The National Interest

Tensions in American society today have analysts hurriedly investigating the origins of America’s Civil War. Can they glean lessons from that tragic history? Numerous volumes have been written on the subject, but two new complementary contributions shed some additional light.

The American Civil War Museum’s acclaimed new exhibit, “The Impending Crisis: How Slavery Caused the Civil War,” focuses on slavery as the key underlying cause of the conflict. The exhibit begins with the declaration that slavery in the United States was unique because it was based entirely on race and not conquest or debt bondage, as in other slave societies. It was meant to be permanent, with bondage passed down through the generations. The exhibit notes that this notion was the foundation of the antebellum South’s economy and society. It was also the fault line upon which the Union collapsed. 

The second new source, Erik Larson’s brilliant book, The Demon of Unrest, complements the Museum’s exhibit by examining in detail both antebellum Southern culture and an almost daily account of the critical five months between Abraham Lincoln’s November 6, 1860 election and the April 12 firing on Fort Sumter. His reporting from the diary of South Carolina lady Mary Chestnut of the excitement and romance in Charleston leading up to the attack paints an insightful picture.

Combining the two contributions, we have identified ten factors that together created the conditions for war. These factors reveal the tensions resulting from two disparate sets of economies, interests, cultures, values, beliefs, and calculations. These factors overlapped with cascading effects, and events took their course. By April 1861, neither side could back away from war without fundamentally altering their basic beliefs and institutions.

Competing Methods of Wealth Creation

Slavery was not mentioned directly in the Constitution, though the three-fifths clause recognized its existence. Most Founding Fathers assumed that slavery would wither away as the practice became unprofitable and inefficient. This changed in 1793 when the cotton gin and new textile manufacturing techniques revitalized the plantation economy. In the North, the Industrial Revolution created wealth for manufacturers based on free labor. These divergent methods of wealth creation prompted differing lifestyles, economic realities, and cultures throughout the first half of the nineteenth century. The states that shared similar views were contiguous, creating potential for regional geographic division. 

The Museum’s exhibit explores the tensions that arose between the free labor movement and slavery. Free labor advocates identified with the democratic struggles against the thrones and altars of Europe. Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, praised the 1848 revolutions to amplify the opposition of free labor to the slave power in the United States. The exhibit presents a fascinating graph of how free labor, compared to enslavement, affected the development of society. In the North, public schools, libraries, newspapers and periodicals, population, cities, highways, canals, and railroads far outpaced the South. Northerners thought of the South as backward and undeveloped, even though its large enslaved population made a sliver of Southern society fabulously wealthy.

The exhibit features a photograph of the scandalous Congressman James Henry Hammond, who pronounced, “Cotton is king,” reinforcing the belief among Southern plantation owners that enslavement was essential to the financial well-being of the entire nation. This small group of wealthy planters became known as the “slave power” because of their extensive control of Southern society and their outsized influence over the Federal government.

Contradictory Values

Differing methods of wealth creation led to dramatic contradictions in values and codes of honor between the South and North. Larson quotes one of Hammond’s speeches on the floor of the House of Representatives, in which he declared of enslaved peoples that “As a class, I say it boldly, there is not a happier, more contented race upon the face of the earth.” This justification for keeping millions of people in bondage spread widely in the South during the next twenty-five years. “The Impending Crisis” also provides a helpful exposition of religious, scientific, and political defense of the “peculiar institution.” To white Southerners like Sarah B. Valentine, enslavement was ordained by God and endorsed in the Bible. White Southerners accepted pseudo-scientific theories that Africans were prone to violent and degenerate tendencies. 

These distorted values were amplified by the so-called Code Duello, which Larson quotes at length. This code was a guide for Southern “chivalry,” outlining how Southerners should protect their honor and righteousness. Larson implicitly compares the road to civil war with the path to a duel. The brutal 1856 “caning” by South Carolina representative Preston Brooks against Massachusetts senator Charles Sumner on the floor of the Senate was seen in the South as consistent with Southern chivalry.

The “Impending Crisis” also delves into the growth of the Abolitionist movement in the North, showing how opposition to enslavement grew as more slaves escaped and told their stories. The example of Frederick Douglas is highlighted. An astonishing map of the Underground Railroad shows how 40,000 escaped slaves made it to Canada, and another 5000 made it to Mexico. Freeborn blacks are shown to have had a significant influence on the Abolitionists. 

The passage of the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act, intended to placate Southern slaveowners, had the effect of further stimulating the Abolitionist movement. The North grew ever more militant, sparked by Harriet Beecher Stowe’s 1852 classic novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Stowe’s main character, the “God-fearing Tom,” is acquired by the wicked plantation owner Simon Legree, who separates families, abuses female slaves, and finally has kind old Tom whipped to death. 

As these two diametrically opposed images of enslavement took hold, room for moral compromise diminished. These contradictions led to what Larson called “extreme rhetorical combat” in Congress. Actions taken in the North to counter what many saw as a “fundamental evil” became an affront to Southern honor.

Contending Appraisals of Secession

The Constitution did not explicitly provide the states with recourse to secession from the Union. Nonetheless, the question was frequently raised throughout the early republic—and not always in the South. The issue came to the fore in the 1790s with the Whiskey Rebellion and the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. Aaron Burr’s conspiracy to form a confederation of western states, the 1814 Hartford Convention, and the 1832–33 Nullification Crisis kept the question alive in the early nineteenth century. However, secessionists were kept in check by a combination of strong federal leadership and Congress’ willingness to compromise. During the Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington led federal forces against Pennsylvania’s tax revolt. During the Nullification Crisis, Andrew Jackson threatened to lead an army against South Carolina. Every early consideration of secession failed to gain traction and threaten the federal government. 

By 1860, things had changed. Larson notes that South Carolina’s declaration of secession inaccurately quoted Thomas Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence that “whenever any form of government becomes destructive…it is the right of the people to abolish it.” Jefferson Davis, to his dying day, argued that the South had a constitutional right to secede. In the North, the Declaration’s promise that “all men are created equal” dominated. Lincoln held that the Union was sacrosanct and that it was his constitutional duty to assure that “government of the people, by the people and for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” This contradiction gave rise to the Lost Cause argument that the origin of the Civil War lay in the debate over the right of state governments to secede, ignoring the fact that the sole reason for seceding was to preserve slavery.

The High Stakes of Westward Expansion

American expansion westward created additional tensions for the divided nation. At stake was both how far slavery would spill over into the new territories and how the balance of power in Washington would be impacted once the territories became states. Politicians like Henry Clay and Daniel Webster sought to diffuse tensions through compromise legislation. The 1820 Missouri Compromise admitted Maine as a free state and Missouri as a slave state. The Compromise of 1850 admitted California as a free state and adjusted the borders of the newly admitted slave state, Texas, consistent with the Missouri Compromise. 

Efforts to maintain this geographic balance withered as Kansas and Nebraska sought statehood. As “The Impending Crisis” demonstrates, the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act, which allowed enslavement to expand to new territories if approved by the local population (thereby nullifying the 1820 Missouri Compromise), appeased the slave power somewhat, enraged the Northern opposition, promoted open warfare in these two territories, and led to the Lincoln Douglas debates, which made Lincoln famous. In the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, the Supreme Court further ruled that Congress did not have the power to ban slavery in any territory. 

The shift from compromise to confrontation over slavery in the territories further divided the nation. Lincoln opposed the expansion of slavery to new territories, and Southerners felt that a reversal of the Dred Scott decision would eventually shift the balance of power against them in Congress. 

Southern Fears of Extinction

Southerners calculated the threats to their well-being, weighing the risk of a slave uprising triggered by abolition with the apparently less risky prospect of a war for secession. Ultimately, they got it wrong. 

“The Impending Crisis” exhibit portrays the South fearing a massive insurrection if the enslaved population were freed. Nat Turner’s bloody 1831 rebellion in Virginia and the earlier successful slave revolt in Haiti are highlighted. John Brown’s 1859 raid on Harpers Ferry touched a raw nerve as Southerners envisioned militias like Brown’s rampaging the South. Larson also stresses the daily concern among plantation owners that their families were constantly vulnerable to slave uprisings. 

Against that fear, Southerners had to weigh the risk of invasion from the North should they secede. While some Southerners like Jefferson Davis saw the conflict as inevitable, most in the South convinced themselves it was not. In 1858, Hammond claimed before the Senate that the North could not afford to attack the South because of its dependence on cotton for industrial production. If the North did seek to prevent secession by force, Britain’s dependency on cotton would surely bring that country into the war on the South’s side. Larson notes that many calculated that if only the Deep South seceded, the North might use force. But if all fifteen slave-holding states left the Union, Washington would not dare interfere. 

The Consequences of Lincoln’s Election

During the 1850s, the South was able to dominate American decision-making, with four presidents, the Senate, and the Supreme Court all sympathetic to the Southern cause. This period of Southern control came to an abrupt end in 1860 when the Democratic Party divided into sectional entities, and Lincoln managed to win enough electoral votes, with less than 40 percent of the popular vote. As Larson points out, Lincoln was a relative moderate who would probably not have used force to abolish slavery where it existed. However, Lincoln’s “House Divided” speech, highlighted in “The Impending Crisis,” alarmed the South about his true intentions. Lincoln’s diplomatic inaugural speech did nothing to assuage the South. Texas Senator Louis Wigfall telegraphed that the “inaugural means war.” 

Southerners felt their 1860 electoral loss was irreversible and existential. They were in despair. Larson describes how Southern crowds in Washington tried to disrupt the electoral college count in the Congress. General Winfield Scott and outgoing Vice President John Breckenridge saved the day. South Carolina seceded on December 20, 1860, well before Lincoln had a chance to set national policy. In Baltimore, an attempt to assassinate Lincoln on his way to Washington was avoided based on intelligence provided by Allan Pinkerton and others.

Delayed Presidential Leadership 

President James Buchanan, a Southern sympathizer from Pennsylvania, might have nipped secession in the bud had he behaved boldly as Andrew Jackson did during the Nullification Crisis. Instead, Buchanan attempted to appease the South and stalled, encouraging them to proceed. 

Once inaugurated, Lincoln was determined to take decisive action to protect federal facilities, reasoning that letting them go was tantamount to accepting secession. Despite a cabinet that initially favored abandoning Fort Sumter, Lincoln followed the advice of Captain Gustavus Fox, who assured him he could resupply Sumter’s garrison by sea. Storms and botched orders to the warship USS Powhatan undermined Fox’s effort. Secretary of State William Seward’s false assurances to Southern commissioners that Sumter would be abandoned further alienated Confederate leaders.

The Failure of Compromise

After Lincoln’s election and the secession of several states, further compromise became nearly impossible. Events took over. The December 1860 Crittenden Compromise and the February 1861 Peace Conference held at Washington’s Willard Hotel both failed to find a formula acceptable to both sides. A proposed Thirteenth Constitutional Amendment (guaranteeing that slavery would not be interfered with where it existed) fared better, but the ratification process was too slow. The Hall-Hayne mission from South Carolina to Washington ran aground as a result of what Larson called the “reef of mutual naïveté.” In the end, the compromisers were outflanked, and the fire eaters had their way.

The Fort Sumter Catalyst 

Larson details the actions of Major Robert Anderson, who was in command of the American fortifications in Charleston harbor. His decisions, made for local tactical reasons, had profound national consequences. After seceding from the Union, South Carolina demanded that those forts be turned over to them. Buchanan wanted Anderson to do nothing and gave him conflicting instructions. Lincoln, before he was inaugurated, had declared that he would fight to maintain control of all Federal installations. 

Left to his own devices, on Christmas Day 1860, Anderson secretly moved his small detachment from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter. Moultrie was indefensible. Sumter was an offshore stronghold, and Anderson saw an attack coming. Larson notes that South Carolina’s secession and Anderson’s move to Fort Sumter “energized the advocates of disunion throughout the Deep South.” Anderson refused to abandon the fort or to fire on the town. However, subsequent Union efforts to resupply Sumter were seen as further threats to Charleston. Both sides began to mobilize. These events ultimately lead to the decision by Davis to fire upon the fort on April 12.

The Deep South smelled victory. Yet, the border states were not convinced that leaving the Union was in their best interest. Larson points out that on April 4, Virginia’s delegates voted ninety to forty-five against secession. The Virginia fire eater Edmund Ruffin was disgusted with his state. But once the conflict began, events took over. Lincoln had little choice but to call up troops to defend Washington and seek to retake Federal property. On April 15, Lincoln called upon the remaining states to muster militias totaling 75,000 troops to suppress the rebellion. Moderates in Virginia were finally swayed. The dominos fell. Faced with war, they could not abandon the other slave-holding states. Two days later, Virginia seceded. And Robert E. Lee made his choice.

Lessons for Today

The cascading impact of these factors led to war in 1861. Echoes of this past history are present in America today. There are deep cultural and political divisions, with most states identified as either Red or Blue. Some extremists tend towards violence, and plenty of weapons are available. A contentious election looms large. Yet, many of the conditions that led to war in 1861 are not present. 

Today, the federal government is prepared to deal with localized violence. Additionally, no single issue, such as slavery, is considered existential and animates all political activity. Despite the “Red-Blue divide,” there are binding ties across the nation that did not exist in 1861. There are profound differences within individual states based on rural and urban locations. The bitter experience of the Civil War should sober the very few who even contemplate a civil war today.

Hans Binnendijk is the former Director of the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University.

David Gompert is the former Acting Director of National Intelligence.

Donald King is a retired partner at McGuireWoods LLP.

All three coauthors are on the Board of Directors of the American Civil War Museum.

Image: Popular Graphic Arts, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

Summary and Key Points: The Russian Navy's recent global deployments, including visits to Latin America and the Indo-Pacific, have raised questions about Moscow's intentions. While the U.S. Navy remains the dominant blue water force, Russia has been showcasing its naval capabilities with port visits in Venezuela, Cuba, India, and other nations.

-These actions could signal a worrisome trend for Washington, or they may reflect Moscow's desperate attempts to prove its fleet's relevance on the world stage.

-Despite deploying mostly training ships and older vessels, Russia's increased presence suggests a strategic effort to counter U.S. influence and assert its global reach.

The U.S. Navy maintains a presence around the world, and its fleet remains the largest true blue water force in service today. By contrast, the Russian Navy is largely seen as a green water force that can barely deploy warships to distant regions. 

This summer Moscow has sought to counter that opinion. Twice its vessels visited Latin America, and Russian warships recently arrived at India's port of Cochin in the Arabian Sea.

These efforts to "show the flag" could be seen as a worrisome trend for Washington, or as a desperate move by Moscow to show its fleet can still sail the world's seas. Perhaps it is a bit of both.

The U.S. Navy is able to deploy multiple nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and their strike groups to multiple regions, even if current operations leave the U.S. sea service spread a little thin. Carriers are being sent to the Middle East while continuing to maintain a presence in the Indo-Pacific.

By comparison, Russia's Baltic Fleet deployed the training ship Smolny to the Venezuelan port of La Guaira on Tuesday. The visit comes mere weeks after a Russian Navy flotilla comprising the guided-missile frigate Admiral Gorshkov and medium sea-going tanker Akademik Pashin arrived in the same port after a visit to Cuba.

"We are always glad to welcome fraternal Russia's naval ships," the Venezuelan Navy’s deputy commander, Vice Adm. Edward Centeno, told TASS. "Today, on August 6, we are welcoming the training ship Smolny. A program of stay in Venezuela has been prepared for its crew, including visits to historical sites of the administrative center of the state of La Guaira, and cultural and sporting events."

TASS added that a year ago, "the Russian Navy's training ship Perekop took part in a naval parade in Venezuela on the occasion of the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Lake Maracaibo." That engagement was the last battle of the Venezuelan War of Independence, and it marked the end of Spanish rule in what is now Venezuela. The Kremlin skipped noting that Imperial Russia supported Spain at the time. 

As the Russian training vessel arrived in Venezuela, another Russian Navy detachment made a scheduled port visit to Cochin port. The Pacific Fleet’s missile cruiser Varyag and frigate Marshal Shaposhnikov visited the Omani port of Salalah after beginning a long-distance deployment in January. Over the past seven months, the flotilla has visited India, Sri Lanka, Iran, Qatar, and Eritrea. It marks one of the longest deployments of the Pacific Fleet in recent years.

Moscow also announced on Wednesday that it will hold its first drills with the Indonesian Navy this coming November. The Orruda 2024 joint exercises will begin in Surabaya, in the Indonesian province of East Java, and run from Nov. 4-8. 

Russia is increasing its global deployments, even if most of the vessels sent are training ships and antiquated vehicles.

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74), a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is undergoing a prolonged Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH), now scheduled for completion in October 2026. This midlife upgrade has faced delays due to post-pandemic challenges, including staffing shortages at shipyards.

-Despite the setbacks, the Navy assures that CVN-74 will emerge as the most technologically advanced Nimitz-class carrier.

-However, the ship might not retain its name, as controversies surrounding its namesake, Senator John C. Stennis, have sparked discussions about renaming the carrier before it returns to service.

The U.S. Navy's Nimitz-class nuclear-powered supercarrier USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74) will not return to service on schedule. 

The sea service announced earlier this year that the carrier's midlife overhaul and refueling will take about five and a half years, which is some 14 months longer than first expected. The warship began its Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) in 2021, and work was originally set to be finished by August 2025. The updated timeline calls for the flattop to be returned to the U.S. Navy no earlier than October 2026. 

CVN-74’s is the second RCOH in recent years to cause hardship for a ship’s crew. USS George Washington’s midlife upgrade took nearly six years. Eleven sailors took their own lives during the time the ship was stuck at the HII Newport News Shipbuilding facilities.

In April, CVN-74 exited dry dock and began the second phase of its RCOH, with work reportedly more than 65% completed. The ship has since been moved to an outfitting berth as shipyard workers and the crew install and test the warship's major components and other systems.

The Navy says several post-pandemic challenges continue to impact the U.S. carrier industrial base. Capabilities and capacities are reduced as the shipyards struggle to find adequate staff to build and maintain warships. 

The Navy insists the delays won't impact the capabilities of the warship and will be worth the added time.

"When John C. Stennis redelivers, she'll be the most technologically advanced Nimitz-class aircraft carrier in the Navy," said Rear Adm. Casey J. Moton in April. "She'll bring to the Fleet the highest level of capability across all mission sets."

According to the Navy, more than 25 million total man-hours of work will go into the RCOH, nearly as much time as was spent building the carrier.

"RCOH construction enhances nearly every space and system on the carrier, beyond the most critical requirement to defuel and refuel the ship's two nuclear reactors and to repair and upgrade the propulsion plant," said Capt. Mike Johnson, manager of the PEO Aircraft Carriers In-Service Aircraft Carrier Program Office. "We work on every part of the ship, from the hull, screws, and rudders to more than 600 tanks; thousands of valves, pumps, and piping components; electrical cables and ventilation; as well as combat and aviation support systems. It's demanding, complex work that challenges every member of the planning team, shipyard crews, and ship's force."

CVN-74 will not be quite the same ship. Upgrades will make the vessel practically as good as new, and perhaps even a better ship than when she entered service in 1995. 

In addition to the technological improvements, it is possible the warship could sail with a new name.

The seventh Nimitz-class supercarrier was named for Democratic Sen. John C. Stennis of Mississippi. The lawmaker, who hadn't lost an election in 60 years, was seen as an odd choice to receive the honor, but the name still gained the approval of President Ronald Reagan in 1988.

The lead ship of the class of U.S. Navy supercarriers was fittingly named for World War II Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, and subsequent carriers of the class were named for past presidents. Though USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) honored a congressman, he was known as the father of the two-ocean Navy, and the name was considered fitting.

By contrast, Stennis had little to do with naval affairs. 

Moreover, the naming of the carrier has been the subject of controversy as Stennis was an outspoken critic of civil rights and racial equality, while the ship's nickname – "Johnny Reb" – has drawn its share of criticism in recent years.

The U.S. military has gone to great (and at times expensive) lengths to retire the names of bases and other warships that seemed to honor Confederate military leaders. While Stennis was a U.S. lawmaker, his policies seem at odds with the direction the country has taken. He voted against or actively opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, and the establishment of Martin Luther King Jr. Day as a federal holiday.

It is likely that by the time CVN-74 sails again, it will be named for someone other than John C. Stennis.

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The USS Dallas (SSN-700), a Los Angeles-class nuclear-powered attack submarine, served the U.S. Navy for nearly 40 years, featuring prominently in Tom Clancy's The Hunt for Red October.

-In 2013, during joint anti-submarine warfare exercises in the Middle East, the USS Dallas demonstrated its stealth by successfully evading Royal Navy surface warships and helicopters to simulate an attack on the HMS Illustrious aircraft carrier.

-A published photo revealed the submarine’s periscope as it approached undetected, implying that in a real scenario, the carrier would have been sunk. The USS Dallas was decommissioned in 2018 after an illustrious career.

Fans of Tom Clancy's debut novel The Hunt for Red October likely are familiar with the USS Dallas (SSN-700), as the Los Angeles-class nuclear-powered attack submarine features heavily in the story.

The now-retired submarine, launched in April 1979 and commissioned two years later, served for nearly 40 years with multiple deployments worldwide.

While the submarine likely never had an encounter with a Soviet vessel as noteworthy as the fictional account in The Hunt For Red October, in October 2013, SSN-700 certainly gave the crew of the Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious a fright during joint anti-submarine warfare (ASW) exercises in the Middle East. The American submarine was able to successfully evade surface warships and helicopters that sought to locate the USS Dallas.

More importantly, a photo was published (see above) that showed that had it been the real deal, the Royal Navy would have seen its carrier sunk. 

The UK's sea service didn't try to hide that fact, as it released the photo with the description, "The periscope of the American submarine USS Dallas cuts through the surface as HMS Illustrious sails past in the morning haze."

According to the UK's Ministry of Defence, the 2013 exercise was broken down into three phases, and the HMS Illustrious, RFA Fort Victoria, RFA Fort Austin, USS Bulkeley along with the USS Dallas initially tested acoustic and non-acoustics sensor performance against known positions, gaining useful real-life data of the region. The second phase relied on the ships escorting HMS Illustrious as the Mission Essential Unit (MEU) along a passage whilst evading detection and simulated torpedo attacks by USS Dallas.

In the final phase, the U.S. Navy's Los Angeles-class submarine attempted to locate and destroy RFA Fort Austin as the MEU, in a holding box that simulated an anchorage, while the Royal Navy and U.S. Navy surface vessels provided protection. Additional helicopter support to the ships was ably provided by the Anti-Submarine sonar dipping Merlins embarked in HMS Illustrious along with a Seahawk ASW helicopter from USS Bulkeley providing additional surface search and weapon carrying capability.

As David Axe previously wrote for The National Interest, "Neither navy has published the results of the exercise, so it’s not clear whether Dallas got close enough in the course of the war game to simulate firing Mark-48 torpedoes at the flattop, which at 22,000 tons displacement is one of the largest ships in Royal Navy service," and he added, "But there are good reasons to assume the 7,000-ton Dallas did succeed in pretend-sinking Illustrious. In 2007 HMCS Corner Brook, a diesel-electric submarine of the Canadian navy, sneaked up on Illustrious during an exercise in the Atlantic."

Less than five years after that exercise, the USS Dallas was decommissioned in a ceremony at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS) in Bremerton, Washington.

During her nearly four decades in service, SSN-700 was deployed a total of 14 times and steamed over one million miles, visiting more than 30 nations worldwide. While many of the deployments were routine, some may have been more noteworthy than others – like the time the crew could lay claim to sinking an aircraft carrier.

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The F-16X, also known as the Falcon 2000, was a proposed evolution of the F-16 Fighting Falcon that incorporated advanced features inspired by the F-22 Raptor. It featured a tailless design, thrust-vectoring engines, and composite materials for enhanced stealth, maneuverability, and fuel efficiency.

-The F-16X was envisioned as a cost-effective, next-generation warplane with advanced avionics and longer range, potentially serving as an affordable alternative to the F-35 Lightning II.

-Despite its potential, the F-16X was never produced, leaving it as one of the most intriguing "what ifs" in U.S. Air Force history.

The U.S. Air Force’s greatest warplane until the F-22 Raptor came along was the F-16 Fighting Falcon. Believe it or not, though, the F-16 could have been even greater. Over the decades, multiple proposals have forwarded some frankly wild variants of the F-16. 

One of those was the F-16X, otherwise known as the Falcon 2000.

The F-16X would have gone into production in 2010 had the Pentagon approved the proposal. It incorporated many designs inspired by the F-22 Raptor.

Newer composite materials were planned to be used in the construction of this warplane. The bird’s weight would thus have been greatly reduced, increasing the aircraft’s overall performance. The F-16X also included a new wing design inspired by the F-22. These new wings were more aerodynamically sound. They increased the plane’s life and reduced drag. The bird could go faster than its F-16 predecessor and had much better maneuverability. 

The F-16X was meant to be stealthier than the F-16. Between its composite skin and its tailless structure, the F-16X would have been difficult for enemies to track with their radar. Thus, an F-16X in combat would have considerable advantages over any enemy aircraft. 

The proposed F-16X was ahead of its time in other ways. 

One key design feature for the F-16X was that it was meant to be a tailless bird that used thrust-vectoring engines to direct the plane in flight. These capabilities were lightyears ahead of the original F-16.They were unlike anything the Air Force was operating other than its fifth-generation warplanes. 

The tailless design would also appear in the X-44 MANTA warplane proposed as a follow-on to the successful F-22 program. When the X-44 never made it off the drawing board, the dream of a tailless, vector-thrust-powered bird shifted into the plans for the Air Force’s sixth-generation warplane, the Next Generation Air Dominance.

The F-16X’s engines were meant to increase fuel efficiency and range while reducing the amount of aerial refueling needed for long-distance missions. According to F-16.net, the proposed F-16X, “would have twice the range of the F/A-18 E/F at two-thirds the cost.” 

According to Key Aero, the increased fuel efficiency and range of the F-16X would have allowed it to carry an even more incredible suite of armaments than its F-16 brother. 

This bird had an impressive array of new systems that would ultimately be incorporated into future variants of the F-16, as well as other Air Force planes. The F-16X had an improved cockpit layout, possessing a better ergonomic design and multiple advanced display systems.

The F-16X had a very advanced avionics package and sensor suite as well. It was built with state-of-the-art radar and electronic warfare capabilities, along with advanced targeting systems that allowed the F-16X to engage targets with more precision at greater distances. 

America’s F-16X was a tale of what could have been. A truly next-generation design for a fraction of what supposed next-generation warplanes cost, it probably would have been a better selection than even the F-35 Lightning II, which has become the U.S. military’s primary warplane in the last decade. The F-16X included next-generation capabilities at competitive prices.

They were also easier to build and maintain, since the supply chain was already primed for supporting the mission of the F-16. 

Alas, the government, in its infinite wisdom, opted instead to leave the F-16X on the drawing board in favor of the F-35. 

It is fun to speculate about what might have been. And the F-16X is one of the biggest “what ifs” out there.

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?)

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

Presidential candidates dread sudden reversals of fortune in a campaign’s final weeks. Modern-day “October Surprises” include Richard Nixon prematurely announcing a Vietnam peace agreement (1972), Iran refusing to release U.S. hostages until after Election Day (1980), and Mitt Romney taped belittling less-wealthy voters (2012). 

Yet, the biggest “surprise” for an incumbent president nearly took place in the fall of 1864 when Abraham Lincoln was in the White House. In going against George McClellan, the Democratic Party nominee, many in the GOP and Lincoln’s cabinet weren’t certain he could win again.

Despite the Union Army advancing to Richmond, the Civil War had already lasted nearly four years, resulting in more than 600,000 deaths. Many Americans were eager for peace—even if it meant allowing the Confederacy to become its own nation. Against that backdrop, rebel spies positioned themselves along our northern border with British Canada.

Their Northwest Conspiracy was led by Jacob Thompson, a former cabinet secretary under President James Buchanan and now a Southern sympathizer. Given $1 million in gold by Confederate President Jefferson Davis, Thompson’s assignment was to direct a clandestine operation along the border. One of his first targets was the USS Michigan, which was the only Union warship left on the Great Lakes late in 1864. 

Anchored off Sandusky, Ohio, the iron-hulled steamer had a thirty-pound parrot rifle, a half-dozen howitzers, and additional firepower. In mid-September, rebel leader John Yates Beall led a raiding party from the Detroit area to seize the Michigan. A private in the “Stonewall Brigade” at the war’s onset, Beall had shifted to piracy and espionage.

By this point in the Civil War, British Canada had become a haven for rebel spies and their supporters. John Wilkes Booth, who would soon assassinate Lincoln at Ford’s Theatre in Washington, was a visitor to Montreal. Julian Sher, author of The North Star: Canada and the Civil War Plots Against Lincoln, says the Catholic Church helped one of Booth’s accomplices hide out for months. Also, a leading financier in Montreal allowed Confederates to launder money through his bank.

In fact, when Booth was killed near Port Royal, Virginia, in late April 1865, less than two weeks after shooting Lincoln, a banknote from the Ontario Bank branch in Montreal was found in his pocket. It was signed by bank manager Henry Starnes, the former and future mayor of Montreal. 

Beall and Booth knew of each other and perhaps met at John Brown’s execution in Harper’s Ferry in 1859. Ironically, Brown’s son, John Jr., who lived on an island near Sandusky, nearly derailed the rebels’ plan in 1864 to take the Michigan. 

While Booth’s plots were haphazard, spurred by hatred for Lincoln, Beall’s raids, first on the Chesapeake Bay and then on Lake Erie, were backed by Confederate officials in Richmond.

Arriving by nightfall at Sandusky Harbor on September 19, 1864, Beall moved the steamship he had stolen into position near the Michigan. Everything went smoothly until a signal from the shore wasn’t posted. This was supposed to indicate that the warship’s officers and crew were incapacitated by spiked liquor at a party. When no flare was seen, Beall’s crew got cold feet, and the rebel leader had to flee back across Lake Erie.  

That’s how close the 1864 presidential election came to an “October Surprise.” If Beall had captured the Union warship, he planned to free Confederate prisoners on Johnson’s Island, outside of Sandusky Harbor and not far from where the Michigan was anchored. Approximately 3,000 rebels were imprisoned there, including twenty officers. From there, the Confederates could have bombarded Cleveland, Buffalo, and other targets along the southern shore of Lake Erie.

In the end, the 1864 presidential election was a landslide for the Republican Party. Lincoln won the Electoral College by 212-21 and 55 percent of the popular vote. But what’s rarely mentioned in history textbooks is how the Confederates nearly opened a new front in the Civil War only weeks before voters went to the polls.

Even after Lincoln was reelected, the rebels remained active in the Great Lakes. Beall wasn’t apprehended until December after he attempted to derail a train carrying Confederate prisoners and a load of gold south of Buffalo. A historical plaque near the Whirlpool Bridge in Niagara Falls, NY, now marks where authorities finally arrested him. Despite a petition signed by ninety-two members of Congress asking for Beall to be pardoned, he was hung on Governors Island in New York Harbor. 

All we can be sure of today is if the Confederates had seized the USS Michigan, it would have been an October Surprise and certainly made Beall & Co. more than a historical footnote. 

Tim Wendel is the author of Rebel Falls. The historical novel details the Confederates’ spy network along the U.S.-Canadian border in 1864. Follow him on X: @Tim_Wendel. 

Image Credit: Shutterstock. 

The Important Stuff: In February 2009, a shocking collision occurred between two nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, the UK's HMS Vanguard and France's Le Triomphant, in the Atlantic Ocean. The incident, later revealed by a Royal Navy whistleblower, highlighted significant failures in communication, equipment, and seamanship on the part of the British submarine.

-Despite the potential for a nuclear disaster, no injuries or radioactive leaks occurred. The collision underscored the need for improved coordination among allied navies to prevent future mishaps.

-The incident serves as a stark reminder of the risks involved in submarine operations, particularly in today's tense geopolitical climate.

In February 2009, an unprecedented and nightmarish event occurred in the depths of the Atlantic Ocean: two nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines belonging to France and the United Kingdom collided with each other. The ships involved were the British Royal Navy’s HMS Vanguard and the French navy’s Le Triomphant.

The collision happened in the early hours of 3 February 2009. The two subs were conducting routine patrols. At some point, in the mid-Atlantic, the two nuclear-powered submarines crossed paths and crashed into each other. 

This catastrophe was the result of a combination of factors, but the most damning one of all comes from a Royal Navy submariner, William McNeilly, who decided to become a whistleblower. According to this whistleblower, the accident was likely the result of the British submarine which had been subject to “massive equipment failures, crew errors, and lax standards” onboard the HMS Vanguard.

Indeed, the official account provided to the public by the British government (and backed up by the French government), according to McNeilly, was far less caustic than the event actually had been. In fact, according to the whistleblower testimony, the British nuclear submarine was mere moments away from exploding (which would have ignited the ship’s nuclear reactor, causing all kinds of problems for the world).

The whistleblower account details how the FNS Le Triomphant had bashed out a “massive chunk” from the HMS Vanguard after which the French sub “grazed down the side of” the Vanguard. From there, “compressed air bottle groups had been dislodged by the collision and ‘were hanging off and banging against the pressure hull.’ The submarine had to return to base slowly because ‘if one of the [High Pressure Air] bottle groups exploded it would’ve created a chain reaction and sent the submarine plummeting to the bottom.’”

A “massive cover-up of the incident” soon followed. 

According to McNeilly the Vanguard had become the poster child in the failing British Royal Navy (an issue about which this author has documented repeatedly in these pages) of mismanagement, lax discipline, and poor seamanship. 

Before its collision with the Le Triomphant, there was another cover-up involving the Vanguard pertaining to a “deep depth incident” in which the HMS Vanguard “dived far beyond a normal safe depth. A combination of high-water pressure and the submarine’s low speed made it difficult for the submarine’s hydroplanes [to] generate enough lift to raise the submarine, and ballast water could not be pumped out fast enough to allow the submarine to rise.” 

In essence, well before the 2009 collision, the Vanguard was almost lost due to poor seamanship. Yet, the Royal Navy, rather than address the problems, chose to cover it up and continue operating as though everything were normal.

Thankfully, the incident led to a review of submarine operations and safety protocols by both the British and French navies. It further highlighted the need for improved communication and coordination between allied nations operating in the same waters. 

Although, the presence of a “massive cover-up” being enacted immediately upon the Vanguard’s return to port is unacceptable and begs the question as to whether the Royal Navy and French Navy really learned the right lessons or if they just figured out how to downplay things better.

Britain’s HMS Vanguard was the lead boat in the Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarine. It displaced 16,000 tons when submerged. It registered a length of around 149.9 meters, or 492 feet. Its beam was 12.8 meters (42 feet).

More importantly, though, the Vanguard’s propulsion system consisted on of one nuclear reactor, two steam turbines, one shaft and 20,000 ship-based horsepower. With this engine alignment, the Vanguard could reach a top cruising speed of 25 knots (or 29 miles per hour) when submerged. She carried a crew of 135. 

As for armaments, this particular sub carried 16 Trident II D5 ballistic missiles and had four torpedo tubes for Spearfish torpedoes. 

On the other end of the collision was France’s Le Triomphant, the lead boat of the French navy’s Triomphant-class ballistic missile submarine. This boat displaced a total of 14,335 tons when submerged. She had a length of 138 meters (453 feet), a beam of 12.5 meters (41 feet), making her slightly smaller than the Vanguard.

Like her British counterpart, the Triomphant also relied upon a single nuclear reactor to power two steam turbines with one shaft, giving the boat 15,000 ship-based horsepower. So, she was slightly less powerful than the Vanguard. 

As for speed, she topped out at 25 knots—29 miles per hour—just like the British submarine did. 

The Triomphant carried 15 M45 ballistic missiles and had four torpedo tubes for F17 torpedoes.

This incident on the High Seas between two allied nations that simply were not aware that each other had submarines operating in the same Area of Responsibility (AOR) could have been far worse than it was. The two submarines, as you have read, were nuclear-powered. Thus, these boats could have become like Chernobyl under the waves. 

Thankfully, that fate was avoided. But this incident was a clear wake-up call.

Both Britain and France (and the rest of NATO) have all updated their policies for coordinating with allied foreign navies to ensure nothing like this incident occurs. 

Yet, there are plenty of other parts of the world where nuclear submarines belonging to navies that do not get along with each other operate frequently. 

Just recently, in fact, the USS Connecticut is believed to have crashed into an undersea mountain (seamount) in the crowded South China Sea while it was possibly conducting a covert surveillance mission of China’s secretive naval base at Hainan Island. 

It was a major source of embarrassment for the US Navy because, the incident not only revealed what the Connecticut was up to but it also put a dent in the Navy’s limited Seawolf-class fleet. 

The Connecticut will not return to service for another year. What’s more, it was quite a propaganda boon for China. Beijing rubbed salt in the wound by claiming—erroneously—that the Connecticut had created an unspecified “environmental disaster.” 

Shortly thereafter, rumors abounded that China lost a Type 093 Shang-class nuclear submarine in the Taiwan Strait. It was never confirmed but this came on the heels of the Connecticut incident. Just imagine the nightmare scenario of the Connecticut had collided with a Chinese nuclear-powered Shang-class submarine. It would have been radioactive nightmare fuel for the region.

Thus, the need for stealth is naval engagements should be well understood but it must also be stressed that, in the nuclear age, such secrecy could lead to truly devastating consequences unless some form of modus vivendi is crafted between Washington and Beijing to deescalate certain crises. 

This was done throughout the Cold War.

The Chinese, sadly, continue to rebuff American requests to create a reliable backchannel between the two superpowers. 

France and Britain are key allies and the incident involving their submarines in the Atlantic in 2009 was relatively isolated. No casualties were reported and the two crews could aid each other and then their governments could cordially assess what had happened. 

A Sino-American collision, which is likely to occur given the tension and interactions thus far between the two powers, could either lead to an environmental catastrophe. Or worse, it could lead to a world war. 

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 Top Points: In 2009, a rare and alarming incident occurred when two nuclear-armed submarines, the UK’s HMS Vanguard and France’s Le Triomphant, collided deep beneath the Atlantic Ocean.

-While no injuries or radioactive leaks were reported, both vessels were damaged, highlighting the risks submarines face even from allied forces.

-The collision, involving two of NATO’s most secretive ballistic missile submarines, underscored the challenges of "waterspace management" agreements, which exclude the exact locations of these strategic assets to maintain their secrecy.

-The incident added to a history of submarine collisions, raising debates over whether greater data sharing among allies could prevent future mishaps.

While many have heard of submarines crashing to the bottom of the ocean floor or colliding with underwater mountains, it is harder to imagine that sometimes a ship’s greatest danger is simply another ship. 

In 2009, two nuclear-armed submarines from France and the United Kingdom collided deep under the Atlantic Ocean. While no radioactivity was released, both ships were damaged when the Royal Navy’s HMS Vanguard struck France’s Trident-class Le Triomphant submarine. No crew members or injuries were reported by either country.

When the HMS Vanguard returned to its base in Scotland days later, it had visible damage on its starboard side and near its missile compartment. A whistleblower who served in the UK’s nuclear submarine program later claimed that, “The French submarine had took a massive chunk out of the front of HMS Vanguard and grazed down the side of the boat. The High Pressured Air (HPA) bottle groups were hanging off and banging against the pressure hull. They had to return to base port slowly, because if one of HPA bottle groups exploded it would've created a chain reaction and sent the submarine plummeting to the bottom.” 

Perhaps the British government was minimizing the damage inflicted on the submarine in an effort to quell public concern over the potential dangers of nuclear leaks.

This freak accident was especially alarming since nuclear reactors power the ships, and both countries’ vessels routinely carry nuclear warheads onboard. Although “waterspace management” agreements among NATO allies direct member-states to advise one another of the general locations of submerged submarines, ballistic-missile-carrying ships are not included in the arrangement. 

France’s Le Triomphant submarine could carry sixteen M45 ballistic missiles, and the Vanguard could carry the same number of Trident II missiles. Additionally, each submarine could carry 4 and 6 nuclear warheads, respectively.

The Triomphant-Vanguard incident did not mark the first time two submarines collided. During the Cold War, Western and Soviet ships collided on several occasions, according to The New York Times. In 1992, the American-made Baton Rouge nuclear submarine was struck by a surfacing Russian sub in the Barents Sea. Only one year after this mishap, the Russian K-407 collided with the USS Grayling. Decades earlier, in the mid-1970s, the U.S. Navy’s USS James Madison collided with a Soviet Victor-class attack submarine roughly 30 miles off the coast of Glasgow, near Holy Loch. 

While some analysts argue that allies should share more data to mitigate the risks of future collisions, others argue that maintaining secrecy around nuclear-armed submarines is of the utmost importance. As Lee Willet of the Royal United Services Institute in London once put it, these vessels are the “strategic crown jewels” of any nation, and relaying such sensitive intelligence even to allies would be risky.

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

From The Vault

Did a Russian-Made Missile Hit an F-35?

Russia Has 1 Submarine Called the Black Hole 

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy is relocating the USS Minnesota (SSN-783), a Virginia-class fast attack submarine, from Hawaii to Guam, reinforcing its presence in the Indo-Pacific amid rising tensions with China.

-The deployment of this nuclear-powered submarine to Guam, part of the strategic second island chain, aims to counter China’s maritime activities in the region. The USS Minnesota, which recently completed extensive maintenance, will enhance the U.S. Navy's capabilities in sea control, power projection, and deterrence.

-This move underscores the U.S. commitment to maintaining stability and security in the Indo-Pacific.

The Hub of the Pacific will soon be the homeport for a submarine named after the Land of 10,000 Lakes.

The U.S. Navy is adding to its submarine squadron on the U.S. territory of Guam. USS Minnesota (SSN-783), the 10th and final Block II Virginia-class fast attack submarine, is now scheduled to change homeport from Hawaii to Guam.

The nuclear-powered, conventionally armed cruise missile submarine is being deployed to counter China's naval buildup and expanded operations in the Indo-Pacific. The submarine recently completed an extended docking selected restricted availability (EDSRA) at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility. It began sea trials in June.

"During the maintenance period, the shipyard and crew performed tank blasting and coating, hull preservation, propulsion and ship system repairs, modernization upgrades and made enhancements to mechanical and electrical systems. Following certification, the crew will work together to maintain readiness and is scheduled to homeport shift to Guam later in the year," the U.S. Navy announced earlier this year. 

Beginning on Oct. 1, SSN-783 will be homeported from Guam, part of the second island chain that stretches from Japan to Micronesia. The first island chain includes the Kuril Islands, the main Japanese archipelago, and Taiwan, while it also stretches to the northern Philippines and the Malay Peninsula.

A concern for Washington has been China's gray zone operations in the first island chain. By maintaining a strong presence in the second island chain, the U.S. seeks to ensure Beijing doesn't take control of the Indo-Pacific in a time of war. The deployment of a Virginia-class submarine is meant as a defensive measure. 

"The Navy routinely assesses its overseas force positioning, to include forward-deployed naval force submarines homeported in Guam," Lt. Cmdr. Rick Moore, a spokesperson for the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander's principal adviser on submarine affairs, told Newsweek. "We are committed to posturing our most capable platforms to preserve peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region."

Guam is the westernmost territory of the United States, located just 1,500 to 1,700 miles from the Taiwan Strait and sitting near the contested waters of the East and South China Seas, the magazine also noted. The last homeport change for USS Minnesota was in March 2022, when the boat was redeployed from Groton, Connecticut, to Pearl Harbor.

The U.S Navy's Virginia-class submarines first entered service in 2004, replacing the aging Cold War-era Los Angeles class. The Virginia was designed to incorporate the latest advances in stealth and weapons systems. The boats can handle a variety of open-ocean and littoral missions, including anti-submarine warfare as well as intelligence gathering. There are currently 22 Virginia-class submarines in active service out of the originally planned 66 boats – with current plans for the Navy to acquire at least an additional 30.

The nuclear-powered boats support five of the U.S. Navy's six core strategic maritime capabilities, including sea control, power projection, forward presence, maritime security, and deterrence. They do this through a combination of stealth, endurance, mobility, and firepower. The Virginia class remains the primary submarine for land, surface warfare, and anti-submarine attack missions, while its armaments include cruise missiles and torpedoes.

These SSNs have a fly-by-wire ship control system that provides improved shallow-water ship handling. The subs were also designed to deploy special operator forces including Navy SEALS. A reconfigurable torpedo room can accommodate a large number of SOFs and all their equipment for prolonged deployments and future off-board payloads.

SSN-783 is just the third U.S. Navy vessel to be named for Minnesota. The first was a wooden steam frigate launched in December 1855, when Minnesota was still a territory. The name for both the state and warship comes from a Lakota (Sioux) word that means "sky-tinted water."

The old frigate served with the U.S. Navy's East India Squadron and sailed some of the same waters the current USS Minnesota could call her stomping grounds. That first USS Minnesota saw service during the American Civil War and was damaged at the Battle of Hampton Roads – the historic showdown between the ironclads USS Monitor and CSS Virginia (aka Merrimack). Repaired and returned to duty, USS Minnesota later took part in the Second Battle of Fort Fisher. She was retired from service and burned as scrap to recover her iron fittings in 1901.

The second USS Minnesota (BB-22) was a 16,000-ton Connecticut-class pre-dreadnought battleship that served with the U.S. Navy's Great White Fleet, circumnavigating the globe in 1908-1909. It later was employed as a training ship during the First World War until being damaged after striking a German naval mine in September 1918. After repairs, her final duty was returning American soldiers from Europe after the end of the war. She was broken up in 1924.

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

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: In the early days of Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the Antonov An-225 Mriya, the world's largest aircraft, was destroyed during a failed Russian raid on the Antonov Airport near Kyiv.

-The An-225, a symbol of Ukrainian and Soviet pride, was unable to escape due to maintenance, leaving it vulnerable during the Battle of Antonov Airport. Originally built to transport the Soviet Buran space orbiter, the An-225 was renowned for its immense cargo capacity and humanitarian missions.

-Ukraine has vowed to rebuild the iconic aircraft, though the effort could cost up to $3 billion.

In the early stages of Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the Kremlin mounted an attack on the Antonov Airport in Hostomel, outside the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv. The plan called for Russian paratroopers supported by helicopter gunships to seize the cargo airport, and its 11,483 foot (3,500 meter) runway that was capable of supporting the largest transport aircraft.

Things didn't go as planned, and the Battle of the Antonov Airport was one of Russia's first defeats during its "special military operation" – earning it comparisons to the failed Operation Market Garden that occurred 80 years ago next month during the Second World War.

Lost in the fighting that ensued for control of the airport was the world's largest plane, the Antonov An-225. The massive aircraft, named "Mriya" or "dream" in Ukrainian, had been parked at Hostomel Airport near Kyiv when it came under attack by Russian forces as they tried to take control of the facility.

According to a statement issued by Ukrainian defense conglomerate Ukroboronprom soon after the battle, the An-225 was unable to take off that day because one of its engines had been dismantled for repairs.

"Russia may have destroyed our 'Mriya'. But they will never be able to destroy our dream of a strong, free and democratic European state. We shall prevail!," Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba posted to Twitter (now X.com).

With more than two-and-a-half years of hindsight, a question still remains why Russia didn't try to capture the plane, as it had been a symbol of pride for the Soviet Union as much as for Ukraine.

The An-225 Mriya was a strategic airlift cargo aircraft developed by the Antonov Design Bureau in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) during the 1980s. Boasting a wingspan of 290 feet and a weight of 285 tons, the Mriya was widely acknowledged as the heaviest aircraft ever built.

The AN-225 was originally built to carry the Soviet Union Buran space orbiter, but its extreme size meant it also had an extremely large storage capacity of 950 cubic meters. It was large enough to carry 50 cars or five main battle tanks (MBT) – but it was largely used to transport energy production systems, electric generators and fuel for nuclear power stations. 

It could carry twice as much as a Boeing 747 freighter, but its size required that it was powered by six engines that each produced 51,590 pounds of thrust. Despite its massive size, it was hardly an aircraft that boasted much in the way of creature comforts – and the crew had to access the cockpit via a ladder.

The Mriya could carry a massive payload, yet, it only made around 10 flights annually.

The AN-225 was often employed to help airlift aid during crises around the globe, CNN reported following its destruction. In the aftermath of the 2010 Haiti earthquake, Mriya delivered relief supplies to the neighboring Dominican Republic; and during the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic the massive plane was used to transport medical supplies to affected areas.

However, the massive transport aircraft garnered an equally substantial following among aviation enthusiasts, and regularly drew crowds wherever it went. Its loss was seen as a significant blow to Ukraine's defense industry as well as the nation's aerospace infrastructure, which had received significant investment in 2021 with the aim of providing Ukrainian forces with high-tech, locally sourced equipment.

Only one AN-225 was completed, although a second was planned – with the effort finally ended in 2009. Kyiv has said it will rebuild the Mriya, which aviation experts suggest could cost as much as $3 billion.

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. 

How fast can the B-2 Stealth Bomber fly? Well, we don’t really know. That information is classified. Maybe, when the B-2 is retired over the course of the next decade, the B-2’s speed will finally be revealed, at least we think so.

What we do know is that the B-2 can travel at “high subsonic” speed. Assume somewhere in the Mach 0.7-0.9 range. So, a B-2 probably flies about as fast as you might travel commercially from LAX to JFK. Maybe a little faster.

That’s assuming the “high subsonic” descriptor is accurate. Could the Air Force be downplaying the speed of the B-2 for the sake of causing America’s adversaries to miscalculate for a slower aircraft? Sure, it’s possible.

But the B-2 doesn’t look like it’s built for speed. The airframe looks like it was built for stealth, which for a time, the B-2 was.

A lot of information about the B-2 is classified. The B-2 was the world’s first stealth bomber. The B-2 is still the world’s only stealth bomber. So the novelty of the airframe would inspire curiosity, perhaps espionage efforts.

But it’s not just the novelty of the B-2 that has US officials playing their cards close, it’s the capabilities of the platform. The B-2 can deliver either conventional or nuclear ordnance. And when the B-2 debuted it could deliver its ordnance without tripping the air space wires of our enemies. In effect, the Americans had method for sneaking into enemy air space and dropping a nuclear bomb wherever they chose, without detection.

That’s a game-changing geopolitical tool with technical data that the Americans were highly incentivized to protect – and which America’s adversaries were highly incentivized to obtain. The significance of the B-2 has waned over time, in direct ratio to the increase of sophistication of air defense systems.

So, as countries like Russia and China have developed more sensitive aircraft detection and tracking systems, the B-2’s stealth has become more and more outdated.

Today, the B-2 just doesn’t have the sneak-past-enemy-lines ability that it once had. That’s why the B-21 is under development. To give Americans that strategic edge again.

But for the B-21, like the B-2 before, speed will never be the emphasis. The designers were not building an airframe for speed. For speed, the Americans can rely on the B-1 Lancer (at least until the B-1 itself is retired) or any of their myriad fighter jets. In designing the B-2 compromises were made for the sake of stealth. For example, the engines were likely designed and situated not with a priority for maximizing thrust-to-weight ratio but for minimizing the exhaust signature.

The flight control surfaces were not designed to minimize drag (and hence increase speed) but to minimize the radar cross section (RCS).

Speed has its value, especially in a defensive context, as an interceptor,  for example. But speed means little these days with respect to penetrating air space – until you get to speeds at which an airframe can outrun a missile, that is – then speed becomes relevant again.

But for the B-2, and the forthcoming B-21, speed will not be the point.  

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 B-21 Raider, designed to replace the B-2 Spirit, represents the next generation of stealth technology. Claims suggest it could have a radar cross section (RCS) as small as that of an insect. Indeed, expectations could be the bomber's biggest enemy for the moment. 

-Developed by Northrop Grumman, the B-21 is engineered to penetrate advanced anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) defenses, a necessity given the increasing sophistication of such systems.

-While details remain largely classified, the B-21 is expected to incorporate refined stealth features, advanced avionics, and upgraded systems to ensure it can operate in contested airspaces, maintaining strategic deterrence in modern conflicts where older airframes like the B-2 may fall short.

The B-21 Raider is slated to replace the B-2 Spirit, which was itself a game-changing stealth platform. But the B-2 is a generation-old, and aerospace designers have been refining their stealth capabilities in the thirty years since the B-2 was developed.

The B-21 promises to be the culmination of those stealth refining efforts, with some claiming that the new stealth bomber will have the radar cross section (RCS) of an insect. While the claim – that a large, fuel-guzzling military aircraft could have the RCS of a honeybee – seems hyperbolic, one Washington thinktank is backing the claim, and urging the US to pursue large-scale acquisition of the B-21.

“The multi-author paper from the Hudson Institute stresses the strategic deterrence potential of the Northrop Grumman B-21 based on its ability to penetrate the most sophisticated anti-access-area denial (A2/AD) defenses, its long range and flexibility,” Forbes reported.

The bit about being able to penetrate the most sophisticated A2/AD defenses is oblique, technical jargon for: the B-21 is extremely stealth aka has a miniscule RCS. So, whereas a non-stealth airframe, with a relatively large RCS, would not be able to penetrate even rudimentary A2/AD defenses, an airframe capable of penetrating sophisticated A2/AD defenses is impliedly very stealth (low RCS).

The ever-increasing sophistication of A2/AD defenses is what has necessitated the reciprocating increase in stealth sophistication. Air space is getting harder to penetrate. Airframes with smaller RCS signatures are becoming required to penetrate those air spaces.

Fourth-generation fighters like the F-15 and F-16 are relatively useless against sophisticated adversaries with A2/AD systems in place, meaning the fourth-generation fighters would be relegated to defensive roles only in a modern conflict.

Even the B-2, which debuted as the world’s first stealth bomber and forced America’s enemies to make geopolitical recalculations to account for the fact that there was now a nuclear-armed bomber that could move about unseen, has lost its stealth edge; the B-2’s exact stealth measurements are not public information, but one can presume that at least part of the Air Force’s impetus in replacing the $2-billion-per-unit B-2 bomber was because the B-2 could no longer penetrate air space as smoothly as it once could.

Not a whole lot is known about the B-21. The new bomber is undergoing initial flight testing, we know that, but for the most part, the program is cloaked in secrecy. The most telling disclosure that the program has offered is a set of pictures.

The pictures show an airframe that looks almost like a carbon copy of the B-2 – a flying wing. Presumably, if one were to dig into the granular details of the airframe, the B-21 would feature subtle changes from the B-2 – changes that lower the RCS relative to the ageing B-2. And presumably, if one were to peak under the hood, they would find upgraded hardware, computer and avionic systems that were befitting a twenty-first-century weapons project.

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 USS Florida, one of the U.S. Navy's oldest nuclear missile submarines, returned to port after an impressive 727 days on patrol. Launched in 1981, the submarine traveled over 60,000 nautical miles, conducting five crew swaps during its deployment across the Middle East, Mediterranean, and Indo-Pacific.

-Equipped with nearly 160 Tomahawk missiles and capable of carrying special operations troops, the USS Florida showcased its enduring operational capabilities.

-Refitted in 2003 from a ballistic missile to a guided missile submarine, it remains a key component of the Navy's fleet, which boasts the world's largest and most powerful submarine force.

On the last day of July, one of the oldest nuclear missile submarines in the U.S. Navy returned to port after close to 750 days on patrol.

Launched in 1981 and commissioned two years later, the USS Florida is one of the oldest submarines in service. However, its recent feat showed that it still has it.

The USS Florida departed in August 2022 and visited the Middle East, Mediterranean, and Indo-Pacific areas of operations. During its 727 days at sea, the nuclear-powered submarine conducted five crew swaps, ensuring that it had a fresh crew to meet operational challenges, while also maintaining constant vigilance.

In 727 days of routine and combat operations, the USS Florida covered more than 60,000 nautical miles and visited Greece, Guam, Diego Garcia, and the United Kingdom for official port calls.

“We have demonstrated the versatility of SSGN platform to operate anywhere at any time. We operated in several different oceans. It's very uncommon for East Coast submarines to deploy to the west coast, but we managed to do an exceptional job completing the mission,” U.S. Navy Captain Peter French, of the USS Florida’s commanding officer, said in a press statement after the sub came home.

Equipped with almost 160 Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missiles, the USS Florida is a floating gunship that can rain terror and destruction thousands of miles away. In addition, it can carry special operations troops.

“During their deployment, the crews conducted vital missions crucial to national security, enhancing operational capabilities and reinforcing deterrence effort,” the Navy stated.

Navy submarines have two crews—gold and blue—that alternate while the vessel remains at sea almost continuously.

“Our Sailors are the true strength for our boat and the Navy. They consistently impress me with their unwavering dedication to the submarine force. We train and we fight as a family, and I’m excited to get the crews back home to the actual families and enjoy some much needed time off,” Master Chief Electronics Technician Submarine, Navigation Christopher L. Martell, the gold crew chief of the boat, stated.

In 2003, the USS Florida underwent significant refitting. Its nuclear reactor was refueled—submarines powered by nuclear reactors require refueling once every 20 years or so—and it was also converted from a ballistic missile submarine to a guided missile submarine. Ballistic missile subs carry ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads and are designed for nuclear deterrence missions, while guided missile subs carry cruise missiles and are tasked with land attack missions. The Navy refitted several Ohio-class ballistic missile subs to Ohio-class guided missile subs because the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War made a large number of the former redundant.

The U.S. Navy has the largest and strongest submarine fleet in the world, with 71 vessels. Specifically, the Navy has three categories of submarines: attack(53), ballistic missile (14), and guided missile (4). All of these vessels are nuclear-powered, but only the 14 Ohio-class subs carry nuclear warheads.

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

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The Lockheed Martin F-21 is a highly upgraded version of the F-16, tailored specifically for India's defense needs. Although not a fifth-generation fighter like the F-22 Raptor, the F-21 is a fourth-generation ++ aircraft that incorporates advanced technologies, making it a formidable hybrid.

-The F-21 features enhancements like new cockpit displays, conformal fuel tanks, and compatibility with India's Russian-made aerial tankers.

-If India proceeds with the proposed $18 billion deal for over 100 F-21s, it would significantly boost India's air force capabilities, enhance interoperability with Western defense systems, and reduce reliance on Russian military equipment.

At what point does an upgrade simply create a new plane altogether? That’s the question that comes to mind when thinking about the Lockheed Martin F-21 that India wants to purchase. The F-21 is not as well-known as the F-22 Raptor. But it should be. 

While not a fifth-generation fighter as the F-22 is, the F-21 is a fourth-generation ++ warplane that serves as a hybrid between the two generations. The F-21 is based on the ubiquitous F-16, but it might be more F-22 and less F-16, which, for India, would be a very helpful thing.

For the F-21, Lockheed “has upgraded [the plane] with new cockpit displays, conformal fuel tanks, a larger air frame spine that can accommodate additional electronics, fittings for towed radar decoys, a new infrared sensor and a refueling probe that’s compatible with India’s Russian-made aerial tankers,” according to a 2019 article by David Axe. 

Some analysts hold that Lockheed’s F-21 is really “only a step behind” the F-22. That’s an incredible thought, especially considering how much cheaper the F-21 is. 

The purchase of the F-21 is part of the Make in India policy enacted by the government of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The goal is to ensure key systems are built in India, both to enhance the security of supply chains and to modernize India’s defense sector. 

The F-21 program ensures that in very practical ways, the Indian military no longer relies on Russia for its major strategic systems. Since India achieved its independence, Indian elites have remained firmly aligned with Russia. 

During the Cold War, as a “non-aligned” nation, India enjoyed special access and privileges in the Soviet Union. This ensured India would receive top-of-the-line military equipment and training from Moscow.

Despite the USSR being the special relationship between India and Russia persisted for decades.

Indeed, old habits die hard. 

Even as the Indian government looks to pivot away from Russia and to diversify its defense relations, India has backstopped the Russian war machine in Ukraine by purchasing excess Russian energy products that were sanctioned by the West. That’s less to do with supporting Russia and more to do with simple self-interest on the part of Indian leaders. Their country benefits mightily from purchasing affordable, abundant, and reliable sources of energy from nearby Russia. 

But incorporating India into the F-16 family would ensure that, in the long-run, India became a distant partner to Russia and a much closer one to the West. Plus, India would gain significant advantages in terms of interoperability with Western defense systems. 

The F-21 program, if it is fully realized, would give India decisive competitive advantages over their chaotic Pakistani rivals and their rising Chinese foes. The F-21 would give India’s air force a big boost in deterring China as tensions along their shared border continue. 

Between the new technologies and the boon to India’s defense and its industrial sector, the sooner that New Delhi executes a proposed deal with Lockheed and gets more than 100 planes at $18 billion, the better off everyone will be. 

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?)

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Air Force's B-21 Raider, which had its maiden flight in November 2022, is set to become the backbone of the Air Force's long-range strike capabilities. However, the total number of bombers to be produced remains uncertain.

-The initial plan is for a minimum of 100 units, with decisions about increasing that number expected in the mid-to-late 2030s. While designed to counter near-peer threats like China, the B-21's high cost—around $700 million per unit—may limit production.

-The bomber is being developed with advanced digital engineering and an open systems architecture for future adaptability.

The U.S. Air Force's B-21 Raider represents the next leap forward in strategic bomber technology, having taken its maiden flight in November of 2022.

As it moves through development towards becoming the backbone of the Air Force's long-range strike capabilities, questions about the total number of units to be produced remain open. The initial plan for a minimum of 100 bombers aims to modernize and replace aging fleets, with a focus on countering emerging threats from near-peer adversaries like China.

The U.S. Air Force's B-21 Raider took its maiden flight last November. While progress is being made on developing the future backbone of the Air Force's bomber fleet, there is still no solid consensus on how many of the long-range strategic bombers will be produced. A formal decision is unlikely to be made anytime soon.

"The decision point, with lead time accounted for, to go past 100 is not until the mid to late '30s," Lt. Gen. Richard G. Moore Jr. told lawmakers on the House Armed Services Committee on March 12.

"So the commitment right now is to 100 aircraft. That takes us for procurement into the late '30s," Moore added. "The decision whether or not to go past that may very well not be based on China, because it will be made at a time when we don't foresee the security environment and we don't need to."

As reported by Air & Space Forces magazine, the Air Force planned to acquire a minimum of 100 B-21 Raiders to replace its aging B-1B Lancers and B-2 Spirits. The Raider is set to operate alongside the even older B-52 Stratofortress until the late 2040s, and perhaps even beyond. However, officials at Air Force Global Strike Command have argued that the service needs more of the future stealth bombers to effectively counter near-peer adversaries, notably China.

In addition to the single B-21 currently being used for flight testing, at least five other prototype Raiders are in various stages of production. Those six will be dedicated to test activities, but after the developmental and operational testing has been completed, they will be modified into operational bombers.

It is unclear whether the Air Force will reach the minimum of 100 bombers requested by 2039. That will require annual production of six or seven bombers. The service hasn't disclosed how many aircraft are being produced throughout the Low-Rate Initial Production phase, which the bombers entered in January. 

Aerospace firm Northrop Grumman was awarded the contract to produce the next-generation bomber in 2015, and the company quickly assembled a nationwide team to design, test, and build the B-21. The Raider – named for the 80 men who took part in the World War II Doolittle Raid on Tokyo in the spring of 1942 – was developed using the aerospace firm's digital engineering practices and advanced manufacturing techniques in tandem.

The testing aircraft are being built on the same lines, using the same tools and processes, that will build the eventual full-production aircraft. That approach was adopted to enable production engineers and technicians to capture lessons learned and apply them directly to follow-on aircraft, driving home a focus on repeatability, producibility, and quality.

Some 8,000 employees of Northrop Grumman and various other defense contractors of all sizes, spread across 40 states, have been secretly building the Air Force's new stealth bomber. Great efforts have been taken to prevent China and other potential adversaries from gaining access to its technology.

In addition to building a bomber with state-of-the-art technology and capabilities, Air Force officials have further emphasized the focus on containing costs while simultaneously allowing for maximum flexibility. The B-21 has been noted for being designed with an open systems architecture that would enable rapid integration of future capabilities to keep pace with the highly contested threat environment.

Yet, in addition to the Raider being the most advanced aircraft built to date, it could also be among the most expensive planes to ever fly, with each costing around $700 million. That could affect how many are built.

The Raider may also not be alone in the skies, as China could officially unveil its Xi'an H-20 to the public in the coming months.

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.

More from National Interest

PAK DA - Russia Is Building a New Stealth Bomber 

Houthis Might Have Attacked a Navy Aircraft Carrier - Report 

Did Moscow Really Ask Washington to Stop Ukrainian Attack on Putin's Parade?: Russia's "special military operation" in Ukraine has dragged on for more than two and a half years. During that time, the Russian Navy's Black Sea Fleet has lost its flagship and numerous other vessels. 

There are now reports that Moscow worried about the possibility of Ukrainian attacks on annual Navy Day celebrations in St. Petersburg, and that the Kremlin even reached out to the United States to deter Ukraine.

According to the Ukrainian news outlet Pravda, "The Russian Ministry of Defence asked U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin to persuade Ukraine not to conduct military operations in Russia on the country's Navy Day on 28 July."

According to reports, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov claimed on TV channel Russia-1 that Defense Minister Andrei Belousov "personally called" Austin to discuss the matter, warning that such an attack could cause an escalation.

Kyiv has not confirmed it was preparing for an attack, but as previously reported, the Kremlin significantly scaled back the event, which has been a national holiday in Russia since 2017. Russian President Vladimir Putin regularly attends Navy Day celebrations, which typically include a parade of Russian and foreign military vessels.

The main parade, normally held at the Russian naval base in Kronstadt, was canceled. A smaller event in St. Petersburg on the Neva River was scaled back, reportedly due to security concerns. This year, the event included warships from India and China, but Russia's presence was much smaller than usual.

Multiple Russian media outlets are reporting that the Ukrainian intelligence service had very much planned an attack, including an assassination attempt on Putin and Belousov at the Navy Day parade. According to a report from The New York Times last week that cited two U.S. officials, "Pentagon officials were surprised by the allegation and unaware of such a plot."

The paper of record further stated, "Despite Ukraine's deep dependence on the United States for military, intelligence and diplomatic support, Ukrainian officials are not always transparent with their American counterparts about their military operations."

The New York Times suggested the call offered a "rare glimpse behind the scenes of a sensitive call between defense ministers," which "illustrates how much more there often is to private conversations between American and Russian officials than what is revealed to the public."

It would seem that Washington and Moscow are maintaining a dialog to manage escalation risks, even as the United States and the West continue to provide aid to Kyiv. However, Belousov reportedly "pointed to the danger" of such escalation due precisely to that aid. The two Pentagon sources also confirmed that Austin responded to his Russian counterpart by urging him not to threaten American forces in Europe or elsewhere.

The question is whether Russia actually knew there was an ongoing plot or simply wanted to ensure there would be no attack. It also remains unclear whether Washington instructed Kyiv not to carry out such a strike.

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: In a historic first, the U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) successfully landed an AC-130J Ghostrider Gunship on a highway in Arkansas during the Emerald Warrior Field Training Exercise II.

-This operation, which also included the landing of a C-145A Wolfhound and an MC-130J Commando II, demonstrated AFSOC's Agile Combat Employment (ACE) capabilities, highlighting the ability to operate in austere environments without traditional runways.

-The exercise involved setting up a Forward Arming and Refueling Point (FARP) on the highway, showcasing the Ghostrider’s flexibility in providing close air support, air interdiction, and armed reconnaissance in any location.

There is a longstanding myth that the United States interstate system was designed to serve as de facto airstrips in a time of war. While that isn't true, the United States military still regularly conducts training operations on remote roads and highways that include employing the stretches as runways.

Normally, however, it is fighters and smaller aircraft that are used in such operations.

On Sunday, the Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) went a little bigger after it landed an AC-130J Ghostrider Gunship on Highway 63 outside of Bono, Arkansas. According to the AFSOC, the historic first operation was part of the Emerald Warrior Field Training Exercise II – designed to highlight the unit's Agile Combat Employment (ACE) capabilities.

"This exercise serves as a significant milestone for AFSOC, demonstrating our ability to operate in diverse and austere environments," said Tech. Sgt. Robert Gallagher, lead planner for the highway landings, assigned to the AFSOC Air Commando Development Center. "By leveraging ACE concepts, we enhance our operational flexibility and resilience."

There is much more than just wheels down and hoping for the best to make use of Highway 63, of course, and the Special Tactics airmen from the 1st Special Operations Wing became highway men and women. They worked in the early morning to secure the landing zone in time for a U.S. Air Force C-145A Wolfhound and MC-130J Command II – both from the 492nd Special Operations Wing – to land on the five-lane highway.

The crew from the latter aircraft then quickly deployed a Forward Arming and Refueling Point (FARP) – essentially setting up a mobile service station for the AC-130J that was assigned to the 1st Special Operations Wing at Hurlburt Field, Florida.

With everything ready, the Lockheed-made Ghostrider made its approach, landed, quickly refueled and rearmed, and was back in the sky. Speed on the ground was a crucial part of the mission.

"The primary objective of this exercise was to validate AFSOC's capability to operate in austere environments with minimal infrastructure. Key tasks included securing the landing zone and performing FARP operations, both critical elements of the ACE framework," AFSOC acknowledged.

The training exercise served to highlight how even large aircraft like the AC-130J Ghostrider doesn't need a full-blown facility to accomplish its primary missions, which is to provide close air support, air interdiction, and armed reconnaissance.

"Emerald Warrior FTX II demonstrates to our adversaries that we can meet them anytime, anyplace, anywhere, without the need for traditional runways to project air power," said Col. Patrick Dierig, 1 SOW commander. "By landing an AC-130J on a highway and conducting FARP, we're proving our ability to operate in austere and unique environments. It shows our commitment to maintain operational flexibility and readiness, ensuring we can deliver decisive airpower whenever and wherever it’s needed."

In its current configuration, the AC-130J is operated by two pilots, one combat systems officer, one weapons system operator, one sensor operator, and four special mission aviators. It is armed with a 30mm GAU-23/A Bushmaster autocannon and a 105mm cannon.

The aircraft has a range of 3,000 miles.

"The AC-130J provides ground forces an expeditionary, direct-fire platform that is persistent, ideally suited for urban operations and delivers precision low-yield munitions against ground targets," the U.S. Air Force noted on the aircraft's fact sheet website.

Last year, there was speculation that the Ghostrider could lose its main gun.

Though removing the weapon would seem to limit the capabilities of the aircraft, the Air Force is now rethinking how it will employ its heavily armed gunships as greater focus shifts to near-peer adversaries such as China. Instead of the 105mm cannon, the Air Force may opt to arm the Ghostriders with small cruise missiles for standoff strikes. In addition, the modern flying fortress could be equipped with an advanced active electronically scanned array radar for improved tracking of ground targets.

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

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The Soviet Union and its successor, Russia, have long grappled with developing a robust naval aviation capability, culminating in the troubled Admiral Kuznetsov, Russia's only aircraft carrier. Built at the end of the Cold War, Kuznetsov has faced numerous technical issues and remains in refit, with doubts about its future operational status.

-Despite its challenges, Russia values aircraft carriers for their strategic and prestige roles. However, the country's shipbuilding industry has struggled to modernize its fleet, and plans for new carriers remain uncertain.

-Russia may need to consider alternative approaches, including potentially ordering a carrier from Chinese shipyards.

Considered a land power, the Soviet Union grappled with the idea of a large naval aviation arm for most of its history, eventually settling on a series of hybrid aircraft carriers. Big plans for additional ships died with the Soviet collapse, but Russia inherited one large aircraft carrier at the end of the Cold War—that remains in service today. Although many of the problems that wracked the naval aviation projects of the Soviet Union remain today, the Russian Navy nevertheless sported one of the more active aircraft carriers in the world--until problems hit.

The Soviet Union made several efforts at developing aircraft carriers early in its history, but a lack of resources, combined with a geography that emphasized the importance of land power, made serious investment impossible. During the Cold War, the first naval aviation success were Moskva and Leningrad, a pair of helicopter carriers designed primarily for antisubmarine warfare. These ships, ungainly in appearance, displaced 17,000 tons, could make about thirty knots, and each carried eighteen helicopters. Moskva entered service in 1967, Leningrad in 1969. The Moskvas were succeeded by the Kiev class, much closer to true aircraft carriers. Displacing 45,000 tons, the four Kievs (each built to a slightly different design) could make thirty-two knots and carry a combination of about thirty helicopters and Yak-38 VSTOL fighters.

All of these ships left service at the end of the Cold War; the Moskvas and one of the Kievs were scrapped, two Kievs ended up as museums in China, and one was eventually reconstructed and sold to India as INS Vikramaditya. In the 1980s, the Soviet Union laid down its first two true carriers, although only one was completed before the collapse of the country.

At the moment, Russia’s only aircraft carrier is the troubled Admiral Kuznetsov.

A ski jump carrier, the Kuznetsov displaces some 60,000 tons, can theoretically make thirty knots, and carry a combination of forty-or-so helicopters and jet fighters.

 Kuzentsov was commissioned in 1990; a sister remained an incomplete hulk for many years until it was purchased by China and eventually finished as Liaoning. In addition to helicopters, Kuznetsov operates MiG-29K and Su-33 fighter bombers. Like previous Russian carriers, Kuznetsov sports a heavier missile armament than most Western ships.

Unfortunately, hiccups with Kuznetsov have also made it difficult for Russia’s naval aviators to remain practiced and effective. The ship has suffered multiple breakdowns over its career, including significant issues with its engines and recovering aircraft.

Many of these difficulties came as consequence of the dramatic decline of maintenance funding at the end of the Cold War, but some was the inevitable result of inexperience with the platform type. Admiral Kuznetsov has engaged in several prestige cruises, but its most notable service came in 2016 off of Syria. After a much publicized journey to the Mediterranean, Kuznetsov conducted combat operations for two months. The operations had more of a publicity impact than a real military effect, and Kuznetsov lost two aircraft (one MiG-29K and one Su-33) to accidents. The carrier is currently in refit, with many experts concluding it may never sail again.

To support Kuznetsov, Russia attempted to purchase a pair of French assault carriers, but the conquest and annexation of Crimea forced France to cancel the sale. These ships would have served as amphibious platforms with antisubmarine (ASW) capabilities, but also would have given the Russian navy experience with relatively large, technologically advanced vessels. Indeed, part of the deal would have allowed Russia to construct two Mistrals to French specifications in its own yards, which would have provided a major boon to Russian shipbuilding.

Russia has a unique maritime geography, with four fleets operating from four coasts practically incapable of offering mutual support. During the Soviet period, carriers supported the fleet of nuclear ballistic missile submarines, offering air and ASW protection for the bastions in which these subs patrolled. This mission allowed the carriers to de-emphasize strike capabilities in favor of more defensive weaponry. More recently, the Russian navy has used Admiral Kuznetsov primarily as a vehicle for influence and prestige. Along with the nuclear battlecruiser Pyotr Velikiy and a few other ships, Kuznetsov is a visible manifestation of Russian naval power, forcing other nations to take note of Russian interests. As the Syria mission suggests, in the future Russia may focus more on developing strike capabilities in order to project power further.

Russia has cancelled more carriers than most countries have contemplated. In the 1970s the Soviet Union considered the 72,000-ton Orel-class nuclear aircraft carrier, but opted instead for the Kievs and the ships that would eventually become Kuznetsov and Liaoning. The Soviets laid down an 80,000-ton carrier named Ulyanovsk in 1988, but scrapped the incomplete ship when the Cold War ended.

Russian defense planners often announce projects as a means of gaining resources and prestige, rather than as part of a plan to build anything in particular. At one point, President Dmitri Medvedev suggested that Russia would build and operate six aircraft carriers by 2025; obviously, that’s not going to happen. 

The aviation capability of the Russian navy is dangling by a thread. Kuznetsov is old and in poor condition, and no carrier is even close to be laid down. The Russian surface fleet has not received a great deal of attention in the latest military modernization plans, and the Russian shipbuilding industry has not constructed a warship the size and sophistication of Kuzentsov since… well, Kuznetsov.

That said, the Kremlin seems to view aircraft carriers as an important contributor to national prestige. The Russian navy took great pains to get Kuznetsov into position to support operations in Syria, and despite the embarrassment associated with that, has now pushed the carrier into a major refit. If the Kremlin determines that it needs a carrier to keep pace with France, Britain, China and India, it will need to begin seriously considering how to build or acquire such a ship.

It is not inconceivable that Moscow may consider ordering a carrier from Chinese yards in the future, however profound a reversal that might seem. Otherwise, Russia needs to start solidifying its construction timelines soon.

Robert Farley, a frequent contributor to the National Interest, is author of The Battleship Book. He serves as a Senior Lecturer at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce at the University of Kentucky. His work includes military doctrine, national security, and maritime affairs. He blogs at Lawyers, Guns and Money and Information Dissemination and The Diplomat.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: Navies initially explored hybrid battleship-aircraft carriers to integrate air power with traditional naval firepower. The Royal Navy's HMS Furious in 1918 marked the first attempt, leading to conversions like the Lexington and Amagi classes.

-Japan's WWII-era Hyuga and Ise carried aircraft but faced operational issues. The U.S. Navy also converted cruisers into Independence-class light carriers during WWII. However, these hybrid conversions often suffered from design flaws and limited success.

-Despite their shortcomings, these ships provided crucial lessons that shaped future purpose-built aircraft carriers.

Both aviators and sailors grasped early on that aircraft could revolutionize some aspects of naval warfare. At the very least, manned aircraft could supply the battlefleet with information about the enemy's size and disposition; at the most, these aircraft could deliver ordnance themselves. As the relationship between ships and aircraft developed, it became apparent that having some means of launching planes directly from ships offered the best chance of successfully integrating aircraft into fleet operations.

And almost as soon as navies began to contemplate the idea of aircraft-carrying warships, they started thinking about how to combine the virtues of the battleship and the aircraft carrier into a single large hull. For decades, usually with minimal success, navies would pursue the dream of a hybrid battleship-aircraft carrier.

The first effort at a hybrid carrier hit the water in 1918. The Royal Navy, at a loss with what to do with the large, fast, but nearly useless HMS Furious, decided to convert her into a combination aviation warship. Initially intended to carry two 18” guns in single turrets, fore and aft, Furious was modified during construction to carry seaplanes, necessitating the removal of the forward turret.  Early trials indicated some prospect for the launching and landing of conventional aircraft, although such tests often proved fatal to aviators. Eventually, the aft turret was also removed, offering a more suitable arrangement and allowing Furious, along with several conventional aircraft, to engage in precursors to the great carrier raids of World War II.

At the end of the war, the Royal Navy ditched the idea of a hybrid, but still saw considerable value in big battleship hulls. Consequently, it fully converted Furious into an aircraft carrier, followed by her two half-sisters Courageous and Glorious. The incomplete battleship Eagle received the same treatment. The Washington Naval Treaty actively encouraged similar behavior in Japan and the United States, leading to the conversion into aircraft carriers of two Lexington-class battlecruisers, one Amagi-class battlecruiser, and one Tosa-class battleship. 

Even at this point, the allure of combining heavy guns with aircraft carrying capacity remained.  Many of the conversions continued to carry heavy (although not battleship caliber) guns, weapons that were often removed as the vulnerabilities of carriers to gunfire became apparent. For their part, most of the battleships that survived World War I and the interwar naval treaties acquired floatplanes of their own. Of new construction, the giant Yamatos could carry seven aircraft, and most other battleships two or three. The relationship between carrier and battleship would remain unsettled, but general agreement emerged that large warships should either be (mostly) aircraft carrier or (mostly) battleship. 

In the late 1930s, the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) built a pair of heavy cruisers, Tone and Chikuma, with the main armament forward and the aft deck dedicated to flight operations. This provided IJN task forces with a few extra scouting aircraft. In June 1942, the IJN Navy came to the conclusion that it required more flight decks. At first, it gave strong consideration to converting Hyuga and Ise, two of its older battleships into aircraft carriers. Expensive and time-consuming, this would have resulted in slow, substandard ships. Instead, IJN opted for half measures, removing the aft two turrets and replacing them with a flight deck, catapults, and other aviation equipment. Theoretically, Hyuga and Ise could now each carry thirteen aircraft of various types, while also retaining a main armament of 8 14” guns in four twin turrets. 

Japanese desperation continued to grow, however. Around the same time Hyuga and Ise entered reconstruction, the IJN determined to redesign one of its new Yamato-class battleships, then under construction, into an aircraft carrier. The resultant Shinano displaced around 60,000 tons and was, for a carrier, stoutly built and well-armored. Intended as an aviation support ship, she did not carry many aircraft, but had extensive machine shops, stores, and other facilities to provide services to a carrier battle group. 

Fortunately or not, the IJN never operated Hyuga and Ise in their carrier configuration. The lack of pilots and crew became more severe than the lack of flight decks, and the aviation areas of the ships were mostly used for anti-aircraft guns. Both ships almost encountered the U.S. battlefleet at Leyte Gulf, however, where they would have suffered from the lack of their rear turrets.  For her part, Shinano was lost to submarine attack during her shakedown cruise, and never launched aircraft in anger.

The United States Navy (USN) also returned to the well of carrier conversions, halting construction of nine Cleveland-class light cruisers and redesigning them as the Independence-class light aircraft carriers.  Although small, these ships were fast enough to support fleet carrier operations from 1943 on, and provided a key bridge between the early war carriers and the excellent Essex class ships.  The USN later built the two Saipan-class light carriers on Baltimore-class heavy cruiser hulls, and used design work for the massive Montana-class battleships on the huge Midway-class carriers. 

Few of the conversions were entirely successful. Every Japanese carrier converted from a battleship was lost during the war. Three out of the four British conversions met the same fate, as did USS Lexington and Independence-class carrier USS Princeton.  Converting battleships offered a shortcut to carrier aviation, but ensured that the resultant carriers would have significant design flaws.  Nevertheless, these early ships helped all of the navies develop lessons for their later, purpose-built aircraft carriers.

Dr. Robert Farley, a frequent contributor to TNI, teaches at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce at the University of Kentucky. He is the author of the Battleship Book and can be found at @drfarls. 

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy's Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines, key components of America's nuclear deterrent, typically operate under secrecy. However, in June, the unusual location disclosure of USS Tennessee (SSBN-734) surfaced in the Norwegian Sea, alongside USS Normandy (CG-60) and strategic aircraft, signaled a calculated message.

-Such disclosures are rare, given the submarines' stealth and destructive capabilities.

-This public reveal likely responded to recent Russian naval activities, including the deployment of their guided-missile frigate Admiral Gorshkov and a nuclear submarine to the Caribbean. The U.S. Navy's move underscores its deterrence strategy and readiness to counter potential threats.

The United States Navy's Ohio-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines remain a key component of the nation's nuclear triad and serve as a nuclear deterrent. The warships are often spoken/written about – yet rarely seen. As part of the "Silent Service," the submarines spent much of their patrols under the sea, with their locations rarely disclosed.

However, on back in June, the U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa/U.S. 6th Fleet posted on X – the social media platform formerly known as Twitter – to announce that USS Tennessee (SSBN-734) was operating in the Norwegian Sea, while the nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed sub was joined by the Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Normandy (CG-60) and P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft. In addition, an E-6B Mercury strategic communications plane was also reported to be flying over ahead.

The unusual disclosure--the submarine was surfaced and not under the waves operating in stealth--of the movements of any of the U.S. Navy's 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines is already highly unusual. However, the fact that an E-6B jet – one of the Navy's 16 modified Boeing 707s that serves as an airborne strategic command post and like the U.S. Air Force's E-4B is often known as a "doomsday plane" – makes it especially noteworthy.

The "boomers" as the submarines are known can disappear for months at a time. That is exactly what they were designed to do, as the boats remain the most destructive weapon system employed by the U.S. military. Given that there are just 14 in service – along with four more modified Ohio-class subs that serve as cruise missile submarines (SSGNs) – revealing the location of any isn't something taken lightly.

Yet, since 2020, the U.S. has disclosed the locations as a reminder of the Ohio class's destructive capability.

"Any decision to highlight the presence of one of these submarines, which are key components of America's nuclear deterrent arsenal and typically keep well out of sight while deployed, inherently sends a message to potential adversaries, such as Russia," TheWarZone reported.

So why did NAVEUR-NAVAF offer up the location of the SSBN-734?

The most likely answer is that it was a direct response to the Russian Navy's deployment of the guided-missile frigate Admiral Gorshkov and the Yasen-M-class nuclear-powered guided-missile submarine Kazan to the Caribbean earlier in June. The Russia flotilla – which also included the replenishment tank Academic Pashi and a tug boat Nikolay Chiker – made a rare port-of-call visit to Havana, Cuba, at the time

In addition, the Russian Navy had been conducting drills in the Mediterranean, involving its missile cruiser Varyag following another port visit to the Libyan city of Tobruk. The cruiser, which also took part in joint exercises with the Egyptian Navy, is quite far from her home port, as she is the flagship of the Russian Navy's Pacific Fleet.

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 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?)