The National Interest

Summary and Key Points: The B-21 Raider, the U.S. Air Force’s next-generation stealth bomber, recently completed its first test flight and is set to replace the B-2 Spirit.

-While the program appears to be progressing, concerns remain about its completion due to high costs and public scrutiny.

-Critics question whether the B-21 is necessary, given the U.S.'s already substantial defense budget.

-However, with significant investment and minimal controversy, the B-21 is likely to proceed as planned, aiming to enhance America's deep penetration bombing capabilities and maintain its military advantage.

The B-21 Raider is being heralded as the next big entry into the USAF’s force structure.

Slated to replace the B-2 Spirit as America’s stealth bombing option, the B-21 recently made its first test flight, and is expected to join the force within the next few years.Yet, some observers are asking whether the program will be completed or whether the B-21 might suffer a fate similar to the B-1A, whose funding was cut before the bomber could ever be produced.

Last November, the B-21 made its maiden test flight. And while the Air Force hasn’t chosen to share much about the program with the public, the B-21 seems to be moving along satisfactorily.

“The B-21 Raider is in flight testing,” said Ann Stefanek, an Air Force spokeswoman. Stefanek emphasized that the testing is an important step toward providing “survivable, long-range, penetrating strike capabilities to deter aggression and strategic attacks against the United States, allies, and partners.”

The B-21 would be the first new American bomber to join the fleet in about three decades. The last US bomber, the B-2, was developed through the 1980s and 90s.

And although it’s been more than a generation since the US last produced a new bomber, the cost of the program, plus the secrecy of the program, has some observers asking questions, wondering whether the project will ever be completed, or whether the project ever should be completed.

The need for the B-21 derives, in theory, from the advancements made in air defense technology.

Essentially, the B-2 is no longer as stealthy, as capable of deep penetration missions, as when first debuted. The result is that the US may have lost some ability to deliver ordnances behind enemy lines, undetected. And as such, US deterrence may be reduced.

The B-21 would, in theory, rejuvenate the US’s ability to perform deep penetration bombing runs, hence rejuvenating our deterrence.

But deep penetration bombing runs aside, and some naysayers are pointing out that America has, without even a close second, the highest defense budget of any nation on Earth.

The commitment to a new stealth bomber is naturally going to raise questions from a public who has watched so much of their tax base go directly to Lockheed Martin, or the B-21’s creator, Northrop Grumman.

The B-21 program appears to be moving ahead as planned. Things change. But significant resources have already been invested in the B-21.

Also, unlike most canceled programs, the B-21 is not a political hot potato. For the most part, the general public is unaware of the B-21; no one is pressuring their local congressperson to take a stance on the B-21. It’s just not a controversial issue (like the B-1A, or the F-35). Which means the bomber will likely proceed as planned.

“The ability to conduct long-range strikes at scale in all threat environments has been a decisive U.S. military advantage for more than 7 years,” wrote retired Air Force Colonel Mark Gunzinger. “Long-range bombers enable theater commanders to strike enemy targets inaccessible to other U.S. and allied forces.”

With Gunzinger, and like minded military-brass, and profit-minded aerospace executives, leading the charge for the B-21 – without public opposition – expect the B-21 to be produced as scheduled.

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: Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: China’s DF-17 missile, equipped with a hypersonic glide vehicle, represents a significant challenge to U.S. military dominance in the Indo-Pacific.

-Capable of evading traditional defense systems, this weapon extends China's anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities, making U.S. military operations near Chinese shores increasingly difficult.

-The DF-17's range and maneuverability threaten U.S. carriers and bases, complicating power projection in the region.

As the U.S. grapples with developing countermeasures, the DF-17 underscores the shifting balance of power in favor of China.

China has developed a comprehensive ability to defeat the United States military in combat. No, it’s not some new warship or airplane. It’s both simple and unconventional. Beijing has determined that the Americans cannot be beaten by matching them bullet-for-bullet. 

Instead, China’s military has accurately assessed that any war with the United States will be fought close to China’s shores, giving China what amounts to a homefield advantage. While the Americans must come from distant lands. 

Therefore, if China can deny the Americans the ability to reliably project power into China’s backyard, then Beijing’s forces can defeat the Americans—and enjoy free reign over their part of the Indo-Pacific.

As I have detailed in previous reports for this site, the Chinese have built a long-range, comprehensive anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capability that can prevent the deployment of most US military platforms in the event of a geopolitical crisis between the two great powers. Meanwhile, China has the capability, with these missiles, to target US military bases in the Indo-Pacific. 

What’s more, the Chinese have created so many of these relatively cheap missiles, drones, and hypersonic weapons that the Chinese can easily pop these weapons off at will—and have enough spares on hand to delay US power projection long enough for them to wrest control over the South China Sea, or the Senkaku Islands, or even, God forbid, Taiwan itself.

One such system is the Dong Feng-17 (DF-17) Medium-Range Ballistic Missile (MRBM). It comes equipped with a Hypersonic Glide Vehicle (HGV), which can fly at speeds above Mach Five and radically maneuver while in flight, making defending against this weapon with traditional anti-missile defense systems difficult, if not impossible. The DF-17 was first introduced to the public during China’s National Day military parade in October 2019, after it had reportedly been in development since 2014.

The DF-ZF, or the designation for the DF-17 HGV, is launched atop a ballistic missile, providing the initial boost to high altitudes before releasing the aforementioned HGV. The DF-ZF glides back to the Earth at hypersonic speeds, radically altering its course to avoid anti-missile defenses. 

The range of this beast is around 1,118 to 1,553 miles, meaning that no US aircraft carrier will be able to get within range of wherever a war between China and the United States erupts. Indeed, these A2/AD systems complicate the ability of any US Navy surface warship to safely and effectively operate near these Chinese systems. 

Let us not forget, too, that the DF-17 is meant to be used primarily for conventional strikes. 

Although, it can be equipped with a nuclear warhead as well, according to Army Recognition. The Chinese military has already stated its intention to sink up to three US Navy aircraft carriers in the event of a war between the United States and China. Our elite laugh out loud at those claims, confusing the Chinese military of today with the Chinese military of thirty years ago. 

But Washington should wake up to the fact that it isn’t 1994 anymore. 

The unipolar moment is long over. And the United States is a drastically declining power (thanks to the current crop of leaders who’ve failed the country on every level) whereas the Chinese, whatever the future may hold, are for now a rising power with the ability to dominate their near-abroad at the expense of the United States. The DF-17 is one such example of how the Chinese have completely done an end-run around America’s perceived strategic advantages—notably at sea.

The DF-17 can be used in a variety of missions, from precision strikes against high-value targets to strategic deterrence. The missile’s ability to evade current defense systems, such as the much-ballyhooed Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), if any are even available since so many of these systems have been deployed to Ukraine, and Patriot systems (again if any are available for the Indo-Pacific, considering how many have been sent to the Mideast and Ukraine), makes the DF-17 a true challenge to the US military.

Washington is closely monitoring the development of the DF-17 and other hypersonic weapons. Further, the US is struggling to create both its hypersonic capabilities as well as its defenses against Chinese (and Russian) hypersonic weapons, such as the DF-17. 

More generally, until the Pentagon can reliably overcome the Chinese A2/AD threat, which they currently cannot, the US military will be defeated by China in any fight over Taiwan. 

And that fight is coming much sooner than most people realize.

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. All photos are of various submarine styles. 

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?)

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

While the RMS Titanic is, by far, the most storied ocean liner in history, the most storied ocean liner in United States history is, likely, the aptly named SS United States.

Built in the postwar period between 1950 and 1951, the United States Lines SS United States is the largest ocean liner ever built domestically. The SS United States is also the fastest ocean liner to ever cross the Atlantic Ocean. In fact, the SS United States still holds the Blue Riband (an unofficial accolade awarded to the ocean liner with the fastest Atlantic Crossing), which she has held since her maiden voyage in 1952.

William Francis Gibbs was credited with designing the SS United States. Curiously, Gibbs began his career as an attorney but gained notoriety as a project manager in the restoration of a German ocean liner. Eventually, Gibbs and his brother would become prominent warship designers during World War II, with credits to their names including the Liberty-class and Fletcher-class. Gibbs was especially known for efficient hull designs and propulsion – which would come into play as he designed the SS United States.

The SS United States cost $79 million to construct – most of which the United States government underwrote. The vessel was built to the demanding specifications of the US Navy, which called for the vessel to be strictly compartmentalized, and to feature separate engine rooms. The reason for the stringent safety standards: the Navy wanted to be able to convert the SS United States into a warship, with minimal transition time, in the event she was needed for wartime service.

Gibbs built the SS United States to the Navy’s standards – and also to his own standards. The propulsion system, as was Gibbs’s calling card, was efficient. The vessel featured eight M-Type boilers capable of generating 310,000 pounds of steam per hour. The boilers were split into two separate engine rooms, as per the Navy’s requirements. Four were located forward, and four others were located after. Steam from the boilers turned four Westinghouse double-redaction geared turbines. Each turbine was capable of producing 60,000 horsepower, for a combined 240,000 horsepower. The turbines led to four shafts,  which in turn led to four propellers. The two outermost propellers had four blades while the innermost two had five blades. The unorthodox blade configuration helped to reduce cavitation and vibration and allowed the SS United States to achieve her record-breaking speeds.

The top speed of the SS United States is still disputed, after being withheld as sensitive military information. Different sources have published different top speeds, ranging from between thirty-five knots and forty-three knots. The true speed is believed to be about thirty-eight knots per hour.

The vessel’s speed was put to good use on her maiden voyage, in 1952, when the SS United States crossed the Atlantic Ocean, from New York, New York to Cornwall, United Kingdom in just here days, ten hours, and forty minutes. The run was fast enough to earn the Blue Riband, which has not been relinquished in the seventy years since. On her return voyage, the SS United States set a record for the fastest westbound voyage, with a run of three days, twelve hours, and twelve minutes.

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: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Marine Corps’ VMFA-311 “Tomcats” squadron has achieved initial operational capability with the F-35C Lightning II, marking a significant milestone in readiness for carrier-based operations.

-This achievement means the squadron is fully equipped and trained to deploy in combat if needed. The F-35C’s advanced capabilities make it a critical asset for air superiority, close air support, and intelligence missions.

-The Marine Corps has a total order of 420 F-35s, including 67 F-35Cs, emphasizing the importance of these aircraft in future operations.

The U.S. Marine Corps tactical aviation community achieved an important milestone this week after its second fighter jet squadron achieved initial operational capability with the F-35C Lightning II stealth fighter jet.

Designed for aircraft carrier operations, the newest F-35C squadron is now combat-ready in the event of a contingency.

Last week, Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 311 “Tomcats” declared initial operational capability and is ready to fly the F-35C to war if necessary.

“I am incredibly proud of the Marines and Sailors in this squadron as they hit this critical milestone that ensures greater lethality and operational readiness for the Wing, the Marine Corps, and the joint force,” U.S. Marine Corps major general James Wellons, the commanding general of 3rd MAW, said in a press release.

Achieving initial operational capability is a big milestone and signifies that the unit has the aircraft, the right equipment, and the necessary trained pilots and maintainers.

“Initial operational capability is a milestone and achievement in readiness. It’s all on the backs of the Marines out there. What they do in their day-to-day actions is what made this possible,” Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel Michael Fisher, the commanding officer of VMFA-311, stated.

Previously, the squadron flew the AV-88 Harrier and F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets.

“Nothing changes for us, our pursuit of excellence and how we carry ourselves, initial operational capability is a byproduct of daily competency and being good at our job,” Fisher added. “It is a great accomplishment, but when we wake up the next day, we are going to keep doing the same thing. Now full operational capability is the goal.”

F-35C activity is picking up. Only a few days ago, the Navy announced the forward deployment of an F-35C squadron in Japan to be close to China, Russia, and North Korea. And now, the Marine Corps announced the second operational F-35C squadron.

“The Tomcats have a storied history that includes legends such as Ted Williams and John Glenn, and participation in every major conflict since World War II. Today’s Marines add another chapter to that legacy with the introduction of the F-35C and fifth-generation capabilities to VMFA-311,” Wellons added.

The Marine Corps has ordered a total of 420 F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter jets. Broken down, the order is for about 353 F-35B aircraft, which rely on a Short Take-Off, Vertical Landing (STOVL) mechanism to take off and land, and sixty-seven F-35Cs. The Marine Corps is the biggest customer of the F-35B (the United Kingdom has ordered 138 F-35Bs, Japan forty-two F-35Bs, Italy thirty F-35Bs, and Singapore twelve F-35Bs). It is also one of the only two customers for the F-35C, with the U.S. Navy being the other and biggest one with an order for 273 F-35Cs.

A fifth-generation, multirole fighter jet, the F-35 Lightning II can conduct six mission sets: Air Superiority, Close Air Support, Strategic Attack, Electronic Warfare, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR), Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD), and Destruction Enemy Air Defense (DEAD). The aircraft comes in three versions: the F-35A, the conventional take-off and landing version; the F-35B, which is a STOVL aircraft; and the F-35C, which is designed for carrier operations.

Stavros Atlamazoglou is a seasoned defense journalist specializing in special operations and a Hellenic Army veteran (national service with the 575th Marine Battalion and Army HQ). He holds a BA from Johns Hopkins University and an MA from Johns Hopkins’ School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). His work has been featured in Business Insider, Sandboxx, and SOFREP.

All images are Creative Commons. 

As the rise of multipolarity is testing the resilience of the liberal international order, states are rushing to decouple economically from their political competitors. This makes Central Asia a focal point for geopolitical competition, with global and regional powers vying for influence.

Central Asia is a critical region due to its abundant natural resources and geographic position. Rich in oil, gas, and rare minerals, the region also serves as a crucial transit corridor linking the Asia-Pacific, the Middle East, and Europe. These facts elevate Central Asia’s importance for Russian, Iranian, and Chinese strategic calculations.

Due to increased international isolation after its invasion of Ukraine, Moscow is now increasingly relying on Central Asia as a sanction evasion hub and an export and transport route for energy exports. China, whose regional interest was focused on the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), is now also aiming to secure cheap energy and raw materials and hedge against Europe’s potential economic decoupling. Tehran aims to leverage its cultural ties to develop strategic transport corridors that bypass its rivals, enhancing its influence and mitigating economic isolation.

The three states’ competing visions for a regional order in Central Asia are giving rise to diverging interests in the security, energy, and trade spheres, which the West could leverage to deepen its engagement with the region.

1) Security

Russia, China, and Iran share a common interest in countering U.S. influence in Central Asia. After 9/11, the United States established military bases, like the Transit Center at Manas in Kyrgyzstan and K2 in Uzbekistan, to support operations in Afghanistan. After the closure of these bases, U.S. strategy shifted towards security cooperation programs focusing on training and joint exercises. The United States continues to engage in Central Asia to balance Russian, Chinese, and Iranian influence while promoting the stability and independence of Central Asian states, which the three powers view as a direct challenge to their regional dominance and strategic interests. Counterterrorism is also a shared preoccupation for Russia, China, and Iran in Central Asia. Concerns about ISIS and Al-Qaeda have led to security cooperation and intelligence-sharing through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), to which Iran was admitted as a full member in 2023.

In spite of these shared interests, Russia, China, and Iran have conflicting aims in Central Asia, in particular regarding security dominance. Russia has the most significant military presence, with major bases in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, and it leads the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). To counterbalance Russia’s dominance without challenging it directly, China has expanded its security engagement through the SCO and established a rapid-response military outpost in Tajikistan. At the same time, Iran seeks to make up for its lack of military presence in the region through security and economic partnerships.

Another pain point is their differing approaches to Islamist groups. While all three states oppose extremism, they disagree on which groups should be classed as such. Iran has historically supported Islamist movements in Central Asia, such as the Islamic Renaissance Party of Tajikistan (IRPT), Hizb ut-Tahrir, and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU). Russia and China, on the other hand, see Islamic movements as regional and domestic security threats. Russia sees IMU as a significant security threat due to its connections with Chechnya militants. Similarly, Russia views Hizb ut-Tahrir as destabilizing due to its radical ideology and purported desire to establish a caliphate. China shares similar concerns regarding IMU and Hizb ut-Tahrir as a direct threat to regional stability and its interests in Xinjiang.

This divergence complicates trilateral cooperation in addressing security threats, as each country prioritizes its strategic alliances and ideological stances. At the same time, Central Asian states are weary of overreliance on Russia for border and regional security, seeking to diversify their security partners to hedge against Russian domination. While the regional sentiment is not currently favorable to increased military cooperation with the West, policymakers should monitor the evolution of these different regional security doctrines to detect a more favorable timing for security re-engagement with Central Asian Republics.

2) Energy

The outbreak of the war in Ukraine and Russia’s subsequent loss of the European gas market has led to the temporary convergence of Russia and China’s energy interests in Central Asia. This has left Central Asian states with narrowing space for maneuver. While Central Asian countries are eager to reduce their dependence on China and Russia, the West’s ability to step up is severely hindered in the short term by the lack of viable alternative export routes.

The reversal of the flow of gas in the Central Asia-Center (CAC) gas pipeline system in October 2023 marked the first time in which Russian gas was imported to the ex-Soviet Republics and, thus, to China via Uzbekistan. While the far-reaching partnership that Russia envisioned with its proposal for a “Trilateral Gas Union” with Astana and Tashkent did not materialize, Gazprom committed to supply 2.8 billion cubic meters of gas yearly to Uzbekistan. 

With this deal, Tashkent hopes to alleviate its chronic winter energy shortage, which led to the almost complete stoppage of energy exports. Kazakhstan has also reportedly sought to take advantage of its newfound role as a transport corridor for Russian energy exports to China. Astana’s decision was partly spurred by Western energy companies’ reticence to commence new projects and their reported intention to divest from the region due to sanctions risks.

Russian gas has become a key source of cheap energy for China, with recent exports surpassing Turkmenistan. China is leveraging its position in this buyer’s market by demanding better prices from Moscow for a new gas pipeline through eastern Siberia. Beijing and Moscow’s energy relationship remains opportunistic rather than strategic. China and Russia aim to prevent Central Asia from accessing other export markets and limit Iran’s role in the energy market.

Russia’s new role as an energy exporter in Eurasia has altered the status quo in the region, creating urgent dilemmas for the ex-Soviet Republics. Turkmenistan has the most to lose from Russia’s eastward pivot and has frantically looked for new export markets. The outpour of cheaper Russian gas into the Eurasian energy market threatens around 80 percent of Turkmenistan’s state revenues. This has spurred renewed interest in completing the decades-old Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline project, with new proposals to ship Turkmen gas to Europe via Pakistan. The completion of the TAPI pipeline, however, remains highly uncertain due to its planned passage through Afghanistan.

With the TAPI pipeline nowhere near completion, the other favored route to Europe, a Trans-Caspian pipeline connecting Turkmenistan to Europe’s Southern Gas Corridor via Azerbaijan, is once again on the table. The project was revived in May 2024 with promises of gas delivery to Europe by 2030. While the Trans-Caspian pipeline remains a lynchpin in Europe’s efforts to reduce its dependence on Russian gas, it may be too little too late to prevent China from securing its dominance in the Turkmen gas market.

The fundamental divergence of interest in Central Asian energy markets between Russia and China on the one hand and Iran on the other should be carefully leveraged by Western nations. The West should focus on becoming an indispensable partner to Central Asia by offering successful energy transition roadmaps and economic diversification. This engagement needs to be sustained long-term, addressing both diplomatic and economic aspects, and coupled with commitments to meet short-term needs to compete with Russia and China effectively. 

However, to incentivize Central Asian nations to reduce their immediate dependency on the Chinese market, Western nations may consider allowing Central Asian states to transit gas and oil through Iran to India. Iran’s limited economic and political influence in Central Asia, along with its recent setbacks in the energy market, makes it less of a regional threat to Western interests. In contrast, India’s energy demand can compete with Chinese imports. This strategy could create more breathing space for regional countries and buy Europe time to build the Trans-Caspian pipeline.

3) Trade

The current commercial landscape in Central Asia provides an ever more favorable, though time-sensitive, prospect for strategic Western engagement. Recent geopolitical conflicts have not fundamentally transformed Iran, China, and Russia’s commercial interest in Central Asia. They have, however, increased its strategic importance for two reasons. Firstly, Central Asian states, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan in particular, have been a critical link in Russia’s sanctions evasion strategy. Secondly, Russia, Iran, and China aim to capitalize on Central Asia’s recent economic growth. If China and Russia have more to gain from cooperating to exclude Iran from the energy market, Iran and China stand to gain from trade cooperation through BRI at the expense of Russia.

Due to Russia’s preoccupation with the war in Ukraine, China’s trading position in the region has strengthened considerably at the expense of Russia, especially in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. Moreover, China’s BRI mainly focused on expanding the “Middle Corridor,” connecting Chinese manufacturers with European consumers through Central Asia and Iran while bypassing Russia. The operability of the Middle Corridor could provide a win-win scenario for Europe and China by providing alternative trade routes that can insulate both parties from overreliance on maritime supply chains, which are susceptible to geopolitical shocks and blockades through the Taiwan Strait and the Suez Canal, respectively.

Recent signs, however, point to a temporary lull in China’s commercial projects in the region, driven most likely by adverse domestic economic conditions. In spite of the recent signing of an agreement for the China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan railway, China’s foreign direct investment has reportedly slowed down significantly in 2024. This gives Western nations a chance to strengthen their partnership with Central Asian states. Western focus should be on providing the kind of investment that can foster the bottom-up regional growth and cooperation that underpins the B5+1 forum, for example, by building domestic and regional connections outside of the narrow east-west path that China’s BRI follows. 

Once again, these policies will take time to bear fruits, and Western nations will need a short-term tactic to counter Chinese commercial dominance in the region. One option could be to allow India to trade with Central Asian Republics through the Iranian port of Chabahar, for which it had initially obtained a sanctions exemption in 2018. This would play into Iran’s desire to compete with China through the establishment of a north-south corridor, fuelled by the disappointing economic benefits of Iran’s cooperation with Beijing.

Keeping a Finger on the Pulse

The primary driver for cooperation among Russia, China, and Iran in Central Asia is their shared perception of mutual threats. The U.S. presence in the region, with its history of military bases and security cooperation, is seen as challenging its regional dominance. Similarly, the threat of terrorism and extremism, particularly from groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda, compels these nations to collaborate on counterterrorism efforts and intelligence sharing.

However, with the United States' relative disengagement from Central Asia and growing competition for its resources, the underlying conflicts of interest among these countries become more apparent. Russia, China, and Iran each aim to secure their energy needs and economic interests, leading to rivalries often masked by their cooperative façade against common threats.

Therefore, while mutual antagonism towards the United States and a desire to reshape the international order currently unites Russia, China, and Iran on a global level in Central Asia, their collaboration is more a strategic convenience than a deep-seated alliance. Beyond the surface, there are more conflicts than commonalities, underscoring the fragile nature of their cooperation in the region.

However, unless Western nations commit to a long-term plan for strategic engagement with Central Asia, it is unlikely that these simmering tensions will drive a wedge in their de facto alignment. To do so, Western countries should enact policies that encourage energy and trade competition among Russia, China, and Iran, as well as with other regional actors such as India and Turkey. This would give space to the Central Asian Republic to hedge by turning the regional dynamic into an economic and diplomatic “sellers’ market.”

Arman Mahmoudian is an adjunct professor at the University of South Florida’s Judy Genshaft Honors College, teaching courses on Russia, the Middle East, and International Security. He is also a research assistant at the USF Global and National Security Institute, focusing on Russia and the Middle East. Follow him on LinkedIn and X @MahmoudianArman.

Valentina Pegolo is a Junior Consultant at Plenitude Consulting and holds a Doctor of Philosophy in International Relations, a Master of Philosophy in International Relations, and a Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics from the University of Oxford. Her research interests include Iranian foreign policy, political ideology, Eurasian geopolitics, global economic and technological interconnectedness, interstate and transnational political violence, and its relationship to financial crime.

Image: plavi011 / Shutterstock.com. 

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. is ramping up its military presence in the Middle East, including deploying more fighter jets and warships, in response to escalating threats from Iran and its proxies. The Navy is exploring the use of laser weapons, such as the HELIOS, to counter the growing threat of drone and missile attacks.

-Although progress has been made with laser systems like the LWSD and AN/SEQ-3, these technologies are still in the testing phase.

-Incorporating lasers could significantly enhance the Navy’s defense capabilities against UAV swarms.

The shadow war between Israel and Iran appears to be stepping into the light, and the U.S. is preparing for conflict to grow in the Red Sea. 

Last week, American officials announced that additional fighter jets and Navy warships would be deployed to the Middle East in an effort to thwart escalating threats from Tehran and its regional proxy groups. Since Hamas launched its October 7 massacre against Israel, the U.S. Navy and its allies have shot down scores of attack drones and missiles fired by Iran’s affiliates. In April, Iran directly launched a massive barrage of projectiles toward the Jewish state. While the Israel Defense Forces, the U.S., and other allies intercepted the vast majority of the more than 300 missiles and drones Iran launched, the incident caused officials and analysts to wonder whether a laser system might bolster the U.S. Navy’s efficacy against such barrages.

Earlier this year, Rear Adm. Fred Pyle discussed the service’s progress on developing a laser weapon. High-energy lasers (HELs) and high-power microwaves (HPMs) in theory could counter unmanned aerial vehicles  and rockets better than existing countermeasures. However, despite years of research on the concept, the Navy has not fielded any laser weapon. “We continue to invest in directed energy capabilities,” Pyle said. “It requires space, weight, power and cooling, which can be a challenge on our current surface combatants.”

Pyle noted that the means the Navy uses in the Middle East right now to defend Israel and commercial shipping are “performing extremely well. But we’re very focused on delivering directed energy capability and we’re building it into the future [budget requests] in mind with our frigate and the DDG(X) [the next-generation destroyer].”

One decade ago, the Navy installed the AN/SEQ-3 Laser Weapon System on the USS Ponce amphibious transport dock. This unique system strikes at the speed of light, roughly 50,000 times the speed of an incoming ICBM. In 2021, the service’s USS Portland test-fired the 150-kilowatt Solid State Laser Technology Maturation Laser Weapons System Demonstrator (LWSD) in the Gulf of Aden. This LWSD packed five times the power of its AN/SEQ-3 predecessor. Most recently, the Navy installed its HELIOS high-energy laser on an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. Capable of blasting more than 60 kilowatts of directed energy toward targets, this weapon is perhaps the most promising.  

Although the incorporation of laser technology on every warship would be significant for the Navy as the threat of swarm UAV attacks rises, the service has been unable to fully field any directed-energy tool so far. 

Navy warships carry a finite supply of munitions, so a vast enough volley of enemy UAVs is a real threat. The Standard Missile-2 is a formidable asset, but the introduction of laser weapons would certainly elevate the Navy’s ability to thwart enemy bombardments.

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: Ukraine has received its first batch of F-16 fighter jets, a significant development in the Russo-Ukrainian War. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky expressed confidence in the jets' potential impact.

-However, questions remain about their effectiveness given the limited number delivered and the strength of Russian air defenses.

-Additionally, concerns about potential Russian escalation in response to the F-16s have been raised, though a major escalation seems unlikely. The effectiveness of these jets and the broader impact on the war will be closely watched.

After months of lobbying and waiting and wanting, Ukraine has received its first batch of donated F-16 fighter jets. Ukraine, which pressed the United States and its allies zealously for the single-engine, fourth-generation fighters, hopes the new jets will change the momentum in the Russo-Ukrainian War in favor of the Ukrainian resistance. 

“F-16s are in Ukraine. We did it. I am proud of our guys who are mastering these jets and have already started using them for our country,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said. “These jets are in our sky and today you see them. It’s good that they are here and that we can put them to use.”

Now that the F-16s are finally in Ukraine, months of speculation end. Whether the F-16s are effective will be determined, and whether the Russians escalate in response will be seen.

One reason the U.S. and NATO allies had reservations about sending the F-16 to Ukraine was the fear of a reactive Russian escalation. But escalation as a direct response to F-16s arriving in Ukraine seems unlikely. 

For one, the West has been supplying the Ukrainian resistance for years. In principle, very little is different about the F-16. Second, Russia’s options for escalation are limited. It could perhaps carry out strikes in Poland to intercept weapons shipments, or deploy a tactical nuke. But those are serious moves. A proportional escalation, something befitting the shipment of fourth-generation fighter jets, might be difficult to devise. Russia has proven wisely hesitant to directly confront NATO. The wisdom of doing so now has not changed. 

Similarly, Russia so far has not been willing to deploy a tactical nuke. It seems unlikely that a shipment of F-16s would be the tipping point that pushes Putin to be the first world leader since 1945 to use a nuclear weapon in combat.

Still, the risk of Russian escalation is higher after the F-16 shipment, which brings up the question of whether, from the U.S. and NATO perspective, it is worthwhile.

The F-16’s impact on the battlefield will likely be more modest than Zelensky led his people to believe.

According to Ukrainian officials, Ukraine will need 130 F-16s to neutralize Russian air power. The exact number of F-16s just delivered to Ukraine was not disclosed, but we can assume the number is nowhere near 130. That means the F-16s will not be able to neutralize Russian air power and will be vulnerable to Russia’s advanced air defense systems. And because the F-16s are so precious to the Ukrainians, we can expect the new jets to be used conservatively, meaning they will not likely make a significant impact on the outcome of this intractable conflict.

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

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.   

Summary and Key Points: The F/A-18, a fourth-generation fighter jet, is an enduring symbol of advanced aviation technology. Originally developed from the YF-17, which failed to win the Air Force's Lightweight Fighter (LWF) competition, the F/A-18 found new life when the Navy adopted and adapted it into a versatile aircraft.

-Known for its agility, thrust-to-weight ratio, and ability to perform air-to-air and air-to-ground missions, the F/A-18 has evolved from the Hornet to the Super Hornet, serving as a critical asset for the U.S. Navy for over four decades.

The fourth generation of fighter aircraft has been the most enduring and widely used. Fourth-generation aircraft first emerged in the 1970s and are still relevant today, even if they no longer represent the best of fighter jet technology. 

One of the generation’s most iconic and prominent aircraft is the F/A-18, which recently starred alongside Tom Cruise in Top Gun: Maverick. But the F/A-18 almost never was. The airframe was developed from a bid that failed to impress the U.S. Air Force. Fortunately, the Navy saw great potential in a jet the Air Force had discarded.

Before the F/A-18, there was the YF-17 – a prototype lightweight fighter built specifically to win the Air Force’s Lightweight Fighter (LWF) bid. 

The LWF, as its name implies, was an effort to field a smaller, lighter, cheaper fighter in response to the belief that aircraft like the F-15 were too large and expensive for certain mission profiles. Two prototypes were considered: the single-engine YF-16, and the two-engine YF-17. The YF-16 won and became the venerable F-16 Fighting Falcon, so the program did work out, supplying the Air Force with an exemplary lightweight fighter that has been in service for almost 50 years. But the Air Force also passed on an exemplary lightweight fighter – a jet that caught the attention of the Navy, which had also been present to observe LWF testing.

The Navy also needed a small, cheap fighter, specifically to complement the large and expensive F-111, and to replace the aging F-4. The YF-17, the losing bidder from the Air Force’s LWF program, fit the bill. 

The YF-17 was understood to be capable of meeting all of the Navy’s requirements, including air superiority performance, fleet air defense, escort attack, air to ground attack, long loitering time, long range, and an appropriate approach speed for carrier landings. The YF-17 hit all the right specifications, was redesigned to more perfectly match the Navy’s needs, and was redesignated as the F/A-18.    

The F/A-18 was ahead of its time, which is why the airframe is still relevant today, 45 years after taking its first flight. Well, the airframe was updated along the way, and the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet has since become the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet, with the original Hornet being retired in 2019. But the Super Hornet shares much in common with the original airframe.

With two engines and a midwing design, the F/A-18 is capable of conducting a variety of mission sets. With a solid thrust-to-weight ratio and a digital fly-by-wire system, plus leading edge extensions, the F/A-18 is highly maneuverable. The trapezoidal wings are swept back 20 degrees and the vertical stabilizers are canted, enabling a high angle of attack in flight.

The F/A-18 has proven its worth in air-to-air and air-to-ground missions, and it has been the workhorse of the U.S. Navy for decades.

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

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy's Virginia-class submarine program is facing significant delays, with the USS Massachusetts (SSN-798) now expected to be delivered in early 2025 instead of late 2024.

-This marks yet another setback for the program, which is already running three years behind schedule. Huntington Ingalls Industries reported a minor disruption during testing, causing the delay.

-The USS Arkansas (SSN-800), the next submarine in line, is also behind schedule but is reportedly making progress. These delays highlight ongoing challenges in the construction of nuclear-powered submarines, with only three of the ten Block IV Virginia-class submarines currently deployed.

In February, Huntington Ingalls Industries’ Newport News Shipping launched the future Virginia-class nuclear-powered fast attack submarine USS Massachusetts (SSN-798). The boat was transferred from a construction facility to a floating dry dock, the company announced. Once there, it began the final outfitting, testing, and crew certification in advance of the ship being handed over to the U.S. Navy.

SSN-798 is the 25th submarine of the Virginia class and the 12th that will be delivered by NNS, but that delivery is running late. Part of the issue is that NNS operates one of just two shipyards capable of designing and then building nuclear-powered submarines for the Navy.

"During the quarter, SSN-798 construction team experienced a minor disruption to Massachusetts’ test program due to some equipment replacement identified during testing,”HII president and CEO Chris Kastner told investors on an August 1 quarterly call with investment analysts. “The disruption has been resolved, and the team is back into the test program making steady progress. It does, however, shift delivery from late 2024 to early 2025. We are reaffirming our shipbuilding margin outlook for the year.

"We're marching towards delivery on 798," Kastner added. "We did have that minor move on the milestone, but they're making progress on the test program now. And it's a good team on it. It's a good crew. It's a good leadership. So I fully expect 798 will resolve at the beginning of next year."

Kastner also said that the future Virginia-class submarine USS Arkansas (SSN-800) – the next of the boats in line – was running late but was "making progress."

The future USS Massachusetts and USS Arkansas are two of 10 Block IV Virginia-class submarines. The program as a whole is now running about three years behind schedule. Just three boats of the block have been deployed.

When SSN-798 enters service, she will be the eighth vessel named for the Bay State, and the first since the South Dakota-class fast battleship USS Massachusetts (BB-59) was retired in 1947.

The first ship named for the New England state was a "Revenue-Marine" cutter that was in service for just one year. It was followed by a sloop that served with the U.S. Navy for about a decade until 1804.

Notably, two warships named USS Massachusetts were never completed. Those included the Kalamazoo-class monitor and a battleship of the first South Dakota class, which was canceled following the Washington Naval Treaty in 1923. Two battleships did bear the name, including BB-2, an Indiana-class battleship that saw action in the Spanish-American War, and the aforementioned BB-59.

The Navy will have to accept that later is better than never. Unlike those two battle wagons that never sailed, it does look like SSN-798 will finally enter service 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.

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Just before the 2020 Presidential elections, I published a book—The Eleventh Hour in 2020 America—in which I laid out the deterioration of American foreign policy and what the next administration needed to do to fix it. I argued that we were at risk of stumbling into any number of avoidable wars that could seriously harm our country. Now, four years later, we may be hours or minutes away from making that fateful plunge.

As I write these words, the United States is sending considerable combat power to the Middle East in advance of a retaliatory strike by Iran against Israel. The Israeli government is warning its citizens to prepare bomb shelters and be prepared for major power outages and limited drinking water for an extended period of time. Iran is reportedly in the final stages of preparing an attack.

The perverse irony of this potential clash of titans in the Middle East is that with deft diplomacy and sober thinking, the situation could have been solved below the threshold of combat long ago. Washington and Tel Aviv, however, seem stuck on repeating all the worst of the tendencies I identified in my 2020 book. In one passage, I wrote:

One other thing I can come close to guaranteeing: if America retains our current status quo of foreign policy, if we refuse to end forever-wars, and if we fail to adopt new ways of thinking in how we engage with the world, we will fail.

This present explosion started with what many in the West believed was out of the blue on October 7, 2023, when Hamas terrorists burst out of Gaza’s security fences and killed more than 1,200 Israeli civilians and soldiers (though Israeli officials reportedly dismissed warnings of an attack a full year in advance). While Israel had every right to respond to the vicious terrorist attacks, they did not have the right to dispense with the laws of warfare in how they responded. The U.S. government was within its rights to support Israel—but it must first ensure the security of our country and avoid a war in the process.

We appear, most regrettably, on auto-pilot mode, heading into yet another Middle East war.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken told members of the G7 on Sunday that an attack could come within twenty-four hours. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin declared, without hesitation, “If Israel is attacked, we certainly will help defend Israel.” If anyone had any doubts about what he meant, Austin noted, “You saw us do that in April; you can expect to see us do that again.” The “that” to which he referred was a massive use of United States air and naval power to intercept Iran’s missile and drone retaliation for Israel’s bombing of an Iranian embassy building in Syria. 

To demonstrate that Austin’s claims are not empty, the Department of Defense has ordered the deployment of additional U.S. combat power to the region, including air and naval assets, as well as additional ground troops. An official DoD release claimed these “defensive capabilities are all in support of deterrence and de-escalation.” Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Sabrina Singh said the best way to deescalate the situation “is for this ceasefire deal to come through, so we can get American hostages out, as well.”

While that briefs well, it is embarrassingly untrue, as Israel just assassinated the chief Hamas negotiator with whom ceasefire talks were ongoing. It was that assassination in the heart of Tehran, in fact, that has been the source of the looming Iranian retaliation (on top of other Israel assassinations of Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon). America may be trying to use diplomatic means to prevent an Iranian response, but our actions are making war more, not less, likely.

Emotions aside, the United States should not get involved if Israel goes to war against Iran. Israel has fought wars in its past, and we did not fight for them, yet they handled their security successfully on their own. The reason Washington provides billions in military assistance every year to Israel is to ensure they are capable of defending themselves. Those efforts have proved successful; Israel can now defend itself with or without American support. 

Iran has potent missile forces, but they are otherwise a mediocre regional military power, not at all equal to the IDF. Furthermore, Israel got into trouble in April of this year when it broke international law by attacking a target in an Iranian embassy compound, prompting an entirely predictable military response from Iran. Last week, Israel assassinated a number of high-ranking officials of both Hamas and Hezbollah in Tehran and Beirut, respectively. The importance of the targets and the politically sensitive locations of the strikes will likely spawn a military response from Iran.

Israel has an obligation to take actions that ensure its security. If Israeli leaders take risks that result in more attacks against Israel, they must be prepared to deal with that situation. What should not happen, however, is for Tel Aviv to expect the United States Armed Forces to fight alongside the IDF. Washington should not be a party in engaging in military operations that run counter to its national security objectives and could draw it into a new Middle Eastern war.

There is nothing for us to gain and everything for us to lose in fighting a war against Iran. It should be a priority for the White House only to risk losing American servicemen and women if U.S. security is put at risk, not because a foreign government, regardless of how friendly, takes action that is likely to prompt an enemy military response. We must stop choosing war—or one day, it may cost us more than we can imagine.

Daniel L. Davis is a retired Army Lt.Col with four combat deployments. He is a Senior Fellow at Defense Priorities and the host of the Daniel Davis Deep Dive show. Follow him @DanielLDavis1.

Image: Creative Commons. 

The Chinese military is testing a new tank that could be used in a potential future invasion of Taiwan.

Although it is unclear where the new armored vehicle is in its development, the project falls under a wider effort by the Chinese military to modernize its arsenal as Beijing is becoming more assertive in the Indo-Pacific and around the world.

Back in May, a series of images surfaced on Chinese social media showing what are likely two variants of a new Chinese tank.

The images showed two tanks moving in the streets of Baotou, the largest urban center in Inner Mongolia. Based on the imagery, it is very likely that the two vehicles belong to the same type of tank but are different variants. For example, judging from the pictures, it looks like one of the armored vehicles packs a 125mm main gun, while the second has a 105mm main gun.

Moreover, the two tanks weren’t towed and were moving on their power, indicating advanced development, at least in the engine/motor.

According to reports, the new tank will likely sport anti-drone technology in order to deal with the prevalent threat of unmanned aerial systems on the modern battlefield. The war in Ukraine has shown that drones can be extremely deadly, and only the right kinetic and electronic warfare countermeasures can defeat them.

It is likely that the Chinese military is using parts and technology of the Type 15 light tank in its development of the new tank. The Type 15 went into full production in 2015 and is designed as a lighter tank option for difficult operational environments like mountains and wetlands.

For decades, Beijing chose an unconventional path to develop its military capabilities. Instead of relying on domestic ingenuity and science, successive Chinese governments sought to steal foreign military technology and replicate it domestically. Surprisingly, this strategy has worked very well thus far, and the Chinese military is brimming with weapon systems and munitions that are based on foreign designs.

For example, the Type 99 main battle tank of the Chinese military is largely based on the Russian T-72 tank. Similarly, the J-20 Chengdu stealth fighter jet shares an uncanny similarity with the American F-22 Raptor stealth fighter jet.

In the defense context, what China has in resourcefulness and vision it lacks in innovation. For decades, Beijing has stolen the blueprints of weapon systems and munitions and recreated them in its laboratories and factories. Slam a new name and a couple of changes, and voila, the Chinese military has a new main battle tank, fighter jet, destroyer, etc. That strategy worked well for as long as China was behind. But now Beijing is catching or has caught up, and the pressure is on now to create something new that can’t be stolen because it doesn’t exist. Naturally, there is some skepticism as to the extent to which the Chinese defense industry can innovate and produce something new.

Stavros Atlamazoglou is a seasoned defense journalist specializing in special operations and a Hellenic Army veteran (national service with the 575th Marine Battalion and Army HQ). He holds a BA from Johns Hopkins University and an MA from Johns Hopkins’ School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). His work has been featured in Business Insider, Sandboxx, and SOFREP.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: In a hypothetical 1988 naval battle, the USS Iowa and a Soviet Kirov-class battlecruiser clash in a fight for naval supremacy.

The Kirov, equipped with advanced missiles, would likely strike first from long range, potentially crippling the Iowa before it could get close enough to use its massive 16-inch guns.

While the Iowa might survive the initial attack, its ability to retaliate would be limited, forcing the Kirov to retreat. The battle highlights the evolution of naval warfare, where missile technology can neutralize even the most formidable traditional battleships.

It’s 1988 in our fictional scanerio. World War Three has begun, with the armies of the Soviet Union and the rest of the Warsaw Pact pouring over the Inter-German Border. Their destination: the Rhine River and beyond, dealing NATO a knockout blow that will end the war.

Meanwhile at sea, an equally titanic battle is about to take place. A Soviet Kirov-class battlecruiser, attempting to intercept a U.S. Navy carrier battle group, is intercepted by the battleship USS Iowa. The biggest ship-against-ship battle since the World War Two is about to begin. Who wins?

Built in the late 1980s, the Kirov-class battlecruisers were designed—like much of the Soviet navy at the time—to neutralize American carrier battle groups during warfare. American aircraft carriers were a threat to not only the Soviet mainland but also Moscow’s nuclear missile submarines, and were to be taken out as quickly as possible. A secondary mission of the Kirov class was as commerce raider, designed to cut the flow of American and Canadian ground reinforcements to the battleground in Europe.

The Kirov class were the largest surface warships built since the end of World War II. Each displaced twenty-four thousand tons and measured 826 feet long—nearly as long as an aircraft carrier. Nuclear powered, they could cruise indefinitely at speeds of up to thirty-two knots.

The purpose of the battlecruisers was to attack, and they were well suited for the task. Each carried twenty enormous P-700 Granit antiship missiles. Each, a Granit missile weighed more than fifteen thousand pounds. This was enough to include 1,653-pound high explosive warhead, enough fuel to give it a range of three hundred miles at Mach 2.5, and a both inertial and active radar guidance. Initial targeting data would be provided by the space-based Legenda satellite targeting system, shore-based aircraft, shipboard helicopters or the battlecruiser itself.

Granit was unique among Cold War–era antiship missiles in having an early networking capability. One missile per salvo rises higher than the rest, providing radar targeting information to the rest of the missiles though a network. If that missile was shot down, another would rise to take its place.

The Kirov cruisers were also designed to be self sufficient in anti-air weapons, the overall armament forming a layered defense system. Each carried 96 S-300F long-range surface to air missiles, a naval adaptation of the land-based S-300 system. The ships also carried 192 3K95 short-range surface-to-air missiles based on the Tor, and forty 4K33 missiles based on the Osa. As a last resort, the ships had six AK-630 close-in weapon systems equipped with thirty-millimeter gatling guns.

Four Kirov-class battlecruisers were built: Kirov, Frunze, Kalinin and Yuri Andropov.

Built in the 1940s, the Iowa-class battleships were designed to be fast fleet battleships, capable of chasing down and engaging enemy battleships such as the famed Yamato class of the Imperial Japanese Navy. Although the Iowas never engaged another battleship, they provided naval gunfire support for U.S. ground forces during World War, the Korean War, Vietnam, and off the coast of Lebanon in 1983.

The Iowa’s main armament consisted of three massive gun turrets, each housing three sixteen-inch guns. Each gun could heave a one thousand nine hundred pound armor-piercing shell to a range of twenty miles. The guns could make quick work of any modern warship, except for perhaps another battleship—but they have to get the target in range first.

The Iowa ships were heavily armored, as battleships should be, with just over a foot of steel protection at the waterline. Bulkheads were protected by eleven inches of steel, and the main guns had nearly twenty inches of steel armor. The ships were powered by four steam turbines, giving them a top speed of 32.5 knots.

In the early 1980 all four battleships—Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri and Wisconsin—were returned to service and a number of upgrades were performed. Four of the ten dual five-inch gun mounts were removed, and it in their place sixteen Harpoon antiship missiles were installed. First deployed in 1977, the turbojet-powered, radar-guided anti-ship missiles pack a powerful 488-pound warhead. In addition to the Harpoons the Iowa class were fitted with thirty-two Tomahawk cruise missiles and four Phalanx CIWS close-in weapons systems.

Back to our duel. In our scenario, let’s assume that each ship knows the location of the other at three hundred miles. At this range, the Iowa class is at a disadvantage: its longest range weapons, the thirty-two Tomahawk missiles, are land attack missiles and useless against the Kirov.

Kirov, on the other hand, launches all twenty of its Granit missiles. . . and then retreats. The battlecruiser has used up its entire complement of offensive weapons on a single massive blow and has nothing substantial left to continue the fight with. (While it still has a pair of 130-millimeter dual-purpose guns, it would be suicidal to get in close enough to use them, given Iowa’s overwhelming gun armament.)

Two of the Granit missiles fail to launch, or malfunction and fall into the sea, leaving eighteen streaking towards the American battleship. Iowa’s deficiency in air defense armament means that it has only two Phalanx CIWS guns to shoot down the Granits. Its SLQ-32 active radar jammers and Mark 36 SRBOC chaff launchers attempt to spoof the Granit’s active radar guidance systems.

It’s impossible to say how many of the eighteen remaining missiles would have gotten past Iowa’s Phalanx gatling guns, radar jamming and chaff dispersal. For the sake of the scenario, let’s assume nine missiles breach Iowa’s defenses. The mighty battleship’s armor was formidable, designed to shrug off sixteen-inch armor-piercing rounds, so it’s likely it would fare pretty well against a Mach 1.6 missile with a simple 1.5 ton high explosive warhead. The Iowa’s main guns were also heavily armored, as were the magazines and the engine spaces.

Iowa would sustain damage, but how much? Let’s assume two of the main gun turrets are knocked out of action, but one turret is still functional and the engines are undamaged. Three sixteen inch guns are still good enough to kill the Kirov but even under ideal circumstances, Iowa is only half a knot faster than the Russian battlecruiser, and at three hundred miles doesn’t have a chance of catching up to it.

If the Iowa were to close the distance with Kirov the odds slightly considerably. Iowa would have to get with sixty-seven miles for it to be able to use its sixteen Harpoon missiles—but even then such as small number of missiles would have a difficult time getting through Kirov’s three-layered air defense network.

In fact, the only range at which Iowa can really win a fight with Kirov is within twenty miles, when the ship’s nine sixteen-inch guns can come into play. At that range, the Kirov is indisputably dead meat, sent quickly to the bottom by the battleship’s big guns. Still, as satisfying as such an engagement would be, it’s hard to see how the Soviets would let an Iowa get that close.

Our 1988 hypothetical engagement is an example of the superiority of guns over missiles in certain scenarios. Guns—at least conventional guns—just don’t have the reach of modern missiles. Certain advances since then—including railgun weaponry and the long-range anti ship missile (LRASM) could breathe new life into a battleship platform, but that’s an argument for another day.

In 1988 the USS Iowa loses, limping away to fight another day. Still, that’s not all exactly bad news for the Americans: Kirov was forced to expend its missiles against a battleship that didn’t sink, and wasn’t able to fulfill its primary mission of sinking aircraft carriers or savaging NATO’s Atlantic convoys. Kirov returns to her home port to rearm, but thanks to the carriers that were saved, there may not be a port to go home to.

Kyle Mizokami is a defense and national security writer based in San Francisco who has appeared in the Diplomat, Foreign Policy, War is Boring and the Daily Beast. In 2009 he cofounded the defense and security blog Japan Security Watch. 

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The United States is bolstering its military presence in the Middle East by deploying F-22 Raptors, along with other fighter squadrons, amid escalating tensions with Iran and its allied militant groups.

-This move follows recent incidents, including the death of key leaders in Tehran and Lebanon, and a meeting in Iran with Hamas, Hezbollah, and other groups.

-The F-22 Raptors, known for their air superiority capabilities, will join existing forces to reinforce defensive air support and deter further escalation in the region.

The United States is beefing up its presence in the Middle East, and the Pentagon is now sending a squadron of Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptors to the region in addition to guided-missile cruisers and destroyers. The build-up of U.S. forces comes as Iran has vowed revenge for the death of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh last week in Tehran – as well as the missile strike in Lebanon that killed a top Hezbollah official.

The U.S. Department of Defense's (DoD's) " multiple forthcoming force posture" also follows a meeting in the Iranian capital that included officials from Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and Yemeni-based Houthi militants. Tehran supports all of the groups, and the U.S. is now increasing its military presence to deter escalation in the region.

"The Secretary of Defense has reiterated that the United States will protect our personnel and interests in the region, including our ironclad commitment to the defense of Israel," the Pentagon said in a statement.

The squadron of F-22 Raptors will join three combat aircraft squadrons already deployed to the Middle East, including an F-15E Strike Eagle an F-16 Fighting Falcon fighter squadron, and an A-10 Thunderbolt Close Air Support (CAS) squadron.

"The Secretary has also ordered the deployment of an additional fighter squadron to the Middle East, reinforcing our defensive air support capability," the DoD added.

According to a report from Air & Space Forces magazine, additional aerial refueling tanks are also being deployed to support the increased number of combat aircraft in the region.

The U.S. has yet to announce when the fifth-generation air superiority aircraft will arrive in the Middle East, or where they'll operate from. However, it marks the latest deployment of the advanced stealth fighters to the region, and it was in June 2023 that the Raptor was sent to the Middle East – at the time over escalating tensions between the U.S. and Russia, which each conduct air operations over Syria.

It is currently estimated that just around 100 of the Air Force's 183 operational F-22s are actually combat-ready at any given time. Though the Pentagon had originally sought to acquire 750 of the aircraft, the decision was made to scale back the order following the end of the Cold War.

One of the most notable facts about the highly-touted F-22 Raptor is that it hasn't exactly been "combat-proven." It was only first employed in its secondary ground-attack role against targets in Syria in September 2014 during Operation Inherent Resolve, where it dropped 1,000-pound GPS-guided bombs on Islamic State targets. Over the next ten months, the Raptor went on to conduct 204 sorties in Syria, dropping 270 bombs.

It was only in February 2023 that the F-22 scored an air-to-air kill, when a Raptor from the 1st Fighter Wing, downed the alleged Chinese Spy balloon within visual range off the coast of South Carolina.

The presence of the F-22 back in the Middle East could deter Iran and the multiple militant groups it supports. But if that fails, the Raptor may finally bear its claws and remind the world that it was developed to be the world's premier air superiority fighter.

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) is on its way to the Red Sea to relieve the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) as part of the U.S. Navy's ongoing carrier rotations in the Middle East.

-This comes amid increased tensions in the region following Israel's actions against Hamas and Hezbollah leaders, as well as the Houthis, who have been firing missiles.

-The carrier rotation highlights the U.S. Navy's struggle to maintain a consistent presence with its nuclear-powered supercarriers, which are stretched thin across multiple global hotspots. With the deployment of CVN-72, the Navy continues to juggle its limited carrier resources, emphasizing the challenges of sustaining long-term operations.

The United States Navy's West Coast-based Nimitz-class nuclear-powered supercarrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) is now on her way from the Pacific to the Red Sea, where she will relieve her sister carrier, the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71). It was just weeks ago that CVN-71 arrived in the 5th Fleet area of operation, taking over for another Nimitz-class carrier, USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69).

"To maintain a carrier strike group presence in the Middle East, the Secretary has ordered the Lincoln Carrier Strike Group to replace the Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group, currently on deployment in the Central Command area of responsibility," the U.S. Department of Defense said in a statement, adding that Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, "has ordered additional ballistic missile defense-capable cruisers and destroyers to the U.S. European Command and U.S. Central Command regions. The Department is also taking steps to increase our readiness to deploy additional land-based ballistic missile defense."

Exactly when the transition between the two carrier strike groups will occur, but US Naval Institute (USNI) News reported that it will likely take CVN-72 about two weeks to cross the Pacific and Indian Oceans. It also isn't fully clear how long the West Coast-based carrier will remain in the waters of the Middle East, but already, the U.S. Navy is preparing to send USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) to the region after she completes pre-deployment training.

The rotation of carriers serves to highlight how stretched thin the United States is right now. USS Dwight D. Eisenhower had seen her deployment extended twice, and the decision was made to send USS Theodore Roosevelt to the region to prevent a third extension. However, CVN-71 has also been deployed since January 11, 2024, and is due to return home soon.

There has been the presence of a U.S. Navy CSG in the Middle East since last fall after the Hamas terrorist attack on southern Israel last October as well as missile attacks from the Houthis. The USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) was sent to the Eastern Mediterranean in response, and the lead vessel of the U.S. Navy's new class of supercarriers saw her deployments also extended twice.

The Pentagon is preparing a "multiple forthcoming force posture," which comes in response to Israel's assassination of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders in Tehran and Beirut respectively.

Officials from Hamas, and Hezbollah, as well as those from the Islamic Jihad and Yemeni-based Houthi rebels – also backed by Tehran – met on Thursday with top Iranian government officials. There are now fears that the Iran-back militant groups, as well as the Islamic Republic, could respond by launching additional attacks, possibly escalating the ongoing Gaza conflict into a full-blown regional war.

"The Secretary of Defense has reiterated that the United States will protect our personnel and interests in the region, including our ironclad commitment to the defense of Israel," the Pentagon added.

The deployment of CVN-71 to the Middle East has left in the Indo-Pacific and served to highlight the U.S. Navy's "Achilles Heel" – namely that there simply aren't enough warships to go around. As noted, the U.S. Navy extended the deployment of CVN-69 multiple times and the warship and her crew were pushed hard as a result.

Exactly how stretched thin the U.S. Navy's carrier fleet has only come into focus as the sea service must deal with multiple threats at the same time. Even as CVN-69 has returned home from the Red Sea, CVN-71 will remain in the region for a few more weeks, with CVN-72 acting as a stopgap until USS Harry S. Truman finally arrives in the region.

The United States Navy is now forced to play an increasingly complex game of musical chairs with its operational carriers. It may technically operate eleven nuclear-powered supercarriers – ten Nimitz class and one Gerald R. Ford class – but rarely are more than five or six at sea at any given time.

Long deployments mean longer time undergoing maintenance, and the problem is made worse by the state of the U.S. carrier industrial base, which builds and maintains the vessels, including the lack of shipyards. Nuclear-powered carriers are also taking longer to build, are costly to maintain, and then costly and complex to retire. Worst of all, there may not be enough of them in service!

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

Mark Twain is often credited with saying that history does not repeat itself, but it does often rhyme. He might well have been talking about the stock market’s repeated tendency to ignore deteriorating economic and political fundamentals. When it finally wakes up to this reality, it’s too late.

Something like this occurred in 2008 in the run-up to the 2008–2009 Great Economic Recession. And now, something similar seems to be occurring in the wake of last week’s disappointing U.S. employment report and the Bank of Japan’s surprise decision to raise interest rates. That latter rise has caused a spike in the Japanese yen that has caught many hedge funds off guard. Those hedge funds had been funding their large-scale purchases of U.S. tech companies with, up until now, cheap Japanese yen loans.

During the first half of 2008, the stock market experienced only a moderate decline. This was despite the clearest signs that the largest housing bubble in the country’s history had burst, the emergence of serious problems in the subprime market, and Bear Stearns’ failure in March 2008.

It was only after the Lehman bankruptcy in September 2008 that the market realized how complacent it had been about the housing and sub-prime credit market stresses that were in plain sight. When it did so, it lost around 50 percent in its value by March 2009.

Fast forward to today. This year, we have seen a stock market boom despite the fact that over the past two years, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates at the fastest pace in over a decade and despite the many signs of economic and political trouble at both home and abroad. One indication of that boom is the fact that the major stock market indices repeatedly scaled new heights, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average Index blowing past 40,000 and the S&P 500 Index blowing past 5,500. Another indication is the fact the stock market’s total capitalization reached the nosebleed level of almost 200 percent of GDP. That is around two standard deviations above its historical trend line.

If, in early 2008, the U.S. stock market was overly sanguine in the face of a domestic housing and sub-prime credit market problem, up until last week, it seems to have been overly optimistic about a host of economic and political problems both at home and abroad.

One of the problems to which the markets have turned a blind eye is the slow-motion train wreck that is now well underway in the U.S. commercial property market as more people work at least part of the time at home. Never mind that this problem has the potential of triggering another round of the regional bank crisis. Meanwhile, the market has chosen to ignore a substantial souring in the international economic outlook. Never mind that the Chinese economy, the world’s second-largest, is struggling with the bursting of an epic-sized housing and credit market bubble. Until very recently, Japan was battling the collapse of its currency, and a heavily indebted France now seems to be drifting towards political ungovernability, which could precipitate another round of the European sovereign debt crisis.

As if these economic problems were not reason enough for markets to have been more cautious, there are a number of political landmines in plain sight that could deal a significant blow to the U.S. and world economies. The Israel-Hamas war seems to be spreading to Iran, which could disrupt the world oil market. Meanwhile, at home, Donald Trump is threatening to introduce Smoot-Hawley-type import tariffs if he is re-elected, which could trigger a world trade war. 

We have to hope that the Federal Reserve realizes that today’s stock market weakness is unlikely to be a passing fad given the poor underlying world economic and political fundamentals. Maybe then the Fed will do the right thing and start cutting interest rates aggressively to provide long-overdue support to a weakening U.S. economy.

Desmond Lachman is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and was a deputy director in the International Monetary Fund’s Policy Development and Review Department, and the chief emerging-market economic strategist at Salomon Smith Barney.

Image: Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Air Force faces a growing capability gap as it retires aging warplanes without sufficient replacements. With the B-21 Raider delayed and current stealth bombers in short supply, reviving the F-117A Nighthawk could be a cost-effective solution.

-Despite being officially retired in 2008, the Nighthawk has continued to serve in classified testing, highlighting its enduring value.

-Instead of pursuing costly next-generation platforms, the Air Force could modify the F-117A for modern combat, potentially filling critical roles until new aircraft are ready.

-Given current geopolitical instability, restoring the Nighthawk to full operational capability may be a strategic necessity.

The U.S. Air Force has a significant problem on its hands. America’s air branch has invested gobs of tax dollars on equipment and systems that are complex and expensive. Their current warplanes are being retired or rendered obsolete by new technologies at such alarming rates that the Air Force cannot replace them. 

One of the Air Force’s most important advantages is that its warplanes possess stealth capabilities that many of America’s rivals still can’t match. Indeed, for decades, the Air Force has proudly operated multiple versions of stealth bombers and warplanes such as the B-2 Spirit and the F-117 Nighthawk. But their cost and age have prompted the Air Force to begin retiring these planes. 

Yet the Nighthawk, which was officially retired from service way back in 2008, just won’t stay down.

Since its official retirement, the Air Force has pulled the Nighthawk back into service on various occasions. No, it wasn’t sent to fight in any of America’s ongoing wars, but it was used for classified testing purposes. One can only assume that the various systems the Air Force has been developing to enhance the stealth capabilities of its newest platforms or sensors that can detect stealth planes were being tested against the F-117.

In 2017, Congress permitted the Air Force to begin disposing of its F-117 Nighthawk fleet to the tune of four airframes per year. Per Congressional mandate, the Air Force could either send these airframes to the scrapyard or to museums. 

By 2022, however, the Air Force altered its decommissioning plan for the Nighthawk fleet. They took it down from four to two, maybe three disposals per year. The War Zone reports that the “exact status of the Air Force’s current remaining F-117A inventory, including how many are still flying, is unclear. As of 2019, the service said it still has 51 jets in its possession and then said the following year that at least 12 had been specifically set aside to go to various museums.”

But for these platforms to make their way for public viewing at museums, a rigorous, time-consuming process of modification must be undertaken to remove the classified systems embedded within the aircraft. 

If Nighthawks are still so advanced that they must be rigorously decommissioned, should they really be retired? 

Would America’s air warfare capabilities be better served by simply modifying these birds to better withstand the evolving and complex nature of modern warfare? 

Given that the Air Force has been warning of a severe gap forming in their capabilities as planes are retired, might it be necessary to restore the Nighthawk to fighting prowess, at least until newer systems are available in sufficient numbers? 

That should probably be considered, given the strategic liabilities taking shape. 

For example, the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber’s replacement, the B-21 Raider, is unlikely to be available in the necessary numbers anytime soon. B-2s are already far too few in number. If retired as planned, they will leave a gaping hole in the Air Force’s capabilities. Without a long-range stealth bomber at the ready, critical functions of the Air Force’s arsenal will be degraded to the point of being combat-ineffective.

And in the current unstable geopolitical environment, that’s the last thing any country should want for its air force.

The Air Force has been very coy about why they have kept some 40 Nighthawks around, 16 years after they were officially retired. 

Rather than spending gobs of money on fanciful next-generation warplanes, such as the Air Force’s egregiously expensive Next Generation Air Dominance (or NGAD), why not simply spend a fraction of that money augmenting the F-117 Nighthawk? Make it into a stealthy drone-ferrying warbird, just as the Air Force wants to do with its proposed sixth-generation warplane. 

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 Ukrainian Air Force has officially begun operating F-16 Fighting Falcons, marking a significant milestone in its transition to Western combat aviation. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky confirmed the jets are now in use, as Kyiv is set to receive 79 aircraft from NATO allies.

-While the F-16s offer advanced capabilities, including intercepting cruise missiles and drones, analysts caution they may not be game changers in the ongoing conflict. The U.S. has approved the transfer but won't provide its own jets, focusing instead on supplying ordnance.

-The arrival of the F-16s enhances Ukraine’s air defense but may not decisively shift the war’s outcome.

2024 has been a year of milestones for the F-16 Fighting Falcon, including the 50th anniversary of its first flight, and the transformation to a testbed for autonomous flight. On Sunday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky also confirmed that the Ukrainian pilots have been operating the U.S.-made multirole fighter within the war-torn country.

"F-16s are in Ukraine. We did it. I am proud of our guys who are mastering these jets and have already started using them for our country," Zelensky said from an undisclosed location while being flanked by a pair of Fighting Falcons as two more soared overhead.

"This is the new stage of development of the air force of Ukraine's armed forces," Zelensky added. "We did a lot for Ukrainian forces to transition to a new aviation standard, the Western combat aviation."

The official announcement that the F-16s are now in Ukraine comes days after images of the fighters in the skies near Kharkiv appeared on social media. Kyiv is on track to receive a total of 79 of the jets – donated by Belgium, Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands. Though an older variant, the F-16s are seen as being more capable than the vintage Soviet-era aircraft operated by the Ukrainian Air Force.

Though Washington gave the green light for the transfer of the aircraft, the United States hasn't committed to supplying any Fighting Falcons. The U.S. has pledged to provide some ordnance that could be employed from the aircraft – notably the AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM), AIM-9X missile, AGM-88 HARM anti-radiation missiles, and JDAM Extended-Range and Small-Diameter Bombs.

According to a report from Reuters, Ukrainian officials had worked "24/7" to ensure that the fighters would be properly secured, as the Kremlin has vowed to destroy the Fighting Falcons and has already been targeting potential bases that could house the fighters.

For those reasons, the F-16s provided to Ukraine by NATO members should be considered among the most valuable targets in the country, perhaps after Zelensky.

Though more advanced than the current fleet of Ukrainian combat aircraft, the F-16 likely won't be a serious game changer. It may help protect Ukraine's cities, but it won't be enough to turn the tide of war.

Analysts have suggested that the effectiveness of the F-16 is being constrained as Washington and other Western allies won't allow Ukraine to use the fighters to strike inside Russian territory. Likewise, 79 aircraft – not all of which have arrived or likely will be operational by the end of the year – will be significant enough in number to make a huge difference. Kyiv's pilots also haven't been put through the years of training that Fighting Falcon jockeys normally go through.

Yet, the F-16s will have the ability to intercept cruise missiles and drones in flight. In other words, for the rest of 2024 and perhaps into 2025 should the war continue, the Fighting Falcon will be employed as a much-needed defensive platform.

Perhaps that is what Kyiv needs most right now, and that could allow Ukraine to carry on the fight.

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

Summary and Key Points: The T-14 Armata, Russia's advanced main battle tank, boasts impressive specs like a 125 mm smoothbore gun, modular armor, and a 55 mph top speed. Despite its power, Russia has only produced about 20 units due to the tank's complexity and high cost.

-In contrast, Russia is focusing on simpler, more cost-effective tanks like the T-72 and T-90, which are easier to produce and maintain.

-While the T-14 was field-tested in Syria and briefly deployed in Ukraine, it was quickly pulled back, highlighting the challenges of using complex systems in modern warfare, where function often trumps form.

One of the strangest phenomena in modern warfare is the gap between the expensive, complex systems the world’s advanced militaries procure versus the actual needs of those militaries once in combat. 

The Americans experienced this painful reality in the Middle East during wars defined by the improvised explosive device and the unmanned aerial vehicle. 

The Russians are experiencing the same with their tanks in Ukraine. 

The T-14 Armata is one of the most powerful, fearsome tanks in the world – at least on paper. This latest-generation main battle tank has an unmanned turret sporting a 125 mm 2A82-1M smoothbore gun fed by an autoloader. 

According to Army Technology, that turret “carries a total of 45 rounds of ammunition, including ready-to-use ammunition. The main gun can also fire laser-guided missiles.” A more sophisticated 2A83 152 mm gun can also be equipped. So can secondary weapons such as a Kord 12.7 mm machine gun and a PKTM 7.62 mm machine gun. 

The hull of the T-14 Armata looks otherworldly. It has a modular armor system composed of ceramics, steel, and composite material. This tank sports a low silhouette, thereby reducing the vulnerability of the machinery to enemy fire and favoring the survivability of the tank crew. The crew is also protected from unwanted explosions of the tank’s autoloader and ammunition stores. This was a problem for many previous Soviet-era tanks. 

The T-14 has reactive armor in the front and bar armor out back, which enhances protection against anti-tank weapons. Russia’s T-14 is powered by an A-85-3A turbocharged diesel engine, producing up to 1,200 horsepower. It has a 12-speed automatic transmission, too. An Armata has a standard range of 310 miles and a top cruising speed of about 55 miles per hour. 

Russia wanted a whopping 2,300 units of these tanks. 

Needless to say, that lofty goal was scaled back both because of the complexity of the systems involved and the obscenely high cost. Russia has about 20 of these systems, and it has no intention, or even capability at this point, to mass-produce more of them. 

The T-14 was field tested in the killing fields of Syria. It performed adequately, although there was little evidence the T-14s did anything more than a T-90M would have done. Meanwhile, in the Ukraine War, Russia’s greatest conflict since the Soviet-Afghan War, the T-14s have been pulled back from the fighting. 

While they were initially deployed and are believed to have been involved in a smattering of engagements, they were used mostly in support functions. They were quickly and quietly pulled back from the fighting and returned to Russia. It is not believed they will ever be deployed to Ukraine again.

Russia’s industrial base has not only survived the Western sanctions lobbed against it at the outset of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but it is likely stronger today than it has been in decades. 

Yet the Russians are not prioritizing the mass production of these advanced, costly systems. Instead, Russia is fixated on purchasing more variants of the T-90 MBT. Come to think of it, Russia is even more interested in mass-producing the Soviet-era T-72 MBT than they are in the Armata. 

Function beats form every time in modern warfare. It is a timeless lesson. Cost is always a significant factor, and simplicity should always be preferred over complexity. The Russians are doing just fine with their old T-72s and the slightly more sophisticated T-90s. 

These systems are far cheaper, easier to produce, better to maintain, and less complex to operate than the T-14s. Russia is smart not to waste its money on building more T-14 Armatas. 

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 Virginia-class submarines are advanced and versatile, but they may not match the speed of the legendary Seawolf-class.

-Powered by a Westinghouse S6W nuclear reactor, the Seawolf-class can achieve top speeds of 35 miles per hour (25 knots), making it the fastest attack submarine in the world.

-While the Virginia-class submarines, powered by a GE S9G reactor, are newer and more adaptable with increased firepower and interoperability, they likely fall short in terms of speed and depth. The Seawolf-class’s superior speed and stealth, despite its limited numbers, still give it an edge in submarine performance.

The United States Navy’s Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarine has been described by many experts as the most advanced attack sub in the world. Despite this, little details are known about key aspects of this newer submarine. One question pervades many discussions about this submarine’s capabilities, how fast can this boat travel?

Compared to another highly advanced attack submarine in the Navy’s fleet, the legendary Seawolf-class, we know that that class is widely considered to be the fastest attack submarine in the world. 

As I have written in these pages, the Seawolf-class can achieve top cruising speeds of thirty-five miles per hour (twenty-five knots). However, the Virginia-class is newer and was chosen by the Navy to be the replacement for the long-serving Los Angeles-class attack submarine over the Seawolf-class submarine because, according to the Navy’s leadership, the Virginia class was even more advanced than the Seawolf class.

Well, whenever one talks about speed on any kind of craft, it’s always important to look at the engine powering the machine. For example, when speaking about the M1 Abrams tank, it’s important to note the fact that they are powered by a literal jet engine, which explains their power and speed.

Similarly, the Seawolf-class submarine retains the record of the fastest submarine in the world and is powered by a single Westinghouse S6W nuclear reactor, “driving two steam turbines, to a total of 52,000 shaft horsepower,” according to Kyle Mizokami.

The Virginia-class attack submarines, meanwhile, are the General Electric (GE)-provided pressure water reactor S9G which is “designed to last as long as the submarine, two turbine engines with one shaft and a United Defense pump jet propulsor.” Surprisingly, despite its capabilities, there is some debate as to whether even the newer Virginia-class attack submarines are better than the Seawolf-class subs when it comes to speed.

There was a fiery debate on one defense forum among former US Navy submariners about which platform was truly better. The consensus was that, despite being more numerous and newer than the Seawolf-class, the Virginia-class was not superior to the older Seawolf-class submarine. In my own reporting, I have proven that the only reason the Seawolf-class was not scaled beyond only three boats was due to their high cost as well as the dissolution of the Soviet Union. 

According to many submariners, the Seawolf-class subs can dive deeper and run faster than the Virginia-class submarines. 

Let’s take a look at the believed flank speed of the Virginia-class. It is believed that the Virginia-class has a flank speed—or top cruising speed—of around twenty-five knots, the same as the Seawolf-class. So why are so many former submariners online arguing that the Seawolf-class is better and faster? 

That’s because in terms of diving and flank speed, or at least sustaining flank speed, the Seawolf-class is better than the Virginia-class. Where the Seawolf-class likely loses to the Virginia-class is in firepower and interoperability. 

For instance, in 2021, H.I. Sutton at Naval News reported that the Virginia-class subs were slated to get “seventy-six percent more firepower” than what they already had. The Virginia-class in general terms is easier to modify and can be used in a variety of offensive ways that the Seawolf might not be able to be used. 

Again, the Seawolf has some incredible covert capabilities. 

Speed and maneuverability as well as stealth are primary components to making a good modern submarine. Both the Seawolf-class and Virginia-class possess these features but in different admixtures. 

And, it is likely that the Seawolf-class is simply faster than the Virginia-class but that the Virginia-class may be a more well-rounded (certainly cheaper) submarine than the Seawolf-class submarines. 

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: During World War II, the entertainment industry played a significant role in supporting the war effort, including Walt Disney's collaboration with the Canadian military to produce the film Stop That Tank!

-This 22-minute instructional film, blending animation with live-action footage, was designed to teach soldiers how to use the Boys anti-tank rifle, a bolt-action weapon that fired .55 caliber bullets capable of disabling light tanks and armored vehicles.

-Stop That Tank! stands out as a creative and effective piece of wartime "edutainment," combining humor with practical military training. The film's approach was particularly effective because it resonated with the young soldiers who grew up watching cartoons, making the serious task of learning to use a weapon more engaging and memorable.

During World War II, most segments of American society contributed to the war effort and this includes the entertainment world as evidenced by the film Stop That Tank! that Walt Disney produced for the Canadian military.

The film, which was a collaboration between Walt Disney and the Canadian Department of National Defence, aimed to teach soldiers how to use the Boys anti-tank rifle. The film is 22 minutes long and is a mix of animation and live footage.

The Boys anti-tank rifle was a massive bolt-action rifle designed to fire .55 caliber bullets that could pierce through certain areas of contemporary tanks. 

While it wasn’t a tank-killing machine, the rifle could kill the crew, deliver mobility kills, or even freeze the turret. Additionally, it was portable at 36 pounds and allowed the user to remain camouflaged while firing it. However, anti-tank rifles were largely out of fashion during World War II in favor of Bazookas and similar weapons. 

The film is divided into two sections. The first three minutes are a cartoon featuring Hitler and five Nazis in their tanks. They are approaching an Allied village and plan to attack while the villagers are sleeping! Here we see Hitler portrayed as a buffoon who talks bombastically and spits while doing so. He’s yelling nonsense and gibberish with the occasional stereotypical German word, like schnitzel, thrown in. At one point, he just burps. 

Then the Germans go on the attack. The film cuts to several Canadian soldiers in camouflage with Boys anti-tank rifles. Their camouflage is divided from a hay bale to a soldier disguised as a buzzard, another disguised as a horse, and a third firing from his outhouse. The Boys anti-tank rifles make the German tanks jump and separate into several pieces. Stop That Tank is all very Disney-like in its animation. 

The Germans flee under fire, and Hitler’s tank is done for and finished with an artillery blast. Hitler rolls down to face the Devil, who begins to translate his gibberish for us. He’s throwing a tantrum like a child and throwing his clothes off.

My youngest son came to watch with me and found the whole first three minutes hilarious. I got a huge laugh from the soldier hiding in the horse. 

This portion worked as an excellent attention-getter and likely got the soldiers ready to learn all about their Boys anti-tank rifles.

The film then goes into instruction mode. It teaches soldiers all about their rifles. This includes how the rifle works, its maximum effective range, and where and how to shoot tanks with it. 

Live-action footage of soldiers firing the rifle is mixed in as well. I bet their ears hurt after all that shooting with this massive anti-material rifle. Troops are taught angles to fire, where to target, and how to lead tanks through animated sequences that illustrate how to use the weapon in an easy-to-understand manner. 

Animation is an effective means to illustrate the rifle, its features, and its method of operation clearly and consistently. You could do the same with live video, but at the time, an animation provided a clearer picture of the rifle and its features. It’s an interesting concept and one that seemingly lacks the appreciation it deserves. 

Stop That Tank! features animated X-ray footage to show how the weapon works internally, as well as what happens when it hits a tank. Stop That Tank! continues to mix in a bit of comedy here and there as the film progresses, including the narrator subtly insulting an Elmer Fudd-looking soldier and a very mad cow. 

I’ve never handled a Boys anti-tank rifle, but after watching Stop That Tank!, I feel as if I could. Or I could at least pull the film up on YouTube and figure it out. 

There is a bit of a dark undertone to the entire film. Why would Walt Disney need to animate a film on how to kill Germans? Why do we need silly tanks, mad cows, and soldiers who can’t lift the rifle? 

Well, it’s for the same reason the film is effective. The men watching the film were likely still young and were being trained to go to war by the same cartoons they likely enjoyed a few years earlier. 

Stop That Tank! was effective because these brave young men were still young and easily entertained by cartoons. This is sad to think about now, but it ensures I remember that these men are owed a debt of gratitude that could never be fully repaid. They gave their youth and their bodies, and many gave their lives to protect democracy and create a more free world. 

Travis Pike is a former Marine Machine gunner who served with 2nd Bn 2nd Marines for 5 years. He deployed in 2009 to Afghanistan and again in 2011 with the 22nd MEU(SOC) during a record-setting 11 months at sea. He’s trained with the Romanian Army, the Spanish Marines, the Emirate Marines, and the Afghan National Army. He serves as an NRA certified pistol instructor and teaches concealed carry classes.

This article first appeared at Sandboxx News.

All images are Creative Commons.