The National Interest

Summary and Key Points: Vice President Kamala Harris faces significant criticism, often more intense than her predecessors. While some of it is based on her verbal gaffes, prosecutorial record, and electoral history, a portion is unearned, such as the right-wing claim that she is a socialist.

-Critics like Justin Haskins argue that Harris’s policies align with democratic socialism, citing her support for the Green New Deal and Medicare for All.

-However, her prosecutorial actions and moderate stances suggest otherwise. Labeling Harris a socialist is hyperbolic and obscures her true political views, which are more nuanced and do not aim to dismantle capitalism.

Vice President Kamala Harris has always been a magnet for criticism. Criticism comes with the territory, after all, of being the Vice President. But Harris does seem to warrant a touch more criticism than her predecessors, like Mike Pence or Joe Biden or Al Gore. Harris’s defenders will tell you the extra criticism is a result of Harris’s race and gender, an idea that I dismiss. Rather, Harris’s criticism seems to stem more from earned sources, like her verbal gaffes, prosecutorial record, and history of running bad elections. Much of the criticism is indeed earned.

Still, like any politician of Harris’s prominence, Harris attracts some unearned criticism. Consider the ongoing right wing claim that Harris is essentially a socialist. The right likes to call political opponents socialists. It’s a quick dismissal, without nuance, or usually, basis in reality. Actually, the right calls people a socialist so often you’d think the charge would lose all meaning, and perhaps, to an extent, it has. But let’s take a look at the socialism charges being leveled against Harris, if for no other reason than dismissing them out of hand.

If Harris succeeds in becoming president, Justin Haskins mused in a Fox News opinion piece, “her administration would likely be the most socialist and destructive in our country’s history.” Haskins proceeds, stating that Biden was one of America’s most progressive presidents.

(Fact check: Biden is most certainly not a progressive, despite paying occasional lip service to progressive cultural values. Biden is a Catholic with personal reservations about abortion, who helped craft Delaware into the most pro-business state in the country and has supported Israel’s ongoing campaign against Hamas.)

But, per Haskins, Harris would be even further to the left of Biden. It’s standard conservative fare. 

“In fact,” Haskins wrote, “if Harris were to become president, it’s fair to say that she would be the first democratic socialist candidate to fill the position in the 248-year history of the United States.”

I’m not sure Harris, who once prosecuted truants and minor drug offenders heavily while letting monopolists slip past unprosecuted, qualifies as a democratic socialist. I suspect if we were to ask Bernie Sanders, who worked alongside Harris in the Senate, and who describes himself, unapologetically,  as a democratic socialist, if Harris were also a democratic socialist, Sanders would tell you no.

Harris has supported items that democratic socialists also support, as Haskins points out, namely the Green New Deal and Medicare for All, but Harris hardly seems willing to dismantle capitalism, as any true socialist inherently aspires.

“Americans simply cannot afford Harris’s radical vision for the country,” Haskins wrote. “And even if it could, putting the dysfunctional, inefficient, corrupt federal government in charge of virtually every part of our lives, from health care to the kinds of cars we can drive, should be avoided at all costs.”

Harris has her flaws, which I’m happy to explore. But labeling Harris a socialist is rote hyperbole, which obscures Harris’s true world view – a world view we would do well to understand should she become the next president of the United States.  

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

Summary and Key Points: Russia’s sole aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, has not participated in the Russo-Ukraine War, as it has been undergoing extensive and costly repairs for several years.

-The vessel's prolonged maintenance issues have raised questions about its value and purpose. Built partly for prestige, the Kuznetsov symbolizes Russia’s desire to project power and maintain its status as a significant military force. However, its frequent need for repairs and reliance on support crews have undermined its effectiveness.

-As Russia continues to face setbacks in Ukraine, the operational absence of the Kuznetsov highlights the broader struggles within its military infrastructure.

Russia’s lone aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, has not participated in the Russo-Ukraine War, despite being one of Putin’s flagship vessels.

Rather, the Kuznetsov has been undergoing costly repairs, for several years, forcing questions over why the Russians wanted the boat in the first place.

The Russian military has failed to impress during the two-plus-year invasion of Ukraine. Failing to secure meaningful territory, failing to secure the airspace, the operation has underwhelmed – in large part because of underwhelming equipment that the Ukrainian resistance has consistently thwarted.

Several facets of the Russian military have suffered heavy losses and proven ineffective. The Air Force. The Army. And indeed, the Navy. Most notably, the Russians lost the Moskva, the Black Sea Fleet’s premier battleship, in 2022, in what was one of the first indications that the Russian effort would not go as smoothly as hoped.

At least the Moskva was able to participate, however briefly, in the conflict. The Admiral Kuznetsov has not sailed since the conflict began and appears likely to sail near the tail end of 2024. The Kuznetsov’s failure to contribute to the war effort tracks with the problems the boat has had throughout its tenure; the Kuznetsov has often required heavy maintenance and was often reduced to heavy reliance on support crews, including tugboats, making the investment suspect.

Why did the Russians want the Kuznetsov in the first place? In part because the aircraft carrier confers prestige upon its owner. The aircraft carrier states implicitly that the boat’s owner is powerful and monied.

Only a few of the world’s nations have demonstrated the ability to fund, build, and operate an aircraft carrier – making for something of an exclusive club. A nation like Russia, which is the remnant of the Soviet superpower, and will go to great lengths to posture as though still a superpower, would be especially attracted to fielding an aircraft carrier; for without an aircraft carrier, the Russians would appear as they are: past their prime, over the hill, hollowed out and overly dependent on Cold War tech and equipment.

So, like the neighbor trying to match his neighbor, who recently bought a new sportscar, Russia likely felt something like social pressure to build an aircraft carrier. Then, of course, there are strategic reasons to build an aircraft carrier.

Nothing allows a nation to move around pieces on the geopolitical chessboard quite like an aircraft carrier; an aircraft carrier allows a nation to project airpower around the globe, in an ever-moving way. For any nation with designs on projecting power beyond its borders, the aircraft carrier is a vital tool.

Russia is a regional power, and the Kuznetsov seems built with regional aspirations; the Mazut fuel source is far more limited relative to the nuclear power that can keep modern aircraft carriers at sea for decades at a time. But the Kuznetsov, when working properly, does allow the Russians to move power around the European region. So, naturally, fielding the Kuznetsov did have a strategic upside. Of course, that upside is dependent upon the Kuznetsov being operational.  

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: Northrop Grumman anticipates significant losses on the initial production of the B-21 Raider bomber, with up to $1.56 billion in potential losses for the first five units. Despite this, the program remains on schedule and within budget, ensuring taxpayer costs are controlled.

-Future lots of the Raider will see price increases, benefiting the company's financial outlook. Northrop Grumman's stock received an upgrade following the announcement.

-The program, progressing as planned, is expected to include over 100 bombers, although concerns remain about the bomber's relevance given rapid technological advancements and potential long-term costs.

High-flying Margins: Northrop Grumman Looks to See Profit With Future B-21 Lots

Aviation contractor Northrop Grumman is taking a significant loss on its first batch of the B-21 Raider, the future backbone of the United States Air Force's bomber fleet. This has allowed the aircraft to remain on time, and more importantly, for taxpayers to stay on budget. In its early call with investors last week, the company announced it could lose up to $1.56 billion producing the first five Raiders.

Last October, Northrop Grumman chief executive Kathy Warden warned that the B-21 program would not initially see profit. She had previously warned it could see a loss of up to $1.2 billion – while the figures were revised last week.

However, the price tag of the Raider is certainly expected to rise, which is good news for investors as it will bolster the company's bottom line. There had been concerns regarding the "profitability" of the long-range strategic bomber, and it has been reported that the Department of Defense (DoD) will have to pay more for subsequent lots of the bombers.

Following the announcement Northrop Grumman received a stock rating upgrade from Deutsche Bank.

"The firm elevated the stock from Hold to Buy, simultaneously increasing the price target to $575 from the previous $474. This adjustment reflects a positive shift in the bank's valuation approach following recent company disclosures," Investing.com reported.

During last week's earning call, Warden told investors that the Raider program is progressing as planned, and that includes flight tests. The B-21 remains well within its cost and schedule estimates since it entered low-rate initial production (LRIP) in January.

"As we recently shared, B-21 test pilots report that the aircraft is flying like the simulator, which is another indication that our digital environment has effectively predicted the performance of the aircraft, thus reducing new discovery and risk. For these reasons and more, we continue to believe in the significant value this program will create for customers and shareholders over time," Warden explained.

As previously reported, the U.S. Air Force's B-21 raider program was mapped out to avoid a Nunn-McCurdy Act breach that could come from out-of-control development costs. That legislation, made permanent in 1983, allows lawmakers to better manage the cost of Major Defense Acquisition Programs, as it requires the Pentagon to inform lawmakers if a program will incur a cost or schedule overrun of more than fifteen percent.

That may have forced Northrop Grumman to better manage costs, and stick to the schedule.

Yet, the Raider program – which is expected to include more than 100 bombers –  has most of its production covered under a cost-plus contract, which means the Air Force (and in turn the American taxpayer) will reimburse the company for the extra expenses it incurs due to inflation.

The biggest concern now is that it could take more than fifteen years for the Air Force to receive its full order of even just 100 B-21s. If the program is scaled back, costs will rise. Yet, the question remains whether the Raider can retain its cutting edge into the late 2030s as technological advancements have been increasing at a rapid rate. Artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, quantum computers, autonomous systems, etc. – are evolving constantly, and many of the current platforms could likely be obsolete by the time the platforms reach full-rate production (FRP).

Air Force officials and lawmakers are likely to consider whether the bomber is truly worth the cost.

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: Earlier this month, two U.S. Air Force B-52 Stratofortress bombers from Barksdale AFB undertook a notable mission as part of Bomber Task Force (BTF) 24-4, flying over Europe and the Middle East.

-One B-52 flew from Romania to the Middle East in a 32-hour mission amid rising tensions in Iraq and Syria, integrating with NATO allies and enhancing agile combat employment tactics.

-The mission included support from KC-135 Stratotankers and A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft. Despite a mechanical issue grounding one bomber, the mission underscored the B-52's enduring role, with plans to keep it operational through the 2040s with future upgrades.

Earlier this month, a pair of Boeing B-52 Stratofortress long-range strategic bombers from the 2nd Bomb Wing, Barksdale Air Force Base (AFB), Louisiana, made an epic flight to Mihail Kogalniceanu Airbase, Romania, as part of the Bomber Task Force (BTF) 24-4 mission. The aircraft's time in the air was extended as the bombers took a route via the North Sea and the Barents Sea before passing over  NATO member nation Finland.

As previously reported, BTF 24-4 was already notable as it marked the first time a B-52 crossed over Finland, and also the first deployment of the Cold War-era bombers to Romania. As the aircraft flew over the Barents Sea, Russian Mikoyan MiG-29 and Mikoyan MiG-31 fighters were sortied to "intercept" the American bombers.

While deployed to Europe B-52s operated as the 20th Expeditionary Bomb Squadron, according to the U.S. Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) – Air Forces Africa (AFAFRICA). During the BTF 24-4 mission, the pair of Stratofortress bombers successfully integrated with NATO allies and other international partners.

"In today's global environment, it is vital that we be postured to deliver a range of sustainable capability from great distances. This iteration of Bomber Task Force offers an excellent opportunity to refine our agile combat employment tactics, techniques, and procedures," said Gen. James Hecker, USAFE-AFAFRICA commander. "Through collaborative efforts with our Allies, the U.S. enables our forces to combat current and future threats."

The bomber crews didn't have time to take in the sights, at least not from the ground.

Just days after landing in Romania, one of the bombers was back in the air, flying from Europe to the Middle East late last week. The thirty-two-hour flight on July 25 and July 26 occurred as U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria came under attack, Air & Space Forces magazine reported.

Flight tracking data revealed that the bomber took off from Romania, then flew south across Bulgaria and Greece before crossing the Mediterranean Sea, where the Stratofortress entered the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) area of operations. The nearly day-and-a-half-long deployment saw the aircraft travel across Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and then to the Persian Gulf before the aircraft made a return flight back home to Barksdale AFB.

"The exercise also included KC-135 Stratotankers deployed from Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington, McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas, and A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft from Selfridge Air National Guard Base, Michigan," the U.S. Air Force Central Command further announced. The KC-135s and A-10s are also reported to have been deployed to the Middle East for ongoing U.S. operations in the region.

It was also reported that only one of the pair of B-52 made the Middle Eastern flight as the second reportedly suffered "mechanical problems" and didn't take off, according to reports from social media. Though the second B-52 is also back home now, this is a reminder of why it is so important that the Air Force deploys the aircraft in pairs or more – which ensures that the mission can be completed.

The B-52s have been flying since the mid-1950s, and while continually upgraded and enhanced, the aircraft is far older than their current crews. The United States Air Force intends on keeping the B-52s in operation through the 2040s or later, with future upgrades including new Rolls-Royce engines and cockpit layout.

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy’s Seawolf-class attack submarines, conceived during the Reagan era's military revolution, are among the most technologically advanced in the world. Initially planned for a fleet of 29, only three were built due to the post-Cold War peace dividend and high costs.

-These submarines excel in covert missions, special forces transport, and Arctic operations. Despite their superiority, their limited numbers pose a strategic risk, as seen when USS Connecticut was damaged and will be out of service until 2025.

-The decision to curtail the Seawolf fleet may have significant repercussions as the U.S. faces near-peer challengers like China and Russia.

The 1980s saw an explosion of capabilities in the U.S. military. A little less than a decade earlier, there were radical changes in America’s technological capabilities. These changes were not only felt in the civilian economy of the West, such as with the rise of personal computing, but with the advent of advanced microchips that were folded into military systems. 

On top of that, the Reagan revolution in U.S. politics occurred. One of the hallmarks of President Ronald Reagan’s revolution was massive spending on defense projects. As a result of these expenditures came a revolution in military affairs, one that was felt for decades to come. Indeed, many of the military technologies that the Department of Defense takes for granted today are expressly born out of the Reagan revolution in military affairs.

The world’s most advanced warplane, for example, is the F-22 Raptor. This bird was originally created at the height of this revolution. It took years to finish designing and to properly test. But its origins are during the glory days of Reagan’s revolution. 

Multiple other capabilities, some of which remain classified today, originated in the Reagan era. One such platform, the Seawolf-class attack submarine, emanates from this halcyon era of innovation and development in the defense sector. 

Although she was not ready for deployment when Reagan was in office, the Seawolf class was meant to replace the Los Angeles-class attack sub. Seawolf was launched in 1995, the second term of President Bill Clinton, and was commissioned by the U.S. Navy in 1997. 

USS Seawolf was supposed to be the first of some 29 Seawolf-class submarines. But the time she was commissioned in was far different from the Reagan days when she was first conceived.

The Cold War was over. It was a blessedly bloodless victory. Clinton had bested the more competent President George H.W. Bush in the 1992 election, partly because Clinton sang the populist song of retrenchment, lauding the so-called peace dividend.

The peace dividend meant drastic cuts to key systems that were designed during the Reagan years. The Soviets were gone. There were no significant near-peer challengers on the horizon. Counterterrorism and humanitarian military operations were the primary concerns of the post-Cold War-era military. The Seawolf class, which was explicitly designed to fight the Soviet Red Navy, was considered a wasteful investment.

Of course, hindsight is 20/20. 

Had Washington followed through on its initial plans for the Seawolf class, the U.S. Navy would be in a much better strategic position as it now faces real near-peer challengers in China and Russia. 

The Seawolf class remains America’s most technologically sophisticated submarine. It’s also wildly expensive. At $3.5 billion per submarine in this class, Congress understandably balked at the thought of spending for a fleet of more than 20 Seawolf-class submarines. Still, they were significantly cheaper than the increasingly obsolete U.S. aircraft carrier force. 

The four Seawolf-class subs that the U.S. Navy does use are all legendary boats. 

These subs are used for daring covert missions. They can transport special forces operators to remote locations or carry out risky surveillance missions. They’re equipped with next-level weapons capabilities. The Seawolf class is designed to operate in the most forbidding environments in the world. 

A Seawolf-class sub could easily go from secretly tapping undersea communications cables to popping through the Arctic ice to keep an eye on the pesky Russians, who have been angling to dominate the High North since at least 2008.

Can other submarines do these tasks? 

Yes. 

However, the technology found within the Seawolf-class submarines remains among some of the most advanced systems in the world, even more than 20 years after they were first commissioned. There are so few Seawolf-class submarines available, though, that the loss of one would be catastrophic for the Navy’s fleet disposition. 

In 2022, USS Connecticut, another Seawolf-class submarine, crashed into an undersea mountain while it was covertly surveying the secretive Chinese naval base on Hainan Island in the South China Sea.

While the submarine was not destroyed, it won’t be returning to service until the fall of 2025. With how backlogged America’s ailing shipyards are, it’s probable that it won’t be hitting the high seas for some time. 

The short-sighted decision not to build the requisite number of Seawolf-class attack submarines will cost America when the next great power starts.

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. 

From the Vault

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

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

Summary and Key Points: The Russian military is intensifying its offensive in the Donbas, making steady advances despite heavy casualties.

-Over recent weeks, Russian forces have captured several villages and moved closer to the logistics hub of Pokrovsk, which supports a significant portion of the Ukrainian defensive line.

-Additionally, the town of Niu York remains contested. Despite these tactical gains, Russia's operational capability is hampered by high attrition, limited training, and a shortage of officers. Ukrainian defense forces report significant Russian losses, including 1,060 personnel, 53 vehicles, and 47 artillery systems in the past 24 hours.

-The conflict remains intense, with no sign of de-escalation.

Over the past few weeks, the Russian forces have made some progress. 

“In July 2024, Russian Ground Forces (RGF) maintained continuous attacks in central Donetsk Oblast,” British Military Intelligence assessed in its latest estimate on the war. “The RGF made steady advances westwards, taking control of several villages and moving closer to the logistics hub of Pokrovsk.”

The logistical functions at Pokrovsk support a good part of the contact line in the Donbas. Losing it would complicate Ukraine’s defense. 

“The RGF also made advances northwards into the town of Niu York, which has been on the frontline since 2014. The town is almost certainly contested between the RFG and Ukrainian Armed Forces,” British Military Intelligence stated.

It is worth remembering that the fighting in some parts of the Donbas has been going on for a decade now. It began soon after the illegal Russian invasion and annexation of the Crimean Peninsula. Pro-Russian separatists in the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts then launched a full-scale insurgency in the Donbas with Russia's direct and indirect support. 

When the Russian military launched its full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022, fighting in the area reignited. However, despite fluctuations on the contact line, there are some places where the positions have remained fairly similar to 10 years ago. 

“It is likely that Russia will continue to make tactical advances in the coming weeks. However, its overall operational capability remains limited by several factors including a high attrition rate, limited training, and a shortage of officers,” British Military Intelligence concluded. 

As we have discussed previously here at The National Interest, Russian forces are taking extremely heavy losses on a daily basis. 

According to the latest data released by the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense – data generally corroborated by Western military intelligence estimates – Russian forces over the last 24 hours lost approximately 1,060 men killed, wounded, or captured, as well as 53 tactical vehicles and fuel trucks, 47 artillery guns and multiple launch rocket systems, 38 infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, 27 unmanned aerial systems, 25 main battle tanks, and 6 pieces of special equipment. 

Despite the heavy losses, the Russian forces continue to be on the offensive. However, the scope of the Russian offensives is very limited. Indeed, instead of trying to achieve an operational breakthrough and move the conflict forward, the Russian forces are vying for tactical successes. This is almost certainly because they lack the necessary combat capability and resources to conduct maneuver warfare of the sort necessary to achieve larger results on the battlefield. As such, Moscow’s casualties both dictate and restrict the way the Russian military fights in Ukraine. 

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 Pentagon has announced a substantial $2 billion security aid package for Ukraine, aimed at bolstering its defenses against Russian missile attacks and achieving battlefield superiority. The package includes air defense systems like NASAMS missiles and RIM-7 Sea Sparrow missiles, long-range fires like HIMARS and M270 rocket systems, and 155 mm artillery shells.

-It also provides Javelin anti-tank missiles, small arms, and electronic warfare equipment. This aid is split between the Presidential Drawdown Authority, which quickly supplies existing U.S. military resources, and the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, which funds the purchase of new weapon systems.

-This support is crucial for Ukraine's continued resistance and counter-offensives against Russian forces.

The Pentagon announced another big package of security aid to Ukraine. The aid is worth almost $2 billion. 

This latest package of weapon systems and munitions is designed to help the Ukrainians fend off Russian missile attacks and to obtain fires superiority on the battlefield. 

The latest package includes missiles for the National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS); short- and medium-range air defense munitions; RIM-7 Sea Sparrow air defense missiles modified to go with Kyiv’s SA-11 Buk mobile air defense systems; and precision aerial munitions. 

For long-range fires, the latest package of security aid includes ammunition for the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems and M270 Multiple Launch Rocket Systems; 155 mm and 105 mm artillery shells; and 120 mm heavy mortar rounds. The 155 mm shells are in the highest demand. On days with high operational activity, the Ukrainian military will go through as many as 7,000 of these artillery rounds.

In addition, the latest package of military aid contains other weapon systems and munitions for ground combat, including Tube-Launched, Optically-Tracked, Wire-Guided missiles; FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missiles; small arms, AT-4 anti-tank missiles; explosives and demolition equipment; secure radios; commercial satellite imagery services; electronic warfare equipment; spare parts, maintenance, and sustainment support; and other ancillary equipment.

“Today, the Department of Defense (DoD) announced additional security assistance to meet Ukraine's critical security and defense needs. This includes the authorization of a Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA) package valued at up to $200 million to provide Ukraine with key capabilities, including: air defense interceptors; munitions for rocket systems and artillery; and anti-tank weapons,” the Pentagon stated in a press statement. 

In addition to the PDA package, the Pentagon announced a $1.5 billion security aid package under the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. 

“This package includes capabilities to augment Ukraine's air defenses, fires, and anti-tank weapons, as well as funding to sustain equipment previously committed by the United States,” the Pentagon added. 

The difference between PDA and USAI military packages is simple. PDA draws from the existing supplies of the U.S. military. For example, the M1 Abrams main battle tanks sent to Ukraine are refurbished U.S. Marine Corps tanks. PDA is fast and efficient. On the other hand, USAI gives money to buy new weapons systems and munitions off the market. Although the Ukrainians are getting new materials, there is more delay than with PDA security assistance. 

The Ukrainian military depends on Western military aid for its survival. Certainly the Ukrainians are stout fighters with unmatched creativity and resilience. However, it is Western military aid that has allowed the Ukrainian forces to first stop and then push back the invading Russian forces. It is Western military aid that will help the Ukrainians win this war and liberate their country. 

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.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: China is rapidly advancing its naval capabilities, particularly with its Shang-class attack submarines, designed to replace the outdated Han-class.

-The Shang-class, featuring advanced sonar systems, anechoic tiles, and YJ-82 anti-ship missiles, is as quiet as the U.S. Navy's Los Angeles-class submarines. With virtually unlimited endurance from its nuclear reactor, the Shang-class is a formidable adversary.

-The U.S. Department of Defense expects more Shang-class submarines, including the Type 093B variant with enhanced missile capabilities, to be built soon. China's industrial efficiency and proximity to potential conflict zones give it a strategic advantage, challenging U.S. naval dominance.

China is the only great power thinking seriously about naval power today. Beijing sits atop the second-largest economy in the world (in GDP terms) and the largest economy in PPP terms. China’s rulers are effectively deploying that vast wealth and technological advancements in Beijing’s bid to become the world’s dominant superpower by the hundredth-year anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China (the year 2049). 

As part of the effort, China is building a fleet of advanced submarines that can counter the U.S. Navy’s submarine force.

Paired with China’s industrial efficiency, Beijing has an edge that, if not in terms of quality, certainly surpasses the Americans in terms of quantity. That, as well as the fact that any future engagement between the US Navy and the Chinese Navy would be much closer to Chinese shores, means that China’s growing submarine fleet will have considerable leverage over their American enemies.

The Shang-class attack submarine is China’s second-generation nuclear-powered attack sub. It was designed to replace the aging Han-class attack submarine, which had considerable drawbacks. 

China’s first-generation nuclear-powered attack submarine, the Han-class, was China’s first nuclear-powered submarine ever. Its development was a significant leap in China’s naval abilities. 

But the Han-class was a mess compared to its Soviet or American rivals. This boat had a length of approximately 98 meters and a displacement of around 5,100 tons when submerged. The Han class was powered by a single nuclear reactor. She was equipped with six 533 mm bow torpedo tubes capable of launching a variety of anti-submarine and anti-surface vessel torpedoes. 

She carried around 75 crewmembers.

The common complaint among China’s submariners was that the Han class was far too noisy. In undersea warfare, stealth and silence are the greatest advantages. 

What’s more, the Han-class was about 20 years behind similar U.S. vessels, and its performance was limited by the development level and manufacturing capacity of China’s defense industrial base at the time of its construction. 

As for the Shang-class submarine, there are roughly six in service to China. In terms of her capabilities, the Shang-class comes equipped with six 533 mm bow torpedo tubes of similar capability to its Han-class predecessor. Further, the Shang-class can launch YJ-82 anti-ship and land-attack missiles. Meanwhile, the Shang II-class submarine (Type 093B) is equipped with a Vertical Launch System for YJ-18 supersonic and anti-ship missiles as well as variants of the anti-ship CJ-10 cruise missile.

Shang-class attack submarines carry around 100 crewmembers, and their defensive capabilities include advanced sonar systems and anechoic tiles to reduce the submarine’s acoustic signature. The Shang class is considered to be as quiet as the U.S. Navy’s Los Angeles-class attack submarines, with a noise level of around 110 decibels. 

Shang-class subs are powered by a nuclear reactor, giving them virtually unlimited endurance and range. The top cruising speed of this boat is estimated to be around 30 knots (or just shy of 35 miles per hour). She displaces around 6,675 tons when submerged for the Type 093/A variant, and 6,700 tons when submerged for the Type 093B variant.

China is planning to build more Shang-class submarines, with the U.S. Department of Defense estimating that China will build the Type 093B guided-missile nuclear attack submarine in the next year or so. 

China continues to catch up to the Americans in key areas. The Shang-class submarine represents one key area where China’s military is moving toward parity with the Americans. 

The Shang-class submarine is a real improvement from what came before it. The West is foolish both for underestimating China’s threat and capabilities as well as for assuming that the United States can counter and/or deter China indefinitely. 

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. 

From the Vault

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

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

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy's new Transferrable Rearming Mechanism (TRAM) allows surface warships to reload missile canisters at sea, potentially extending combat operations without returning to port. This innovation aims to address logistical challenges in conflicts, particularly against China.

-However, China's anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities pose significant threats that the Navy has yet to effectively counter. While TRAM enhances operational endurance, its effectiveness is limited if U.S. ships can't penetrate China's A2/AD defenses.

-Overcoming these advanced defensive systems remains crucial for TRAM's utility in future naval engagements. Until then, the Navy's new capability may be premature against a well-prepared adversary like China.

It takes many things to win modern wars. But the baseline requirement is a proper logistical supply chain linking your forces with their base of support. In the U.S. case, that means linking a forward-deployed military, in particular the Navy, with its homeland. America is blessed to be free of threats in its near-abroad. Instead, the U.S. moves its all-volunteer force to Eurasia and the rimland surrounding it. 

The Navy is therefore essential to America’s military dominance.

For the first time since the Second World War, though, American rivals are rising to challenge the Navy’s freedom of movement. 

The Navy’s primary role is what’s known as “sea control.” Essentially, it is the Navy’s job to ensure the Americans can access any waterway in the world quickly in order to win whatever conflict the U.S. is fighting. But the Navy’s ability to do this has shrunk as the capabilities of rival nation-states like China increase relative to America’s.

China’s threat is far away from the United States. The Pacific is a vast ocean separating the power base of the U.S. military from the possible battlefields of any conflict with the People’s Republic of China. Given the geography and disposition of the U.S. military, the Navy will play a leading role in any fight with China. That is why China has worked assiduously to undermine the ability of the U.S. Navy to reliably project power into contested regions in the Indo-Pacific. 

One likely area of attack from China would be against American logistics supporting any naval activity in the Indo-Pacific during a possible war with Beijing. Finally, the Navy appears to be on the brink of overcoming a deficit in this regard. A recent successful demonstration from the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Port Hueneme in California showed how the U.S. Navy’s surface fleet intends to keep besieged units in combat for longer. 

The folks at Port Hueneme proved they can reliably reload missile canisters into the Mk41 Vertical Launching Systems of U.S. Navy surface warships that are forward-deployed. 

Known as the Transferrable Rearming Mechanism (TRAM), it is believed that this new capability of reloading at sea will be decisive for the Navy’s surface fleet in any engagement with a hostile navy. 

Or, as the Navy’s official site exudes, “No longer will our combatants need to withdraw from combat for extended periods to return for vulnerable in-port reloading of weapon systems.” 

It’s an unqualified good that the Navy can now do this. But it might come too late. 

China has developed substantial countermeasures designed to overcome America’s perceived military advantages at sea. Its anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities are now the foundation of China’s military presence in the South and East China Seas. These defensive systems are built to deny U.S. access to a contested battle area. Advanced sensors, anti-ship ballistic missile systems, and hypersonic weapons define China’s A2/AD threat. 

Contrary to whatever the Navy’s official position on these A2/AD capabilities from China may be, the U.S. Navy does not have viable defenses against these systems. 

More than that, the Navy has not yet effectively demonstrated that it has the ability to produce directed-energy weapons or hypersonic weapons of its own that can reliably challenge China. This creates a severe strategic deficit and lends China significant tactical advantages that it otherwise would lack.  

America’s problem is the A2/AD threat. Being able to “fire two broadsides to the enemy’s one,” as Hunter Stires, a maritime analyst for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, described this new TRAM capability, misses the point. There’s no reason to reload at sea with TRAM if the surface fleet cannot get close enough to fire on Chinese targets that are protected by A2/AD defensive bubbles, nor is there any reason to reload at sea if China can simply sink U.S. warships with their A2/AD systems.

Will this capability be useful for the Navy? 

Undoubtedly, yes. 

Will it be useful before rival A2/AD systems can be overcome? Absolutely not. 

Are rival A2/AD systems being overcome by Navy innovations? Not yet. 

Once the A2/AD threat is mitigated, then the Navy surface fleet can be more fully used, and that reload-at-sea capability becomes more important. Until then, however, the Navy is basically putting the cart before the horse. This will have profoundly negative consequences for the U.S. military if a war with China erupts. 

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. 

From the Vault

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

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

Summary and Key Points: During recent U.S.-led naval exercises near Hawaii, the Harpoon missile demonstrated its enduring capabilities by sinking two large warships. Used by over thirty nations, this American-made anti-ship missile has been a mainstay since the Cold War.

-Developed by McDonnell Douglas in response to the 1967 sinking of the Israeli destroyer Eilat, the Harpoon features a low-level, sea-skimming cruise trajectory with active radar guidance. Various versions, including the air-launched Standoff Land Attack Missile (SLAM), have been utilized in multiple combat operations, showcasing its versatility and effectiveness.

-Despite its age, the Harpoon missile remains a formidable force in modern naval warfare.

This month, two large warships were sunk by the U.S. Navy and its allies on a U.S.-led international military exercise on the Rim of the Pacific, near the Hawaiian Islands. These live-fire sinking drills included a consortium of twenty-nine nations, forty surface ships, three submarines, and roughly 25,000 personnel. 

Footage of these wargames showcases the capabilities of the naval capabilities of America’s allies, namely the Royal Netherlands Navy’s De Zeven Provincien-class frigate: the proud HNLMS Tromp with its advanced, and expensive, Harpoon missiles, valued at more than $1.4 million.

These resilient, American-made, anti-ship missiles have been used by America’s allies since the days of the Cold War. These systems, while aged, did so like fine wine, as they continue to play a leading role in America’s power on the high seas. Today, the Harpoon missiles remain in service, utilized by more than thirty nations as the world’s most successful anti-ship missile available.

Conceptualization for the Harpoon peaked in the 1960s, following the shocking sinking of the Israeli destroyer Eilat during the Israeli-Egyptian war of 1967. The warship was on patrol off the coast of the Egyptian town of Port Said when a Soviet-designed P-15 Termit/SS-N-2 Styx anti-ship missile thoroughly destroyed the Israeli vessel. This attack began a new stage in naval warfare, as the first surface-to-surface missiles had sunk a warship at sea.

Militaries around the globe, including the United States, were shocked by the success of the Soviet weapon. Thick was the kick that American officials were looking for to prioritize constructing a more advanced anti-ship missile inventory. Manufacturer McDonnell Douglas was then tasked with developing the Harpoon to rectify the gap in capability.

The first Harpoon was delivered by the end of the 1970’s. Utilizing a low-level, sea-skimming cruise trajectory with active radar guidance, capable of using both anti-ship and land-strike missiles. Following its second anniversary in the service, air-launched Harpoons were developed on the Navy’s P-3C Orion aircraft and later for use on the Air Force’s B-52H bombers. Over time, multiple Harpoon variants have been created for the platform, retaining an edge over any competitors. 

The missiles could be launched from a range of systems, from surface ships and submarines to fixed-wing aircraft and coastal defense batteries. The Block 1E version of the missile, better known as the Standoff Land Attack Missile (SLAM) was first introduced in the 1990s, and the Harpoon Block II debuted in 2009.

While many Harpoon variants may differ slightly in terms of capabilities, the Block 1E (AGM-84E/SLAM) largely departs from its predecessors.

As outlined by the Center for International and Strategic Studies (CSIS), “An air-launched land attack missile, the addition of a Global Positioning System receiver, a Walleye infrared (IIR) optical guidance system, and a Maverick data-link system resulted in a significantly more precise weapon. The missile is 4.5 meters in length and 0.34 meters in diameter, with a launch weight of 628 kg. SLAM entered service in 1990 and was successfully employed in Operation Desert Storm and UN relief efforts in Bosnia.”

Since the Harpoon’s introduction to service, the anti-ship missile has been deployed in numerous combat operations. In its first decade of service, Harpoon missiles were used to sink the Iranian frigate Sahand during Operation Praying Mantis and against Libyan forces in the Gulf of Sidra.

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. 

Summary and Key Points: As tensions rise in the Pacific, Japan's Maritime Self-Defense Force has commissioned its latest Taigei-class submarines to counter Chinese and North Korean aggression.

-The diesel-electric Taigei-class, including the lead ship Taigei and Hakugei, features advanced stealth, high-strength steel, and sophisticated lithium-ion batteries for enhanced underwater endurance.

-Armed with Type 18 and Type 89 torpedoes, and UGM-48 Harpoon missiles, these subs significantly bolster Japan's naval capabilities.

-With a displacement of 3,000 tons and cutting-edge technology, the Taigei-class is crucial for Japan's defense strategy. Analysts predict at least ten of these submarines will be built by 2027.

As the People’s Republic of China (PRC) continues to engage in hostile activity in the Pacific, East Asian nations are gearing up for a potential full-blown war in the imminent future. Earlier this year, the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) commissioned its newest Taigei-class submarine. This diesel-electric boat dubbed “Swift Whale” is expected to officially commence its operational service with Japan over the next year. Since the South China Sea would serve as the hotbed for kinetic conflict, Japan’s growing naval capabilities are of the utmost importance to its security.

Japan’s Taigei-class submarines represent the country’s latest efforts to counter increased Chinese and North Korean aggression. The preceding Soryu boats were initially developed with this goal in mind and some of the class’s capabilities were transferred to the Taigei vessels. Before the final Soryu sub was commissioned, Japanese officials envisioned a “next-generation” submarine class that would prioritize stealth, dive speed, and other emerging technologies.

Evaluations for this future class’s sonar and air-independent propulsion system (AIP) were initiated in the early 2000s. This new AIP system was conceptualized to allow future submarine classes to expand their operational areas, a capability required by the JMSDF.

The lead ship of the Taigei class—Taigei—was commissioned in 2022 at the Yokosuka home port. It was followed by Hakugei one year later at the Kure home port. The Taigei submarines have a standard displacement of roughly 3,000 tons, which is larger than their Soryu predecessors. Each of these boas can carry a crew of about seven sailors and measures around 84 meters in length. These submarines notably feature sophisticated absorbent materials and high-strength steel to ensure a quieter operation and high water pressure resistance. When the fourth Taigei boat is introduced to service down the line, Raigei will notably feature the latest Kawasaki 12V 25/31 diesel engine unlike its sister ships.

Unlike other non-nuclear submarines that have been constructed, the Taigei boats feature lithium-ion batteries which provide faster recharge times, enhanced battery-discharge rates and higher energy density. The U.S. Naval Institute has previously outlined just how capable these batteries are: “The results are enhanced silent operations, better speeds and sprints, longer underwater endurance, and significantly greater overall performance when compared with more conventional undersea submarines. The use of lithium-ion batteries also saves weight and complexity by making an air-independent propulsion (AIP) system unnecessary to extend the submarine’s underwater endurance.”

In terms of armament power, the Taigei class is quite lethal. The submarines are able to launch Japan’s newest Type 18 heavyweight torpedoes or Mitsuishi-built Type 89 heavyweight homing torpedoes via its six 21-inch bow torpedo tubes. Additionally, the Taigei boats can launch UGM-48 Harpoon anti-ship missiles. The missile range of the Harpoon is 248 km—enough to provide Japan with a “counterattack” capability.

Although Japan has not confirmed the total class size of its Taigei boats, analysts predict that at least ten of these submarines will be introduced down the line. Tokyo’s Defense Building Program budget was approved in 2022 and indicates that the last ship in this class will be built in 2027.

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. 

Summary and Key Points: Corruption in Russia's defense and aerospace industry is a growing concern as the war in Ukraine intensifies. Western intelligence estimates that Russia loses over 20,000 artillery shells and at least 100 pieces of heavy weaponry daily.

-The recent arrests of high-ranking officials for embezzlement highlight the pervasive corruption within the industry. Established to streamline military procurement, the Military Construction Company has allegedly been exploited for personal gain.

-Despite Putin's crackdowns, corruption hampers Russia's military effectiveness. Meanwhile, Russian forces continue to suffer heavy casualties, with estimates suggesting losses will reach 700,000 by year's end.

A country’s industrial military complex is a key factor in its ability to protect itself and wage war. After all, a military needs heavy weapon systems and ammunition to fight. As the fighting in Ukraine continues to show, the demands of modern conventional warfare are very high indeed.

For example, Western intelligence estimates put the number of artillery shells used by the Russian military during heavy fighting at over 20,000 per day. In terms of attrition, moreover, the Russian forces are losing at least 100 pieces of heavy weaponry every day.

A military can’t sustain such losses and demand for resources without a robust industrial military complex. So, the fact that corruption runs rampant in the Russian defense and aerospace industry is concerning the Kremlin.

According to Russian media, Andrei Belkov, the head of the Russian Defense Ministry’s Military Construction Company has been arrested on charges of corruption for his activities during the procurement of military goods. Established in 2019, the Military Construction Company was created to streamline Russian military procurement and make it more efficient.

“In reality it is likely the company has been used to extract rents by corrupt officials,” the British Military Intelligence assessed in its latest estimate of the war.

In addition, last week, the former director of a tactical missile plant was sentenced to prison for embezzling military funds and inflating prices.

“Corruption is endemic in the Russian defense industry. In 2007, an audit commissioned by the then Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov revealed that 70% of Ministry of Defense budgetary resources were used for purposes other than those officially designated,” the British Military Intelligence added.

The Russian economy is heavily centered around corruption, with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the center and several oligarchs around the table. The transactional nature of Russian politics further encourages corruption.

“Some of this corruption is tolerated by the Kremlin, but there have been increasing crackdowns on those not sufficiently politically protected since the start of the war in Ukraine,” the British Military Intelligence concluded.

Regardless of how much Putin and his Kremlin advisers would like it, the Russian defense and aerospace industry is inferior to that of the United States and the West. Corruption—which certainly exists in the U.S. and the West—is one of the main reasons behind the fact that Russia’s weapons and platforms are not as good as those of its adversaries.

Meanwhile, the Russian forces continue to take heavy casualties on the ground. According to the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense, over the last 24 hours, the Russian forces lost approximately 1,310 men killed, wounded, or captured, as well as 76 artillery pieces and multiple launch rocket systems, 62 tactical vehicles and fuel trucks, 39 unmanned aerial systems, 19 pieces of special equipment, 12 main battle tanks, 8 armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, and 1 anti-aircraft weapon system.

As with previous assessments here at The National Interest, the Russian forces are likely to close the year with 700,000 losses.

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: Lockheed Martin is launching a competition to upgrade the cooling system of the F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter jet. The contenders are Honeywell Aerospace, which supplies the current system, and Collins Aerospace.

-This upgrade aims to reduce the aircraft's heat signature, enhancing its stealth capabilities. The F-35 Joint Program Office expects to award the contract in Fall 2024, ensuring maximum capability and cost-effectiveness.

-The F-35 is already the most advanced fighter jet, with ongoing updates like the TR-3 software and Block 4 upgrade to maintain its cutting-edge status. Honeywell has expressed concerns about the timing of this change.

The F-35 Lightning II stealth aircraft might be the most advanced fighter jet in the skies today. Still, it continues to receive updates to make it more effective and competitive on the battlefield today and tomorrow.

As part of this update process, Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer, is expected to launch a competition for a new cooling system that will improve the stealth fighter jet's capabilities.

In the upcoming days, Lockheed Martin will launch a competition to replace the F-35 Lightning II’s cooling system. Honeywell Aerospace, which provides the existing cooling system, and Collins Aerospace are the two aerospace companies vying for the contract.

“Contract award for the upcoming phase of the PTMU [Power and Thermal Management Unit] program is expected in Fall 2024,” the F-35 Joint Program Office told Breaking Defense.

“We will work with Lockheed Martin throughout the entire process to ensure all known PTMU solution options are evaluated for performance and economical retrofitability to existing aircraft; bringing maximum capability to the warfighters while accounting for cost,” the F-35 JPO added.

The cooling system, among other things, reduces the heat signature of the fighter jet. The lower the heat signature of an aircraft, the harder it is for enemy sensors to detect it. As such, a reduced heat signature will improve the stealth capabilities of the F-35 Lightning II. (As an aside, stealth doesn’t mean invisible. Rather, it means harder to detect, and it is achieved through a combination of design, countermeasures, special paint coats, and tactics.)

“[We will] evaluate all solution options and determine the best path forward in terms of capability and cost to meet the F-35’s future mission requirements. We expect contract authorization from the Joint Program Office this fall, allowing down-select, development and deployment to new and fielded aircraft,” Lockheed Martin stated.

The F-35 Lightning II is the most advanced fighter jet in the world, but it has several updates and upgrades lined up. To begin with, Lockheed Martin is currently rolling out the TR-3 software update that is necessary for the aircraft to remain at the tip of the spear of combat aviation. Next, there is the Block 4 upgrade, which will allow the F-35 Lightning II to carry newer weapon systems and also improve its sensors. The modular design of the F-35 Lightning II allows these updates and upgrades to happen relatively easily.

Honeywell seems opposed to the need for a new cooling system, given the particular operational circumstances.

“When I think about what puts the F-35 program at risk the most is change,” Honeywell Defense and Space President Matt Milas said to Breaking Defense.  

“It is so integrated that it just begs the question of, why would we try to change out something that is so integral into the system, when we’re already having all these problems with TR-3, getting to Block 4, [and when] we have potential conflicts all across the globe? Now is not the time where you want to mess with the centerpiece of your defense strategy.” 

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: Ukraine is set to receive its first batch of F-16 Fighting Falcon fighter jets in the upcoming weeks, potentially altering the air war and the broader conflict with Russia.

-While multiple countries have pledged up to 85 F-16s, not all are operational. Fearing Russian retaliation, Ukraine plans to keep the jets away from frontlines.

-The West's delayed provision of key weapon systems like the F-16s has hindered Ukraine's defense capabilities.

-Despite logistical and political challenges, the West's fear of escalation must cease to effectively support Ukraine. With Russian President Putin determined to continue the war, Western commitment is crucial.

The Ukrainian Air Force is one step closer to receiving F-16 Fighting Falcon fighter jets.

According to U.S. defense officials, the Ukrainian military will receive the first batch of F-16 fighter jets in the upcoming weeks—and most likely before the end of the summer.

If used right, the U.S.-made fighter jet has the potential to change the air war in the skies of Ukraine and even the course of the entire conflict.

According to the Washington Post, Ukraine will be receiving the first F-16 Fighting Falcon fighter jets in the upcoming weeks.

Several countries have committed a varying number of F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine that can reach up to 85. However, not all aircraft are in operational condition, and some will serve as a ready reserve for spare parts.

Ukrainian defense officials suggest that they won’t be using the aircraft close to the frontlines out of fear of losing them to Russian action.

Anticipating the arrival of the F-16 fighter jets, the Russian military has been targeting suitable runways. A conventional take-off and landing aircraft, the F-16 requires a proper runway to operate. In extremis, long roads, such as highways, could still be used.

It is still not clear whether NATO will allow the Ukrainian Air Force to operate its F-16 fighter jets from neighboring countries, such as Poland, Romania, and the Czech Republic.

However, as with many other weapon systems, the West has been late in transferring them to Ukraine. The fear of escalation has long gripped Western leaders, making them reluctant to provide Kyiv with the necessary tools to fight the Russian invading armies effectively. Indeed, despite the undeniable contribution of Western military aid to Ukraine, most of the weapon systems have arrived too late to have the most effect on the course of the conflict.

For example, it took the West about a year to commit main battle tanks, such as the M1 Abrams, Leopard 2, and Challenger 2, to Ukraine. And when they arrived, they didn’t arrive in the right numbers to make a difference in the large-scale counteroffensive of last summer.

Similarly, it took over a year to send Ukraine precision long range munitions, such as the Storm Shadow and SCALP-EG cruise missiles, and almost two years to commit MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS). These munitions have allowed the Ukrainian military to strike deep behind the front lines and seriously harass the Russian command and control and logistical functions.

To be sure, coordinating an international, multi-billion security assistance lifeline to Kyiv isn’t a piece of cake. There are a lot of moving parts and serious politics involved in the process. However, the common thread of delayed transfers of key weapon systems and platforms out of fear of escalation must end yesterday.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is committed to winning this war, apparently regardless of the cost. It is estimated that more than 700,000 of his countrymen will have died or been injured by the end of the year. Putin and his Kremlin advisers are committed. The West must be, too.

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Consternation grows that China will invade Taiwan. Numerous war games predict horrific outcomes. An invasion would be swift and sharp. As the United States did in the first Gulf War, China would likely knock out Taiwanese radar and air/sea defense capabilities first, followed by drops of airborne troops, including the seizure of airfields and ports. An amphibious assault would follow. The possibility of targeted special operations and cyber actions by embedded PLA assets in Taiwan could also not be discounted. Finally, an EMP attack might happen, shutting down communications and air defense batteries.

Despite this, while many consider a Chinese invasion to be inevitable if not imminent, Taiwan is sending a different, less convincing message—evidenced by the fact that it spends less as a percentage of GDP on its defense than the United States (2.6 percent compared to 3 percent). On top of that, Taiwan does not have a strong draft. During the second decade of this century, even as tensions with China grew, Taiwan reduced the term for compulsory conscription from two years to one and then from one year to only four months in 2017. Only since January 2024 has Taipei increased the term again to one year, but that level of commitment still pales when one considers that during the Cold War, the United States, facing no immediate threat of invasion by anyone, maintained a two-year draft. These facts raise the question of whether Taiwan is serious about resisting a Chinese invasion or even if it takes such threats seriously. 

Taiwan’s politicians likely realize better than Washington that Taiwanese voters may not be as inclined to make the kind of heavy sacrifices that are necessary to defend their freedom as the Ukrainians, Israelis, Finns, or Swiss. The reality is that Taiwanese public opinion on China largely supports the current status quo, which Beijing also tolerates so long as there is no talk of independence. This state of affairs is consistent with the original framework set out by the United States and China in the 1972 Shanghai Communique. The United States acknowledged that “there is but one China and that Taiwan is part of China.” Washington reaffirmed its commitment to the “peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves.” In a 2024 survey, over 33 percent of Taiwanese said that they would like to extend the current status quo indefinitely, followed by about 28 percent who would like to decide the question of independence at some later date and 21.5 percent who would like to maintain the status quo for now but move gradually toward eventual independence.

Taiwan no doubt carefully follows Chinese military writings on its approach to war. Chinese military thinkers suggest that a full-scale, military-style invasion may not be the first option on Beijing’s playlist. Non-kinetic alternatives receive as much consideration in Chinese military thinking.

Without firing a shot, China is already waging war against Taiwan, and it is winning. Beijing’s present strategy is primarily focused on economic absorption, intimidation, and influence. Their aim is to conquer Taiwan by quiet integration into the Chinese economy while warding off, with military threats if necessary, any Taiwanese political momentum toward a declaration of independence. China is Taiwan’s largest trading partner. The Chinese in Taiwan (but not the indigenous population) share a common language and past with mainland Chinese. Hence, the primary attack strategy will continue to be in the information warfare and trade warfighting domains, where China already excels. Even the term “reunification,” as used by Beijing, should be viewed as just another facet of its misinformation tactics. Historically, Taiwan has never been an integrated part of China.

Beijing also takes maximum advantage of its sway as the world’s largest manufacturing partner to influence other countries not to stand in the way of its Taiwan ambitions. The relationship between Taiwan and the United States ironically provides Beijing an additional, convenient excuse for all manner of intimidation tactics, such as the practice drills it conducted offshore Taiwan that were prompted by a visit to Taipei by former House Speaker Pelosi. China’s varied information war tactics are aimed at ineluctably grinding down resistance to unification, eliminating the need for a real military invasion.

In one particular respect, Taiwan should take a page from Hamas’ playbook to fend off China. It must turn more to political or media angles to neutralize China’s overwhelming military strength. Hamas’ slaughter of over 1200 Israeli civilians, taking others hostage, and engaging in rape and other abuses on October 7, 2023, has been overshadowed by global criticism of Israel’s intense military response to that vicious attack. Despite the IDF’s superiority and tactical successes in Gaza, Jerusalem may well have already lost that war in the court of world opinion thanks to Hamas’ “digital war” response.

Taipei, with support from Washington, should fashion the same kind of approach to deter invasion. Beijing must be made to understand that a bloody attack would create unacceptable diplomatic and economic consequences, seriously compromising its domestic economy and raising internal dissent while simultaneously destroying its global standing and trade relations. An effective information warfare campaign is as immediate a necessity for Taipei as is a heightened arms buildup. If Hamas can pull off success over Israel, then Taiwan should be capable of developing an equally effective digital war strategy for itself.

China, unfortunately, has already proven itself quite adept at winning that type of war so far. Nowhere has the product of its successful approach been better demonstrated than in the United Nations. Beijing marshals regular support for its policy on Taiwan in the UN General Assembly and UN agencies, skillfully out-maneuvering Washington and its Western allies. Beijing has successfully courted a voting coalition of countries that cooperate with it to deny Taiwan’s participation in various UN institutions. According to the Carnegie Endowment, China claims that “over 180 countries accept its ‘one China principle.’”

Outside the UN environment, China has also built new frameworks for exercising influence, particularly with the Global South. It helped to establish the BRICS+, a significant new geopolitical bloc that covers 45 percent of the world’s population. Members include Brazil, India, South Africa, Iran, Egypt, Russia, the UAE, Ethiopia, and China. The June 2024 BRICS Summit Beijing Declaration called for major United Nations reforms, including in the Security Council, where Global South countries (except China) remain shut out as permanent members. BRICS is a powerful new coalition that will only help provide Beijing with more cover for its expansionist ambitions in Taiwan and elsewhere. Thailand and Malaysia have just announced that they intend to join BRICS, as well.

If Taipei is to win its current war, then Washington and its allies must develop digital strategies that lay bare China’s imperialistic ambitions for outright annexation of Taiwan. If Taipei and Western friends do not, then the quote often attributed to Sun Tzu will have been proven correct: “If one party is at war with another, and the other party does not realize it is at war, the party who knows it is at war almost always has the advantage and usually wins.” 

Brigadier General Rob Spalding retired from the Air Force after twenty-six years. He served as Chief China strategist for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and as the defense attaché to the US Embassy in Beijing. He also served on the National Security Council at the White House as Senior Director for Strategic Planning. General Spalding is the author of Stealth War and War without Rules. He is currently the CEO of SEMPRE, a resilient 5G secure communications and hybrid cloud company.

Ramon Marks is a retired New York international lawyer and Vice Chair of Business Executives for National Security. The views expressed here are strictly those of the authors.

Image: DLeng / Shutterstock.com.

Summary and Key Points: Germany's Technik Museum Sinsheim is set to showcase a retired German U-Boat, U17, joining its impressive collection of over 3,000 exhibits, including a Concorde and a Soviet-era Tupolev Tu-144.

-The U17, a Type 206 submarine, operated from 1973 until 2010 and undertook a challenging journey from the port of Hamburg to the museum, involving river transport and a 30-mile overland trip. This journey required careful navigation through narrow streets and under bridges, highlighting the logistical efforts involved.

-The U17's relocation adds another layer of historical significance to the museum, which also features the largest collection of Formula One race cars in Europe.

Germany's Technik Museum Sinsheim is already home to more than 3,000 exhibits including a former France Concorde and a Soviet-era Tupolev Tu-144 supersonic aircraft, the largest collection of Formula One race cars in Europe, and numerous military tanks. The museum will soon have a retired German U-Boat on display – which is all the more noteworthy because of where the Technik Museum Sinsheim is located.

The facility, in Baden-Württemberg, is about an hour and a half south of Frankfurt, and more than six hours from the port of Hamburg, which presented challenges in getting U-Boat U17 to the museum. The 350-tonne German Navy submarine, operated from 1973 until 2010, has slowly been making its final journey to the museum via rivers and roads.

After being moved on barge, on July 13, the submarine was put on a 30-axle low-loader and carefully driven to its new home, the museum announced in a post on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.

While submarines can easily travel under the water – which obviously they are designed to do – there were "logistical challenges" that came with it being driven the 50 km (30 miles) on land, namely that it was too large to fit under several bridges. The 295-foot-long and 33-foot-tall boat had to be put on its side and then set upright again to squeeze through some of the narrow streets on the route to the museum.

As TheDrive reported, the straight shot would have been to take it on the Autobahn – cutting the distance down to 30 km (19 miles). However, the slightly longer route was chosen as it was more accessible for the U17.

"We have brought a fascinating exhibit to us in a large team in a spectacular transport," said project manager Michael Einkörn, a former submariner who will also give expert tours of the retired U-Boat at its new home.

The U17 was one of 18 Type 206 U-Boats designed to operate in the shallow Baltic Sea and constructed by Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft (HDW) for the Bundesmarine between 1969 and 1975. Though not employed in combat, the Type 206 boats are noteworthy for remaining in service for nearly four decades, longer than any other U-Boat.

Moreover, in 2001, the German Type 206 U24 was deployed to JTFEX 01-2 naval exercises in the Caribbean Sea and managed to break through all the security around the USS Enterprise (CVN-65). The submarine fired green flares and took photographs of the U.S. Navy's flattop, essentially "sinking it."

All have been retired from service with the modern Deutsche Marine, while two remain active with the Colombian Navy.

When operational, the U17 was powered by two 4-stroke MTU 600-horsepower diesel-electric engines, and had a cruising speed of 10 knots surfaced and 17 knots submerged. For its final journey on the land, it moved far slower, taking nearly four weeks to travel the final distance to the museum.

The total cost of the move was estimated at around 2 million euros ($2.17 million), which was financed via donations. Even as the U17 has completed its trek, it will still be a year before it is on display. The submarine will be refurbished and painted, while it is on track to be on display next summer. The hardest part was simply getting it to the Technik Museum Sinsheim.

 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. 

In part one of this series, I suggested that political parties in most Western democracies are realigning along the schism of Court versus Country. This new division does not replace but instead cuts across the familiar cleavage of Left versus Right. That leaves four distinct factions in play: Court Conservatives, Court Progressives, Country Conservatives, and Country Progressives. The shifting alliances and tensions between these four factions play out differently in each nation. However, one consistent pattern is that rural, non-college-educated, and working-class voters are drifting away from Progressive factions toward Country Conservatives. This pattern is reshaping party politics throughout the Western world.

In the case of recent U.S. political realignments, the basic facts of the past decade are familiar to American readers. The big question is how to interpret those facts. Progressives, academics, the mainstream press, European leftists, and Democratic Party leaders agree that what we’re seeing inside America is a resurgence of a 1930s-style fascist dictatorship. They’re mistaken. Viewed in a more reasonable, fair-minded way, with appropriate comparisons to other Western nations along with other periods in American history, I believe what we’re seeing is a reworking of U.S. party politics along the lines of Court versus Country. And this realignment is playing out within the United States in a distinctly American fashion.

On the Republican side of the aisle, Court Conservatives have spent the past eight years in a state of deep internal division. Some have worked in a businesslike manner to pursue common policy objectives with Trump and his supporters. At the other end of the Court Conservative spectrum, a few have torn up their party affiliation and defected to the Democrats. Then, there is every position in between. These internal divisions have left America’s Court Conservatives, by historical standards, in an unusually weak position. First, their leaders failed to put forward a viable third-party candidate in 2016. Then, they failed to challenge Trump in either the 2020 or 2024 primaries successfully. Each new failure has only advertised Court Conservative weakness in today’s GOP.

Internal divisions among American Court Conservatives have been frustrating to Country Conservatives as well as to Court Progressives. Each faction feels that old-school Reagan-Bush Republicans ought, in principle, to side with them. Politically, however, these internal divisions have empowered other factions even while setting a limit on their total appeal. Donald Trump’s GOP, it seems, can count on some, but never total support from Court Conservatives. Similarly, Biden’s Democrats can always count on at least a few Court Conservatives to say nice things about them on TV.

Court Conservative disunity has not prevented Trump from going from one surprise win to the next. This is not because Trump has magical powers. It’s because anti-establishment right-leaning populists have rallied to him over time with unmatched enthusiasm. In the United States, Country Conservatives have greater numerical, institutional, and historical advantages than in any other Western nation. They’re not a majority of American voters, but they do form a plurality, and within today’s GOP, they far outnumber any other faction. In November 2016, Trump demonstrated that contrary to conventional wisdom, he could squeeze out an Electoral College majority with strong support from Country Conservatives and not much else. Democrats made a mistake by completely writing off these voters. It appears they’re making the same mistake again.

The ebullient Republican convention this summer was a clear demonstration of how Country Conservatives now dominate the GOP. Compared to eight years ago, few gestures were made toward the traditional Republican establishment. On the contrary, Trump doubled down by picking J.D. Vance as his running mate. Vance is unmistakably Country in this sense. His views on foreign policy, trade, immigration, and domestic economic policy are populist rather than Court-approved. Trump’s fist-shaking defiance right after the narrow attempt on his life only bolstered his status as a folk hero in the minds of his many supporters. That pugnacious reaction to danger is an instinct that Country Conservatives understand very well.

The Democratic Party, which in living memory possessed great strength among Country Conservatives, has long since pivoted toward Court Progressives for leadership, funding, votes, and ideas. The party has often been successful in winning elections by coopting Country Progressives while fending off the GOP. Four years ago, for example, Bernie Sanders energized left-wing populists, then dutifully led them into line behind the party’s Court nominee, Joe Biden.

Until recently, the conventional wisdom among Court Progressives was that they would defeat the GOP so long as it nominated Donald Trump. Our progressive superiors, therefore, made certain to hunt Trump through America’s court system and mockingly called on Republican voters to nominate him, even while backing MAGA candidates in Republican primaries—for example, in Michigan’s third congressional district during the 2022 campaign season. This was a strange move to make against figures simultaneously described as existential threats to democracy. In any case, it all backfired spectacularly. Court Party attempts to hobble Trump while boosting the MAGA wing of the party only made him stronger, ensuring his nomination and likely his election.

This summer, Court Progressives finally broke into deep division. This wasn’t because of any ideological split. Rather, it’s because the entire Democratic coalition was demoralized by the visibly decrepit condition of its leader, Joe Biden. Last week, Court Progressives solved that problem by engineering Biden’s removal and facilitating the succession of Vice President Kamala Harris. From a strictly professional perspective, one must admire their ruthless efficiency in doing whatever they must to survive. But their underlying problem is the same, with Harris at the top, and perhaps even worse than it was a few months ago.

Democrats have answered the immediate challenge of physical fitness for the nation’s highest office. Consequently, they’re experiencing a kind of sugar high, with a lot of help from the press. But Biden was never unpopular simply because of his age. He was unpopular because of his overly left-wing, demonstrably incompetent approach to one pressing U.S. policy challenge after another. Harris now inherits that unpopularity, and rightly so. She also has one major disadvantage, which Biden did not possess. Unlike Biden, Harris is one hundred percent politically correct. She is entirely a product of the twenty-first-century Court Progressive movement. Unlike Biden, she has no feel whatsoever for Rust Belt working-class voters that Democrats need to win back from Trump. Indeed, she may very well scramble the Electoral College map to the benefit of Republicans.

Harris and the Democrats also have another serious problem, one they and the legacy media prefer not to discuss. A significant percentage of Country Progressives have given up on today’s Democratic Party as hopelessly beholden to the nation’s Court establishment. They can see that Harris is an establishment figure par excellence. A good number of these left-leaning populists will, therefore, vote for third-party candidates, including Robert Kennedy Jr., Cornel West, and Jill Stein. Those candidates, combined, now poll around 8 percent. In a hard-fought race, that’s no small number, and it hurts the Democratic Party more than it does the GOP.

Still, the Democrats’ selection of Kamala Harris is an excellent indication of where the party stands now. As even liberal media outlets admitted not so long ago, Harris is disturbingly incompetent and (until recently) widely disliked within the party. Yet Court Progressives refuse to consider any other candidate. They refuse because they are captive to left-wing identity politics, and to pass over Harris would break that captivity. For this reason, among others, the Democrats will likely lose to Donald Trump in November. And I have to say, after the past eight years, they’ve really got it coming.

Colin Dueck is a professor in the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University and a nonresident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Image: Jonah Elkowitz / Shutterstock.com.

July 27 marked the seventy-first anniversary of the Korean Armistice Agreement in 1953. The Korean Peninsula suffered a horrific war from June 25, 1950, instigated by North Korean forces, which resulted in millions of casualties and injuries and displaced up to 8 million people. The devastating war destroyed widespread infrastructure in both North and South Korea, including homes, hospitals, schools, factories, roads, railways, and bridges, pummeling cities [DM1] into ashes.

Therefore, our nation must never forget the horrific history of the Korean War started by Kim Il-sung, the leader of North Korea. Kim Jong-un, his grandson, has identified South Korea as “a state most hostile” to North Korea and boasted that in the event of a war, he would “use all our super power to wipe [our enemies] out.”

Former South Korean president Moon Jae-in and Kim Jong-un agreed to the Panmunjom Declaration in 2018, which established a peace process on the sixty-fifth anniversary of the Armistice Agreement. Moon proposed replacing the Armistice Agreement with a declaration of the end of the war, promoting coexistence between North and South Korea and asserted that the end-of-war declaration would lead to the resolution of the North Korean nuclear issue. This was a misstep that failed to perceive the true ambitions and nature of the North Korean dictatorship, which has been preparing for armed reunification for more than half a century. Relying on the goodwill of a hostile country is a very dangerous idea.

I have experienced all three generations of North Korean leaders, from Kim Il-sung to Kim Jong-il and Kim Jong-un, and have been in close proximity to them to understand their policies of armed reunification with the South for over thirty years. Until Kim Il-sung’s death in 1994, slogans in the offices of the Workers’ Party and the military read, “Let’s unify the country in the leader’s era [Kim Il-sung].” During Kim Jong-il’s reign, the line went, “Let’s unify the country in the general’s [Kim Jong-il’s] era .” Kim Jong-un even openly stated that he would make 2013 the year of a “nationwide patriotic struggle for reunification” and accelerated preparations for war. These are examples that show the direct ambition of the Kim regime to invade South Korea.

Former South Korean presidents Kim Dae-jung, Roh Moo-hyun, and Moon Jae-in held five peace talks with North Korean dictators Kim Jong-il and Kim Jong-un. However, all those peace summits failed. Instead, North Korea received over a billion dollars in food and energy aid from the U.S. (until 2009) and ROK governments, advancing its nuclear missile development, and now threatens South Korea and world peace with nuclear weapons. Signing a peace agreement and coexisting with a hostile country that possesses nuclear weapons is as foolish as inviting a gangster into one’s home and trying to live peacefully with them.

The declaration of the end of the war is literally a declaration that the war is over. It is to confirm the complete end of the war state between the North and South to the 80 million people on the Korean Peninsula and the international community. Therefore, it must be clarified that the end-of-war declaration is different from the current Armistice Agreement system. Any peace must dismantle the demilitarized zone (DMZ), a scar of division and war. The ugly barbed wire fences stretching about 248 km should be removed, and the millions of mines cleared. At the same time, all the numerous military facilities, equipment, and soldiers stationed there should be withdrawn entirely, and the area declared a peace zone.

The North and South are historically one nation. Therefore, if the war is declared over, the land routes and railways crossing the thirty-eighth parallel should be immediately connected and opened, allowing residents of both the North and South to travel freely between Seoul and Pyongyang as they did before 1945. Moreover, peaceful cities and villages should be built together around the former DMZ, complete with “peace parks” and facilities for commerce and tourism.

Moreover, if an end-of-war declaration is made, the closed North Korean regime should open the country and announce a reform policy that guarantees freedom and human rights to its residents. Without such guarantees, residents of both the North and South cannot freely interact, and economic exchanges cannot occur, nor can separated families exchange emails or phone calls. The North Korean regime should also pledge to the international community and the people of both Koreas that it will make denuclearization irreversible. Such prerequisites must be met for a true end-of-war declaration, and it must be agreed upon by the parties involved and the United Nations and announced to the world. Without such binding guarantees, if an end-of-war declaration is made formally, the Kim Jong-un regime could change at any time.

In reality, peace cannot be achieved for free. Genuine peace on the Korean Peninsula can only be guaranteed if the oppressive Kim Jong-un regime falls. This would allow North Korea to open up, guaranteeing economic freedom, rights, and private property to its residents, liberating them from the shackles of slavery. Peace cannot thrive where there is tyranny. Therefore, if the cruel oppression of the North Korean dictatorship continues and the freedom and human rights of North Korean residents are not guaranteed, South Korea cannot even think about peaceful coexistence with the North.

Peace on the Korean Peninsula is not limited to the end-of-war declaration and peace agreements. Due to the ongoing confrontation between communist forces and the free world surrounding the Korean Peninsula, the stability of the peace regime requires the unification of systems between the North and South. In the 1970s, Vietnam also signed a peace agreement, but eventually, North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam and achieved reunification under communist rule. Therefore, peace on the Korean Peninsula will be complete when both the North and South are unified under a free democratic system.

The previous Moon Jae-in administration disingenuously claimed that the end-of-war declaration was not legally binding and merely a political declaration unrelated to the Armistice Agreement, with nothing to do with the dissolution of the UN Command or the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Korea.[AL8] [DM9] 

If the end-of-war declaration lacks international legally binding power, there is a possibility that the North Korean dictator could reverse it at any time, exploiting it continuously. Especially if a declaration is made, the North Korean regime will demand the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Korea and the cessation of U.S.-ROK joint military exercises, inciting protests within South Korea to drive out U.S. forces through candlelight protests. On October 27, 2021, at the Fourth Committee of the UN General Assembly, North Korea’s ambassador to the UN, Kim Song, demanded the dissolution of the UN Command in Korea. This should be seen as the true intention of the North Korean regime regarding the end-of-war declaration.

In 2021, several Democratic legislators, including Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA), proposed the Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act. In response, thirty-five Republican House members sent an open letter to the White House, expressing deep concerns that the end-of-war declaration would seriously threaten security on the Korean Peninsula. Ironically, some Korean Americans have been lobbying for years to pass the legislation. If their families were living like slaves under the most closed and oppressive regime in the world, would they still advocate for a peace agreement with it?

Moreover, some Korea watchers argue that North Korea behaves better when the United States engages with and makes concessions to it. This logic overlooks why North Korean residents live like slaves and why Kim Jong-un pours the state’s resources into developing nuclear weapons. North Korea’s foreign policy has always been based on deception. For example, when the U.S.-North Korea nuclear agreement was signed in Geneva in 1994, Kim Jong-il rejoiced that he had fooled President Bill Clinton. He boasted to senior officials, “We gained time to develop nuclear weapons and received free light-water reactors worth $4.6 billion and 500,000 tons of heavy fuel oil annually until the reactors are completed.” This is what I heard directly from Kim Jong-il’s speech to senior officials in 1998 at the Central Committee of the Workers’ Party.

For the past half-century, the North Korean regime has had no intention of honoring agreements for reconciliation and cooperation with the South or the United States. Yet, some experts criticize Washington and Seoul for not keeping their promises to Pyongyang. Kim Jong-un sees nuclear weapons as a powerful means to ensure his survival and regime protection, a way to maintain a balance of power between the North and South and a tool to unify the South under his rule through nuclear force. North Korean dictators have been attempting to unify South Korea by force for more than half a century. Expecting the North Korean regime to honor the end-of-war declaration and peace agreements without changing the Kim family regime is an unrealistic fantasy.

Ri Jong Ho is a former senior North Korean economic official who served under all three leaders of the Kim family regime. His most recent role was based in Dalian, China, where he headed the Korea Daehung Trading Corporation, overseen by the clandestine Office 39 under the direct control of the ruling Kim family. Before his assignment in Dalian, Jong Ho held pivotal positions, including President of the Daehung Shipping Company and Executive Director of the Daehung General Bureau of the North Korean Workers’ Party, a role equivalent to Vice-Minister rank in the North Korean party-state. Subsequently, he was appointed Chairman of the Korea Kumgang Economic Development Group (KKG) under the North Korean Defense Committee by Kim Jong-il. Jong Ho is a recipient of the Hero of Labor Award, the highest civilian honor in North Korea. Following a series of brutal purges by Kim Jong-un, he defected with his family to South Korea in late 2014. Currently, Jong Ho resides in the greater Washington, DC area.

Image: KCNA Screenshot for main image. Intext image is from Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: During the Korean War, the U.S. Navy outfitted Iowa-class battleships with nuclear capabilities through Operation Katie, enabling them to fire Mark 23 "Katie" nuclear shells.

-The USS Iowa, USS New Jersey, and USS Wisconsin were equipped to carry these 15-20 kiloton nuclear projectiles, similar in power to the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

-This classified program, which began in 1952, aimed to provide the Navy with unparalleled firepower capable of destroying entire cities or Soviet battle groups. Although the Katie shells were never used in combat, their presence highlighted the extent of nuclear armament strategies during the Cold War.

With the Korean War in full swing in the early 1950s, the U.S. Navy had its own wants and needs, plus rivalries with other service branches. The Army, Air Force, and submarines with the Navy were armed with nuclear weapons, but no surface ships could fire atomic devices. One plan was to outfit three of the Iowa-class battleships so they could launch a nuclear shell from the vessels’ main 16-inch guns.

Operation Katie was the name of the program. The moniker came from the abbreviation for kilotons (kt). The idea was to take Army tactical nuclear shells and retrofit them for battleship use.

These were called Mark 23 "Katie" nuclear projectiles and fifty were produced beginning in 1952 and the first arrived in 1956.

The navy outfitted the USS Iowa, USS New Jersey, and USS Wisconsin with altered magazines on the ships to carry the shells. Each ship would have ten Katie projectiles and nine practice shells.

This would give the navy the biggest and most powerful nuclear artillery in the world – a total of 135–180 kilotons of yield.

The Mark 23 was derived from the Army’s Mark 9 – the first nuclear artillery shell. The Navy’s Mark 23 had a 15-20 kiloton nuclear warhead – about the size of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War Two.

So, the Katie would be able to take out a city day or night and in all weather. In a naval battle, it could destroy an entire Soviet battle group. The navy’s nuclear shell was thought to be accurate.

These shells required careful engineering. “Naval Gazing,” a blog dedicated to the USS Iowa and other battleships, had this to say about nuclear devices fired from artillery.

“An artillery shell is an incredibly difficult environment to put a complicated device like a nuclear warhead. It must withstand normal handling, thousands of Gs of acceleration as it’s fired, and the centrifuge of a shell spinning at 10,000 rpm or more.”

It was no surprise that the navy wanted to keep this under wraps, and they never confirmed or denied the presence of nuclear shells on the vessels.

But it is plausible that the shells were employed on the battleships. In those days nuclear planners believed the United States could “win” a nuclear war with the Soviets. The Katie shells showed just how far the military was willing to go with nuclear weapons. The nuclear option that would escalate from a conventional war was a real prospect.

Fred Kaplan, writing in his book The Bomb: Presidents, Generals, and the Secret History of Nuclear War summarized the military’s thinking during the era.

“All of these options envision the bomb as a weapon of war, writ large. This vision has been enshrined in the American military’s doctrines, drills, and exercises from the onset of the nuclear era through all its phases.”

Thus, the Katie was part of a larger military strategy. By 1962, the Katie shells were removed and thankfully never used, although the USS Wisconsin may have fired a practice round in 1957. The body of a Mark 23 shell is on display today at a nuclear museum in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Brent M. Eastwood, Ph.D., is the author of Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare. He is an Emerging Threats expert and former U.S. Army Infantry officer. You can follow him on Twitter @BMEastwood.

Image Credit: All Images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The Essex-class aircraft carriers, with 24 built and 17 seeing combat in WWII, played a crucial role in U.S. naval dominance from the mid-20th century through the Vietnam War.

-Designed with input from naval personnel, these carriers were built for durability and combat efficiency, with innovations like Special Treatment Steel and advanced propulsion systems.

-They saw action in key battles across the Pacific, proving resilient against kamikaze attacks.

-The final Essex-class carrier, USS Oriskany, notably served in Vietnam. Decommissioned in the 1970s, these carriers leave a legacy of exceptional shipbuilding and naval combat prowess.

If you were a sailor assigned to U.S. Naval aviation during the middle of 1943 and onward, you probably served on one of the Essex-class of aircraft carriers.

Twenty-four were built though the Navy originally wanted 32. This stalwart served through the 1960s and 1970s when the new super aircraft carriers came online. 

These capital ships meant business. They beat back the Japanese and helped face down the Soviets during the Cold War after a sterling record toward the end of World War Two. One of the more famous carriers even served in Vietnam.

This is the story of the worthy Essex-class carrier that won’t leave you disappointed.

Of the 32 original Essex ships, the Navy cancelled eight while 24 were laid down. Seventeen of the Essex-class carriers saw combat in the Second World War. The Essex ships served at the end of the war in the Pacific starting in 1944, at a time when scads of Japanese kamikaze pilots menaced American vessels. The Essex-class were survivable carriers, some suffered damage from the suicide missions, but no ship was lost.

The Essex-class began in the late 1930s with the rise of Germany and Japan. Congress passed legislation in 1938 to increase the tonnage of ships in a departure from limitations imposed by the Washington Naval Treaty that ended in 1936. Designers wanted the carriers to sail through the Panama Canal, so this put a limit on their size. But engineers and officers who served onboard other carriers envisioned a flat-top that could bring the fight to the enemy and win major naval engagements.

The shipbuilding activity was a team effort from the beginning. In a process that was ahead of its time, feedback and opinions from pilots, catapult and arresting gear personnel, ship drivers, and maintenance technicians were gathered and used to design the Essex-class. 

Curiously, the Navy wanted to employ a concept called the “Sunday Punch.” This meant the flight deck would be capable of handling four squadrons totaling 90 aircraft for a decisive blow against the enemy with a single mission. Aviation chiefs envisioned at least 36 fighters, 37 dive bombers, and 18 torpedo bombers. This made it difficult to build the flight deck big enough to handle all those airplanes. But if the design eliminated some of the guns and allowed the deck to hang over the ship, the arsenal of aircraft would fit. 

The Navy determined that the island could be downsized to enlarge the flight deck too. Putting the folding elevators toward the edge of the ship also conserved space on the rectangular-shaped flight deck. The deck was finally designed to be 872 feet with two catapults and several arrestor cables.

In an innovation for that time, the shipbuilders used Special Treatment Steel (STS), which is a nickel-chromium steel alloy. This enabled many parts of the ship such as the hangar deck and bulkheads to have more protective armor. The ships displaced 34,000 tons.

In those days, the United States had several shipyards in Virginia, Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania. Construction began in 1941. The first of the class, the USS Essex, had its keel laid after Pearl Harbor. By 1942, five other Essex-class carriers were being built. 

Several design improvements were used in the ship's engine rooms. Steam turbines were implemented instead of the turbo-electric designs of Langley and the Lexington-class. There would be four boiler rooms and two engine rooms located at the center of the ship. Each boiler room had two Babcock and Wilcox boilers burning at 850°F. The engines were Westinghouse steam turbines with low-pressure and high-pressure turbines affixed to double-reduction gears. This enabled 15 to 20,000 nautical miles of range with a speed of 15 knots.

The Essex-class would have early types of shipborne radar for tracking enemy ships and aircraft. It could carry 1,600 tons of munitions. Armaments included eight five-inch dual-purpose guns, thirty-two 40mm Bofors anti-aircraft guns, and 46 Oerlikon anti-aircraft guns. 

The Essex-class was busy during the Philippines, Okinawa, and Iwo Jima campaigns. The carriers often launched all their airplanes for attacks to soften the beach landings and to conduct close air support for the marines fighting on the ground. Enemy airplanes, especially the occasional Japanese bomber that made it through the defenses, and the kamikaze pilots, took their toll and caused damage, but no sinkings occurred. 

The last of the Essex-class was the USS Oriskany made famous by one of its pilots, John McCain, who was shot down and taken prisoner in 1967. The Oriskany made multiple tours in the Vietnam War. My father-in-law Eddie Sanchez served on the Oriskany toward the end of the war as a flight deck crewman. The Oriskany was performing numerous sorties around the clock in those days. I asked Sanchez if he worked on the flight deck for 24 hours and 24-hours off to rest up. He said, “We worked 48 hours straight and only about 10 to 12 hours to rest after each rotation. Then it was back on the flight deck. Countless airplanes landed and took off. I remember constant action.” The duty was dangerous. Sanchez once saw a sailor cut in half with a broken arrestor wire whipped across the deck. Some sailors were lost overboard due to various accidents. 

The Essex-carriers were decommissioned in the 1970s. USS Lexington became a training carrier in Pensacola, Florida, and was finally taken out of service in 1991. Now USS Lexington and her sister ships USS Yorktown, USS Intrepid, and USS Hornet are preserved as four of the five aircraft carrier museum ships in the United States.

Naval aviation would never have dominated the air without the Essex-class. The carriers served with distinction, from World War Two, until the Vietnam War. The battles were dangerous as the capital ships provided the Japanese with large targets to hit. And the Oriskany proved it could hold its own in battle during Vietnam. The Essex leaves a proud legacy of combat and shipbuilding prowess with innovative design. It would be difficult to imagine today’s industrial base building that many carriers in such a short amount of time. 

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

All images are Creative Commons.