe? Does “never again” mean anything? For existential reasons. Russia threatens not just Ukraine, but democracies across Europe and beyond. Are NATO countries willing to risk their security and way of life for a temporary reprieve? For peace and stability. Russia brings war, mayhem and trauma everywhere it goes. Would NATO gamble on an elusive compromise with Russia when Putin always uses purported “peace processes” to buy time and cover for more war and aggression? To save what is left of the post-World War II world order. The emboldened Russia-China-Iran axis seeks a new world order dominated by authoritarians. Will NATO miss the chance to send the axis an unambiguous signal and setback by acting decisively against Russia?

Eastern flank countries understand the urgency of stopping Russia and exhort all of NATO to act accordingly. Latvian President Edgar Rinevics warned in an interview with Sky News: “[I]f Russia is not stopped (from) pushing the envelope, testing the limits, at one point it may consider that NATO is not serious about its own defense and then we are in trouble.” Estonian Prime Minster Kaja Kallas and Polish President Andrzej Duda implore NATO countries to increase defense spending to 3% of their GDP and to help Ukraine “right now.” Kallas explained to the BBC, “[B]ecause, what are the lessons from the 1930s and 1940s?” Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis laments NATO procrastination in “ramping up readiness” and recently asserted on X that “including Ukraine under the umbrella of NATO collective defense” is “the only way to deter Russian aggression.”

Speakers at a May 21st Atlantic Council event entitled “The Washington NATO Summit: Ukraine and the transatlantic security in the age of marching authoritarians” generally agreed that Ukraine should be admitted into NATO, and that failing to prioritize this at the upcoming summit in July would not be a “good look.” Will NATO finally/seriously address the dire and mounting threats before it? Instead of emphasizing “celebration” of NATO’s 75th anniversary, former Ambassador John Herbst said, NATO should adopt a “crisis mentality.” President of the Center for European Policy Analysis Alina Polyakova added that “an alliance that was awake would be on a war footing.” Prime Minister Fogh Rasmusen of Denmark rightly observed, “While we hesitated, Russia escalated. We must wake up.” Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine Andriy Yermak warned, “Russia is not going to stop. We have to stop it together.”

In spite of such calls for strong and resolute policy, if the recent past is prologue, NATO is unlikely to act with the toughness and resolve required to “stop Russia.” Thus, it is requisite to emphasize, in advance of the NATO Summit, the terribly high stakes. Let us assess the magnitude of the Russia threat to everything for which the Free World supposedly stands.  

Russia’s imperial wars and war crimes obviously extend way beyond Ukraine.

From Czechnya to Georgia to Syria, Russia has demonstrated bellicosity, cruel targeting, torture, deportations and disappearances of civilians including children, and ferocious lust for territory and domination. Russia today has camps, and Russia today engages in ethnic cleansing. Circassians and Crimean Tatars are effectively colonized and kept in check with brutality and oppression. Putin has successfully created a puppet state in Belarus, and is pursuing the same in Serbia. In Armenia and Azerbaijan and elsewhere, Putin has fomented the “frozen conflicts” which suit him so well. Moldova endures a constant threat from the pro-Russian “breakaway province” of Transnistria. And, in spite of the indomitable pro-democracy spirit of the Georgian people, Russia is working to usurp Georgia with the sympathetic government’s “foreign agents law.”

No part of Europe is free from Russia’s hybrid warfare. From the Baltics to the Balkans, Russia seeks to destabilize democracies with disinformation (now enhanced with AI), cyber attacks, electronic warfare and aggressive intelligence operations. Russia is reckless and brazen, with no concern for civilized norms. Estonia recently issued a protest regarding Russia’s jamming of GPS signals, which dangerously affected regional aviation. GRU (Russian military intelligence) methods include sabotage, cyber operations, assassinations and arson. Per the Financial Times, European intelligence agencies have warned that Russia “is plotting violent acts of sabotage across the continent as it commits to a course of permanent conflict with the west.” The EU and NATO response to all this has remained tempered, even as Russia’s malign transgressions have grown.

Russia uses propaganda and “active measures” to divide Americans, and citizens within all Western democracies, against each other, to alienate Europe from the United States, and to split NATO allies. Russia wants to create a fractured, cynical West that no longer knows what it stands for, or why, and lacks the courage of its convictions. What better way to counter this stratagem than for NATO allies to unite in moral-democratic resolve, persistently expose Putin’s lies, reinvent Voice of America-type programs, and engage in vigorous information operations of their own?

The complacency, prevarication and incrementalism with which post-Cold War NATO has dealt with the Russian threat has damaged the credibility and authority of the alliance. No wonder Poland and Estonia are on a war footing. NATO has only 5% of the air defenses needed to protect Eastern flank countries from a full-scale attack according to NATO’s own reports. Moreover, the fact that Russia has not faced staunch, unerring Western resistance to the horrors it inflicts on Ukraine and the nightmares it inflicts on Europe means that Russia is relatively free to simultaneously wreak havoc across the globe, which it assuredly does.

Syria’s murderous dictator Bashar al Assad and allies Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah succeeded in keeping the detested Syrian regime in power through merciless war and atrocities, and NATO countries and others did little to stop them. Appallingly, Arab and Western leaders, including the Biden administration, are moving toward “normalizing” relations with the Assad regime in spite of its ongoing genocidal war on the Syrian people, and Russia, Iran and Hezbollah’s participation in that war, which expands their footprint and power. Thankfully, recent Congressional measures include new sanctions designed to undo some of the damage done by Syria and Iran accommodation.

Putin cultivates Islamist extremists as well as authoritarians, all the while exploiting chaos and despair. Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban, the Houthis … Russia has relations with them all insofar as that tears at the fabric and security of democracies, and inhibits pro-democracy elements in developing countries. In September 2023, Putin hosted the Taliban for talks. In May, Russia moved toward removing the Taliban from its list of terrorist organizations. Tellingly, Putin hosted both a Hamas delegation and Iran’s foreign minister shortly after Hamas’s October 7th terror attack on Israel. As more evidence emerges, more analysts are agreeing with Mark Toth and Jon Sweet’s assessment that “Putin’s fingerprints are all over the Hamas attack.”  Before as well as after the attack, Russia, China and Iran stepped up pro-Hamas and antisemitic propaganda.

Russia, China and Iran are capitalizing on every vacuum of America-democratic influence. Russia’s Wagner Group, recently rebranded the Africa Corps, has ascended in Africa as US and French influence have declined. Countries in northern Africa and the Sahel have been plagued with a “counterwave” to previous trends toward democratization, with resurgent terrorism and coups, and Russian exploitation of both. Particularly notable was Niger’s revoking of its military cooperation agreement with the United States, and ordering US troops to leave. Sudan, where Russia also makes its mark, has descended into war waged by a genocidal Islamist militia.

NATO’s defense calculations must include the power of Russia, China and Iran combined. These partners/allies benefit from weapons and technology transfers, joint military exercises, energy trade, sanctions breaches and running cover for each other in the UN. Russia uses dual-use equipment from China (which China is now “surging” to Russia) and drones from Iran in its war on Ukraine. Now, Iran is additionally providing Russia with ballistic missiles. To subvert what remains of the US-oriented “world order,” the three countries disseminate fierce anti-democratic propaganda; cultivate ties with North Korea and bad actors across the globe; and work toward devastating cyber and infrastructure attacks on the United States. Add to this China’s dramatic military build-up, plan to subjugate Taiwan and cooperation with Russia on space, cyber and nuclear weapons and the picture gets more alarming.

NATO must contain and counter these hostile, brutal regimes and, although China is America’s most formidable adversary, stopping Russia’s savage, ruinous war on Ukraine is fundamental to that effort. By unequivocally and swiftly helping Ukraine defeat Russia, NATO can deliver a decisive setback and credible warning to them all. The too little too late approach must be replaced with scale and speed. While Biden and Scholz are finally, partially backing away from restrictions on Ukraine firing weapons across the border with Russia, Russia gains momentum when the West dithers. Such is all too evident in Russia’s horrific assault on Kharkiv.

Having prevaricated while the enemy advanced, NATO must also prepare for wider war, while doing everything possible to deter it. At about the time Russia outrageously “decided” to change its sea borders with Lithuania and Finland, Putin was warning European countries that Russia has “weapons that can hit targets on their territory.” As if to brag about the inhumanity with which he targets civilian populations, he said they should “remember that, as a rule, they are states with a small territory but dense population.” All of this is frightening and maddening, and exacerbates the West’s fear of “escalation,” but NATO must stand strong. It is weakness and procrastination that allow Russia’s hostilities and atrocities to escalate. There is no good alternative to “peace through strength” and no excuse for inadequately investing in the defense-industrial base and military modernization.

Failing to act boldly and with urgency is as unprincipled as it is unwise. There must be no more impunity for Russia’s wars of aggression and crimes against humanity. Ukraine must be welcomed into NATO as the tremendous ally that it would be, and swiftly given all the weaponry it requires to defeat Russia, to use in the manner it chooses. In addition to more heavily sanctioning Russian atrocities and hostilities, and more resourcefully countering Russia’s sanctions evasion, Western governments should explore ways, including via Russia’s frozen assets, to finance the rebuilding of Ukraine. As an admiral at a conference I attended remarked, “Putin believes time is on his side. … If Europe isn’t going to step up now, with war in Europe, when?”

Anne R. Pierce is an author of books and articles on American presidents, American foreign policy, and American society. She has a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, is an appointed member of Princeton University’s James Madison Society, and was a Political Science Series Editor for Transaction Publishers. Follow her @AnneRPierce.

All images are from Creative Commons. 

Summary: The M1 Abrams, the U.S. Army’s main battle tank since 1980, is undergoing a major upgrade to the AbramsX model. The new version will feature a hybrid electric-diesel engine for improved fuel efficiency and reduced weight, along with AI systems to automate tasks and reduce crew size.

-However, the Pentagon is cautious about funding the project, given concerns about tank utility in modern warfare and potential conflicts with China. General Dynamics aims to address the Abrams' criticisms of being expensive, fuel-inefficient, and hard to maneuver.

-The M1 Abrams is the U.S. military’s most recognized modern tank. A third-generation main battle tank, it has been in service with the U.S. Army since 1980. 

The Abrams is hardly a new platform anymore, but when first introduced it carried several new technological features, from Chobham composite armor, a computer fire control system, a multi-fuel turbine engine, compartmentalized ammunition storage, and protection against nuclear, biological, and chemical weaponry.

Now, the Abrams is getting a refresh. The AbramsX model promises to update the 1980s-designed platform with 21st century tech. Assuming the project is funded properly, the updates will keep the Abrams in service for another few decades.

We don’t know a ton about the AbramsX yet. The tank’s manufacturer,  General Dynamics, dropped a teaser clip on YouTube last year, prompting the Washington Post to report that the AbramsX is “the biggest upgrade of America’s military tank technology since early in the Cold War.” 

The biggest expected change that we know about will be a switch to a hybrid electric-diesel engine, which will reduce the tank’s overall weight while improving fuel efficiency.

The AbramsX is expected to be more efficient and economic in general, with a smaller crew requirement than the original Abrams. The new tank will make use of artificial intelligence systems. These will supplement the crew and automate some of the workload.

The Pentagon is not entirely on board with the new AbramsX. It is concerned about the cost of the program. According to the Washington Post, the AbramsX “faces an uphill climb in the halls of the Pentagon,” in large part because “Russia’s war in Ukraine has shown the promise and peril of tank technology in a modern battlefield.” And the Pentagon number crunchers, whose top concern is the potential of a future conflict with China, “worry how useful tanks might be in a potential war against China.” A valid concern.

There are also worries about the AbramsX’s reliance on artificial intelligence. Hollywood for decades has served up doomsday scenarios about the integration of artificial intelligence with military technology. It is a mainstream preoccupation.

In general, “it’s going to be hard for the tank community to get resources to do a major upgrade,” Mark Cancian of the Center for Strategic and International Studies told the Washington Post.

The original Abrams tank is not without its critics. The original Abrams is a Cold War creation designed to combat a Russian tank advance across the plains of Eastern Europe. The Abrams has performed well enough to stay in the military inventory, but the tank is regarded as overly expensive, fuel-inefficient, and difficult to maneuver.

General Dynamics hopes the AbramsX can solve the problems of the original Abrams.

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: Russia lagged behind the US in submarine technology during the Cold War. To catch up, they developed the Alfa-class (Type 705 Lyra) submarines, combining brute force with advanced technology. These submarines could dive deeper and move faster than their Western counterparts, boasting titanium hulls the U.S. Navy never used. 

-Despite their impressive performance, they were noisy, required extensive maintenance, and were costly.

-Only seven were built.

-NATO responded with advanced torpedoes like the Mark 48 ADCAP. The Alfa-class left a legacy of technological innovation despite their operational challenges.

The Soviet Union began the Cold War well behind the United States in submarine technology. Although the Soviets acquired several of the most advanced German submarine types towards the end of the war, the United States had amassed a wealth of experience in submarine and antisubmarine practice from the Pacific War and the Battle of the Atlantic. Combined with other technological advantages, the United States leapt out to a significant lead in submarine tech (especially nuclear submarines) in the first two decades of the Cold War.

In particular, early Soviet nuclear submarines struggled to compete with the West in stealth and reliability. After the first few designs came to fruition, the Soviets decided to undertake a combination of brute force and extremely risky high technology. The brute-force part meant building a submarine that could move faster and dive deeper than any Western counterpart; the high-tech part meant innovative hull design, reactor design and material manipulation. The result was the Type 705 Lyra (known as Alfa in NATO), a submarine that the West regarded as a profound, if short-lived, threat to its undersea dominance.

With the Lyra class, the Soviets sought to accomplish two goals. First, they wanted to produce a weapon capable of changing the character of naval warfare in the North Atlantic and the Arctic, a weapon that could threaten the overwhelming surface advantages of the NATO navies. Unlike their Western counterparts, which preferred multirole platforms, the Soviets were fine submarines dedicated to a single mission: the high-speed “interception” of NATO surface squadrons, especially carrier battle groups. Second, they wanted to jumpstart technological development, producing innovations that future submarines would incorporate, if only in piecemeal fashion. An incidental third goal was to force NATO navies to spend money and time adapting to the threat that the Lyras would present.

The Lyra class certainly met the second criterion. Following an interim design (the K-162 “Papa”-class cruise-missile submarine), the Lyras had a titanium hull in order to produce tolerances necessary for high speed and for extreme deep diving. To keep the size of the crew small, the Lyra class employed advanced techniques for automating key systems, a decision which also enhanced the combat reaction speed of the crew, although it made at-sea repairs and maintenance extremely difficult.

To achieve high speed, the Alfas used a remarkably innovative lead-cooled fast reactor design. This allowed a tremendous amount of power in a compact space. However, it also created staggering maintenance problems, few of which could be resolved by the small crew at sea. Indeed, even in port the Soviet Navy struggled to keep the Alfas in service.

The Lyras could put up numbers that no class of submarine has matched (apart from the “Papa” SSGN) before or since. Submerged, they could travel at forty-one knots (and could reach that speed with a startling degree of acceleration). They could dive to at least 2,200 feet, far deeper than any NATO submarine of the time, or today.

The speed and diving depth of the Alfa allowed it to evade most contemporary NATO torpedoes, although in combat this would also have made it difficult for the Alfa to move into attack position. Also because of their small size, the Alfas carried a weapons arsenal smaller than most other Soviet boats—a mix of eighteen to twenty-one torpedoes and cruise missiles. Nevertheless, this arsenal could wreak havoc on a NATO group without the means to effectively respond.

The Alfas were not particularly quiet, especially when they approached at high speed. However, their ability to dive deep gave them some stealth capabilities, depending on oceanic conditions. More importantly, they could outrun and outdive most existing NATO weapons, making them very difficult to catch and kill.

As with the MiG-25 and other Soviet “super-weapons,” NATO took the threat of the Alfa very seriously. Extant torpedoes and other antisubmarine weapons would struggle to catch the Alfas, or to dive deep enough to destroy them. Whether out of genuine panic, or out of the desire to use the threat of the Alfas to spur innovation and funding, the U.S. Navy and the Royal Navy embarked on crash programs to develop sensors that could detect the Alfas, and weapons that could kill them.

This effort resulted in a few weapons, including the Mark 48 ADCAP torpedo, which can reputedly travel at sixty-three knots. The Royal Navy developed a similar torpedo, dubbed “Spearfish.” The United States also pursued the “Sea Lance” supersonic missile system, designed to deliver a torpedo or nuclear depth charge at ranges of up to one hundred miles. The United States cancelled the Sea Lance program at the end of the Cold War, roughly at the same time that the Lyra class left service.

The USSR paid dearly for this performance. Nicknamed “golden fish,” the Alfas strained even the massive Soviet submarine building budget. Moreover, they generally proved unreliable in service, requiring expensive and complex maintenance. Soviet ports often lacked the training and equipment necessary to keep the Lyras in working condition. In contrast to most of its other Cold War submarine projects, the USSR built only seven Lyras, one of which was more a prototype than a usable weapon. This first boat was scrapped in 1974, after demonstrating proof of concept.

At the end of the Cold War, the Russian Federation struggled to maintain the huge defense establishment of the Soviet Union. Ultra-expensive ships like the Lyras simply didn’t make the cut; they could not perform enough critical missions to justify their maintenance. Accordingly, the Russian Federation retired the Alfas quickly after the end of the Cold War. By the mid-1990s, all of the boats were retired and designated for scrapping.

Nevertheless, the Soviets learned a great deal from the Lyra experience, not least that the combination of a series of innovative technologies often results in an unreliable vessel. The Barracuda-class (“Sierra” in NATO) submarines of the early 1980s adopted some of the characteristics of the Alfas, including the titanium hull, while dialing back the performance to levels that allowed a more manageable maintenance profile. The Barracudas operated much more quietly than the Lyras, and could perform a more varied set of missions. The Shchuka class attack submarines (NATO: “Akula”) adopted many of the automation techniques pioneered by the Lyras, allowing them to operate with relatively small crews for their size.

Robert Farley, a frequent contributor to TNI, teaches at the University of Kentucky. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. 

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Summary: In the mid-1990s, John Leonard attempted to obtain a Harrier jet through Pepsi's promotional campaign by raising $700,000 to buy seven million points.

-Pepsi, claiming it was a joke, refused to deliver the jet, leading to a legal battle that Leonard lost.

-Recently, Liquid Death launched a contest promising a $400,000 Aero L-39C Albatros jet as a prize for in-store purchases, directly challenging Pepsi's past promotion.

-The winner will also receive a year's supply of Liquid Death and other perks.

A now infamous story – worthy of a movie that hasn't been made yet (although a four-part documentary is available on Netflix) – tells how in the mid-1990s a 23-year-old student raised $700,000 from investors to buy seven million Pepsi points. The goal was to obtain a McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II fighter jet. It was part of a promotion from soft drink maker Pepsi, where for various points consumers could claim a variety of prizes, including t-shirts and sunglasses. But in an ad, the company implied that it would provide the Harrier II for the seven million points!

As CBS News reported in 2015, the ad caught the eye of John Leonard, who read the rules and found that instead of buying a can or bottle of Pepsi to gather the points, each point could be bought for just 10 cents. That resulted in the seven million points costing $700,000, which Leonard raised through investors. Pepsi didn't send the jet (and almost certainly didn't have one available) and responded that it was a joke.

Leonard hired a lawyer and a legal battle ensued, but the case was dismissed. To ensure that others wouldn't try to acquire the jet, Pepsi raised the points needed for the jet from seven million to 700 million – making it far too costly for a student or even a despot to garner enough points!

Now another soft drink maker is running a similar promotion; this time, it actually promises to provide a fighter jet!

The fittingly named Liquid Death began running a contest in May that will give away a $400,000 fighter jet – custom-painted Aero L-39C Albatros has been dubbed "The Dehydrator," reportedly due to the fact the thrust will "relieve you of your bodily fluids and make you empty your stomach."

Instead of gathering points, however, between now and early September, consumers who make an in-store purchase of beverages from the company will be entered into a sweepstake. In addition to the jet, the grand prize winner will receive a year's supply of Liquid Death and a custom flight helmet – while the company has pledged to pick up the sales tax for the plane for the winner.

A few strings are attached, of course.

The jet is real and will come with a valid FAA special certification of airworthiness and the contest winner will receive six free months of hanger space outside of Chicago, but after that, it will need to be moved, and the winner will be responsible for any expenses related to owning and operating the aircraft. Should the winner decide he or she doesn't want a plane (are they crazy), they'll receive a cash prize of $250,000 delivered in a briefcase, CNBC.com reported.

Liquid Death's promotion is also taking direct aim at Pepsi.

"We like to poke the bear," Andy Pearson, Liquid Death's vice president of creative, told ADWEEK. "And I've heard that others have had the idea to give away a jet, but no one's ever pulled it off."

It might not be a Harrier II – even as the aircraft is being retired from service – but the Aero L-39 Albatros is still a cool jet. Developed in the former communist Czechoslovakia during the Cold War as a light attack fighter, it is now used a trainer. It has a top speed of 470 mph and produces nearly 3,8000 pounds of thrust so perhaps that year's supply of Liquid Death will come in handy!

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 B-21 Raider stealth bomber program reported a significant cost overrun of nearly $1.6 billion in Q4 2023 due to higher-than-expected production costs and economic disruptions.

-This has fueled criticism, especially from those advocating for a shift towards drone warfare.

-Despite the challenges, the B-21's advanced stealth technology and unique capabilities in nuclear deterrence and deep-penetration bombing underscore its strategic importance.

-The debate continues on whether the investment in the B-21 is justified given emerging alternatives like drones.

The B-21 Raider stealth bomber has yet to enter production and has mostly avoided controversy. But it experienced a cost overrun in the fourth quarter of 2023.

“Northrop Grumman reported a nearly $1.6 billion pre-tax charge on the B-21 Raider program in the last quarter of 2023,” Defense News reported. “The charge was mainly caused by higher-than-expected production costs and macroeconomic disruptions, company officials said in an earnings call with investors Thursday.”

Naturally, the cost overrun has opened the door for criticism. It offers citable evidence for those who believe the B-21 program is not worth the expense, especially given the predicted rise of drone warfare.

The United States is the only country in the world with an operational stealth bomber, the B-2 Spirit. So why replace an aircraft that is already without peer? Well, the B-2’s stealth technology lags behind advances in detection technology, meaning the aircraft is not quite as stealthy as it once was.

The loss of stealth dampens its ability to perform its primary functions: deep-penetration bombing and nuclear deterrence.

The stealth bomber plays an important role in the nuclear triad and in the U.S. bomber rotation. Even with the advent of missile technology, the bomber has unique capabilities. 

First, the stealth bomber offers a manned option. Whereas missiles are launched and essentially forgotten, the bomber has a human onboard that can make real-time decisions as the mission unfolds. It is more flexible and adaptable than a missile. Second, a bomber offers loitering time. A missile launches directly toward its target, kamikaze-style, but a bomber may sustain its presence around the target, extending the targeting window. Finally, a bomber is reusable. A missile is of course a one-and-done weapon. A bomber can be used for decades.

Stealth enhances a bomber’s effectiveness by providing ambiguity and extending the fog of war. It is hard to defend against. So, stealth bomber capabilities are strategically valuable. The question of whether the B-21 is worth the investment really comes down to policy preferences.

The U.S. military is better off with stealth bombers. But how good do we need the U.S. military to be?

As written above, bombers offer a manned option. Drones of course would negate the manned benefit of a nuclear-equipped bomber. Granted, many drones are remotely manned, like the entire fleet of Remote Piloted Aircraft in the U.S. Air Force inventory.

But the use of true drones – autonomous aircraft with an artificial intelligence operating system – to run nuclear deterrence missions is unsettling. James Cameron made a film series about something like that, called Terminator. You should check it out if you haven’t already.

And while Terminator is fiction, there’s a word of caution in the narrative that bears respecting.  

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. 

A congressional hearing on port safety normally wouldn’t get much attention, but coming so soon after the fatal ship accident that killed six and caused the Francis Scott Key bridge in Baltimore, Maryland, to collapse, there was more interest than usual in the topic.

Indeed, the House subcommittees on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation and Transportation and Maritime Security gathered in Miami to discuss “Port Safety, Security, and Infrastructure Investment” just 10 days after the Dali’s allision (when a ship hits a stationary object) in Baltimore harbor.

The venue for the hearing, the Port of Miami, stands out. It’s a site that hopes to grow its market presence and lead in port technology. It has welcomed the world’s largest cruise ship, the Icon of the Seas. And it can service large Neo Panamax container ships – a too-rare feature of American ports. Sadly, the nation’s maritime sector is not as healthy as it needs be.

Americans are increasingly aware that they can no longer assume their store shelves and gas stations will always be stocked. Since COVID lockdowns ended, shipping backlogs have ensued at times due to decisions made in Beijing – recall that Chinese Communist Party’s COVID Zero policy that shuttered the world’s largest ports for weeks. Then the March 2021 grounding of a container ship shut down the Suez Canal, shocking an already reeling global supply chains. That was followed by global grain supply disruptions caused by Russia’s war in Ukraine.

And, since October, Houthi attacks in the Red Sea have been rattling shipping and markets reliant on trade that crosses the Suez Canal. Add to this the incident in Baltimore, and to most people it’s clear our prosperity, which relies on maritime trade, isn’t as secure as it once was. 

As a maritime nation we have fallen far. Today no U.S. port ranks in the top 25 nations in cargo handling; China holds eight of those spots. Asia also has the most vibrant maritime sector with the most new commercial shipping entrants – again led by China. The point is not that our ports don’t meet today’s need in general, but a lack of competitiveness has not generated the resiliency we need, nor the vibrancy necessary to modernize – which in turn fails to recruit needed new mariners and the shipyard workers.

A consequence of this malaise is on display in Baltimore Harbor. While investigations and recovery operations are ongoing (and it will be some time until all the facts are known), it’s clear that our nation’s maritime industrial sector hasn’t been treated as the strategic asset it is. One need only look at the limited salvage capacity on hand to reopen the nation’s 10th port. It has taken two months to clear the Dali from blocking the harbor. By contrast, reopening the Suez Canal, when the ultra large container ship Ever Given grounded and wedged itself in the canal, was cleared quicker: six days.

To reverse the tide of our national sea blindness requires a national maritime initiative. If done properly, it would rectify our over-reliance on non-friendly nations to sustain our economy, and ensure safe maritime operations, by:

-Providing an adequate American flagged commercial shipping fleet that can sustain the nation in a crisis.

-Expanding shipbuilding, repair and salvage capacities and associated workforces.

-Hardening our maritime infrastructure and shipping to cyber-attack and material damage.

On the first point, existing approaches are inadequate, and there is little time to act as both infrastructure, ships, and mariners age out of service. Change is needed, but because of the century of market distortions created by the Jones Act, a maritime Hippocratic oath of “do no harm” is required to retain the maritime assets protectionist dependent domestic maritime industrial sector. At the same time, the March 12th petition against unfair Chinese trade practices in the maritime, logistics and shipbuilding sectors is an opportunity to strengthen U.S. agencies like the Federal Maritime Commission and press America’s case, while rallying international common cause.

Delivering on the second point requires a stronger and globally competitive maritime sector. This would serve as a deterrent to Chinese economic coercion and military adventures, as the nation would be less reliant on Chinese shipping and its ports. This can be done by fostering a revolution in shipping through a new multi-modalism that would recover American competitiveness in this strategic industrial sector. Achieving this, American trade can proceed with greater confidence and resiliency, and better sustain the military.

Lastly, and perhaps most relevant to recent events, legal and regulatory frameworks of the 9/11 era should be revised. With an eye to adjusting to the New Cold War we find ourselves in with China, the Maritime Security Act of 2002, Container Security Initiative and the Proliferation Security Initiative should be updated. We also need to place into law measures of both the 2020 National Maritime Cybersecurity Plan and the recently enacted executive order EO 14116.

The Biden administration failed to act on the 2020 plan until almost four years later with a similar executive order – though not as thorough as the 2020 one. Still we wait. Over three months later, and two months after the Dali allision, there’s no indication that cyber intrusions are even being considered in the ongoing NTSB investigation, according to a preliminary report recently released.

Countermeasures that bolster our maritime sector’s cyber defenses must be de-politicized by being memorialized in law by an act of Congress.

An easy first step in getting the nation underway on a National Maritime Initiative is to update the 1989 National Security Directive 28 on Sealift, with Congress passing enabling legislation. Regaining American maritime competitiveness will not be easy nor cheap, but failing to address the nation’s sea blindness will further place our nation’s economic and national security in the hands of non-friendly parties. 

Brent Sadler joined Heritage Foundation after a 26 year Navy career with numerous operational tours on nuclear powered submarines, personal staffs of senior Defense Department leaders, and as a military diplomat in Asia. As a Senior Research Fellow, Brent’s focus is on maritime security and the technologies shaping our future maritime forces, especially the Navy.

Image Credit: Shutterstock. 

Summary: The U.S. Army's new M10 Booker, designed to support mechanized brigades, resembles a miniaturized M1 Abrams but with a 105mm cannon and lighter armor.

-Unlike the Abrams, the Booker can be quickly deployed via C-17 transport planes without disassembly.

-It aims to enhance mobility and protection for light infantry units, despite not being classified as a light tank.

-Critics argue the Booker may struggle in modern combat scenarios like Ukraine, where light tanks have been ineffective against powerful Russian anti-tank weapons.

The US Army has a new 'tank'…but don’t you dare call it a tank. And it’s something more than an armored personnel carrier. In fact, like most tanks, the new tank, designated the M10 Booker, does not carry personnel other than the crew at all. What’s more, the Booker appears to be a miniaturized version of the M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank (MBT). 

According to the US Army the Booker will “add firepower and maneuverability to the Army’s mechanized brigades.”

Its smaller size does not mean it will not pack a punch. The size of the Booker simply helps to keep maintenance costs down (in terms of maintenance costs, size really does matter). Possessing a 105mm cannon (compared to the Abrams’ 120 mm cannon), with lighter armor than the Abrams, the Booker is not just like its older, bigger brother. 

However, the Army is quite pleased with the product and hopeful about its effectiveness in future combat missions.

That, by the way, should give most readers pause. The M10 Booker, unlike the Abrams, was designed to easily fit onto a C-17 Globemaster III transport plane without having to be disassembled. The Abrams can certainly fit on a C-17. Unfortunately, the M1 Abrams is so large only one can fit on a massive C-17 and it must be partly disassembled to fit. The Booker, on the other hand, can fit two units to a C-17 and can be easily rolled-on-and-rolled-off the aircraft intact.

Nonetheless, what should we make of the M10 Booker? Does it make sense to acquire this new 'tank' with so many other budgetary demands coming out of the U.S. military these days? 

The specific purpose of this non-tank-tank is to support light infantry units that are in the midst of combat operations. Rather than having to wait for an M1 Abrams to be reassembled back at an airbase and then deployed to the frontline to support infantry on the move, the M10 Booker can move quickly to targets on the front. The point with these systems would be to ensure mobility while protecting light infantry forces.  

The Army’s leadership has insisted that the M10 Booker is not a “light tank,” as some in the press have described it. US Army General Glenn Dean explained to the Military Times that the M10 Booker is not a light tank because “the historical use of light tanks has been to perform reconnaissance functions. This is not a reconnaissance vehicle. It’s not actually a mission match [for a light tank].”

But, as Davis Winkie of the Military Times opined, “Stop gaslighting us. It’s a damn tank.”

A more interesting query would be to find out what kind of a tank it is. Obviously, it is not an MBT on the order of the M1 Abrams. And the level of armor, plus the fact that it is not designed to do recon missions, indicates that this vehicle is not, in fact, a light tank. It’s more akin to a medium tank. The M551 Sheridan was the Cold War equivalent to the M10 Booker (although the Army classified that vehicle as a light tank). Although, the Sheridans could be parachuted into combat. But as one former Army tanker I chatted with recently claimed, “The Booker is light enough that they’ll probably be able to parachute it into combat eventually.” 

The Army says that the first M10 Booker was scheduled to be deployed by the Army in February of this year. Each unit costs around $12 million, roughly half the cost of the M1 Abrams tank. The Army has spent a total of $257 million on the M10 Booker program. 

The real question is, though, will it be effective in protecting infantry? 

The Army says that they incorporated many lessons learned from the battlefields in Ukraine. Well, one of the lessons learned should have been that light tanks are not very effective in the kind of combat that is occurring in Ukraine. While antiquated, the French flooded the Ukrainian Army with their AMX-10RC light tanks. All these platforms did was get a lot of good Ukrainians killed. They were deemed “unsuitable” for combat by the Ukrainians. Basically, Russian anti-tank weapons and more powerful Russian tanks kept blasting through the French light tanks.

The Booker tanks, like all light or light, or in this case, “medium” tanks (to keep the nitpickers in the Army’s leadership happy) appear to be missing the fundamental point about tanks. The entire purpose is to get firepower to the frontlines and punch through enemy formations. An 105mm gun and light armor will not achieve this, no matter how new or fancy the M10 Booker appears to be. Yes, it is a tank. No, it is not the kind of tank that one fighting a modern war against a near-peer rival would need. 

Part of the problem is that the acquisition system in the United States Department of Defense is completely broken. It’s untethered from reality and reflects political preferences rather than battlefield needs. Infantry needs to be mobile, and they need maneuverable vehicles supporting them. But they also need tanks—which is what the M10 Booker is, no matter how hard the Army wants to say otherwise—that can pack a wallop and that won’t be blasted to smithereens because of weak armor and a small gun.

The Booker tank is the wrong vehicle for the wrong kind of 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.

Summary: India is reducing its dependence on Russian arms due to Russia’s diminished export capacity amid the Russo-Ukraine War.

-This shift may benefit the U.S., with which India is strengthening defense ties.

-However, India must balance this with maintaining good relations with Russia to avoid pushing Moscow closer to China.

-India aims to bolster domestic production and has sought arms deals with the U.S. and France, while still relying on Russian oil.

India is cutting its dependence on Russian arms sales. The move away from Moscow comes as Russia’s capacity to export arms is reduced on account of the Russo-Ukraine War. 

But India will be forced to maintain cordial relations with Russia, lest it push the Kremlin’s leader, President Vladimir Putin, toward India’s greatest rival, China. 

India’s pivot away from Russia is a significant blow for Putin’s regime. India is the world’s biggest arms importer, and in an effort to compensate, India will likely turn to the United States, one of Russia’s chief rivals. 

“We are not likely to sign any major military deal with Russia,” Nandan Unnikrishnan of the New Delhi think tank Observer Research Foundation said, Reuters reported. “That would be a red line for Washington.”

The United States will hope to pick up a portion of the business India withholds from Russia. India purchased more than $60 billion of weapons from Russia over the last two decades alone.

Russia recognizes the importance of the Indian partnership and has maintained pressure on Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government. Russia has recently solicited India to buy Kamov helicopters, Sukhoi jets, and MiG jets. Modi has resisted, however, focusing instead on increasing domestic production with the aid of Western technology.

“Such efforts would better fit Modi’s ‘Make in India’ programme to encourage domestic manufacturing, as he makes a rare bid for a third term in general elections,” according to Reuters. “India expects to spend nearly $100 billion on defence orders over the next decade.”

In addition to purchases from the United States, India has courted France for fighter jet purchases. India also has designs on co-building submarines with a European nation.

The United States has been working to strengthen ties in the Indo-Pacific in an effort to counter China’s rise. As such, India is of outsized strategic importance to the United States. And India, bitter rivals of China, is similarly interested in protecting against Chinese President Xi Jinping’s increasingly assertive and increasingly capable military.

Collaboration between the U.S. and India on weapons sales and development has already begun. In 2023, the two nations signed a deal for General Electric to produce jet engines in India for use with Indian-made fighter jets. The deal represents the first time the U.S. will allow its jet engines to be made abroad with a non-ally.

Further collaboration is expected in “areas ranging from air combat to intelligence,” Reuters reported. 

Although India intends to strengthen ties with the United States, it must simultaneously avoid alienating Russia – easier said than done, given the rivalry between Washington and Moscow.

While India seeks arms imports from another source, the country still counts on Russia for oil.  

India needs to maintain oil purchases from Russia to “keep [Russia] as far away as possible from China,” Unnikrishnan told Reuters.

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 Nimitz-class supercarrier USS George Washington (CVN-73) will soon replace USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) as the U.S. Navy's forward-deployed aircraft carrier. This will be the fourth Navy vessel named after the founding father. The most notable namesake was USS George Washington (SSBN-598), the first ballistic missile submarine. Originally an attack submarine, it was modified to carry Polaris missiles and became a key component of the U.S. nuclear triad, conducting numerous deterrent patrols during the Cold War.

The Nimitz-class nuclear-powered supercarrier USS George Washington (CVN-73) will soon serve as the U.S. Navy's forward-deployed aircraft carrier, relieving her sister warship USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) in the role. 

CVN-73, the sixth Nimitz-class carrier, is the fourth Navy vessel named to honor the founding father. Previous holders of the name include an 18th-century frigate and a converted German ocean liner seized by the U.S. during the First World War.

But it was the third vessel named for the nation's first president that left the most important mark on the history of the Navy.

USS George Washington (SSBN-598) was the first ballistic missile carrier in the U.S. Navy, but she was not a purpose-built SSBN. Originally laid down as the nuclear-powered fast attack submarine USS Scorpion (SSN-589), construction was halted and the boat was cut in half, with a 39.6 meter (130 foot) missile compartment added to accommodate the Polaris ballistic missile.

The Federation of American Scientists described the submarine’s impact: "With its entry into service in December 1959 the United States instantly gained the most powerful deterrent force imaginable – a stealth platform with enormous nuclear firepower."

SSBN-598 emerged from the Electric Boat Company yards in June 1960 as the lead boat of a new class of ballistic missile submarines. It sailed to Cape Canaveral, Florida, to be armed with two UGM-27 Polaris two-stage, solid-propellant missiles. The nuclear-powered boat proceeded to the U.S. Atlantic Missile Test Range with officials from the Polaris Submarine program, and on July 20, 1960, it completed the first Polaris missile launch from a submerged submarine.

Although the missile was unarmed, it was a historic moment that was confirmed in a message from the boat's captain, Commander James Osborn, to President Dwight D. Eisenhower. It read, "Polaris from out of the deep to target. Perfect."

A second missile was launched an hour later, traveling 1,770 km (1,100 miles) down the firing range, where it struck the target area. The tests were duplicated two weeks later before USS George Washington traveled to Charleston to take on board her full load of 16 Polaris missiles. After receiving those missiles, the single submarine carried ordnance that was more powerful than all the bombs dropped during the entire Second World War.

SSBN-598 completed her first armed patrol after 66 days on January 21, 1961. It marked the beginning of her service as part of the U.S. nuclear triad. Beginning later that year, the submarine conducted an untold number of classified deterrent patrols near the Soviet coastline, rotating with two crews. Within just a handful of years, USS George Washington had traveled more than 100,000 miles.

The warship received an overhaul in 1965 and remained in service for another 20 years. While she was the first submarine to carry a nuclear-armed ballistic missile, it should be noted that the boat's motto was "First in Peace."

The third vessel named to honor the Revolutionary War general and the nation's first president was decommissioned in January 1985. Only her conning tower was saved, and it is now on display at the Submarine Force Museum in Groton, Connecticut.

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 Italian Navy's flagship aircraft carrier, ITS Cavour, has departed for its first Indo-Pacific deployment, including visits to Australia and Japan.

-It marks the first port call by the Italian flagship to Japan. The deployment will involve joint training exercises with the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) on operating the F-35B Lightning II fighters.

-Italy's carrier has three F-35Bs, with more expected to join.

-The JMSDF is also preparing its Izumo-class ships for F-35B operations, enhancing Japan's naval capabilities against China's expansion.

Italy and Japan were allied in both world wars, and today remain key partners. That fact was on display on Saturday as the Italian Navy's flagship aircraft carrier ITS Cavour departed her home port of Taranto in southern Italy for her first deployment to the Indo-Pacific. The flattop, which was commissioned in 2008 and can carry a dozen rotary aircraft or eight fixed-wing fighters, is scheduled to visit Australia and then will head to Japan in August.

It will mark the first-ever port call by the Italian flagship to Japan, and the most recent deployment of a European aircraft carrier to the region, following those of the UK and France.

Last July, the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) announced that it would conduct training exercises with the Italian Navy on the operation of the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lighting II, the short/vertical takeoff and landing variant of the Joint Strike Fighter. The Italian Navy currently operates the fifth-generation multirole stealth fighter.

In early 2021, the Italian carrier took part in training exercises with the United States Navy from Naval Air Station Patuxent River (NAS Pax River), Maryland. Italy is a Level II partner on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, with the Italian Air Force first taking delivery of the Lightning II in 2016, while the Italian Navy received its first F-35Bs in 2020. The Italian sea service has three of a planned 15 now in service, and it is likely all of those aircraft will accompany ITS Cavour on her Indo-Pacific deployment.

Moreover, while in the waters of Japan, it is likely the flight deck could get a bit more crowded. The JMSDF currently expects to receive its first batch of F-35Bs this year, in advance of carrier operations.

Both Tokyo and Rome will likely welcome any joint operations involving the F-35B. The Italian would likely see how its carrier can operate with additional aircraft from the flight deck of its flagship, while the JMSDF is seeing its two Izumo-class helicopters being converted to true aircraft carriers that can operate the Lightning II.

Both JS Izumo and JS Kaga have been undergoing major modifications that will allow the 800-foot (248-meter) long vessels to become the first carriers operated by the island nation since the Second World War. In August 2013, Japanese officials announced that the two helicopter destroyers would be modified for use in national defense – notably to confront China's naval expansion in the Indo-Pacific.

As previously reported, the Japanese military confirmed that the Izumo-class was designed with the possibility of operating such fixed-wing aircraft. Yet, that fact was not made public as Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, which was adopted after World War II, prohibited Japan from possessing offensive military weapons including aircraft carriers.

Japan is now turning to an old and faithful ally to help it prepare for carrier operations again.

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.