The National Interest

Summary and Key Points: The British Ministry of Defence has announced a £20 million ($26.1 million) investment to build a "silent hangar" at Boscombe Down in Wiltshire for testing advanced military aircraft like the F-35 Lightning II and Chinook helicopters.

-The facility, one of the largest of its kind in Europe, will simulate hostile electromagnetic environments to counter threats such as GPS jamming, which has become increasingly common in modern warfare.

-Expected to open in 2026, the hangar will ensure military equipment can perform effectively in challenging conditions, enhancing the UK's national security and military resilience.

A new UK test facility, one of the largest of its kind in Europe, could enable future testing of advanced aircraft including the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. It will be used to help with the development of technology to counter GPS jamming devices.

On Wednesday, the British Ministry of Defense announced it was investing £20 million ($26.1 million) to build a facility large enough to hold F-35 fighters and Chinook transport helicopters at the Boscombe Down site in Wiltshire. The facility in England’s southwest won't just store the aircraft. Rather, this "silent hangar" will serve as an isolation chamber for testing equipment that "can perform in the harshest electromagnetic environments on operations," the Ministry explained. 

The Ministry of Defense describes the facility as an "anechoic hangar (that) creates the perfect environment to test the integrity of the UK's military equipment." It is now on track to open in 2026. In addition to ensuring that tests can be conducted in a controlled environment, the hangar will also prevent tests from impacting emergency services or air traffic control in the region.

"Hostile threats jamming GPS to disorientate military equipment has become increasingly common," said Minister for Defense Procurement and Industry Maria Eagle, who added, "This cutting-edge test facility will help us eliminate vulnerabilities from our platforms, protect our national security and keep our Armed Forces better protected on global deployments."

When completed, the silent hangar will be one of the largest facilities of its kind in Europe – roughly the size of a normal aircraft hangar, but with many features that might be found in a modern recording studio and classified research center. According to the Ministry, it will simulate "hostile environments (while) putting the UK's most advanced military equipment through its paces."

Security and defense contractor QinetiQ, which provides testing and evaluation capabilities for the military, was awarded the £20 million contract to build the facility.

"On an increasingly digital battlefield, the debilitating effects of electronic warfare are a persistent threat," suggested Will Blamey, chief executive for UK defense at QinetiQ. "The testing we will conduct using this new facility will be integral to strengthening the resilience of military equipment, which in turn enhances the safety and security of our Armed Forces and the United Kingdom."

The design calls for the silent hangar to "reduce reflections, echoes or the escape of radio-frequency waves," while "GPS simulators and threat emulators inside the chamber will provide the ability for the UK to create a number of hostile environments to test how well equipment can withstand jamming, and other threats, that attempt to confuse or disrupt military assets."

The Ministry of Defense has been influenced by the role electronic warfare has played in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, as well as China's military build-up, to put a renewed focus on its own EW efforts.

"The subject of GPS jamming has been well documented in the press, making this new facility all the more vital to help us keep our armed forces safe while protecting the nation and our allies," added Richard Bloomfield, head of Electronic Warfare (CBRN) Space at Defence Equipment & Support. "Not only will this be one of the largest such chambers in Europe, but it will also be one of the most up to date and high-tech in the world, where hostile environments can be safely recreated to put military equipment, such as fighter jets and drones, through testing to understand their performance in challenging environments representing the many external threats that may be faced."

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 and Key Points: The Russian 9K720 Iskander missile system, known as the SS-26 Stone by NATO, has been a significant concern for U.S. and NATO war planners since its development during the Cold War.

-Designed to counter Western air defense systems, the Iskander can deliver both conventional and nuclear strikes with high accuracy, thanks to advanced guidance systems including Russia's GLONASS GPS.

-The Iskander-M, with a range of up to 310 miles, has been effectively used in conflicts like the Syrian Civil War and the ongoing Ukraine War. Russia continues to upgrade this formidable system, enhancing its precision, range, and speed, making it a critical element of Russia's military strategy.

-Russian missile capabilities gave U.S. and NATO war planners headaches even before the Soviet Union collapsed. Whether using anti-aircraft systems or offensive strike platforms, the Russians have always been proficient at keeping Western militaries on their tactical toes. 

One system in particular has terrorized the minds of Western analysts and strategists for years. That’s the 9K720 Iskander (NATO designation SS-26 Stone). This is one of Russia’s most advanced mobile short-range ballistic missile programs. 

The Russians have shamelessly proliferated this capability throughout the world. Now that the Ukraine War has entered its third year, the Putin regime insists they will continue proliferating such weapons to countries that the United States views as threatening, such as the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The Iskander’s story begins in the final decade of the Cold War, the 1980s. Back then, the Reds were doing everything in their power to keep up with America’s defense spending spree and innovation surge under President Ronald Reagan. The Iskander was designed in response to rapid developments in Western air defense systems. 

An Iskander missile can conduct both conventional strikes as well as nuclear attacks. Thus, the missile is used for deterrence at the strategic level and for operational use at the non-strategic level. 

Consisting of two versions, the Iskander-M has a range of up to 310 miles. As mentioned earlier, the Russians have been proliferating this system like crazy over the years. The export model is the Iskander-E. While still a potent system, it has a reduced range. The Iskander-M and Iskander-E are highly accurate systems.

The Iskander has a single-stage solid rocket propellant, and the missile is capable of achieving hypersonic speeds once it hits the atmosphere, too, during its terminal phase. When systems go hypersonic, it can be hard to defend against them. 

In February, it was reported that Russia was implementing a rapid upgrade of both their Iskander and Kinzhal systems to improve their precision, range, and speed.

In other words, Moscow was investing in making one of their most lethal strike weapons even more lethal. 

Iskander missiles employ advanced guidance systems to make its targeting highly accurate. These guidance systems include inertial navigation capability. The Iskander has optical systems and can use satellite-assisted guidance. 

As an interesting aside, the Iskander uses the Russian GLONASS global positioning system, the rival to the U.S.-maintained GPS satellite constellation, to aid in guidance. Until the 2008 invasion of Georgia, the Russians actually used the American GPS for their offensive systems. The Americans then cut off Russian access to GPS, prompting Moscow to redouble its own efforts to use its own network.

In 2013, when the Russian armed forces were intervening to support the government of Bashar al-Assad against Islamist militants in the Syrian Civil War, they used the Iskander missile to great effect. It was the ultimate real-world test of the whole Iskander platform, and the Iskander rarely disappointed.

The Iskander would be put to the ultimate test in Ukraine. 

According to Thomas Newdick of The War Zone, the Iskander-M systems deployed in Ukraine “have been using an apparently previously unseen decoy, in an effort to spoof Ukrainian air defenses.” By employing “penetration aids,” or PENAIDs, which are normally associated with longer-range weapons, the Russians are ensuring “that its short-range battlefield ballistic missiles, too, are better able to defeat increasingly sophisticated anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems” that Ukraine is deploying against Russia. 

Moreover, the Russians have moved these systems into their Baltic Sea enclave of Kaliningrad, which rests between Germany and Poland. Their deployment there not only shores up what is otherwise a vulnerable bit of strategic territory in Europe for Russia, but it also sends a clear signal to the European powers about the kind of damage that Russia can do to them if the Ukraine War spirals out of control.

The Iskander missile is one of Russia’s most powerful weapons. First created to respond to the West during the Cold War, it continues to serve the Russian military with a high success rate – so much so that Moscow has authorized a massive upgrade. Western leaders should not underestimate this system.

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock.

From the Vault

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

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

Problems: The Russian Su-57 "Felon," touted as a fifth-generation stealth fighter, has faced significant challenges in its development and production, leading many to question its effectiveness.

Secret Problem: Despite being promoted for its advanced stealth and capabilities, Western experts argue that the Su-57's radar cross-section and overall design fall short of true fifth-generation standards, making it less stealthy than the U.S. F-35. Additionally, Russia's inability to produce the aircraft in large numbers has limited its impact.

Bottomline: The Su-57's limited deployment in Ukraine suggests that even Moscow lacks confidence in the fighter's supposed stealth capabilities.

A short video from Russian aviation manufacturer Sukhoi has been shared on social media back in March of last year.

Essentially a "sizzle reel" for its Su-57 (NATO reporting name "Felon"), the video highlights how the aircraft is pushing the limits of aviation design. 

The fifth-generation fighter has long been touted by Russian officials for its "advanced" stealth technology that makes broad use of composite materials.

As previously reported, the Kremlin has further claimed the Su-57 can reach a supersonic cruising speed while destroying all types of air, ground, and naval targets.

Even as Russia continues to tout the aircraft, Western aviation experts have suggested the Su-57 is all hype – and that Moscow lacks the manufacturing capabilities even to produce the aircraft in significant numbers.

That is noted by the fact that the Su-57 first flew in January 2010 but didn't enter service until December 2020. 

A decade can be an eternity for "advanced" military platforms – a fact that explains why the United States Air Force is already seeking to phase out its first fifth-generation air superiority fighter, the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor.

Time won't be kind to the Su-57, even if it was as advanced as Russian experts may have claimed. In fact, the Su-57 shouldn't be noted for its capabilities but rather for its troubled development program.

Problems were reportedly revealed with its initial airframe, which required a redesign of the prototypes.

Aviation expert Chris Bolton even noted on social media last year, "Russia's Su-57 'stealth' fighter has a radar cross-section comparable to clean F/A-18 Super Hornet, and around a thousand times bigger than F-35.

Russia's fleet of Felons consists of 12 hand-made prototypes with varying degrees of finish and just two production jets…"

Other experts have also questioned whether the Felon should truly be described as a stealth aircraft and suggested in a head-to-head fight, the Su-57 would be hopelessly outclassed when going up against the Lockheed Martin F-35. The Russian fighter has a design that is much closer to an advanced fourth-generation fighter than a true fifth-generation aircraft. 

It may be less detectable than an F-15 Eagle or F-16 Fighting Falcon, but the Su-57 simply has a poor cross-section compared to its main fifth-generation rivals.

Those facts explain why the Kremlin hasn't deployed it over the skies of Ukraine.

Instead, at least according to most reports, its combat role has been primarily to fire weapons from within the safety of Russian airspace.

Clearly, Russian officials don't believe its stealth is good enough to send over enemy territory.

Moving past those issues, the other factor remains the numbers. Russia simply can't reach serial production and has built fewer than two dozen.

Even if it were to live up to the hype, there aren't enough Felons to make it the game-changer Moscow has claimed to be.

Simply put, the United States likely would have canceled the project several times over, but the Kremlin has seemingly dug such a deep hole its only choice now is to keep going and hope to come out on the other end.

 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.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The AbramsX is the latest iteration of the U.S. Army's iconic M1 Abrams main battle tank, a symbol of American military strength since its debut in the 1980s.

-While the Abrams was originally designed for Cold War scenarios in Europe, the AbramsX incorporates advanced Chobham armor, a powerful 120mm smoothbore gun, and a 1,500-horsepower gas turbine engine, making it highly mobile and well-protected.

-It also features modern digital systems and countermeasures. Despite its impressive capabilities, some critics argue that the AbramsX, like U.S. aircraft carriers, may be more suited to past conflicts than future warfare.

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

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

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

The coming version is known as the AbramsX.

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

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

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

Geography is important in war, who knew?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Main image is from General Dynamics. 

Summary and Everything You Need to Know in 30 Seconds: The SR-71 Blackbird, the fastest plane ever built, flew at speeds exceeding Mach 3.0 during the Cold War. Despite its unmatched speed, it was locked onto by a Swedish Saab JA-37 Viggen, a fighter jet with a top speed of Mach 2.1.

-The successful lock-on was possible due to the predictable routes of the Blackbird and the skill of the Swedish pilots.

-In 1987, Viggens also helped escort a Blackbird to safety after it suffered an engine explosion, highlighting the cooperation between the U.S. and Sweden during the Cold War.

The fastest plane to ever fly retired from service decades ago. When the American-made SR-71 Blackbird was introduced during the Cold War, its innovative technologies, electronics, and avionics pushed it to feats never before seen. 

Even considering the development of modern fighter jets like the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II, the Mach 3.0-capable Blackbird’s legacy remains unmatched. Only one aircraft ever scored a missile lock on a Blackbird, and that aircraft merits a mention of its own: the Swedish Saab JA-37 jet. 

SR-71s during the Cold War were tasked with flying the same repeated pattern over the Baltic Sea, a route referred to as the “Baltic Express.” 

The Swedish Air Force at the time was equipped with the Saab J-35F Draken platform. This older airframe was in no way able to keep up with a Blackbird. But its successor, the Saab J-37 Viggen, had more advanced avionics that enabled it to get close to a Blackbird in flight. 

Compared to the SR-71’s Mach-3.0 top speed, the Viggen was still relatively slow, topping out at Mach 2.1. Despite this gap in capability, the routine nature of Blackbird flights coupled with superb mission planning and pilot skills resulted in one of the Swedish fighters “locking on” to a Blackbird. 

As detailed by former Swedish Air Force JA-37 pilot Per-Olof Eldh, “In total I have five hot intercepts against the SR-71 to my credit. All can be described as successful. I was visual three times; on a couple of occasions the SR-71 was contrailing, which was very useful because you could do a visual check to ensure you ended up in the right spot!” 

Once Eldh was able to lock on, he of course did not fire. The two planes merely crossed paths and gained visual contact with one another.

While this incident proved to be the first ever successful interception and “lock” on a Blackbird, it is important to note that the American pilots were not trying to avoid the Viggens, which were friendly airframes. Regardless, the Swedish pilot’s skill and acumen were impressive. 

The Viggen-Blackbird combination made headlines again in 1987, when an SR-71 suffered an engine explosion and had to be escorted safely to the ground. The Swedish Air Force immediately directed two of its Viggens to aid the SR-71, which would have been more vulnerable to a Soviet attack while flying at such a low altitude. Ultimately, the Blackbird landed safely in West Germany with help from the Swedish airframes.

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: In November 2012, two Iranian Su-25s attempted to shoot down a U.S. MQ-1 Predator drone in international airspace, but failed due to their aircraft's limitations.

-A year later, unaware of new U.S. escort policies, Iran deployed F-4 Phantoms to engage another MQ-1.

-However, the F-4s were surprised by an F-22 Raptor stealth fighter, which had been silently escorting the drone. The Raptor pilot, undetected by the Iranians, calmly revealed his presence, advising the F-4s to retreat, which they did.

-The incident highlights ongoing tensions between the U.S. and Iran, particularly amid nuclear negotiations.

In November 2012, two Iranian Air Force Sukhoi Su-25s tried to down a U.S. Air Force MQ-1 Predator drone. At the time, the MQ-1 was flying in international air space, 16 miles from the Iranian border; the drone flight was legal, but understandably instigatory. Iran scrambled the two Su-25s, which quickly closed on the drone. But the Su-25 was designed for close air support, not air superiority, and it struggled impotently with its cannons to shoot down the MQ-1.

The American drone escaped the interaction unscathed, having filmed the entire sequence with on-board cameras. In response to the incident, the U.S. modified its procedures to better protect its vulnerable drone fleet. It began providing drones with a fighter escort.

One year later, in 2013, the Iranians – apparently unaware of this new U.S. drone-escort policy – engaged another MQ-1. This time, the Iranians sent a jet with some air-to-air game, the F-4 Phantom – an aircraft the U.S. exported to Iran in the 1970s, back when the two countries were allies. Unlike the Su-25, the F-4 was entirely capable of bringing down the MQ-1. But when the Iranian F-4s moved to engage the MQ-1, they discovered they were not alone.

Escorting the MQ-1, lurking silently, was a Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor – a fifth-generation stealth fighter. As the Iranian pilots learned that day, the F-22 “is equipped with stealth technology that enables it to operate virtually undetected by radar.”

Indeed, the Iranians were oblivious to its presence as the F-22 stalked them from below.

This aircraft is packed with enviable, cutting-edge technology. “The F-22 Raptor is a technological marvel,” I noted previously.

“The world’s first operational fifth-generation fighter, the F-22 was designed with a bevy of novel features – stealth technology, supercruise, supermaneuverability, and sensor fusion – all combined to create the preeminent air superiority fighter.”

The Iranians flying in Vietnam War-era F-4 Phantoms were ill-equipped to match an F-22. Granted, the F-4 was a capable airframe – the most produced American supersonic military aircraft ever – but it first flew in 1958. The F-22, on the other hand, was an up-to-date, 21st century marvel.

“The F-22’s software is advanced and impressive. Using sensor fusion, data from multiple onboard sensor systems are synthesized to create a more comprehensive tactical picture,” I explained a few years back.

Besides, the F-4 was not built for dogfighting. “The Phantom was not particularly maneuverable,” I explained in a previous article on the F-4. “Enemy MiGs could typically outturn the F-4, which wasn’t designed for dogfighting and suffered from adverse yaw in tight turns. Instead, the F-4 was intended to fire radar-guided missiles from beyond visual range, not engage in air combat maneuvering.”

Well, the F-22 was comfortably within visual range: It was directly below the Iranians.

The F-22’s pilot, operating undetected, had sidled right in. “He flew under their aircraft to check out their weapons load without them knowing that he was there,” then-Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said. Having determined the F-4’s payloads, the Raptor pilot finally alerted the Iranians to his presence.

He “pulled up on their left-wing and then called them and said ‘you really ought to go home,’” Welsh said. The F-4s complied and bugged out.

The incident is indicative of the friction that has underscored the U.S.-Iranian relationship since the late 1970s. Currently, the two sides are working toward a deal on Iran’s nuclear program, which is reportedly nearing break-out capacity and has made Iran an international pariah. The world is watching closely as the negotiations unfold. In the meantime, hopefully the two rival nations can avoid any further dogfighting incidents.

Harrison Kass is a senior defense editor with over 1,000 published articles. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, he joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison has degrees from Lake Forest College, the University of Oregon School of Law, and New York University’s Graduate School of Arts & Sciences. He lives in Oregon and regularly listens to Dokken. Email the Author: Editor@nationalinterest.org. 

Image Credit: Shutterstock and Creative Commons. 

Summary and Top 4 Points You Need to Know: The USS United States (CVA-58), envisioned as a revolutionary supercarrier after World War II, was a radical design that ultimately proved impractical.

-Approved by President Truman in 1948, it featured a flush deck for launching heavy bombers, but its design lacked key elements like an island for command and control, creating significant operational challenges.

-The project was canceled just five days after the keel was laid due to concerns about its redundancy with the Air Force's capabilities and high costs.

-The program's cancellation paved the way for more practical supercarrier designs like the Forrestal-class.

Since the founding of the United States Navy on October 13, 1775, there has been only a single vessel named USS United States – it was one of the original six frigates that served as the core of the U.S. Navy in the first half of the 19th century. Three other vessels were to bear the name, and that included a Lexington-class battlecruiser that was canceled due to the Washington Treaty when just slightly over 10 percent complete.

Much more recently, the U.S. Navy's ninth nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and the eighth in the Nimitz-class was to be named USS United States – but her name was changed to honor President Harry S. Truman in February 1995 at the direction of then-Secretary of the Navy John H. Dalton.

President Truman it should be noted had approved the construction of five new "supercarriers" in July 1948 and the proposed class was to be for the United States. It was never to be, and that's likely for the best.

The USS United States (CVA-58) was meant to be the lead ship of a new class of supercarriers developed after the Second World War. It remains unclear why it had the CVA designation, but it was either for attack or atomic.

Its design was seen as ambitious and even cutting edge but was likely entirely impractical and as a result just five days after her keel was laid down, the program was canceled.

Truman approved the construction of the new class of carriers after funds had been provided in the Naval Appropriations Act of 1949. The design was quite the radical departure from the World War II-era flattops and in some ways evoked the "streamline modern" of the Art Deco architecture and design movement that became common with post-war automobiles and aircraft.

It truly was a flattop in the literal sense, as the proposed 65,000-ton carrier (83,000 tons fully loaded) would feature a flush deck that was designed to launch and recover large aircraft of 100,000 pounds, which in turn could carry the nuclear weapons of the era that weighed as much as five tons.

The chief proponent for the proposed supercarrier was Admiral Marc Mitscher, who saw the need for the warship to be able to handle the latest and most effective aircraft of the day.

The vessel was to be 1,000 feet long, without an island, and equipped with four aircraft elevators and four catapults, while the flight deck was axial, not angled.

That flush deck was meant to provide more space for large bombers – such as the B-29 Superfortress or its successor – although those aircraft would have to be secured to the flight deck as it would have been impossible to move them up or down in an elevator to the hangar. In addition, a small hanger was to have been provided for the fighter escort. As the design evolved, additional space was given for those escorts.

It was planned that the vessel's air wing would be made up of about a dozen bombers as well as nearly fifty fighters.

Whereas the primary mission was to carry long-range bomber aircraft, the United States-class was also intended to provide tactical air support for the air and amphibious forces, as well as to conduct sea control operations.

The lack of an island on the flight deck presented a number of issues that the designers had to deal with. 

First, it meant the ship lacked a position for radar, but also other command and control capabilities. A small tower-like platform could help direct movement on the flight deck, but radar, navigation, war planning, and other operations would have been relegated to a specially outfitted command ship cruiser.

As a result, instead of being the flagship of a strike group, the USS United States and the other carriers of the class would have been floating airfields or arsenal ships.

The U.S. Navy's bombers would have had to remain on the flight deck during an entire voyage. That would have been a serious concern for the carrier during high winds – a fact noted in July 2022 when a F/A-18 Super Hornet flew off the deck of the USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) while the carrier was deployed to the Mediterranean.

Then there was the issue of how the smoke from the power plants and how it would be diverted away from the flight deck had to be resolved.

The Imperial Japanese Navy's light carrier Ryūjō had proved that a flush flight deck presented such problems and it addressed the smoke by moving the funnels higher up the side of the hull and curved them downward. The Japanese warship was noted for not being particularly stable in rough seas, however.

Designed as a conventional carrier, as nuclear technology was still in its infancy, the USS United States would have required eight Foster-Wheeler boilers and four Westinghouse turbines, which could produce 280,000 hp while four screws could allow the massive vessel to reach speeds in excess of 33 knots.

Construction costs were estimated to be around $190 million ($2.4 billion in 2023 dollars), while the cost of the task force to accompany the massive warship would have driven the total price tag to more than $1.265 billion in 1948 dollar – more than $16 billion in 2023 dollars.

As noted, the USS United States was canceled just five days after the keel was laid down – in no small part due to pressure from the United States Air Force, which had viewed the carrier as an embodiment of the U.S. Navy's nuclear aspirations. The Joint Chief of Staff and then Secretary of Defense Louis A. Johnson seemed to agree that such an aircraft carrier's main function would only serve to duplicate the role of the Air Force.

After the program was scuttled, then Secretary of the Navy John Sullivan immediately resigned, while the subsequent "Revolt of the Admirals" resulted in Admiral Louis Denfeld being relieved of his position as Chief of Naval Operations.

The cancelation of the USS United States didn't mark the end for the supercarrier. Instead, just five years later the U.S. Navy moved forward with the more conventionally figured USS Forrestal-class.

As nuclear weapons shrank in size it was also determined that a massive warship designed to accommodate bombers wasn't actually required. In fact, during the 1950s, nuclear weapons were sent to sea on the USS Franklin D. Roosevelt – a carrier far smaller than the planned USS United States.

Though some look back on the USS United States as a missed opportunity, it should be seen that the U.S. Navy really dodged a torpedo-sized bullet. The flush flight deck carrier wasn't a step forward.

 Art Deco was fine for cars and architecture – it was simply wrong for a carrier.

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

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points You Need to Know: The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) operates six Collins-class diesel-electric submarines, originally set to retire by 2026 but now receiving upgrades to extend their service into the 2040s.

-These submarines, the first domestically produced by Australia, were developed in the 1980s under the SEA 1114 project to replace aging Oberon-class subs.

-The Collins-class, designed for the Australasian region with advanced combat systems, faced issues like engine breakdowns and excessive noise, impacting their reputation. Debate on these subs has now raged for decades. 

-Despite these flaws, modifications will allow them to continue serving, though they may not be frontline assets in conflicts with advanced adversaries.

The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) currently operates six Collins-class diesel-electric submarines based at HMAS Stirling. These ships were expected to retire by 2026, but new modifications will extend their service lives well into the 2040s. 

The Collins class introduced the first domestically produced submarines to the RAN fleet. When they began service, the submarines exemplified Australia’s growing industrial capabilities.

The RAN first outlined the need to replace its aging Oberon-class ships in the late 1970s. Around this time, the navy’s director of submarine policy proposed that the country’s next SSN should be homegrown, and more than six should be produced. Since Australia’s shipbuilding capacity was sorely lacking in the early 1980s, officials doubted such a big project was possible. However, the proposal was ultimately accepted, and the project commenced under the designation of SEA 1114.

As part of the proposal, the RAN listed four requirements for the new submarine class. 

First, each ship had to feature a combat system sophisticated enough to last over a long service life. Second, Australia’s industrial capacity needed to grow to adequately provide such advanced ships. Third, the new submarines would be specifically modified to operate in the Australasian region. Finally, the submarines needed to be designed for a hunter-killer role. 

The RAN originally desired a fleet of ten new submarines but later settled on procuring just six.

While the Collins-class ships were largely built in Australia, a variety of international subcontractors were also used. In fact, construction work was delegated to more than 400 companies from 12 different countries. 

Each submarine measured just over 77 meters in length, with a 7.8-meter beam. Three Garden Island-Hedemora HV V18b/15UB (VB210) 18-cylinder diesel motors power the boats, in addition to three Jeumont-Schneider generators capable of producing 7,200 horsepower. With this system in place, the Collins submarines can sail at speeds in excess of twenty knots when submerged.

Each Collins-class ship can carry up to twenty-two missiles and torpedoes and up to forty-four mines without torpedoes. The submarine can launch the Boeing Sub Harpoon anti-ship missile, which carries a warhead of 227 kilograms. The Collins submarines carry the Gould MK48 Mod 4 torpedo.

The Collins-class submarines certainly featured remarkable capabilities from the outset, but the new class had its shortcomings. Not only did the engine tend to break down, but the submarines also produced excessive noise, which is a big faux pas for any SSN. To make matters worse, disagreements on how to fix these problems stymied progress. While some issues were fixed down the line, the Collins ships still don’t have the best reputation. The Collins submarines probably would not serve on the frontlines of any future conflict with an advanced rival such as Beijing.

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

Image: Creative Commons. 

Summary and What You Need to Know: The 1980s, a tense period in the Cold War, saw numerous close calls, including a near-nuclear incident involving the USS Kitty Hawk and a Soviet Victor-class submarine, Petropavlovsk.

-In 1984, during joint naval exercises near South Korea, the Kitty Hawk collided with the Soviet sub, raising concerns about potential nuclear fallout.

-The incident, declassified in 2017, highlights the dangers of unintended escalation in a highly charged international environment.

-The era’s strained U.S.-Soviet relations mirror today’s multipolar competition between the U.S., China, and Russia, where similar incidents could lead to more severe consequences.

The 1980s was one of the most decisive decades in recent history. The Cold War was in its fourth decade and, according to some historians, that struggle was at its most tense. The world existed on a nuclear hair-trigger, and the two superpowers tested each other as they never had before.

From nuclear near-misses to tense standoffs at sea and in the air, the Cold War was very hot. The pop culture of the era was chock full of end of world-type scenarios. Great power conflict was on the mind.

Close calls and near-misses with advanced military platforms defined the decade.

One such incident occurred in 1984. It involved the USS Kitty Hawk, one of America’s supercarriers, and a Soviet Victor-class attack submarine known as Petropavlovsk. The incident took place about 150 miles east of South Korea, during joint naval exercises with South Korean forces. Kitty Hawk was accompanied by eight escorts when, suddenly, the great carrier “ran over the stern of the submarine as it was surfacing,” according to a UPI report from the time.  

Given the kind of naval exercises occurring between the U.S. and South Korean navies, it is likely Petropavlovsk was shadowing the warships in order to gather intelligence on U.S. naval capabilities. 

Reports from the time indicate Kitty Hawk’s crew was aware of the threat of a Soviet submarine shadowing their flotilla. The crew claimed they were traveling in the Sea of Japan at 15 knots “with navigation lights on.” In other words, they were following the agreed-upon international rules governing safe seamanship on the high seas.

The Soviet sub crew, meanwhile, was intent on playing a game of “cat and mouse” with the American flotilla. Specifically, with Kitty Hawk. The U.S. Navy concluded that the Soviets were trying to test U.S. antisubmarine devices. When Petropavlovsk surfaced, it gouged the side of Kitty Hawk. Yet, Kitty Hawk’s crew was apparently more concerned about the safety of the Soviet submarine that crashed into them.

That’s because Petropavlovsk was a nuclear-powered submarine and there were some real concerns among the American side that the sub’s nuclear reactor had been compromised by the collision. The official U.S. Navy report details how Kitty Hawk attempted to contact the Soviet sub but their hails were ignored. The Americans assumed that the Soviet sub was seaworthy, though, because it continued along on its way. 

This incident, which happened way back in 1984, was only declassified in 2017. 

At the time, there were systems in place meant to mitigate the threat of unintended nuclear escalation. Today, the United States faces a tripolar competition between itself, the People’s Republic of China, and the Russian Federation. 

Today’s international environment is replete with opportunities for unwarranted escalation and unintended consequences. The systems that helped curb the risk of nuclear conflict in the Cold War have eroded or simply don’t exist anymore, making the prospect of war as a result of an incident such as the one that occurred between Petropavlovsk and Kitty Hawk in 1984 more likely. 

Kitty Hawk was no stranger to near-misses during its service. In fact, in 2007, the Kitty Hawk was humiliated by a Chinese Song-class diesel-electric submarine that had gotten within firing range of the carrier while Kitty Hawk was on maneuvers. Once it was in firing range, the sub surfaced, and its crew appeared to mock the Americans.

One can anticipate more experiences like this on the increasingly crowded and contested high seas as America sails into this dynamic, multipolar threat environment. 

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. 

From the Vault

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

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

Summary and Key Points You Need to Know: Russia's only aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, was originally designed as a hybrid "heavy missile and aviation cruiser," equipped with powerful anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles that could challenge enemy fleets without relying heavily on its aircraft.

The ship featured a "missile farm" with P-700 Granit missiles capable of carrying nuclear, conventional, or thermobaric warheads, and a variety of surface-to-air missiles and close-in weapon systems for defense.

However, the Kuznetsov has faced numerous mechanical failures and accidents, leaving it in drydock for years and limiting Russia's naval power projection.

Russia’s only aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, was originally designed to deploy a “missile farm” that was more powerful than the airplanes it launched from its deck.

The downsides of the Kuznetsov have been chronicled substantially .

It will be under repair until 2024 (but likely longer) and has endured numerous mechanical and construction problems.

The Kuznetsov, however, had it seen battle, could likely have held its own with its array of carrier-killing missiles.

It had numerous bays and tubes for launching weapons that could support a carrier battle group with several ships that also had deadly missiles. Let’s take a look at how the Russian navy armed this carrier.

The Kuznetsov could be seen as a “heavy missile and aviation cruiser” that could also carry airplanes rather than just a normal aircraft carrier. Tyler Rogoway, chief editor for The Warzone, described the following armaments that the Kuznetsov featured. There were 24 rotating launch tubes onboard for the Gauntlet surface-to-air missile. The Kuznetsov had 192 of these missiles.

For last-ditch air defenses, Rogoway wrote that the carrier boasted close-in weapon systems for the enemy airplanes and incoming missiles that made it past the SAMs. In this department, the carrier used six AK-630 cannons and eight Kashtan close-in weapons systems.

Enemy submarines would have noticed that the Russian carrier was equipped with UDAV-1 sub-killing rockets that could also be utilized against torpedoes.

Kuznetsov served as a missile truck for more munitions that could destroy enemy targets on sea. P-700 Granit “Shipwreck” missiles adorned the carrier. The Granit can be configured for triple use for nuclear, conventional, and thermobaric warheads. The Granit has a high explosive conventional payload of 1,600 pounds.

The idea for the Kuznetsov missile farm approach was that it could challenge an American carrier battle group by staying out of range of enemy ships and airplanes and launch the sea skimming anti-ship missiles from 350 miles away. It could then fight without even using its own airplanes launched from the carrier.

These missiles could swarm and overwhelm a ship’s defenses by sheer numbers.

Remember, the Kuznetsov would be sailing in its own battle group which means other Soviet destroyers, frigates, cruisers, and submarines would also be sending offensive anti-ship missiles that could overwhelm American ships.

The ship’s aircraft group was made up of 12 Su-33 or MiG-29K. There was room for a large number of helicopters including two Ka-27S, 18 Ka-27PLO, and four Ka-31 rotary wing aircraft. The fighters launched from a 12-degree ski jump at the bow instead of catapults.

Because of this limitation, the fighters could not carry heavy loads of ordnance. No electronic warfare airplanes were on board. Airborne early warning was done by helicopter which reduced the range of aerial attacks that could jam enemy radar.

Thankfully for the United States and NATO, the Kuznetsov was cursed. It had a floating dock accident when a 70-foot crane fell on the deck in 2018. One worker died and four were injured. This left a 20-foot hole above the water line. And then the ship suffered a fire in 2019 from a welding accident. The blaze was not contained until a day later—after it killed two and wounded 14. And it recently just suffered another fire as 2022 came to a close. 

So, was the Kuznetsov a carrier or a large missile cruiser that happened to have aircraft?

It should be seen as a hybrid ship for supporting a contingent of other surface vessels and submarines. The Soviet and later the Russian navy envisioned a stand-off role for the missile farm, knowing that its airborne combat role from fighters was going to be limited in offensive capability. Now with it in drydock for an extended period, the Russians are without a carrier and not able to project power by sea. This makes the Russian navy limited in scope. But at one time, the Kuznetsov could have done much damage with its ship-killing missiles.

The U.S. Navy and surface fleets from various NATO allies breathed a sigh of relief that it never had to go up against a carrier battle group from the Russian or Soviet navy in its heyday.

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

From the Vault

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

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

In 2014, the “Little Green Men”—Russian soldiers wearing unmarked uniforms—played a significant role in the Kremlin’s annexation of Crimea. The soldiers were armed with the same weapons as the Russian military, employed much of the same equipment, and were noted for speaking with Russian accents. Many wore masks to conceal their identities.

The Kremlin initially dismissed the allegations that the soldiers were even Russian, and claimed instead that they were “local self-defense groups.” It was only in the late spring of 2014 that Russian president Vladimir Putin acknowledged that the troops in Crimea had been Russia all along—but the world already knew as much.

The Little Green Men, a term coined by the residents in Crimea, were also spotted in the eastern Donbas region, operating alongside separatist forces before Moscow launched its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Since that time the illusion has been dropped, yet NATO officials have expressed concerns that such units could be employed in the Baltic States to attempt to undermine the pro-Western governments.

However, this week, it wasn’t the Little Green Men that were suddenly in the spotlight—it was Russia’s so-called “Space Troops,” which were rushed to help defend the border region of Kursk, which Ukrainian forces invaded earlier this month and as of this week control 1,150 square kilometers (444 square miles) of territory.

The independent investigative Russian news outlet Important Stories reported on the deployment of the Space Troops.

The Russian news outlet confirmed that a Motorized Rifle Regiment of the Aerospace Force was among the troops sent to the front, and according to the report, it isn’t exactly elite Special Forces. Rather, it is made up of engineers, mechanics, and other servicemen from a Russian spaceport.

In other words, less Star Wars-style “stormtroopers” with blasters or the Sardaukar, the elite military force from Frank Herbert’s Dune series, and more ground personnel that aren’t trained for frontline combat.

The deployment of the Space Troops to Kursk has caught some Russian propagandists off guard—much like the Kremlin was caught off guard when Kyiv invaded the region, marking the first invasion into Russia since World War II.

“I have no idea why they call themselves motorized riflemen, if there is no sign of any motorized rifles there,” the Fighterbomber Telegram channel posted this week, according to Newsweek. The regiment has been known to “beg other units for anything more serious than a Kalashnikov.”

Though described as Space Troops, and certainly not a frontline combat unit, the regiment could be seen as comparable to the United States Space Force, the sixth and newest branch of the U.S. military—in that the personnel oversees space operations.

Yet, it was just last week that the Department of the Air Force announced that U.S. airmen and Guardians (the term for Space Force uniformed personnel) would resume weapons practice with M4 carbines. It remains unlikely that the Space Force Guardians would be deployed into combat like the Russian Space Troops, but that may just highlight how serious the situation is for the Kremlin in Kursk at the moment.

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

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Aerospace giant Boeing has long touted the advanced capabilities of two aircraft – the F-15EX Eagle II and the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Each is a significantly enhanced version of the multirole fighter aircraft developed during the Cold War, but Boeing is now seeking to take the capabilities even further.

It was announced on Tuesday that British Aerospace (BAE) Systems was selected to upgrade the fly-by-wire (FBW) flight control computer (FCC) for both the Eagle II and Super Hornet. This technology refresh is meant to increase the processing power, which will in turn enhance each of the respective aircraft's performance and capabilities.

BAE Systems was the original manufacturer of the FCCs for both aircraft. It also produced the electronic warfare (EW) suite for the F-15EX.

"The FCCs feature common core electronics that support the quad-redundant FBW flight control systems (FCS), providing the safety, reliability, robustness, and performance needed for the missions of these advanced platforms," BAE Systems explained.

"These computers efficiently manage aircraft flight by processing pilot inputs, monitoring real-time aircraft movement conditions via onboard sensors, and transmitting commands to actuators moving control surfaces. The redundant FCS, along with the flight control laws, enables the pilot to maintain controlled operation across the demanding flight regime and multiple loadout configurations," the defense contractor added.

In addition to managing aircraft flight, the FCS can be employed to "reconfigure" an aircraft's controls should there be a failure of a system, or if damage is taken in combat. This is accomplished by "mixing the remaining control surfaces" accordingly. Moreover, the FBW FCS will serve as a de facto co-pilot or autopilot that will allow the pilot in the cockpit to put more focus on mission objectives, while the computer can handle the flight controls.

In addition to the upgraded FCC, the Super Hornet will receive an additional processor, which will future-proof the aircraft in service.

"BAE Systems is a leader in high-integrity controls and this upgrade reflects our commitment to providing our customers with next-generation solutions," said Corin Beck, senior director of Military Aircraft Systems for Controls and Avionics Solutions at BAE Systems. "Our advanced flight-critical solution ensures that these platforms will maintain fleet readiness now, and in the future, as well as provisions the aircraft to support the integration of new functions."

Neither Boeing nor BAE Systems announced a timeframe for when the work would be conducted, or if it will only apply to F-15EX Eagle IIs and F/A-18E/F Super Hornets in the U.S. military's fleet. However, given that the F-15EX is only now being produced, it will likely be easier for those aircraft to receive this update.

The United States Air Force "took delivery of its first operationally configured F-15EX in June," Flight Global reported, while the fighter achieved Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in July. The air service is on track to receive around 90 of the F-15EX, to replace its aging fleet of F-15C/D models. The new fighters are being produced in the same facilities that built the original F-15 Eagle. Israel, Indonesia, and Poland have expressed interest in the Eagle II.

The United States Navy first began to acquire the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in 1999 and the program of record has seen 625 delivered as of the end of 2023. It was earlier this year that the sea service and Boeing finally agreed to the terms for the final batch of seventeen Block III Super Hornets, which will be delivered by 2027.

As previously reported, the aircraft maker will begin to slow down its build rate of two jets per month to just one and a half, while it pivots its St. Louis Super Hornet workforce towards other Boeing programs – including the F-15EX, T-7A trainer, and MQ-25 refueling.

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and What You Need to Know: Lockheed Martin’s SR-72 hypersonic aircraft, a successor to the SR-71 Blackbird, is advancing toward service but faces significant budgetary challenges. Recent reports reveal the program has exceeded its budget by $45 million in Q2 2024, bringing total losses to $335 million since 2022. This overspending highlights ongoing financial strain, compounded by Lockheed’s self-funded development approach.

-Despite these issues, the SR-72’s potential—promised as a Mach 6+ aircraft with ISR and strike capabilities—remains high.

-The program's secrecy and Lockheed's expansion efforts suggest it is progressing toward operational status, potentially aligning with future U.S. Air Force needs.

Lockheed Martin’s mysterious hypersonic aircraft known as SR-72 appears to be continuing its march toward service, but the program is not immune from the Air Force’s broader budgetary woes. 

Sandboxx News has covered the secretive development of SR-72, Lockheed Martin’s hypersonic successor to the legendary SR-71 Blackbird, and its potential path toward service in the not-too-distant future. Now, new evidence has come to light that suggests this exotic new aircraft program is facing compounding budgetary shortfalls, which could further complicate matters for the Air Force as it struggles to find ways to fund a bevy of high-profile new efforts, including new ICBMs, stealth bombers, and air superiority fighters. 

The SR-72 was once publicly touted as a Mach 6+ spy plane with strike capabilities, meaning this high-flying jet wouldn’t be limited to solely taking pictures like its Blackbird predecessor and would instead be capable of engaging targets directly on extremely short timelines and with minimal chance of intercept.

According to recent Aviation Week reports, a classified Lockheed Martin program that involves a “highly complex design and systems integration” went another $45 million over budget in the second quarter of 2024. Based on Lockheed’s quarterly filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, that places the firms’ total losses associated with this single shadowy program up to some $335 million since 2022. Those same filings went on to postulate that losses may continue to accrue as the company faces “advanced procurement costs” moving forward. 

This all points toward what Aviation Week’s defense and space editor, Steve Trimble, describes as “pre-contract investments” made by Lockheed. It also suggests that the company is continuing to self-fund development based on the idea that the Pentagon will not only see the platform’s value, but will be willing to pay enough for a production fleet that will allow Lockheed to recoup its development losses. 

This may seem like a rather unusual approach to developing such a high-dollar aircraft, but historically, it’s not really out of the ordinary for Lockheed Martin’s legendary Skunk Works. 

In books by both Skunk Works founder Kelly Johnson and his direct successor, Ben Rich, there are accounts of several Skunk Works programs, like the D-21 supersonic ISR drone, that began as a bright idea Lockheed’s engineers knew the U.S. military or intelligence apparatus could very likely use, and which were then developed and pitched to decision-makers at the Pentagon. 

More frequently, however, developmental efforts were spurred by hushed conversations between men like Kelly Johnson and senior Defense officials who relayed the nation’s most pressing needs hoping the Skunk Works hivemind might have a potential solution. 

Famously, Johnson designed and delivered America’s first-ever jet-powered fighter in this manner, with formal design work on the XP-80 commencing a full four months before the firm was awarded a contract for the jet.

But in this modern era of bureaucratic oversight and extended design cycles, it seems unlikely that Lockheed Martin would have gone all-in on fielding the SR-72 without some pretty conclusive evidence from the Air Force that it’d eventually step in and foot the bill. The firm’s financial records seem to substantiate that likelihood. 

“We will monitor the recoverability of pre-contract costs, which could be impacted by the customer’s decision regarding future phases of the program,” Lockheed said of this program in its filings.

While the SR-72 effort appears to have continued to progress under the classified veil since early 2018, word of these losses, combined with the rapid expansion of Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works facilities and personnel, all point toward the production of a new classified aircraft meant not for testing, but likely, operational service.

Lockheed Martin began development on a hypersonic successor to the Blackbird in 2006. The program continued in secret for seven years, before being formally announced to the public in 2013 with a media push that included several interviews with Lockheed Martin’s hypersonics program manager and the engineer who led the effort for the previous seven years, Brad Leland. 

“Hypersonic aircraft, coupled with hypersonic missiles, could penetrate denied airspace and strike at nearly any location across a continent in less than an hour,” Leland was quoted as saying in a Lockheed Martin press release that has since been taken down. “Speed is the next aviation advancement to counter emerging threats in the next several decades. The technology would be a game-changer in theater, similar to how stealth is changing the battlespace today.”

This new high-speed aircraft would make use of a never-before-fielded type of engine that was, for all intents and purposes, two (or maybe even three) types of jet engines in one.

As Leland described it, this new propulsion system started with a conventional turbofan engine – either the Pratt & Whitney F100 or the General Electric F110 – as its basis. This turbofan would allow the aircraft to take off from a stop and accelerate to supersonic speeds like any normal fighter, but once the jet began to approach Mach 3, the engine’s second half would roar to life.

That second half is said to be a dual-mode ramjet (sometimes called a dual-mode scramjet or supersonic combustion ramjet) that relies on the immense pressure of inflowing air at supersonic speeds and a variable inlet design to create intentionally placed shockwaves for compression.

As a result, this engine design could propel an aircraft well past the SR-71’s record-setting top speed of Mach 3.2, past the notional hypersonic barrier at Mach 5, and potentially even past Top Gun’s fictional Darkstar (which was notably built in partnership with Skunk Works) at Mach 10. 

This type of engine design, which has since become more commonplace, is known as a turbine-based combined cycle, or TBCC, engine. While Lockheed Martin was leading the design effort on the aircraft, Aerojet Rocketdyne was tasked with engine development.

Originally billed as a Mach 6+ aircraft, this new platform was slated from the start as an intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) asset with strike capabilities. This meant the aircraft would be capable of carrying a variety of payloads, including munitions to engage ground targets.

While Leland highlighted the use of this new aircraft as a hypersonic missile launch platform, it now seems more likely that we’d see this hypersonic aircraft deploy lower-cost munitions designed specifically to be dropped or launched at hypersonic speeds. The hypersonic missiles the United States has in development come in a variety of forms, but all are considered to be immensely expensive compared to more traditional ordnance.

Due to the immense pressure and heat inherent to high-speed flight, there are significant – but not insurmountable – engineering challenges to overcome in order to drop or launch a weapon at these extreme speeds. Lockheed proved the viability of launching air-to-air missiles successfully at speeds over Mach 3 with the YF-12 (a weaponized sibling of the SR-71), and more recently, Sandboxx News confirmed this possibility of deploying weapons at much higher speeds with Dr. Chris Combs, a Dee Howard endowed professor of hypersonic and aerospace engineering for the University of Texas San Antonio, who has also done a great deal of work with the Defense Department in the past.

But the SR-72’s alleged strike capabilities aren’t the only important matter. The aircraft’s ability to provide rapid intelligence over any target on earth would be vital for the United States in a 21st-century conflict, especially over the sprawling expanses of the Pacific. Despite public perceptions of satellites providing constant global overwatch, the truth is, there aren’t enough satellites in orbit to have eyes everywhere needed, and the predictability of satellites’ orbits makes them fairly easy to keep secrets from.

This has driven the funding of a long list of modern intelligence-gathering aircraft, ranging from the original mascot of the Global War on Terror, the MQ-1 Predator, to highly exotic airframes we still don’t know the real names of, like the Northrop Grumman-sourced RQ-180.

Yet, despite America’s immense investment into spy planes in recent decades, all of these platforms (that we’re aware of) fly at subsonic speeds, making timely intelligence gathering a question of locality and airframe availability. The MQ-9, for instance, may be able to stay airborne for more than 24 hours at a time, but with a standard cruising speed of just 230 miles per hour, it would take a Reaper more than an hour to fly from New York to Boston and more than 10 hours to fly cross-country.

Conversely, a hypersonic aircraft traveling at Mach 6, or roughly 4,600 miles per hour, could fly from New York to Boston in under five minutes, and make the same New York to LA flight in about half an hour.

As Sandboxx News has previously reported, in June 2017, Lockheed Martin’s executive vice president and general manager for Skunk Works, Rob Weiss, told the media that testing was complete on the turbine-based combined cycle hypersonic propulsion system for the SR-72 and that they were “getting close” to beginning work on what he described as an SR-72 Flight Research Vehicle (FRV). This single-engine technology demonstrator was said to be “about the size of an F-22 Raptor” and was meant to demonstrate the platform’s ability to take off under conventional turbofan power, accelerate up to supersonic speeds, and then transition from turbofan power to a much more exotic dual-mode scramjet that would allow the aircraft to achieve maximum speeds well above Mach 6. 

By September 2017, eyewitness accounts of this Flight Research Vehicle flying over Palmdale, California, where Skunk Works is headquartered, began to surface.

Aviation Week took these SR-72 FRV reports to Lockheed Martin’s Orlando Carvalho, executive vice president of aeronautics, at the time, who did not deny the reports. 

“Although I can’t go into specifics, let us just say the Skunk Works team in Palmdale, California, is doubling down on our commitment to speed,” Carvalho said. 

In February 2018, another senior Lockheed Martin official, Vice President of Strategy and Customer Requirements in Advanced Development Programs Jack O’Banion, told the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics SciTech Forum that the SR-72 FRV was already flying; he then told the Wall Street Journal, “The aircraft is also agile at hypersonic speeds, with reliable engine starts.”

But just as the SR-72 hype train was leaving the station, Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered an address that has since come to be known as the onset of the modern hypersonic arms race, in which he announced a slew of new Russian “doomsday weapons” were entering service, including two different Mach 5+ missile systems. 

Almost immediately after Putin’s speech, Lockheed Martin stripped any mention of its highly-touted SR-72 program from its website and the parade of quotes from senior executives promptly stopped. The company did not announce the cancellation of the effort or any reason for a hiatus. It simply went about its business, at least publicly, as though the SR-72 had never existed. In our previous coverage, we posited that this dramatic shift may have been the result of the Pentagon stepping in with classified lines of accounting and a renewed need for secrecy following Putin’s announcement. 

We now know that, behind closed doors, something big was brewing. By the end of the following year, Lockheed Martin had broken ground on the massive new factory that would become Building 648, and the hiring bonanza to staff this new facility had started even earlier than that. 

In the second quarter of 2022, Lockheed reported a $225 million pre-tax loss on a classified Aeronautics program that had just completed a comprehensive review. Three months later, however, Lockheed Martin filings indicated that the customer for this effort had signed a “memorandum of agreement” to modify the scope and price of the contract. This implies that there is indeed a contract in place (seemingly a fixed-price incentive-fee contract), and that Lockheed Martin is unlikely to have to swallow these cost overruns on its own. With continued budgetary overruns now reaching $335 million, it stands to reason that the program’s overall budget is significantly more. 

But that’s not the only evidence pointing toward a highly secretive aircraft being developed for the U.S. Air Force. In fact, there’s a fair bit of evidence to suggest that this program has matured beyond development and pre-production tooling, and is likely beginning a full production run. In particular, there’s the construction of a massive new production facility at the Skunk Works headquarters in Palmdale, California, dubbed Building 648 – along with the hiring of thousands of new personnel tasked with building… something inside. 

Construction on Building 648 was completed in August 2021, with Lockheed Martin touting the massive 215,000-foot structure as an “intelligent, flexible factory” aimed at reducing the significant investments of both time and money required to stand up new production lines. This is accomplished, Lockheed Martin explained, through the use of advanced artificial intelligence, augmented reality, and large, broadly capable robots known as Combined Operation: Bolting and Robotic AutoDrill systems, or COBRAs.

As Skunk Works revealed at the time, they had already demonstrated the functionality of these new robots in the production of the technology testbed that would lead to the X-59A Quiet Supersonic Transport testbed, or QueSST, but based on other publicly available information, Skunk Works is up to much more than building one or two technology demonstrators inside Building 648. 

Between February 2018, when the SR-72 went dark, and September 2023, Lockheed Martin increased the size of the advanced development programs unit, a subsidiary of their aeronautics division, by a whopping 75 percent, hiring more than 2,300 new employees over five years, with hundreds of openings still advertised on their careers page. 

There are also statements from Skunk Works officials that highlight that low-rate production of something is underway. 

“I think it’s fair to say that there is low-rate production going on in the Skunk Works,” Skunk Works General Manager John Clark told the press in 2022. “We’ve got our hands in a myriad of activities, so I feel comfortable saying that because you won’t be able to factor in specifically what it might be to then create security problems for me. But yes, there are low-rate production activities going on in Palmdale.”

Clark went on to say that, while the Skunk Works may be renowned for its rapid prototyping capabilities, the secretive organization has always been a manufacturing center for advanced airframes like the SR-71 and F-117, once again emphasizing that his team at Skunk Works wasn’t dedicated solely to fielding exotic prototypes, but high-end operational aircraft as well. 

“I’ve really tried to reinforce that mindset that we do more than just a one-off X-plane,” Clark said. “It has given me a lot more freedom with the aeronautics executive leadership team to let me grow Skunk Works the way that it historically would have been grown.”

In an episode of the Defense & Aerospace Air Power Podcast late last year, Vago Muradian, the editor-in-chief of the Defense & Aerospace Report, brought up the RQ-180 – a high-flying stealth reconnaissance aircraft so secretive the U.S. government has yet to even acknowledge its existence, despite it being photographed in flight several times in recent years. The high-flying RQ-180 (the platform’s actual name is unknown) is expected to replace America’s venerable U-2 Spy Plane, as well as the RQ-4 Global Hawk, in the coming years.

But Muradian didn’t stop there.

“There is another program, however, which is for a much more capable reconnaissance aircraft that is the product of the Skunk Works and it is Lockheed Martin aircraft. There are articles that have already been delivered but that there have been challenges with that program,” he said.

“My understanding is that the program was re-scoped because it is that ambitious a capability that [it] required a little bit of re-scoping in order to be able to get to the next block of aircraft,” Muradian added.

Thus far, there has been no further confirmation of Muradian’s claims, but many see him as a credible source, and his proposed timeline seems to coincide with both the unanticipated costs Lockheed Martin has since had to swallow and what we know about the firm’s expansion. 

Rumors of Lockheed Martin’s SR-72 program may have once been dismissed as nothing more than flights of fancy within the aviation community, but in the years since this effort began, the technology required to make this aircraft fly has gone from verging on science fiction to the sort of thing a plucky group of upstarts can pull off in an industry park. And that’s not hyperbole — as we speak, Atlanta-based startup Hermeus is continuing to ground test its Quarterhorse Mk 1 flying technology demonstrator with the platform’s first true flight test expected to occur any day now. 

This uncrewed aircraft has hypersonic aspirations of its own, and intends to achieve them using a similar approach to propulsion. Hermeus’ Chimera turbine-based combined cycle engine, made up of a J85 turbojet followed by a ramjet, demonstrated its ability to transition from turbojet to ramjet power inside a highspeed wind tunnel nearly two years ago. The company has already begun work on the much larger Chimera 2, which swaps out that small J85 turbojet for a much larger F100 turbofan; notably, one of the engines Lockheed Martin identified as the turbine basis for their own, similar engine design. 

Hermeus intends to field a new technology demonstrator each year as it progresses toward fielding its twin-engine Dark Horse military aircraft. Dark Horse probably won’t manifest until well into the 2030s, which is a similar timeline to the one offered by Lockheed Martin’s execs before the SR-72 program went dark. 

In 2022, the Air Force Research Lab awarded a $334 million developmental contract to Leidos to field a very similar TBCC aircraft, dubbed Mayhem, for ISR and strike missions, though the company has subsequently wound down development on this program citing insufficient operational demand, potentially because there were already two similar and promising platforms in development (the SR-72 and Quarterhorse) drawing funds from Pentagon coffers. 

In 2021, Pratt & Whitney announced its own efforts at fielding a unique kind of high-speed air-breathing jet engine system that wouldn’t rely on a traditional turbofan-to-scramjet design to achieve speeds just below the hypersonic barrier. And in January 2024, GE Aerospace announced its own progress in fielding a rotating-detonation-equipped dual-mode ramjet that it intends to marry to a turbofan to create what could be the smallest, lightest, and most powerful TBCC powerplant ever conceived. 

So, at this point, it does seem all but inevitable that the United States will field a reusable hypersonic aircraft in the not-too-distant future. Whether that aircraft is produced by Lockheed Martin, Hermeus, or another company is uncertain but based on the evidence at hand, it appears that Lockheed may have secured a commanding lead. If low-rate initial production has already commenced on the SR-72, it could mean a similar timeline to service as the B-21 Raider with an anticipated service entry just before the close of the decade. 

Alex Hollings is a writer, dad, and Marine veteran.

This article was first published by Sandboxx News.

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: In a recent public speech, Donald Trump mentioned the "F-32" while discussing U.S. military aircraft. Although there is no such aircraft as the F-32, it seems he was likely referring to the F-22 Raptor.

-The confusion might stem from the existence of the Boeing X-32, which competed against the Lockheed Martin X-35 in the Joint Strike Fighter competition.

-The X-32, now being restored for display at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force, was part of the competition that ultimately led to the F-35 Lightning II. The mix-up highlights the complexity and occasional confusion surrounding military aircraft designation systems.

Former President Donald Trump was on the stump on Wednesday and while talking about national security, stated that the United States military has some of the most advanced hardware in the world. He mentioned the F-16 and F-35 –referencing of course the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon and Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning. But then the GOP presidential nominee added the F-32, an aircraft that doesn't exist (and before you say X-32, I'll get to that).

In fairness, it was an off-the-cuff remark by Trump, who has become infamous for off-the-cuff remarks. President Joe Biden and former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama were no strangers to similar verbal gaffes, so perhaps Trump should be forgiven.

He almost certainly meant to say F-22, as in the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor air superiority fighter

Yet, soon after Trump made the remarks, he received a fair share of mockery – with Sarah Sicard who previously contributed to the Military Times, Defense News, and Task & Purpose stating on X, "Ah yes, the F-32­so stealthy that there's no record it exists."

Here is where this story gets a little more confusing because there actually was an X-32 – which is the aircraft that lost the Joint Strike Fighter competition to the Lockheed Martin X-35. Trump's supporters on social media were quick to respond to those calling out the former president to clarify that point.

Now we shouldn't expect Trump to know much about the X-32, as he's not shown himself to be a huge aviation buff – but it should be noted that just days before Trump made his comment about the F-16, F-35, and F-32, The National Interest's own Brent M. Eastwood wrote a piece that noted how the "Boeing X-32 competed against the Lockheed Martin X-35 to become the next Joint Strike Fighter but ultimately lost."

As Eastwood added, Boeing developed two prototypes – which were used to showcase the aircraft's speed, weapon capacity, and vertical take-off/landing capabilities.

Moreover, this reporter reported back in December of last year that one of those prototypes is now undergoing restoration at the National Museum of the United States Air Force at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (AFB), Dayton, Ohio.

The museum received the aircraft in 2005, and it could be put on public display sometime next year—a welcome addition to its already impressive aircraft collection. The X-32A is expected to be placed in the Maj. Gen. Albert Boyd and Maj. Gen. Fred Ascani Research and Development Gallery, which is home to such unique aircraft as the sole surviving North American XB-70A Valkyrie, one of the two existing Avro Canada VZ-9AV Avrocars, and the second prototype Lockheed YF-12A Mach 3 interceptor.

So was Trump discussing the X-32 when he said F-32 – no, he likely wasn't. As noted, he probably meant F-22. But it is easy for those who aren't huge aviation buffs to keep this straight. It is made confusing by the fact that designation and number system began anew in the 1960s under Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara who was frustrated by the different systems employed by the U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force.

That resulted in further confusion largely until the arrival of the "teen series" in the 1970s – but clearly we've skipped more than a few numbers along the way.

AerospaceWeb.org tried – in vain – to get to the bottom of this jump from F-22 to F-35. While there was the Northrop YF-23 Black Widow II that competed against the YF-22, and there is speculation the JSF was to have been the F-24, the best answer is that some of the numbers "could have been the title of a design study." 

So in conclusion: There isn't an F-32, although there was an X-32. And the number systems didn't just confuse Secretary McNamara six decades ago, they confuse us 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.

While Democratic and Republican politicians have acknowledged the importance of critical minerals, both for America’s current needs and future technology, China’s decision last week to restrict the export of one metal, antimony, underscored the urgent need for policymakers to move beyond campaign-season lip service about “bringing home supply chains” and toward realistic measures that ensure the United States has continued access to resources that directly impact its national security.

A silvery-white, crystalline solid often mined alongside deposits of sulfur or heavy metals like lead, copper, and silver, antimony (chemical symbol, Sb) has been known since Biblical times. It has a wide range of uses, ranging from cosmetics to construction. Nowadays, while about half of the global usage of antimony is for its flame-retardant qualities, an estimated 20 percent is used in the manufacture of photovoltaic glass to improve the performance of solar cells and, increasingly, in next-generation grid-scale liquid-metal electricity storage batteries (LMBs) and more efficient alternatives to current technology rechargeable lithium-ion batteries. Moreover, antimony has become strategically important because of its role in sensitive military equipment ranging from night-vision goggles to missiles and as a hardening agent for everything from bullets to tanks and warships.

Like it has done with the value chains for a host of other critical minerals—including restrictions imposed last year on the export of gallium and germanium, elements widely used in the semiconductor industry, as well as its tight grip on rare earth elements—China has steadily consolidated a dominant position in the antimony supply chain. While the U.S. Geological Survey’s most recent data show that China holds less than one-third of the world’s known reserves of antimony, it produced almost half of global production last year (Tajikistan and Russia together produce another 30 percent). Furthermore, irrespective of where the mineral is sourced, Chinese firms control most of the world’s supply of antimony trioxide, the most common form of the processed material.

According to a statement by the Chinese Ministry of Commerce cited by the Chinese Communist Party’s international affairs daily Global Times, the new export restrictions, which take effect September 15, are “to further protect China's national security and interests and fulfill the nation’s international non-proliferation obligations.” Commenting on the new decree, a retired People’s Liberation Army Air Force equipment specialist quoted by the South China Morning Post acknowledged that it was clearly intended to make it harder for the United States to produce arms: “The move is definitely a decision made after careful consideration, and it has a clear purpose—by restricting exports, it will undoubtedly impact the world’s major arms manufacturers, especially the U.S.”

The United States is even more vulnerable to the latest play by Beijing because 82 percent of the 22,000 metric tons used by American industry, civilian and military, in 2023 was imported (the balance was recovered from recycling spent lead-acid batteries). Almost two-thirds of the imported antimony metal and oxides came from China. No antinomy is currently mined in the United States, and the only firm in the entire country to produce primary antimony metal and oxides is the U.S. Antimony Company, which imports feedstock for its smelter in Western Montana. Another company, Perpetua Resources, which has received support from the U.S. Defense Department under Title III of the Defense Production Act as well as recently received a letter of interest from the Export-Import (EXIM) Bank for potential financing, is developing an open-pit gold resource in northern Idaho that will produce antimony as a by-product of the mining operation. Still, commercial production is not expected until 2028—and that assumes that the company successfully runs the gauntlet of environmental activists and the permitting bureaucracy.

Even by then, Beijing will still have additional cards to play. These include the type of manipulation it has engaged in to depress prices and stymie efforts to develop alternative supply chains, as the Wall Street Journal reported last month with respect to rare earth elements (REEs) used in permanent magnets in electric vehicles, wind turbines, and robots. Even the neodymium-praseodymium (NdPr), the most highly valued segment of the REE market, is down more than 20 percent since January thanks to Chinese overproduction and what the newspaper described delicately as Beijing being “willing to be a loss leader in parts of the value chain to help downstream ambitions.”

Thus, the only way to tackle this challenge is to take it on realistically, which is to say, comprehensively. U.S. policymakers must not only encourage the development of the critical mineral resource in question where access can be secured from friends—or, at the very least, non-adversarial countries—but also support the development of processing value chains and, ultimately, give them a fighting chance of competing against the Beijing’s market domination by judicious use of offtake agreements.

If U.S. policymakers fail to get real about the stakes, both for America’s current defense needs and for the potential technological applications of antimony and other critical minerals—and do so quickly—what has been an irritant in international trade will prove to be a self-inflicted strategic wound.

Ambassador J. Peter Pham, a Distinguished Fellow at the Atlantic Council and a Senior Advisor at the Krach Institute for Tech Diplomacy, is a former U.S. Special Envoy for the Sahel and Great Lakes Regions of Africa.

Image: Kevin Cupp / Shutterstock.com.

Summary and Key Points You Need to Know on the Biggest Submarine Ever: The Dmitry Donskoy (TK-208), the world's largest nuclear-powered submarine and the last of the Russian Navy's Typhoon-class, was decommissioned in February 2023 after nearly 40 years in service.

-Originally laid down in 1976 and commissioned in 1984, the submarine was a formidable force during the Cold War, capable of carrying 20 RSM-52 SLBMs with multiple warheads.

-Despite previous plans to keep the vessel in service until 2026, it was retired and will await disposal.

-The decommissioning marks the end of the era for the Typhoon-class, the largest submarines ever built.

The world's largest nuclear-powered submarine, Dmitry Donskoy (TK-208) has been decommissioned, the Kremlin announced back in February of last year.

The Russian Navy's Project 941 Akula-class (NATO reporting name Typhoon) heavy nuclear ballistic submarine was laid down in June 1976 and commissioned in 1984. After almost 40 years in service, she has finally been retired.

"The Dmitry Donskoy submarine cruiser has been decommissioned from the Russian Navy. It will await utilization at a naval base in Severodvinsk together with two other units of this project," Vladimir Maltsev, the head of the Russian Movement for Navy Support, told the Russian state media outlet Tass.

Initially designated the TK-208, she was the lead vessel of the Soviet third-generation Akula-class (Russian for "Shark"), and after a 12-year overhaul and refit that began in 1990, she reentered service in 2002 as the Dmitry Donskoy, named after the Grand Duke of Moscow Dmitry Donskoy (1359–1389), the reputed founder of Moscow.

It is worth repeating the boat is more commonly known as the Typhoon-class or by its NATO designation. 

This is a change of course for Moscow, which had previously stated that the submarine would remain in service until at least 2026.

The Sevmash Shipyard built six of a planned seven Project 941 submarines - or what the West calls the Typhoon-class - for the Russian Navy, and all of the boats were operational with the Northern Fleet. Though the oldest of the submarines, Dmitriy Donskoy was the last of the class to remain in service.

The TK-202, TK-12 – later renamed the Simbirsk – and T-13 were withdrawn from active service between 1996 and 2009, and scrapped with the financial support of the United States. Two other boats: the TK-17/Arkhangelsk and TK-20/Severstal remained in service until they were decommissioned circa 2013.

A seventh boat, TK-210, was laid down but scrapped before completion.

With a displacement of 48,000 tons, a length of 175 meters (nearly 600 feet), a 23-meter beam, and a 12-meter draught, the Typhoon-class were the largest submarines ever built.

Developed with multiple pressure hulls, including five inner hulls situated inside a superstructure of two parallel main hulls, the Typhoon-class was also wider than any other submarine ever built.

Each contained nineteen compartments, including a strengthened module, which housed the main control room as well as an electronic equipment compartment above the main hulls and behind the missile launch tubes. It even was reported that there was a sauna on board as well as a small swimming pool for the crew. The sheer size of the submarines was likely welcomed by the approximately 160 sailors who called the submarine home on voyages lasting 120 days or longer, oftentimes without surfacing for months at a time.

The Typhoon-class subs were designed to counter the United States Navy's Ohio-class subs, which were capable of carrying up to 192 100-kiloton nuclear warheads. By contrast, the Soviet Typhoons could carry a primary cache of 20 RSM-52 SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles), each of which contained up to 10 MIRV (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle) warheads.

The submarines were powered by OK-650 pressurized-water nuclear reactors, two 50,000 horsepower steam turbines, and four 3,200 KW turbogenerators and this provides the boat with the ability to sail at a speed of up to 22.2 knots on the surface and 27 knots whilst submerged.

The boats of the Typhoon-class could reportedly operate at depths as great as 400 meters and travel at speeds in excess of 27 knots. The class was designed with an advanced stern fin with a horizontal hydroplane fitted after the boat’s screws, while the nose horizontal hydroplanes in the bow section were designed to be retractable into the hull.

The retirement of Dmitry Donskoy ends the saga of the largest submarines ever built. RIP, Typhoon-class. 

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

All Images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points You Need to Know: The Zumwalt-class destroyer, intended to revolutionize naval warfare with stealth capabilities and advanced technology, has become emblematic of strategic misjudgment and wasted resources.

-Initially planned as a fleet of 32 ships, only three were built, each plagued by exorbitant costs and operational failures, including a non-functional main gun.

-Despite its shortcomings, the U.S. Navy continues to invest in the Zumwalt, replacing the failed gun system with costly hypersonic weapons that are not yet fully operational.

-Critics argue that funds should have been allocated to more practical military advancements, such as expanding the Seawolf-class submarine fleet.

The Zumwalt-class destroyer, designed to revolutionize naval warfare with stealth capabilities and advanced armaments, has instead become a symbol of strategic misjudgment and wasteful spending. Initially envisioned as a fleet of 32, only three Zumwalts were built, each plagued by exorbitant costs and functionality issues. The main gun remains broken, and attempts to retrofit the destroyers with hypersonic weapons have proved equally problematic. Critics argue that funds spent on Zumwalt should have been directed toward more practical and reliable systems, such as expanding the Seawolf-class submarine fleet or advancing hypersonic weaponry earlier.

The US Navy’s refusal to innovate and rethink its long-time assumptions about what constitutes its power has been evident for decades since the Cold War ended. It was evident in the decision by Navy planners to not only continue building expensive aircraft carriers, but to build newer models of aircraft carriers that were far more expensive than the previous set. The Navy’s shortsightedness was apparent when it opted to build only three (out of a planned 30) of its Seawolf-class attack submarines. But nothing screams strategic ignorance and cultural decadence like Navy’s commitment to building the Zumwalt-class destroyer.

America’s first Zumwalt-class destroyer, the U.S.S. Zumwalt, was the costliest destroyer it had ever built—far surpassing the cost of the magnificent Arleigh Burke-class destroyer which still protects US Navy aircraft carrier battle groups. Three units of the Zumwalt were built, a small class of warships for sure. 

They are also the largest destroyers in the world. Their distinctive hull design that makes them look like something from Babylon 5 and less like a US Navy warship is because they are the world’s first true stealth warships. These destroyers were so next-generation technologically that General Dynamics, the company that built the Zumwalt-class, had to spend $40 million just to build a special facility for these next-generation warships.

The Zumwalts were meant to be a complete break from the way things had been done by the US Navy. The warship produces the same amount of power as an aircraft carrier. It possesses 80 vertical launchers for various types of missiles. A key part of the Zumwalt’s mission was to be able to conduct deep-ranging sea-to-shore strikes. Remember, the Zumwalts were designed back when the United States was the undisputed unipolar power. 

At that time, America was more concerned with rogue states, transnational terrorist groups, and the scourge of ethno-religious sectarian conflicts abroad. The Navy was constantly trying to keep itself relevant at that time and having a “multi-mission” stealth warship seemed like a worthwhile investment.

There was just one problem: the Zumwalt-class destroyer didn’t work as advertised. It took years longer to build and was around 50 percent more expensive than what the defense contractors had sold to Congress. Initially planned to have a fleet of 32 Zumwalts, today, the Navy has just three. 

And they’re constantly needing repairs. 

The armaments alone are egregiously expensive, partly because the supply chain was designed to provide cheaper armaments once the Zumwalt fleet reached its 32-unit goal. Since that goal will now never be met, the costs for the unique armaments for these warships will remain exorbitant. In the age of constrained budgets, this is not a worthwhile investment. 

Besides, as it turns out, the main gun on the Zumwalt is broken and cannot be repaired. Rather than cut its losses, though, the Navy is insistent on trying to make the Zumwalt work. It’s getting rid of the 155-milimeter non-working Advanced Gun Systems (with its $800,000 per round ammunition). Instead, the Zumwalts will be fitted with the equally expensive, non-functional hypersonic weapons platform that the US Navy has been desperately trying to build. To be clear, investing in hypersonic weapons is a good move. 

Unfortunately, these systems are clearly not ready for showtime (whereas Russia’s, sadly, are ready and China’s hypersonic weapons are right behind Russia’s). And deploying these boondoggles—which, according to some assessments, are not as stealthy as they were designed to be—is absurdly wasteful.

But the Zumwalt-class is another example of the kind of decadence at the Department of Defense and from Congress that I’ve been railing about. These warships were designed and deployed at a time when America could afford to indulge its wildest strategic fantasies. It was still basking in its Cold War victory, there were no serious challengers to American global primacy, and things at home were going well. 

Those days are gone.

With China on the rise, Russia pushing hard against US-backed NATO, Iran agitating for a great regional war against American allies in Israel and the Sunni Arab states, and North Korea poised to go nuclear at any moment, the last thing the Navy should be doing is continuing to support the wasteful Zumwalt.

Just imagine if, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, the Navy planners simply stuck to the basics. Instead of blowing the $22.4 billion on researching and developing the Zumwalts, just imagine what would have been if the Navy invested in building up its unbelievably tiny fleet of Seawolf-class attack submarines. 

Or if the Navy had invested in getting its hypersonic weapons ready for deployment years before they started taking the concept seriously. This isn’t hindsight, many were skeptical, for example, that the Navy’s investment into the Zumwalt-class was going to pay off.

Now the Navy is stuck with a sunk cost. It should cut its losses now. Instead, it seems to be doubling-down on failure. 

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock.

From the Vault

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

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

Summary and Key Points: The USS Enterprise (CVN-65) was the world’s first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and remains one of the most significant carriers in U.S. Navy history.

-Its nuclear propulsion allowed for indefinite deployment, fundamentally altering naval strategy and enabling the U.S. to project power globally without the need for frequent refueling.

-Commissioned in 1961, the Enterprise played crucial roles in the Cuban Missile Crisis and the War on Terror, among other conflicts.

-As the longest naval vessel ever built, it was a technical marvel with extensive capabilities. The carrier was decommissioned in 2012 after over 50 years of service.

While CVN-65 was the eighth U.S. Navy vessel to bear the Enterprise name, she was the first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in the world, marking a watershed moment in the way that U.S. forces are deployed around the world.

Some even say this aircraft carrier just might be the Navy's most important and even best aircraft carrier ever. 

An aircraft carrier is a unique piece of military technology, for an aircraft carrier is essentially a mobile airfield that can be stationed (theoretically) anywhere atop the 75 percent of the Earth’s surface that is covered with water. The aircraft carrier is like an airbase on foreign soil – only more valuable – because an airbase is of course a fixed location. The aircraft carrier is a flexible location, allowing the United States to project airpower on any continent.

In the past, before the Enterprise, carriers relied on non-nuclear power such as diesel, which meant that the carriers relied upon refueling as a crutch.

Without refueling, the carriers could not continue to operate, limiting their range and endurance and presenting logistical challenges for refueling an aircraft carrier that could be parked on some far-flung continent. That changed with the Enterprise, however, which relied upon nuclear power – and was able to stay at sea indefinitely, for decades if needed.

The U.S. employs the most hyperactive, adventurous foreign policy of any nation on Earth. One could argue that the endurance, range, and flexibility of the Enterprise – and the succeeding fleet of nuclear-powered vessels – seems to have manifested itself in the U.S.’s hyperactive foreign policy.

Today, the U.S. has eleven nuclear-powered submarines, each capable of patrolling the world’s oceans indefinitely – a capability that U.S. leaders employ liberally.

Or was it the other way around? Was the Enterprise created, in the late 1950s, to meet the needs of a foreign policy that was embroiled in global conflict with the Soviets and increasingly looking to assert itself globally?

The U.S. had been successful in Europe and the Pacific and had grown to appreciate the need for projecting its power on multiple fronts, simultaneously. The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier offered a practical solution.

Chicken or egg? It’s probably a little bit of both. The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier was a practical solution – and U.S. war planners have adjusted their war planning to accommodate the remarkable capabilities that nuclear-powered aircraft carriers provide.

The USS Enterprise is the longest naval vessel ever built. At 1,123 feet, the Enterprise is only about 300 feet shorter than the Empire State Building. The Enterprise is only ten feet shorter than the RMS Queen Mary 2, the massive ocean liner.

The Enterprise is over three hundred feet longer than the famed RMS Titanic.

Yes, the Enterprise is long – with a 132-foot beam at the waterline and a 39-foot draft. To propel such a massive ship eight Westinghouse A2W nuclear reactors powered four Westinghouse geared steam turbines, which turned four propeller shafts producing 280,000 horsepower.

With the propulsion system operating at capacity, the Enterprise was able to achieve speeds of 33.6 knots per hour.

And while the Enterprise’s main offensive feature was the 60+ aircraft she carried; the ship was also outfitted with some armament. Notably, the Enterprise was outfitted with a prototype Basic Point Defense Missile System (BPDMS). The BPDMS carried two eight-round box launchers filled with Sea Sparrow missiles. The Enterprise was also outfitted with two NATO Sea Sparrow (NSSM) and three Mk-15 Phalanx CIWS gun mounts.

Later in Enterprise’s service career, one of the Phalanx CIWS mounts would be removed to make room for two 21-cel RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile launchers.

The Enterprise was commissioned in 1961, just in time for the Cuban Missile Crisis.

When President Kennedy learned that the Soviet Union was on the verge of deploying nuclear missiles to Cuba, he ordered a blockade of the island nation to physically prevent Soviet ships from delivering the missiles. Five U.S. aircraft carriers participated in the blockade – Independence, Essex, Lake Champlain, Randolph, and the newly commissioned Enterprise. The blockade helped prevent the missile shipment and ultimately contributed to the crisis’s diffusion.

The incident is generally considered the closest that the U.S. and Soviet powers ever came to a nuclear exchange.   

Forty years later, the still-serving Enterprise would again respond to crisis. In September 2001, the Enterprise was beginning to sail home from a deployment in the Persian Gulf.

When news of the September 11th terrorist attacks reached the Enterprise, the ship turned around without orders and returned to the Persian Gulf. One month later, aircraft from the Enterprise would run hundreds of sorties against al-Qaeda and Taliban targets in Afghanistan.

The Enterprise was finally decommissioned in December 2012, after a half-century in service.

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

All images are Creative Commons and or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Jey Points: In response to the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, the U.S. Navy will deploy two additional Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers to Europe.

-USS Oscar Austin (DDG-79) will change its homeport from Norfolk, Virginia, to Rota Naval Base, Spain, this fall, increasing the number of forward-deployed destroyers in Europe to five.

-This move reinforces U.S. and NATO maritime presence in Europe and Africa. The Oscar Austin, named after Medal of Honor recipient PFC Oscar P. Austin, is a Flight IIA Arleigh Burke-class destroyer with advanced capabilities, including ballistic missile defense and anti-submarine warfare.

As the political situation continues to be fluid in Europe and the Middle East – with the ongoing war in Ukraine and the continued fighting in Gaza, the United States Navy announced this month that it would deploy two additional Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers to the region.

USS Oscar Austin (DDG-79) will be one of the two vessels that will change its homeport from Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia, to Rota Naval Base, Spain. The change will be made this fall, and DDG-79 will "join the current Forward Deployed Naval Force-Europe (FDNF-E) force – adding additional capabilities to the U.S. European Command (EUCOM) and U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) areas of responsibility."

This will be a "phased" change of homeports, and a second still-to-be-named Arleigh Burke-class destroyer will be sent to Spain in 2026. The deployment of USS Oscar Austin will increase the number of U.S. Navy forward-deployed destroyers in EUCOM to five, which will reinforce the service's commitment to NATO but also enhance operation security in Europe and Africa.

"Shifting Oscar Austin's homeport to Rota is the next step in bolstering U.S. and NATO maritime presence and combat power in Europe as well as increasing the capacity to execute the One Atlantic concept," explained Adm. Daryl Caudle, commander, of U.S. Fleet Forces Command. "The One Atlantic concept improves the ability to share, leverage, and fully utilize naval forces in response to threats and strategic competitors while conducting multi-mission operations across the Atlantic by multiple Combatant Commanders."

Former President Obama first announced the U.S.-European Phased Adaptive Approach in 2009.

USS Oscar Austin has been readying for the homeport change to Spain since last December. The destroyer was named to honor Private First Class Oscar P. Austin, United States Marine Corps, who was killed during the Vietnam War in 1969 when he sacrificed his own life to save an injured fellow Marine. PFC Austin was "recognized with numerous medals and decorations, including the Purple Heart, the National Defense Medal, and the Vietnam Service Medal with two bronze stars, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, and the Medal of Honor," according to UScarriers.net.

DDG-79 is also the first Flight IIA Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer to be produced, while she is the 29th warship of the destroyer class. She was commissioned in 2000, and according to the U.S. Navy is, "ballistic missile defense, anti-submarine, and anti-surface warfare capable. The ship can embark two MH-60R Seahawk helicopters to assist in anti-submarine and other warfare areas. Destroyers can work with Carrier Strike Groups, Surface Action Groups, Expeditionary Strike Groups or independently."

The U.S. Navy's Arleigh Burke-class (DDG 51) destroyers are also noted for having the longest production run for any of the service’s surface combatants, and with nine more on the way that record will only be further extended.

"Arleigh Burke-class destroyers are the backbone of the surface fleet and one of the most successful shipbuilding programs in the history of the Navy," U.S. Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro said in a statement last year.

Those sentiments were shared by Rear Adm. Brendan McLane, commander, of Naval Surface Force Atlantic, when it was announced in March 2023 that the first warships of the class would receive a service life extension.

"DDG 51s are the best warshipsin history. They demonstrate that there are no limits to what we can accomplish with a strong American Navy-industrial partnership," McLane said. "Arleigh Burke-class destroyers are the backbone of the Navy’s surface fleet and critical to the Nation and the Navy today and long into the future."

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The F-14 Tomcat and F/A-18 Super Hornet are iconic U.S. Navy aircraft, with the former prominently featured in the original Top Gun and the latter in the sequel Top Gun: Maverick.

-The F-14, known for its sweep wings and two-seat cockpit, was larger and faster, reaching speeds up to Mach 2.34. However, it had reliability issues and a tendency to enter flat spins.

-The F/A-18, with fixed wings and more reliable systems, is easier to land on carriers and excels in close-quarters dogfighting. While the F-14 remains a fan favorite, the F/A-18 is the Navy's current workhorse.

When the general public considers either the F-14 Tomcat or the F/A-18 Super Hornet, the Top Gun film series is likely top of mind. In the first Top Gun, the F-14 features prominently. In Top Gun: Maverick, Cruise reprises his Maverick role, 36 years later. One of the most recognizable differences in the sequel is that the F-14 has been replaced with the F/A-18 Super Hornet. 

Of course, the Top Gun sequel concludes with an F-14 cameo, giving viewers the opportunity to consider the active duty F/A-18 against the retired F-14. Let’s take a moment to do the same here. 

The two airframes are different in subtle and obvious ways. Let’s first consider the obvious distinctions. 

The F-14, unlike the F/A-18, had sweep-wings. These are visually identifiable even to many laymen, because the wing can pivot along a joint at the fuselage, allowing the wing to sweep forward, or back, flush against the fuselage. When the wings are swept forward, drag increases, slowing the plane down but increasing maneuverability. When the wings are pulled back, drag is reduced, speed is increased, but maneuverability is decreased. So an F-14 would have the wings pushed forward when performing a carrier landing, but would have the wings pulled back when intercepting a foreign aircraft. 

The F/A-18 has a fixed wing position, like the vast majority of aircraft. 

The F-14 also had a cockpit for two, whereas the F/A-18 seats one or two depending on the variant. This is why sometimes, throughout the Top Gun sequel, the F/A-18 was piloted with a back-seater, and other times, it was not – different variants were used throughout the film. 

The F-14 was larger and significantly faster than the F/A-18. While the F/A-18 had a top speed of Mach 1.6-1.8, the powerful F-14 could hit Mach 2.34. The F-14 was “amazingly fast” said Tom “Trots” Trotter, boasting that he once went from 150 knots to 610 knots in less than ten seconds. While generally outdated relative to the F/A-18, the F-14’s speed was enviable.

Trotter is an ex-flyer who was qualified in both the F-14 and the F/A-18. He told the Fighter Pilot Podcast that the F-14’s speed was a top draw of the airframe. 

“You know what, most of my combat time…I’ll honestly tell you, you’re gonna be in combat and they’re shooting at you, boy it’s good to be in combat in an F-14 to go fast and the other dude is head down, running the laser and it’s like so most of my bomb dropping I’d go, ah, put me in a Tomcat please.”

Trotter also pointed out that the F-14 had reliability issues. The F/A-18 is much more reliable – to the point where the Navy didn’t bother keeping a spare on standby.

The F-14 also had a tendency to enter flat spins, as depicted in the original Top Gun, during the scene where “Goose” ejects into the canopy and dies. The scene was an accurate depiction, according to Trots. F-14 crew were instructed to blow the canopy, look up to confirm that the canopy had cleared, and then eject – a procedure that requires immense awareness during the hectic moments of whatever is prompting the ejection.

The F/A-18 was also much easier to land on an aircraft carrier than the F-14. Indeed, the Top Gun series opens with a pilot struggling to land his F-14 on a carrier at night.

With respect to dogfighting, according to Trots, the F-14 would give an F/A-18 a run for its money. However, the F/A-18 was superior in-tight, in the “phone booth,” during slower and more intimate engagements.

“I think any Tomcat can give a Hornet a run, but you know, the Hornet’s way better in the phone booth,” Trotter said. “The slow fight, gunning a guy, going a high angle of attack.”

In all, both aircraft are legendary and well regarded. The F-14 retains something of a cult following that the F/A-18 has never quite replicated. 

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

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.