The National Interest

Summary and Top Line Points: The U.S. Navy's Columbia-class submarines are set to replace the aging Ohio-class submarines, with the lead ship, USS Columbia (SSBN-826), expected to be delivered by 2027 and commissioned by 2030.

-The program faces numerous challenges, including cost overruns and delays, attributed to complex designs and America's struggling shipyard capabilities.

-The Columbia-class, with a $132 billion program cost, aims to build 12 submarines to replace 14 Ohio-class subs by the mid-2040s. Critics argue this approach is impractical, costly, and insufficient given current strategic threats, calling for radical changes in the defense industrial base.

The US Navy is building a new class of ballistic missile submarines that are meant to replace the aging Ohio-class submarines. This new class of boat, the Columbia-class is a top priority for the Navy. That’s because there have been multiple problems getting these new boats going—notably due to complications caused by America’s failing shipyard capabilities. 

The USS Columbia (SSBN-826) is the lead ship of the Columbia-class. It is currently under construction and is scheduled to be delivered to the Navy by 2027. From there, the Navy is expected to commission this new boat by 2030. 

Meanwhile, America’s critical submarine force is strained to its breaking point and needs every system it can get in the field immediately. That’s because the global threat environment is more dynamic and disfavoring of America’s current strategic position than at any time since the Interwar Years.

It is believed that the Columbia-class submarines will fully replace the Ohio-class subs by the mid-2040s, beginning with the first replacements occurring in 2031. That seems wildly impractical and stunningly long-range, considering the immediacy of the threats the military is facing. 

This program is expected to cost around $132 billion, with each Columbia-class submarine expected to run in at around $15 billion. 

Speaking of costs, there have been numerous overruns associated with the Columbia program. The Navy has attributed these overruns to various factors, including the complexity of the design, the need for new technologies, and the challenges of building the first boat of a new class. 

That, of course, is a convenient excuse papering over the fact that the US defense industrial base is so sclerotic and broken that it cannot even keep up with regular peacetime demands of maintaining the existing submarine force, let alone creating an entirely new class of submarines in a wartime environment. 

Something must change. 

And the solution won’t be found in building more expensive, more complex, and harder to maintain systems, like the Columbia-class. The solution must come in the form of radical changes to the defense industrial base and how America produces its warships, for example.

Right now, the Navy intends to build a total of 12 Columbia-class submarines to replace the 14 Ohio-class submarines currently serving in the fleet. Whatever one may think of the star-spangled awesome new technologies incorporated into the Columbia-class submarine, one cannot help but to notice that, on top of taking an incredibly protracted period of time to replace the Ohio-class, the American taxpayers are paying more for less. 

There will be, after all, two fewer Columbia-class submarines than there are Ohio-class submarines.

Considering how most experts do not think that the Navy has enough of its existing submarines, now the Pentagon wants to retire an entire class of nuclear-powered, ballistic missile submarines and replace them with even fewer, newer warships? I understand that quality can often trump quantity. 

But honestly, Mao was right: quantity has a quality all of its own. This is a concept that China has long understood. It’s why, despite not having as comprehensively as advanced of a military as the Americans possess, it really doesn’t matter. Their forces can trust swarm American systems and destroy the more complex American systems that way.

A Columbia-class submarine is designed to have a crew of approximately 150 sailors, which is similar to the crew size of the Ohio-class submarines.

Her armaments include the Trident II D5 ballistic missiles, which are capable of carrying multiple nuclear warheads.

A Columbia-class submarine has a range that will likely be similar to the Ohio-class, so around 7,000 nautical miles (just over 8,000 miles). But the submarine, like all of America’s submarines, will be nuclear-powered. In other words, its range will be virtually unlimited.

It remains to be seen, though, if the Navy will even be able to deliver on the promises of the Columbia-class submarine. And many are asking why the Navy simply isn’t focused on maintaining and expanding their existing arsenal of submarines, rather than wasting time and money (that we don’t have) on reinventing the wheel. 

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 U.S. Navy's Constellation-class frigate program, designed to replace the aging Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates, is facing significant complications due to design changes and bureaucratic miscommunications.

-Built by Fincantieri Marinette Marine, these frigates are based on the European FREMM design, but modifications requested by the Navy have led to cost overruns and delays.

-Set to debut in 2026, the program's future is uncertain amid budgetary concerns and the evolving nature of naval warfare, which raises questions about the necessity and practicality of these large manned warships in the current strategic environment.

The Constellation-class frigate is a new class of warship being built for the United States Navy. The lead ship of this new class of warship, the USS Constellation (FFG-62), is currently under construction at Fincantieri Marinette Marine in Marinette, Wisconsin. The Constellation-class is based on the European FREMM frigatethat was developed by the Italian shipbuilder, Fincantieri. 

Washington’s decision to utilize a foreign shipbuilder, such as Fincantieri, to construct one of the most important vessels coming online for the surface fleet is telling within itself. It indicates that Washington is attempting to increase its naval interoperability with European navies—notably the navies belonging to NATO, which utilize the Fincantieri-built FREMM frigate. 

But that has caused a ridiculous amount of complications, too. 

Notably, the US Navy attempted to inject changes to the final design of the Constellation that ultimately ruined what the Italian shipbuilder was creating. In fact, the Navy’s additional requests for the warship, after Financtieri had already started cutting the steel for the warship, jeopardizes the entire program (due to the inevitable cost overruns that will not occur).

The Constellation-class is intended to replace the Navy’s aging Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates. The Navy plans to procure a total of 20 Constellation-class frigates, with the first ship expected to be delivered in 2026. 

Though, again, thanks to the unnecessary complications caused by improper communication between Navy planners and the shipbuilders at Fincantieri, that target date for deployment is unrealistic. 

Indeed, the warship has already been delayed once. Given the problems between Washington and Fincantieri, and the looming debt crisis the United States is likely to face soon, the idea that the US leadership (let alone the taxpayers) will be sanguine with this program running overbudget and overtime is low.

But the Navy persists in its plans. 

Nevermind that the dawn of unmanned undersea vehicles (UUV) and the rise of advanced anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities—notably potent (and cheap) anti-ship ballistic missiles—renders the idea of large manned warships somewhat obsolete. Washington believes that it’s still 1994. All we need do is tweak our procurement processes here, alter our shipbuilding standards there, and the enemies of America will just wait for us to be ready. No adaptation to us by them, let alone by us to them, is needed.

These assumptions, of course, are wrong. Deadly wrong. The French military behaved much the same way in the Interwar Years, leading to complacency and unpreparedness by their armed forces. We know what happened as a result.

Designed as a multi-mission warship capable of conducting anti-submarine warfare (ASW), anti-surface warfare, and anti-air warfare operations, the Constellation-class is clearly borrowing from other Navy programs. 

The concept of a plug-and-play warship goes back to the Navy’s (failed) Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) model. It’s akin to being a Jack-of-all-trades-and-master-of-none. Although, it doesn’t sound as though the Navy is as married to that failed notion with the Constellation. One can expect this warship to be a bit more conventional than was the LCS (or the Zumwalt-class destroyer for that matter). 

But how conventional or practical, especially in light of the rise of UUVs and A2/AD? 

The Constellation is supposed to be equipped with a variety of weapons. These weapons include the MK 41 Vertical Launch System, which can launch both anti-ship and anti-submarine missiles. It can also employ Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) systems. The SAMs will provide short-range air defense capabilities for a warship that will likely be exposed to serious dangers from the growing arsenals of anti-ship missiles around the world.

In terms of defenses, the Constellation-class is planned to possess the AN/SPY-6(V) radar system, which provides advanced air and missile defense capabilities. This boat is designed to house an AN/SLQ-32(V) Electronic Warfare Suite, providing the warship with electronic support and electronic attack capabilities. 

The Constellation-class will be powered by a Combined Diesel-Electric and Gas (CODLAG) propulsion system, which provides increased efficiency and flexibility compared to traditional propulsion systems. The ship’s proposed maximum range is expected to be around 6,000 nautical miles (or 6,904 miles) and her top speed is planned to be 26 knots (or just shy of 30 miles per hour). It’s a fast ship.

On paper.

As noted above (and this author has reported in earlier articles at this site), the Constellation is fraught with bureaucratic SNAFUs that jeopardize the success (and affordability) of this program. It remains to be seen if these woes can be overcome in a realistic and timely way.

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 U.S. Air Force has reactivated another B-1B Lancer, nicknamed "Rage," from the "Boneyard" at Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona. This aircraft, initially retired and preserved in Type 2000 storage, was brought back to replace a damaged B-1B.

-The Boneyard maintains a fleet of B-1Bs in a reclaimable condition, allowing for refurbishment and return to service. "Rage" will undergo extensive maintenance and upgrades before joining the frontline.

-With ongoing retirements, the Air Force is mandated to keep 45 B-1Bs operational until the B-21 Raider enters service.

-The potential restoration of other B-1Bs, including "Ruptured Duck," remains uncertain.

The United States Air Force's fleet of Rockwell B-1 Lancer bombers has slowly been retired from service. There are fewer than 50 of the Cold War long-range strategic bombers in service, down from its original 100. In 2021, the fleet saw 17 bombers retired – but due to a few incidents, there have been occasions where some of the old Bones sent to the infamous "Boneyard" have returned to service.

That included the aircraft nicknamed "Lancelot," which was selected earlier this year to replace a B-1 Lancer that was damaged beyond repair after suffering an engine mishap during otherwise "routine" maintenance at Dyess Air Force Base (AFB), Texas in April 2022. The B-1 was flown to Tinker AFB, Oklahoma, to complete the regeneration process.

It was reported this week that another B-1B Lancer – nicknamed "Rage" – has also been resurrected. That aircraft, serial number 86-0115, was one of the original four out of the 17 retired bombers deemed to be maintained "in a reclaimable condition" so that they could be refurbished and returned to service. It was recently spotted flying at Davis-Monthan AFB in Tucson, Arizona. The base is home to the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group (AMARG), the unit that manages the Department of Defense's (DoD's) Boneyard of aircraft.

Congress has mandated that the service maintains a fleet of 45 B-1Bs – which will remain in service until the Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider enters service in the coming decade.

Aircraft preserved at the Boneyard in reclaimable condition aren't simply left to soak in the sun. Each of the B-1s was maintained in Type 2000 storage, one level below the flyable Type 1000 storage. This entails the aircraft being covered with a silicone-like sealant, which covers gaps, engines, and all glass.

The aircraft nicknamed Rage was pulled from storage after another B-1B Lancer with the 7th Bomb Wing also experienced a fire engine failure. As the projected repairs were deemed "cost-prohibitive," the decision was made to regenerate one of the four B-1s.

As reported by The Aviationist, the Rage will still need a bit of TLC, and "will undergo depot-level maintenance to incorporate missed upgrades from its retirement years and perform a thorough check of the airframe and avionics before returning to a frontline unit."

The AMARG should expect to have its hands full, as it is almost certain that the unit will need to pull one of the remaining two B-1Bs in reclaimable condition and prepare it for restoration. Though the Air Force hasn't announced whether B-1B 85-0085 "Ruptured Duck," which crashed at Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota, on January 4 of this year, will return to service – it now seems highly unlikely.

There are currently no regeneration efforts – at least none that have been announced – but it would be hard to believe that the aptly named "Ruptured Duck" will fly again. Perhaps the Air Force should have the AMARG look at those lucky 13 B-1s that aren't in Type 2000 storage and consider ensuring that there will be enough B-1s that can actually take to the skies while the B-21 Raider program comes online.

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: Shutterstock.

With President Joe Biden officially out of the 2024 race Vice President Kamala Harris is on a glidepath, seemingly guaranteed to secure the Democratic nomination at next month’s convention.

But nominating Harris is no slam dunk victory for Democrats.

Rather, the party should be cautious about nominating a candidate who was essentially anointed, and who has popularity and electability problems of her own.  

The biggest problem with Harris’s inevitable nomination is that voters had no say whatsoever. The same could be said of Biden; Democrats failed to hold a proper primary, instead putting a heavy thumb on the scale to secure Biden’s repeat nomination.

Bypassing the primary for Biden was bad enough, deeply undemocratic, and completely pernicious. Biden may well have won a primary as an incumbent, and at least Biden can fall back on his genuine 2020 primary win amongst a crowded field as a reflection of some kind of voter endorsement, however outdated.

But when Biden stepped aside, and effectively handed the baton to Harris, all semblance of democracy was discarded.

Who decided that Harris would be the presidential nominee? Not the voters. Instead, a succession of elite elected officials threw their support behind Harris, implicitly blocking any other candidate. The cascade of endorsements started with Biden and the Clintons and proceeded from there to include just about anyone of relevance in the Democratic Party.

The reasoning was logical enough – the Party was urgent to unite and confront the looming Trump threat ASAP, and Harris was most well positioned to inherit Biden’s war chest and campaign infrastructure. Yet as convenient as the Harris tap-in was for Party elites, the simple fact remains is that voters had no say in her nomination, and that is heinously undemocratic – a fact exacerbated by the Democrat’s 2024 mantra: that Trump must be defeated because he represents an existential threat to democracy.

Well, only one of the 2024 major candidates will be democratically nominated, and it won’t be Harris.

Harris will be anointed as the nominee for practical considerations. But practical considerations suggest Harris is not a great choice. Namely, Harris has an atrocious electoral history, and today, suffers from low popularity.

When Kamala Harris ran for Attorney General of California in 2010, she won. But there was a problem in Harris’s victory, something concerning; she won by a margin of less than one percent. As a Democrat. In California. Indeed, Harris almost lost to Republican candidate Steve Cooley in the rock-solid-blue Golden State. Of course, Harris did win, and went on to serve seven years as California’s Attorney General. But the close call suggested Harris wasn’t much of a campaigner and/or a politician – a suggestion that would be confirmed a decade later.

Harris’s 2020 presidential campaign opened to great fanfare, with an announcement on Good Morning America. The then-Senator was billed as a top candidate to challenge the then-incumbent Trump. But Harris ran an abysmal campaign, never threatening to poll above five percent. Rather than make a serious push for the White House, Harris’s campaign fizzled, leading to a formal (and early) withdrawal in December 2019.

Can Harris turn things around and run a better campaign for 2024? She’ll have high-end assistance and a consolidated Party. But something about Harris’s low-popularity as Vice President lends to a suspicion that her campaign troubles are no fluke; something about Harris’s political instincts just seems off – she’s certainly no Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.

And Democrats may well come to regret subverting democracy to anoint Harris as the Democratic nominee.   

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

Image Credit: Shutterstock. 

With Vice President Kamala Harris all but guaranteed to be handed the Democratic nomination (without a shred of voter input, mind you), speculation over who Harris will choose as a running mate is ramping up.

One name that comes up – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – can probably be dismissed out of hand.

AOC is one of the most prominent politicians in the Democratic Party. As the marquee member of ‘The Squad,’ AOC enjoys something of a cult-like following and progressive credibility – despite being a pretty token Democrat.

AOC, who conforms rather comfortably with the rest of her Party, was quick to endorse Harris as president (like the rest of the Democrats).

In doing so, AOC signaled that the progressive wing of the Party was united with the mainstream wing and that the Democrats could likely avoid a squabbling, fractious, drawn-out nominating process that would (be democratic) hinder a pivot towards assaulting the Trump candidacy.

In endorsing Harris, AOC may also have been signaling an interest in joining the ticket, as some pundits have suggested, but that seems like a long shot.

AOC isn’t totally green anymore – she has been a congresswoman for eight years now. But she’s still barely 35, new to politics relative to many of her peers, and a member of the House. In modern politics, the House is not known as a launching point for the White House.

Gerald R. Ford jumped from the House to the White House – but he was pretty much running the House after an impressive tenure. He was selected to join the Nixon team mid-administration thanks to exigent circumstances (Vice President Spiro Agnew’s disgraceful exit).

AOC is not long-tenured, does not run the House, and, despite the urgency of the Harris nominating process, is not dealing with exigent circumstances.

In short, AOC is not qualified to be Vice President. Consider the list of people who have more consequential positions and/or are more established than AOC. Governors. Senators. Another cycle or two, another position, maybe in the Senate, and perhaps AOC will be a worthwhile contender. But at the moment, it’s not close.   

AOC’s lack of qualifications and other practical considerations prevent it from being selected for the ticket.

The first is geography. The election will come down to a few suburban voters in a few swing states. Arizona. Georgia. Pennsylvania. Michigan. Soccer moms outside of Pittsburgh, Tempe, and Atlanta will decide in 2024, and AOC isn’t a big draw for soccer moms outside of Pittsburgh, Tempe, or Atlanta. AOC represents New York, a state that Democrats have locked down, so adding AOC to the ticket won’t do much to win new voters in the all-valuable swing states.

The candidates Harris is considering will win new voters in swing-states. Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona, for example. Or Governor Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania. If the popular vote determined presidential elections, then maybe a running mate like AOC, from population-dense urban centers in Democrat-country, would be viable. But as long as the electoral college is used, swing-state logic will reign.

Don’t expect Harris to select, or even seriously consider, AOC for the 2024 ticket.

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

Image Credit: YouTube Screenshot. 

Countless refugees and migrants flee horrific and oppressive conditions, but there is an element in forced displacement that does not receive enough attention: the weaponization of migration by dictators. This phenomenon undermines U.S. national security interests and hinders humanitarian and development assistance globally.   

For instance, 92 percent of the 6 million Ukraine refugees created by Vladimir Putin’s unprovoked war are hosted in Europe. Lithuania, Finland, Latvia, and Estonia have accused Russia and Belarus of using migration as a weapon. Polish prime minister Donald Tusk stated, “We are dealing with a coordinated, very efficient—on many levels—operation to break the Polish border and attempts to destabilize the country.”

Putin has done this before. Putin assisted Bashar al-Assad in using forced migration for his own ends, too. About 6.6 million left Syria for the Middle East and Europe, most notably Germany. In 2016, General Philip Breedlove, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander for Europe and head of the U.S. European Command, testified before Congress that “together Russia and the Assad regime are deliberately weaponizing migration in an attempt to overwhelm European structures and break European resolve.”

Wars in Ukraine and Syria understandably have large numbers of refugees. Yet surprisingly, a country not engaged in either internal or external conflict is the source of one of the largest refugee crises worldwide. Nearly 8 million refugees and migrants have fled Venezuela due to a man-made protracted crisis led by authoritarian dictator Nicolas Maduro and his criminal enterprise.

Maduro has weaponized migration to ease pressure from the United States and feed a false narrative that sanctions are causing migration. We cannot be fooled by this ruse. Heavy migration began at least five years before sanctions were imposed. Plus, exceptions in U.S. law exist so that food, medicine, and humanitarian assistance are permissible for sanctioned countries. The cause of human suffering, malnutrition, poverty, violence, and human rights violations is Maduro. However, if Maduro is allowed to steal the upcoming election just like in the past, millions more may flee in desperation.

Dictators of a feather flock together, and perhaps nobody better epitomizes the willingness of dictators to turn refugees into weapons than Daniel Ortega, as Nicaragua has become a centralized trafficking epicenter. Ortega is using security and military forces to transport people from its borders of Costa Rica to Honduras and allowing the airport to facilitate international trafficking. Hundreds of charter flights and thousands of people have already traveled through Haiti and Cuba to Nicaragua. After charter flights from as far away as India, France, and Germany were found connected to Nicaragua, the State Department last year warned of visa restrictions against companies suspected of assisting illegal migration.

Last month, the State Department finally put that warning into action and imposed visa restrictions on an executive of a charter flight company who was using Nicaragua to facilitate illegal migration. These rogue regimes also profit from the migration scheme, evidenced by the State Department acknowledging that “the Ortega-Murillo regime in Nicaragua continues to financially benefit from the exploitation of vulnerable migrants.”

While humanitarian assistance is needed to assist refugees, it is also impacting traditional development assistance. President and CEO of the Wilson Center and former Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development Ambassador Mark A. Green recently stated: 

Humanitarian assistance is a response, an immediate response—it’s not an answer, at least not a compassionate answer. I think our job is to dust off our development tools, adapt them, reshape them, reenergize them for this generational struggle…Every dollar of humanitarian assistance must be reinforced with threads of development and resilience to help displaced communities withstand future shocks. 

The United States is by far the largest humanitarian assistance donor, providing about $9.5 billion in 2023, but where is everyone else? Even if the donations of the second through tenth largest donor nations were combined, the sum would not surpass U.S. contributions. This model is not sustainable, so what should we do?

First, we must recognize the perils of inaction. Sticking our heads in the sand and hoping these protracted crises go away is inadequate. The United States and our allies must collaborate to resolve crises instead of focusing on mere containment.

Other countries need to contribute more humanitarian assistance. The Global Fund model leverages $1 of U.S. contributions for $2 provided by other donors. The Ukraine supplemental bill stipulated that funds for Ukraine may not exceed 50 percent of the total amount provided by all donors. A new incentive using these models should be applied to accelerate reforms in the humanitarian arena.

In addition, consider the Wilson Center’s Refugee and Forced Displacement Initiative working group report, which reaffirms the importance of U.S. leadership and offers policy recommendations for enhancing and strengthening refugee-related policies.

These challenges are not going away and are growing in size and scope. Most refugees are not returning to their countries of origin and remain in host countries or camps for many years. In addition, an average of 339,000 children are born as refugees every year—most in developing countries.

According to the UN, over 117 million people worldwide are forcibly displaced due to “persecution, conflict, violence, human rights violations and events seriously disturbing public order.” Chasing away their own citizens has benefits to these dictators: billions back in remittances to prop up their collapsed economies and fewer angry citizens to protest their corrupt misrule. State-sponsored weaponization of migration is unacceptable, and as we hold dictators to account, we must also renew our commitment to make every assistance dollar count. There’s no time (or money) to waste.

Eddy Acevedo was deemed a “traitor” to Nicaragua by Daniel Ortega and was sanctioned by the Russian Federation. He is the chief of staff and senior adviser to Ambassador Mark Green, the president and CEO of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. He was formerly the National Security Adviser at the U.S. Agency for International Development and senior foreign policy advisor for former Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL.). This opinion is solely that of the author and does not represent the views of the Wilson Center.

Image: David Peinado Romero / Shutterstock.com. 

Boeing is reportedly studying whether it could transform its upgraded F-15EX Eagle II into an electronic warfare (EW) aircraft like its EA-18G Growler, a variant of the U.S. Navy's F/A-18 Super Hornet.

The study is still in its early stages. But as the aerospace firm continues to seek foreign buyers for the F-15EX, it could very well move forward.

"The Growler line has ended," Rob Novotny, Boeing's business development lead for the F-15, told Breaking Defense over the weekend. Novotny noted that F/A-18E/F production is also slated to end in 2027, and no additional EA-18Gs will be produced.

"There's a lot of conversation internally, could we turn this [the F-15EX] into a Growler," he added. "So we're looking at some trade work."

The F-15EX is already equipped with EW capabilities from its BAE Systems Eagle Passive Active Warning Survivability System (EPAWSS). According to BAE Systems, EPAWSS offers "several instantaneous full-spectrum EW capabilities, ­including radar warning, geolocation, situational awareness, and self-protection. The system enables freedom of maneuver and deeper penetration into battlespaces protected by modern integrated air defense systems."

Novotny also addressed the Eagle II's lack of stealth, saying this should not be seen as a non-starter for a future EW aircraft.

"Stealth means, to me, I can go to a place where the enemy doesn't want me to go, and I can operate in their environment, achieve my objective, and not be targeted," Novotny suggested.

The Boeing executive is also on the record saying, "Modern aerial combat requires command of the electromagnetic spectrum, and this platform would lead the way into the next decade or two."

The F-15EX Eagle II achieved Initial Operational Capability this month. The U.S. Air Force is set to acquire at least ninety F-15EXs, down from the 144 aircraft the air service had originally sought to replace its aging fleet of F-15C/D models

U.S. ally Israel is one of the principal operators of the F-15 and has sought to acquire more than fifty F-15EX Eagle IIs. Poland, Indonesia, and other undisclosed countries have also been reported as considering the F-15EX, which Boeing has marketed as a low-cost alternative to the fifth-generation F-35 Lightning II.

The original Eagle and Strike Eagle has more than 100 air-to-air victories, most with the Israeli Air Force, while not a single F-15 has been shot down to date.

Boeing may now seek to entice foreign buyers by offering an EW variant of the F-15EX, fitted with jamming pods and other systems. It could ensure that the Eagle II continues to soar for years to come.

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 Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Air Force's A-10 Thunderbolt II, nearing the end of its service, recently received a fresh application of its iconic shark teeth nose art by the 23rd Maintenance Squadron at Moody Air Force Base, Georgia. This distinctive look not only enhances the aircraft's aesthetic but also serves as a powerful symbol of intimidation and strength.

-The nose art, inspired by the WWII Flying Tigers, requires a detailed, multi-step painting process involving washing, sanding, masking, and applying multiple colors.

-The tradition of the shark teeth design continues to symbolize the A-10's formidable close air support role and connection to its historical roots.

The Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II is a bit long in the tooth, and its days in service with the U.S. Air Force will end in the coming years. But airmen at the 23rd Maintenance Squadron at Moody Air Force Base, Georgia, recently offered a reminder that the aircraft is still a highly capable warbird. The airmen spent four days applying Flying Tigers nose art to A-10C Thunderbolt II tail number A213, ensuring the plane looks just as deadly as it performs.

"The distinctive appearance of the military aircraft is not just a matter of aesthetics, but a crucial aspect of our operational effectiveness – projecting power and intimidating adversaries," wrote Airman 1st Class Leonid Soubbotine of the 23rd Wing Public Affairs at Moody AFB. "The unmistakable shark teeth markings on aircraft from the 23d Wing serves as a visual deterrent, striking fear into the hearts of our enemies and instilling confidence in our allies."

Repainting is part of routine maintenance for the A-10 Warthog. Painting the shark teeth reportedly involved washing, sanding, and masking before applying the multiple colors that achieve the iconic look.

"For me it's important because the A-10 teeth are iconic in their own way," explained Tech. Sgt. Mark King, 23rd Maintenance Squadron corrosion manager. "It's even been adopted by the fashion industry and the teeth are everywhere. We're the only ones in the Air Force that actually apply it to our nose art and it means a lot to be able to represent it."

As noted, it is a multi-step, week-long process. It involves a specialized jet-sized paint booth and a large printer to produce the necessary decals and stencils. Then there is the actual painting, which involves trained airmen who are also talented artists.

"First and foremost, before it even rolls into the paint barn, it will be washed," added Staff Sgt. William Rogers, 23rd Maintenance Squadron aircraft structural maintenance craftsman. "The next steps are sanding and masking everything off that is not going to get painted to avoid overspray. After that, we mask and re-mask the jet – putting it through the multiple colors, stencils and different curing times."

The shark's notorious teeth are almost always associated with the "Flying Tigers," the American volunteer pilots who flew for the Chinese Nationalist government in its war against Japan.

They flew the Curtiss P-40B Warhawk marked with Chinese insignia, but under American control. Known as the First American Volunteer Group (AVG) of the Republic of China Air Force, but more commonly remembered as the Flying Tigers, the pilots were recruited under President Franklin Roosevelt's authority before Pearl Harbor. Their mission was to attack the Japanese and defend the Republic of China. The AVG first flew in combat on December 20, twelve days after Pearl Harbor.

Today, it is almost impossible to see a surviving Curtiss P-40 without the famous shark smile painted on the front. Most who know anything about World War II would be quick to point out that the iconic imagery painted on the front of the aircraft was started by the Flying Tigers – although why a tiger (flying or otherwise) would wear the face of a shark has never been explained.

The answer could be that it wasn't actually the Flying Tigers who first adopted the menacing smile with sharp teeth. The design was first employed not in the jungles of Burma where the AVG was first based, but in the deserts of North Africa. The Royal Air Force (RAF) No. 112 Squadron, fighting in North Africa, received its Curtiss fighters in July 1941, and after adopting a few iterations of nose art, finally settled on the definitive design. The unit eventually earned the nickname The Shark Squadron.

AVG pilot Charles Bond reportedly saw a photo of the Curtiss with the nose art on the cover of The Illustrated Weekly of India, and soon suggested to Chennault that the aircraft of the First Pursuit Squadron be painted with a similar design. The AVG commander's response was a blunt, "No."

Chennault wanted all the AVG aircraft to carry the markings. Quickly, many pilots and ground crewmen pitched in to paint the aircraft, Smithsonian magazine reported. AVG pilot and memoirist R.T. Smith said what many of the Flying Tigers thought at the time, "That looks mean as hell."

Regardless of whether the smile can trace its lineage back to the Flying Tigers or the RAF, it does look "mean as hell" on the A-10C!

"It feels great knowing that these jets are providing close air support for the troops on the ground," Tech. Sgt. King noted. "We're the only ones with those teeth, so they know who we are, where we’re from and what we do. Once they see the teeth, they know that Moody is here!"

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 U.S. Navy's Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines are essential to maintaining America's nuclear triad and ensuring strategic stability. Despite initial plans to build 14 submarines within 78 months, labor shortages and supply chain issues have delayed production.

-Manufacturer Huntington Ingalls Industries' Newport News shipbuilding facility has faced delays in delivering sections of the submarines, impacting the timeline. The Columbia-class subs are critical as the existing Ohio-class vessels, built during the Cold War, are set to retire by 2028.

-These advanced submarines will feature modern technology, including electric drive and enhanced acoustic performance, to ensure they remain undetectable.

The U.S. Navy’s fleet of submarines are vital to America's nuclear triad. As such, the service’s incoming Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines will be essential to strategic stability. The Navy at one time hoped to build 14 of these submarines in a 78 month period, but this is no longer possible due to labor shortages and supply chain issues. 

According to the U.S. Naval Institute, the greatest obstacle to the Columbia class’s introduction involves manufacturer Huntington Ingalls Industries’ (HII) Newport News shipbuilding facility in Virginia:

“Under the teaming arrangement for the Columbia program, lead contractor General Dynamics Electric Boat assembles the central barrel of the submarine’s hull at its yard in Groton, Conn., and its manufacturing facility in Quonset Point, R.I. Those modules built in New England are married to bow and stern sections that are constructed at Newport News and sent by barge up to the Columbia assembly hall in Connecticut. HII has been late in delivering the sections, delaying the timeline for construction.”

While the Columbia class is delayed, these vessels remain a high priority for the Navy. Since SSBNs guarantee nuclear retaliation against any enemy that attacks the U.S. with nuclear weapons, production of this class of boats is essential for national security. The existing Ohio-class vessels remain highly lethal, but they were built during the Cold War and are scheduled to retire by 2028 as they approach the end of their 42-year service life. In order to avoid a gap in capability, the Columbia-class subs must be operational by this time.

Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro talked about the significance of this new advanced class of submarines during the keel laying ceremony for the lead ship of the class, USS District of Columbia (SSBN 826), in June 2022. 

“Potential adversaries know the silent service is on patrol at this very moment, but they don’t know where and that protects us all,” Del Toro asserted, adding that “the venerable Ohio-class that has guarded us for decades is nearing the end of its service life. For the safety of our Sailors, and the security of our world, we must modernize our fleet, and our nuclear command, control, and communications systems.”

An Overview of the Columbia Class

The Columbia-class program started in 2007, when the U.S. Navy collaborated with industry partner General Dynamics Electric Boat to develop a next-generation submarine series. HII was awarded a contract for the design and construction of the new class and currently functions as Electric Boat’s major subcontractor responsible for engineering analysis, detail planning, development of components and technical services.

According to Naval Technology, these new submarines will feature X-shaped stern control surfaces and sail-mounted drive planes. The boats are also planned to run on electric drive instead of the reduction gearing and mechanical drive systems installed to power older nuclear-powered submarines. 

Each submarine will be equipped with 16 missile tubes for launching 16 Trident II D5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles. In addition to these missiles, the Columbia-class vessels will sport Mk 48 torpedoes and enhanced acoustic performance. Equipped with the top-of-the-line sensors, the Columbia-class ballistic missile subs will sail quietly, making them extremely difficult for adversaries to detect.

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. 

Summary and Key Points: With tensions between the United States and China escalating, the US Navy faces a strategic dilemma as it plans to retire the Ohio-class submarines, potentially as early as 2027. These guided-missile submarines are crucial for deterring Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific.

-The replacement, the Columbia-class, is not only expensive but also behind schedule, raising concerns about a capability gap. The Ohio-class submarines are equipped with a formidable arsenal, including Tomahawk cruise missiles and Mk48 torpedoes, and are essential for the US Navy's power projection.

-Retiring them prematurely could weaken US naval capabilities at a critical time.

With war between the United States and the People’s Republic of China on the possible horizon as tensions mount, the US government is poised to retire one of its greatest weapons against Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific: the Ohio-class submarine. 

This guided-missile attack submarine is an undersea juggernaut, brimming with a vast and lethal arsenal and one of the world’s most sophisticated undersea communications suites, the Ohio-class will be one of the most important weapons systems the US Navy can deploy against the Chinese military in war. 

Not only is it set to be retired—possibly as early as 2027, the same year that the Pentagon believes China will be able to attack Taiwan—but there are already an insufficient number of Ohio-class subs available. What’s more, the replacement system for the Ohio-class, the Columbia-class, is unbelievably expensive. 

Given the expense and complexity of the Columbia-class, even the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has warned that the Navy’s timeline for procuring the new submarines is unrealistic. 

This leaves the US Navy in a bit of a strategic pickle. 

The Navy already lacks sufficient submarines to deter China if they decided to go full bore into Taiwan. Plus, the naval shipyards charged with building the US Navy’s next systems cannot keep up peacetime demand. If a real war between the US and another near-peer rival were to erupt soon, it is unlikely that the Navy’s shipyards would be able to keep up with wartime demand. 

And that’s not even mentioning the fact that China, for a variety of reasons, is unlikely to wait until 2027 to attempt to drastically reorder the geopolitical chessboard in its favor. In essence, the force the United States has now is the force it will likely go into war with, should Beijing decide to make-good on their escalating threats against Taiwan. 

The Columbia-class will be a remarkable submarine and a worthy successor to the Ohio-class. But building this system out now—at the expense of maintaining the Ohio-class submarine—is foolish. 

Even if everything goes according to the Navy’s plan and they can start phasing out the Ohio-class subs and replacing them with the more expensive and complex Columbia-class submarines beginning in 2027, there will still not be enough Columbias available for many years to come. This will surely create a gap in American naval offensive abilities. A gap that would favor China. 

When the Chinese attack on Taiwan commences, the US Navy will need to have as many of its submersibles available as possible, as aircraft carriers will likely be deterred by Chinese anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) as well as their submarine fleet. American submarines will be one of the weapons platform that could keep the US Navy in a major fight against China. But some of these subs will be lost in combat or, at least damaged. 

If there are an insufficient number of submarines available, then a key power projection capability will be lost. 

The Ohio-class submarine is manufactured by General Dynamics Electric Boat Division. In SSGN configuration, It can carry up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles and Mk48 torpedoes (the Navy’s most advanced torpedo). The Ohio-class has four torpedo tubes. The boat is powered by a single nuclear reactor. 

The crew complement is usually 155 sailors, 140 enlisted plus 15 officers. These ships were built between 1974 and 1997. There are currently 18 total units in the Navy’s fleet (far too few already), 14 of them are ballistic submarines and four of them are guided-missile submarines—the class that is most important for dealing with China in a potential war. 

These four will be mothballed beginning in 2027.

The US Navy, like the rest of the United States Armed Forces, has taken many wrong turns since the end of the Cold War. One of those wrong turns has been to place high-tech solutions ahead of the more practical ones. 

Given the short timespan in which China may attempt an invasion of Taiwan that might suck the US military in, there should be no talk about retiring the Ohio-class in favor of more complex and expensive Columbia-class subs that might not even be deployable in any helpful number within the next decade. 

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: Earlier this year, the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) completed its first worldwide deployment, launching over 8,000 sorties in the Mediterranean in response to the Israel-Hamas war. Despite production issues, the Ford-class carrier's capabilities make it a critical asset.

-However, its high cost and vulnerability to cyber-attacks, hypersonic missiles, and UAVs raise concerns about the future of super-carriers. The Ford-class, designed to succeed the Nimitz-class, incorporates advanced technologies like EMALS and AAG, increasing sortie rates by 25% and generating triple the power.

-While modern threats challenge their effectiveness, the Navy's ability to project power globally remains crucial.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) completed its first worldwide deployment to the Mediterranean. The lead ship in the Navy’s latest class of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers performed well in its extended deployment, launching over 8,000 sorties in response to the Israel-Hamas war.

While the carrier’s trajectory to sea has not been linear since its production phase due to an array of issues, the ship’s unparalleled capabilities make it an essential asset to the service.

However, some analysts have argued that the Ford-class’ hefty price tag and vulnerability to cyber-attacks, hypersonic missiles and other new threats could render the whole “super-carrier” concept obsolete.

Could the Ford-class be the last U.S. Navy aircraft carrier class ever built due to the growing threats posed to aircraft carriers that are so expensive to build? 

Perhaps the significance of nuclear-powered carriers is best exemplified by the Nimitz-class ships. For nearly fifty years, these 100,000-ton vessels have remained the mainstay of the Navy. Capable of traveling at speeds more than 30 knots powered by two A4W nuclear reactors, the Nimitz carriers have proven to play a pivotal role in the service’s fleet.

As the Nimitz-class’ successor, the Ford-class is designed to feature even greater capabilities. Born from the CVN-21 program, the Ford class was developed to feature a more efficient design than its predecessor. Specifically, the incorporation of an Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALs) and an Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) have greatly enhanced the Ford ships.

With EMALs and AAG in place, the Ford-class carriers can launch 25% more sorties in addition to generating triple the amount of electrical power. The Ford ships are powered by the new Bechtel A1B reactor, which is more powerful than the A4W reactors that power the Nimitz ships.

The Ford-class was also designed with the future in mind. To more easily incorporate unforeseen technologies down the line, each ship in this class is designed with a larger power output.

Since the Ford-class is equipped with top-of-the-line capabilities and equipment, it should be no surprise that the carrier class is quite expensive. Some analysts have argued that modern-day threats could more easily target carriers.

For instance, the increased use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) across the globe could threaten these floating airports.

Undersea unmanned vehicles (UUAVs) and hypersonic missiles could cause the greatest damage to carriers. In addition to these low-tech threats, the Ford-class aircraft carriers, with their complex systems, could be more prone to cyber attacks.  

Regardless of these potential downsides, the Navy’s ability to launch airframes from virtually anywhere in the world from the seas is undoubtedly essential to U.S. national security.

Smaller frigates and conventionally-powered carriers could also fulfill this role, but not to the same degree and to the same level of sophistication as newer nuclear-powered vessels.

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

Image Credit: U.S. Navy. 

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy is updating its fleet, focusing on the Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers to replace the outdated Enterprise and Nimitz-class carriers. Each Ford-class carrier costs $13 billion and incorporates advanced technology, costing taxpayers over $120 billion for the program.

-The Ford-class carriers feature a higher Sortie Generation Rate (SGR), the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS), the Advanced Arresting Gear System (AAG), reduced manpower requirements, and lower maintenance needs.

-These advancements aim to enhance airpower projection and efficiency while reducing long-term operational costs by $4 billion over the carriers' 50-year service life.

The US Navy is contemplating the future, most particularly, the prospect of war in the Indo-Pacific against a near-peer rival in China. Accordingly, the US Navy is updating its inventory, beginning with the cornerstone of their fleet, the aircraft carrier.

In replacing the outdated Enterprise- and Nimitz-class carriers, the Navy is currently building the most expensive warship ever developed, the Gerald R. Ford-class – each of which costs $13 billion. The cost of each Ford carrier is mild relative to the costs of the program, which incorporates several new pieces of technology, and has cost US taxpayers in excess of $120 billion.

The taxpayers are expecting to receive what they paid for – that being the best aircraft carrier ever built.

So far, thanks to a slew of new tech features, the Ford indeed appears to be the most sophisticated and modern carrier ever built. Let’s consider the Ford-class’s five most important features.

Despite an aircraft carrier’s mechanical complexity, the purpose of the boat is quite simple: to provide off-shore airpower projection. Really, an aircraft carrier is just a floating and movable airfield that can be placed roughly anywhere in the world’s oceans.

So, to be effective, an aircraft carrier needs to be able to launch aircraft. It sounds self-evident, yes, but the rate at which an aircraft carrier can launch aircraft is a primary metric in evaluating the usefulness of a particular aircraft. The metric even has a name: Sortie Generation Rate (SGR). And the higher the SGR, the better.

The Ford-class is projected to provide an excellent SGR – 33 percent more than the preceding Nimitz-class carriers. Overall, the Ford is expected to produce 160 sorties per day (270 during a wartime crunch). The high SGR makes the Ford highly effective with respect to the boat’s primary task of projecting airpower.

The Ford is equipped with an Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, or EMALS, which is a modern alternative to the traditional steam piston catapult found on older aircraft carriers like the Nimitz and Enterprise. Whereas steam catapults use (as the name implies) steam to catapult an aircraft down the carrier’s truncated runway, the EMALS uses a linear induction motor. The EMALS’s linear induction motor generates magnetic fields that glide an airplane forward along a track.

The EMALS is considered an upgrade over the steam piston catapult because the EMALS will accelerate aircraft more smoothly (putting less wear and tear on the airframes).

Also, the EMALS will cost less, weigh less, and require less maintenance than the steam piston catapults. Additionally, the EMALS will reduce the Ford’s dependence on freshwater (and the corresponding energy-intensive desalination process). EMALS also recharges more quickly than steam, allowing for more aircraft launches (and a higher SGR).

The Advanced Arresting Gear System, or AAG, will replace the MK7 hydraulic arresting gear found on older aircraft carriers like the Nimitz and Enterprise. The AAG was built to handle a wider range of aircraft than the MK7, while using less manpower, and requiring more maintenance. The result is an arresting gear system that is more hands-off, yet can handle more aircraft.

The AAG uses rotary engines and water turbines paired with a large induction motor. The result is fine control of arresting forces – generated through a simple process. The AAG is less groundbreaking than the EMALS, but still offers an upgrade over preceding systems (and still boosts the Ford’s SGR).

Aircraft carriers are essentially floating cities. Well, maybe not cities but towns.

The Nimitz-class carrier, for example required 5,000 sailors to operate. So, inherent to the operations of the Nimitz was the feeding, housing, and paying of 5,000 people – in itself a complicated and expensive endeavor.

When designing the Ford, an effort was made to reduce the boat’s reliance on manpower; much of the Ford is built to run with automated technologies in place of sailors. The result is a carrier that needs 1,100 fewer sailors to operate than the Nimitz had needed. The 20 percent reduction in manpower requirements is expected to lead to long-term cost savings.

The Ford was designed to operate with less maintenance than preceding aircraft carriers. So, with reducing maintenance in mind, the Ford was built with simpler nuclear reactors than the Nimitz or Enterprise. Similarly, the radar system was designed to be less finicky. And the EMALS and AAG were designed to require less maintenance than the preceding steam catapults and MK7 arresting gears.

In sum, the Ford should require significantly less maintenance over the course of its 50-year service life than older aircraft carriers required. Cost projections suggest that the Ford will save $4 billion in maintenance costs during its fifty years in service.

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The US Navy's long-standing reliance on aircraft carriers, central to its power projection since WWII, faces new challenges from advanced anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) systems developed by China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. These systems threaten the effectiveness and safety of carriers, including the next-generation Ford-class carriers, which are expensive and complex to build and maintain.

-Critics argue that investing in legacy systems like the Ford-class is imprudent in an era of rising national debt and evolving threats.

-They suggest redirecting funds towards more versatile and cost-effective technologies like Virginia-class submarines, unmanned vehicles, hypersonic weapons, and directed-energy weapons to maintain US naval superiority.

The United States Navy just can’t quit its love affair with the aircraft carrier.

Since the Second World War, flat tops have been the center of the US Navy’s surface fleet. The primary projector of American maritime power, a fleet without the newest, largest, and most sophisticated floating airbases would not be the same. 

Of course, these aircraft carrier arguments are eerily similar to the ones made by proponents of battleships 80 years ago.

Back then, it was the battleship that was the centerpiece of US Navy power projection and the aircraft carriers that were viewed as strange ancillary elements in the fleet. 

That quickly changed after Japan’s surprise attack at Pearl Harbor in the Second World War. 

Today, the Navy (and its supporters in Congress) operates as though it is still 1999. There are no real challenges to American military dominance. Carriers can come-and-go as they please anywhere on the face of the planet. All the locals can do is to stand in awe of America’s might when the flat tops show up to start imposing America’s will on the foreign shores they are deployed to. 

But America’s enemies have other plans. 

Leading this charge against America’s continued global dominance is none other than the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While China has built its own rudimentary carrier force, Beijing has been more interested in depriving the Americans of their number one naval power projection platform: the aircraft carrier. China plans to do this, thanks to their robust arsenal of anti-aircraft/area denial (A2/AD) systems that can basically sink—or seriously damage—an aircraft carrier at the onset of any conflict between China and the United States. 

And these A2/AD systems are infinitely cheaper and easier to replace than an American aircraft carrier. That is one reason that China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea have all invested vast sums into their respective A2/AD capabilities. The cost imbalance creates a strategic imbalance that likely favors the Chinese, Russian, North Korean, and Iranian militaries if it ever came to a showdown between their A2/AD capabilities and American flat tops. 

The Ford-class aircraft carrier is the next-generation aircraft carrier that the Navy is (slowly) building. It is intended to replace the existing fleet of 11 Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. Thus far, the Navy has deployed the first of this class in 2021—the USS Gerald R. Ford—and the next unit, USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) is set for deployment in 2025. After that, in 2028, will come the USS Enterprise (CVN-80). Lastly, the USS Doris Miller (CVN-81) is set for deployment in 2032. 

The USS Gerald R. Ford cost $13 billion and took more than a decade to get out of the shipyard. A year after it was deployed, in 2022, it was still enduring technical issues. The follow-on carriers in this class are expected to be cheaper. But the fact remains that the carriers are hugely expensive, take a very long time to build, and are basically so complex and expensive that they are irreplaceable. 

Since the funds have already been allocated for these warships, it will be difficult to cancel these systems. But future systems can absolutely be terminated. Especially if the United States military has not made developed any meaningful counter-A2/AD system—or anti-hypersonic weapon system—for these carriers. 

We are building big, beautiful targets against which China’s advanced rocket forces can practice with live fire. If even one of these ships is sunk or its flight deck is significantly damaged, it would become the equivalent of a strategic wasting asset. 

Diverting the funds and resources from any future Ford-class carrier after 2028 will be helpful for the US Navy to prioritize. First, it will need more Virginia-class attack submarines. Second, it will need to develop arsenals of sophisticated underwater unmanned vehicles (UUV) as well as advanced unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). Third, the Navy needs to invest in its own hypersonic weapons capacity. Fourth, Navy resources need to be put into directed-energy weapons (DEW). 

All these other expenditures, such as trying to replace the 10 Nimitz-class carriers with 10 Ford-class carriers when the Nimitz-class still has decades of service left, is one such example of wastefulness on the part of the Navy. It is the hallmark of a decadent country in decline that it has failed to adapt with the changing times. 

We are living in an era where interest payments on the national debt will soon outstrip the nearly $1 trillion US defense budget. To continue building legacy systems, like the aircraft carrier, when our enemies have developed cheaper ways of negating the efficacy of carriers in modern combat, is not just decadent. It’s irresponsible. And it could lead to the United States losing a war.

Cancel the Ford-class aircraft carrier now. 

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: Lockheed Martin has delivered the first F-16 Block 70 aircraft to Slovakia, marking a significant step in modernizing the Slovak Air Force. This delivery is part of a total order of 14 advanced multirole fighters, with the remaining aircraft set to arrive by 2025. The F-16 Block 70, equipped with advanced avionics, extended structural service life, and enhanced safety features like the Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System, represents a substantial upgrade for Slovakia's defense capabilities.

-Lockheed Martin, facing high demand for the F-16, plans to increase production, ensuring continued delivery to NATO allies and other international customers.

-This move underscores the strategic importance of the F-16 in bolstering NATO's collective defense and enhancing global security.

On Monday, aerospace giant Lockheed Martin announced that the first F-16 Block 70 aircraft had arrived in the Slovak Republic. It was one of five modernized F-16 Fighting Falcons produced for the Central European nation, while the remaining four aircraft will likely arrive later this year.

Nine additional aircraft are now being produced for the Slovak Air Force, and all 14 of the all-weather multirole fighters are on track to be delivered to the NATO member state by the end of 2025.

"Slovakia is at the forefront of adopting Europe's most advanced 4th Generation fighter, the F-16 Block 70. These jets not only represent a stronger alliance between Slovakia, the United States, and NATO allies, but also equip the Slovak Air Force with advanced capabilities to face 21st Century Security challenges," said OJ Sanchez, vice president and general manager of the Integrated Fighter Group at Lockheed Martin.

"As Slovakia has now joined the ranks of nations operating the F-16, a benchmark NATO fighter, they bolster their defense capabilities and readiness for NATO operations," added Sanchez.

The nine aircraft in production are just a tiny fraction of the orders that Lockheed Martin has received, and it was last week that Sanchez also told reporters that the company expects the production lines will remain operational for years to come.

Earlier this year, Edwards Air Force Base (AFB), California, hosted a celebration of the Fight Falcon, to mark the 50th anniversary of the aircraft's maiden flight – which occurred in January 1974. In those five decades, the F-16 has established itself as the most popular Western fighter in its class, and it continues to serve 28 nations around the world. The proven warbird hasn't gotten older; it has also gotten better.

The F-16, which originated under the Lightweight Fighter (LWF) program for the United States Air Force, has been produced in 138 different configurations from the prototype to its latest production models. Successive changes have seen the addition of improved cockpit technologies, enhanced avionics, sensors, and weapons – while great effort has been made to ensure the fighter is more reliable and easier to maintain.

The latest F-16s have an increased range and payload, advanced infrared sensors, and laser targeting devices, while it has improved survivability thanks to more advanced electronic warfare sensors and sophisticated decoys.

According to a report from Breaking Defense, Lockheed Martin is currently facing a backlog of 128 planes but it plans to double production next year to a rate of 48 aircraft annually. Even at that pace, the production lines at its facility in Greenville, South Carolina will remain operational through the end of the decade.

"We see clear opportunity towards about 300 new export F-16 aircraft sales," Sanchez told reporters. "We are obviously working closely through the FMS process [for NATO ally Turkey] and we are excited to be talking to Thailand and the Philippines."

Sanchez added the production line will continue to run "to provide those capabilities as long as the demand exists."

Other current NATO operators include Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Greece, Poland, Portugal and Turkey.

According to Lockheed Martin, the F-16 Block 70 jets are equipped with the Northrop Grumman APG-83 AESA Radar, and advanced avionics that increase the capabilities of the Fighting Falcon. In addition, the structural service life has been extended to 12,000 hours, while critical safety features including the Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System (Auto GCAS) have been incorporated in the airframe. That has proved to be a true lifesaver, as it has saved 13 aviators in a dozen incidents.

Earlier this month, Lockheed Martin delivered the 4,600th F-16 Fighting Falcon, and while the aircraft is no longer being acquired by the U.S. Air Force, Lockheed Martin continues to build the F-16 for foreign customers around the world – and it remains the most successful, combat-proven multi-role jet fighter ever produced.

Given that it shows no signs of slowing down, it is possible more than 5,000 Fighting Falcons could be hatched before the F-16 finally flies off into the sunset.

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. 

Summary and Key Points: Russia's tank stockpile is approaching a critical point of depletion, with recent reports indicating that even Cold War-era T-54/55 tanks are being deployed to the frontlines in Ukraine. Videos show these tanks being transported from storage facilities near Moscow, highlighting the severe strain on Russia's modern tank reserves, including the T-72 and T-90 models.

-With over 83,500 T-54/55 tanks produced in the Soviet Union and additional units built in Poland and Czechoslovakia, these aging platforms are now being used for artillery roles and direct combat, despite their limited effectiveness against modern tanks.

-This move underscores the desperate measures Russia is taking to sustain its war efforts, as its tank reserves may be entirely depleted by next year.

Earlier this month, news circulated that the Russian military could reach a "critical point of depletion" on the stocks of its old tanks by next year. The Kremlin has been refurbishing many older armored vehicles that have spent years in storage – and which, on paper, bolstered the size of the Russian Army's tank force.

A recent report from The Economist further suggested the storage facilities could be close to empty, at least of vehicles that could be serviceable, and it now appears that one of the last major caches of Cold War tanks may be on the way to Ukraine. Since last year, the Kremlin has replenished its losses of modern main battle tanks (MBTs) – including the T-72 and T-90 models – by pulling older platforms from the storage facilities.

Videos circulated on social media showing a column of T-54/55 series tanks loaded on trains spotted at the Uzunovo railway station, approximately 150km (93 miles) south of Moscow, and purported to be headed to the frontlines.

"Russia is deploying even more ancient T-54 tanks. The prototype of this tank has been developed in 1945. It is another obvious indicator that Russia is running out of hardware and diving deeper into its storages," the open-source military intelligence analyst Tendar posted on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.

As noted by the Defence Blog, the T-54, which was a direct evolution of the iconic T-34 and first prototyped at the Nizhny Tagil tank plant in late 1945, "became the backbone of the Soviet and Warsaw Pact armored units from the late 1950s." It was upgraded as the T-55, and together the T-54/55 series became one of the most-produced tanks to date.

"These tanks, despite their age, are being used in a variety of roles on the battlefield," a defense analyst told Defence Blog earlier this month. "Initially, they were repurposed for artillery roles, firing from concealed positions. Now, they're increasingly engaged in direct combat roles."

More than 83,500 T-54/55 tanks were produced in the Soviet Unit, while Poland and Czechoslovakia also manufactured an additional combined 21,000 of the tanks. The platform saw service around the world in conflicts in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. It was designed for a war in Europe, where it is now being employed – albeit not likely in a way its designers expected.

Russia has lost thousands of tanks in the now more than two and a half long year war in Ukraine, and it has resorted to deploying old platforms, pulled from storage, to address the losses. The improved T-55 was considered evenly matched with the U.S. Army's M48 "Patton" tank, but it would seem ill-suited in a fight against modern MBTs, including even Ukraine's T-72s from the later stages of the Cold War.

However, not even the Kremlin is so desperate to simply send the T-54/55 into mass armored assaults. Rather, as Army Recognition reported, the tanks have "primarily been used as 100mm self-propelled guns, providing indirect fire support from concealed positions akin to artillery," but it added, "Nevertheless, these tanks are also being employed to assault Ukrainian positions, functioning as both tanks and troop transports in a manner similar to tactics used during the Second World War."

Questions continue to be raised, whether the deployment of the older tanks reflects the "scarcity of modern equipment or a deliberate strategy to preserve advanced resources" for another sector, or a planned attack. The reality is that is probably a mix of the two. Russia simply can't replace the loss of modern tanks, and the T-54/55 series tanks are now necessary for use in secondary roles.

Regardless of how the older platform will be employed, one thing is certain, Russia's stockpiles of tanks are being depleted and at this rate, those storage facilities may be empty by this time next year!

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. 

Since August 2021, all Central Asian republics have been, in one way or another, contending with Taliban rule in Afghanistan. While treading cautiously, each Central Asian government faces a host of major challenges related to the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (IEA). 

While no Central Asian state has formally recognized the Taliban, all Central Asian republics have, to varying degrees, engaged the IEA and unofficially recognized Afghanistan’s only de facto government. Tajikistan sits on the far end of this spectrum as the most firmly anti-Taliban Central Asian country.

President Emomali Rahmon’s government believes that the IEA constitutes an illegitimate regime. Tajikistan sees the IEA as a grave threat to its national interests and regional security. There appears to be no reason to expect any thaw in Dushanbe’s relationship with the Taliban.

The former Soviet republic has vowed not to formally recognize the Taliban because it was “formed through oppression.” Tajikistan is the Central Asian republic that has given the greatest support to Afghanistan’s anti-Taliban forces, as was also the case during the Taliban’s first time in power (1996–2001) with the Northern Alliance. Tajikistan has hosted the National Resistance Front (NFR), a military alliance comprised of former Northern Alliance members who remain loyal to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Mohammad Zahir Aghbar, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan’s ambassador to Tajikistan, still runs the Afghan embassy in Dushanbe. This diplomatic mission in Tajikistan has been a focal point of anti-Taliban activity.

Ethnicity is an important factor. While the Taliban is mostly Pashtun-dominated, Afghan Tajiks played a leading role in the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance. Its past leader, Ahmad Shah Massoud, was a Tajik. His son, Ahmad Massoud Jr., and the former vice president in the Ashraf Ghani government, Amrullah Saleh, who is also an ethnic Tajik, reportedly spent much of their time in Dushanbe working against the IEA. For political purposes, the government in Dushanbe feels the need to show sympathy for ethnic Tajiks in Afghanistan, at least to some degree.

Ideological dynamics are also relevant. While all Central Asian states are staunchly secular, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan have taken a mostly pragmatic approach to relations with the IEA. In contrast, Tajikistan sees any political engagement with the Taliban as a threat to its rigidly implemented secularism.

“With most of the regional countries including the Central Asian countries preferring to do business with the Taliban, Tajikistan finds itself as the odd man out in pursuing such a policy. However, at the same time, it has possibly emerged as the lone theater for keeping the anti-Taliban resistance forces alive. Many of the unknown sources of support for these groups could have been routed through Tajikistan,” according to Shanthie Mariet D’Souza, a Fulbright-Nehru Visiting Chair at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst School of Public Policy.

“Thus, Tajikistan’s policies may have been useful for countries and actors who still hope for the establishment of an inclusive government in Afghanistan or even pressurizing the Taliban to change its policies in some ways,” she added.

Border Security and Violent Extremism

Of all Central Asian countries, Tajikistan has the longest border with Afghanistan, and the government in Dushanbe has long perceived grave security threats from Afghanistan. This brings us to Jamaat Ansarullah (JA).

Founded in 2010, JA is a group made up of Tajik extremists who seek to oust Tajikistan’s ultra-secular government. The organization recruits its members from within Afghanistan and Tajikistan. Banned in Tajikistan, JA has a record of waging attacks inside the Central Asian country. Shortly before the collapse of Ghani’s government, the Taliban put JA “partially in charge” of securing Afghanistan’s 843-mile border with Tajikistan. Although the IEA denies harboring any armed group that threatens the security of any Central Asian country, authorities in Dushanbe reject that claim.

Beyond questions surrounding JA, there are other ways in which Dushanbe sees the Taliban regime as a direct threat to peace and stability in Tajikistan. “Pro-Taliban social media channels are also highly critical of the Tajikistan government and operate Tajik-language social media channels,” explained Adam Rousselle, an editor and contributor at Militant Wire.

“There are also concerns over cross-border narcotics trafficking into Tajikistan, which has risen despite Taliban efforts to stamp out the trade elsewhere in the country. It is possible that JA is engaged in drug trafficking into Tajikistan as well,” he added.

Within this context, it was understandable why Tajikistan beefed up security along its border with Afghanistan in the period just before the Taliban retook power in August 2021.

Mutual Lack of Inclusivity

The Taliban’s exclusion of Tajiks from governance is problematic from the perspective of Dushanbe. This is both for nationalist and security reasons. Authorities in Tajikistan believe that the Taliban’s marginalization of ethnic Tajiks risks pushing more of them toward violent extremist groups, chiefly Islamic State–Khorasan Province (ISKP), which would pose a security threat to Dushanbe.

“The reason why Tajikistan is taking the matter of the seclusion and discrimination of ethnic Tajiks in Afghanistan seriously, is because Tajikistan fears that if discriminated ethnic Tajiks of Afghanistan do not find sympathy and support from Tajikistan or from NRF inside Tajikistan, then these ethnic Tajiks of Afghanistan may increasingly join ISKP to settle their score with Taliban,” Ahmad Sayer Daudzai, the former Afghan ambassador to the UAE, told these authors.

“There is plenty of evidence that ISKP has been recruiting non-Pashtun fighters from ethnic minorities of Afghanistan, especially from urban areas, as these non-Pashtun youth have ethnic grievances with the Pashtun Taliban movement and can find a platform with the non-ethnic ISKP,” added the former Afghan diplomat.

However, calls for inclusivity coming from Dushanbe clash with the reality of Rahmon’s authoritarian government, which tolerates no opposition, even of a moderate Islamist hue. This stance violates the terms of the 1997 UN-brokered Tajik Peace Accord that ended the country’s vicious five-year civil war. The government cracks down harshly on outward signs of Islamic piety. Authorities recently imposed new restrictions on the wearing of hijabs in public. Such measures fuel violent extremism and push Tajik citizens toward ISKP—a significant concern not only for the Taliban but also for many other countries that have suffered from its terrorism, including Russia and Turkey.

Pragmatic Engagement

Although Tajikistan’s formal position is that the IEA is illegitimate, and Dushanbe opposes the idea of countries recognizing the Taliban, the Central Asian state has had no choice but pragmatic accommodation when it comes to the realities of post-U.S. Afghanistan. Tajikistan’s government has made efforts to work with the Taliban in cross-border economic relations and the struggle against ISKP.

“Tajikistan never stopped providing electricity to Afghanistan, even after the Taliban retook power, despite the non-recognition of their regime, and the fact that Afghanistan was in debt to pay for this electricity supply. Last February though, Afghanistan finally cleared the debt. Quite paradoxically, the representatives of the two national electricity companies met a few times since the summer of 2021 to renew partnerships and even agree on an additional supply of electricity and potentially extend transmission lines,” said Mélanie Sadozaï, postdoctoral research associate at the University of Regensburg.

“In addition to these meetings and agreements, the border between Tajikistan and Afghanistan, which was closed [in] February 2020, reopened in September 2023 to allow some cross-border markets to operate. Officials in Tajikistan have not denied these activities and have declared publicly that while their political position towards the Taliban [hasn’t] changed, they would support economic and trade relations for the benefits of both countries,” she told these authors.

Intelligence services of the government of Tajikistan and the IEA have also had meetings to discuss the ISKP threat, even if little information is publicly available about such engagement. Whether the shared threat perception of ISKP is enough to bring about a better relationship between Dushanbe and the Islamist rulers in Kabul is unclear, but experts have their doubts. This is primarily due to the lingering JA issue that appears set to ensure that Tajikistan-Taliban relations remain extremely negative.

“The threat posed by the ISKP could provoke security cooperation between the Dushanbe and the Taliban, but for this to happen, there would need to be a dramatic reduction in the threat JA poses to Tajikistan. Whether the Taliban exerts enough authority over JA to achieve this is unclear and until this happens, meaningful cooperation between the two countries seems unlikely,” commented Rousselle.

Throughout the foreseeable future, Tajikistan-Taliban relations will probably remain largely frosty. Pragmatic engagement on trade and the growing acceptance of the reality of IEA rule in Afghanistan by Tajikistan’s Central Asian neighbors, as well as important external partners, such as Russia, China, and Iran, may ease some friction. But the vexing questions about security, ideology, and nationalism will continue to bedevil the Tajikistan-Taliban relationship.

Eldar Mamedov is a Brussels-based foreign policy expert. He has degrees from the University of Latvia and the Diplomatic School in Madrid, Spain. He has worked in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Latvia and as a diplomat in Latvian embassies in Washington and Madrid. Since 2009, Mamedov has served as a political advisor for the social-democrats in the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament (EP) and is in charge of the EP delegations for inter-parliamentary relations with Iran, Iraq, and the Arabian Peninsula. Find him on X: @EldarMamedov4

Giorgio Cafiero is the CEO of Gulf State Analytics, an Adjunct Assistant Professor at Georgetown University, and an Adjunct Fellow at the American Security Project. He is a frequent contributor to Al Jazeera, Gulf International Forum, The New Arab, Responsible Statecraft, Stimson Center, and Amwaj.Media. Throughout Mr. Cafiero’s career, he has consulted many public and private sector entities, briefed diplomats of various countries on Gulf affairs, and worked as a subject matter expert for multinational law firms. Mr. Cafiero holds an M.A. in International Relations from the University of San Diego. Find him on X: @GiorgioCafiero.

Image: DeniskaPhotoGuide / Shutterstock.com.

Summary and Key Points: Washington must prioritize deterrence, especially with a reliable, long-range strategic stealth bombing capability. The B-21 Raider is poised to be the most sophisticated bomber ever built, intended to replace the aging B-2 Spirit.

-The U.S. Air Force aims to acquire many B-21s to enhance capabilities and strengthen deterrence, although budget constraints may limit numbers.

-The B-21 is essential for maintaining America’s nuclear triad and deterrence against near-peer rivals like China and Russia. In an era where nuclear warfare is a growing threat, cutting the B-21 program would severely compromise U.S. national defense.

With the world order we know it tending toward collapse, Washington must ready itself to survive in a world that is decidedly anti-American. 

Deterrence is one key plank in that survival strategy. Sadly, as I recently told an audience at the Heritage Foundation, “deterrence is dead.” Restoring deterrence must be a leading priority for the next president, and a primary element of any deterrence strategy is having a reliable, long-range strategic stealth bombing capability. America’s existing stealth bombers, such as the B-2 Spirit, are aging and need to be replaced. 

Hence, the creation of the B-21 Raider. 

The new B-21 will likely be the most sophisticated bomber ever built. The U.S. Air Force wants a lot of these bad boys (they’ll be lucky if they even get 100) to replace the B-2, increase capabilities, and strengthen deterrence. Yet Congress is understandably balking at this program. Sure, it’s an awesome suite of technologies, and if it all goes to plan, it’ll advance America’s manned stealth bombing capabilities significantly. 

On the other hand, however, America appears to be on the brink of some kind of debt crisis. Interest payments on the national debt have already surpassed annual defense spending for the first time. So the Pentagon is not going to be able to justify the kind of expenditures it has for the last 80 years. This is why the Senate's proposed National Defense Authorization Act slashes funding for the Navy’s sixth-generation F/A-XX carrier warplane by some 90%. It’s why the Air Force’s Next Generation Air Dominance fighter program is in jeopardy.       

The B-21 is subject to the same realities. But unlike a sixth-generation warplane, which would be redundant and costly, America actually needs a reliable long-range stealth strike capability. With the B-2s aging out of service, unless the B-21 Raiders are given the approval they need – and are built in a timely and reliable manner – the United States will lack the stealth strike capabilities it has become accustomed to for the last several decades. 

Without this cornerstone of U.S. national defense, America’s ability to deter near-peer rivals such as China or Russia will suffer. 

The B-21 is described as a “nuclear-capable, penetrating strike stealth bomber” that “will be a component of a larger family of systems for conventional Long Range Strike, including intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance, electronic attack, communication and other capabilities.” According to the Air Force’s official description, this warbird will be able to “accommodate manned or unmanned operations. Additionally, it will be able to employ a broad mix of stand-off and direct-attack munitions.”

My colleague Harrison Kass has argued that “were the B-21 to be canceled, were the U.S. left without a stealth bomber option, [America’s] nuclear triad would be compromised.” 

We are living in an age where the prospect of nuclear warfare is more prevalent than it has been in decades. 

The United States, because of bureaucratic inertia, refuses to design and deploy the kind of space-based weapons defenses needed to protect the homeland from these strikes. What’s more, America’s nuclear weapons arsenal is in dire need of modernization, and possibly expansion. The nuclear triad puts redundancies in place.

The long-range stealth bomber is a key component of that triad. The B-21 will be it, unless Congress chooses to cut the program before it even takes wing. In this current environment, removing America’s long-range stealth strike capabilities is a really bad idea—even if the price tag is high for the B-21.

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: At the Farnborough International Airshow 2024, the UK, Italy, and Japan unveiled a new concept model of their multinational sixth-generation fighter, the centerpiece of the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP). The updated design features a pure delta panform and larger wingspan to enhance aerodynamics.

-The fighter emphasizes speed, range, and payload over traditional dogfighting roles. Engineers from BAE Systems, Leonardo, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries are collaboratively developing the aircraft, which is set to enter service in the mid-2030s.

-Despite earlier concerns, the UK's new Labour government supports the program, ensuring its continued progress. The GCAP aims to create an advanced, interoperable fighter jet with intelligent weapon systems and next-generation radar, capable of processing 10,000 times more data than current systems.

At this week's Farnborough International Airshow 2024, the UK, Italy, and Japan unveiled a new concept model of the multinational next-generation fighter that is expected to be the centerpiece of the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP). The new concept artwork for the future sixth-generation fighter highlighted its emphasis on speed, range, and payload – over a traditional dogfighting role.

As described by international military analyst firm Janes, the fighter features "a pure delta panform in place of the previously touted modified delta."

"In the 18 months since the launch of the GCAP, we've been working closely with our industrial partners in Italy and Japan under the collaboration agreement, and also with the three governments, to understand and align requirements for a next-generation combat aircraft," said Herman Claesen, managing director, Future Combat Air Systems, for lead UK company on the project BAE Systems. "The new model … shows notable progress in the design and concepting of this future fighter jet. We'll continue to test and evolve the design, as we move closer towards the next phase of the programme."

The new concept model is on display this week at the UK's largest airshow, also emphasized how the design has evolved. In addition to the delta panform, the aircraft features a larger wingspan than previous concepts, including those of the UK's Tempest. The changes were meant to improve the aerodynamics of the future combat aircraft.

"Engineers from across BAE Systems, Leonardo and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries are working together under a collaboration agreement on the design and development of the future combat aircraft using a range of innovative digital tools and techniques, including computer based modelling and virtual reality to evolve the aircraft’s design during its concepting phase," the companies said in a joint statement.

Though the design of the sixth-generation fighter has evolved, the timeline hasn't changed. The companies stated that the aircraft is still on track to enter service in the mid-2035s. The goal of the GCAP is still to develop an advanced, interoperable, adaptable, and connected fighter jet. It has also been touted to be equipped with "an intelligent weapons system, a software-driven interactive cockpit, integrated sensors and a powerful next generation radar" that can provide "10,000 times more data than the current systems."

There had been speculation that GCAP may not have the same level of support from the UK's new Labour government, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

"We are heading towards 2025 at pace," Claesen told Janes in Farnborough. "In readiness for 2025 to take on the international design and development contract, we have been working at phenomenal pace, and the key message is that pace has continued absolutely since the last time we got together [at Farnborough 2022], whether it is from a government point of view or whether it's from an industry point of view."

The UK and Italy's Tempest program merged with the Japanese F-X project. In December 2022, the UK, Japan, and Italy signed an international treaty to collaborate on the development of an advanced front-line fighter. Though the name has changed, the goal has not.

Tempest was initiated to develop a replacement for the Eurofighter Typhoon, which is operated by both the Royal Air Force (RAF) and the Italian Air Force, while the F-X program was jumpstarted to produce an aircraft to replace the aging Japanese F-2 fighters. It is further worth noting that all three nations have adopted the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II multirole fifth-generation stealth fighter – but appeared to be looking towards a sixth-generation combat aircraft.

"The pace of the programme is extraordinary, building on a solid foundation and industrial legacy in each country and government-led partnership. Since the treaty was signed in December 2023, the programme has seen strong commitment from each partner. Each brings different, but complementary, qualities and requirements. We are now working closely together to exchange knowledge, address common challenges, and achieve common goals," added Guglielmo Maviglia, chief GCAP Officer at Leonardo.

It would seem among the sixth-generation fighter programs, GCAP may be the one that will supercruise its way to service – and while it may incorporate the latest stealth technology, the efforts to develop this aircraft aren't being hidden from view.

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. Image are from when the GCAP program was called Tempest. 

Summary and Key Points: The UK Ministry of Defence, in collaboration with Raytheon UK, the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl), and Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S), has successfully tested a high-energy laser weapon system (HELWS) integrated onto a British Army Wolfhound armored combat vehicle.

-Conducted at the Dstl range in Porton Down, this marks the first time a portable laser weapon has been fired from a land vehicle in the UK. Designed to counter unmanned aerial systems (UAS), the HELWS has already proven its effectiveness by downing over 400 targets in tests.

-This development is part of the UK's Land Laser Directed Energy Weapon (LDEW) Demonstrator program and aims to enhance the British Army's capabilities in countering drone threats. The next phase involves further testing and familiarization for British Army soldiers.

Numerous military aircraft have been described as "bomb trucks" for their ability to carry massive loads of ordnance. The UK Ministry of Defence has sought to create a different type of truck – namely a laser truck of the ground-based wheeled variety. This week, Raytheon UK, Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl), and Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) announced the successful test of Raytheon's High-Energy Laser Weapon System (HELWS), which was integrated onto a British Army Wolfhound armored combat vehicle.

The test was conducted at the Dstl range in Porton Down in southwest England, where the HELWS was fired at full power. Described as a "major leap forward in the UK Ministry of Defence's Land Laser Directed Energy Weapon (LDEW) Demonstrator" program, it marked the first time that any portable laser weapon was fired from a land vehicle in the UK.

Though directed energy weapons (DEW), including high-energy lasers, have been in the works for some time now, the role has evolved since Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine more than two and a half years ago. Small unmanned aerial systems (UAS) have put into question the role of the tank on the modern battlefield, as the lumbering behemoths have been destroyed by loitering munitions – so-called kamikaze drones – as well as with other UAS that have literally dropped ordnance on the tanks.

"The increasing prevalence, proliferation and evolution of drone warfare makes the rapid adoption of counter-UAS technologies ever more important," Raytheon UK said in a statement on Monday. It further noted that the new variant of the HELWS had been designed to defeat NATO class 1 drones, while remaining compatible with current air defense platforms that include radar, command and control, and other systems. That ensures that the lasers could readily be deployed with air-to-air missiles, Close-in Weapons Systems (CIWS), and other air defenses.

"We have proven that the Raytheon high energy laser weapon system can track and engage targets whilst mounted on a vehicle," explained James Gray, chief executive and managing director of Raytheon UK. "The speed at which this capability was delivered is only possible due to the hard work of our British SME partners, coupled with the operationally proven technology developed by Raytheon."

The HELWS is already certified for use in combat with U.S. military forces, and the 300kW-class platform was developed as part of the U.S. Department of Defense's (DoD's) High Energy Laser Scaling Initiative (HELSI) program, which sought to create a high-performance DEW. It has logged more than 40,000 testing hours and successfully downed more than 400 targets. It has already been deployed overseas.

The vehicle-based HELWS will undergo additional testing in the UK, and the next phase will call upon British Army soldiers to be familiarized with the platform.

"The joint working between Dstl, DE&S, and industry has enabled rapid evolution of this laser demonstrator. The successful testing of this high-powered laser weapon marks a pivotal moment in our ongoing efforts to enhance the future operational capabilities of the British Army," said Matt Cork, Dstl Programme Lead. "This technology offers a precise, powerful and cost-effective means to defeat aerial threats, ensuring greater protection for our forces."

The British Army isn't alone in developing a laser.

Earlier this year, the UK's Royal Navy announced that it was testing the DragonFire, a line-of-sight laser-directed energy weapon (LDEW) that could potentially engage targets at the speed of light. In addition to its extreme accuracy, the DragonFire's intense beam can cut through a target – including a drone or missile – leading to its structural failure.

The platform is also highly cost-effective compared to other air defense systems, costing only around £10 per shot. As previously reported, tests of the platform have been underway at the MoD's Hebrides Range, located off the coast of Scotland. The Royal Navy hopes to deploy the platform by 2027.

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. 

The stated aim of the Biden administration’s policy on Ukraine has been to achieve the defeat of Russia, and to this end, it provided assistance to Ukraine. It did not undertake any serious diplomatic initiative with Russia and Ukraine on a negotiated settlement. Vice President Harris may, of course, adjust that policy if the Democratic Party nominates her and wins the elections in November. As of now, it appears that she will likely continue Biden’s policy. 

If the Trump-Vance ticket prevails, there is likely to be a push for serious negotiations toward a diplomatic settlement. The time between now and the election, as well as the transition to the new administration, should be utilized to begin discussing potential settlement options and modalities, as well as their prospects and implications for Ukraine, Russia, Europe, and the United States.

A Trump administration may become both a catalyst and an opportunity for a Ukraine settlement. Both President Trump and Senator Vance have consistently called for such a settlement and have expressed doubts that U.S. and European assistance to Ukraine and economic pressure on Russia can realistically bring about Ukraine’s victory in the war. Both have been concerned about the level of U.S. assistance and have argued that European powers should carry the predominant burden since the conflict is “in their neighborhood.” 

Senator Vance has made an additional argument. He has argued that given the U.S. military capabilities, including our industrial base, the priority should be to focus on the threat from China and that the effort in Ukraine diverts resources needed to deal with Beijing’s vital challenge.

Nor would it be unreasonable for Trump to conclude that the situation on the ground in both Ukraine and Russia provides an opportunity for a political settlement. Victory is not imminent for either side. Ukraine’s resistance has been heroic but has come at the cost of enormous casualties. War fatigue among the populace, if it has not set in already, is inevitable. President Zelensky faced significant challenges in his mobilization effort. The country has suffered mortal blows to its energy and power grid, and there are electricity and fuel shortages due to Russian attacks on refineries. The coming winter is likely to be particularly harsh.

However, while Ukraine may not have the military capability to evict Russian forces from its territory, it has had some military success in liberating areas once occupied by Russia. It now has more weapons, including weapons capable of striking Russian soil, and it has the green light from its allies to deploy those at least selectively. Ukraine has inflicted damage on the battlefield and inside Russia. Kiev also produces more weapons at home and has economic and security commitments from several countries, including the United States. Ukraine, with support from its partners, can continue the war for the foreseeable future.

Russia has important advantages in the war, but for them, too, the cost of the ongoing conflict has been high. Russia has sustained more casualties than those on the Ukrainian side. Many young, technologically skilled Russians have left the country. Ukrainian drones have attacked Russia’s infrastructure. The war is now within Russia itself, making Russians more alert to the conflict. The war has also damaged Russian relations with much of the international community, and the costs of sanctions imposed on it have been significant, including the loss of a large part of its formerly lucrative energy market.

Internationally, the war has made Russia dependent on China, North Korea, and Iran. There is a long history of Sino-Russian mutual rivalry. While both have resented the U.S. power position after its success in the Cold War, they have different long-term objectives. Putin is an advocate of multipolarity, with Russia as one of the poles. China’s long-term objective is global preeminence, with Russia at best as a junior partner. Moscow believes that better relations with the West, especially the United States, could serve its interests. However, that is highly unlikely to occur without an acceptable ending to the Ukraine war.

The war has also strengthened rather than weakened NATO. The alliance has expanded in the last two years and is spending more on defense. If Trump is elected, allies will come under pressure to spend even more. Prospects for Russian victory against Ukraine in the foreseeable future are uncertain at best.

Russia will face a crucial additional risk if Trump is elected. If Putin does not respond positively to a peace initiative offered by the newly elected American President, he will undermine prospects for any improvement in relations. It may also have other unforeseen consequences, such as removing any limitations on Ukrainian use of American weapons and pushing against Russian interests in other regions, including North Korea and Iran.

The same goes for Ukraine. Since American diplomatic and material support is critical to the ongoing conflict, whatever America advocates will have significant weight. If President Zelensky obstructs a Trump negotiation initiative, the United States might reverse the permission given by the Biden administration for the use of American weapons against certain areas of Russia or make future aid conditional on cooperation.

Will these factors produce an opportunity for a peace settlement? I believe they will, though it will not be easy, and success is not assured. Any peace initiative will have to deal with four critical issues and bridge some very significant differences between the parties and other stakeholders.

1. Territory. Territory is obviously a critical issue, and the two sides are far apart on it. Ukraine wants the return of all territories occupied by Russia since 2014, including Crimea and Donbas. Based on his recent peace proposal, Putin—who alone will decide for Russia what is acceptable or not—is publicly demanding that Ukraine turn over to Russia even more territory than it currently occupies. Based on a recent opinion poll, the vast majority of Ukrainians, some 83 percent, reject the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia Oblasts, as demanded by Putin. During the presidential debate in June, President Trump characterized Putin’s proposal as unacceptable.

One option that some experts believe might work is the following: a) Russian forces pull back to areas Moscow controlled before the start of the 2022 war, i.e., Crimea and parts of Donetsk and Luhansk. b) Ukraine agrees not to use force to liberate these areas but to seek the resolution of their ultimate future through negotiation and peaceful means only. c.) the remaining areas of Ukraine now occupied by Russia will be administered by a UNSC-mandated administration (a kind of protectorate) for ten years or so. At the end of that period, an internationally administered referendum would determine whether the people of these areas choose to rejoin Ukraine, join Russia, or have another option.

2. A robust security guarantee for Ukraine. A legitimate question of the Ukrainian leadership is that, after an agreement and a ceasefire, what is to deter and prevent Putin sometime later, say two years or more, having regrouped and enhanced his military capabilities, to push into the UN-administered areas and the rest of Ukraine to continue his goal of subjugation? This Ukrainian concern is not without cause, as Moscow has followed this method before.

In the negotiations between Ukraine and Russia in Istanbul in 2022, the option under consideration was Ukraine’s permanent neutrality along with a security guarantee by guarantor states consisting of the United States, Great Britain, China, Russia, France, Belarus, and Turkey. The draft text noted that EU membership was not inconsistent with permanent neutrality (Austria being evidence of that). 

Since then, Ukraine has been seeking NATO membership and NATO guarantees. At the recent NATO summit in Washington, the alliance stated that Ukraine’s path to NATO membership was “irreversible.” However, several NATO members have serious reservations about such an outcome. Russia regards Ukraine’s membership as a threat to its national security. Ukraine and the alliance might be willing to consider some defined buffer zones and distances that NATO and Russian combat forces shall maintain from the Ukraine-Russia border. 

One other option is likely to appeal to a future Trump administration: the EU provides guarantees by signing a security treaty with Ukraine, a future member of the entity. Given the limited security capabilities of the EU, that commitment to Ukraine’s security could be supplemented with a commitment by Europe’s two nuclear powers: France and the United Kingdom. In other words, both nations would commit to regard an attack on Ukraine’s post-settlement territory as an attack on themselves, to which they would respond accordingly. Of course, there could be alternative European permutations. Nonetheless, while these options might be appealing to Washington, Europeans are likely reluctant to accept this responsibility alone.

There is also the option of a U.S.-Ukraine defense treaty of the kind we are considering with Saudi Arabia. This year, the United States signed a bilateral security agreement with Ukraine aimed at enhancing defense cooperation, not a defense treaty. The Biden administration was not prepared to go that far, and given President Trump’s and Senator Vance’s statements, a bilateral defense treaty of that kind would be unlikely on their watch.

3. Ukraine’s reconstruction. Ukraine has suffered colossal damage. On the basis of geography and because of Ukraine’s projected EU membership, Europe is the natural lead for the massive reconstruction effort that will be required. Additionally, although the American private sector has already shown signs of interest—and here, we may expect a Trump administration to excel—a key negotiating point should be Russia’s contribution to Ukraine’s reconstruction, given the enormity and brutality of the destruction they caused. As part of the settlement of the conflict, in the discussion of the future of sanctions against Russia, a portion of the frozen Russian assets might be allocated to reconstruction.

4. Russia’s diplomatic standing. For Russia, an essential motivation in agreeing to any Ukrainian settlement will be the benefits of future relations with the West and particularly with the United States. Russian diplomats consistently complain that “because of Ukraine,” the United States has refused to engage in discussion of critical matters such as the Middle East, Europe’s security architecture, and nuclear, missile, cyber, and space issues. Some may find this surprising. Consequently, we must understand and not underestimate the extent to which Russia’s leadership still values relations with the United States. They have signaled that in exchange for an agreed-upon road map for better mutual relations, they would be more flexible on terms for a settlement in Ukraine. A future Trump administration should play this card astutely.

The United States has significant leverage over both Russia and Ukraine. A new administration has an opportunity to use that leverage effectively. The discussion, analysis, and debate on settlement options and how best to pursue them should start now. 

Zalmay Khalilzad is the former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Follow him on X: @realzalmayMK.

Image: Drop of Light / Shutterstock.com.